filovirus Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Here is my own metaphor:The word of God comes in three different avenues to each of us. They are as follows, in no particular order: the scriptures, spokesmen for God, and personal revelation.Now picture those three on a three way balance. If they are each given the same weight, they should even out the balance. When this happens, we should have no problem accepting the doctrine or teaching as coming from God.But what happens when too much weight is placed on one of the three, or too little weight? Then we are getting into some grey areas and we need to approach with caution.As we can see, during the apostasy, God removed prophets. Scripture and personal revelation were still on the earth, but ultimately having two of the three just led to more confusion as can be seen by the many denominations each teaching a different thing.What about removing the scriptures? The Mulekites and the Lamanites didn't fair so well either. We are lucky to live in a time when we have all three.Now in our personals lives, if we find we are putting our weight in one of those three more often than not, it is probably time to take a look at ourselves to see if our heart truly is in the right place. The same can be said if we are putting too little weight in one of those three.I guess my takeaway is that we should balance the words from god's spokesmen, the scriptures, and personal revelation as best we can. Edited October 21, 2015 by filovirus
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Kind of like the difference between dead and mostly dead. How is "wearing the garment" an eternal principle? Where is this eternal principle taught or covenanted? That depends on your understanding of the garment. And people on the board have all expressed completely differing opinions on the garment (which is tough to do when most of our explanations violate temple discussion rules).
HappyJackWagon Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 That depends on your understanding of the garment. And people on the board have all expressed completely differing opinions on the garment (which is tough to do when most of our explanations violate temple discussion rules).Let me ask it another way. Is God required to wear priesthood garments or does any garment he wears become a priesthood garment? Will we be required to wear a priesthood garment eternally?I've never heard this suggested.The concept of remaining holy is an eternal principle but wearing a specific clothing that no one in history has worn (not like ours) is about as eternal as the word of wisdom. Both are policies based on teachings of our time.
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Let me ask it another way. Is God required to wear priesthood garments or does any garment he wears become a priesthood garment? Will we be required to wear a priesthood garment eternally?I've never heard this suggested.The concept of remaining holy is an eternal principle but wearing a specific clothing that no one in history has worn (not like ours) is about as eternal as the word of wisdom. Both are policies based on teachings of our time. I believe we will wear A garment eternally, but it may be different from the current one considering what the current garment represents and its connection to mortality. The heavenly garment may be marked/formatted somewhat differently but I do believe that priesthood clothing is an eternal principle. What do we think the phrase "robes of glory" means when speaking of resurrected beings? JSH 1:31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.32 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me.
Gray Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Sounds like Zion! Sounds like a church engaged in self-worship Edited October 21, 2015 by Gray 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I believe we will wear A garment eternally, but it may be different from the current one considering what the current garment represents and its connection to mortality. The heavenly garment may be marked/formatted somewhat differently but I do believe that priesthood clothing is an eternal principle. What do we think the phrase "robes of glory" means when speaking of resurrected beings?I'm all for NOT being eternally nud3. Frankly, if we've received glory, any robe we wear will be a robe of glory. 1
Thinking Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive? Does thinking for yourself cause you to act contrary to his teachings?
rockpond Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Am I the only one who believes that both principles of sustaining our head AND thinking for ourselves can be true and aren't mutually exclusive? No. I agree with you... both principles are true and are not mutually exclusive. The problem is that current LDS culture makes living in such a space somewhat difficult.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 No. I agree with you... both principles are true and are not mutually exclusive. The problem is that current LDS culture makes living in such a space somewhat difficult. Culture varies from ward to ward... however a good friend of mine suggested "Mormons are like manure. Pile them up in one place and they stink, but spread them around and they make wonderful things grow!"
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Culture varies from ward to ward... however a good friend of mine suggested "Mormons are like manure. Pile them up in one place and they stink, but spread them around and they make wonderful things grow!" A friend of mine said, "Every ward has a crazy person. When one moves out, another moves in. If you can't figure out who the crazy person is, it's probably you."
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Does thinking for yourself cause you to act contrary to his teachings? Not the moral ones.The doctrinal ones I sometimes vary from our current leaders on. I have studied and prayed and have felt that Brigham Young and his contemporaries' teachings on cosmology and theology are probably closer to the actual truth than the ones currently taught. But nothing has changed in the teachings on issues of faith and morality that I am aware of.Only the changes to ordinances trouble me, the changes to doctrine I don't mind as much since I am at liberty to believe as I please if I keep it to myself.
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Not the moral ones.The doctrinal ones I sometimes vary from our current leaders on. I have studied and prayed and have felt that Brigham Young and his contemporaries' teachings on cosmology and theology are probably closer to the actual truth than the ones currently taught. But nothing has changed in the teachings on issues of faith and morality that I am aware of.Only the changes to ordinances trouble me, the changes to doctrine I don't mind as much since I am at liberty to believe as I please if I keep it to myself. It's interesting to me how different people place different values on beliefs and practices. One of my mission friends was deeply troubled by the ordinance changes in 1990, and that started him questioning and ultimately leaving the church. I was happy about the changes, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to be troubled at all.
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 It's interesting to me how different people place different values on beliefs and practices. One of my mission friends was deeply troubled by the ordinance changes in 1990, and that started him questioning and ultimately leaving the church. I was happy about the changes, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to be troubled at all. I think it depends on how you understand the ordinance and what is given. Joseph called it an endowment of power. I think it has become some very nice teachings still mainly correct but we no longer perform the acts that provided the power.But God taught us a specific way to do certain things in the temple and we no longer do those things the way we were taught. We assume a revelation was given to change them, but we have no record of one. So we assume/expect to receive the same blessings from the "endowment of power". President Packer might well ask "where is your power in the priesthood". D&C 82:10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.
hagoth7 Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) ...The concept of remaining holy is an eternal principle but wearing a specific clothing that no one in history has worn (not like ours) is about as eternal as the word of wisdom. Both are policies based on teachings of our time.Perhaps not just for our time. I recall a Know-Your-Religion fireside several years ago, where the speaker discussed the markings on undergarments of early Christian Egyptians that he said some in the audience would recognize. Edited October 21, 2015 by hagoth7 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Perhaps not just for our time. I recall a Know-Your-Religion fireside several years ago, where the speaker discussed the markings on undergarments of early Christian Egyptians that he said some in the audience would recognize.This sounds like a faith promoting story kind of like how the masonic symbols are the same ancient symbols used in eternal ordinances in solomons temple. Are you aware of any sources to confirm this idea of 1-2nd century Egyptian Christians using the same symbols?
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 This sounds like a faith promoting story kind of like how the masonic symbols are the same ancient symbols used in eternal ordinances in solomons temple. Are you aware of any sources to confirm this idea of 1-2nd century Egyptian Christians using the same symbols? Don't know about Egyptian Christians, but there are plenty of non-masonic examples of the symbols being used.http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=6 1
hagoth7 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Don't know about Egyptian Christians, but there are plenty of non-masonic examples of the symbols being used.http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=6Great article. Thanks for the link.
rongo Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 A friend of mine said, "Every ward has a crazy person. When one moves out, another moves in. If you can't figure out who the crazy person is, it's probably you."Only one?
Thinking Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Don't know about Egyptian Christians, but there are plenty of non-masonic examples of the symbols being used. I would be surprised if these simple geometric symbols weren't used by various cultures in various times. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 It's interesting to me how different people place different values on beliefs and practices. One of my mission friends was deeply troubled by the ordinance changes in 1990, and that started him questioning and ultimately leaving the church. I was happy about the changes, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to be troubled at all. Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose. But what can and should change, and what should remain the same? Since the beginning of time, God's ordinances and principles have remained the same while undergoing cosmetic changes to fit the Sitz im Leben. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Only thus can one be a confident and true Saint of the Last Days.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Perhaps not just for our time. I recall a Know-Your-Religion fireside several years ago, where the speaker discussed the markings on undergarments of early Christian Egyptians that he said some in the audience would recognize.Correct. Have a look at the following: http://ldstempleendowment.blogspot.com/2010/03/garments-veil-and-gammadia-markings_03.html http://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/21/early-christian-textile-markings-from-fayum-egypt/ .
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose. But what can and should change, and what should remain the same? Since the beginning of time, God's ordinances and principles have remained the same while undergoing cosmetic changes to fit the Sitz im Leben. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Only thus can one be a confident and true Saint of the Last Days.I think it is safe to assume that the First Presidency knows a little bit more about the endowment than the rank and file member of the church, and yet obviously felt there was no problem in making significant changes. Of course some members felt they knew more about the endowment than the FP and so got upset about them getting it "wrong" by making changes. Go figure. Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski
Robert F. Smith Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I think it is safe to assume that the First Presidency knows a little bit about the endowment than the rank and file member of the church, and yet obviously felt there was no problem in making significant changes.Of course some members felt they knew more about the endowment than the FP and so got upset about them getting it "wrong" by making changes.Go figure.Yeh. Some of the changes were merely cosmetic, and former details remain implied but not expressed (only those who were around earlier are likely to know about the changes, and only those knowing history and archeology actually know which items were integral parts of esoteric rites). Such things come into and go out of fashion, just like ordinary clothing styles. In one case, we use an English (vernacular) version of what had theretofore been a Hebrew phrase. Edited October 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
sunstoned Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 If the Lord requires us to wear dungarees in this dispensation as a token of our obedience to the Gospel, then that is what is necessary for us to prepare. A little known early church authority has something to say about the middle ground: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.” - Brigham Young I witness far too many people in the church and disenfranchised of the church that excuse themselves from the decision making process, only to turn around and blame those to whom they ceded their privileged of moral agency when things went bad.This is an often quoted statement of BY that many would agree with. But it is an academic argument only. In the modern church what options are there for those who do inquire for themselves of God and do not settle down in a state of self-security about the teachings of church leaders? The only options for members who are not in lock step with the brethren are to keep your mouth shut or get hauled into a court of love. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 ....................................................................................The only options for members who are not in lock step with the brethren are to keep your mouth shut or get hauled into a court of love.Blatant nonsense. 1
Recommended Posts