Should I attend Church?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is of course, opportunity cost. We all have limited time and resources. 

Really?  There is no other time in the week during which service to others can be completed?  The only time slot available just happens to coincide with the three-hour block used for church services?

Sorry, not buying it.  This just seems like a false dilemma.  A rationalization.  There are very, very few of us whose schedules are so utterly devoid of free time that there is simply no other choice except to replace the three-hour block with a preferred alternative form of service.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I guess I am being "picky," but I would like the notion of "saving ordinances" explained to me. Is the endowment a "saving ordinance?"

The "saving ordinances" in the Restored Gospel are:

• Baptism
• Confirmation
• Ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for males)
• Endowment
• Sealing to Spouse

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Was I saved or not before receiving my endowments?

"Saved" has a spectrum of meanings in the Restored Gospel.  The "saving ordinances" above, however, are required for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

As for whether you were "saved or not," I can't speak to that.  The ordinances are required, but are not, in and of themselves, sufficient for salvation (read: exaltation).  That is to say, receiving the ordinance does not guarantee salvation.

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think a more appropriate term might be "exalting ordinances," although there is probably merit to the belief that baptism has saving efficacy.  Beyond that the term kinda "rubs" me the wrong way I guess. I just don't think of "sealings" as saving ordinances. I guess I am just doomed to always think my way outside of the inclusionary box... 

I encourage you to review D&C 132.  I think the status of the sealing ordinance as a "saving" one (in the teachings of the LDS Church) is rather clear.

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Congratulations Smac. I will be on my 25th anniversary in a few years. Although things have not always been "smooth" in my marriage, I have never though I could somehow find "happiness" elsewhere. My wife is very committed to relationships, and I think that is where our happiness derives from. Thinking one can abandon all their relationships, and somehow "find" happiness elsewhere is very foreign to me.

Same here.  I think there is a reason why the Church is referred to as the metaphorical "bride" of Christ (see, e.g., here and here), and why we are sometimes characterized as being part of the "body of Christ".

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Most other people "want" the same, they just have to work at the relationships they do have, and sometimes give up on some of their own "desires," idiosyncrasies, etc.

Yep.  I would submit that the same type of "work" should be applied to our relationship with "the Church".

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not being happy usually involves pursuit of some selfish desires. Being happy usually involves the opposite. It is really just that "simple." 

Agreed!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  There is no other time in the week during which service to others can be completed?  The only time slot available just happens to coincide with the three-hour block used for church services?

Sorry, not buying it.  This just seems like a false dilemma.  A rationalization.  There are very, very few of us whose schedules are so utterly devoid of free time that there is simply no other choice except to replace the three-hour block with a preferred alternative form of service.

Thanks,

-Smac

I promise you I didn't make up the idea of opportunity cost. It's not about not having other open time slots. It's about best use of the limited time and resources you have. Each person must decide for themselves how best to spend their time. And of course church can very easily eat up nearly all your free time, depending on your calling. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I promise you I didn't make up the idea of opportunity cost.

I recognize that.

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not about not having other open time slots.

Well yes, it is.  My previous remarks pertained to the presentation in this thread of an apparent "false dilemma" in which a person must choose either attendance at Church or service or some other uplifting activity.  My point is that no such choice is necessary because we all have - as you put it - "other open time slots".

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's about best use of the limited time and resources you have.

Again, I am hard-pressed to believe that we are all so incredibly busy, that our "time and resources" are so limited that we must choose between either attendance at Church or service or some other uplifting activity.

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Each person must decide for themselves how best to spend their time. And of course church can very easily eat up nearly all your free time, depending on your calling. 

We weren't speaking of "all your free time," but of the three-hour block on Sundays.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I recognize that.

Well yes, it is.  My previous remarks pertained to the presentation in this thread of an apparent "false dilemma" in which a person must choose either attendance at Church or service or some other uplifting activity.  My point is that no such choice is necessary because we all have - as you put it - "other open time slots".

Again, I am hard-pressed to believe that we are all so incredibly busy, that our "time and resources" are so limited that we must choose between either attendance at Church or service or some other uplifting activity.

We weren't speaking of "all your free time," but of the three-hour block on Sundays.

Thanks,

-Smac

What I'm talking about is something covered before by Elder Oaks:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng&_r=1

Quote

We should begin by recognizing the reality that just because something is good is not a sufficient reason for doing it. The number of good things we can do far exceeds the time available to accomplish them. Some things are better than good, and these are the things that should command priority attention in our lives.

The best use of one's time is a subjective decision that each of us has to make. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

What I'm talking about is something covered before by Elder Oaks:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng&_r=1

Quote

We should begin by recognizing the reality that just because something is good is not a sufficient reason for doing it. The number of good things we can do far exceeds the time available to accomplish them. Some things are better than good, and these are the things that should command priority attention in our lives.

The best use of one's time is a subjective decision that each of us has to make. 

I agree in the abstract, but not in the particulars.  In the LDS paradigm, attendance at Church manifestly fits within "things {that} are better than good" which "should command priority attention in our lives."

I have never seen a General Authority characterize attendance at church as something that is merely "good" or optional.

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm not an atheist.  Calling myself an atheist would suggest I KNOW that God does not exist.  I don't KNOW that.  However I live my life as if there was no god because I do not believe such a being exists...so I guess I'm agnostic.  With respect to JC...he did exist...there was a historical human being named Jesus who was a wise teacher.  Was he the creator of the world? no, humans are just that human.  Was he resurrected? No...humans don't come back alive after being dead.  You do realize that you are only Christian because you were born into a Christian culture right?  Had you been born in India...you would more than likely be Hindi.  God is a human construct and comes in thousands of forms...Humans adopt the god that is prevalent in the culture in which they are born.

There is some truth in your last statement, which is one thing which bothered me about traditional Christianity - it seemed to damn the loving, kind oriental Buddhist to hell because he had never heard of Christ and had not accepted him as his Savior. The LDS church is essentially the only church which taught otherwise, and showed me the truth about 2 Peter, etc. When I read this, I was like wow, you other guys are so lost...

So why is Christianity among the Gentiles? Because God prophesied it and planned it, and told us this is what He was going to do thousands of years ago, before it happened. Should I begrudge God for blessing the Gentiles like He said He was going to do? The LDS Church is so much more inclusive than other churches, and yet you find it exclusive and "damaging." If you do not believe God exists, I would say you have pretty much grown into the atheist camp, Johnnie. In fact since you deny Yeshua as the Son of God, you should consider this scripture:

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Those who reject the Son of God must be considered an enemy to the church or to Yeshua the Christ. So I am not surprised to hear you talk about "pain" you believe the Church causes.

" According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, 'agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist'. " Well, I believe this, but yet I do not consider myself agnostic. I have heard the voice of my Savior, but you dismiss that testimony and believe that I am schizophrenic. You I suppose believe the same about Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow(who said the Savior spoke to him in the temple), and many others who heard a voice after praying or even that stopped them from getting hurt, etc. The many examples preclude the possibility that they are all schizophrenic in my mind. I acknowledge that I cannot provide "rational grounds to justify" the belief that God exists. I don't believe anyone can. On that basis, I believe everyone would be "agnostic." I believe God exists because I have felt His spirit move me in answer to my prayers many times - even since I was quite young. I have heard the voice of my Savior. I have seen that His many prophecies have come true, so perhaps that is a rational ground to "justify" His existence... I don't know. I believe it is a rational grounds upon which to believe there is a God. If prophecies from more than 2500 years ago have repeatedly come true, is it rational to believe that the author of those prophecies is the Most High El? Is there rational ground for people such as yourself to disagree? 

Quote

Repentance from what?  Why would you call anyone to repentance?  Gays are sexual beings just like you are. Their sexual activities are no more wrong than your sexual activity is.  I would no more call you to repentance for being sexual than I would a gay person.  Being human is not a sin. Why would you from your lofty privileged hetro status call anyone to repentance? Pretty arrogant. What some people call sin is not sin - Joseph Smith  <---yeah he actually said that.  But I feel its fitting here.  What you call sin is only sin because you've made it so.  What you call sin is not sin..

The Savior called sinners to repentance. Since the Bible makes clear what sin is, it is not arrogant to remind people who have committed those sins that they can and "should" repent. It is arrogant to believe that they need repentance while "we" or "I" don't. I see your thoughts are in the throws of the adversary. I don't know that anything I say or do can help you, Johnnie.

Quote

You live in a small society of people who have decided that some activity is sin and call it such...but it doesn't make it so. 

If you are talking about things like not drinking alcohol, coffee, etc, I will say that the Word of Wisdom is just that... a word of wisdom. God never said that drinking coffee is a sin. It is advisable not to for our own sakes. That advice has proven to have medical merit. While doing so may exclude us from the temple, it does not make us a sinner. However, the Bible does frown on drinking to drunkenness. Things that are addicting are generally bad for us. The Lord would rather us not enslave our bodies to some chemicals.

If you are speaking of a Christian society which accepts scriptural teachings that sexual behavior outside the traditional marriage is sinful, then yes, I have to agree that is a belief I ascribe to because I believe in the scriptures. If you don't believe in the scriptures, I guess it makes the decision one based on more of a private set of norms. However, at a young age I realized that sex is very intimate, and that one party can really "hurt" the other party by pursuing it without being committed to the other party. One can cause a lot of pain and anguish. Just on this basis, I decided not to engage in sexual activities until I was married. One doesn't have to decide such things simply because one is told something is "bad." One can usually observe the reasons for scriptural teachings in their society at large.

Your statement that "I'm sorry that you've allowed your culture to beat yourself up...but there is a huge difference between doing something wrong, a regrettable mistake and what you call sin" I don't feel applies to me. I don't feel I am "beat up" because of sin. I feel I am an "outsider" because the church has troubles with what I have to say - not because they view me as an unrepentant sinner. There is a difference. Will that change? I doubt it. I think I go down my path pretty much alone. The reaction of others on this board shows that time and time again. Do I blame them? Not really. It's how they have been taught to judge truth... "to follow the living prophet" and all that. I accepted this church based upon scripture. I live my life based upon scripture. I judge whether to follow men, including church presidents, based upon scripture. I just think a little differently. I will not abandon my own common sense because BY was President and said Eden is in America. But if you think that will cause me to abandon my covenants and commitments to my Savior you will be wrong. Finding men to be fallible, including Church presidents, is not grounds for attacking the Church, or turning and running to "greener" pastures. There are no greener pastures.

Psalms 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

The Lord has prepared a pasture for me. I go where He leads - sometimes that involves a little kicking and screaming - after all I am a mere child to God.

Some people just won't accept the yoke. They want to do what they want to do, and throw off the yoke of the Lord, because it feels constraining or painful. The things of the world are temporary and fleeting tho. They offer no permanent peace. I wish you the best in your journey Johnnie.

Edited December 13, 2016 by RevTestament

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree in the abstract, but not in the particulars.  In the LDS paradigm, attendance at Church manifestly fits within "things {that} are better than good" which "should command priority attention in our lives."

I have never seen a General Authority characterize attendance at church as something that is merely "good" or optional.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure, I recognize that. You're on the same page with the General Authorities about what you believe is in the "best" category. But everyone will have different opinions about what are the best uses of their own time. Personally I would put church in the good category, but not the always the best category. Despite that, I still attend church. I'm not particularly rigorous in how I decide to spend my time. I frequently spend it doing things that are merely okay.

In any case, my point is that everyone must decide for themselves what the best uses of their time are. 

 

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "saving ordinances" above, however, are required for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

As for whether you were "saved or not," I can't speak to that.  The ordinances are required, but are not, in and of themselves, sufficient for salvation (read: exaltation).  That is to say, receiving the ordinance does not guarantee salvation.

I encourage you to review D&C 132.  I think the status of the sealing ordinance as a "saving" one (in the teachings of the LDS Church) is rather clear.

Not to me. In fact you said "sufficient for salvation (read: exaltation)."

I just don't see these things the same way. D&C says those in the telestial kingdom are "saved." Thus, they didn't need the endowment to get there and be "saved." I just disagree with the terminology. I see exaltation as a separate scriptural concept. Salvation is being saved from the punishment of sin. Exaltation is something different. Likewise, I hear that being resurrected is being saved from lessons etc. I don't agree with this either. All will be resurrected - even the sons of perdition. It is not equivalent to salvation scripturally. Thanks for taking the time to try to convince me tho.  

Peace Bro.

[mnn727]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Stay for the worship part.  

What would you say is the "worship part" of our Church?

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not to me. In fact you said "sufficient for salvation (read: exaltation)."

I just don't see these things the same way. D&C says those in the telestial kingdom are "saved." Thus, they didn't need the endowment to get there and be "saved." I just disagree with the terminology. I see exaltation as a separate scriptural concept. Salvation is being saved from the punishment of sin. Exaltation is something different. Likewise, I hear that being resurrected is being saved from lessons etc. I don't agree with this either. All will be resurrected - even the sons of perdition. It is not equivalent to salvation scripturally. Thanks for taking the time to try to convince me tho.  

Peace Bro.

The issue is probably one of semantics, as you've said.

For most people in the Christian world, being saved is the equivalent of being joint-heirs with Christ and being in Heaven with Him and God the Father.  So, what we consider to be exaltation most other Christians define as 'being saved.'

But according to LDS doctrine, resurrection is a part of salvation because no one cannot be saved (in any sense) without it.  Physical death must be overcome.

2 Ne. 9: 6-9-

 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.  Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.  O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.  And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The issue is probably one of semantics, as you've said.

For most people in the Christian world, being saved is the equivalent of being joint-heirs with Christ and being in Heaven with Him and God the Father.  So, what we consider to be exaltation most other Christians define as 'being saved.'

But according to LDS doctrine, resurrection is a part of salvation because no one cannot be saved (in any sense) without it.  Physical death must be overcome.

2 Ne. 9: 6-9-

 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.  Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.  O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.  And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

I tend to speak very precisely. It is part of my training. Sometimes it puts off people a little bit.

I believe the scriptures also speak pretty precisely. I believe it is important for the church to speak with the same specificity. 

I am sorry, but I just disagree with how the church seems to use these words. To me it is a little more than "semantics." It is scriptural terminology and usage. 

Will it change? Probably once again, no, because the leadership doesn't want to appear as being incorrect, or giving any ground to others. How important is it? Over time I think these things can be very important. I don't even know where the term "saving ordinances" began. I am sure the speaker was well-intentioned, and trying to emphasize the value of temple work. It just bugs me. Oh well, signing off for now.

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

What would you say is the "worship part" of our Church?

Those were his terms- He said he liked the worship portion of church.  Whatever turns him on and he feels worshipful I guess.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is some truth in your last statement, which is one thing which bothered me about traditional Christianity - it seemed to damn the loving, kind oriental Buddhist to hell because he had never heard of Christ and had not accepted him as his Savior. The LDS church is essentially the only church which taught otherwise, and showed me the truth about 2 Peter, etc. When I read this, I was like wow, you other guys are so lost...

So why is Christianity among the Gentiles? Because God prophesied it and planned it, and told us this is what He was going to do thousands of years ago, before it happened. Should I begrudge God for blessing the Gentiles like He said He was going to do? The LDS Church is so much more inclusive than other churches, and yet you find it exclusive and "damaging." If you do not believe God exists, I would say you have pretty much grown into the atheist camp, Johnnie. In fact since you deny Yeshua as the Son of God, you should consider this scripture:

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Those who reject the Son of God must be considered an enemy to the church or to Yeshua the Christ. So I am not surprised to hear you talk about "pain" you believe the Church causes.

" According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, 'agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist'. " Well, I believe this, but yet I do not consider myself agnostic. I have heard the voice of my Savior, but you dismiss that testimony and believe that I am schizophrenic. You I suppose believe the same about Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow(who said the Savior spoke to him in the temple), and many others who heard a voice after praying or even that stopped them from getting hurt, etc. The many examples preclude the possibility that they are all schizophrenic in my mind. I acknowledge that I cannot provide "rational grounds to justify" the belief that God exists. I don't believe anyone can. On that basis, I believe everyone would be "agnostic." I believe God exists because I have felt His spirit move me in answer to my prayers many times - even since I was quite young. I have heard the voice of my Savior. I have seen that His many prophecies have come true, so perhaps that is a rational ground to "justify" His existence... I don't know. I believe it is a rational grounds upon which to believe there is a God. If prophecies from more than 2500 years ago have repeatedly come true, is it rational to believe that the author of those prophecies is the Most High El? Is there rational ground for people such as yourself to disagree? 

The Savior called sinners to repentance. Since the Bible makes clear what sin is, it is not arrogant to remind people who have committed those sins that they can and "should" repent. It is arrogant to believe that they need repentance while "we" or "I" don't. I see your thoughts are in the throws of the adversary. I don't know that anything I say or do can help you, Johnnie.

If you are talking about things like not drinking alcohol, coffee, etc, I will say that the Word of Wisdom is just that... a word of wisdom. God never said that drinking coffee is a sin. It is advisable not to for our own sakes. That advice has proven to have medical merit. While doing so may exclude us from the temple, it does not make us a sinner. However, the Bible does frown on drinking to drunkenness. Things that are addicting are generally bad for us. The Lord would rather us not enslave our bodies to some chemicals.

If you are speaking of a Christian society which accepts scriptural teachings that sexual behavior outside the traditional marriage is sinful, then yes, I have to agree that is a belief I ascribe to because I believe in the scriptures. If you don't believe in the scriptures, I guess it makes the decision one based on more of a private set of norms. However, at a young age I realized that sex is very intimate, and that one party can really "hurt" the other party by pursuing it without being committed to the other party. One can cause a lot of pain and anguish. Just on this basis, I decided not to engage in sexual activities until I was married. One doesn't have to decide such things simply because one is told something is "bad." One can usually observe the reasons for scriptural teachings in their society at large.

Your statement that "I'm sorry that you've allowed your culture to beat yourself up...but there is a huge difference between doing something wrong, a regrettable mistake and what you call sin" I don't feel applies to me. I don't feel I am "beat up" because of sin. I feel I am an "outsider" because the church has troubles with what I have to say - not because they view me as an unrepentant sinner. There is a difference. Will that change? I doubt it. I think I go down my path pretty much alone. The reaction of others on this board shows that time and time again. Do I blame them? Not really. It's how they have been taught to judge truth... "to follow the living prophet" and all that. I accepted this church based upon scripture. I live my life based upon scripture. I judge whether to follow men, including church presidents, based upon scripture. I just think a little differently. I will not abandon my own common sense because BY was President and said Eden is in America. But if you think that will cause me to abandon my covenants and commitments to my Savior you will be wrong. Finding men to be fallible, including Church presidents, is not grounds for attacking the Church, or turning and running to "greener" pastures. There are no greener pastures.

Psalms 23:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

The Lord has prepared a pasture for me. I go where He leads - sometimes that involves a little kicking and screaming - after all I am a mere child to God.

Some people just won't accept the yoke. They want to do what they want to do, and throw off the yoke of the Lord, because it feels constraining or painful. The things of the world are temporary and fleeting tho. They offer no permanent peace. I wish you the best in your journey Johnnie.

Ok you win...I concede defeat...your wall of words overwhelms me... enjoy Sunday School

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I have a few thoughts on this.  I struggle with many of the same things you do, so you are not alone.

1) I think the church is a lot like the ballet. There is a culture in the church that if you do not go, you are a bad person.  Why does everyone assume everybody has to like church?  The format is rather nauseous and like groundhogs day.  Although some may like the ballet, not everyone does, especially when it is the same performance over and over.  And if you complain, then there are those who say if you put more into it then you would like it.  Just like the ballet, church isn't for everyone.  

2) The church is a temporary organization.  The purpose of the church is to help prepare us until we no longer need the church.  We eventually should reach a state of independence from the church.

3) There are too many false historical teachings in the church.  The current manuals have many inaccuracies.  The essays are a big step for the church to present a more accurate story of the church.  I'm optimistic that with the new curriculum, teachers will integrate the Essays into the lessons. The essays have even been integrated into the gospel library app many members use to access the scriptures and manuals.  This is a wonderful move church leaders have made.

4)  Find happiness.  If you do not find happiness on Sundays with religion, find something that does bring you happiness.  Perhaps it is volunteering in your community, serving the elderly at a retirement home, or teaching underprivileged children to read or to fish.  I frequently feel like I could contribute much more to my life and others lives doing something on Sunday instead of church.

I pray you will find happiness within yourself.

Thank you.  There is brilliance in this post. 

[Five Solas]

21 hours ago, emeliza said:

Worship probably means various things to people.  In context of church, I go to worship in a way that is both internal and external.  It is both private and public.  

This is especially true during the Sacrament.  Publicly people can see me, but privately they have no idea what conversations I am having with God or how sacred those moments are as I reflect on my covenants and commitments.

Appreciate the response.  Probably merits its own thread, at some point. 

--Erik

[pogi]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 8:09 PM, 2BizE said:

1) I think the church is a lot like the ballet. There is a culture in the church that if you do not go, you are a bad person.  Why does everyone assume everybody has to like church?  

It is not that you are a bad person, it is that you have made a bad choice.  Huge difference. 

In a ME, ME, ME culture of instant gratification, it is understandable why people give up so easily on church.

Church is nothing like the ballet, it is about renewing covenants with God, serving and fellowshipping members in your ward through your callings etc., it is about obedience, worship...it is not about being entertained. 

Church is much more like meditation than it is like the ballet.  It is not for entertainment, but for reflection and introspection.  Like meditation, it can be incredibly boring, redundant, and it often feels like a waste of time.  But with patience, practice, and a proper attitude, it is profoundly illuminating and fulfilling, even life-changing when you find God in the quiet of your heart away from the distractions of the world.  Yes, church and especially the sacrament is like a meditation. 

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 8:09 PM, 2BizE said:

2) The church is a temporary organization.  The purpose of the church is to help prepare us until we no longer need the church.  We eventually should reach a state of independence from the church.

 You no longer need the church when you no longer sin or need the ordinance of the sacrament to renew your covenants with God and receive the promised blessings in your life through obedience.  To say that you no longer need church, is like saying you no longer need Christ, who is the head of the church.  I don't know about you, but I am not there yet. 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by pogi

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not that you are a bad person, it is that you have made a bad choice.  Huge difference. 

In a ME, ME, ME culture of instant gratification, it is understandable why people give up so easily on church.

Church is nothing like the ballet, it is about renewing covenants with God, serving and fellowshipping members in your ward through your callings etc., it is about obedience, worship...it is not about being entertained. 

Church is much more like meditation than it is like the ballet.  It is not for entertainment, but for reflection and introspection.  It can be incredibly boring, redundant, and it often feels like a waste of time.  But with patience, practice, and a proper attitude, it is profoundly illuminating and fulfilling, even life-changing when you find God in the quiet of your heart away from the distractions of the world.  Yes, church and especially the sacrament is like a meditation. 

 You no longer need the church when you no longer sin every week and no longer need the ordinance of the sacrament to renew your covenants with God and receive the promised blessings in your life through obedience.  To say that you no longer need the church, is like saying you no longer need Christ, who is the head of the church.  I don't know about you, but I am not there yet. 

 

Amen!

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 11:36 AM, smac97 said:

I recognize that.

Well yes, it is.  My previous remarks pertained to the presentation in this thread of an apparent "false dilemma" in which a person must choose either attendance at Church or service or some other uplifting activity.  My point is that no such choice is necessary because we all have - as you put it - "other open time slots".

Again, I am hard-pressed to believe that we are all so incredibly busy, that our "time and resources" are so limited that we must choose between either attendance at Church or service or some other uplifting activity.

We weren't speaking of "all your free time," but of the three-hour block on Sundays.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really don't think you're understanding the concept of opportunity cost. EVERYTHING has an opportunity cost whether or not that particular period of time presents the only availability for another activity.

Think of it as Good, better, best. The value of church for some people could decrease from best, to merely good, so if a "best" opportunity presents itself the rational thing to do would be to choose the "best" alternative.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 10:05 AM, pogi said:

It is not that you are a bad person, it is that you have made a bad choice.  Huge difference. 

In a ME, ME, ME culture of instant gratification, it is understandable why people give up so easily on church.

 You no longer need the church when you no longer sin or need the ordinance of the sacrament to renew your covenants with God and receive the promised blessings in your life through obedience.  To say that you no longer need church, is like saying you no longer need Christ, who is the head of the church.  I don't know about you, but I am not there yet. 

 

You're assuming that people who give up on church do so "easily" instead of clawing, scratching, fighting for the hope, faith, belief to stay for months or even years.

No longer attending "the" church is nothing like abandoning Jesus. The church is an imperfect institution in an imperfect world being run by imperfect people. Jesus is a perfect individual. The two are not synonymous but a lot of confusion and angst arises when people act like they are.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're assuming that people who give up on church do so "easily" instead of clawing, scratching, fighting for the hope, faith, belief to stay for months or even years.

I was responding to the idea that church is like a "ballet".  I found that to be a repugnant comparison and justification for non-attendance.  It wasn't my intent to generalize, and I recognize that there are a myriad of reasons for non-attendance. 

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No longer attending "the" church is nothing like abandoning Jesus. The church is an imperfect institution in an imperfect world being run by imperfect people. Jesus is a perfect individual. The two are not synonymous but a lot of confusion and angst arises when people act like they are.

Happy, you are assuming that my responses are generalized statements.  I was responding to a very specific believing Mormon who is attempting to justify non-attendance on the grounds that the church is a  "temporary organization", and that we can somehow outgrow the church in this life, and should strive to become "independent" from the church.  That simply is not taught in Mormonism.    

Yes Jesus is perfect, and yes the church is an imperfect organization.  Because Jesus is perfect, perhaps we should heed his perfect counsel to attend and be a part of this imperfect organization.  The sacramental ordinance is not a suggestion, or something that we can outgrow in this life (that simply is not taught in Mormonism).  It has both literal and figurative significance of his sacrifice, his flesh and blood, his promised spiritual presence in our lives.  The sacrament is a sacred ordinance and covenantal bond with our Savior, abandoning that ordinance is in my mind akin to abandoning that bond.

Edited December 15, 2016 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/12/2016 at 0:00 PM, stemelbow said:

 Not sure how to answer you.  I go to Church and as part of my worship I take the sacrament, in what I'd call, good faith.  Does that mean I'd lose any spiritual sense if I stopped attending and did not partake?  Probably not.  Does it mean to me that others who do not partake of the sacrament have no spiritual life?  no.  So "essential" may not work. 

But I do feed off the ordinance. 

There's nothing to stop one from just attending sacrament meeting, singing the hymns, taking the sacrament to renew covenants and refresh the spirit, staying for the talks out of courtesy or even partial interest and then go home. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/12/2016 at 10:39 AM, stemelbow said:

Anyway, what's your take on someone who doesn't really care for the messages shared and can't really participate? 

How does this qualify as worship? 

[Five Solas]

On 12/15/2016 at 11:05 PM, Yirgacheffe said:

How does this qualify as worship? 

It certainly requires a broad view of worship.  Perhaps along the lines Harold Best articulated in his book, Unceasing Worship--

We begin with one fundamental fact about worship: at this very moment, and for as long as this world endures, everybody inhabiting it is bowing down and serving something or someone — an artifact, a person, an institution, an idea, a spirit, or God through Christ.

Bob Dylan once expressed a not dissimilar idea in his song, "Gotta Serve Somebody."

However modest, undesired or unwilling--one could argue stemelbow's persistence with LDS ritual still counts as a form of worship.  And of course, the same might be said for the baseball player who won't give up his lucky rabbit's foot--even though the hide has long been rubbed away and everybody knows it's disgusting. 

--Erik 

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 0:05 AM, Yirgacheffe said:

How does this qualify as worship? 

Worship to me is internal, personal, hidden.   To me whether or not one relates to the messages given in a meeting do not necessarily have anything to do with worship.