Paradigm Shifts, Mormon Studies, The Philosophies Of Men

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

 

Do you think some of the more fundamental elements of the Gospel - say, for example, the notion that a guy has to recognize his shortcomings as well as the absolute need for the Atonement to be made whole - are shaped by our understanding of the world around us?

 

I'm having a hard time thinking how someone in 50 CE, 325 CE, 1450 CE, 1836 CE, or today would have drastically different viewpoints on that particular issue.

Short answer:

Yeah they would all see it as a truth but express it differently according to their culture.

 

Their linguistic expressions and the stories they use to tell the parable would be different.

[mfbukowski]

I think we have been "communicate" by emphasizing our common beliefs, without abandoning our principles.  Often our differences are semantic, or even very minor, such as the discussion on grace vs works.  There is a way to express our belief which de-emphasizes our differences.

 

For example, if someone asks to whether I am "saved", I merely say, "Well, I believe that being saved is a journey rather than a single event.  Repentance for sin is a necessary part of that journey."

What if an athiest asks you why you think you need to be "saved" at all?

 

Your position is VERY close to the Evangelical, but don't Atheists deserve an explanation they can understand?

[Mars]

That does make sense.

 

Lately I've been thinking the mechanisms for conversion deserve to be explained in such a way that across all cultures and people, they can be processed and acted upon so anyone from anywhere can get from where they are now to being fully converted to Christ. The steps and approach of metaphorically coming unto Christ are not only the same, but relatable, understandable, and sensible, so long as we use concepts and language familiar to the hearer.  How else could a Hindu wrap his or her brain around the process if we refused to put it in language he could understand?  How could any of us understand the Plan of Salvation, the Lord's nature, or all of it inbetween- unless He himself spoke to us in language we understand?

 

It began when it occurred to me a few years ago that the parable of the talents wasn't necessarily about the ability to play the piano, or paint a picture.  I noticed that the reward for the top two "earners" (playfully sarcastic) in the story was the same, and the point seemed to be that no matter where you are in life, you need recognize what you have and improve upon it.  In the sense of spiritual progression, recognition, desire, and attitude going forward is what will get you on the road to gaining more knowledge, and changing your heart by your own choice to more and more let God into your life.

 

It's tough when us Mormon-folk and Evangelicals get together, because the language of one seems to frustrate the other.  Some (Most?  All?) Evangelicals see our language of continual repentance as necessary for forgiveness as some sort of pre-requisite for the Savior to put you on trial and austerely dispense forgiveness only if you "make it."  Latter-day Saints are so entwined with the idea of progression, it's only natural for us to see forgiveness as a foregone conclusion so long as we choose it, so we choose it daily, and call the series of those choices which culiminate in perfection "repentance."  I guess I'm saying I agree and trying to use the point of grace vs. works in contemporary Mormon and Evangelical Christian America as the parable (get it?  because of your post?  bwahahahahaha) for which to demonstrate my point.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Mars

[Vance]

Great question- it becomes a chicken/egg issue- which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

It was the chicken, silly.

[Mars]

Also, and this is totally just me, I think this kind of insight demonstrates the priority of personal experience with the divine over making sure you're grounded in correct interpretation of Scripture, or that you're necessarily correct in your beliefs.  (Sardonically funny point: I'm pretty certain orthodox is another way of saying correct.)

 

I'm not saying it's unimportant.  I don't think one trumps the other.

 

But I think that in the end, when we sit in front of the Savior, the only thing that will matter to Him will be what we did with what we knew.  There will be time enough for filling in gaps of knowledge.  Considering that repentance is a willful act to realign your desires and behavior to be patterned off the Savior's, it makese perfect sense that faith kicks off recognition of the fallen state and repentance naturally follows it.  Why else would you repent?

 

So when you finally hear the truth in terms that you can relate to and understand, the catalyst for going from processing the ideas to conviction can only be the Holy Ghost.  No amount of evidences, compelling arguments, philosophical standpoints, or anything like it can substitute.

 

imo

Edited October 30, 2014 by Mars