Does The Lord Put Stumbling Blocks In Our Path?

[CCRW]

The topic of faith (per the Lectures on Faith) deserves a thread of its own

[JLHPROF]

please elaborate on who exactly God loves most?

 

Hebrews 12

⁶ For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

⁷ If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

⁸ But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

[Calm]

crumb, having trouble with multi quote, sorry, no edit yet -

.

RFS, please elaborate on who exactly God loves most?

You are way past 25 posts.  Look for a edit button in the lower right hand of your post.

[CCRW]

As far as the answer to why is a prophet needed at all?  There are a couple things to consider here (based on Mormon theology).

 

First Prophets are ecclesiastical and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is temporary. The church and its ecclesiastical prophets are not the be all, end all.  Being kind of a necessary lesser thing as it were.

 

Second the Prophet holds the keys of the priesthood for the church (i.e. all ordinances).

 

So suppose an individual totally disagreed with a given Prophet, but had total faith in the need for all the ordinances (I'm speaking of the temple as well as the outward Aaronic/church ordinances), then they must stick with the prophet so as to stick with access to the power of the keys.

Edited April 11, 2015 by CCRW

[CCRW]

You are way past 25 posts.  Look for a edit button in the lower right hand of your post.

And thanks for that.  I'm grateful for another chance

[CCRW]

Hebrews 12

⁶ For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

⁷ If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

⁸ But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

RFS seemed to be saying that there were two groups ... a favored group that got more and the general group that got the standard helping.

[JLHPROF]

RFS seemed to be saying that there were two groups ... a favored group that got more and the general group that got the standard helping.

 

 

So does this scripture:

the Lord loves and chastens every son he receives - group one.

the ones without chastisement who are "bastards" - group two

[CCRW]

So does this scripture:

the Lord loves and chastens every son he receives - group one.

the ones without chastisement who are "bastards" - group two

 

Sorry I was not clear. 

 

"Given that a good deal of the equation is balanced "on the other side," and that we are independent actors (noncontingent), I'd say that the Lord disciplines whom he loves most, though we all get an adequate test in this life."

 

I read that to be two groups chastened (favored with more, others standard helping) and one group without chastisement (the bastards).

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/as-many-as-i-love-i-rebuke-and-chasten?lang=eng

 

FWIW,

 

-Ken

[CCRW]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/as-many-as-i-love-i-rebuke-and-chasten?lang=eng

 

FWIW,

 

-Ken

 

Yes, this is want I was wondering ... a couple quotes from that talk:

 

"Sadly, much of modern Christianity does not acknowledge that God makes any real demands on those who believe in Him, seeing Him rather as a butler “who meets their needs when summoned” or a therapist whose role is to help people “feel good about themselves.”² It is a religious outlook that “makes no pretense at changing lives.”³ “By contrast,” as one author declares, “the God portrayed in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures asks, not just for commitment, but for our very lives. The God of the Bible traffics in life and death, not niceness, and calls for sacrificial love, not benign whatever-ism.”⁴"

...

“Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith."

 

I believe he is also speaking of two groups that bow their knees and confess Christ.  I assume this is what RFS was referring to?  Or is this really just two groups "his people" and the bastards?

[carbon dioxide]

So...not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood for almost 150 years is inconsequential?

On the eternal scale it is not consequential.  Those black members that were faithful without the priesthood who lived in the 50s will have the exaltation as those that had the priesthood in their days. 

Edited April 12, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Kenngo1969]

Yes, this is want I was wondering ... a couple quotes from that talk:

 

"Sadly, much of modern Christianity does not acknowledge that God makes any real demands on those who believe in Him, seeing Him rather as a butler “who meets their needs when summoned” or a therapist whose role is to help people “feel good about themselves.”² It is a religious outlook that “makes no pretense at changing lives.”³ “By contrast,” as one author declares, “the God portrayed in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures asks, not just for commitment, but for our very lives. The God of the Bible traffics in life and death, not niceness, and calls for sacrificial love, not benign whatever-ism.”⁴"

...

“Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith."

 

I believe he is also speaking of two groups that bow their knees and confess Christ.  I assume this is what RFS was referring to?  Or is this really just two groups "his people" and the bastards?

Frankly, you'd have to ask him what he's referring to.  I've never heard that term used in connection with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I, myself, would probably avoid using it, because it unnecessary creates a gulf between the user and his hearers, impedes communication between them, and, what's more, has the potential to create massive misunderstanding.  My $0.02.

[CCRW]

It was the horribly mangled post, must have missed it.

 

 

crumb, having trouble with multi quote, sorry, no edit yet -
.

RFS, please elaborate on who exactly God loves most?

 

dang, there it is, I was looking for a big button like the multiquote/quote buttons ... hey and I can vote now!

 

Robert F. Smith (might I call you Robert or Bob?)  There was some conversation here in response to a question I meant to ask you.

Edited April 12, 2015 by CCRW

[CCRW]

I've never heard that term used in connection with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I, myself, would probably avoid using it, because it unnecessary creates a gulf between the user and his hearers, impedes communication between them, and, what's more, has the potential to create massive misunderstanding.  My $0.02.

And yet Elder Christofferson did the same thing in the talk you linked right?  I feel this is a big stumbling block

[Stargazer]

As far as the answer to why is a prophet needed at all? There are a couple things to consider here (based on Mormon theology).

First Prophets are ecclesiastical and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is temporary. The church and its ecclesiastical prophets are not the be all, end all. Being kind of a necessary lesser thing as it were.

Second the Prophet holds the keys of the priesthood for the church (i.e. all ordinances).

So suppose an individual totally disagreed with a given Prophet, but had total faith in the need for all the ordinances (I'm speaking of the temple as well as the outward Aaronic/church ordinances), then they must stick with the prophet so as to stick with access to the power of the keys.

Umm, yes, sort of.

I think that a lot of LDS miss the point on the Church vs the Priesthood (speaking of the authority and not the persons holding it, necessarily).

The Church is an auxiliary to the Priesthood, and is how the Priesthood organizes in order to administer saving ordinances. It is clearly demonstrable that the Priesthood is "superior" to the Church -- just ask yourself what came first. Joseph held the Priesthood long before the founding of the Church. In fact, Joseph held the Keys to the Priesthood long before the Church was organized.

And yes, be in total disagreement with the current holder of the Keys, as much as you want, you are still beholden to him and must have his permission to exercise the priesthood.

[Stargazer]

I suppose it is the case that the Lord does place stumbling blocks in our way, but they are necessary.

1. The first stumbling block is the veil of forgetfulness -- we cannot remember our First Estate.

2. The second stumbling block is our own Free Agency -- in order to not destroy that agency we can only be allowed to see through a glass, darkly. This is in connection with the Veil of Forgetfulness.

3. The third stumbling block is our mortality -- we only have a limited amount of time to deal with all we must deal with, and some of us only get a few moments. We also seem to be restricted to being able to think of one thing at a time, and thus we must pick and choose our thoughts.

I think that most other stumbling blocks are of our own making.

[CCRW]

Umm, yes, sort of.

I think that a lot of LDS miss the point on the Church vs the Priesthood (speaking of the authority and not the persons holding it, necessarily).

The Church is an auxiliary to the Priesthood, and is how the Priesthood organizes in order to administer saving ordinances. It is clearly demonstrable that the Priesthood is "superior" to the Church -- just ask yourself what came first. Joseph held the Priesthood long before the founding of the Church. In fact, Joseph held the Keys to the Priesthood long before the Church was organized.

And yes, be in total disagreement with the current holder of the Keys, as much as you want, you are still beholden to him and must have his permission to exercise the priesthood.

I think we are in agreement.  To elaborate a bit more on my poor wording, this topic always brings me back to the teachings of a friend.

 

In the beginning of the BoM there is/was no Church - none.  There was only the Holy Order ... Kings and Priests and the Patriarchal Priesthood.  The Church was allowed to be established, kind of as a good idea, after the Reign of the Kings ended.

 

 btw you are in my thoughts

Edited April 12, 2015 by CCRW

[CCRW]

The stumbling block which I'm trying to gently approach with my question to Robert and conversation with Ken, reinforced by Elder Christofferson's talk is brought on by the leaders of the church and hence I assume are doctrinally based (brought on by God?).  This is just one example, with I believe many others which reflect an almost automatic response because it is so engrained in us.  A sense of being favored, special, elect, elite etc. 

 

I would like to overlook the old grand scale BRM, whore of the earth type implications and focus on some thoughts much closer to home.  I propose that those of us that find ourselves with family members who have had a faith crisis, that it is so engrained into us that our loved ones have fallen, are lost, have been deceived, and are no longer favored, that this thinking presents the huge elephant, the stumbling block to the natural family love which should prevail.

 

I realize the other side also provides it own bails of hey for the elephant ... but for now  I ask ... is this really doctrine?  Is this really God's desire and rules and that's just the way things are ... you are in, or if you are lucky you are lesser, or if not so lucky bastards to God?

[Kenngo1969]

I ask ... is this really doctrine?  Is this really God's desire and rules and that's just the way things are ... you are in, or if you are lucky you are lesser, or if not so lucky bastards to God?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that we're all children of God.  See Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no. 301.  And insofar as I know, the Church of Jesus Christ is the only Christian denomination that teaches that salvation still is possible for those who have departed this life and that saving ordinances (such as baptism) can be performed on their behalf by proxy.  That's a big reason why we build temples.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Thinking]

On the eternal scale it is not consequential.  Those black members that were faithful without the priesthood who lived in the 50s will have the exaltation as those that had the priesthood in their days. 

 

What about those (black or otherwise) who didn't join the Church because of the ban?

[JLHPROF]

What about those (black or otherwise) who didn't join the Church because of the ban?

 

It is unfortunate that they weren't able to feel the spirit of the restored gospel in spite of the things they disagreed with.

I think we all have at least one or two issues with the Church, even now, that we don't like.  Doesn't stop us attending or feeling the spirit.

People have to take accountability for their own actions, responses, spiritual growth.  Blaming the Church having a troublesome doctrine for not accepting the gospel is making an excuse, and not a valid one.  Investigating and praying about the Church with an open mind and heart and for some reason believing it was not true would be more valid, and not the Church's responsibility.

[Zakuska]

I don't think the Lord puts stumbling blocks in our paths... we are quite capable of doing that ourselves.  In fact my patriarchal blessing gave me warnings about stumbling blocks I would encounter, and counseled me on how to prevent or overcome them.  I ignored the counsel and tripped over every one... He patiently waited for me to get up and back on the path... helping me...  

 

GG

Rom 9

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Isaiah 8

And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare[\b] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

1 Peter 2:8

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I believe God does lay stumbling blocks in our path and for the very purpose of falling and getting back up stronger like you describe.

JS is another stone of offence for the gentile world.

[Gray]

It is unfortunate that they weren't able to feel the spirit of the restored gospel in spite of the things they disagreed with.

I think we all have at least one or two issues with the Church, even now, that we don't like.  Doesn't stop us attending or feeling the spirit.

People have to take accountability for their own actions, responses, spiritual growth.  Blaming the Church having a troublesome doctrine for not accepting the gospel is making an excuse, and not a valid one.  Investigating and praying about the Church with an open mind and heart and for some reason believing it was not true would be more valid, and not the Church's responsibility.

 

Does the buck ever stop with the church?

[JLHPROF]

Does the buck ever stop with the church?

 

The buck stops with God.  If it's his Church he can direct, discipline, correct, teach etc his leaders.

 

The buck as far as whether an investigator gives the Church true study and prayer stops with the investigator.

 

The Church's responsibility is to stand firm and true to what they have received from God.  That is where the "buck" stops with them.  If they are not doing that then they have much to answer for.  If they are doing that and an investigator is turned off by the Church then that's not the Church's responsibility.

[Gray]

The buck stops with God.  If it's his Church he can direct, discipline, correct, teach etc his leaders.

 

The buck as far as whether an investigator gives the Church true study and prayer stops with the investigator.

 

The Church's responsibility is to stand firm and true to what they have received from God.  That is where the "buck" stops with them.  If they are not doing that then they have much to answer for.  If they are doing that and an investigator is turned off by the Church then that's not the Church's responsibility.

 

All of that is assuming that the church can always perfectly interpret the will of God, yes? Because the blacks and the priesthood thing seems to have been an inheritance from preexisting and widespread American myths about black people (curse of Cain, curse of Ham, etc) that were mistaken for the will of God. 

 

Even if you believe in word for word revelation, it must come through imperfect human instruments. And sometimes noise can be mistaken for signal. 

 

Can a black person pre-1978 really be responsible for not giving the church a second thought? Surely that is not their burden to bear. How can they be responsible for our mistakes?

Edited April 13, 2015 by Gray