Why Is Worship Required?

[bluebell]

What do you mean by worship? The rites and liturgies associated with religious activities (like swinging a smoking censer as one walks down the isle) or something different?

 

 

That's part of my question:  What does God mean by 'worship'?

[JLHPROF]

Everyone knows that God Himself came down and wrote the Bible.

 

No, but revelation is a different animal.

You only have to read the revelations in the D&C and contrast them against the discourses of Joseph Smith to see that it is written in a completely different voice.

Either Joseph was the most gifted writer since Shakespeare, or the revelations he dictated were not his own words.

[Nofear]

I think worship is basically a form of submission. The setting aside of one's will or ideas that I know best in deference to God's will and designs as being superior. Thus worship would be any act that is done with a mindfulness and awareness that you are trying to do God's will. A service project, family fun, a date with your spouse, proper participation in a Sunday school lesson, reading scriptures, taking the sacrament, prayer, attending the temple, etc. All of these, to me, can constitute worship (though they can be blasphemy too if done with the wrong or mocking attitude). Worship then need not be special or unusual behaviors but the very act of doing our daily activities with the right attitude. When we keep our sacramental promise to "always remember him" then we are in a state of worship.

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh save us from that progressive nonsense.  The Word of God means the Word of God.  Thus saith the Lord, means the Lord saith it.

Sounds like hearsay to me.  False attribution might just be a problem.  And, of course, Mark Bukowski has many times on this board discussed this very human and fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture.

[janderich]

Just to clarify, I'm not wondering why we worship God. My question more focuses on why He commands that worship.

For example, i love my mother, and that love is a natural expression of our relationship. She has never commanded that love though because there is no reason to. That love is a natural consequence.

Likewise, the existence of worship and love for God is, as you said, a natural expression of a relationship with Him. It naturally develops when someone is following Him.

Which makes me wonder, if that's true and if the only reason that God wants us to worship Him is because it means we have a good relationship with Him, then why does He even need to command it? Why command the existence of a feeling that develops on it's own without command?

It seems kind of redundant.

Once we start down the right path all commandments appear redundant do they not? Commandments point us in the right direction when we do not yet feel as we should. They alow actions to precede the emotion. But once we feel the harmony the commandments bring they lose their compulsive quality.

[omni]

I think it probably depends on how someone defines worship. Can someone who has spent their life trying to do the will of God as they understand it but has never 'sung His praises' make it to the Celestial Kingdom? I think so.

Agreed, although I would probably substitute "Celestial Kingdom" for "heaven". Edited May 21, 2015 by omni

[The Nehor]

I fail to understand your comment about condemnation.  I don’t even believe in a condemning God and I’m grateful for the wonderful concept in Mormonism of natural laws having natural consequences. 

 

I also think it’s incredibly simplistic to view the scriptures as a rule book or some kind of map or instruction book on how to live life.   The scriptures are so much more than that and we can learn so by engaging in them, not viewing passages as simple instructions from God to humans, that isn’t the point. 

 

The scriptures are so much more but they are not so much more that we can ignore the plain meaning as well. There are beautiful insights in scripture and I might even agree that the commandments are a lesser part of them but the greater does not stand without the lesser and I have never known anyone who has found said great insights while denigrating the commandments by referring to them as simplistic.

 

The LDS faith is not a high-minded faith in that respect. It can be delightfully vulgar (old meaning, not new one) and practical in many ways.

 

 

I’m not a very articulate advocate for these ideas yet, I’m still learning these concepts myself, and trying to express them is a new adventure for me.  I see scriptures as opening windows of understanding into the complexities of the human condition and our interactions with deity over the Millennia.  You have to dig deep and ask important questions to find nuggets of truth.  I’m sure you’ve experienced that as well.  I just am saying that the surface reading and proof texting that it taught in Sunday school leads us to believe in false ideas that hinder our growth and don’t help us to become more like God.  

 

I disagree. I find the surface reading illuminating and instructive. In many ways I wish we LDS did more of it. We do far too much explaining away or ignoring unpleasant truths. Then again I do it myself. There are parts of the scriptures I do not really like. Those are probably where I need to spend more time.

 

I agree that some LDS can become dogmatic and cut themselves off from growth. Not because they are wrong but because being dogmatic stifles. We need to be ready for further truths. Usually this comes from laziness masquerading as humility. Still, I trust the doctrinal dogmatic simpleton over the high-minded interpreter of scripture who denigrates the plain meaning. Fortunately they tend to kick themselves out of the Church quickly. I think Joseph F. Smith said it better:

 

"Among the Latter-day Saints, the preaching of false doctrines disguised as truths of the gospel, may be expected from people of two classes, and practically from these only; they are:

 

First—The hopelessly ignorant, whose lack of intelligence is due to their indolence and sloth, who make but feeble effort, if indeed any at all, to better themselves by reading and study; those who are afflicted with a dread disease that may develop into an incurable malady—laziness.

 

Second—The proud and self-vaunting ones, who read by the lamp of their own conceit; who interpret by rules of their own contriving; who have become a law unto themselves, and so pose as the sole judges of their own doings. More dangerously ignorant than the first.

 

Beware of the lazy and the proud."

Edited May 22, 2015 by The Nehor

[Calm]

Nice quote.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like hearsay to me.  False attribution might just be a problem.  And, of course, Mark Bukowski has many times on this board discussed this very human and fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture.

I think that literalism just sucks the life out of the gospel.  It takes what is supposed to be in our hearts and rips it out of us and puts gospel principles outside us in historic events.

 

Was "the fall" a historic event?  I can see it both ways.  But when I see it as an event I cannot see it simultaneously as the fall from innocence which has happened in my, and everyone's life.   It is like one of those drawings that Wittgenstein used of a figure that can be seen as both a rabbit and a duck, but one cannot see it both ways simultaneously.

 

It takes the gospel out of our hearts and puts it outside ourselves in historical events and in so doing it turns spirit into false science.  It takes what could lead us to God and turns the debate into whether or not an historic event "really happened"

 

Instead of understanding our own personal fall from innocence, we turn it into a discussion of evolution!!  How ridiculous is that?? 

 

"If evolution is true, there was no fall"   That is the bizarre logic of literalism.  Instead of learning something about how good and evil works in our lives we turn it into a discussion of what killed the dinosaurs.

 

Absolutely absurd.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress_%28viral_phenomenon%29#/media/File:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

Edited May 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

I think that literalism just sucks the life out of the gospel.  It takes what is supposed to be in our hearts and rips it out of us and puts gospel principles outside us in historic events.

 

Was "the fall" a historic event?  I can see it both ways.  But when I see it as an event I cannot see it simultaneously as the fall from innocence which has happened in my, and everyone's life.   It is like one of those drawings that Wittgenstein used of a figure that can be seen as both a rabbit and a duck, but one cannot see it both ways simultaneously.

 

It takes the gospel out of our hearts and puts it outside ourselves in historical events and in so doing it turns spirit into false science.  It takes what could lead us to God and turns the debate into whether or not an historic event "really happened"

 

Instead of understanding our own personal fall from innocence, we turn it into a discussion of evolution!!  How ridiculous is that?? 

 

"If evolution is true, there was no fall"   That is the bizarre logic of literalism.  Instead of learning something about how good and evil works in our lives we turn it into a discussion of what killed the dinosaurs.

 

Absolutely absurd.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress_%28viral_phenomenon%29#/media/File:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

 

I disagree.  I don't see any reason someone can't see something as both literal and also symbolic at the same time.  In fact, i think that Nephi proves it's not just possible but essential when he says that he did liken all scriptures unto him and his family in Ne. 19:23.

[mfbukowski]

I disagree.  I don't see any reason someone can't see something as both literal and also symbolic at the same time.  In fact, i think that Nephi proves it's not just possible but essential when he says that he did liken all scriptures unto him and his family in Ne. 19:23.

I guess I did not make my point clearly.  Since you got at least one rep point for your comment, others agree.

 

The reason I included the duck/rabbit picture (did you follow the link?) is to show your point precisely.

 

My point was that one can see it either way- just like the duck /rabbit picture but you cannot be arguing about historicity while simultaneously understanding all that is available in the story about the loss of innocence.

 

All one sees is either the duck or the rabbit, shifting from moment to moment as one desires to see it.  You look at the rabbit and see nothing else.  Then you try to find the duck and can see nothing but the duck.  And so it shifts back and forth, according to the way we WANT to see it.

 

But the discussion of literalism/historicity (which I see as the same discussion, in kind of a rabbit duck way- two sides of the same coin) seems to lock the perception of many into one mode.

 

Either one takes the stories literally, and fights for that position- ("In simple English it says what it says- when it says thus saith the Lord, that is what it means") and then one sees only the duck.  Always the duck nothing but the duck.  It IS the duck and cannot change.  Period.  Done.

 

On the other hand we have the rabbit folks.  The gospel is poetry, it never really happened that way.  The discussion of the fall is poetry and is about our individual falls from innocence.

 

The duck folks say that the rabbit folks say that the scriptures are "fiction" and are not faithful members because they believe the gospel is a lie.  It goes from poetry and metaphors and in the argument becomes "fiction" and then a "lie"  

 

So because they see the metaphors they think the gospel is a "lie".  Those dirty rabbit people don't even belong in the temple!

 

THAT was the point I was trying to make in the previous post.

 

By being totally dedicated to the literal point of view, they throw out the possibility you mentioned, of "likening the scriptures to themselves".   The can't do that because they were never in the Garden, and never ate the fruit.

 

It must be literally true, and so there could not be evolution, or the gospel is a "lie".  The dirty rabbit people win if we allow for one second that there could be metaphors in the scriptures.

 

THOSE are the folks that rip the gospel out of their hearts and make it an argument about evolution.  Those are the people who rip the atonement out of their hearts and make it a discussion about the reality of Jerusalem and the fact that we cannot find Zarahemla.

 

Because we know where Jerusalem is, there is only one way to interpret the atonement in our lives and that means all we have to do is declare Jesus to be our savior and we are saved.

 

But if you believe there WAS a Zarahemla, then you believe that you must earn your salvation by being constantly dour and perfect in all things, judgmental and keep those rabbit people out of the temple.

 

Neither of these groups understand the other. 

 

For the duck people, the rabbit people are liberal progressive "middle-wayers" who are out to destroy the gospel.

 

For the rabbit people, the duck people are ignorant and uneducated fundamentalists who need to die out so that the truth can prevail.

 

The point I was trying to make is that we MUST "liken the scriptures to ourselves", AND there is no way we can know for sure if these events have actually happened or not, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that they did NOT happen.

 

Believing they did NOT happen presents the same problem atheists have- which is more complicated than this, but which one could characterize as "proving a negative".   The logic is more complicated, but everyone understands what that phrase means.

 

We need both perspectives and dozens more, all at the same time.  Well maybe one at a time, but nevertheless we need to see all as "valid" from different perspectives.

 

Again it's the blind man and the elephant.  Because your angle of view is different than mine, that doesn't mean either is wrong.

[3DOP]

God also commands us to be perfect.

Our perfection consists partly in recognizing the honor we owe to those who are our superiors because of the dignity of the office they occupy or the virtues they may possess. With regards to God we cannot exceed the honor which is due to Him. Not because of any need for worship on His part, God enjoins created beings to give Him the honor that is due to God for the perfection of the creature, rather than the Creator.

"We pay God honor and reverence, not for His sake (because He is of Himself full of glory to which no creature can add anything), but for our own sake, because by the very fact that we revere and honor God, our mind is subjected to Him; wherein its perfection consists..."

---Summa Theologica, 2nd Part of the 2nd Part, Q. 81, Art.7.

It is a serious imperfection for a creature to behave without reverence towards its Creator. This is why we are also required to give honor to our parents.

Edited May 22, 2015 by 3DOP

[bluebell]

I guess I did not make my point clearly.  Since you got at least one rep point for your comment, others agree.

 

The reason I included the duck/rabbit picture (did you follow the link?) is to show your point precisely.

 

My point was that one can see it either way- just like the duck /rabbit picture but you cannot be arguing about historicity while simultaneously understanding all that is available in the story about the loss of innocence.

 

I disagree.

[Calm]

I guess I did not make my point clearly.  Since you got at least one rep point for your comment, others agree.

 

I gave her a point not for her disagreement with you, but her own statement about Nephi likening the scriptures. 

 

I generally agree with what you say too.  

[Calm]

Maybe this needs to be defined as to what is being done (insisting that a historical context is relevant, is irrelevant or that there is any need to argue about it or something else):  "arguing about historicity"

[JLHPROF]

I guess I did not make my point clearly.  Since you got at least one rep point for your comment, others agree.

 

The reason I included the duck/rabbit picture (did you follow the link?) is to show your point precisely.

 

My point was that one can see it either way- just like the duck /rabbit picture but you cannot be arguing about historicity while simultaneously understanding all that is available in the story about the loss of innocence.

 

All one sees is either the duck or the rabbit, shifting from moment to moment as one desires to see it.  You look at the rabbit and see nothing else.  Then you try to find the duck and can see nothing but the duck.  And so it shifts back and forth, according to the way we WANT to see it.

 

But the discussion of literalism/historicity (which I see as the same discussion, in kind of a rabbit duck way- two sides of the same coin) seems to lock the perception of many into one mode.

 

Either one takes the stories literally, and fights for that position- ("In simple English it says what it says- when it says thus saith the Lord, that is what it means") and then one sees only the duck.  Always the duck nothing but the duck.  It IS the duck and cannot change.  Period.  Done.

 

On the other hand we have the rabbit folks.  The gospel is poetry, it never really happened that way.  The discussion of the fall is poetry and is about our individual falls from innocence.

 

The duck folks say that the rabbit folks say that the scriptures are "fiction" and are not faithful members because they believe the gospel is a lie.  It goes from poetry and metaphors and in the argument becomes "fiction" and then a "lie"  

 

So because they see the metaphors they think the gospel is a "lie".  Those dirty rabbit people don't even belong in the temple!

 

THAT was the point I was trying to make in the previous post.

 

By being totally dedicated to the literal point of view, they throw out the possibility you mentioned, of "likening the scriptures to themselves".   The can't do that because they were never in the Garden, and never ate the fruit.

 

It must be literally true, and so there could not be evolution, or the gospel is a "lie".  The dirty rabbit people win if we allow for one second that there could be metaphors in the scriptures.

 

THOSE are the folks that rip the gospel out of their hearts and make it an argument about evolution.  Those are the people who rip the atonement out of their hearts and make it a discussion about the reality of Jerusalem and the fact that we cannot find Zarahemla.

 

Because we know where Jerusalem is, there is only one way to interpret the atonement in our lives and that means all we have to do is declare Jesus to be our savior and we are saved.

 

But if you believe there WAS a Zarahemla, then you believe that you must earn your salvation by being constantly dour and perfect in all things, judgmental and keep those rabbit people out of the temple.

 

Neither of these groups understand the other. 

 

For the duck people, the rabbit people are liberal progressive "middle-wayers" who are out to destroy the gospel.

 

For the rabbit people, the duck people are ignorant and uneducated fundamentalists who need to die out so that the truth can prevail.

 

The point I was trying to make is that we MUST "liken the scriptures to ourselves", AND there is no way we can know for sure if these events have actually happened or not, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that they did NOT happen.

 

Believing they did NOT happen presents the same problem atheists have- which is more complicated than this, but which one could characterize as "proving a negative".   The logic is more complicated, but everyone understands what that phrase means.

 

We need both perspectives and dozens more, all at the same time.  Well maybe one at a time, but nevertheless we need to see all as "valid" from different perspectives.

 

Again it's the blind man and the elephant.  Because your angle of view is different than mine, that doesn't mean either is wrong.

 

My issue is the evidence for the "rabbit folks" idea that scripture is poetry would make many other prophets liars.

 

For example - If Adam and Eve are not real people, who did Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith and others see in their visions?  Who will receive the keys at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and turn them over to Christ?

Or perhaps Moses never existed as some on this site have speculated?  Who then laid their hands on Joseph's head in the Kirtland temple and bestowed keys?  Who appeared to Christ and the Apostles on the Mt. of Transfiguration?

 

Now, can elements of the Adam and Eve story be poetry as the "rabbits" claim?  Of course.  But can we say Adam and Eve didn't exist and are just metaphors AND have it mesh with the gospel?  No.  If that makes me a duck...quack!

[mfbukowski]

My issue is the evidence for the "rabbit folks" idea that scripture is poetry would make many other prophets liars.

 

For example - If Adam and Eve are not real people, who did Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith and others see in their visions?  Who will receive the keys at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and turn them over to Christ?

Or perhaps Moses never existed as some on this site have speculated?  Who then laid their hands on Joseph's head in the Kirtland temple and bestowed keys?  Who appeared to Christ and the Apostles on the Mt. of Transfiguration?

 

Now, can elements of the Adam and Eve story be poetry as the "rabbits" claim?  Of course.  But can we say Adam and Eve didn't exist and are just metaphors AND have it mesh with the gospel?  No.  If that makes me a duck...quack!

I think it is important I respond to this.  You are making my point for me.

 

Nowhere did I ever say that "Moses, or Adam and Eve (et al) never existed" yet that is all you saw, as well as demanding "evidence" (a literalist characteristic, as if such evidence is possible) "for the "rabbit folks" idea that scripture is poetry would make many other prophets liars."

 

I am not sure what that means much less being able to provide "evidence" for it.

 

I thought it was a rather conciliatory post, yet both you and bb decided only to see half the post, half the meaning, it seems.   It was a kind of "look we are all in this together, can't we just get along?" kind of post with which you both disagreed, I guess.

 

I guess that means no, we can't get along.  Well I disagree with that idea.  I think we can.

 

Taking the Adam and Eve story literally I was never able to understand one point.   If God gives us no commandments we cannot fulfill, why did he command A&E to multiply and replenish the earth when they could not?

 

And since sex between married people is perfectly praiseworthy and "innocent" why could they not reproduce in the garden?

 

Why did they have to fall from innocence in order to have posterity?   Could they not have made babies in the garden- presumably after eating the fruit of the tree of life, and just continued to live forever and have joy in their posterity?   What was the real alternative they had to the fall?

 

They had no real alternative.  Why was that?

 

Ostler makes the point that the real "fall" happened when Satan pointed out to A&E that they were naked, and then they HID from God.  THAT was the separation from God- knowing they were naked and seeking privacy (same root as "pride"= enmity between God and man- separation from others which all fits both for "pride" and "private" and even "secret" as in secret combinations) from God.

 

When do we know that we are naked, as children?  I submit that that is around the time the "fall from innocence" occurs.

 

We as individuals cannot reproduce while we are "innocent" or before we recognize the difference between the sexes.  THAT is the moment we seek privacy.  That is the moment suddenly we do not all bathe with our siblings in the same bathtub.  That is the moment we become sexually aware.

 

THAT moment is the requirement to desire to love and reproduce.  We cannot reproduce before that.   Neither could Adam and Eve.

 

We need an "OTHER" to reproduce.  Looking in the mirror is not what it is about. We need to experience separateness from the Other in order to come together again as one.  Two Others coming together as one in an I-Thou relationship is what marriage is about.

 

So what is the literalist explanation for all that? There is none.  Maybe some crazy science about us not having mortal blood before that moment- or some such nonsense all designed to take the profound realization of the truth of the fall OUT OF CONTEXT as a spiritual event, and make it into a literal physical event.

 

So yes, I do believe and affirm that A&E were "real" whatever that means in this context, including the possibility that all that happened in the stories "actually happened" in a literal way.   God could make that happen if he wanted it that way, no question.  And I know that this world is magical and that we do not understand  any of it really, and that miracles happen every day, and that we call them "miracles" simply because we have no other explanation.

 

So it all could be literal.

 

It all could be symbolic.  

 

I can see the duck and the rabbit at different moments, even if I cannot see them both simultaneously.   Perhaps my brain is deficient- I really don't care, I am just being honest.

 

But please don't zone in on one interpretation and find the others "false" because you do not understand them.  I have found that the Garden story makes no sense without seeing both the rabbit and the duck pretty simultaneously, even if just moments apart.

 

And honestly I cannot imagine how a literalist returns to the temple to find more after the 20th time through.  I mean you memorize the words, then what?  You can pass the sentinels, so why go back??   Why even have a recommend?

 

If I did not concentrate on symbols there, it would be all over.

Edited May 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

 

 

I thought it was a rather conciliatory post, yet both you and bb decided only to see half the post, half the meaning, it seems.   It was a kind of "look we are all in this together, can't we just get along?" kind of post with which you both disagreed, I guess.

 

 

 

 

I like you mfb, and respect your posts, but you have a horrible habit of throwing anyone who disagrees with you under the bus, like it's not possible to disagree with you unless someone doesn't understand you, is unreasonable, or in this case, refuses to see the whole meaning.

 

Does it ever occur to you that someone can understand and still have a reasonable reason for not coming to the same conclusion as you?  Plus, me disagreeing with you has nothing to do with whether or not the post was conciliatory.  I disagreed specifically with the part i bolded, which i did not understand as placating but merely a restating of your statement in the post i first responded to about how someone can't believe in a literal translation of the scriptures and also learn from their symbolism at the same time.    

[mfbukowski]

 

I like you mfb, and respect your posts, but you have a horrible habit of throwing anyone who disagrees with you under the bus, like it's not possible to disagree with you unless someone doesn't understand you, is unreasonable, or in this case, refuses to see the whole meaning.

 

Does it ever occur to you that someone can understand and still have a reasonable reason for not coming to the same conclusion as you?  Plus, me disagreeing with you has nothing to do with whether or not the post was conciliatory.  I disagreed specifically with the part i bolded, which i did not understand as placating but merely a restating of your statement in the post i first responded to about how someone can't believe in a literal translation of the scriptures and also learn from their symbolism at the same time.    

Fair enough.

 

I like to see people think their positions through, and provide a "reason" for their reasoning, because I am trying to find flaws in my own arguments.

 

I don't mean to throw people under the bus- I just seek to understand what flaws they think they have found, because I want to repair the flaws.

 

If they don't tell me what the flaws are, I take what they have said before and try to imagine what their position might be so that I can still analyze the flaws they see even if they haven't stated them.   Maybe that is where the "throwing under the bus" comes in.

 

I am such a lovable big teddy bear I cannot imagine why anyone would not love me, or think that I could possibly be wrong.       

 

My wife of course is in another category.   She lets me know EXACTLY why I am wrong, and does it often. 

 

That's why we get along so well- but amazing conversations!!

[JLHPROF]

I think it is important I respond to this.  You are making my point for me.

 

Nowhere did I ever say that "Moses, or Adam and Eve (et al) never existed" yet that is all you saw, as well as demanding "evidence" (a literalist characteristic, as if such evidence is possible) "for the "rabbit folks" idea that scripture is poetry would make many other prophets liars."

 

I was not addressing your personal beliefs, but rather the "symbol only" beliefs of other posters.  I am well aware that you allow for both.

 

 

So yes, I do believe and affirm that A&E were "real" whatever that means in this context, including the possibility that all that happened in the stories "actually happened" in a literal way.   God could make that happen if he wanted it that way, no question.  And I know that this world is magical and that we do not understand  any of it really, and that miracles happen every day, and that we call them "miracles" simply because we have no other explanation.

 

So it all could be literal.  It all could be symbolic.  

I can see the duck and the rabbit at different moments, even if I cannot see them both simultaneously.   Perhaps my brain is deficient- I really don't care, I am just being honest.

 

As literalist as I am, believe it or not I also see the duck and the rabbit.  I never question the symbolism inherent in the Adam and Eve story.  I simply challenge those who claim that Adam and Eve were not real people as that contradicts directly with revealed truth.  But of course there is MUCH interpretation in all scripture.

 

And honestly I cannot imagine how a literalist returns to the temple to find more after the 20th time through.  I mean you memorize the words, then what?  You can pass the sentinels, so why go back??   Why even have a recommend?

 

If I did not concentrate on symbols there, it would be all over.

 

The temple has much symbolism (and some literalism).  We return both to understand more symbolism and to literally help those who have gone before us.

[bluebell]

Fair enough.

 

I like to see people think their positions through, and provide a "reason" for their reasoning, because I am trying to find flaws in my own arguments.

 

I don't mean to throw people under the bus- I just seek to understand what flaws they think they have found, because I want to repair the flaws.

 

 

 

 

I thought i did provide my reason for disagreeing when i referenced Nephi.  He teaches, thru implication, that we must find the symbolism in all of scripture (as that is how we apply it to ourselves) even while he implies that the events of the scriptures he talks about literally happened and that the prophets he quotes literally existed.  

[mfbukowski]

 

I think it is important I respond to this.  You are making my point for me.

 

Nowhere did I ever say that "Moses, or Adam and Eve (et al) never existed" yet that is all you saw, as well as demanding "evidence" (a literalist characteristic, as if such evidence is possible) "for the "rabbit folks" idea that scripture is poetry would make many other prophets liars."

 

I was not addressing your personal beliefs, but rather the "symbol only" beliefs of other posters.  I am well aware that you allow for both.

 

 

So yes, I do believe and affirm that A&E were "real" whatever that means in this context, including the possibility that all that happened in the stories "actually happened" in a literal way.   God could make that happen if he wanted it that way, no question.  And I know that this world is magical and that we do not understand  any of it really, and that miracles happen every day, and that we call them "miracles" simply because we have no other explanation.

 

So it all could be literal.  It all could be symbolic.  

I can see the duck and the rabbit at different moments, even if I cannot see them both simultaneously.   Perhaps my brain is deficient- I really don't care, I am just being honest.

 

As literalist as I am, believe it or not I also see the duck and the rabbit.  I never question the symbolism inherent in the Adam and Eve story.  I simply challenge those who claim that Adam and Eve were not real people as that contradicts directly with revealed truth.  But of course there is MUCH interpretation in all scripture.

 

And honestly I cannot imagine how a literalist returns to the temple to find more after the 20th time through.  I mean you memorize the words, then what?  You can pass the sentinels, so why go back??   Why even have a recommend?

 

If I did not concentrate on symbols there, it would be all over.

 

The temple has much symbolism (and some literalism).  We return both to understand more symbolism and to literally help those who have gone before us.

 

OK all time for a round of "Kumbaya" as we sit around the campfire. 

[Stargazer]

So everything we do, that's focused on obeying God, is worship?

 

I'm wondering if that definition of worship works with the way the word is sometimes used in scriptures, such as when satan told Christ that he would give Him the kingdoms of the world if He would bow down and worship him?  

 

Was satan asking Christ to simply obey him, or was there something that satan wanted from Christ in the moment that constituted worship?

 

Of course Satan was asking Christ to obey him!  What else could he have wanted? 

 

We praise God in what we do that He would have us do.  We worship God in the same breath or act that we do in accordance with His will.

[bluebell]

Of course Satan was asking Christ to obey him! What else could he have wanted?

We praise God in what we do that He would have us do. We worship God in the same breath or act that we do in accordance with His will.

In my mind, being obeyed and being worshipped are not always the same thing.

Satan must obey God, for example, but he does not worship Him.

I'm beginning to think that worship has to do with allegiance, which is more than obedience.

Edited May 24, 2015 by bluebell

[Stargazer]

In my mind, being obeyed and being worshipped are not always the same thing.

Satan must obey God, for example, but he does not worship Him.

I'm beginning to think that worship has to do with allegiance, which is more than obedience.

 

Well, my mind and yours may just have agree to disagree on this. 

 

You think that Satan does NOT worship God?  If Satan is brought into God's presence he cannot help but worship Him.  If Christ or a priesthood holder commands Satan to depart, Satan MUST depart.  That is a form of worship, and even Satan cannot avoid it. 

 

Satan is permitted a certain amount of leeway, in order to try us.  I don't doubt that it frustrates him to know that even those with whom he is successful will be in the end become beings who are superior to him, for when he goes away into outer darkness, they will be raised to a kingdom of Glory, even if it merely the Telestial.