Does "the church" take too much time from families?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Now for those who use the family as a scapegoat in order to avoid giving service to Christ and frankly deciding they were more important and so say "no" simply because they felt like it, then well, you won't find them in the celestial kingdom now will you?

False Dichotomy.

Choosing to spend time with family over church meeting will never equal 'avoiding giving service to Christ' in my book.

Choosing to play video games by yourself instead of helping the Elder's Quorum move a widow might however.

You should learn the difference between excuse and reason.

"I am sorry I can't take the calling I need more family time" and then goes home to watch sports, whether family is there or not is secondary.

The dichotomy is not false. But your narrow interpretation is. So no, it is incorrect to state it is "never equal" to avoiding giving service. I have seen people use family for a number of excuses, and not just abour avoiding service.

Quote

Or do you believe those who simply choose not to serve because they "don't feel like it" somehow deserve the highest kingdom?

But we are not talking about "don't feel like it" people.

We're talking about the people who already devote 10x more time and energy to their church than the average person.

We're talking about generally faithful, active members who, if given the choice, would prefer to spend a little less time in meetings and a little more time with their families.

You may want to toss in things at the last minute to bolster your position and change the context. Again, when family needs to be legitimately balanced that is one thing. But the post stated saying no to a calling simply because you don't want it. Which negates the use of family as a legitimate reason. So we are exactly speaking of people who "don't feel like it".

Lets look at the posts I am answering:

SilverKnight, on 22 February 2011 - 04:13 PM, said:

The first piece of advice I would give to anyone joining the church or becoming reactivated is to learn to say "no" to those things you don't have time to do.

Being able to say no often means the difference between happiness and misery in the church.

IF I feel my new calling is to time consuming I will tell them that I can no longer do it. I doubt it will come to that but we shall see huh.

I hear you though SK, don't be afraid to say no. But don't just say no, becuase you just dont want to serve.

To which Senator replied:

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 22 February 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

But don't just say no, becuase you just dont want to serve.

Actually, I find that a very legitimate reason to say no.

To boil it down Senator thinks saying no, just because you don't want to serve is a sufficient valid reason.

My question is this, if saying no, just because you don't want to, ie you wish to make no sacrifice for the Lord simply because you don't want to (nothing to do wtih family or anything else), do you believe you still will inherit the kingdom of God while you deny service to Christ?

I don't think so.

Your thoughts on justifying saying no for no reason other than you don't want to will be interesting to hear.

[SilverKnight]

To boil it down Senator thinks saying no, just because you don't want to serve is a sufficient valid reason.

It is.

If someone refuses to serve in the church for selfish reasons, to me that's a sign of immaturity or laziness. It means they are not ready to serve for whatever reason - rather than some affront to Christ himself.

My question is this, if saying no, just because you don't want to, ie you wish to make no sacrifice for the Lord simply because you don't want to (nothing to do wtih family or anything else), do you believe you still will inherit the kingdom of God while you deny service to Christ?

Yes.

I believe one can indeed inherit the Kingdom of God, even after a lifetime of selfish non-sacrifice for the Lord and flat-out refusal to serve.

I believe the wickedest man in the church can repent whenever he wants - in this life or the next.

I believe the most faithless atheist is as qualified for the Celestial Kingdom than the most hard-charging priesthood holder - so long is he is a moral person who treats others with kindness.

Is that clear enough for you?

I do believe the reward for selfless service are more earthly than heavenly.

I don't believe each act of service you perform somehow earns you another square foot of Celestial real estate.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I believe one can indeed inherit the Kingdom of God, even after a lifetime of selfish non-sacrifice for the Lord and flat-out refusal to serve.

I believe the wickedest man in the church can repent whenever he wants - in this life or the next.

I believe the most faithless atheist is as qualified for the Celestial Kingdom than the most hard-charging priesthood holder - so long is he is a moral person who treats others with kindness.

Is that clear enough for you?

What about those who reject the Gospel in this life?

Our doctrine teaches us that those who reject the Gospel in this life can only receive Terrestrial Glory, not Celestial Glory. They cannot reject the Gospel in this life and expect to receive the fullness of joy in the next, when the failed to accept the truth when it was presented to them.

[SilverKnight]

What about those who reject the Gospel in this life?

I believe they can accept it again in the next life, whenever they choose.

I believe the atonement was an infinite act that will always have the power to redeem a lost soul, regardless of time elapsed, or severity of sin.

I believe that progression between Kingdoms is not only possible, but likely.

I believe that ultimately every last son and daughter of God who wants to repent will be exalted.

If that makes me a heretic then so be it.

Our doctrine teaches us that those who reject the Gospel in this life can only receive Terrestrial Glory, not Celestial Glory.

I flatly reject such doctrine - if it even is such.

They cannot reject the Gospel in this life and expect to receive the fullness of joy in the next, when the failed to accept the truth when it was presented to them.

Care to define what constitutes 'rejecting' the Gospel after 'hearing' it?

Thousands of people 'heard' the gospel from me on my mission and did not join the church.

There are millions of mormons who were baptized but will likely never return to church.

I have many close family members who have, for all intents and purposes, 'rejected' the Gospel after hearing it their whole lives.

Do I believe all eternal hope for them is lost when they reach the end of their lives?

Not for one minute. That is not the type of God I believe in.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Do I believe all eternal hope for them is lost when they reach the end of their lives? Not for one minute. That is not the type of God I believe in.

Ok, this is fine I only wonder how you reconcile this with the teachings of Alma 12:24 "And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead."

Also how do you reconcile this with D&C 76:71-75, " . . . we saw the terrestrial world, . . . they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who wereblinded by the craftiness of men."

I am not trying to be a pain just wondering what your views are on these verses?

[SilverKnight]

I am not trying to be a pain just wondering what your views are on these verses?

In both cases I give other more recent, more inclusive statements by LDS leaders precendence over them.

And if that fails, and the verses in question still collide with my sense of fairness and inclusivist worldview, I reject them as false (as in not coming from God).

I welcome the inclusivism that seems to be happening in our church and others.

[LDS Guy 1986]

In both cases I give other more recent, more inclusive statements by LDS leaders precendence over them.

And if that fails, and the verses in question still collide with my sense of fairness and inclusivist worldview, I reject them as false (as in not coming from God).

I welcome the inclusivism that seems to be happening in our church and others.

Ok, that is fine. I just wondered what you thought of the revelations behind the doctrine.

I don't agree with you, but all I wanted to know was what you thought about those scriptures, or if you even knew of those scriptures.

I do have one more question to pose, Doesn't accepting the opinion of modern leaders (which has not been accepted as revelation) over the revealed will of the Lord in the D&C and BoM, make the foundation of Church (revelation) able to be washes away and send us into another period of darkness?

[LDS Guy 1986]

In both cases I give other more recent, more inclusive statements by LDS leaders precendence over them.

What more recent statements are you referring too may I inquire?

[SilverKnight]

What more recent statements are you referring too may I inquire?

Here's Two:

I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come

-J. Reuben Clark, Church News, 23 April 1960, p. 3

It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase

-James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith [1899 edition] pp. 420-421

Also this from someone you might not expect, Boyd K Packer:

Some years ago I was in Washington, D.C., with President Harold B. Lee. Early one morning he called me to come into his hotel room. He was sitting in his robe reading Gospel Doctrine, by President Joseph F. Smith, and he said, Listen to this!

Jesus had not finished his work when his body was slain, neither did he finish it after his resurrection from the dead; although he had accomplished the purpose for which he then came to the earth, he had not fulfilled all his work. And when will he? Not until he has redeemed and saved every son and daughter of our father Adam that have been or ever will be born upon this earth to the end of time, except the sons of perdition. That is his mission. We will not finish our work until we have saved ourselves, and then not until we shall have saved all depending upon us; for we are to become saviors upon Mount Zion, as well as Christ. We are called to this mission.

There is never a time,the Prophet Joseph Smith taught,when the spirit is too old to approach God. All are within the reach of pardoning mercy, who have not committed the unpardonable sin.

Boyd K. Packer, The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness, Ensign, Nov. 1995

[LDS Guy 1986]

Here's Two:

Also this from someone you might not expect, Boyd K Packer:

Interesting, I want to talk about this more but I must make another thread. I will PM you when I do!

[LDS Guy 1986]

Interesting, I want to talk about this more but I must make another thread. I will PM you when I do!

The new thread is up!

[LDSToronto]

To boil it down Senator thinks saying no, just because you don't want to serve is a sufficient valid reason.

My question is this, if saying no, just because you don't want to, ie you wish to make no sacrifice for the Lord simply because you don't want to (nothing to do wtih family or anything else), do you believe you still will inherit the kingdom of God while you deny service to Christ?

We have a definition problem here. Is it true that people really do something for no reason? I think that there is always a reason, even if that reason isn't apparent. Thus, to say that people won't accept a calling just because they don't want to is circular; it's like saying, "I won't accept a calling because I won't accept a calling". True enough, but not helpful in this discussion.

For the matter at hand, I tend to agree more with Senator on this matter. But let's put that aside and add some clarity to the discussion. A clearer rendering would be:

"When an opportunity for service is declined, there is a reason for declining the opportunity. If we could perfectly know the reason, we could judge it as either a valid reason for declining or an invalid reason for declining."

It sounds as though Senator would say, "Any reason is a valid reason to decline service" while others would say, "Only some reasons are valid reasons to decline service".

The questions that arise, then, are:

1. What makes a reason valid?

2. What makes a reason invalid?

3. What reasons are reasons are valid?

4. What reasons are invalid?

5. Is there a general rule that can be applied to determine if a reason is valid or invalid, with respect to declining an opportunity to serve?

H.

[Monster]

It only takes to much time if you let it

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 February 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

To boil it down Senator thinks saying no, just because you don't want to serve is a sufficient valid reason.

It is.

If someone refuses to serve in the church for selfish reasons, to me that's a sign of immaturity or laziness. It means they are not ready to serve for whatever reason - rather than some affront to Christ himself.

It is also a rejection of Christ himself because they give in to the natural man which is an enemy to God. They would not be happy in the Celestial Kingdom either. Since the glory comes with the work. All rise and fall to the kingdoms they are most comfortable with. When you say "no" and your reasons are selfish, then you have rejected at least one kingdom. Now do you reject it permanently? No sometimes people mature. But behind every decision should be the understanding what you are rejecting and why. The context if you will.

Quote

My question is this, if saying no, just because you don't want to, ie you wish to make no sacrifice for the Lord simply because you don't want to (nothing to do wtih family or anything else), do you believe you still will inherit the kingdom of God while you deny service to Christ?

Yes.

I believe one can indeed inherit the Kingdom of God, even after a lifetime of selfish non-sacrifice for the Lord and flat-out refusal to serve.

I believe the wickedest man in the church can repent whenever he wants - in this life or the next.

I believe the most faithless atheist is as qualified for the Celestial Kingdom than the most hard-charging priesthood holder - so long is he is a moral person who treats others with kindness.

Is that clear enough for you?

I do believe the reward for selfless service are more earthly than heavenly.

I don't believe each act of service you perform somehow earns you another square foot of Celestial real estate.

Hate to tell you this, faith without works is dead.

You will not inherit what you cannot show faith for.

And no, we know certain requirements come to the for in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom, that is made manifest in the temple. And an unwillingness to meet those requirements means that you will not enter the Celestial Kingdom to be with Heavenly Father. The temple ordinances are very clear on that point.

I am not sure how the repentance process might play in the next life. But my understanding is that you are the same man there that you are now. And you will be just as selfish and just as self interested and just as willing to reject Christ. Though I cannot say for sure, I would not denounce the atonement in this life with a hope for the next. If you reject God here, I know of nothing that will entice you to accept God there.

[Jeff K.]

The point senator made was that it was ok to be selfish and self centered that such a reason was as legitimate as time with the family.

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God

[Jeff K.]

We have a definition problem here. Is it true that people really do something for no reason? I think that there is always a reason, even if that reason isn't apparent. Thus, to say that people won't accept a calling just because they don't want to is circular; it's like saying, "I won't accept a calling because I won't accept a calling". True enough, but not helpful in this discussion.

For the matter at hand, I tend to agree more with Senator on this matter. But let's put that aside and add some clarity to the discussion. A clearer rendering would be:

"When an opportunity for service is declined, there is a reason for declining the opportunity. If we could perfectly know the reason, we could judge it as either a valid reason for declining or an invalid reason for declining."

It sounds as though Senator would say, "Any reason is a valid reason to decline service" while others would say, "Only some reasons are valid reasons to decline service".

The questions that arise, then, are:

1. What makes a reason valid?

2. What makes a reason invalid?

3. What reasons are reasons are valid?

4. What reasons are invalid?

5. Is there a general rule that can be applied to determine if a reason is valid or invalid, with respect to declining an opportunity to serve?

H.

Senator was clear on that. He stated more specifically than merely "any reason" was valid. That the reason of merely "I don't want to do it" was sufficient. And no, it is not circular, it is selfish. Reasons such a family, health, those are unique and different. But to shrug and brush Christ off is not and never will be a valid reason. I don't look to justify the rejection of sacrifice. It goes to establishing Christ in the hierarchy or your life. If he is less important than a sports day, less important than game day, less important than a television show. Then it is simple, the Celestial Kingdom is not for you. It would require too much effort and of course you would not be happy there. You would be more comfortable in something that requires a less vigorous exercise in the spirit. A lower kingdom in which many people will say "no" to sacrifice.

President Uchtdorf said it best in his talk "Lift Where You Stand"

Those Who Seek to Hide

Those who seek to hide may feel that they are too busy to serve in the Church. When the chapel needs to be cleaned, when the Mendez family needs help moving, when the bishop calls them to teach a class, they always seem to have a ready excuse.

Twenty years ago, President Ezra Taft Benson shared reports from bishops and stake presidents that some members

[LDSToronto]

Senator was clear on that. He stated more specifically than merely "any reason" was valid. That the reason of merely "I don't want to do it" was sufficient. And no, it is not circular, it is selfish. Reasons such a family, health, those are unique and different. But to shrug and brush Christ off is not and never will be a valid reason. I don't look to justify the rejection of sacrifice. It goes to establishing Christ in the hierarchy or your life. If he is less important than a sports day, less important than game day, less important than a television show. Then it is simple, the Celestial Kingdom is not for you. It would require too much effort and of course you would not be happy there. You would be more comfortable in something that requires a less vigorous exercise in the spirit. A lower kingdom in which many people will say "no" to sacrifice.

President Uchtdorf said it best in his talk "Lift Where You Stand"

You claim selfishness is an invalid reason to reject a service opportunity. Suppose then, I decide to pursue an exercise regime, first to lose 40 pounds, then to maintain a healthy weight. Because of my schedule, the only time I have for exercise is a couple of hours in the evening. Am I being selfish if I turn down regular opportunities for service that conflict with my regime? Consider, exercise makes me a better father and husband (healthy, active, less stressed, longer life, happier person).

Is my reason for declining service valid?

H.

[Jeff K.]

Not much sympathy here.

I have several callings and I did and have embarked upon an exercise program.

As a Stake Media Relations rep (a tough job in CA), Temple Worker (every Saturday night), teaching in seminary (mostly subst. for a number of people), and teaching English to the Spanish Ward on Thursday nights, tutoring ward youth on Tuesdays. I get up at 4 AM with my son and we have great quality time as we work out and talk about school and yes, my the other stuff is more important than my present exercise program because I know I can change that schedule. And prior to beginning this I never got up that early in the AM unless I had to.

So when someone says "If I don't feel like it, I won't do it". Such a trite treatment of Zion and Christ's sacrifice for us speaks clearly that the Celestial Kingdom would only make them miserable since we will work harder there than we do here and now.

I will let Uchtdorf guide what needs to be done and lift where I stand.

D&C 31:5

Therefore thrust? in your sickle with all your soul, and your sins are forgiven? you, and you shall be laden with sheaves? upon your back, for the laborer? is worthy of his hire. Wherefore, your family shall live.

If that is how you guide your decisions, then I think the choices one makes will be happy within Christ's desires. But if your decision is guided by the triteness expressed where "if you don't feel like it" is sufficient. Then you will not be happy with Christ.

[LDSToronto]

Not much sympathy here.

I have several callings and I did and have embarked upon an exercise program.

As a Stake Media Relations rep (a tough job in CA), Temple Worker (every Saturday night), teaching in seminary (mostly subst. for a number of people), and teaching English to the Spanish Ward on Thursday nights, tutoring ward youth on Tuesdays. I get up at 4 AM with my son and we have great quality time as we work out and talk about school and yes, my the other stuff is more important than my present exercise program because I know I can change that schedule. And prior to beginning this I never got up that early in the AM unless I had to.

All you've said here is, "if I can do it, anyone can". I'm happy for you, but you don't address what I asked. To help, I'm going to invoke ceteris paribus and ask you to stay within the confines of the scenario so that we can examine the difference between a valid reason to decline service opportunities and an invalid reason to decline service opportunities. I'll remind you that even when someone says they don't feel like serving, there is still an underlying reason that we should explore. I'd like you to articulate the reason.

Here is the original scenario:

You claim selfishness is an invalid reason to reject a service opportunity. Suppose then, I decide to pursue an exercise regime, first to lose 40 pounds, then to maintain a healthy weight. Because of my schedule, the only time I have for exercise is a couple of hours in the evening. Am I being selfish if I turn down regular opportunities for service that conflict with my regime? Consider, exercise makes me a better father and husband (healthy, active, less stressed, longer life, happier person).

Is my reason for declining service valid?

[CV75]

Is my reason for declining service valid?

There are better and more efficient ways to lose weight than exercising for two hours a day. Service also yields healthy, active, less stressed, longer life, happier conditions, better husbands and fathers, and even contributes to weight loss. So a selfish motive may not be at play so much as lack of correct information or understanding about proper weight loss and proper service.

[sjdawg]

There are better and more efficient ways to lose weight than exercising for two hours a day.

??

[Senator]

There are better and more efficient ways to lose weight than exercising for two hours a day. Service also yields healthy, active, less stressed, longer life, happier conditions, better husbands and fathers, and even contributes to weight loss. So a selfish motive may not be at play so much as lack of correct information or understanding about proper weight loss and proper service.

He did not ask if it was best.

He asked if it was valid.

[Jeff K.]

All you've said here is, "if I can do it, anyone can". I'm happy for you, but you don't address what I asked. To help, I'm going to invoke ceteris paribus and ask you to stay within the confines of the scenario so that we can examine the difference between a valid reason to decline service opportunities and an invalid reason to decline service opportunities. I'll remind you that even when someone says they don't feel like serving, there is still an underlying reason that we should explore. I'd like you to articulate the reason.

Here is the original scenario:

So when someone says "If I don't feel like it, I won't do it". Such a trite treatment of Zion and Christ's sacrifice for us speaks clearly that the Celestial Kingdom would only make them miserable since we will work harder there than we do here and now.

I will let Uchtdorf guide what needs to be done and lift where I stand.

D&C 31:5

Quote

Therefore thrust? in your sickle with all your soul, and your sins are forgiven? you, and you shall be laden with sheaves? upon your back, for the laborer? is worthy of his hire. Wherefore, your family shall live.

If that is how you guide your decisions, then I think the choices one makes will be happy within Christ's desires. But if your decision is guided by the triteness expressed where "if you don't feel like it" is sufficient. Then you will not be happy with Christ.

Actually I have said much more than what you imply, you simply chose to understand a portion of it. I take it you chose to ignore the scriptures and apostles for a reason?

[CV75]

He did not ask if it was best.

He asked if it was valid.

I did say that a selfish motive may not be at play--it is not necessarily selfish to be limited in understanding or ineffective in reaching one's goal.

The validity of his selfishness or of his understanding, and therefore presumably of his choice and the results, cannot really be established from the information given. If "valid" means doing something correctly for the desired result, exercising like that in lieu of other methods is not valid. If valid means doing anything, whether correctly or incorrectly, for the desired result, it is valid.

I suppose a straw poll would show that most people, on a guttural level at least, would rather be mistaken than selfish in applying methods to be a better husband or father; all things considered, the former can be corrected and repaired more easily. Being mistaken in understanding and not selfish keeps the door open for correction; selfishness seeks its own whether one's understanding is correct or mistaken.

[Jeff K.]

CV75, on 24 February 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

There are better and more efficient ways to lose weight than exercising for two hours a day. Service also yields healthy, active, less stressed, longer life, happier conditions, better husbands and fathers, and even contributes to weight loss. So a selfish motive may not be at play so much as lack of correct information or understanding about proper weight loss and proper service.

He did not ask if it was best.

He asked if it was valid.

To senator any reason to reject a call is valid. Which I, and apparently the apostles and prophets and the scriptures strongly disagree with.

If one does a quick look at the term valid one finds

well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force; "a valid inference"; "a valid argument"; "a valid contract"

I see the acceptance of a calling simply because you don't want to not to be grounded in logic, nor is it grounded in truth, at least not God's truth as reflected in the scriptures. But again, I accept that in the case of agency.

I dare say we will work much harder in the Celestial Kingdom than we do here, and I dare say it may even be more difficult. Those who consider the work here "too hard" (without the question of balance in the family) would probably be miserable in the Celestial Kingdom, they may find it too difficult for them to remain in such a difficult work environment. Theirs may be a happier plight in the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms. Not because they are condemned to it, but because they will prefer it. In the same token though, this life may give us the opportunity to stretch ourselves in preparation for the hard work ahead.