On Being A Faithful Latter-Day Saint

[DonBradley]

Bobbie,

 

Name one requirement of faithfulness that couldn't be distilled in, "Do what God wants you to do," a definition of faithfulness that I'm coming up with off the cuff here.

 

Simpler is not always better. A definition of faithfulness that gives more specifics on what we're actually supposed to do is more applicable and helpful--and therefore better.

 

As a culture, we need to get over our obsession with simplicity. The goal isn't actually to become children. It's to become gods. And anyone who thinks that involves acquiring a simpler view of things hasn't begun to grasp the complexity even of what humans have learned so far.

 

And the view that everything in the Gospel is and should be simple, and that's some kind of virtue, sets Latter-day Saints up for a fall when they begin discovering the intricate complexity with which our history, doctrine, and scripture and life itself are rife.

 

Don

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbie,

Name one requirement of faithfulness that couldn't be distilled in, "Do what God wants you to do," a definition of faithfulness that I'm coming up with off the cuff here.

Simpler is not always better. A definition of faithfulness that gives more specifics on what we're actually supposed to do is more applicable and helpful--and therefore better.

As a culture, we need to get over our obsession with simplicity. The goal isn't actually to become children. It's to become gods. And anyone who thinks that involves acquiring a simpler view of things hasn't begun to grasp the complexity even of what humans have learned so far.

And the view that everything in the Gospel is and should be simple, and that's some kind of virtue, sets Latter-day Saints up for a fall when they begin discovering the intricate complexity with which our history, doctrine, and scripture and life itself are rife.

Don

Hi Don,

I prefere the Lord's distilled summary of the requirements for faithfulness to yours. But, of course, I' m very partial to whatever it is the Savior has to say. But, in reality, our seeming disagreement is nothing more than a tempest in a tespot. I'm not a moron, Don. Of course I know life and the requirements for worthiness can, on occasion, be complicated and nuanced. But my appeal to simplicity of approach in this instance is in reaction to the many "free spirit" (a euphemism) thinkers on this board who are too often given to unwise and counterproductive excesses of mercy, and endless searching for phantom loopholes in the already clearly stated requirements of righteous gospel living.

So when things get too muddled and confused, it's often a wise move to "get back to the basics" and leave all the convoluted thinking and wishy washy rationalizing behind. And I believe that is precisely what the Savior's intent was with his "back to the basics" description of the requirements for faithfulness. And in most instances, a basic understanding of the Lord's requirements for faithfulness, combined with inspiration from the Holy Ghost, is all that's required for one to know how to stay on the strait and narrow. Anyway, most members are already acutely aware of where they're falling down on the job; and for the most part, the requirements for faithfulness are well known and easy to understand. And if complications do arise, folks should do as I do and go have a heart to heart chat with the bishop or stake president. But for the most part, there is real merit in adhering to the K.I.S.S. principle -- " keep it simple, stupid," There is much opening for mischief when things get too complicated.and nit picky.

All the best

Edited May 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm wondering if you're joking. You're full of surprises. Thankfully, the general authorities don't seem to view the Book of Mormon the same way you do, so I'll take my cue from them. One wonders how a man can get closer to God by abiding by the Book of Mormon's precepts, more than any other book, if it's such a hidden pitfall of shifting trxtual uncertainty and confusion? And as I said, contained in 3 Nephi 27 is a DISTILLATION down to the most elemental and essential principles. And since the Spirit has revealed to me the Savior was endowed, when he commands us to follow in his footsteps and do as he does, the temple ordinances are encompassed within that commandment. If you have esrs to hear, the Savior was crucified and, as Paul said, we must be crucified with him, if you know what I mean.

P.S. I'm wondering how many times I'll have to say 3 Nephi's definition of the gospel and it's requirements is a DISTILLATION before my fellow posters will get the point.

I have no problem at all with distillations, even imperfect ones, Bobbie.  Sometimes that is the best we can do, even if there is the scent of a creed present.  I didn't use the phrase "textual uncertainty and confusion," but I am concerned with the redaction critical history of all of III Nephi, and so with the context of 27.  My real complaint isn't that such a history would be utterly different from, and incapable of proper interpretation by us modern, English-speaking humans, but rather that the claims you are making go much too far and are not verifiable through unaided interpretation.

 

I think that you are quite wrong about finding esoteric LDS ordinances in III Ne 27, even though they can be found elsewhere in the Book of Mormon -- and in the Bible as well.  Most people cannot see the explicit presence of such liturgical material because they do not have the requisite light and knowledge.  It took Hugh Nibley half a lifetime before he saw it in the Book of Mormon.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Bobbieaware]

I have no problem at all with distillations, even imperfect ones, Bobbie. Sometimes that is the best we can do, even if there is the scent of a creed present. I didn't use the phrase "textual uncertainty and confusion," but I am concerned with the redaction critical history of all of III Nephi, and so with the context of 27. My real complaint isn't that such a history would be utterly different from, and incapable of proper interpretation by us modern, English-speaking humans, but rather that the claims you are making go much too far and are not verifiable through unaided interpretation.

I think that you are quite wrong about finding esoteric LDS ordinances in III Ne 27, even though they can be found elsewhere in the Book of Mormon -- and in the Bible as well. Most people cannot see the explicit presence of such liturgical material because they do not have the requisite light and knowledge. It took Hugh Nibley half a lifetime before he saw it in the Book of Mormon.

Interesting input, Robert. But I'm just naive enough to trust that the Lord made sure the Book of Mormon translation is accurate, reliable and true -- a Urrim and Thummim in reverse. And though lightyears from being a trained scholar himself, the exceedingly young, semi-literate Joseph Smith proved the Lord faithful and true when He said He would use the "weak and foolish things" (according to the worldly-wise) of this world to thrash and humble the nations. I trouble not myself which concerns such as yours -- concerns and needless perplexities that seem to stem from too much scholarship and, perhaps, not enough personal revelation. In the spirit of childlike faith, I trust the Lord knew how to do his own work and that our Book of Mormon is every bit the sturdy and trustworthy iron rod of sure guidance the prophet Lehi said it would be. But I suppose such are the pitfalls that come with being immersed for many years in the world of scriptural scholarship.

As to your second point: In 3 Nephi 27 the Lord commanded the Nephite saints to walk in his footsteps and do as he does in all things. And since the Lord taught the Nephites all things - including many if not all of the things contained in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon - I believe they had baptism for the dead, the endowment and the sealing power. After reciting to the Nephites the passages in Malachi that speak of salvation for the dead, we read:

" 1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small.

2 And he saith: These scriptures, which ye had not with you, the Father commanded that I should give unto you; for it was wisdom in him that they should be given unto future generations.

3 And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory—yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;" 3 Nephi 26

As for Nibley, the church will never become all it can and will be until the saints come to understand revelation trumps scholarship. It is just as the prophet Joseph Smith said: "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."

Edited May 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[DonBradley]

Bobbiesaware,

 

I'm inclined to agree with you that much of our argument is a tempest in a teacup. I think what I've been responding to is probably mostly just the "Me and Jesus agree on this, whatever the rest of you heathens have to say" style with which you post. You can, if you'd like, justify it with scriptures about how people get offended by the strictness of the word of God. But it might be worth exploring whether, instead, you may simply want to change your posting style so that if people disagree with or are offended by you, it's on matters of substance, rather of style. I'm not the only poster on this thread who has seen your style as noxious. But maybe you and Jesus really are right on all your comments and the rest are just nuts.

 

Don

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbiesaware,

 

I'm inclined to agree with you that much of our argument is a tempest in a teacup. I think what I've been responding to is probably mostly just the "Me and Jesus agree on this, whatever the rest of you heathens have to say" style with which you post. You can, if you'd like, justify it with scriptures about how people get offended by the strictness of the word of God. But it might be worth exploring whether, instead, you may simply want to change your posting style so that if people disagree with or are offended by you, it's on matters of substance, rather of style. I'm not the only poster on this thread who has seen your style as noxious. But maybe you and Jesus really are right on all your comments and the rest are just nuts.

 

Don

LOL! So the key is style over substance? Too bad prophets past didn't learn to adjust their testimonies and exhortations accordingly. If they only had your advice they might have avoided being stoned to death so often....... That's a joke, Don. I'm only razing you. But I will take your advise under consideration.

That final line is great. Thanks for being a gentleman

[Senator]

LOL! So the key is style over substance? Too bad prophets past didn't learn to adjust their testimonies and exhortations accordingly. If they only had your advice they might have avoided being stoned to death so often....... That's a joke, Don. I'm only razing you.

 

Color me skeptical

[Bobbieaware]

Color me skeptical

Another pot calling the kettle black.

 

ttribe has been removed from the thread for making personal comments. Tread carefully.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Considering this thread is about faithfulness, and in consideration of the fact that God is going to be the judge of our faithfulness, don't you think it's a good thing to know the God who is going to judge our faithfulness is strict and not a gullible pushover? Or would you rather we be left in blissful ignorance, unaware that our walk with God must be most sincere and results-oriented before we can be judged as faithful?

 

This is an interesting illustration of how some of us truly, sincerely view God differently. For example, I don't interpret His mercy as God being a "gullible pushover". Instead I tend to view God's mercy as loving, compassionate, and understanding. Claiming "strictness" as God's dominant personality or philosophical trait is simply a determined effort to focus on those traits by some people.