The Nehor Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, SouthernMo said: In this division, where do the sheep go, and where to the goats? What is their eternal place/reward? The sheep go to paradise. The goats go to hell/prison. Fortunately most of the goats eventually get out. Edited November 1, 2018 by The Nehor 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted November 1, 2018 Popular Post Posted November 1, 2018 What a time to be alive. I am kind of sad that people do not like this. I think this stuff coming out is part of the reason I volunteered to be alive now and I am thrilled. We sang "Spirit of God" on Sunday and I have never felt those words are as literal as they are right now. This is going to be fun! 6
JLHPROF Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Should we assume that he hasn’t changed any in his understanding and knowledge since he died, but that he’s exactly as he was in life? That excuse is such a popular one and I find it the height of hubris. "Now that they have access to further light and knowledge they would certainly agree with everything we've altered and rejected since they died". I'm sure the successors to Christ's 12 Apostles said the same thing. Quote They only speak for their dispensation and/or time period though. True. But truth and the requirements for salvation and exaltation remain eternal and unchanging. All MUST be saved on the SAME principles.
JLHPROF Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 43 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: I've always held Pres Nelson as one of my favorite apostles... but I do too when I see Sis Nelson's quote... makes it sound simply like a personal agenda he's been chomping at the bit with, and now that Pres Monson has died he can finally get on with it. I do, however, believe our prophet can be and is prepared before he receives the mantle, so I'll wait and see how these "things" he's been concerned about unfold... and trust it is deeper than just personal feelings... GG Thank you. At least another believer understands my thoughts without considering me a critic.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted November 1, 2018 Popular Post Posted November 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That excuse is such a popular one and I find it the height of hubris. "Now that they have access to further light and knowledge they would certainly agree with everything we've altered and rejected since they died". I'm sure the successors to Christ's 12 Apostles said the same thing. Interesting, we should check to see what Joseph F. Smith actually did say about his successors and see how it squares with your theory on what he would say now. “I want to say to you that there never was a time since the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when a man led the Church, not for one moment. It was not so in the days of Joseph; it was not so in the days of Brigham Young; it has not been so since; it never will be so. The direction of this work among the people of the world will never be left to men. It is God’s work.” -Joseph F. Smith Huh...... 5
Gray Posted November 1, 2018 Author Posted November 1, 2018 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In all groups, the equal board members go along to get along. Everyone has to make nice and to sublimate their particular policy desires. Reaching the apex, however, allows one to unleash those pent-up notions. Such novel notions must still win the approval of the entire board, but deference to the boss is traditional and acceptable -- within reason. This is entirely normal, and it is essential in any organization making wise adaptations to modern problems. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were, for example, very different personalities, but both very effective in their own circumstances. The Saints could not have survived without them. I agree, this dynamic exists in all such organizations.
SouthernMo Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 6 hours ago, The Nehor said: The sheep go to paradise. The goats go to hell/prison. Fortunately most of the goats eventually get out. So hard for me to picture. In this scenario, there’s some guy who is just barely good enough to be a sheep. He’s a jerk, but did just enough home teaching to get him on the right hand of god. Right next to him is a guy who worked hard and was pretty good, but not good enough to be a sheep. Maybe if he went to one more ward activity, he’d be bumped up one spot to be in the sheep group. But, the good news is that he’s the best goat there is. It makes no sense to me that god would think this way. This binary view, and these binary scriptures I think are just hyperbole to get us to fear being sent to hell, and to work hard to be a sheep. Has nothing to do with the plan of salvation. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I suspect your experiences serving in the Church have been radically different to my experiences then. This was your response to my comment... (bold is yours) Quote 15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Politics is a part of every institution we are a part of and every institution we see on earth ... On the other hand some would have us believe that the church is different than every other organization on earth. We are told that it operates differently, yet we can't see how it operates differently. Have you seen how the church operates at the highest levels to know there are no politics involved? I'd love to hear your first hand experience seeing how the church operates differently from every other organization. How do the FP, Q12, 70, and auxiliaries interact with each other. Are there no politics involved? At the Church office building, are there no politics involved? If you have experience watching how the top tier of leadership interact with each other as well as the bureaucracy of church headquarters I truly would be interested in hearing about it. When I say we can't see how it operates, it's because we don't have access to see how it operates. Can you explain how I'm wrong about that?
Gray Posted November 1, 2018 Author Posted November 1, 2018 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I suspect your experiences serving in the Church have been radically different to my experiences then. The church is truer in Middle Earth. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'd love to hear your first hand experience seeing how the church operates differently from every other organization. I'm a fully engaged member of the Church. In the past 15 years, I have served in three bishoprics and two stake presidencies. In between, I've been a Young Men president, a primary teacher, and a ward mission leader. You said we can't see how the Church operates any differently to other organisations. I can assure you that the Church I belong to and serve in doesn't operate at all like any other orgranisation that I'm familiar with. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Or you just use the Holy Ghost while acknowledging that the Church is the Kingdom of God and you do owe it loyalty. So if you are convinced that something an Apostle has said is wrong you keep quiet to avoid creating dissension and trust to God to correct the error in His own time and in His own way. I think your choice is a false dichotomy. It is not completely free but those who try to play political games are inevitably frustrated. People can't see that it operates differently because they use their own earthy motivations or those they have observed in others to explain everything. If all you have is a hammer the Church looks like a nail. If you diversify your toolkit and have seen righteous government in action (in a family or in the church) it looks much different. I find the idea that it is better to show loyalty to an institution and the men who run the institution, over loyalty to God and truth, to be obscene. I owe loyalty to God. I put my faith and trust in God. I do not put my faith and trust in men or an institution. You are essentially suggesting that we should place our faith in men and an institution by supporting them even when they are wrong. You are suggesting I abdicate my moral reasoning and my understanding of what God wants in favor of loyalty to the church and its leaders because God will fix their mistakes. Yeah, God will do what God will do, but I think he expects far more of us than blind obedience. (cue the uproar about how following people who are wrong isn't really blind obedience) So you admit there are politics at play in the church. Fair enough. But you also state the individuals who engage in politics are inevitably frustrated. How could you possibly know that? Do you have some examples you'd like to share? I doubt it. Instead you are starting at the position that the church is holy, and therefore immune from political rancor and wrangling, and thus conclude that people who engage in politics are "inevitably" frustrated. You are placing your faith in man and institution to be more perfect than anyone should really expect. Men are not perfect. Institutions are not perfect. To expect they are, or worse, treat them like they are even though you know they aren't, is dangerous and IMO contrary to the will of God. The natural man is an enemy to God. Right? Except if they hold a high church calling? You really think people don't play politics and that those politics don't sometimes work? Totally naïve.
The Nehor Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 56 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: So hard for me to picture. In this scenario, there’s some guy who is just barely good enough to be a sheep. He’s a jerk, but did just enough home teaching to get him on the right hand of god. Right next to him is a guy who worked hard and was pretty good, but not good enough to be a sheep. Maybe if he went to one more ward activity, he’d be bumped up one spot to be in the sheep group. But, the good news is that he’s the best goat there is. It makes no sense to me that god would think this way. This binary view, and these binary scriptures I think are just hyperbole to get us to fear being sent to hell, and to work hard to be a sheep. Has nothing to do with the plan of salvation. The difference is whether one is repenting with all the baggage that entails or not. Your criteria is off.
SouthernMo Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The difference is whether one is repenting with all the baggage that entails or not. Your criteria is off. Perhaps. Let’s go down the repentance road of thought - as you suggest. Is repentance binary? Is one either clean or dirty? Or are there gradations in both how much one has repented of “a” sin, as well as how thoroughly one has repented of “all” their sins?
The Nehor Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I find the idea that it is better to show loyalty to an institution and the men who run the institution, over loyalty to God and truth, to be obscene. I owe loyalty to God. I put my faith and trust in God. I do not put my faith and trust in men or an institution. You are essentially suggesting that we should place our faith in men and an institution by supporting them even when they are wrong. You are suggesting I abdicate my moral reasoning and my understanding of what God wants in favor of loyalty to the church and its leaders because God will fix their mistakes. Yeah, God will do what God will do, but I think he expects far more of us than blind obedience. (cue the uproar about how following people who are wrong isn't really blind obedience) So you admit there are politics at play in the church. Fair enough. But you also state the individuals who engage in politics are inevitably frustrated. How could you possibly know that? Do you have some examples you'd like to share? I doubt it. Instead you are starting at the position that the church is holy, and therefore immune from political rancor and wrangling, and thus conclude that people who engage in politics are "inevitably" frustrated. You are placing your faith in man and institution to be more perfect than anyone should really expect. Men are not perfect. Institutions are not perfect. To expect they are, or worse, treat them like they are even though you know they aren't, is dangerous and IMO contrary to the will of God. The natural man is an enemy to God. Right? Except if they hold a high church calling? You really think people don't play politics and that those politics don't sometimes work? Totally naïve. I did not say I put loyalty to the Kingdom of God over loyalty to God. I just do not see a meaningful way of being loyal to one and not The other. I did not advocate abandoning moral reasoning or blind obedience. If I believe someone or something is wrong I use the built in appeal procedure to advocate directly with the CEO in our at least twice daily consultations. I am saying I have seen people try to play politics. Know a guy who wanted a call to higher office so spent time trying to schmooze seventies. The only tangible result I saw (and I am not sure it was connected) was his brother being called as a Mission President. My conclusion is based on my interactions with church leaders at various levels. They do not put up with politics. The people I have seen try it get frustrated when their tactics do not work. Going to even a productive corporate management meeting or city council meeting is nothing like a Bishopric or High Council meeting and I hope it never is. And let us face it: You want the church to not be unique or something special. So if you want to call me biased or naive the same accusations can be hurled right back. Edited November 1, 2018 by The Nehor 4
The Nehor Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, SouthernMo said: Perhaps. Let’s go down the repentance road of thought - as you suggest. Is repentance binary? Is one either clean or dirty? Or are there gradations in both how much one has repented of “a” sin, as well as how thoroughly one has repented of “all” their sins? Yes. Yes. And there are variations on how far along the path of repentance you are but I am not convinced that they determine your immortal standing. Those who die at the gates of hell going up might have more polishing up work to be done on them in the next life then someone who has spent decades being voluntarily sanctified but I do not think it effects their eventual destination. What the unrepentant do will decide which lesser kingdom they go to or whether they do not get a kingdom at the Final Judgement of course. Edited November 1, 2018 by The Nehor 2
SouthernMo Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Yes. Yes. And there are graduations on how far along the path of repentance you are but I am not convinced that they determine your immortal standing. Those who die at the gates of hell going up might have more polishing up work to be done on them in the next life then someone who has spent decades being voluntarily sanctified but I do not think it effects their eventual destination. What the unrepentant do will decide which lesser kingdom they go to or whether they do not get a kingdom at the Final Judgement of course. Interesting. So if someone dies, and has repented for all but one of their sins, they will go to hell? But, they can repent in the afterlife, and get “polished up” so they can be 100% clean and go to the celestial kingdom? Why then the different divisions in the celestial kingdom if everyone there is (and must be) 100% clean? Let me know if I’m following you correctly. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'm a fully engaged member of the Church. In the past 15 years, I have served in three bishoprics and two stake presidencies. In between, I've been a Young Men president, a primary teacher, and a ward mission leader. You said we can't see how the Church operates any differently to other organisations. I can assure you that the Church I belong to and serve in doesn't operate at all like any other orgranisation that I'm familiar with. I'm talking about at the institutional level, not local. I thought that was obvious. So I'll take your answer to mean that you don't have any personal knowledge about how top leadership engage with each other, whether or not there are any politics involved in their counsels or even in the administration of the church through the COB. 2
Tacenda Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: What a time to be alive. I am kind of sad that people do not like this. I think this stuff coming out is part of the reason I volunteered to be alive now and I am thrilled. We sang "Spirit of God" on Sunday and I have never felt those words are as literal as they are right now. This is going to be fun! Well, I will have an open mind, thanks for your contagiousness!
HappyJackWagon Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I did not say I put loyalty to the Kingdom of God over loyalty to God. I just do not see a meaningful way of being loyal to one and not The other. I did not advocate abandoning moral reasoning or blind obedience. If I believe someone or something is wrong I use the built in appeal procedure to advocate directly with the CEO in our at least twice daily consultations. I am saying I have seen people try to play politics. Know a guy who wanted a call to higher office so spent time trying to schmooze seventies. The only tangible result see (and I am not sure it was connected) was his brother being called as a Mission President. My conclusion is based on my interactions with church leaders at various levels. They do not put up with politics. The people I have seen try it get frustrated when their tactics do not work. Going to even a productive corporate management meeting or city council meeting is nothing like a Bishopric or High Council meeting and I hope it never is. And let us face it: You want the church to not be unique or something special. So if you want to call me biased or naive the same accusations can be culling long right back. I still find this very naïve. Politics is often viewed only through a negative lens but in fact politics plays into many relationships we have, whether at work, in the community, or at church. I've seen plenty of schmoozers get "promoted" to positions of authority within the church at the local level. Sometimes they're just yes men who make the SP feel good by agreeing with all of his inspired ideas, and magically they end up on the high council or as a bishop. No surprise. Do I know their motivations for being yes men? No. Some may actually think every idea the SP has is genius, but I think motivations are tricky and complex. Any time a person builds a relationship or leverages any kind of relationship to get something they want, they are playing some level of politics. Does this happen in ward councils? Of course. How could it not. The bishop will place more weight on comments and suggestions of those he trusts and respects the most. Why would that be different at the highest levels of the church. Just because someone is being political doesn't mean they are dastardly. It means they have an agenda (maybe even a good agenda) and they use their influence to implement the agenda. That's politics. We do not have access to see or learn about how the highest levels of authority interact in the church. We don't know how they debate issues. We don't know what kind of alliances are built. It seems clear to me that Oaks and Nelson have had some kind of alliance as they seem to share a vision and agenda. I never said the church councils was just like going to a city council meeting but that doesn't mean politics aren't in play. Politics are a natural part of interacting with others in a community/organization. Some times politics yield good results. Sometimes they don't. But claiming politics doesn't exist is just foolishness.
Tacenda Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 7 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Thank you. At least another believer understands my thoughts without considering me a critic. Not that my opinion matters, but I appreciate your input. But don't understand or haven't read as closely as to why you of all people would have a critic by those TBM's on the board. Sorry if I'm lazy on this, but I read these threads and didn't see exactly why.
Popular Post bluebell Posted November 1, 2018 Popular Post Posted November 1, 2018 7 hours ago, JLHPROF said: That excuse is such a popular one and I find it the height of hubris. "Now that they have access to further light and knowledge they would certainly agree with everything we've altered and rejected since they died". I'm sure the successors to Christ's 12 Apostles said the same thing. Let's look at this logically. 1) You believe you 100% know how a dead man feels right now about the current church. 2) I don't believe it makes sense to assume that you know how a dead man feels about the church right now. Look at those two statements and tell me, which one can most reasonably be described as the 'height of hubris'? It's not statement 2. Quote True. But truth and the requirements for salvation and exaltation remain eternal and unchanging. All MUST be saved on the SAME principles. I don't know that you can make an argument for that though. Those who lived during the Law of Moses are still saved by the same principles as we are saved by today, but the requirements to access it were different than ours. Noah's requirement for exaltation was likewise different than your's and mine though the principles of salvation are the same. The rich young ruler had a different requirement than the others that came to Jesus seeking eternal life though the principles of salvation for everyone who came to Jesus were the save. 6
Ouagadougou Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: Interesting viewpoint. Very wrong, but interesting. I was talking about the image having no contradiction. Of course there is a kind of contradiction with Mormon being okay before and not okay now. These things happen in a living church with real access to the heavens. We are okay with it. We like it. I am sorry the revelations of God do not benefit humanity enough for you. Then again, you are not following through on the "big revelations benefiting humanity" we have received so I am not sure why anyone (immortal or mortal) would worry that current revelation does not meet your standards for importance. Embracing contradiction is just another term for moving the goal post, IMO. Keep embracing it all you want I guess--mental gymnastics at its finest to make everything work in a narrative the church wants; some members like sweeping everything under the rug or dismissing huge contradictions, with no critical thought.
Avatar4321 Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 12 hours ago, SouthernMo said: Celestial, terrestrial, and telestial sound like three options to me (for example). That isn’t what we are talking about. either Jesus is the Christ or He isn’t. There is no third option either the Book of Mormon is true or it isn’t. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasnt Either Russel M Nelson is a prophet or he isn’t. just like Elijah poses the choice to our forefathers we have to make the choice whether we serve God or not. There is no third option
Avatar4321 Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Interesting, we should check to see what Joseph F. Smith actually did say about his successors and see how it squares with your theory on what he would say now. “I want to say to you that there never was a time since the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when a man led the Church, not for one moment. It was not so in the days of Joseph; it was not so in the days of Brigham Young; it has not been so since; it never will be so. The direction of this work among the people of the world will never be left to men. It is God’s work.” -Joseph F. Smith Huh...... Some find it easier to follow a dead prophet than a living one
Gray Posted November 1, 2018 Author Posted November 1, 2018 33 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: That isn’t what we are talking about. either Jesus is the Christ or He isn’t. There is no third option either the Book of Mormon is true or it isn’t. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasnt Either Russel M Nelson is a prophet or he isn’t. just like Elijah poses the choice to our forefathers we have to make the choice whether we serve God or not. There is no third option Dichotomies like this are almost always false.
Recommended Posts