Spencer W Kimball’s Grandson turns in Temple Recommend

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, manol said:

When I was active LDS, my perception was pretty much what you describe here.  I considered the "Light of Christ" to be nothing special since it was something that everyone has.  My recollection was that having the Light of Christ was equated with having a conscience (which I'm not sure a mental health professional [paging @BlueDreams] would agree that "everyone" has).  My understanding was that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was something special and distinctive reserved only for Latter-day Saints, and that the Gift of the Holy Ghost "out-ranked" the Light of Christ.

My current perception does not "rank" something which is "of Christ" as lesser than something which is "of the Holy Ghost", nor do I see them as being separate things.  My current perception is much more inclusive than what I believed when I was active LDS, but that doesn't help your situation any. 

My understanding is that Navidad and his wife view the Latter-day Saints in their ward as fully their Brothers and Sisters but this view is not reciprocated, and the disparity is taking a toll on them. 

Perhaps some day there will be a fundamental paradigm shift away from separation as "The Plan".  Perhaps some day "Oneness" will seen as more than just a synonym for "in agreement". 

Wow! You nailed it!

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think every ward needs a Navidad and their wife!

Thanks very much. That is very kind. If there were a role for a faithful non-member in LDS polity, I am sure there would be many more just like us in LDS wards.

[BlueDreams]

20 hours ago, manol said:

When I was active LDS, my perception was pretty much what you describe here.  I considered the "Light of Christ" to be nothing special since it was something that everyone has.  My recollection was that having the Light of Christ was equated with having a conscience (which I'm not sure a mental health professional [paging @BlueDreams] would agree that "everyone" has).  My understanding was that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was something special and distinctive reserved only for Latter-day Saints, and that the Gift of the Holy Ghost "out-ranked" the Light of Christ.

My current perception does not "rank" something which is "of Christ" as lesser than something which is "of the Holy Ghost", nor do I see them as being separate things.  My current perception is much more inclusive than what I believed when I was active LDS, but that doesn't help your situation any. 

I haven't followed this thread at all. So this could really be a miss, but this was actually something I was thinking about a ton recently. 

I think light of Christ includes but isn't solely the conscience. People can have different degrees of conscience, sometimes being more innate and very often socually shaped as well. But I think its core is still a derivative of the light of Christ. The more encompassing view to is is the power and ability we all have to recognize good and truth. So for example, most who will walk into a forest, will since the good and beauty of nature, a gift and responsibility from God. That is not something that immediately engages one conscience. It's personally why I can see that most largee religions gold some strongly core similarities: people built beliefs and rituals around the light they saw, sensed, and experienced around/in them. 

I think it's a little oversimplistic (but also really common), your description comparing and contrasting the light of Christ to the gift of the holy ghost. For one, it's an assumption that experiences of the spirit are "rare" outsidefor people the church. I don't think it's an assumption based on actual scripture or history and moreso on cultural messages and simplified messages that stack up together...but it's also really easy to poke holes in. You can just go with JS pre-baptism/confirmation. He was in the middle of the translation process of the BOM. Had already experienced and been guided by God in several powerful ways and manifestations, etc. When I was reading through a few things I saw one account that described a man who noted that he'd received the HG well before baptism that helped to guide/prepare him to receive the gift of the HG. So it doesn't surprise me when people who are not lds describe even amazing manifestations of the HG in their lives. It's happened plenty before. 

I also think it's a bit of an oversimplification to describe the Gift as the constant companionship of the HG. As in you sometimes experienced the HG prior now you always can. It's more tied to the power and capacity opened up in you via the sanctification of the ordinance/covenant and ones willing heart/humility. That can absolutely lead to and increase recognizing the HG with you. 

I also don't "rank" them. No more than I rank a baby walking over learning to talk. They're necessary parts of our development. I also think it can be difficult to describe what's the "difference" because for most of us it's something we've been privvy to for most of our cognicent life or we don't necessarily experience as an obvious difference immediately.  It's like asking people to describe what it's like to talk or talking in a different language.

As I noted I don't rank them, but I do see them as necessary and distinctive....even if I struggle to perfectly describe the distinction. This conviction comes from the difference I experienced from my endowment. I knew prior it came from some vaguely described gift of greater knowledge (again relying on common descriptors). But it wasn't well described how this happens or what this even looks like. Still, I noted and experienced a marked difference between me before and me after. One of greater capacity and access to light and truth than before, if I followed it. Can I aptly describe it? Probably not....I can describe pieces of it but in many ways it's subtle and at this point there's no base BD to compare the distinctions from who I am now v who I would have been without it. 

20 hours ago, manol said:

My understanding is that Navidad and his wife view the Latter-day Saints in their ward as fully their Brothers and Sisters but this view is not reciprocated, and the disparity is taking a toll on them. 

Perhaps some day there will be a fundamental paradigm shift away from separation as "The Plan".  Perhaps some day "Oneness" will be seen as more than just a synonym for "in agreement". 

That makes sense, though I think there will be limits to how much of even a fundamental shift could make on this. One can value and enjoy a person and still hold boundaries based on things that are still considered important. For example, I enjoy(ed) midnight mass and other religious services I've gone to. If I went to the community and actively participated in them to some degree without fully joining or subscribing to their beliefs and maintaining several of my distinctively lds beliefs (BOM, non-trinitarian, HM, etc) I would assume that there would still be a difference in engagement that I could be a part of. And I'd respect that. I'm sure at some point, particularly if this community was small, I would come to really love them and wish I could do "more" in the community. But I would also know that my vision of more may not really be aligned with theirs and as long as I wasn't willing to change to better align with them, I can't expect for the distinctions to not be important for them. To me, respect love and siblinghood doesn't mean an absolute same expression and permeability in their views and experiencs of the sacred. It means balancing and honoring what connects us all while also honoring and giving space to our differences. 

Personally I think assuming or wishing for the former is setting oneself up for pain in the future. It's just not realistic. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[MustardSeed]

I love my brothers 10 year live in girlfriend.  I admit, I will feel more vulnerable with her and more connected if and when they actually marry.  
FWIW

[smac97]

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

Quote

The "fold of God" is, I think, the Church.

Thanks for your kind and thorough reply. I am happy to receive it as you have offered it. The only sentence I struggle with is the one I quoted. I am familiar with the term "the fold of God." It is used in Mosiah 18 and possibly/probably others that don't come to mind.

From the Topical Guide:

Quote

Fold

• bring them again to their folds, Jer. 23:3.

• other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, John 10:16 (3 Ne. 15:17, 21).

• will they not come unto the true fold of God, 1 Ne. 15:15.
• shall be one fold and one shepherd, 1 Ne. 22:25 (3 Ne. 16:3).
• restored to the true church and fold, 2 Ne. 9:2.
• desirous to come into the fold of God, Mosiah 18:8.
• of what fold are ye, Alma 5:39.

John 10:16 seems significant ("and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd").  And 2 Nephi 9:2 ("That he has spoken unto the Jews, by the mouth of his holy prophets, even from the beginning down, from generation to generation, until the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God...").

And 3 Nephi 15:21 ("I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.").  And 1 Nephi 15:15 ("And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?").  3 Nephi 16:1-3 speaks of "other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem."

There are also extensive scriptural references to the "Book of Life," one meaning of which is "the heavenly register of those who inherit eternal life (Heb. 12:23; Alma 5:58; D&C 76:68)" and "the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world (D&C 88:2; cf. Mal. 3:16-17)."  The Church takes a fairly literal approach to the names written in this book:

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that essential items written in the "books yet to be opened" are linked to proper Church records, including those of essential gospel ordinances performed by priesthood authority for individuals and attested by authorized witnesses. In ancient covenant ceremonies, the names of the righteous were solemnly recorded, thus numbering them among "the living" (e.g., Num. 1:1-46; Mosiah 6:1-2). What is properly recorded on earth is recorded in heaven (D&C 128:7-8). Final sealing in the Lamb's book requires, further, the approval of the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 132:19). 

So there is a certain element of literalness to these things.  That said, however, I think the Restored Gospel is remarkable for its depiction of the Lord's love and benevolence for His children.  "or a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee."  (Isaiah 54:7.)

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

In the NT, the Greek word aules which is the word that is used to refer to a sheepfold in the NT is used 12 times. It refers to a courtyard, a patio, a palace, and yes, a place sheep are kept outside. Its most basic use is as a roofless open area in a palace or home. I think of it as my patio out back between our house and the river. Christ is portrayed as the door to that fold, not the fold itself, and as the shepherd. It might be deemed a place of safety from the wolves, thieves, etc.

Yes.  

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

Whenever you and many others here use the term "the church" you seem to be referring specifically and only to the LDS church. Am I wrong?

Generally, you are correct.

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

The intent of the shepherd passage in John 10 seems to be that Christ is both the door (to the fold- open area - patio - courtyard) and the shepherd.

Yes.  Though verse 2 seems to differentiate ("But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep"), verses 7 and 9 suggests the conflation you raise ("Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep" and "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,"), as does verses 11 and 14 ("I am the good shepherd").

Seems like these metaphors can be a bit elastic.

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

He is the access and then once sheep are in, he is the protector and guardian. Given all the conversations I have had (probably hundreds by now) with folks on this forum I conclude that Christ is the door to the fold, which door is found exclusively and only in the LDS church in this dispensation. Is that correct?

In terms of saving ordinances, yes.

In terms of living a Christlike life, no.

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

Then the only protective place (the fold) in this dispensation is the LDS church. Is that correct? So then, all Christians since 1830 have opened door #2 which opens to  . . . . . . what? An empty room? A place that isn't safe? A place without a shepherd? Can you be specific? - Of course you can be specific. Will you be specific is perhaps a better question.

I hesitate to elaborate on metaphors, as we get pretty quickly into personal opinion and conjecture.

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

I think I am safe in asking you this? It is something I think about more than anything else in my journey through the land of LDSdom.

The teachings of the Church re: priesthood authority, organization, a cohesive and unified and visible "church," etc. work quite well and can be seen as well-supported in scripture.

I acknowledge that there are many faith traditions within Christendom that take a different stance on these issues, and I respect them.  I also acknowledge that there are many wonderful followers of Christ throughout the world who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  In the end, whether the exclusivistic truth claims of the Church are correct is a matter of faith for each individual.

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

What specifically and no kidding is the spiritual condition of all the millions and millions of Christians who have sincerely and truly dedicated themselves to Christ over the many years of this dispensation?

I would not kid about such a serious topic.

I think the "spiritual condition" of these folks is, candidly, pretty good.  The doctrines we have about missionary work, teaching in the Hereafter, temple work, and the kingdoms of glory leave plenty of room for optimism and hope.  I am less worried about an earnest, sincere, devoted follower of Jesus Christ who is not in the Church than I am about Latter-day Saints who are not keeping their covenants.

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

The best I can ever get in a response is that I (as a representative of that vast group) have what you deem the "light of Christ" given to all humans- nothing unique to the non-LDS Christian. I may have the occasional visit of the Holy Spirit (a rarity), but certainly do not have the "gift of the Holy Spirit," nor the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor the Spirit's permanent indwelling (permanent in the sense of all the time while being worthy).

I am your brother, so I am called brother so and so . . . but only because you and I are both literally physically the offspring of the Father, hence literally all humans are brothers or sisters of Christ, but not in Christ.

I can't go along with the "not in Christ" part.  

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

When you call Brother Farnsworth (just to use a common LDS name) Brother, it is with a capital B; I am brother with a small b. Is that fair? I find my very kind LDS friends very hesitant to say to us individually what they say consistently in their testimonies when speaking in broad generalities about non-LDS folks. We (non-LDS Christians) are truly not of the sheepfold of John 10 or Mosiah 18, are we?

In the Latter-day Saint pardigm, the saving ordinances and other exclusivistic claims of the Restored Gospel matter.  If you believe in those claims, or if you do not, are preconditions to answering your question.  

On 2/5/2023 at 8:10 AM, Navidad said:

Our relationship to the Savior is somehow and in some indescribable (at least no LDS friend has ever described it to me) way, very different from that of the Saint. Perhaps for you, as you have indicated, the LDS Church is the corral. Those of us non-LDS Christians are out on the potrero, on the mountainside unprotected and vulnerable to all its dangers with no shepherd to protect us. Is that fair? Thanks. I said at the beginning of this I believe I am safe in asking you these questions. That is important to me. Thank you.  

In the end, you must do what you think is right, what you feel the Lord wants you to do.  Pursue that and you will, sooner or later, be fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

Months later, and I finally borrowed a copy of the book and read through it, so I will add some thoughts on the book after having read it.

Kimball emphasizes a few things throughout the book. First, he recognizes that he is targeting a very niche audience. This "inside of the edge" space is kind of narrow and not very many will choose to try to exist there for an extended time. I'm not sure if the book is a good way for all ins or all outs to understand people on the edge. He specifically tries to avoid any kind of "this is what the church is doing wrong and how to fix it" kind of discussion. Most of the book is strategies for living on the inside of the edge, regardless of specific historical or doctrinal or family or social or other issues that the reader feels has placed them squarely in a place where they can see reasons why they would be justified in leaving the church but actively decide that they want to maintain some kind of positive relationship with the church.

A couple of the key strategies he talks about.

1) Differentiation. Recognizing that you can pick and choose for reasons that only make sense to you to choose what you believe and what you don't. Where you agree with the church and where you don't. What you will do in the church and what you won't. Finding this place of self-determination is a key part in Kimball's mind to make this work.

2) Treating your relationship with the church and leaders as a peer-peer relationship rather than a child-parent relationship. He observes (and I have observed the same) that we often find ourselves in relationship to the church and its leaders as if the church is the wise, knowledgeable, authoritative figure and we are less knowledgeable, less wise, and ought to submit to the church's authority. Kimball strongly recommends that one strive to make their relationship with the church as a relationship of equals. You can choose to participate in a meeting or accept a calling or believe something and talk about those things as if you are talking to a sibling or peer rather than a parent.

3) Pick your battles. A big part of Kimball's strategy is figuring out when you feel you must speak out about your differences and your reasons for being on the edge, and when to keep quiet.

Recognizing that I feel very much in his target audience (there are definitely reasons why I would leave the church, but I feel some kind of calling to stay), I felt like Kimball's advice is a good basis. Only time will tell what my life looks like going forward, but for now, Kimball's strategies seem like they will be useful for me in maintaining and shaping my relationship with the church.

[Okrahomer]

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

but I feel some kind of calling to stay),

Please stay, Mr Shorty.  I will be happy to sit next to you in the virtual pew…to share the burden of questioning, to mourn your mournings, and as weak-kneed as I am to try to offer comfort.  I will be praying for that kind of revelation that renews your faith and tells you that you are not a stranger here…”but like a child at home.”

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Months later, and I finally borrowed a copy of the book and read through it, so I will add some thoughts on the book after having read it.

Kimball emphasizes a few things throughout the book. First, he recognizes that he is targeting a very niche audience. This "inside of the edge" space is kind of narrow and not very many will choose to try to exist there for an extended time. I'm not sure if the book is a good way for all ins or all outs to understand people on the edge. He specifically tries to avoid any kind of "this is what the church is doing wrong and how to fix it" kind of discussion. Most of the book is strategies for living on the inside of the edge, regardless of specific historical or doctrinal or family or social or other issues that the reader feels has placed them squarely in a place where they can see reasons why they would be justified in leaving the church but actively decide that they want to maintain some kind of positive relationship with the church.

A couple of the key strategies he talks about.

1) Differentiation. Recognizing that you can pick and choose for reasons that only make sense to you to choose what you believe and what you don't. Where you agree with the church and where you don't. What you will do in the church and what you won't. Finding this place of self-determination is a key part in Kimball's mind to make this work.

2) Treating your relationship with the church and leaders as a peer-peer relationship rather than a child-parent relationship. He observes (and I have observed the same) that we often find ourselves in relationship to the church and its leaders as if the church is the wise, knowledgeable, authoritative figure and we are less knowledgeable, less wise, and ought to submit to the church's authority. Kimball strongly recommends that one strive to make their relationship with the church as a relationship of equals. You can choose to participate in a meeting or accept a calling or believe something and talk about those things as if you are talking to a sibling or peer rather than a parent.

3) Pick your battles. A big part of Kimball's strategy is figuring out when you feel you must speak out about your differences and your reasons for being on the edge, and when to keep quiet.

Recognizing that I feel very much in his target audience (there are definitely reasons why I would leave the church, but I feel some kind of calling to stay), I felt like Kimball's advice is a good basis. Only time will tell what my life looks like going forward, but for now, Kimball's strategies seem like they will be useful for me in maintaining and shaping my relationship with the church.

I hope you make it work. Reading that makes me realize one of the reasons I have never struggled and that is I adopted my parents and one grandmother’s attitudes towards leaders and have always seen them as peers (my grandmother was famous in the family and perhaps her stake if the stories are true for letting church leaders know what she thought should be done).  I can’t imagine my dad asking for or accepting guidance on his life from anyone outside of technical knowledge in fields like medicine and finance, he wasn’t arrogant in a ‘lording it over others’ way, he just oozed confidence and independence and was comfortable in any group (unless they started talking touchy feely stuff).  And Mom respected everyone and believed everyone could have something of value to teach us. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Months later, and I finally borrowed a copy of the book and read through it, so I will add some thoughts on the book after having read it.

Kimball emphasizes a few things throughout the book. First, he recognizes that he is targeting a very niche audience. This "inside of the edge" space is kind of narrow and not very many will choose to try to exist there for an extended time. I'm not sure if the book is a good way for all ins or all outs to understand people on the edge. He specifically tries to avoid any kind of "this is what the church is doing wrong and how to fix it" kind of discussion. Most of the book is strategies for living on the inside of the edge, regardless of specific historical or doctrinal or family or social or other issues that the reader feels has placed them squarely in a place where they can see reasons why they would be justified in leaving the church but actively decide that they want to maintain some kind of positive relationship with the church.

A couple of the key strategies he talks about.

1) Differentiation. Recognizing that you can pick and choose for reasons that only make sense to you to choose what you believe and what you don't. Where you agree with the church and where you don't. What you will do in the church and what you won't. Finding this place of self-determination is a key part in Kimball's mind to make this work.

2) Treating your relationship with the church and leaders as a peer-peer relationship rather than a child-parent relationship. He observes (and I have observed the same) that we often find ourselves in relationship to the church and its leaders as if the church is the wise, knowledgeable, authoritative figure and we are less knowledgeable, less wise, and ought to submit to the church's authority. Kimball strongly recommends that one strive to make their relationship with the church as a relationship of equals. You can choose to participate in a meeting or accept a calling or believe something and talk about those things as if you are talking to a sibling or peer rather than a parent.

This has been a big thing for me lately. I think we mix the church and leaders up sometimes with God being our Father.  The church is his church right? So it is one of his methods of parenting.  But leaders are not our parents so we should stop having a parent child relationship with them.  

It's interesting seeing this with the discussion on the modesty thread.  The changes in For strength of Youth move that parenting back to God.

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

3) Pick your battles. A big part of Kimball's strategy is figuring out when you feel you must speak out about your differences and your reasons for being on the edge, and when to keep quiet.

Recognizing that I feel very much in his target audience (there are definitely reasons why I would leave the church, but I feel some kind of calling to stay), I felt like Kimball's advice is a good basis. Only time will tell what my life looks like going forward, but for now, Kimball's strategies seem like they will be useful for me in maintaining and shaping my relationship with the church.

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/4/2023 at 3:53 PM, manol said:

I was driving along once and looked up and saw a full-size billboard that said, in huge letters, "TRY GOD".

I'm sure God finds me very trying indeed.

😝  As the inimitable, incomparable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said once (paraphrasing), flawed, fallible, mortal human beings are all God has ever had to work with.  That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  As the inimitable, incomparable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said once (paraphrasing), flawed, fallible, mortal human beings are all God has ever had to work with.  That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it.

Why would that be frustrating to God?  God set up the plan. So it is on him really if he is frustrated with it.  Honestly though, this argument is a cop out and a good illustration of how God is made by men in their own image and ideals.  Gods are human inventions, not the other way around.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Teancum

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why would that be frustrating to God?  God set up the plan. So it is on him really if he is frustrated with it.  Honestly though, this argument is a cope out and a good illustration of how God is made by men in their own image and ideals.  Gods are human inventions, not the other way around.

Have you never been frustrated by something that you set up or created?  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Have you never been frustrated by something that you set up or created?  

Yes.  But I am not a God that claims to be omniscient, omnipotent and so on. There is a bit of a difference don't you think?  I mean really? Or maybe the God you believe is is a weak simpleton?  The God of the scriptures should not be frustrated with the ineptness of beings this God created.  If that God is then that God is a failure. But of course when one reads the OT this so called God was quite happy to drown all his human creation but for 8. Because he wanted to repent of making them.  And this so called God was always ready to murder anyone who did not do what this God said.  Thus my point. God is created in human image.  There likely is no such a being.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Teancum

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  But I am not a God that claims to be omniscient, omnipotent and so on. There is a bit of a difference don't you think?  I mean really? Or maybe the God you believe is is a weak simpleton?  The God of the scriptures should not be frustrated with the ineptness of beings this God created.  If that God is then that God is a failure. But of course when one reads the OT this so called God was quite happy to drown all his human creation but for 8. Because he wanted to repent of making them.  And this so called God was always ready to murder anyone who did not do what this God said.  Thus my point. God is created in human image.  There likely is no such a being.

Oh I agree there is a bit of a difference.  I was mostly going from the angle that having a negative emotion based on the actions of something you created or put into motion is evidence that you didn't actually create it. It seems clear that it's not evidence of that at all since we all have personal experience proving it does happen (often).

Besides all of that, I think you are taking the comment (or dissecting it) more literally than Elder Holland intended.  He was just saying "God deals with your weaknesses so it's not too much for you to deal with other people's weaknesses".

That's a basic uncontroversial statement.  

 

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Oh I agree there is a bit of a difference. 

A bit?  FAR larger than a bit.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

 

I was mostly going from the angle that having a negative emotion based on the actions of something you created or put into motion is evidence that you didn't actually create it. It seems clear that it's not evidence of that at all since we all have personal experience proving it does happen (often).

There are all sort of things in my life that I gave tried to do that leave me frustrated.  From how I parented my 4 children.  To how I at times interact with my 9 grandchildren.  Work issues have left me frustrated.  Leading a 200 person and 30 partner CPA firm a CEO for 4 years was totally frustrating and left me with some jaded views of many of may partners that Id did not have before that experience.  But these are human experiences.  A God that is frustrated with how lacking this God's creations are is a weak God or no god at all.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Besides all of that, I think you are taking the comment (or dissecting it) more literally than Elder Holland intended.  He was just saying "God deals with your weaknesses so it's not too much for you to deal with other people's weaknesses".

That's a basic uncontroversial statement.  

 

I am not sure I agree with that conclusion.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

A bit?  FAR larger than a bit.

There are all sort of things in my life that I gave tried to do that leave me frustrated.  From how I parented my 4 children.  To how I at times interact with my 9 grandchildren.  Work issues have left me frustrated.  Leading a 200 person and 30 partner CPA firm a CEO for 4 years was totally frustrating and left me with some jaded views of many of may partners that Id did not have before that experience.  But these are human experiences.  A God that is frustrated with how lacking this God's creations are is a weak God or no god at all.

I am not sure I agree with that conclusion.

ok

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

ok

Well ok. Apparently you are quite fine with such a God.  But it seems to me to be ok with such a God means to chip away at the power of such a being in order to maintain a belief. If that works for you wonderful.  It does not for me. It speaks more to the idea that there likely is no such being.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well ok. Apparently you are quite fine with such a God.  But it seems to me to be ok with such a God means to chip away at the power of such a being in order to maintain a belief. If that works for you wonderful.  It does not for me. It speaks more to the idea that there likely is no such being.

Ok (as in, ok i acknowledge your comments but feel no need to comment further).

That’s what my last “ok” meant as well. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by bluebell

[rodheadlee]

On 2/1/2023 at 1:00 PM, Teancum said:

I have lots of thoughts on your comments but they are so voluminous and do not have the time for every point.

 

But a few points.  

 

You come from a viewpoint that there is no good reason to be less than full in as a church member or at least that is how it seems. I think most active LDS are this way.  You can be PIMO but be quiet about it. I think your comment about Kimball or Reiss not being well suited to work with someone that is having a faith crisis to be nonsensical and arrogant.  There are plenty of members who are more nuanced than you are that can be quite objective in how they help those going  though such things and honestly they may be better suited to do it than you are because you certainly have a strong bias.  Maybe they do as well but I can say for me I have been on both sides. I do not think you have.  But that said I do not think I would want to guide someone through such an experience as I went through. Ultimately it is a personal journey and we all have to make our own decisions. Were someone to approach me and were they interested I would share my journey and tell them I would support them in whatever they decided.  In my journey I found most active members pretty useless.  Even my bishops. They really were not equipped to deal with me and my issues. My SP was as was the prior SP but honestly they are both pretty nuanced. 

I also think your comparisons of half way in other things is silly and specious and not that applicable. A church does not have to be a marriage.

 

All that said I do think to really enjoy the church and prosper in it one must be pretty much all in.  I tried to make it work without being all in for quite a few years. I tried different approaches and nuances in my own mind. Ultimately I become miserable. As you know personally I think the truth claims of the church don't stand up well.  But there was a time I wanted to try to make it work as a way to connect to God.  But to do that it seemed I had to pretend to be something I was not.  Your post above and another one above this one in this thread continues to demonstrate I was correct. I think Kimball's approach it futile and ultimately does not work. 

Buy a small (38') sailboat, put on several thousand miles offshore with just you and your spouse. I think you'll get really close to God.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Honestly though, this argument is a cop out and a good illustration of how God is made by men in their own image and ideals.  Gods are human inventions, not the other way around.

Exactly right.

But a horrible argument from your pov.

It's what I have been saying forever, and that is the brilliance of the philosophy of Joseph Smith.

Yes God was invented by Humans, because He IS AN EXALTED HUMAN CREATED BY EXALTED HUMAN PARENTS, just as we are.

So there goes that argument.

Your argument actually assists our paradigm; thanks!

Why most LDS miss this is beyond me, it is a leftover from Platonic dualism that crept into Christianity in what we call the "apostasy"

Platonism actually opposes Biblical views, and is the source of "original sin", and the fallacious view that matter itself is evil, as opposed to Spirit.

Joseph theorized that matter IS "spirit", but more refined" and imo this precedes Einstein's theory that matter and energy are interchangeable.

These kinds of paradigms are not wives tales, they are cutting edge stuff.

Hope one day you will see it.  

 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Buy a small (38') sailboat, put on several thousand miles offshore with just you and your spouse. I think you'll get really close to God.

Brilliant, thanks!

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

😝  As the inimitable, incomparable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said once (paraphrasing), flawed, fallible, mortal human beings are all God has ever had to work with.  That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it.

 

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why would that be frustrating to God?  God set up the plan. So it is on him really if he is frustrated with it.  Honestly though, this argument is a cop out and a good illustration of how God is made by men in their own image and ideals.  Gods are human inventions, not the other way around.

While I realize that, in an electronic medium such as this, it is difficult to convey the irony with which a line such as Elder Holland's might be delivered (and I apologize for failing to convey that sense of irony adequately, but I was on my phone at the time, so my usual liberal, easy use of emoticons was hampered), nevertheless, the line was, indeed, delivered with a good deal of irony, and it provoked not a small bit of laughter from Conference goers.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Buy a small (38') sailboat, put on several thousand miles offshore with just you and your spouse. I think you'll get really close to God.

I ride my bike   Thousands of miles a year.  I thiniki about all this when I ride an doray as well. So there you have it.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Ok (as in, ok i acknowledge your comments but feel no need to comment further).

That’s what my last “ok” meant as well. 

Well ok! 😁

[Stargazer]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:32 PM, Teancum said:

Why would that be frustrating to God?  God set up the plan. So it is on him really if he is frustrated with it.  Honestly though, this argument is a cop out and a good illustration of how God is made by men in their own image and ideals.  Gods are human inventions, not the other way around.

Yes, the speaker is guilty of projecting human frailties onto God. Do you not know how humor works? His remark was funny. People laughed at it. He was not teaching doctrine. He was trying to help people relate to things in a way they could relate to as parents. Let us all boo his feeble attempt. 

DC 3:3 -> Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

We see through a glass, darkly. But God knows the end from the beginning. He knows how it turns out already. A speaker, whose name I cannot recall, made a comment in a talk on the Book of Revelation to the effect that God cannot be surprised. 

Of course, if He doesn't exist then he can't be surprised then, either. LOL. 

I try to tell people that God already knows how you will turn out in the end. You don't, because you haven't done it yet. In fact, it disturbs some people that God knows. They think that if God knows already that this takes free agency away from them. But it doesn't. You still have to make your decisions, and until you are put into the affray, you haven't made them.

God, the human invention, doesn't know. But God, the inventor of humans, does know.

Take Schrödinger's Cat, for example. In the classic thought experiment, it is not only not known whether the cat is dead or alive, in fact the cat is neither dead or alive, until the box is opened and the cat is observed. It is the act of observation that "collapses the state vector," and then we find out. 

To ourselves, we are Schrödinger's Cat. We don't know how we turn out. But God has observed the result, and collapsed the state vector. Before we were even put into the box. But we don't know it yet. And if you think that violates free agency, you're wrong. It is the act of putting you in the box that begins the chain of your decisions that collapse your state vector. But God already knows, because he has observed the final result. It's quite neat, actually.

Don't get it? Well, don't sweat it. You will make your choices according to your own free will. And in the end you will know, just like God knows already.

And if God doesn't exist, as you claim, then you'll be dead along with the rest of us and there will be no worries.

You may yet turn yourself around and return to faith. Only God knows what you will do, but the decision is yours.