Leaderboard

I have a story for you. A man was hiking in the mountains, he was invigorated with the majestic views over the steep mountain cliffs. He felt like he was in the presence of God himself. He became fixated and mesmerized with a hiker in the distance. who was outfitted with the newest and best tech equipment, he was attired so smartly too, he even looked flashy as he hiked the steep mountain trail. As the man was daydreaming of himself equipped like the… he suddenly slipped on the trail and fell off the cliff. Luckily on his way down, he managed to grab onto a branch sticking out of the rock face . Dangling precariously, he shouted in distress, Help ! Is anyone up there? I need Help ! . A voice like the sound of great rushing waters, replied, I am here to save. Let go of thine anchor, I will catch thee. The man hesitated, as he looked down in fear and saw only the terrifying drop below, after a few moments and with a crack in his voice, he shouted (meekly), "Is anyone else up there?" That was [The Parable of the Cliffhanger]. It's a parable story about how a person can feel so close to God, but when he focuses on the things of the world, He can find himself in precarious or stressful circumstances. And of course when the person feels the unbearable pain of his choices or like there is no way out, He turns to God for help. God wants to help, and can often give us solutions to save us. But sometimes all we can see is fear or we just don't have faith that his solution is the best way. So he looks to the world for help, or anywhere other than God for a way out. Ai Says " Your parable, "The Parable of the Cliffhanger," carries a powerful message about faith, trust, and the choices we make in moments of crisis. It's a compelling metaphor for how we often seek worldly solutions instead of relying on divine guidance, even when help is offered." JimTheMM

Because I have chosen a profession in the category of engineering and science, I have delt a lot with atheists and agnostics. Strange as it may seem – I have often found it easier to deal with advances in the sciences with atheists and agnostics than those of the religious stripe. Perhaps the most outstanding examples of such principles are in the creation or origins of our universe and the principles of evolution of intelligent life. However, there is another principle that I believe is central to religious thought that is even more of a profound conundrum. I believe this principle is tied directly to a profound piece of advice given by our current living prophet – to think Celestial. Here is the conundrum as I see it. As a religious person draws closer to G-d through faith, belief and worship – it seems that in most religious cases – the less they are expected to contribute towards divine society and behaving like G-d. Keeping in mind that the best example of G-d that we have is Jesus Christ. There is a notion that if we believe in Christ – it does not matter that much what we say or do. We are saved – not by any effort of ourselves but only if we believe in Christ. It seems to me that such thinking is counter productive to the principle that the closer to G-d a person becomes through faith, belief and worship – the more like G-d that their thinking and behaviors ought to become. In the vernacular of LDS theology – this means thinking, believing in and behaving Celestial. Many have the notion that because they belong to the correct “religion” G-d will forgive them more that an non believer or someone of a different religious sect that makes greater effort to be kind and loving (G-d like) towards others. (This is very much at the core of the concept of being saved by grace or works.) In short – to whom much (of light and truth) is given much is expected. That those that are associated with the correct doctrines of religion – should not more be expected – especially at that great and final judgement day? The more light and truth we have the better we better (Celestial) we ought to be thinking. The Traveler

At the very least, knowing which section to work on would help. I don't have time to decipher that whole page (and I'm pretty good at cursive, even old cursive - but dude wrote so small and "slurred" his writing). The version people talk about, maybe. When I went and read some of the documents I had (just common Church history volumes in a digital library), it seemed to me he was just using an expanded definition of "god", not claiming Adam and God the Father were one and the same person (which is what a lot of people say this theory claims, but I wasn't finding that - not that I care either way). Anywho, I don't believe we're capable of understanding the context - knowing some things about it, sure - understanding it? Not without revelation from God putting you into the mind of someone who lived it. Let God worry about brother Brigham. For me, there's only two ways to look at it: 1. God chose Brigham Young. In this case, any problems are God's to solve. 2. God didn't choose Brigham Young. In this case, we're in the wrong church. I know we're in the right Church, so I'm gonna let God figure out the past while I try to figure out how to live my covenants.

Assuming the worst about him (which is an unstable foundation for anyone to use), the keys of the kingdom were still intact and exercised by the First Presidency and Twelve. The covenants were still in place and active in the saints' lives. It's not a matter of being the best the Lord has to work with at the time, it is a matter of whom the Lord chooses to work through at the time for His own purposes. Should your line of thinking extend to Church leaders and officers (typically local units) committing crimes, the same thing holds true. The Lord atoned for all our sins and if He did not, we would not have the agency to commit them.

Raising your hand and sustaining fallible humans can be challenging sometimes. It helps if you understand that sustaining people in their calling occasionally means not putting up with their bullcrap if that's what they're shoveling. I learned this lesson once as an executive secretary in a bishopric meeting. The stake representative was chewing out the bishop for not having all his ducks in a row regarding some priesthood advancements. The bishop said something to his clerk, who left the room. Bishop then took out his copy of the handbook and began reading verbatim the section on ward and stake duties and procedures when it came to such things. After he had read the section, the clerk had returned with several records, and the bishop proceeded to assign dates to every single thing the ward was supposed to do. Then he turned to the stake responsibilities and read them off, one at a time, saying things like "the stake has had bro Smith's teacher ordination paperwork since [date]. Have you done step 3 and completed the paperwork?" "the stake was informed about their need to interview bro Jones for advancement to elder on [date]. Has the stake contacted bro Jones to set up that meeting?" The questions went on and on. The stake was found lacking on every single item. After the bishop was done, he asked "ok. So, is there anything the stake is waiting for on our end? If not, I think we can move to the next topic." I've never seen such a royal butt-whipping as I saw the bishop give our stake rep that day. There was love in the air, and there was also absolutely no mistake about who had dropped the ball. I mean, you're not bishop, but if you're filling your calling, you can speak with the same authority. You can say what you will and will not be doing. You can point out how other people are not doing their jobs. And even though it's a skill that's hard to master, you can do such things in love.

Hear hear. Quite a lot of sentiment gets thrown round to suggest that if somebody isn't perfectly serving in their calling then they are useless. Always makes me uncomfortable, and it's an unrighteous, toxic attitude. We've a new Young Womans president being called and before she has even been set apart I've heard comments suggesting that this is "the end" of our youth.