UtahTexan Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Hi Country Boy! Hey...listen to those who know. You CAN come back. Do you know how much I admire someone who leaves the church and returns? My gosh that takes guts!! They often end up with stronger testimonies because they know whats its like to be without it! I myself am a convert. So I think I have sort of a bond with those who also know what its like to NOT have the church in my life. Remember you are a child of GOD!! HIS child!!! He LOVES you! It doesn't get any better than that! I would love to be a fly on the wall when you are asked someday to give a talk in Sacrament about all your trials and struggles and overcoming it all. What an inspiration you could be! I have many non member friends as well as close friends who left the church. I don't treat them any different than my LDS friends. I love them all the same. Heck my roommate isn't LDS! Yes I am a little sad for my friends who left. But I always hope they'll return too someday. You never know. Thank you
name Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) I LOVE Spring time! Edited March 12, 2015 by name 1
UtahTexan Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) I LOVE Spring time! Me toooooo! I was actually baptized the FIRST time in April...... Edited March 12, 2015 by CountryBoy 4
Garden Girl Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Today is a beautiful day... GG Edited March 12, 2015 by Garden Girl 2
Garden Girl Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I was very happy about coming home after 24 years...but reading your posts makes me wonder if I should even try.....makes me feel a sense of lost hope CountryBoy...As others have said... there is always hope... always...Of course you should continue this path and not give up... I can so relate to what you're saying because of my own experience with coming back... yes we are different because I was not endowed. It is never easy to start over but once I grabbed onto that rod I felt an inner strength that saw me through... I felt the Spirit hold me up more than once and it will you also. GG 1
bluebell Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 but under that definition, I broke my temple vows.....I also debated on boards against the LDS Church. They wont let me back None of that matters when we repent. In fact, when we repent, it's not just that God does not remember our sins anymore, it's that it's as if we never. even. committed. them. Let that sink in. When you come back and have fully repented broken covenants will have ceased to exist and it will have been as if they were never broken in the first place. You will be as perfect (thru the Atonement of Christ) as all who have never faltered in their covenants or lost their testimonies. Never forget the promises of our Savior- "to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified." 4
UtahTexan Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I want so badly to come home...back into the family 30 years ago today, I was serving my mission how ironic 3
bluebell Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I want so badly to come home...back into the family 30 years ago today, I was serving my mission how ironic We want you back.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I want so badly to come home...back into the family 30 years ago today, I was serving my mission how ironicCongratulations! As Elder Holland says, when you look back on previous positive experiences, do so to claim the embers, not the ashes. As others have so eloquently said (e.g., Garden Girl), nothing you have done has placed you beyond the reach of God's providence and saving, exalting power. Even if your journey home may not be easy, it'll be worth it. 3
Dgal Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Take that next step, Country Boy.Go talk with your bishop.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Is it possible the interpretation of the garment "covenant" has eclipsed the original and correct intent? The TR Questions ask if we wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the temple and we are also asked if we keep our temple covenants. Perhaps we conflate those two things. It is inappropriate to discuss temple language, so I'm not soliciting any responses and I won't be explicit in any way, but I would challenge people to consider what "covenant" has really been made regarding garments. When? Where? What is really said. Is the assumed covenant different than what is explicitely "instructed"? (PLEASE don't respond to these questions) Something I would be interested in feedback on is this... Is a vocal, willfully expressed agreement to a covenant different than a passive covenant that is assumed to be entered into even though it is not agreed to vocally or in writing, or even thought of explicitly as a covenant? For example, if I have a group sitting in my living room and I let them know they may leave if they do not wish to covenant to a certain thing, is the mere fact that they remain in my living room really grounds for holding them to that passive covenant?
JLHPROF Posted March 12, 2015 Author Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) It is inappropriate to discuss temple language, so I'm not soliciting any responses and I won't be explicit in any way, but I would challenge people to consider what "covenant" has really been made regarding garments. When? Where? What is really said. Is the assumed covenant different than what is explicitely "instructed"? (PLEASE don't respond to these questions) Something I would be interested in feedback on is this... Is a vocal, willfully expressed agreement to a covenant different than a passive covenant that is assumed to be entered into even though it is not agreed to vocally or in writing, or even thought of explicitly as a covenant? I will make this as simple as I can. Covenant - an agreement between two parties. You are commanded to wear the garment. You agree to the covenant by saying Amen to the initiator and wearing the garment. You are promised blessings from God contingent on wearing the garment. Now there is much deeper symbolism to the garment in my opinion, that the removing of it makes me very sad for people. It is as much a covenant as anything you enter into at Baptism or anything you renew while taking the sacrament. (Or any other covenant basically). Edited March 12, 2015 by JLHPROF 2
bluebell Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Is it possible the interpretation of the garment "covenant" has eclipsed the original and correct intent? The TR Questions ask if we wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the temple and we are also asked if we keep our temple covenants. Perhaps we conflate those two things. It is inappropriate to discuss temple language, so I'm not soliciting any responses and I won't be explicit in any way, but I would challenge people to consider what "covenant" has really been made regarding garments. When? Where? What is really said. Is the assumed covenant different than what is explicitely "instructed"? (PLEASE don't respond to these questions) Speaking only for myself, when i think of someone who left the church breaking temple covenants, i don't necessarily think of that being caused by them not wearing garments anymore. I think of it more in that voluntarily saying (essentially) "I don't believe these covenants are important, authoritative, or valid" is equal to breaking them. Something I would be interested in feedback on is this... Is a vocal, willfully expressed agreement to a covenant different than a passive covenant that is assumed to be entered into even though it is not agreed to vocally or in writing, or even thought of explicitly as a covenant? For example, if I have a group sitting in my living room and I let them know they may leave if they do not wish to covenant to a certain thing, is the mere fact that they remain in my living room really grounds for holding them to that passive covenant?I personally think it's the same thing. Using any example, is there a difference between someone actually telling a lie and someone who remains silent and allows someone else to believe something that's not true? Spiritually speaking i don't think they are different, and for that reason I don't really see a difference between silently agreeing to covenant to something and vocally doing so. However, all covenants made in the temple are made vocally so i'm not sure how that impacts the issue.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I love wearing the garments day and night. They're very comfortable and I'd feel naked without them. 1
pogi Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I love wearing the garments day and night. They're very comfortable and I'd feel naked without them. I would be naked without them...at night anyway.
Garden Girl Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I love wearing the garments day and night. They're very comfortable and I'd feel naked without them. I've been wearing garments since March 1996... 19 years this month... all these years, and every morning when I put on fresh garments I still think to myself... putting on the whole armor of Christ... GG 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I agree Garden Girl. It definitely feels like putting on armor and protection.
Jeanne Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Do you think he was lying when he said he thought it was vulgar?I think it was an immediate reaction..There wasn't anything vulgar about it..but probably poor choice of words. Edited March 12, 2015 by Jeanne
Sleeper Cell Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Is it possible the interpretation of the garment "covenant" has eclipsed the original and correct intent? The TR Questions ask if we wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the temple and we are also asked if we keep our temple covenants. Perhaps we conflate those two things. It is inappropriate to discuss temple language, so I'm not soliciting any responses and I won't be explicit in any way, but I would challenge people to consider what "covenant" has really been made regarding garments. When? Where? What is really said. Is the assumed covenant different than what is explicitely "instructed"? (PLEASE don't respond to these questions) Something I would be interested in feedback on is this... Is a vocal, willfully expressed agreement to a covenant different than a passive covenant that is assumed to be entered into even though it is not agreed to vocally or in writing, or even thought of explicitly as a covenant? For example, if I have a group sitting in my living room and I let them know they may leave if they do not wish to covenant to a certain thing, is the mere fact that they remain in my living room really grounds for holding them to that passive covenant? Supposedly, when WC Fields was on his deathbed, a visiting friend noticed that he was reading the Bible. “Well Bill, I’m glad to see you are finally turning to religion.” “Naw … , looking for loopholes. Looking for loopholes.” I see some merit in “considering what ‘covenant’ has really been made regarding garments.” However, generally speaking, shouldn’t we construe our obligations toward God in the broadest sense, rather than looking for loopholes and technicalities simply to justify avoiding what are, at worst, mere inconveniences? Considering what He has promised us -- and considering what many others have sacrificed -- it seems a little petty.
Dgal Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Supposedly, when WC Fields was on his deathbed, a visiting friend noticed that he was reading the Bible. “Well Bill, I’m glad to see you are finally turning to religion.” “Naw … , looking for loopholes. Looking for loopholes.” I see some merit in “considering what ‘covenant’ has really been made regarding garments.” However, generally speaking, shouldn’t we construe our obligations toward God in the broadest sense, rather than looking for loopholes and technicalities simply to justify avoiding what are, at worst, mere inconveniences? Considering what He has promised us -- and considering what many others have sacrificed -- it seems a little petty. Thank you. We should be trying to avoid "getting as close to the edge without going over" should be as safely away from the edge as possible. Being a minimalist is not a wise course of action, IMO.
Spammer Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 30 years ago today, I was serving my mission how ironic Me too! I was green and still in my first area...in the city I currently live in. Double irony!
HappyJackWagon Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I see some merit in “considering what ‘covenant’ has really been made regarding garments.” However, generally speaking, shouldn’t we construe our obligations toward God in the broadest sense, rather than looking for loopholes and technicalities simply to justify avoiding what are, at worst, mere inconveniences?I think we sometimes get so focused on staying away from the edge of the cliff that we push into the mountain when that really isn't necessary or good. It is essential to know exactly what we are covenanting and not making up additional pharisiacal rules in an effort to more farther from the cliff. If it's not part of the covenenant it's not necessary. This question for me stems from the Temple Recommend Interview reminder that we have covenented to wear the garment both night and day when I really don't find that language in any covenant. So in other words, we're reminded of details of a covenent that hasn't been made. The initiatory language is much more broad than that and open to significant interpretation except for the "reminder" of covenant language that was never received to begin with. 3
Buckeye Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I think we sometimes get so focused on staying away from the edge of the cliff that we push into the mountain when that really isn't necessary or good. It is essential to know exactly what we are covenanting and not making up additional pharisiacal rules in an effort to more farther from the cliff. If it's not part of the covenenant it's not necessary. This question for me stems from the Temple Recommend Interview reminder that we have covenented to wear the garment both night and day when I really don't find that language in any covenant. So in other words, we're reminded of details of a covenent that hasn't been made. The initiatory language is much more broad than that and open to significant interpretation except for the "reminder" of covenant language that was never received to begin with. I find it interesting that in many depictions of Lehi's vision, the people who make it to the tree must leave the "safety" of the midst-covered plains and come close to the edge of the cliff where the tree resides.
JLHPROF Posted March 13, 2015 Author Posted March 13, 2015 This question for me stems from the Temple Recommend Interview reminder that we have covenented to wear the garment both night and day when I really don't find that language in any covenant. So in other words, we're reminded of details of a covenent that hasn't been made. The initiatory language is much more broad than that and open to significant interpretation except for the "reminder" of covenant language that was never received to begin with. I already explained where in the initiatory you enter a covenant. You may not see it, but it's there every bit as much as any covenant at Baptism.
Recommended Posts