Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 21 minutes ago, Calm said: So why would you suggest he write "restored Christianity" instead of "Mormonism" since he professes to believe in the original Christianity so there is no restoration? Maybe I'm just looking at it from the perspective of "my truth."
nuclearfuels Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 On 2/1/2018 at 6:43 PM, Duncan said: I'm reading this blog posted by the Church and they have this line "It is crucial, therefore, that we find a way to not attach our sense of worth to our behavior" https://www.lds.org/blog/the-biggest-barrier-to-our-connection-with-god?cid=HP_TU_30-1-2018_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL232_ How can you be unworthy in the Church but have self worth? Shouldn’t those feelings help you to want to be worthy? Does that mean you can do whatever you want and still have worth? If worth isn’t attached to behaviour then why do we have church discipline even? I guess in the final sense what does worthy even mean? I think it means that we should not find validation only in our behavior. Everyone has bad days, gets angry, hangry, doesn't get enough sleep, makes mistakes, etc. If you are trying to CTR and follow the Savior, you don't need to get angry that it takes a while to quite smoking cigarettes or you still have to work on a Sunday here or there. I think worthy means you did your best; tried your hardest;
Duncan Posted February 4, 2018 Author Posted February 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: I think it means that we should not find validation only in our behavior. Everyone has bad days, gets angry, hangry, doesn't get enough sleep, makes mistakes, etc. If you are trying to CTR and follow the Savior, you don't need to get angry that it takes a while to quite smoking cigarettes or you still have to work on a Sunday here or there. I think worthy means you did your best; tried your hardest; hangry? is that like drip dry?
Eek! Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: "It is crucial, therefore, that we find a way to not attach our sense of worth to our behavior" In my opinion, the principle taught by this line is absolutely correct. THE WORTH OF SOULS IS GREAT. Imo any line of thinking that tells you otherwise has a mistake in it somewhere. On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: How can you be unworthy in the Church but have self worth? God created us like Himself, and you may be uncomfortable with this, but it means that you are holy. YOU (not your body) are the Temple of God. Of course this does not mean everything you do lives up to that at this stage in your eternal progression. On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: Shouldn’t those feelings help you to want to be worthy? If "unworthy" = "of no worth" or "unloved", then it is a mistake in perception. If "unworthy" = "I have work to do!", then it is definitely helpful. On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: Does that mean you can do whatever you want and still have worth? Yes! Does that shock you? If so, then consider this: It would be arrogance to think that we have the power to render the creations of God worthless. That would make us more powerful than our Creator. For a person at a very early stage of their spiritual progression, fear may be the only teacher they listen to, and so we see a LOT of teachings that rely on fear. But fear-based teachings are never the highest truth on any subject. Why? God is not fear; rather, God is love. On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: If worth isn’t attached to behaviour then why do we have church discipline even? I definitely cannot speak for the church, but the phrase "to protect the innocent" comes to mind. That being said, why didn't Jesus take disciplinary action on the woman caught in the act of adultery? Was she a special case? Not if God is no respecter of persons! Maybe Jesus had it right, and maybe His example teaches correct principles, and is worth following. On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: I guess in the final sense what does worthy even mean? What manner of men (and women) are we called to be? The same manner of man (or woman) as Jesus. It's gonna take a while. But between now and then, there is absolutely no need to fear that our inherent worth (or anyone else's) can be diminished even in the slightest by our mistakes. The Parable of the Good Shepherd teaches this principle. God doesn't abandon the screw-ups; instead, he will seek them out and eventually bring them home. (And yes, it will be their choice. Our Father is quite capable of infinite patience.) The Parable of the Prodigal Son also teaches our inherent, unassailable worth: The son thought he had squandered his Father's treasure, but no, because HE was his Father's treasure. Let's look at the original quote one more time, with emphasis on what it calls on us to do: On 2/1/2018 at 5:43 PM, Duncan said: "It is crucial, therefore, that we find a way to not attach our sense of worth to our behavior" How can we find a way to not attach our sense of worth to our behavior? We cannot from within a thought system that equates a person's inherent eternal worth with their past behavior. It's going to take a paradigm shift, a big one, one that is probably far beyond the scope of a post on an internet forum. I'll try to suggest a starting point. But first, remember that God's children are not all at the same level of spiritual understanding at any given time, and that when God uses fearful language, he is trying to get through to the ones who are not yet ready to hear his more gentle higher truths. D&C 19:6-12. As for our starting point, let's start at the top, with the First and Great Commandment: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Let's look at a few relevant questions: Can you completely love someone that you fear? Maybe you're thinking, yeah, I feared so-and-so, but I also loved them. So, let me rephrase: Did you love that person with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your mind? In other words, completely and without reservation? Of course not! Next question - does God give us commandments that we cannot keep? Nope, and especially not the First and Great Commandment! First Nephi 3:7, if you want a scriptural reference. So, how is it possible for us to keep this commandment, which is to love God COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION, if we FEAR Him?? Well, obviously that would NOT be POSSIBLE!! Here is the great secret that is hidden in the First and Great Commandment: WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO FEAR GOD. Perfect love casts out ALL fear. Yes, fear of God is the "beginning of wisdom", but it is ONLY the beginning - the higher truth is perfect love, which casts out "all fear". Even the ones we learned in church. There is no way we can keep the First and Great Commandment if we fear God. And God does not give us commandments that are impossible to keep. So, any line of thinking which leads to you fear God is NOT the highest level of truth on that subject. This is just a starting point. In my experience Mormonism contains plenty of teachings in support of this higher paradigm, so no change in religion is remotely called for, but a shift in perception is. These teachings will begin show themselves as you become open to the possibility. And when you encounter the many teachings which result in fear being the motivator, remember that they may not be the highest level of truth on the subject. There is nothing to fear; there is only work to be done. All of this is of course imo, ime, ymmv, etc. Edited February 4, 2018 by Eek! 2
Calm Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) "Fear" in the OT iirc often was closer to awe than how we use fear today. In that sense, we can both fear and love God with all our heart, mind, and soul at the same time. The type of fear that drives us to hide from God as Adam and Eve did in the Garden, that is the kind we need to put behind us. ------- I think one needs to look at both how Jesus treated the woman in sin and the money changers at the temple and the parable of the feast (where those who came late were not allowed in) along with the Prodigal Son. He did not refrain from chastising/disciplining those who did not repent, but gave sinners a chance to forsake their sins and come to him for healing/to be filled. Edited February 4, 2018 by Calm
Five Solas Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe I'm just looking at it from the perspective of "my truth." Your "my truth" reminds me of an album by a Welsh band I quite liked back in the 1990's. This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Manic Street Preachers. The opening track is good, but the second track really packs the punch: If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next. Its theme is the Spanish Civil War from the perspective of Welsh volunteers who fought against the Spanish Republic. Among other things it quotes George Orwell and contains the memorable line, "If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists." Completely off topic, but wanted to share the thought you triggered. :0) --Erik _____________________________________________ The sword of time will pierce our skin It doesn't hurt when it begins But as it works its way on in The pain grows stronger, watch it grin That suicide is painless It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it if I please --Manic Street Preachers, "Theme from M*A*S*H"
Eek! Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: I think one needs to look at both how Jesus treated the woman in sin and the money changers at the temple and the parable of the feast (where those who came late were not allowed in) along with the Prodigal Son. With the money changers, I think Jesus was simply speaking the language called for by the situation. Something like the Beatitudes would have made zero impression in that situation. The parable of the feast is very interesting. I think the version in Matthew probably has content added by someone with an agenda (the vengeance storyline), so I trust the version in Luke more. In it those who were originally invited to the feast make excuses, so the master invites the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind, and those on the highways and in the hedges (the homeless?). Those who were originally invited but made excuses are pointedly uninvited. I think the parable shows that God is interested in who will actually come to Him when He calls, and if "the chosen" have better things to do, God is more than happy to invite those who, by all outward appearances, would be considered inferior. Hmmm. 5 hours ago, Calm said: He did not refrain from chastising/disciplining those who did not repent, but gave sinners a chance to forsake their sins and come to him for healing/to be filled. I am all in favor of receiving correction from Jesus. I'm the guy who thinks He was serious when he said we're supposed to become like him, and correction can shorten the journey.
Recommended Posts