Fiveofclubs Posted September 14, 2020 Author Posted September 14, 2020 Good day, fellow spirits, @rpn, I am also curious as to what things other than sins are covered by the Atonement. I can't seem to find recorded precedent of the Atonement fixing something outside the spectrum of sin, so I'm intrigued (with @Tacenda, it appears) about what you mean by that statement. It's possible that there is a perfect example of this, I just simply haven't seen it and was hoping you could share it with me. I'd like to believe that claim, but I cannot justify an unwarranted belief. Also, to all who have posted here thus far, I wish to thank you for your general civility. It's an unfortunate aspect of reality that one cannot perfectly convey exact tones and levels of sincerity through the written word. If we were having a verbal discussion on the matter, I believe it would be quite apparent that I am perfectly sincere in my inquiries. I may be mistaken, but it appears as though such notions did not make it through my post to @Kenngo1969, for which I apologize. You seem to have reached a conclusion that I both "want to persist in [my] interpretation" and that "for whatever reason, a nonsensical, discouraging interpretation is what floats [my] boat," as though my perspective is a "nonsensical", arbitrary decision against all reason. I shall do my best to regard your comments as made from care and consideration, despite the lack of charity which you've seemingly applied to my comments. "I cannot consign @Garden Girl and her spouse to the fate that you're suggesting; I cannot consign @juliann and her spouse to the fate that you're suggesting; I cannot consign @Jane_Doe and her Dude to the fate that you're suggesting ... and so on, ad infinitum." Nor am I asking you to, not in the slightest. Nor am I consigning them to any such fate. The consignment of any such fate is something that God will place upon them (or that they will place upon themselves), regardless of my will on the matter. If it was up to me, all part-member and non-member families would have infinite opportunity to remain in their family units for eternity. Heck, I'll even go one further. If it were up to me, I would simply allow any righteous union of individuals to persist so long as the entrants are willing. That is to say, I wouldn't require a temple sealing for a marriage union to be recognized in the hereafter. I wouldn't even require religious association or affiliation of any kind, as I think that family love pervades religion or creed. I personally find it reprehensible to revoke a familial union that is predicated in love, yet our belief system dictates that you can only have an eternal family if you gain the proper ordinances and all that. Furthermore, I believe you might be missing the wider point. I can't definitively say that @Garden Girl, @juliann, or @Jane_Doe are subject to the same fate that the prophets and scriptures say I'll be subject to. Only God can make that definitive distinction of judgment for them. It may very well be the case that they fit the criteria for "not having the first full chance", and I hope that such is the case for them. But in regards to my own situation, it seems sensible to me that God holds people like me accountable to the standard of their knowledge. "And I return to my original question: If you, along with your interpretation of all of these other brethren, are right, then Why do we even DO Temple work in the first place?" This was my failure to address in the previous post, sorry about that. I had mistakenly assumed that my comments in prior posts made my position on this topic clear, but (at the risk of nauseating you by repeating myself) I'll quickly clarify. I believe by the term "temple work" here, you really mean "temple work for the dead", as we clearly do our own "living" temple work to acquire saving ordinances for ourselves. Regarding why we perform ordinances for the dead in the temple, the Doctrine & Covenants say that those vicarious works are done to offer those who did not have a chance in this life the ability to accept those ordinances from the Spirit World. From the BYU Address given by McConkie (which, as you asserted, should have been redacted by the church if it was false doctrine), we find these comments regarding Doctrine & Covenants section (137) that introduces vicarious ordinances for the dead: "There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation. This life is the time and the day of our our probation. After this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. "For those who do not have an opportunity to believe and obey the holy word in this life, the first chance to gain salvation will come in the spirit world. If those who hear the word for the first time in the realms ahead are the kind of people who would have accepted the gospel here, had the opportunity been afforded them, they will accept it there. Salvation for the dead is for those whose first chance to gain salvation is in the spirit world." And there you have it. This (to me) fully explains why we do ordinances for the dead. If, despite this quote and despite the recordings in D&C 137, you want to maintain that the apostle of the Lord and the Doctrine & Covenants were wrong on this point, then I suppose that's your prerogative. But, in doing so, you're conceding that the divinely-inspired scripture is wrong, which is a dangerous concession: D&C 1: "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;" They will be cut off for having "strayed from [His] ordinances", huh? Fascinating choice of words... D&C 21: "Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all [the prophet's] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." So the prophet's words should be received as though they came from God's own mouth, and prophets/apostles said that those in my part-member position are in a dire situation, therefore God said I'm in a dire situation. I have strayed from His ordinances and am thus subject to the penalties thereof. And yet, I'm supposed to simply cast these prophetic positions aside and say "Yeah, Noah, I hear you about that flood and all, but..." It seems sensible to me that God would want me to "persist in [my] interpretation", but instead to "persist in the interpretation of the prophets and scriptures". If an interpretation is validated as doctrinally-correct, and upheld thereafter by future authorities, then it seems to me that persistence to it is not as "nonsensical" as you have characterized it. Until such a time when our current general authorities will specifically abrogate these positions of the previous prophets, seers, and revelators, God expects me to consider it true. Of course, there may be other scriptures and prophetic comments that refute the authority of scripture/prophecy that might inform your inadherence to these statements, which I am certainly open to hearing and taking into consideration if anyone knows of them. Though you have been concluded otherwise, I am open to changing my mind on this topic if the provided sourcing is sound. "And the only reason why I threw in any sort of a caveat when speaking about God's mercy is, God, even as powerful and as merciful and as loving (and so on) as He is, cannot overcome someone's will. He will not exalt someone, or seal a person eternally, to someone else against that person's will." I agree that God will not act upon his mercy to remove someone's agency, even to force someone to be saved. I simply believe, based on scripture and prophetic commentary, that God's mercy requires more than will alone. Regarding your long-term bachelorhood and its supposed implications, I want to restate that my support and love are with you. Hopefully the sincerity of this portion statement is able to pervade in this message, even if nothing else does. I believe that any such impositions outside of your will or control should not be held against you if God is fair and just, so I maintain eternal hope for you despite any struggles you have to face. You appear to be a person of stellar character and inspiring faith despite your personal adversities, for which you have my admiration. "I have no idea why [I persist in my interpretation]. I don't find it very encouraging ..." I do not base the validity of truth claims on whether or not they are encouraging. Indeed, I find that various facets of our doctrine (though some are not specific to our proprietary doctrine alone) are not encouraging. Does that mean that such discouraging claims are not true? For instance, I do not find it encouraging that only temple-sealed couples will be eligible for exaltation and continuation of the marriage union. I do not find it encouraging that families will be separated at judgment day if the family members are spread between the kingdoms of glory. I do not find it encouraging that the "infinite" Atonement expires at judgment day and thereby cuts off any further consideration to repentance and progress throughout the remainder of eternity. I do not find it encouraging that the infinite Atonement will be impotent to offer the sons of perdition a chance at redemption. I do not find it encouraging that people can be innocently-deceived into thinking they have spiritual confirmation against the restored gospel and thereby refuse to hear of our message. I definitely do not find it encouraging that our sacred beliefs and doctrines are a point of mockery and scorn by those within the great and spacious building. I find many aspects of our early church history to be discouraging, and the hurtful and regrettable statements and actions by early church leaders to be likewise. And on and on and on. Whether or not I (or you) find something encouraging or not has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true. That's nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. Instead, the standard by which to reliably determine truth (regardless of any emotional evocation) has been set forth for us - through the words of the prophets and their recordings in the scriptures. I don't have to like every aspect of it to know that I need to follow those things. Such is the trial of one's faith. "in light of the fact that the moment someone's non-member spouse dies, once other ordinances preliminary to the sealing have been performed, s/he then can take the necessary information, along with a suitable stand-in, to the Temple (or, if necessary s/he can even recruit a suitable stand-in at the Temple), to have the ordinance performed" We have no disagreement on this point. It has nothing to do with my claim regarding what happens if a member like me, aware of the covenant and God's expectation of me to acquire it in this life, dies without gaining the covenant. In your example, the member is still alive and acts upon what God has asked him to do, so that's a fully-valid pathway to absolving that issue. I'm glad that we seem to agree on that. "But, if, for whatever reason, a nonsensical, discouraging interpretation is what floats your boat, I'll leave you to it." I've tried to be pleasant and concise thus far, but perhaps its time for a little "upbraiding", as you put it. Not upbraiding of you, my friend, as I still choose to believe that your responses have been motivated out of righteous intent, but upbraiding of your conclusion. I am willing to engage with any alternative premises (which was my original intention with all this), so long as they have definitive sourcing to credit them as doctrinally-valid. To posit, in spite of my multi-faceted sourcing, that my source-based claims are "nonsensical" simply on the merits of subjective sensibilities without equal substantiation is intellectually-disingenuous at best. I have worked to demonstrate the reasoning for my assertions through the standard logical model - 1) propose a potential premise, 2) provide evidence that informs the premise, 3) draw conclusions about the premise by analyzing the evidence. Part of that model is fielding counter-assertions predicated on seemingly-conflicting evidence, of course. Unfortunately, I have yet to be presented with any specific counter-assertions from modern-day church leadership who state that Spencer W Kimball, James E Talmage, Bruce R McConkie, and Joseph Smith (speaking directly as the mouthpiece of the Lord) all somehow derived incorrect (or incomplete) conclusions on this point. It is not I that "want to persist in [my] interpretation" in pursuit of nonsense, in fact, one could argue that it is you who seem to maintain unfounded assertions against the claims of recorded doctrine. You mentioned insanity, how about irrationality? Irrationality describes someone who maintains a belief in something despite valid, verifiable, specific, discrediting evidence. It is the height of hubris to pretend that I know better than the prophets, even if my personal speculations on the matter seem more encouraging to me. Therefore, your apparent belief despite specific contrarian sourcing is what someone might call, "a nonsensical interpretation [that] floats your boat." But, that's not what I would call it. I ascribe to the principle of charity, which dictates that I view your intentions and assertions in the best light possible. Even though I disagree with your conclusion, I do not consider it to be nonsensical interpretation. I concede that you have your reasons for belief, despite the evidence that I've presented, and I can still view your conclusions with full respect to their sensibility. I can easily concede that your aspersions were not likely to have been maliciously-motivated, and thus I don't consider them (nor you) with pursuant contempt. I believe it is much more likely that my level of sincerity was ineffectively-conveyed on my part, leading you to become "skeptical" of my good faith, for which I apologize. I entirely respect your opinion, and truth be told, I hope that you're right. I hope that I am floored to find out that God's mercy is even more merciful than I regarded it here in this conversation. I just can't confirm it as a substantiated position without convincing, confirming evidence to justify that regard yet. As to why I consider it unsafe to field unconfirmed metrics of hope that seem predicated upon righteousness, I refer you to Dieter F Uchtdorf's excellent conference talk, "A Matter of a Few Degrees", which states the following: "No one wants his life to end in tragedy. But all too often, like the pilots and passengers of the sightseeing flight, we set out on what we hope will be an exciting journey only to realize too late that an error of a few degrees has set us on a course for spiritual disaster." All throughout the talk, Uchtdorf makes it repeatedly clear that the pilots were unaware of their course drift. They set out with good intentions, and they thought that they were safe. Yet, despite their unawareness of their misdirection, they crashed into the mountain all the same. We are taught that it is through small and simple means that the adversary pacifies us into dangerous complacency, convincing us that "all is well in Zion." And, if we aren't vigilant, our time for course correction will run out unexpectedly and we'll crash into the proverbial mountain too. I don't want to be a misguided pilot who perishes in a spiritual disaster, so I have to follow the words and warnings of the prophets (even the words and warnings that I don't find encouraging). @Rain: "You come across as someone unwilling to accept church teachings so that you can justify your desire to leave your wife." ...all you got out of everything I wrote in that reply is that I "come across as unwilling to accept church teachings so that can justify my desire to leave my wife?" Yikes, either I must be a lousy communicator or you must be an inaccurate interpreter, but since I have no reason to suspect that your interpreting faculties are faulty, I will assume the blame lies with my communication. I must accept the blame for failing to convey sufficient sincerity to ward off well-meaning skepticism, for which I am sorry. You can't help how I came across to you, so it would be silly to hold any ire over it. That being said, do you honestly feel that your stated assessment of how I came across to you was charitable? Do you sincerely believe that someone who is using specific church sources (including official church teaching materials, ironically) to substantiate his claims is "unwilling to accept church teachings"? How were you able to determine that I didn't just arrive at different conclusions about what the church teachings imply? I reference once more, this very website, wherein users were in wide disagreements regarding the doctrinal validity of the individual tenets detailed in The Seven Deadly Heresies. Which of those users can we conclude is simply "unwilling to accept church teachings" by virtue of their differing opinions? And, furthermore, can we conclude that the apostle Bruce R McConkie was "unwilling to accept church teachings" when he made his original conclusions that you disagree with? The nuanced truth is, church teachings on this individual subject are not entirely explored. Many of the post-earth life mechanics of how salvation works in edge cases are murky in current church doctrine, lacking specific address, lead to varying speculations on what the church teachings regarding those subjects mean. That's why it's of the utmost value that we have modern revelation as directed through the prophet - he has the authority to speak as the definitive voice of finality concerning conflicting interpretations. The bottom line that I hope to convey to you on this point is this - misinterpreting or misunderstanding church teachings is very different to just being unwilling to accept them, and either of those options would be a much more charitable consideration to grant a speaker in a good-faith discussion. Despite the fact that I consider my conclusions to follow a sound epistemological framework, I would not regard your disagreements with my conclusions as you being unwilling to accept church teachings (as I see them). I would find it arrogant of myself to assume that I was the arbiter of what composes definitive "church teachings" when such topics are widely dissented by knowledgeable members on this forum (and others like FairMormon.org) across various doctrinal topics. We just have a difference of belief regarding what the church teachings are on this point. So, I apologize once more for having come across that way to you, and wish to clarify equivocally that this assertion is untrue. The world is made a better place when we assume the best of one another. It was neither my intention to be "unwilling to accept church teachings" nor to justify any desire to leave my wife. I have no desire to leave my wife. If I had desire to leave my wife, nothing would embolden me more than to see that the church has validated that position through its prophetic commentary. Our current marriage arrangement is not considered ultimately valid to God (given that he will not honor it unless we change our current marriage arrangement to acquire a sealing), why would I grant it any more regard if I wanted to abandon it? I simply found it shocking that the church has said so little of specificity regarding the fate of those in my situation, and what little has been said specifically about it are direct calls for alarm. I figured I must simply be missing other prophetic sources that directly refute the rigidity of those stated standards, but I have yet to find them. Granted, I acquired The Miracle of Forgiveness on your recommendation and may come to find such quotes are contained within that book, at which point I will gladly revise my position. Until that time, though, my choices are to reject the words and warnings of those prophets and believe whatever I find "encouraging" about forgiveness, or to take heed of the warnings of the prophets and consider their words as truth. Thanks for your comments, friends.
Rain Posted September 14, 2020 Posted September 14, 2020 58 minutes ago, Fiveofclubs said: @Rain: "You come across as someone unwilling to accept church teachings so that you can justify your desire to leave your wife." This ABSOLUTELY not me. You are quoting Raingirl and attributing it to me. I understand why the mistake was made because of similar names, but I in no way feel like that. I do think you had more to say further up to me which I haven't answered yet, but it may have to wait a day or so.
Rain Posted September 14, 2020 Posted September 14, 2020 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: What did you mean by this in your response to fiveofclubs? "OP, I think you are missing the power of atonement --- your personal best and quick repentance of sin is always enough to make you perfect in Christ." I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Very sorry! Obviously not rpn. I think this topic is a little tricky. Whether marrying a non member was a sin or not the topic is sort of being treated as if it were a sin. If God wants us to live with Him and we cannot live with Him if we sin then if marrying without being sealed prevents one from living with God then somehow sin and the marriage are connected - the choices we make keep us from living with God. It is my feeling and it sounds like rpn's feeling that because the atonement covers things that are not a sin, as well as sins, that it could cover a marriage without a sealing too.
Rain Posted September 14, 2020 Posted September 14, 2020 (edited) On 9/12/2020 at 10:04 AM, Fiveofclubs said: And now to my friend, @Rain, "One thing to remember is that your family here IS part of your family after this life. Whether your wife is your eternal companion in the next life or your sibling since God is our Father she is still a part of that family though the relationships may be vastly different." Hmm, that's a good point. Unless we end up in different kingdoms, then we'd be separated even as siblings. Regardless, let's explore the spirit siblings angle a bit more, shall we? I'm curious about the mechanics of this notion. For other un-sealed couples who refuse their sealings, will they recognize each other up in heaven? Will they remember their relationship from earth? I really hope so. I have always expected that we will recognize each other. It wasn't till a few years ago that I even heard of anyone with the belief that no one will recognize each other. This was someone who was not a member of the church. We know there was a veil of forgetfulness when we came to earth. I've not heard that there will be a second one so at this point I don't expect there to be one. So I'm assuming not only will we remember each other from this life, but from the last as well. So it's very possible we will remember people we loved who followed Satan instead of coming here. Quote Will they still feel their love for one another? Since heaven is a place of love it would make sense. Quote If so, wouldn't it pain them (eternally) to know that they will never be able to share that love again? If I am sealed to loved ones who choose another path will it pain me eternally? It's really the same question - if we are separated from those we love will we feel pain from it? Does God feel pain being separated from a third of his children? We know Jesus wept while here on earth. I would assume that means God can feel pain, but maybe did Jesus still feel that pain after the resurrection and atonement? I don't know. My hope is that because of the love and joy that we have in the next life it somehow takes care of the pain. And maybe that is something the atonement takes care of too. Quote I'm not sure how this is going to work in the next life, but perhaps you might be able to share what you know about it? Without a different perspective to explain otherwise, I can't imagine that being spirit siblings will be anywhere near as fulfilling or joyful as being eternal companions. What are your thoughts on this? Oh, I really don't know much about the next life at all. The last 2 or 3 years it is something I have realized I have a real lack of knowledge about. And writing this I am beginning to see why that understanding about my lack of knowledge came through the last few years. It is the choices of a close loved one, my relationship with them and the profound pain I have felt that stem from it all. One night as I sobbed in pain I thought on the atonement and I wondered how Jesus could stand not only this much pain from me, but from everyone else as well. It has had me on a quest for learning more about the atonement and how it works. I really can't say I have learned much since then, but have had very brief glimpses of peace/light that keep me searching. So I really don't have anything I can tell you about how heaven will work. I feel like a newborn when I think of my knowledge of the next life. Or more correctly back to when I was just conceived. But I have hope that some day I will get those answers and understand. Quote "So since you already got into this marriage then maybe it is time to work on other parts of your self and trust Heavenly Father to guide you on the sealing part." I agree. "I think you may be applying a covenant to yourself that does not exist. The covenant that promises that if you don't get sealed in this life then you don't have exaltation. You can't break a covenant that the Lord has not entered in with you. There is no attachment to non covenants." I think I might not have explained myself very well. I didn't mean to imply that the scriptures and prophetic warnings telling me that I won't get a second chance at this were covenants themselves. These were just stipulations to the sealing covenant. Rules regarding the covenant, if you will. God commanded that I get my rainbow eyes, and since I know he commanded me to do it, I'll be held accountable for not getting it done (or not trying to get it done). It's exactly like you said - "to whom much is given, much is required." Since I've been "given" the knowledge of God's sealing covenant, and I know that it is a commandment of his for me to get one in this life, I'm "required" to act upon that knowledge before the "night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." Unlike someone who never found out about it - they'll be given that chance in the next life. Hopefully this clears up the misconception as to why I consider myself bound by the stated rules surrounding the covenant even though I haven't entered the covenant itself. "If your wife should die or the two of you divorce at some time then you "forsake the sin, go and sin no more, "try your best and the Lord will do the rest." Yes, those are two options of the options I started with (aside from her miraculous conversion). 2 of those options are gambles of chance, 1 is seemingly the only option that shows initiative of action. I guess that's what faith is, huh? But, on the other hand, "faith without works is dead" and the Lord has a great regard for sacrifice... But what are those works? I think we get in mind that our works are much different than the Lord is really asking for sometimes. Quote "My personal feeling is that ignoring a spouse's feelings would be when a person was gambling. "Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved" - Thomas S. Monson" That's a great quote, what a loving gesture! Thomas S Monson was a great prophet, wasn't he? Such a humble, caring, and funny guy. Interestingly, during his 181st General Conference Priesthood Session address, he also said for priestshood holders that "there should be no other option than marrying in the temple", concluding by saying "Be careful, lest you destroy your eligibility to be so married." With such abundant forgiveness and second chances in the Spirit World and the Atonement's infinite power, how could it be possible to "destroy [one's] eligibility to be so married?" It seems that such destruction of eligibility is possible after all (even with the "infinite" Atonement), and one of the conditions that other prophets and scriptures said can destroy one's eligibility is to knowingly bypass the opportunity in this life. Like you said "To whom much is given, much is required." "We also believe that those who don't have the chance to do it will have the chance to do it in the next life. With your/my lack of understanding of this life and the next (we really know nothing about the next life how can you know that you've had your chance?" If I haven't had my chance yet, that would be great! Problem solved! But, I think the more troubling question is - "how can I know that I haven't had my chance?" If I did have my chance and lost it through my current actions, I'll be very disheartened to learn that I already had my chance when I thought that maybe I didn't really have it yet. It seems more likely that, since I know it's a commandment and a requirement for exaltation, and I had the chance to marry within the faith, that I knowingly threw that chance away. I am ALL for finding the words of the prophets. I have gone on similar quests myself trying to find the words that applied to my questions or to myself. It's really important. One thing I have found though is that sometimes when my spirit yearns for those answers and I can't seem to find them or it just dwells on me that sometimes the answer is not in those words, but in the still small voice to my heart. It is that gut feeling that has me continue to search and search even though things seem to answer against what I am feeling. I know there is some danger in this - you don't don't want to ask God for an answer to prayer that isn't best for you. (Book of Mormon lost 116 pages). But I think there is a difference in asking for an outcome you want verses really understanding His will when everything you are looking at seems to give you an answer different than what you feel. One of my questions I searched for years. I talked with many about it off and on. I talked with my bishop and he didn't know. I talked with my stake president and he didn't know. My stake president worked in CES though and he asked someone else. A few months later he sent me an email from that man with the answer to my question. The amazing thing to me was when I finally got the answer I began to find that answer all over the scriptures, conference talks and manuals. I just never recognized it So what I am saying is while you are looking for the quotes and words of the prophets remember to listen for the feeling of the Spirit too. Quote I had enough knowledge to be held accountable for it. In fact, reading back through my Patriarchal Blessing for the first time since I was 14, it explicitly instructs me right in there to find a member and marry her in the temple (I never want to read through it again, unless I'm feeling sadistic and want to see how terribly I screwed up my adolescence, haha). That's why it seems safer to assume that I did have my chance in this life. Not the same situation, but I have found that as I look back on my blessing there were things that suggest Heavenly Father knew what my choices would be even if I didn't always listen to my blessing and he put things in there to show me my progress has not stopped and to cheer me on more. Next time you read it then assume He knew and see if He has more light for you now that you already went against that advice. Quote Regarding our lack of true understanding, Neal A Maxwell reaffirmed that we're held accountable regardless of our understanding when he said: "Of course it isn't fair. If it was fair, it wouldn't be a trial." "Yep. Again, where much is given then much is required except where marriage is concerned where the person under a sealing has less responsibility than a person who has never made a covenant about marriage - essentially what you are saying." Hopefully I cleared it up previously that I'll simply be held responsible for not getting an eternal sealing because I know I'm supposed to have pursued it. No question you will be held responsible! But that doesn't mean there is no hope. Two very different things. Quote "Yes, but even assuming that you dies while in your marriage you have no idea if things will remain the way they are." You're right. I don't know if I'll die before my wife. I don't know if she'll die tomorrow, or we'll both die simultaneously next week, or if a meteor will take our everyone in our metropolitan area. We live life with great uncertainty and are subject to the whims of fate over which we have little control. However, for self-determinate decisions like who we marry, it seems likely that we'll be held accountable for the decisions and situations over which we do have control, especially if we had knowledge that it was wrong. "Forgiveness DOES make up for missing ordinances. It is exactly the reason we have temples." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement. I presume you're referring to the reason we do ordinances for the dead in the temples. right? In which case, it's my understanding that we do ordinances for the dead to offer those who did not have a first chance in life to accept those ordinances, which is the key distinction. If you did have your chance and chose not to take it, according to prophets and scripture, you will not be given the opportunity again later. "But even without temple work, if a person under 8 who dies does not need baptism, if a person who is mentally disabled does not need to go to the temple then obviously there are sometimes when it is ok to have a missing ordinance." I could be mistaken, but I thought that children under 8 did not need baptism (in life) yet is because they were under the age of accountability - that is to say, their sins do not count against them yet. Baptism, like all other temple ordinances, are all required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom, so they'll have to have those done eventually if they want to be eligible for exaltation. If a child dies at age 6, he would fall under the category of "not having a chance in life" to get his ordinances, so he would be offered that chance in the Spirit World. The same is said of those with mental disabilities - since ordinances are required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom, they'll have to get those ordinances, most likely through temple work in the next life when they do not have a congnitively-compromising condition. Everyone will have to get those ordinances to enter into the Celestial Kingdom, including children and those with mental illness in this life. It's a non-negotiable rule. Quote "So if you were spiritually disabled at the time you were looking for a wife - maybe God takes account of that?" I think it would likely be fairer to say that I spiritually-mutilated myself through the choices I made to engage in sin. I usually think of disabilities as conditions that the host was blameless in acquiring, whereas letting go of the Iron Rod and wandering in the darkness is generally a consequence of agency. If I hadn't let go of that Iron Rod, I wouldn't have been wandering in darkness at the time I was picking someone to marry. I don't think it will be of much defense to say "I did that while I was inactive, so it shouldn't count against me" since I'm the one who chose to go inactive (regardless of whether or not that was apparent to me at the time). I'd like to think that the Lord's mercy could apply to me, but since it's my fault that I'm in this position...well, I don't have much of a leg to stand on. EVERYONE spiritually "mutilates" themselves. Everyone. The first time we sinned we did that. There is a conference talk I really want to look at to answer this, but I can't put my finger on it. My husband has a much better memory so I will ask him when he gets home and come back to this. Quote "The only way to know for sure if this was your only chance is to ask God if that was the case." This question, among others, is what kickstarted this whole journey. Sometimes, God answers prayers through other people. That's what led me here, to other people with other perspectives and insights. I was hoping I'd have found a quote by Gordon B Hinkley or someone who said something like "Of those who grow to desire a temple sealing, yet are unable to acquire one due to their marriage outside the covenant, the Lord has not abandoned you. As long as you live a worthy, Christlike life, regardless of whether or not you are able to be sealed in this life, the Lord will provide you an opportunity for eternal marriage in the life to come." This makes me smile because it is SO like me. Heavenly Father just gently laughs and tells me, "not this time. You need to be searching for things for your own good." "God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs." - Spencer W. Kimball OK, I will have to leave the rest till later. Quote We have countless references regarding the forgiveness offered by the Atonement, but I cannot find the precedent that proves that one can receive forgiveness for something that's not a sin. Instead, I found multiple definitive statements from prophets and scripture that explicitly tell the fate of those specifically in my situation. If God speaks through the prophets and the scriptures, and they said that my situation is in eternal jeopardy of missing out on the blessings of exaltation, it would seem he's already given His answer to these notions. And yet, I stumbled upon a quote from Dallin H Oaks in his 2019 conference address, where he states: "Trust in the Lord is a familiar and true teaching in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That was Joseph Smith’s teaching when the early Saints experienced severe persecutions and seemingly insurmountable obstacles. That is still the best principle we can use when our efforts to learn or our attempts to find comfort encounter obstacles in matters not yet revealed or not adopted as the official doctrine of the Church. "That same principle applies to unanswered questions about sealings in the next life or desired readjustments because of events or transgressions in mortality. There is so much we do not know that our only sure reliance is to trust in the Lord and His love for His children." Upon reading that, it might seem to indicate a potential for "wiggle-room" regarding the definitive statements of scriptures and past prophets, but I can't determine if this applies to me or not. It's nondescript, and the surrounding context from that talk seems to address those who cannot, despite their will or effort, obtain a sealing in this life due to pre-existing challenges of mortality. To be frank, I'm not sure I can trust the validity of my own personal revelation on this topic since I'm so emotionally-invested in this topic. If I felt inspired that God would provide a way to obtain a sealing in the next life (if I live worthy to earn it) regardless of whether my spouse accepts the sealing or not, I'd worry that the answer was confirmation bias and would doubt its validity given that we have un-biased prophets and scriptures that say the opposite. I don't think I could feel confident that God would reveal new revelation to me that he hasn't revealed to our modern-day prophets yet. Inversely, if I felt inspired that God confirmed that my one chance is bound to this life...well, I'd be unsettled by what I'd have to do not to waste that chance and would wonder why this abysmal situation is not treated as the tragedy that it is. That's why I seem to obsess over specific quotes, as they would be the most valid source of refutation to specific quotes in opposition. I want to believe that the Atonement will be sufficient to help me gain this righteous desire of my heart. I want to believe that my situation is not as dour as it appears. But, I've learned that just because something sounds nice and I want it to be true doesn't mean that it is true. Brad Wilcox gave a talk at BYU titled "My Grace is Sufficient", which told a hopeful message about the Atonement and how judgment day may not be how we tend to think it will be. He said: "In the past I had a picture in my mind of what the final judgment would be like, and it went something like this: Jesus standing there with a clipboard and Brad standing on the other side of the room nervously looking at Jesus. "Jesus checks His clipboard and says, “Oh, shoot, Brad. You missed it by two points.” "Brad begs Jesus, “Please, check the essay question one more time! There have to be two points you can squeeze out of that essay.” That’s how I always saw it. "But the older I get, and the more I understand this wonderful plan of redemption, the more I realize that in the final judgment it will not be the unrepentant sinner begging Jesus, “Let me stay.” No, he will probably be saying, “Get me out of here!” Knowing Christ’s character, I believe that if anyone is going to be begging on that occasion, it would probably be Jesus begging the unrepentant sinner, “Please, choose to stay. Please, use my Atonement—not just to be cleansed but to be changed so that you want to stay.” I find that to be a very hopeful message that resonates with me emotionally. The entire talk is a treatise on the hope offered by the Atonement (I recommend it to anyone needing a pick-me-up), and I really liked it a lot. I wanted it to be true...but does that mean that it is true? Is his view of judgment day doctrinally-sound? No, or at least not from what our canonized sources seem to indicate. If I lived my life based on hopeful platitudes such as those shared in this talk, I'd fall short of the requirements for Celestial Glory. We know that the Atonement alone is not sufficient to get into heaven. You need those ordinances. No matter how Jesus might beg of us to use his Atonement, it won't matter without those ordinances. The Atonement can't change your eyes into rainbow colors, and you need those rainbow-colored eyes to get into heaven. Those are the rules. In any case, I really do appreciate all that's been said by the various users of this forum. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration. I hope and pray that those of you in part-member families ultimately find that your trust in the Lord pays off. This issue will not deter my return to the faith, and perhaps I'll grow warmer to the idea of being an un-exalted servant angel with mroe time to ponder on it. I won't make any rash decisions, rest assured. Take care, everyone. Edited September 14, 2020 by Rain 1
Fiveofclubs Posted September 15, 2020 Author Posted September 15, 2020 @Rain, YIKES! I am so sorry, I definitely messed that up!! I hope you can forgive me! I would like to edit it for accuracy, but I do not see an edit button anywhere on the post!! Do you happen to know if/how one can edit their comments on here? Thanks! As for your comments, I'll have to look it over tomorrow. Thanks for pointing out that issue!!
Calm Posted September 15, 2020 Posted September 15, 2020 (edited) You will be able to edit at 25 posts. You have ten so far. If you want to speed things up, you can add some posts to the three word thread , post a favorite recipe or two, comment about movies you have recently seen, or go into the main forum and make comments there. There are also some threads with favorite videos of uplifting music or similar topics. Edited September 15, 2020 by Calm 2
Fiveofclubs Posted September 15, 2020 Author Posted September 15, 2020 @Calm, thanks for letting me know about the edit function. Until such a time as I can officially edit that post, I wish to acknowledge the mis-attribution of the quote to the wrong Rain-named user! @Rain, thank you for adding to your thoughts and perspective. I find (comparatively) little of objection to what you've stated there, as a part of me resonated with the experiences you've shared. "If I am sealed to loved ones who choose another path will it pain me eternally? It's really the same question - if we are separated from those we love will we feel pain from it? Does God feel pain being separated from a third of his children ... My hope is that because of the love and joy that we have in the next life it somehow takes care of the pain. And maybe that is something the atonement takes care of too." I hope with you that we would not be plagued for eternity with torment over the fallen fate of those who declined exaltation. It was my understanding that Heaven was going to be a sorrow-less place, per the afterlife described by Revelations 21: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Perhaps this is accomplished through the Atonement, but we don't have precedent upon which to base that belief. However, we do have precedent to support the idea that Godhood bears an elevated status and perspective compared to the mortal lens. I heard it supposed (by those outside of our faith) that our understanding of love will be restored to a higher understanding of God's love and justice, and we will subsequently accept that those who opted out of heaven will have made the choice best suited for them and we'll thereby have peace with it. While this idea is an easier thing to accept given nontraditional views on the afterlife prospects of unrepentant sinners, it's difficult for me to imagine ever (personally) being at peace with bidding family members/friends farewell forever. But, that doesn't mean it's a faulty assertion outright. For now, I guess we're left to wait and see. "One night as I sobbed in pain I thought on the atonement and I wondered how Jesus could stand not only this much pain from me, but from everyone else as well. It has had me on a quest for learning more about the atonement and how it works. I really can't say I have learned much since then, but have had very brief glimpses of peace/light that keep me searching." This was one such entry of yours that struck a familiar chord with me. I've frequently thought upon this matter as well given my own relationships and the happenings that surround me, yet am no closer to determining exact answers regarding this topic. I haven't yet to find glimpses of peace and light yet, but perhaps they will come. "But what are those works? I think we get in mind that our works are much different than the Lord is really asking for sometimes." When I referenced that scripture, I have generally understood it to imply that "faith with action is impotent." As for what action the Lord is expecting of me in this situation, I don't really know. I know what action the Lord expected of me before I got married (get sealed in the temple), but since I waved the boat goodbye on that one, I'm sort of standing on an empty pier staring out at the waves wondering when or if the boat will return. The boat's travel itinerary is not very clear - one sign says it will return if I hang tight, another says it will return if I want it to and act as though it will, and a third says that was the last boat departure and the pier will be closing indefinitely at 10 pm. I have a general concept as to what I think He would want me to do, but I do not have a reference regarding definitive action. "...One thing I have found though is that sometimes when my spirit yearns for those answers and I can't seem to find them or it just dwells on me that sometimes the answer is not in those words, but in the still small voice to my heart. It is that gut feeling that has me continue to search and search even though things seem to answer against what I am feeling. I know there is some danger in this - you don't don't want to ask God for an answer to prayer that isn't best for you. (Book of Mormon lost 116 pages). But I think there is a difference in asking for an outcome you want verses really understanding His will when everything you are looking at seems to give you an answer different than what you feel." [...] "So what I am saying is while you are looking for the quotes and words of the prophets remember to listen for the feeling of the Spirit too." For me, I guess this is the core issue at the end of the day, and very much my greatest struggle in my journey back into the fold. I'm not quite certain of how to do this and ensure accuracy. As I referenced earlier, there are various assertions in our doctrine and history that I have convictions about, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable disregarding opposing statements by divinely-inspired sources simply because I don't feel what they're saying is right. Take this thread topic, for example. Because I am emotionally-invested in the topic, I'm certain that bias skews my internal deliberation regarding the subject matter. My feelings want to believe in a God who will provide some way to make it right, despite the prophetic commentary on the matter. The problem is, I have difficulty parsing whether that feeling is predicated on some subconscious self-interest and desire to avoid the weight of eternal accountability, or if it is a spiritual affirmation telling me that the scriptures and prophets were wrong on this point. Since I can't tell if it's the Spirit or not, it seems best for me to defer to what the prophets have said. I trust their ability to gain accurate revelation more than I trust my abilities to do so. I'm interested to hear if you have any suggestions regarding how you discern the difference between Spirit/psychological processing in your life. My father noted that emotions can be a vector for spiritual affirmation (per the "fruits of the spirit" listed in Galatians), but emotions are a bit of a tricky thing for me. Given my genetic condition that impacts my emotional moderation, wherein my mind chemistry reacts to (often subconscious) stimuli in a disproportionate manner than is warranted by a general appraisal of the catalyst, I frequently question my emotional reactions through a prism of skepticism so as to dissuade unwarranted actions predicated upon those feelings. In a sense, I have a history of false feelings, and have consequently grown a distrust for my emotional gauge as a reliable means of discernment. Regarding your comments about your Patriarchal Blessing, I hadn't thought of reading it that way before. Mine is pretty short, and I've seemingly invalidated the majority of it wherein specific instructions were given, but there might be a hidden nugget or two tucked in between the lines somewhere. "No question you will be held responsible [for not getting my saving ordinance of sealing in life]! But that doesn't mean there is no hope. Two very different things." I'd like to think that there's hope in this regard, but I simply lack the authoritative resources to refute what the prophets have said on this point and I am emotionally-compromised regarding the subject. I hope you're correct. "EVERYONE spiritually "mutilates" themselves. Everyone. The first time we sinned we did that. There is a conference talk I really want to look at to answer this, but I can't put my finger on it." I imagine there are multiple conference talks about the damage of sin, but I agree that everyone sustains spiritual fallout from sin. However, I was merely trying to provoke an image of the degree of spiritual damage that I had taken. To continue the analogy, I think most church members are much less mutilated than I was. While we consider all sin as bad, we acknowledge that sins have an associated "weight" to them and require different standards of repentance to pursue atonement and spiritual healing. I had one of the really big no-no's on my ledger, which put me into a different spiritual category of "mutilation" than someone who occasionally lets out an accidental curse word. Ultimately, the terminological distinction doesn't seem to ultimately matter for the point that I tried to make, unless that conference talk you're recalling has nuance that suggests otherwise. If you do find it, I'll definitely give it a read. "This makes me smile because it is SO like me. Heavenly Father just gently laughs and tells me, "not this time. You need to be searching for things for your own good." "God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs." - Spencer W. Kimball Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what you intend to say, but that assertion seems to grant credence to my previous assertion against relying on (my own) feelings-based affirmation. President Kimball contends that it is "usually" through another person that He meets our needs, which indicates it to be the vast majority. Regarding points of church doctrine, indeed, the Lord has prophets, seers, and revelators at the head of the church who suit the need to lead us on points of doctrine. If my searching on this specific topic has yielded only a few specific results, each of which are in consensus on the point, how am I to conclude that Heavenly Father is gently laughing and urging me on in my search and not pulling his hair out in frustration and saying "It's all written right there, explicitly and specifically, and supported through authoritative interpretation! Why does this seem unclear to you? Do you treat any of my other specific recordings like the Sacrament prayer with this undue regard of doubt? Why would I mislead the prophets and scriptures about a necessary ordinance of salvation, yet also tell you to follow their words as though they were My own?" Thanks for your time.
The Nehor Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 You seem to be picking apart the Laws of God looking for a way to break a commandment on the basis of a perceived greater good for yourself. I cannot imagine a God I would care to worship that would be impressed with that kind of action. Figure out what God wants you to do in your marriage now (there are a lot of general instructions) and do that. I remember a letter someone wrote to an online column run by church members where he said his patriarchal blessing told him to do something specific in his search for a spouse that he did not do so now he is second-guessing his marriage choice. The response was that God is not interested in someone bailing on marriage for that reason. The choice was made. Own it and live it. If you find yourself believing in a twisted legalistic idol that smiles on breaking commitments for personal benefit should you be worshipping that god? You also talk about being suspicious of your belief that all can be well if you do not take drastic action because it might be biased. You may also want to consider any biases that might be pushing this course of action. Do you want to end the marriage you are in? Is it possible this desire is driving you into this doctrinal interpretation that you SHOULD or even MUST end it? 1
Fiveofclubs Posted September 18, 2020 Author Posted September 18, 2020 @The Nehor, welcome to the conversation. "You seem to be picking apart the Laws of God looking for a way to break a commandment on the basis of a perceived greater good for yourself. I cannot imagine a God I would care to worship that would be impressed with that kind of action." I take it you either have not read all of the previous conversation, or there is so much of it that certain factors may not have been considered when composing your reply. As I have stated previously, I do not have any intention of leaving my wife. I'm simply confused that our prophets and scriptures seem not to address what someone in my position is supposed to do to pursue his exaltation, as the source-based position on the matter is that I'll be in a bit of trouble. I'm happy to share the sourcing on that, though I've already posted a good portion of it in previous replies and their dictates are pretty clear. Regarding what I "seem" to be doing - "picking apart the Laws of God looking for a way to break a commandment of a perceived greater good for yourself" - I'd like to dismiss that notion by restating my intent. I'm simply evaluating what the scriptures and prophets are saying on the matter and trying to see how those dictates are congruent with the position of the polite Mormon community. If restating my intent is not sufficient, allow me to address the premise in a hypothetical concession. If I were wanting to divorce my wife, which commandment would I be breaking in doing so? To my knowledge, the Church has no position regarding divorce being a sin. Like I alluded to earlier, Deseret News reported that 25-30% of temple-sealed couples go through divorce. Which portion of that group can we consider as having broken a commandment, and what are the metrics for measuring whether it was a commandment-breaking divorce or an allowable one? It seems to me that many, if not virtually all divorces are motivated out of self-interested means of one type or another - often self-preservation. In this hypothetical, I'd be pursuing my spiritual self-preservation. Which commandment would that be breaking? "I cannot imagine a God I would care to worship that would be impressed with that kind of action." Considering that "kind of action" ["picking apart the Laws of God looking for a way to break a commandment"] is not what would be occurring, per previous refutation, I'm unsure what the intent of this statement was. My bias toward this notion informs my perspective on this subject, about which I'm inclined to agree with your statement. However, despite my bias, that's not to say I can conclude an opposite assertion as being necessarily-invalid. I cannot imagine a God I would care to worship that would be impressed with (much less support/call for) many of the darker chronicles of the Old Testament, yet I'm expected to worship him regardless. What God considers moral or good [or impressing, in this case] may very likely be different than what I consider moral or good [or impressing]. The Prophet Joseph Smith confirms this nuance in his own words: "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. “God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted— by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." "Figure out what God wants you to do in your marriage now (there are a lot of general instructions) and do that." Working on it, good call. "I remember a letter someone wrote to an online column run by church members where he said his patriarchal blessing told him to do something specific in his search for a spouse that he did not do so now he is second-guessing his marriage choice. The response was that God is not interested in someone bailing on marriage for that reason." The response from whom? From another column member or from a person in a position of spiritual authority over the struggling member? Where responses come from and what authority they bear are important when evaluating their spiritual weight. Furthermore, I'm curious if the OP from this column was at the very least temple-sealed to the spouse in question, which would make it markedly different from my situation. "The choice was made. Own it and live it." I'm not sure this is sound advice for broad application, though I acknowledge a mark of my bias against the notion. That's the very same sentiment that Satan used to keep me (and countless other discouraged sinners) from returning to the faith earlier. Even assuming this statement applied to a marriage context, the sentiment's underlying rigidity would entrap an abused spouse in an abusive relationship. I'm more of a fan of agency, myself - it's more Atonement-friendly than this standard. I assume I'm simply unclear on your intended context - was this statement intended solely to reflect your position regarding the story you told or was it intended to reflect a wider application? "If you find yourself believing in a twisted legalistic idol that smiles on breaking commitments for personal benefit should you be worshipping that god?" I'm not sure whether or address the premise since I disagree that the characterization of it is accurate to the current situation (specifically regarding the "idol that smiles on breaking commitments for personal benefit"), but I'll make a brief commentary. The short answer is - it depends on a myriad of factors. I guess it mostly depends on if you believe that god is real and what the price of failing to appease it is. If I sincerely believed in the Aztec gods who demanded blood sacrifice or I'd face eternal penalties, I might be inclined to appease that god so as not to incur its endless wrath (well, maybe not, I'm hemophobic and pass out at the sight of blood so that would make it admittedly difficult). What I can confess to believing is that God expects his subjects to follow his specific prescriptions. It's not that he "smiles on breaking commitments for personal gain", but he delights in sacrifice pursuant to obedience. So it's not that He would be happy that one broke his commitments, but rather that He's sad that we chose to prioritize other commitments over our commitment to God and His plan of salvation, and correcting the results of that mis-prioritization might sting. "You also talk about being suspicious of your belief that all can be well if you do not take drastic action because it might be biased. You may also want to consider any biases that might be pushing this course of action." Everyone is biased, it's just a manner of determining how pliable one is despite his biases. For instance, you make some portion of your biases evident when you say things like "I cannot imagine a God I would care to worship that would be impressed with that kind of action." Just because you cannot imagine a God you'd care to worship under those circumstances says nothing of the actual nature of God. It only speaks toward your incredulity of accepting the mandate of worshipping such a god. Inversely, I don't expect that a God has to necessarily appear moral or good or impressive to demand his worship. God's character is not subject to my personal scrutiny. Facts and sources are what help combat biases. For instance, if I was given quotes from other scriptures and prophets directly refuting the prescriptions of Spencer W Kimball, Bruce R McConkie, Joseph Smith, and God (through the D&C), that would certainly undercut certainty in the position of those prophets, seers, and revelators. Instead, I've been given generic scriptural platitudes about forgiveness, yet lack any citation that the Atonement can forgive that which is not a sin nor why these platitudes invalidate the statements of modern-day prophets (and God himself through D&C). The platitudes are not wrong about what they address, I just simply see no precedent for it to apply outside the scope of sin. For me, I need to have something substantive to provide confidence and credibility to a belief. Otherwise, I can be led to believe anything that sounds nice, regardless of its truth content. "Do you want to end the marriage you are in?" If you read my previous posts, you should know that the answer to this is "no." "Is it possible this desire is driving you into this doctrinal interpretation that you SHOULD or even MUST end it?" Since I do not desire to divorce my wife, and instead came looking for refutation to sources that seem to suggest that I'm in potential trouble if I don't, I'm going to say "no" to this one as well. However, I would like to tweak it a bit and ask you a similar query - "Is it possible that your own preconceived notions about God and His nature are driving you to dismiss other interpretations and comments about His doctrine in spite of foundational sourcing?" Essentially, why is it that you believe that Joseph Smith, Bruce R McConkie, Spencer W Kimball, James E Talmage, The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, The Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Teacher Resource Manual, and God himself all spoke to the threat of finality on this point, when the apparent reality is that God will certainly offer a way for it to be fixed? If it was true, why wouldn't that have been said instead of the scare rhetoric? Or, why wouldn't the church provide and official clarification stating "Yes, we know what our 2020 manuals and past prophets have stated regarding the eternal fate of part-member families, but we wish to make it known that the Lord will provide for all pursuit of righteous desires. He will ensure that you are provided the opportunity to obtain those sealing ordinances, even if you missed out on them simply due of your marriage outside of the covenant." By my estimation (and Occam's Razor), it seems less likely to me that all of those official church sources got it dreadfully wrong and instead seems more likely that any contrarian (albeit optimistic) platitudes are wrong. Quoting from a referenced talk titled "Marriage is Honorable" in our D&C Seminary Teaching manual: "Now, all Latter-day Saints are not going to be exalted. All people who have been through the holy temple are not going to be exalted. The Lord says, ‘Few there be that find it.’ For there are the two elements: (1) the sealing of a marriage in the holy temple, and (2) righteous living through one’s life thereafter to make that sealing permanent. Only through proper marriage . . . can one find that strait way, the narrow path" I don't want to be in the majority of people who fail to find the straight and narrow due to well-intentioned misconceptions about God's requirements for exaltation. Regarding my bias, it is on the side of wanting there to be this infinite mercy, but I can't help but wonder in light of the sourcing I've seen...am I simply deluding myself into a belief based on comfort instead of doctrine? Definitive sourcing to suggest the opposite would dismiss that concern, but until then, how can one expect to blame another for heeding the direct words of modern-day prophets? Hopefully this clarifies my position somewhat regarding these subjects. Thanks and God Bless everyone.
Tacenda Posted September 18, 2020 Posted September 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Fiveofclubs said: I don't want to be in the majority of people who fail to find the straight and narrow due to well-intentioned misconceptions about God's requirements for exaltation. Regarding my bias, it is on the side of wanting there to be this infinite mercy, but I can't help but wonder in light of the sourcing I've seen...am I simply deluding myself into a belief based on comfort instead of doctrine? Definitive sourcing to suggest the opposite would dismiss that concern, but until then, how can one expect to blame another for heeding the direct words of modern-day prophets? You have good reason to distrust the bold. Just read the Gospel Topic Essay on blacks and the PH. The early leaders had it wrong, and were possibly going by their external surroundings, or the times they lived in. It took many years to course correct, I'm sure because the race restriction was a purported revelation and who wants to change that. But changes do happen in this church and statements made by leaders themselves is that the current prophet trumps past prophets, if you need a reference, I'll give it to you. Time to go by your instincts, or your own revelation on the subject and live happily that if you are following the first two commandments you're good, IMO! ❤️
Fiveofclubs Posted September 21, 2020 Author Posted September 21, 2020 Thank you for your words of encouragement, @Tacenda. You've touched on a subject that frequently frustrates me - the idea the prophets and apostles are inspired mouthpieces for the Lord...except when they're not. And, even if they make problematic claims and policies, then they're human and can make mistakes even while under the Lord's direction. Makes it difficult for a simpleton like me to parse which policies and statements are actually from the Lord and which ones are not. Given the hurtful history you referenced regarding the race issue, history has shown that it's not wholly moral to concede legitimacy to problematic policies and statements from church leaders on authority alone. Perhaps others here can help me understand alternative perspectives on this issue. My dad says that this is a non-issue, as it's not for the members to question the dictates of the prophets, yet he also concedes the fallibility church leaders and their potential detriments. Far be it from me to expect perfection from anyone, even a prophet, but is it so outlandish to expect that errors in their policies to be non-egregious in nature when on the Lord's errand? I guess it's just difficult to imagine John the Baptist or Paul or Alma or Moroni spreading false doctrine or enacting policies contrary to the will of the Lord, but maybe they just didn't include those deviances in the record we have today.
Tacenda Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Fiveofclubs said: Thank you for your words of encouragement, @Tacenda. You've touched on a subject that frequently frustrates me - the idea the prophets and apostles are inspired mouthpieces for the Lord...except when they're not. And, even if they make problematic claims and policies, then they're human and can make mistakes even while under the Lord's direction. Makes it difficult for a simpleton like me to parse which policies and statements are actually from the Lord and which ones are not. Given the hurtful history you referenced regarding the race issue, history has shown that it's not wholly moral to concede legitimacy to problematic policies and statements from church leaders on authority alone. Perhaps others here can help me understand alternative perspectives on this issue. My dad says that this is a non-issue, as it's not for the members to question the dictates of the prophets, yet he also concedes the fallibility church leaders and their potential detriments. Far be it from me to expect perfection from anyone, even a prophet, but is it so outlandish to expect that errors in their policies to be non-egregious in nature when on the Lord's errand? I guess it's just difficult to imagine John the Baptist or Paul or Alma or Moroni spreading false doctrine or enacting policies contrary to the will of the Lord, but maybe they just didn't include those deviances in the record we have today. I only showed that these prophets got it wrong, to show you that you need to go by your personal gut responses, since the prophets are human, not perfect. It's sad because for all of my life I didn't know until a few years ago, that taking the name of God in vain, really means, speaking for Him, and saying something He would not approve of. And I know or think, that God would not have approved of His children, such as the blacks, be treated the way they were, and things like slavery happening, which IMO, stems from the Bible and what the so called prophets said. And there are scriptures that have caused women to suffer as well, and be treated like slaves in varying ways as well. So in my life now, I go by my instinct and moral compass and will not believe anything that injures God's children. I think the current leaders are seeing this now, thank goodness. They have proven this by changing the temple ceremonies now to make women more equal now, yay! They don't have to go through their husband to get to God by changing a few words in the temple endowment. Maybe that will give you pause to understand that those past prophets got it wrong, and this church is ever changing, with the times. Sometimes it takes years but eventually we'll get there. I'm no prophetess, just saying what I believe, and I understand I could be wrong, but I hope not.
Calm Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, Tacenda said: like slavery happening, which IMO, stems from the Bible and what the so called prophets said. Slavery and oppression of women existed long before the Bible did. At best (or rather worst) the Bible has been used by many to justify slavery and oppression.
NoahVail Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 My wife (BiC) married a non-member. Two actually but I converted. If she marries her current boyfriend, that'll be her third. I don't think he'd ever join but one can't know for sure. Maybe I'll baptize him one day.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, NoahVail said: My wife (BiC) married a non-member. Two actually but I converted. If she marries her current boyfriend, that'll be her third. I don't think he'd ever join but one can't know for sure. Maybe I'll baptize him one day. You have an interesting life. (Or did I mean to say, wife?) I'[ll never understand people who think they're enough of God's Gift to the Opposite Gender that they believe they can attract and sustain the interest of more than one person at a time, but, then, perhaps that's only because I've failed in attracting the interest of even one. Oh, well! It's destined to remain one of life's great mysteries. Fiveofclubs, I've been pondering my own situation in light of your assertion of Black-Letter Doctrine here, and I think, to be brutally frank, that it's pretty hopeless. I mean, since social custom dictates that gentlemen do the asking, and I've never asked anyone, that must mean that I, solely and completely, am responsible for my own plight. What to do, what to do! Turn on the gas? All of my appliances are electric! Dang! I could run a hose from my car's exhaust through a slighly-open window and stuff the rest of the opening with damp towels. D'ya think that'd work? Edited September 21, 2020 by Kenngo1969
NoahVail Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: You have an interesting life. (Or did I mean to say, wife?) I'[ll never understand people who think they're enough of God's Gift to the Opposite Gender that they believe they can attract and sustain the interest of more than one person at a time There wasn't a lot of overlap. She was separated when I met her. Twenty-five years and 5 kids later she leaves us to join the local homeless community; that's where she met her current bf. She could be relentlessly difficult; more so after she developed psychosis. It may be that leaving was her trying to do one good thing.
Fiveofclubs Posted September 21, 2020 Author Posted September 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Fiveofclubs, I've been pondering my own situation in light of your assertion of Black-Letter Doctrine here, and I think, to be brutally frank, that it's pretty hopeless. I mean, since social custom dictates that gentlemen do the asking, and I've never asked anyone, that must mean that I, solely and completely, am responsible for my own plight. What to do, what to do! Turn on the gas? All of my appliances are electric! Dang! I could run a hose from my car's exhaust through a slighly-open window and stuff the rest of the opening with damp towels. D'ya think that'd work? My friend, I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic or playfully-provocative here! As someone who has had vicious struggles with suicidal tendencies, I wish to vehemently disavow any such drastic courses of action predicated upon any "Black-letter doctrine." From what I recall, on top of it being incredibly tragic, God considers suicide a pretty big no-no and that will surely work harder against you (or me) than our un-sealed status would! I would be more than happy to share some rehabilitative resources with you if you are having sincere thoughts of suicide. I'm not sure if this website has a private message feature or not, but if you want to reach out in a personal message of some sort, I can gather some resource information together and send it your way. Sometimes, those urges are difficult to fight on our own, and there's no shame in seeking help. The Lord still needs you here (as evidenced by your presence here in the forum today), please stay. I do not know the particulars of your situation in regards to your personal accountability for pursuing a temple marriage, only you and God really know that for sure. Therefore, I implore you not to compare your situation to any standard similar to my own, particularly if it results in hopelessness or suicidal thoughts! I can only bear my own condemnations, as I have a direct insight to my intellectual accountability and lack of inhibiting factors. The scriptures indicate much of the same, like this section in James chapter 4 which says: "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." I knew better and failed to act upon what I knew, which makes what I've done a mark against my character due to my accountability - but that says nothing of your experience. I can't imagine that my own failings are anywhere near comparable to your situation, so I would not expect my personal standards of accountability to be the same that you use in measuring your state before the Lord. For you, I want to believe that God would not hold you unjustly accountable for factors outside of your control. I maintain hope for you, my friend.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) Oh, come on, Fiveofclubs! The prophets have spoken! Any man who is over 25 and still single is a menace to society! I'm double that, which means I'm doubly a menace to society! I'm simply evaluating my situation in light of black-letter doctrine here! Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get back to binge-watchingThirteen Reasons Why. Besides which, I'll never break my habit of using UBB tags, so that's also hopeless! Edited September 21, 2020 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, NoahVail said: There wasn't a lot of overlap. She was separated when I met her. Twenty-five years and 5 kids later she leaves us to join the local homeless community; that's where she met her current bf. She could be relentlessly difficult; more so after she developed psychosis. It may be that leaving was her trying to do one good thing. That's where I should probably look! I'd probably have about as much good luck finding a spouse there as I have anywhere else! (Seriously, I wish you both well in dealing with the mental health issues both of you have been confronted with.) Edited September 21, 2020 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, Fiveofclubs said: ... I knew better and failed to act upon what I knew, which makes what I've done a mark against my character due to my accountability - but that says nothing of your experience. I can't imagine that my own failings are anywhere near comparable to your situation, so I would not expect my personal standards of accountability to be the same that you use in measuring your state before the Lord. For you, I want to believe that God would not hold you unjustly accountable for factors outside of your control. I maintain hope for you, my friend. I know better than to die single!
NoahVail Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: That's where I should probably look! I'd probably have about as much good luck finding a spouse there as I have anywhere else! Well, it's not hard to get into. Homeless retirement is one of our fastest growth industries.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 21, 2020 Posted September 21, 2020 36 minutes ago, NoahVail said: Well, it's not hard to get into. Homeless retirement is one of our fastest growth industries. No kidding!
The Nehor Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 4 hours ago, NoahVail said: Well, it's not hard to get into. Homeless retirement is one of our fastest growth industries. At least we do not discriminate against the homeless: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France 1
mrmarklin Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Oh, come on, Fiveofclubs! The prophets have spoken! Any man who is over 25 and still single is a menace to society! I'm double that, which means I'm doubly a menace to society! I'm simply evaluating my situation in light of black-letter doctrine here! Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get back to binge-watchingThirteen Reasons Why. Besides which, I'll never break my habit of using UBB tags, so that's also hopeless! Www.loveme.com
Kenngo1969 Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 54 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: Www.loveme.com Meh. Those things don't work for [I]me[/I]. Thanks, though.
Recommended Posts