HappyJackWagon Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 So, how unconditionally do you love the Church, its leaders and defenders?It's definitely challenging me right now.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Which one? seriously. I have always enjoyed the story of the woman caught in adultery. Woman, where are those thine accusers? ....neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more. That very last sentence is what seems forgotten. Go, stop sinning. So many people think that loving someone means never telling them to repent or to stop sinning. They think that we need to accept their sin without ever counseling them to stop. How does one get to the point that sin has no value. It is eat, drink, and be merry time for tomorrow we die. We all struggle to stop sinning. No one has stopped yet, as it is. Why pretend we must reject people, thus showing them no love, because they sin differently than you? Sure repentance is great and a call for repentance is always appropriate. But we also must acknowledge from our weak perspective what we call sin in another may not really be sin at all in God's eyes. If they don't stop perhaps they have more reason than you may think.
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 We all struggle to stop sinning. No one has stopped yet, as it is. Why pretend we must reject people, thus showing them no love, because they sin differently than you? Sure repentance is great and a call for repentance is always appropriate. But we also must acknowledge from our weak perspective what we call sin in another may not really be sin at all in God's eyes. If they don't stop perhaps they have more reason than you may think.I think the key difference is how Jesus treated sin. With those who sinned but did not acknowledge it as sin he was harsh and even insulting. For those who knew it was sin and were weak but he was tender and merciful. I try to do the same. 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I think the key difference is how Jesus treated sin. With those who sinned but did not acknowledge it as sin he was harsh and even insulting. For those who knew it was sin and were weak but he was tender and merciful. I try to do the same.We have sins we don't acknowledge to one extent or another. Not until we realize they are sins do are we able to stop and say, "oops, I've been sinning on this point. I need to try and fix that"
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 We have sins we don't acknowledge to one extent or another. Not until we realize they are sins do are we able to stop and say, "oops, I've been sinning on this point. I need to try and fix that"True, but when it is pointed out by self-reflection, revelation, or experience and we identify it we should recognize it as such. When we try to make vice virtue or try to make sin meaningless or neutral God starts getting angry. At least he does with me and scripture seems to confirm my experience. 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 True, but when it is pointed out by self-reflection, revelation, or experience and we identify it we should recognize it as such. When we try to make vice virtue or try to make sin meaningless or neutral God starts getting angry. At least he does with me and scripture seems to confirm my experience.I agree. Just saying, if someone is told by another that he is sinning and disagrees, that one might have his own reasons, even from God, as to why he's doing what he's doing. The original sin accuser may be wrong.
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I agree. Just saying, if someone is told by another that he is sinning and disagrees, that one might have his own reasons, even from God, as to why he's doing what he's doing. The original sin accuser may be wrong.There are cases where I is difficult to understand if some things are sins are not but there are some without ambiguity. If someone tried to pull "I have my reasons" after getting caught committing adultery I am not going to believe them.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 There are cases where I is difficult to understand if some things are sins are not but there are some without ambiguity. If someone tried to pull "I have my reasons" after getting caught committing adultery I am not going to believe them. That's why you have such evil things to say about Joseph. I gotcha.
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That's why you have such evil things to say about Joseph. I gotcha.Cute, but no. I have no problem with polygamy.
MiserereNobis Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Cute, but no. I have no problem with polygamy. I see where stemelbow is coming from. As we know, Joseph's earliest polygamous relationships were a secret from Emma. He said he had his reasons. You said you wouldn't believe someone who said, after the fact, that they had their reasons. Joseph Smith's situation seems to fit right into what you said. ETA: I don't mean to make this a tangent about Joseph Smith and polygamy -- such conversations actually don't interest me all that much. I'm just supporting stemelbow's claim. Edited November 13, 2015 by MiserereNobis
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Cute, but no. I have no problem with polygamy. Yeah. I meant that playfully, glad it was received that way. You have no problem at all with polygamy? Wow. You may be alone in that.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I see where stemelbow is coming from. As we know, Joseph's earliest polygamous relationships were a secret from Emma. He said he had his reasons. You said you wouldn't believe someone who said, after the fact, that they had their reasons. Joseph Smith's situation seems to fit right into what you said. ETA: I don't mean to make this a tangent about Joseph Smith and polygamy -- such conversations actually don't interest me all that much. I'm just supporting stemelbow's claim. Excellent thoughts.
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I see where stemelbow is coming from. As we know, Joseph's earliest polygamous relationships were a secret from Emma. He said he had his reasons. You said you wouldn't believe someone who said, after the fact, that they had their reasons. Joseph Smith's situation seems to fit right into what you said. ETA: I don't mean to make this a tangent about Joseph Smith and polygamy -- such conversations actually don't interest me all that much. I'm just supporting stemelbow's claim.If you have Priesthood keys appropriate to the situation and God tells you to you get a pass. If you abuse that power I leave that entirely for God to deal with. Pretty sure that is the kind of thing you can an extra helping of hellfire for.Yeah. I meant that playfully, glad it was received that way. You have no problem at all with polygamy? Wow. You may be alone in that.I am not and I really do not have a problem with it. I imagine it is usually harder then monogamy but I have no moral problem with a man having two wives or a woman having two husbands or both happening. It is currently prohibited so I would not engage in it myself (though I was sorely tempted once) but yeah, no problem with it.
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 I don't believe in unconditional love. Even God does not believe in it. John 3:16 says that God loved the world that he gave his son and and that love comes with a condition that one must believe to get eternal life. God did not show unconditional love to Satan and those that followed him. Our love should have very broad boundaries but there are limits. Well, you can find all kinds of ways to interpret things. And of course what is the "core" of the gospel is subjective. Do you get the core from what Jesus said? From what his followers said about him? From something else? Regarding eternal life, Mormon theology expands that to way more people than the author of John might have suggested
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 Have you considered that it's possible to reject someone, or to delay them, and do it 1) without an unrighteous reason, and 2) while still unconditionally loving them? Christ managed to do it during His mortal ministry, so it seems really weird to me to argue (in His name) that it can never be done. (And yes, we absolutely do hurt people-often-while doing it for their own good. Every parent especially knows that and has faced it since the day their babies are born). If you can demonstrate objectively that something hurtful is doing more good than harm, then fine. Of course that's rarely the case with theological stakes. Usually what it comes down to is loving your theology more than you love the people it hurts, for all practical purposes
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 Unfortunately some think hurting someone's feelings while saving them from harm is not love. Usually we grow out of this erroneous belief after adolescence. Saving them from hypothetical harm while subjecting them to actual and demonstrable harm isn't love
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 The irony of someone who rejects the counsel of apostles and prophets (new testament and latter day) lecturing me on what Christ taught about love is not lost on me. What about the irony of rejecting the teachings of Jesus (according to scripture) over the words of a church leader, when the whole point was supposed to be following Jesus in the first place?
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 No it doesn't. It means that love isn't restricted by person, but there may be other restrictions.Not that I'm saying God and Christ don't love everyone, but loving enemies and strangers is not a good example of unconditional. And what does it mean to love? Love doesn't mean accept everything about everyone. God loves Lucifer, but he still sent him packing from his presence for all eternity. What restrictions do you think Jesus put on loving others?
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Gray, I think I would agree with you if the question were thus stated: What is the core teaching on how we are to live the gospel?I believe the core teaching of the Gospel as this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances. The "core" is subjective, of course. You could point to any passage and say that's the core. I can just say I believe that the core that I have identified is the one that bears the best fruit Edited November 13, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 Joseph said it better and he places Jesus at the central position of the Gospel, the Good News. Why would anyone purposely exclude Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected? The Good News has no good news without him. This is just strange to me. You have also not answered any of my previous questions; what do the commandments have to do with love? When Jesus said, If ye love me keep my commandments, what did he mean? What does obedience to commandments have to do with loving people? My problem with adding words, such as unconditional, is that you are adding additional meaning to what Jesus said. I may not disagree with you meaning, but I am not sure. You have not clarified it. No, the core teaching of the Good News is not love. This is an incorrect understanding of scripture and the purpose of Jesus' role in salvation. Love does not save you. Love does not wash away your sins. Joseph said it better than Jesus?
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 Why have unconditional love? Why is love even an important principle? Because our survival as a species depends on love in a family. At the bottom line it is the preservation of values which have enabled the human race to survive and those values raised to the level of religious belief. What are the propositional doctrinal statements of the gospel we create with that love? Yes we need love, but what human function does that serve? The creation of community with that love. The creation of family. We worship essentially humanity as a family. The Godhead is a family. and humanity is portrayed as the children of our male Father and female Mother. Adam and Eve were unable to reproduce in the garden or so the story goes, whether it be factual or allegorical. The fall happened so that we could reproduce, and know and learn about the other half of humanity so that we through humanity could progress. No reproduction, no progression. It is through controling reproductive urges that families are possible. Civilized reproduction itself historically has been dependent upon family values. "You mess with my wife, you are gonna be hurting" Thou shalt not covet... Thou shalt not commmit... Why the Thou shalt nots? Because peaceful society depends on following the rules and personal responsibility in that area. Human males especially have a tendency to want to reproduce with every eligible female they see, but that is contrary to peaceful civilization. Families cannot exist under those conditions. The principle that we can overcome all those urges and sin and live together in unconditional love, as you say, is the bottom line, but the purpose of desiring that is to keep families intact and thus have a productive, growing, loving population of humans. "Families can be together forever through Heavenly Father's plan" is the crux of it all. Our goal is to live as Ideal Humans in an Ideal Human Family in an Ideal Human Civilization we call the Celestial Kingdom, where we can become like our exalted Father and Mother. Those are the ideals and the functions of unconditional love. Without those rules of civilization, without those conditions placed on human sexuality, we are nothing but animals. Unconditional love in a Zion society requres that we live as Ideal Humans, not animals And this is how ancillary doctrines come to eclipse the core teachings. 1
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 Whats scary about quotes? I do not understand that term and never have- Yes, it's a strange term
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 Civilized peaceful life through family and following the rules. If not taken too far or made to exclude those who aren't doing actual harm to the community, I think that's wonderful
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 How compelling is a gospel that calls us to love conditionally? That's easy. We all do it naturally. To love unconditionally requires greater effort and compassion. It challenges us to become more than we are. Conditional love isn't all that inspiring. The natural man can very easily love conditionally. How easy is it to love those who love us, and who we approve of? Jesus called us to love even our enemies. Unconditional love 1
JLHPROF Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 What restrictions do you think Jesus put on loving others? The same as the Father. To love people no matter what, but to not look upon their sins with the least degree of allowance.And despite claims to the contrary we don't seem to be able to differentiate.To use the current topic, we may be required to love those in a SSM or those who support SSM, but we do not have to accept, respect, or approve of the practice in any way, nor treat it as anything other than a grievous sin. 1
Recommended Posts