The Worthy / Unworthy Dichotomy within the LDS Church

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I get it totally.

Here's the deal as I see it.  I don't think I will burn in hell if I tell you that sacrifice is one of the temple covenants, and it has been around since Adam and Eve were taught to offer sacrifice.

Why?  The Sunday school answer is correct but incomplete and super simplified imo.  Sacrifice is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Savior.   Of course.

But in the temple we are taught to liken ourselves to Adam and Eve.  The temple presentation shows us that each of us IS ADAM and EVE.  Their story and the entire plan of salvation is about our personal lives.

Our fall = Adam's fall which gives us choice between good and evil.  Every single one of us falls, and falls hard hard hard.  It's back to step 1 of the 12 step- each of us is helpless/hopeless without God

Let's just talk symbols here- I believe that Christ really did live and die to atone for our sins, but where the rubber meets the road is what that MEANS in my life

Liken your struggle and sacrifice to the Savior's sacrifice at least qualitatively if not quantitatively.   Yes His sacrifice was infinite etc and ours are piddly compared to his but for US they can be similar to Gethsemane at least as fully as we personally have the ability to comprehend Gethsemane.

It took all He had to go through Gethsemane to make that sacrifice and in likening the gospel to our personal struggles, sometimes we have to give ALL we have to make our personal sacrifices.  

If He can give his all which is infinite you can give your all as weak as we all are incomparison

Each of us has to do that in order to even comprehend a sliver of what He went through.

THAT to me is the covenant of sacrifice.  Do that and you can "overcome the world"

Rev 21

It's just a push away, a push away.

To make a slight revision.

You've done it before and you can do it again.  

 

Thanks.

[Five Solas]

On 6/6/2017 at 11:43 AM, halconero said:

I retract my calling you a butt nugget, and apologize.

I do not retract my assertion that you're condescending and that while it might make you feel good, it gets you nowhere conversationally. Which then gets to the crux of the issue, are you bringing this up to have a good conversation and perhaps persuade others, or in order to feel good about yourself? If the former, my suggestion remains that you drop the lecturing attitude and air of superiority.

Calm is welcome to withdraw the rep point, or leave it as is. The fact that your response shows that you're more worried about the points and my ill-advised insult is telling with regards to how you see your own comments.

Apology happily accepted, halconero.  Suggest as a caution for you (or anyone) that reading condescension into a post may reveal at least as much about you as it does the author. 

I highly recommend focusing on the substance of things & not reacting to any feelings aroused. 

And for whatever it may be worth, Calm stands with you--she did not withdraw the point. 

--Erik

PS.  And one more note - the voting was overwhelmingly in favor of option 2 prior to our exchange (ratio of ~ five to one).  After it, option 1 experienced something of a rally (reducing the ratio ~ two to one).  I get it, any conclusions are completely invalid from a statistical point of view.  But interesting, none-the-less.  If I were a betting man (and I sometimes am) - I'd hazard to say you had some influence on how LDS posters viewed this poll.  

_______________________________________

I bought you drinks
I brought you flowers
I read your books
And talked for hours
Every day so many drinks
Such pretty flowers
So tell me what have I
What have I
What have I done to deserve this?

--Pet Shop Boys, 1987

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Apology happily accepted, halconero.  Suggest as a caution for you (or anyone) that reading condescension into a post may reveal at least as much about you as it does the author. 

I highly recommend focusing on the substance of things & not reacting to any feelings aroused. 

And for whatever it may be worth, Calm stands with you--she did not withdraw the point. 

--Erik

PS.  And one more note - the voting was overwhelmingly in favor of option 2 prior to our exchange (ratio of ~ five to one).  After it, option 1 experienced something of a rally (reducing the ratio ~ two to one).  I get it, any conclusions are completely invalid from a statistical point of view.  But interesting, none-the-less.  If I were a betting man (and I sometimes am) - I'd hazard to say you had some influence on how LDS posters viewed this poll.  

_______________________________________

I bought you drinks
I brought you flowers
I read your books
And talked for hours
Every day so many drinks
Such pretty flowers
So tell me what have I
What have I
What have I done to deserve this?

--Pet Shop Boys, 1987

I see no reason to accept that conclusion.  Most people who reply, I would think, would vote first before reading the thread- that's what I always do when I respond.  You just got a bunch of number 1's early I think.

Frankly I was surprised that the number of 1's you got.  I have never seen anyone labeling someone "unworthy".   Never.  I can't imagine what kind of prideful judgmental person would think that way.  If nothing else it's just uncool to speak of others that way, as if we have never made mistakes.

More and more I see people speaking here of a church I have never seen in my nearly 40 years of membership.  No wonder I didn't like living in Utah, if that is the reason.

Does anyone read the thread and then decide?  Or are polls about first impressions?  Would a thread actually change your mind on such a topic??

I can't imagine it.

[Rain]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Apology happily accepted, halconero.  Suggest as a caution for you (or anyone) that reading condescension into a post may reveal at least as much about you as it does the author. 

I highly recommend focusing on the substance of things & not reacting to any feelings aroused. 

And for whatever it may be worth, Calm stands with you--she did not withdraw the point. 

--Erik

PS.  And one more note - the voting was overwhelmingly in favor of option 2 prior to our exchange (ratio of ~ five to one).  After it, option 1 experienced something of a rally (reducing the ratio ~ two to one).  I get it, any conclusions are completely invalid from a statistical point of view.  But interesting, none-the-less.  If I were a betting man (and I sometimes am) - I'd hazard to say you had some influence on how LDS posters viewed this poll.  

_______________________________________

I bought you drinks
I brought you flowers
I read your books
And talked for hours
Every day so many drinks
Such pretty flowers
So tell me what have I
What have I
What have I done to deserve this?

--Pet Shop Boys, 1987

If I remember right I chose number 1. (Here, like often is the case, the choices don't match up with my true feelings so I have to go with whatever comes closest at the time.) Like I said before, I don't feel that worthiness has anything to do with value in this case, so I, personally, would be ok with the term. If I had read the thread first and found that YOU attach value to it I might have voted differently because the answers make a very different conclusion depending on just what you were meaning by the question. 

[Five Solas]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I see no reason to accept that conclusion.  Most people who reply, I would think, would vote first before reading the thread- that's what I always do when I respond.  You just got a bunch of number 1's early I think.

Frankly I was surprised that the number of 1's you got.  I have never seen anyone labeling someone "unworthy".   Never.  I can't imagine what kind of prideful judgmental person would think that way.  If nothing else it's just uncool to speak of others that way, as if we have never made mistakes.

More and more I see people speaking here of a church I have never seen in my nearly 40 years of membership.  No wonder I didn't like living in Utah, if that is the reason.

Does anyone read the thread and then decide?  Or are polls about first impressions?  Would a thread actually change your mind on such a topic??

I can't imagine it.

No worries.  I usually read at least a little bit before I respond to a poll, just in case I'm not understanding the question or its implication.  I guess I'm just more the cautious type.

But now the gap is closing further between options 1 & 2.  And the implication for your 40 years experience--maybe it's been granted for you to see what you want to see.  And only that, mfbukowski.

;0)

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

No worries.  I usually read at least a little bit before I respond to a poll, just in case I'm not understanding the question or its implication.  I guess I'm just more the cautious type.

But now the gap is closing further between options 1 & 2.  And the implication for your 40 years experience--maybe it's been granted for you to see what you want to see.  And only that, mfbukowski.

;0)

--Erik

But you if course do not, you see all with perfect objectively,  as exactly they are.

You should run for Pope at least, if not the voice of spiritual perfection

[Kenngo1969]

As others have pointed out, we're all "unworthy," a la Romans 3:23.  Being "unworthy" (or being considered unworthy) is rather like being human: It just is; it's a given.  In other news, dirt is dirty, snow and ice are cold, and water is wet.  So "having a problem" or "not having a problem" being so described seems rather beside the point.  It seems pointless having a problem using a descriptor that is endemic to the human condition.  That said, the only person I've ever described as "unworthy" to anyone else is [Drum-roll, please!] ... me!   I certainly don't go around using the descriptor as a cudgel in a "Dear-Lord-I-thank-thee-that-I-am-not-as-other-men-are" sense.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Ouagadougou]

On 04.06.2017 at 5:21 PM, Five Solas said:

Unworthy music, unworthy feelings, unworthy thoughts, unworthy practices, unworthy touches, unworthy associations.  Unworthy is what you do. 

 

Unworthy baptism candidates, unworthy husbands, unworthy sons, unworthy priesthood holders, and various other sorts of unworthy persons—naturally including persons unworthy of temple recommends.  Unworthy is an identity, unworthy is who you are. 

 

And all of that from the first page & a half of lds.org search results—“unworthy” (and there are many, many more pages returned, should any care to take the analysis deeper).

 

Of course, I didn’t need to do that to know that, because I was there.  And this sort of thinking gets inculcated early in LDS minds, beginning in adolescence with behind-closed-doors one-on-one private interviews with adult male bishops—they call these “Worthiness Interviews.”   

 

Last week I authored a thread asking whether the temple “unworthy” had a duty to not discuss or disclose temple attire here or in any public forum—even when the attire was publicly accessible for viewing in the context of a funeral.  A few LDS said yes, most said no. 

 

But here’s a thing I didn’t expect (and not wishing to derail my own thread on an interesting subject, I decided to launch this new one): Several LDS members objected to my use of “unworthy”—saying they would never label me or use that term to identify anyone.  One even offered what he imagined to be a helpful euphemism--saying that his ward leadership simply identified members as whether or not they were temple recommend holders.  Hearing him tell it, the words “unworthy” or “not worthy” have been successfully purged from his ward’s lexicon.

 

What do others think about all this? 

--Erik

 

PS.  In Protestantism, we're all unworthy, outside of Christ

:0)

I took this survey as I drink my morning tea 😀

[Vance]

On 6/4/2017 at 7:21 PM, Five Solas said:

Unworthy music, unworthy feelings, unworthy thoughts, unworthy practices, unworthy touches, unworthy associations.  Unworthy is what you do. 

 

Unworthy baptism candidates, unworthy husbands, unworthy sons, unworthy priesthood holders, and various other sorts of unworthy persons—naturally including persons unworthy of temple recommends.  Unworthy is an identity, unworthy is who you are. 

 

And all of that from the first page & a half of lds.org search results—“unworthy” (and there are many, many more pages returned, should any care to take the analysis deeper).

 

Of course, I didn’t need to do that to know that, because I was there.  And this sort of thinking gets inculcated early in LDS minds, beginning in adolescence with behind-closed-doors one-on-one private interviews with adult male bishops—they call these “Worthiness Interviews.”   

 

Last week I authored a thread asking whether the temple “unworthy” had a duty to not discuss or disclose temple attire here or in any public forum—even when the attire was publicly accessible for viewing in the context of a funeral.  A few LDS said yes, most said no. 

 

But here’s a thing I didn’t expect (and not wishing to derail my own thread on an interesting subject, I decided to launch this new one): Several LDS members objected to my use of “unworthy”—saying they would never label me or use that term to identify anyone.  One even offered what he imagined to be a helpful euphemism--saying that his ward leadership simply identified members as whether or not they were temple recommend holders.  Hearing him tell it, the words “unworthy” or “not worthy” have been successfully purged from his ward’s lexicon.

 

What do others think about all this? 

--Erik

 

PS.  In Protestantism, we're all unworthy, outside of Christ

:0)

This kind of nitpicking is unworthy of the time it took to generate it and is unworthy of the time it would take to fully address it.

It makes me think of "offender for a word".

 

[Vance]

How did Jesus use the word?

There is this, 13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy (or in another word "unworthy"), let your peace return to you.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

  38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

WOW !!!, He sounds awful judgemental.

 

 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, . . .

Well, someone will be worthy of something.

 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Humm, worthiness as the result of actions?  Say it isn't so!

 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

 

How did Paul use the word?

1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

 5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

      •  •  •

  11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

 

 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

  18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/5/2017 at 7:23 AM, Jeanne said:

I am hoping though that you still feel worthy as a good person.  Worthy/Unworthy doesn't cover the whole of a person.  I love your honesty...but who doesn't break the WoW??

Many many.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Many many.

Alot of people eat way....too much fat stuff...energy drinks.lots of meat.  potato chips are addictive!!

[BlueDreams]

On 6/15/2017 at 7:22 AM, Rain said:

If I remember right I chose number 1. (Here, like often is the case, the choices don't match up with my true feelings so I have to go with whatever comes closest at the time.) Like I said before, I don't feel that worthiness has anything to do with value in this case, so I, personally, would be ok with the term. If I had read the thread first and found that YOU attach value to it I might have voted differently because the answers make a very different conclusion depending on just what you were meaning by the question. 

I'd agree, and I did the opposite. I polled #2 because my assumption was that it meant more along the lines of inherent value as a human being. After reading a few of the searches he referenced I would be okay with they way/context it's used, which is not about the person but actions that the person's done or where the person's at. 

With luv,

BD

[Five Solas]

On 6/16/2017 at 9:55 AM, Vance said:

This kind of nitpicking is unworthy of the time it took to generate it and is unworthy of the time it would take to fully address it.

It makes me think of "offender for a word".

Thank you for sharing your feelings about my thread, Vance.  No doubt some here feel the same as you.  And thank you for referencing that true & lasting classic of LDS apologetics.  Word on the street that many a testimony has been thereby strengthened and many a critic's heart softened (a few even repented and sought the LDS baptism--although curiously no names were ever provided).

;0)

Wait a sec--what's this?  It's out of print?!?  Only available on Amazon "used" from 3rd party sellers!?!.  Take cover, it's end times now for sure!!! 

--Erik

 ___________________________________

Time and again I tell myself
I'll stay clean tonight
But the little green wheels are following me
Oh no, not again

--David Bowie, 1980

 

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

...  And thank you for referencing that true & lasting classic of LDS apologetics.  Word on the street that many a testimony has been thereby strengthened and many a critic's heart softened (a few even repented and sought the LDS baptism--although curiously no names were ever provided).

;0)

Wait a sec--what's this?  It's out of print?!?  Only available on Amazon "used" from 3rd party sellers!?!.  Take cover, it's end times now for sure!!! ...

 

Not to worry (though we appreciate your [no doubt genuine, heartfelt]  concern). It's available absolutely free here. Unless I'm mistaken, this includes the entire text.  Thank the Good Lord that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship hasn't totally turned its back on (allegedly misbegotten) "old-FARMS style" LDS apologetics.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/offenders-for-a-word/

Happy reading!

Edited June 17, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Vance]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Wait a sec--what's this?  It's out of print?!?  Only available on Amazon "used" from 3rd party sellers!?!.  Take cover, it's end times now for sure!!! 

--Erik

WRONG!!!   Again!

https://www.amazon.com/Offenders-Word-Daniel-C-Peterson/dp/0934893357/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1443211405&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Offenders+for+a+Word+How+Anti-Mormons+Play+Word+Games+to+Attack+the+Latter-Day+Saints&linkCode=sl1&tag=bycomcon-20&linkId=4e11418c3fa5df9408311e94630e7baf

Edited June 17, 2017 by Vance

[Five Solas]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not to worry (though we appreciate your [no doubt genuine, heartfelt]  concern). It's available absolutely free here. Unless I'm mistaken, this includes the entire text.  Thank the Good Lord that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship hasn't totally turned its back on (allegedly misbegotten) "old-FARMS style" LDS apologetics.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/offenders-for-a-word/

Happy reading!

"... and never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too."

--Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

[Vance]

23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

"... and never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too."

--Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

You have the same attitude toward Jesus I presume.

[Robert F. Smith]

Had a couple of TILM missionaries stop by my place in Provo this morning, Jeff & Annette, and they were very nice.  I didn't really have time to invite them in, but their approach was to ask me if I had ever heard the phrase "be ye therefore perfect," and then they explained the implications of the concept.

I was very much reminded of the conversation we have been having here in this thread, and how fraught with misunderstanding a few KJV English words can be.

Anyhow, they were representing Truth in Love Ministries, a missionary offshoot of Lutheran churches generally (http://www.truthinlovevancouver.com ), and in this case a Lutheran Church in Nampa, Idaho -- under the direction of Rev. Mark Cares, author of Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, 2nd ed. (Wels Outreach Resources, 1998).  The objective of TILM is to "equip Christians to witness and reach out directly to Mormons; and get as many people as possible to heaven."

See http://beyeperfect.org .

[Vance]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Had a couple of TILM missionaries stop by my place in Provo this morning, Jeff & Annette, and they were very nice.  I didn't really have time to invite them in, but their approach was to ask me if I had ever heard the phrase "be ye therefore perfect," and then they explained the implications of the concept.

I was very much reminded of the conversation we have been having here in this thread, and how fraught with misunderstanding a few KJV English words can be.

Anyhow, they were representing Truth in Love Ministries, a missionary offshoot of Lutheran churches generally (http://www.truthinlovevancouver.com ), and in this case a Lutheran Church in Nampa, Idaho -- under the direction of Rev. Mark Cares, author of Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, 2nd ed. (Wels Outreach Resources, 1998).  The objective of TILM is to "equip Christians to witness and reach out directly to Mormons; and get as many people as possible to heaven."

See http://beyeperfect.org .

I had posted on their web site some years ago.  They were the least bit friendly.  Mr. Cares is just a con artist scamming so called Christians to support his summer vacations through the mountain west.

 

Nice gig if you are without scruples.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

I had posted on their web site some years ago.  They were the least bit friendly.  Mr. Cares is just a con artist scamming so called Christians to support his summer vacations through the mountain west.

Nice gig if you are without scruples.

Yeh, but we would be praising him if he was named Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.