Jump to content

Can You feel the weight of Your glory? Do You understand the price?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

From Joseph's Lullaby, lyrics worth pondering on IMHO

From 2 Corinthians 4:

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

 

 

Link to post

Dont be afraid of your glory. As long as you can distinguish between glory and pride, God will bless you abundantly. 

20210108_090611.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

From Joseph's Lullaby, lyrics worth pondering on IMHO

As a newbie, having only been a member 42 years, I have never heard of "Joseph's Lullaby".  I guess I never made it to the cool kids table? ;)

 On the other hand I awoke this morning with these immortal words running through my head:

" Remember you can only train that fish on Saturdays." 🤪

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

From Joseph's Lullaby, lyrics worth pondering on IMHO

These lyrics were written from the perspective of the new father Joseph for his newborn son Jesus.  Very nice!

Quote

 

Go to sleep my Son
This manger for Your bed
You have a long road before You
Rest Your little head
Can You feel the weight of Your glory?
Do You understand the price?
Or does the Father guard Your heart for now
So You can sleep tonight?
Go to sleep my Son
Go and chase Your dreams
This world can wait for one more moment
Go and sleep in peace
I believe the glory of Heaven
Is lying in my arms tonight
But Lord, I ask that He for just this moment
Simply be my child
Go to sleep my Son
Baby, close Your eyes
Soon enough You'll save the day
But for now, dear Child of mine
Oh, my Jesus
Sleep tight

 

For us, our glory is mostly a potential stored up in our great worth (D&C 18:10).

Our worth is equivalent to the tremendous price paid for us.  It is unimaginable.  Our value, on the other hand, is to be determined through judgment and it may be below, meet or exceed (I don't know if that is actually possible) our worth.  Our realized glory will reflect our value, not our worth. 

I cannot feel the weight of my glory as it is mostly just potential energy.  I cannot fathom my great worth/price, but it inspires me to be of great value in return. 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As a newbie, having only been a member 42 years, I have never heard of "Joseph's Lullaby".  I guess I never made it to the cool kids table?

It's not an LDS thing.  It is a Christmas song from a Christian pop group.  Think K-Love.

Edited by pogi
Link to post
39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As a newbie, having only been a member 42 years, I have never heard of "Joseph's Lullaby".  I guess I never made it to the cool kids table? ;)

 On the other hand I awoke this morning with these immortal words running through my head:

" Remember you can only train that fish on Saturdays." 🤪

I woke up with “Christmas at Ground Zero” in my head.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It's not an LDS thing.  It is a Christmas song from a Christian pop group.  Think K-Love.

I would if I knew what K-Love was. 😃

 But thanks. I thought the doctrine seemed flaky.

Can I fathom what the savior did for me?

Of course not.  I am not equipped to do so, I accept it on faith. :)

Only if we were able to earn our "glory" without a savior, might God have allowed us to know what we had to do to achieve it.

Mercifully, He did not choose to do it that way.  The story tells us that that was Satan's way. 

 I don't accept that because it is the story, I  accept it because it makes sense.

We simply cannot get to "heaven" on our own. We need a Being above us to raise our consciousness above the mush of this world, and that Being is who we call Jesus  Christ.

 And no I cannot understand how He does that . :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

From Joseph's Lullaby, lyrics worth pondering on IMHO

You'll need to provide the words if you'd like me to sing it to you.  I've never heard of it before.

Oh wait, is this it?

Go to sleep my Son
This manger for Your bed
You have a long road before You
Rest Your little head
Can You feel the weight of Your glory?
Do You understand the price?
Or does the Father guard Your heart for now
So You can sleep tonight?
Go to sleep my Son
Go and chase Your dreams
This world can wait for one more moment
Go and sleep in peace
I believe the glory of Heaven
Is lying in my arms tonight
But Lord, I ask that He for just this moment
Simply be my child
Go to sleep my Son
Baby, close Your eyes
Soon enough You'll save the day
But for now, dear Child of mine
Oh, my Jesus
Sleep tight
 
I'm feeling a bit sleepy now and I just woke up!  But yes I think I do understand the price our Lord paid to do the will of our Father in heaven, which was to do his will, and now he has almost as much if not the same glory as our Father in heaven.
Link to post
21 hours ago, pogi said:

It's not an LDS thing.  It is a Christmas song from a Christian pop group.  Think K-Love.

 

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would if I knew what K-Love was. 😃

K-Love is a local (Utah) Christian radio station.  Please forgive Pogi for lapsing into Utah centrism there. ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

K-Love is a local (Utah) Christian radio station.  Please forgive Pogi for lapsing into Utah centrism there. ;)

It’s not local.  It’s a national program originating in California.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Love

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would if I knew what K-Love was. 😃

 But thanks. I thought the doctrine seemed flaky.

Can I fathom what the savior did for me?

Of course not.  I am not equipped to do so, I accept it on faith. :)

Only if we were able to earn our "glory" without a savior, might God have allowed us to know what we had to do to achieve it.

Mercifully, He did not choose to do it that way.  The story tells us that that was Satan's way. 

 I don't accept that because it is the story, I  accept it because it makes sense.

We simply cannot get to "heaven" on our own. We need a Being above us to raise our consciousness above the mush of this world, and that Being is who we call Jesus  Christ.

 And no I cannot understand how He does that . :)

 

I have an honest question for you. Doesn't our glorification start in the waters of baptism? Being spirit children of our Heavenly father and mother, aren't we entitled to live an eternal life of progression as long as we follow the commandments? If so, our glorification has to start somewhere. It seems to me baptism is the beginning. 

    Baptism seems to be the beginning of everything we believe in Mormonism. With baptism, we dont holy and totally take upon us the name of Christ. To mormons, it's just the beginning of taking upon the name of christ, unlike other Christians who believe they holy and totally take upon the name of christ  at baptism. To us, there's a pathway that leads from the baptismal font to the temple then living a life of keeping the commandments. If we do that, we take upon the name of christ. 

    So I see our glorification the same way. Beginning at our baptism, and possibly never ending as long as we keep the commandments. Am I that far off base?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
50 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I have an honest question for you. Doesn't our glorification start in the waters of baptism? Being spirit children of our Heavenly father and mother, aren't we entitled to live an eternal life of progression as long as we follow the commandments? If so, our glorification has to start somewhere. It seems to me baptism is the beginning. 

    Baptism seems to be the beginning of everything we believe in Mormonism. With baptism, we dont holy and totally take upon us the name of Christ. To mormons, it's just the beginning of taking upon the name of christ, unlike other Christians who believe they holy and totally take upon the name of christ  at baptism. To us, there's a pathway that leads from the baptismal font to the temple then living a life of keeping the commandments. If we do that, we take upon the name of christ. 

    So I see our glorification the same way. Beginning at our baptism, and possibly never ending as long as we keep the commandments. Am I that far off base?

No, I agree.

Do you think I misunderstood you?

Link to post
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

K-Love is a local (Utah) Christian radio station.  Please forgive Pogi for lapsing into Utah centrism there. ;)

image.thumb.png.baee6239334cb9423c8474f452a3ccdd.png

 

My bad.  Apologies.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

K-Love is a local (Utah) Christian radio station.  Please forgive Pogi for lapsing into Utah centrism there. ;)

I went to every LDS source I could looking for a lullaby written by Joseph Smith.

Nada. ;)

Context is a biggie. 😳

  • Haha 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I went to every LDS source I could looking for a lullaby written by Joseph Smith.

Nada. ;)

Context is a biggie. 😳

It is this: “Silence, Ye Fiends of the Infernal Pit!”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
On 1/9/2021 at 12:03 PM, AtlanticMike said:

I have an honest question for you. Doesn't our glorification start in the waters of baptism? Being spirit children of our Heavenly father and mother, aren't we entitled to live an eternal life of progression as long as we follow the commandments? If so, our glorification has to start somewhere. It seems to me baptism is the beginning. 

    Baptism seems to be the beginning of everything we believe in Mormonism. With baptism, we dont holy and totally take upon us the name of Christ. To mormons, it's just the beginning of taking upon the name of christ, unlike other Christians who believe they holy and totally take upon the name of christ  at baptism. To us, there's a pathway that leads from the baptismal font to the temple then living a life of keeping the commandments. If we do that, we take upon the name of christ. 

    So I see our glorification the same way. Beginning at our baptism, and possibly never ending as long as we keep the commandments. Am I that far off base?

Hi Atlantic Mike

It is a little unclear to me what you mean by the expression "take upon the name of Christ". If I am following you, I think are far off base if you think other Christians differ from LDS in that they see no need to do anything to advance further in holiness and sanctity. One of the arguments that comes up between Calvinists (Reformed/Presbyterian) and Catholics has to do with the works that both parties agree must be performed if a person is to be saved. The point is not about who is right about whether to categorize these works as justifying or sanctifying. The point is that both parties agree that progress is a necessity! All those who believe in baptismal regeneration would hold as you do that baptism is only a beginning. Lutherans and Anglicans as well as Catholics have priestly ceremonies that they believe aid the progress of the one who has only been baptized. We call this the Rite of Confirmation, which gives new graces which arm the soldier of Christ for the spiritual battle which will be necessary for any baptized person to advance in sanctity. (Lest anyone should be offended at "soldiers of Christ doing spiritual battle", perhaps I should observe that the first enemy to be vanquished is one's own self and fleshly weaknesses, our second enemy, is the world, to which we must become more and more detached, and recalling our baptismal vows, to more effectively recognize and renounce our third enemy, the devil, and all his works and pomps.) 

One cannot even receive the first of the ordination rites that precede the full priesthood in the Catholic Church, until, beginning with baptism, one has at least advanced through the Sacrament of Confirmation. One cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church if one has not been confirmed. I would suggest that very few Christians teach that after baptism, they can so to speak, relax, as if baptism is all that is needed. I can not accept the validity of non-Catholic Sacraments, but I have to insist that non-Catholics believe in progressive sanctity, beginning with baptism, and reaching towards "conformity to the image of His (God's) Son", to use a Scriptural expression. (Rom. 8:29) The very beginning of the Traditional Catholic Rite of Baptism is as follows, and while avoiding language resembling "take upon the name of Christ", indicates the necessity of keeping the commandments, which is certainly a necessary aspect of this progress if one would wish to attain to eternal life:

Priest: Name, what do you ask of the Church of God?

Response: Faith.

P: What does faith offer you?

R: Eternal life.

P: If then, you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul...etc.

Thanks for your consideration, Mike. Get happy and stay that way.🙂

Rory 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to post
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

All those who believe in baptismal regeneration would hold as you do that baptism is only a beginning.

Agree. 

Off topic, but a quick question, probably just a yes or no will do.

Do conservative Catholics find Bishop Barron to be Novus Ordo?  

I suspect yes of course.

He can be seen as being close to our positions on many points 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Atlantic Mike

It is a little unclear to me what you mean by the expression "take upon the name of Christ". If I am following you, I think are far off base if you think other Christians differ from LDS in that they see no need to do anything to advance further in holiness and sanctity. One of the arguments that comes up between Calvinists (Reformed/Presbyterian) and Catholics has to do with the works that both parties agree must be performed if a person is to be saved. The point is not about who is right about whether to categorize these works as justifying or sanctifying. The point is that both parties agree that progress is a necessity! All those who believe in baptismal regeneration would hold as you do that baptism is only a beginning. Lutherans and Anglicans as well as Catholics have priestly ceremonies that they believe aid the progress of the one who has only been baptized. We call this the Rite of Confirmation, which gives new graces which arm the soldier of Christ for the spiritual battle which will be necessary for any baptized person to advance in sanctity. (Lest anyone should be offended at "soldiers of Christ doing spiritual battle", perhaps I should observe that the first enemy to be vanquished is one's own self and fleshly weaknesses, our second enemy, is the world, to which we must become more and more detached, and recalling our baptismal vows, to more effectively recognize and renounce our third enemy, the devil, and all his works and pomps.) 

One cannot even receive the first of the ordination rites that precede the full priesthood in the Catholic Church, until, beginning with baptism, one has at least advanced through the Sacrament of Confirmation. One cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church if one has not been confirmed. I would suggest that very few Christians teach that after baptism, they can so to speak, relax, as if baptism is all that is needed. I can not accept the validity of non-Catholic Sacraments, but I have to insist that non-Catholics believe in progressive sanctity, beginning with baptism, and reaching towards "conformity to the image of His (God's) Son", to use a Scriptural expression. (Rom. 8:29) The very beginning of the Traditional Catholic Rite of Baptism is as follows, and while avoiding language resembling "take upon the name of Christ", indicates the necessity of keeping the commandments, which is certainly a necessary aspect of this progress if one would wish to attain to eternal life:

Priest: Name, what do you ask of the Church of God?

Response: Faith.

P: What does faith offer you?

R: Eternal life.

P: If then, you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul...etc.

Thanks for your consideration, Mike. Get happy and stay that way.🙂

Rory 

Hi 3DOP, first, sorry for lumping all Christian's together, I understand there's many different views out there and that was a mistake on my part. The other mistake I made was saying that the Christians I have dealt with, think baptism is a requirement for salvation, or taking upon the name of christ, because they dont. My non mormon family members believe salvation is received by faith alone, anything else would be a work based salvation and that would mean jesus's death on the cross wasn't enough to purchase their salvation. To them, baptism is more of a public acknowledgement of their faith, I think they call it being spirit baptized. Maybe my family is just a bunch of hillbillies 🤣, trust me, that's definitely possible. 

      To me, to take upon the name of christ, begins in the water of baptism. We make a covenant to obey the commandments and to see as God sees, to act as an agent on his behalf. After baptism we stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things. Our individual agency becomes a representative agency, tied together with all of gods children who accepted baptism. I love how you used the expression soldier of christ! Because I feel like I'm a warrior for christ, growing up and still to this day my favorite story in the Book of Mormon is about the 2000 stripling warriors. 

      Now, about the word glory. All glory goes to God. Everything I do is to glorify him and him alone. I firmly believe that's the only reason I'm here! and if I spend my life glorifying him,  everything else falls into place. But, as spirit children of a Heavenly Father and Mother, I also believe our glory is already inside of us. We dont earn it, it's just there, its part of who we are. Right now as mortals living on earth, our glory is a grain of sand compared to Heavenly Fathers who's glory is as deep and wide as all the oceans combined. The enemy of glory is pride. Pride can take your eye off of your goal of glorifying God. Nothing can diminish Gods glory, but pride can diminish our glory to were it's almost unrecognizable. 

   Thank you for sharing with me your knowledge about other religions,  I have alot to learn. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree. 

Off topic, but a quick question, probably just a yes or no will do.

Do conservative Catholics find Bishop Barron to be Novus Ordo?  

I suspect yes of course.

He can be seen as being close to our positions on many points 

Interesting. You are clearly familiar with Bp. Barron than I am. He is an auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles I think.

Closer to LDS positions on many points? More points than a Traditional Catholic like me? For the last 25 years, it has been evident to me that the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS have much in common. I would not be disappointed if, like me, Bp. Barron would be seen as close on many of your positions. I have seen you praise his explanantion of the Catholic Eucharist without hearing anything bad from my usual sources, which keep up with what is going on in the Novus Ordo wing, to indicate that Bp. Barron  is unorthodox in regards to his view of the Holy Eucharist. For the sake of future discussions here, perhaps I should familiarize myself.

But as to your main question, there are many conservative Catholics who approve of the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), and who defend all post Vatican II policy and teaching. They would deny that there is an emergency in the Church of such consequence as to legitimize the invocation of statutes in canon law outlining what steps may be taken in a time of crisis or emergency. Canon law sometimes excuses priests or bishops from strict adherence to normal procedures of exercising their offices. This allows a priest to act outside the diocese in which he is incardinated, for instance, when he might come across an auto accident, and a dying victim is asking for the Sacraments of the Dying. Traditional Catholics are those who have believed that it had become necessary in the first post Vatican II generation, for the preservation of the Catholic faith, that a handful of alarmed priests and bishops should band together to provide life-giving Sacraments that were being denied to the faithful. Instead, the Old Rites were said to be unlawful. Never in the history of the Eastern or Western churches had anyone attempted such a rupture of what had always been organic development of the liturgical rites. At the same time, it has become increasingly clear that the new rites (Novus Ordo), if valid, carry significant defects, and the evil fruits of Vatican II seem plain and clear.    

Your question seems to imply that there are no conservative "Novus Ordos". There are. My daughter and her family are conservative Novus Ordo Catholics. (She conceded recently that she can see that the Old Rite of Mass is "better".) Hah! Good enough! Almost there. Conservative Novus Ordo families seem to stagnate in sterility, or move on to Tradition, where there are abundant vocations, schools, and young people everywhere. Of course, Traditional Catholicism has always been a home for sinners, and we are not immune. No one should claim that we have a corner on holiness. But there are good fruits. Growth. Good wheat with the chaff. Statistics bare out that Novus Ordo Catholicism has the appearance of being for the aged, while the children and grandchildren of the old have long ago abandoned a shrinking Church, that never gave them the fullness of the faith.

I hope my long answer does not bore you, or serve as a distraction. I started to write a bunch more and stopped. But your question was unanswerable! There is no dichotomy between conservative and Novus Ordo, and I am thankful for a sizable minority of conservative Novus Ordo Catholic faithful, and what is reduced to a handful of almost insignificant minority of conservative Novus Ordo bishops and priests. I would think Bp. Barron might be considered one of those in the minority who defend traditional Catholic morality and theology without imposing their politics upon the Gospel, and most importantly, without admitting that there is a crisis in the Catholic Church. It is above all necessary for the most conservative Novus Ordo Catholic to deny that there is any rupture between Traditional Catholic morality, worship, and theology, with what has appeared since the 1960's.  

Okay, I stop.

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...