stemelbow Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If you assume that the exalted are a homogenous crowd of duplicates. I do not. Hey, we're all supposed to be one, as they say. But, by saying He won't see a difference between the two, I don't intend to suggest He won't recognize you are two separate individuals, but that you are both on the same plane--both exalted.
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 On 8/9/2016 at 9:18 AM, HappyJackWagon said: I had a friend recently ask if modern Mormons are disciples of Christ or disciples of the Church. While I feel this is a false dichotomy it raises an interesting question for me. The 4th article of faith reads. There are many scriptures to support the teaching that having faith in Christ is foundational. There is no real virtue of having faith in any random thing or even putting trust in "the arm of the flesh". Having faith in something isn't enough. Faith must be placed in Jesus. Pretty basic, right? To me, this means that I hope and trust that Jesus will be the source of my salvation. But sometimes in the church it feels like Jesus isn't good enough or powerful enough. That in addition to having faith in Him to save, we must also have faith in the church to save; the prophet and apostles, other leaders, the priesthood, ordinances, family history/temple work, obedience to the commandments etc. It's as if Jesus doesn't have power to save except in partnership with the church. To me faith in the church diminishes the everlasting, infinite atonement. I know many people won't see a difference between faith in Christ and faith in the church but what do you think? Is the church (Institutionally, leadership or members) sometimes guilty of lifting itself up as the saving entity through affiliation with Jesus instead of relying wholly on Jesus? Should the article of faith read, "first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Or is faith in the church implied by the ordinances of Baptism and laying on of hands (presumably only with authority found in the church)? This is only a problem in Utah in my experience Everywhere else we actually think this is the Church of Jesus Christ. In Utah, it is a Monolithic Organization, Big Brother with an outpost on every corner and Secret Agent Hometeachers watching you in the market. Out here in the real world no one even knows what a Mormon is, and so we get to actually believe in Christ, and wonder of wonders, agency. Out here in the wilderness you get to rely on the spirit, not Big Brother. "Mormon Culture" doesn't exist. Here, green jello is called "lime jello" and is mixed with fruit, not carrots. Odd, I know..... 1
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 22 hours ago, The Nehor said: If you assume that the exalted are a homogenous crowd of duplicates. I do not. You mean I get to keep my Mohawk and face paint?
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: This is only a problem in Utah in my experience Everywhere else we actually think this is the Church of Jesus Christ. In Utah, it is a Monolithic Organization, Big Brother with an outpost on every corner and Secret Agent Hometeachers watching you in the market. Out here in the real world no one even knows what a Mormon is, and so we get to actually believe in Christ, and wonder of wonders, agency. Out here in the wilderness you get to rely on the spirit, not Big Brother. "Mormon Culture" doesn't exist. Here, green jello is called "lime jello" and is mixed with fruit, not carrots. Odd, I know..... Utah sounds like a terrible place.
Rivers Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Utah sounds like a terrible place. It's not bad if you're an outdoors person.
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Utah sounds like a terrible place. I lived in SLC for a year when I first joined the church because I wanted to come to Zion. I moved back to California and found it right where I had been. I just had to click my ruby slippers all the time, and I didn't know it. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 Just now, mfbukowski said: I lived in SLC for a year when I first joined the church because I wanted to come to Zion. I moved back to California and found it right where I had been. I just had to click my ruby slippers all the time, and I didn't know it. Fortunately, things have changed some since the 1970s. I lived in Utah on and off for years, and yes, the church is definitely a more pervasive presence, but let's not go overboard.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: 1-This is only a problem in Utah in my experience Everywhere else we actually think this is the Church of Jesus Christ. In Utah, it is a Monolithic Organization, Big Brother with an outpost on every corner and 2- Secret Agent Hometeachers watching you in the market. Out here in the real world no one even knows what a Mormon is, and so we get to actually believe in Christ, and wonder of wonders, agency. 3- Out here in the wilderness you get to rely on the spirit, not Big Brother. "Mormon Culture" doesn't exist. Here, green jello is called "lime jello" and is mixed with fruit, not carrots. Odd, I know..... 1- I don't live in Utah but I experience mini-Utah in my ward. 2- I've personally known priesthood leaders to give specific assignments for home teachers to watch, evaluate, and report on activities of members to leadership. So it's not as crazy an accusation as you might think. 3- Mormon culture exists everywhere Mormons exist. Even out here
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- I don't live in Utah but I experience mini-Utah in my ward. 2- I've personally known priesthood leaders to give specific assignments for home teachers to watch, evaluate, and report on activities of members to leadership. So it's not as crazy an accusation as you might think. 3- Mormon culture exists everywhere Mormons exist. Even out here That's been my experience. People out here in "the mission field" tend to roll their eyes about "Utah Mormons," but there's not that much difference.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) On 8/9/2016 at 0:56 PM, bluebell said: We just had the new teacher training meeting on Sunday and our teacher talked about the training they received at the regional meeting they went to. He said they were reminded and it was drilled into them that the gospel is about our personal relationship with Christ and not the church. We come unto Christ not come unto Church (as he said Elder Scott put it a couple years ago) and they were reminded that no one ever should put themselves in a position where they are between someone and Christ. No priesthood leader and no teacher stands between a person and Christ. The church is about supporting someone in their relationship with Christ and in providing saving ordinances but our faith must be in Christ. I thought that was a really good reminder. Great comment. Thanks for sharing. While it sounds great that no priesthood leader should stand between a person and Christ, I don't think it functions that way in the real world. For example, bishops are called as judges in Israel which means they are smack dab in between the person and Christ. Also, how do we account for policies that will not allow certain children to be baptized? Since baptism is a saving ordinance, wouldn't a leader who prevents a child from being baptized be standing between a person and Christ? Edited August 10, 2016 by HappyJackWagon 1
stemelbow Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: That's been my experience. People out here in "the mission field" tend to roll their eyes about "Utah Mormons," but there's not that much difference. Same here. Oh wait...I'm in Utah. But I've been around.
Jeanne Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Great comment. Thanks for sharing. While it sounds great that no priesthood leader should stand between a person and Christ, I don't think it functions that way in the real world. For example, bishops are called as judges in Israel which means they are smack dab in between the person and Christ. Also, how do we account for policies that will not allow certain children to be baptized? As a saving ordinance, wouldn't a leader who prevents a child from being baptized be standing between a person and Christ? Great point. I like the idea of a personal relationship..that it really what it is all about and the only way for a personal growth outstanding of all the rituals and commitments within any church.
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) On 8/9/2016 at 0:27 PM, consiglieri said: I agree. In fact, commandments and ordinances frequently get in the way of the atonement. How can one take part of the atonement while at the same time discounting things that Christ commands? Keeping the commandments and the ordinances is required for the Atonement to be fully accessed. Edited August 10, 2016 by carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 On 8/9/2016 at 1:42 PM, stemelbow said: Well everyone gets' them makes membership in the Church today a bit superfluous on this point. A person need not be a member of the Church while traipsing through mortality in order to be exalted. Yes and no. A person who does not know the gospel but would accept the gospel fully if they had opportunity can be exalted. However if a person chooses not to be a member or leaves the Church having known the gospel can't be exalted. The best they can do is the Terrestrial kingdom.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: How can one take part of the atonement while at the same time discounting things that Christ commands? Keeping the commandments and the ordinances is required for the Atonement to be fully accessed. Keeping the commandments is a relative thing: no one keeps all the commandments perfectly. If we did, we wouldn't need the Atonement. I understand what consiglieri is talking about: people think they need to be perfect in keeping the commandments, and they obsess over such perfection that they forget about the Atonement. I can relate to that.
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 23 hours ago, The Nehor said: If you assume that the exalted are a homogenous crowd of duplicates. I do not. The exalted are not clones but they do have a lot of things they share in common.
consiglieri Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 37 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: How can one take part of the atonement while at the same time discounting things that Christ commands? Keeping the commandments and the ordinances is required for the Atonement to be fully accessed. I know that is the standard line in Mormonism, but I think an emphasis on commandments and ordinances ultimately ends up detracting from the Atonement. And ordinances are apparently NOT all that necessary. At least not if you are a kid living in a house with gay parents.
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I know that is the standard line in Mormonism, but I think an emphasis on commandments and ordinances ultimately ends up detracting from the Atonement. And ordinances are apparently NOT all that necessary. At least not if you are a kid living in a house with gay parents. Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. 1
waveslider Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I know that is the standard line in Mormonism, but I think an emphasis on commandments and ordinances ultimately ends up detracting from the Atonement. And ordinances are apparently NOT all that necessary. At least not if you are a kid living in a house with gay parents. I think the problem here is the definition of what being saved is. Being saved doesn't equal being exalted. Most people who don't want to keep the commandments will be saved and end up in a kingdom of glory, but will have limited progression in the eternities. If that is all you want out of the atonement then yes I can see how the commandments are a hindrance to you. If on the other hand you want to gain the full potential that the atonement has to offer, eternal progression and being in the actual presence of God, the commandments are a must. How else are we to learn how to be one with God, if we are unwilling to think and act like Him in obedience to His own laws? These commandments are the very things that get us to become one with Him. Since we have all fallen short already, by breaking some of them, or in other words sinning, we cannot in anyway become one with Him without the atonement (At-one-ment), but that doesn't replace the need to follow the commandments still, to the best of our ability, all the while repenting constantly utilizing that atonement on a daily basis (needing mercy as much as works, in a hand in hand effort). There is a reason, after all, why we need to take the sacrament on a regular basis. It is the only ordinance that we do for ourselves more than one time. If any of us were perfect, or in other words followed all the commandments exactly without one mistake, we would have no need of an atonement. There is a reason why Jesus is the only way back, and that He is the only one who was able to make the atonement. That reason is because he followed absolutely every single commandment, perfectly, other wise he wouldn't have been worthy to do that for any of us. As far as a child not being allowed to participate in baptism, because of circumstances beyond it's control, there are means whereby that can still be taken care of. If the child doesn't get baptized when it grows up, for whatever reason (including the sinful life of it's adopted parents that caused scarring to occur against a church that doesn't condone such lifestyles, based upon God's own commandments, making it so the grown child won't accept the truth presented later in life), the baptisms done in proxy as baptisms for the dead can still make that happen, if the child accepts the truth eventually. Ordinances are very important. Again, how exactly does keeping the commandments get in the way of the atonement? 1
The Nehor Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You mean I get to keep my Mohawk and face paint? The advantage of being a God is no one can say no to things like that.
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. False. Sigh. Another drive by pot shot with no basis Of course they are a available to all, even fundamentalists who do not understand God's loving gospel. Even nonmembers can receive inspiration or there would be no converts and of course the atonement is a free gift. Here we go again I suppose
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I know that is the standard line in Mormonism, but I think an emphasis on commandments and ordinances ultimately ends up detracting from the Atonement. And ordinances are apparently NOT all that necessary. At least not if you are a kid living in a house with gay parents. The ordinances are necessary. Why do we have Temples if they are optional? Its not just a standard line in Mormonism. One does not need to be a Mormon to read the New Testament and see Christ saying that over and over and over again. And the Church has never said the kids of gay parents are exempt from the ordinances forever. The policy (which I don't necessarily agree with) just says in those very RARE cases may be suspended and God will not hold it against them for the delay but at some point they will have to have them done. Edited August 10, 2016 by carbon dioxide
jkwilliams Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: False. Sigh. Another drive by pot shot with no basis Of course they are a available to all, even fundamentalists who do not understand God's loving gospel. Even nonmembers can receive inspiration or there would be no converts and of course the atonement is a free gift. Here we go again I suppose As long as I can remember, the church has taught that to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, one must receive it by the laying on of hands. Likewise, sanctification through the Atonement comes only through the covenant of baptism. Are you saying these doctrines have changed recently?
consiglieri Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, waveslider said: I think the problem here is the definition of what being saved is. Being saved doesn't equal being exalted. Most people who don't want to keep the commandments will be saved and end up in a kingdom of glory, but will have limited progression in the eternities. If that is all you want out of the atonement then yes I can see how the commandments are a hindrance to you. If on the other hand you want to gain the full potential that the atonement has to offer, eternal progression and being in the actual presence of God, the commandments are a must. My reading of the New Testament is that this issue is at the heart of Jesus's ministry. Let me give one example in case this point seems obscure: Quote Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Were you saying something about being "exalted" . . . ?
consiglieri Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 51 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The ordinances are necessary. Why do we have Temples if they are optional? Its not just a standard line in Mormonism. One does not need to be a Mormon to read the New Testament and see Christ saying that over and over and over again. And the Church has never said the kids of gay parents are exempt from the ordinances forever. The policy (which I don't necessarily agree with) just says in those very RARE cases may be suspended and God will not hold it against them for the delay but at some point they will have to have them done. Unless they die before moving out of the house . . .
Recommended Posts