Leaderboard

Matthew 8:23-27 and Mark 4:35-41 Everything in my life seems to be about this story at the moment. We had it at a meeting at the vicarage a few weeks back, and we had it again at church yesterday. (It was the all-age service so we did it as a play, and since there weren't enough kids to play all the disciples, I had to stand in as one of them.) I'm sure there was something else about it recently though I don't remember. I think God has His ways of getting me to hear what I need to hear. Just to get it out of the way, let's talk briefly about the elephant in the room: How did Jesus sleep in in a rocking leaking boat in the middle of a raging storm? Nobody ever mentions that unless you bring it up yourself, at which point they say things like "Ah well, that's just it! He's the Son of God!" etc. But no one ever wants to discuss it unless you force them to. It's one of those questions you're not supposed to ask. A bit like the "Parable of the Shrewd Manager" in Luke 16:1-15, which has at least two elephants hiding in plain sight - and that's before we even get to the matter of whether Jesus is recommending dishonest dealing! But I'll leave that to another day. Meanwhile, do you notice that when one storm is stilled, instead of enjoying the calm you find yourself terrified by another storm somewhere else, and you have no more faith to "rebuke" it than you had with the first one? Last Wednesday when I was almost home from driving my daughter back to university, the car engine started making that clicky-clicky noise you get when the oil is low, but not quite low enough to make the oil light come on. And this was strange because I'd checked the oil that morning and it was fine. Furthermore there was oil all over the underneath of the car, and some had even spattered up the tailgate, and it was dripping on the ground. I put some more oil in and the clicky-clicky stopped, but I took it to the workshop first thing next morning. The mechanic soon told me the oil seal on the crankshaft had broken and he would need to order a new one, and he couldn't do the job till Monday - i.e. today. Well by midday today I was a nervous wreck, terrified I was going to get a call saying there were umpteen more things wrong with the car. But Jesus calmed the storm, and I didn't even need to wake him! The mechanic called at 3pm to say the car was fixed and ready! Well, all the way home my mind was hunting for something else to worry about, and I soon remembered the dreaded crack in the garage wall. I had the insurance people survey it a while back and they said it was subsidence due to the moisture demands of two large conifers, and once they were gone the soil would recover and "push up" the wall again. The repairs which would then be needed were not enough to justify a claim. So I got someone to come and chop the trees down, but but since then if anything the crack seems to have got bigger. Well, not bigger top-to-bottom, but the lower bricks are sliding outwards a bit relative to the upper ones in a kind of "staircase" pattern. I checked it about an hour ago and a bit more of the pointing has come loose. I suppose that could be the upward pressure of the recovering soil (none of the actual bricks are loose) but that's just my desperately optimistic know-nothing layman theory. I ought really to get a builder to look at it again, but that would be akin to opening Schrodinger's garage. Anyway, that's what's bugging me now that the car story ended happily (apart from the bill - though even that wasn't too bad.) I feel sure if the garage wall problem went away, some other storm would take its place. They stack up like bottles of anxiety in a vending machine - you know the sort where when one bottle of soda falls, the one behind it slides in to take its place? Does anyone else have this problem? Thanks anyway for listening to my drivelings!

That is kind of where I am with this thread. When I read the first step of the first flow chart I am like... Why would we assume that something that is 'complete' can't still grow? That seems like a totally arbitrary restriction that has no real support. It also kind of reminds me of the debate with Trinitarians.. That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a special substance that only they have and no one not even God can make more of or share. While I am all for there being something special about God that will forever make him different from us. But for me that is already figured out. They are My Father and My Christ and My Savior and that will never change. So even if the more far end of the LDS theological ideas hold true and one day in the far future I am doing for others what the Father and Son have done for me... that does not and can not change what they did and how important they are to me. Plus another reason for me to stay out of this thread is that having two Grumpy Care Bear profiles can get confusing

I have to admit I'm finding this discussion difficult because you keep comparing what you believe now to what you incorrectly believed before about LDS doctrine. You state you are aware this may be true but any attempt on our part to correct those misconceptions is ignored as you continue to compare your new beliefs to the same misconceptions. From our perspective you are simply comparing two flawed belief systems. You sound like a genuinely good person and it's unfortunate that you didn't find doctrinal clarification before leaving the Church but I don't think it is appropriate for you to keep implying that what you once believed is representative of what our Church teaches. If you want to discuss what we actually believe you'll need to leave those misconceptions behind you and be open to a new perspective on these issues.

Most accurate to say there have been times in my life when I haven't had this problem.

I once fell asleep standing up while assisting in surgery (holding retractors during residency after a 36 hour shift). If you work hard you can sleep hard.

I think that's a valuable lesson itself. When life is a smouldering wreck, you have two choices, panic like the disciples, or remain calm like the saviour.

Different levels / degrees / strengths, different expressions, different centers (the person / thing in which one places faith). That seems like a reasonable idea - faith is faith, but it can differ in those ways (and perhaps others).

I haven't read through the thread...and I have SO much to say... a lot of which may have already been said. And I don't really have the time to detail out all my thoughts. But they can be summarized in the two posts I've made. I think calling God's glory complete vs increasing is a semantic issue and not really worth debating. It's both. And it can be easily reconciled as both. Neither are hard ideas. It just depends on what one means by glory. I don't think our having a transactional relationship with God takes away from things flowing from love and grace in any regard. I understand and appreciate the need to balance these ideas. But I don't think one needs to be cast aside in favor of the other or that that's the best way to come to terms with various principles and ideas.

I want to sincerely thank everyone who participated in this thread. It’s truly rare—and deeply refreshing—to find thoughtful individuals who engage with respect and care, especially when discussing something as sensitive and personal as religion. The willingness to listen, consider opposing viewpoints, and respond with kindness rather than judgment speaks volumes about the character of this community. Conversations like these give me hope that, even on challenging topics, productive and meaningful dialogue is possible when we approach one another with empathy and openness. Thank you all for making this space one where honest reflection and respectful exchange can happen. It’s a privilege to be part of it. @CV75 @NeuroTypical @zil2 @Vort @Carborendum @estradling75 @LDSGator @The Folk Prophet @laronius @Omergideon @mikbone @HaggisShuu

Mark 4:38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? Not sure what the hinder part is, but he had a pillow. This was recently found in 1986 buried near the sea of Galilee 27’ long and 8’ wide. But it could have been bigger like We have this picture in our living room. With 11 children, I thought the meaning of “Peace be Still” could have dual meanings… Sometimes in surgery blood is flying and we commonly use drills, hammers, etc. Nonetheless, I find that I can sleep like the dead when I am exhausted and have taken care of business. Christ knew that it was not his time and that He could command the elements. What is there to fear?

I was always impressed to believe that the Infinite Atonement was so painful that even God, the greatest of all, still held a painful memory of that event. And that is why He paused. Because of this interpretation, I always felt more depth in the words: As if He were pushing aside the painful memory and moving forward to Eternity. And for only a moment, I feel the magnitude of debt I owe Him. He is my Savior. And I will never deny His Mission, His Divinity, His Love.

That’s a meaningful reflection—thank you for sharing it. I can see why that em dash in D&C 19 stood out to you, especially with how emotionally weighty that passage is. The way you describe the pause—almost like a moment of interruption or restraint—does speak to the limits of language in expressing something so deeply felt. And I especially love that your connection to it is tied to your dad’s work in printing—that’s a beautiful intersection of practical skill and linguistic awareness.

For most of my life, I had pictured a proper boat with an enclosure, like the boat used in Jaws. So, for me, it was a no brainer. He was sleeping inside where the storm wasn’t in his face. It was only later in life where I saw a video in which the Savior was in a small boat with barely enough room for all of them. When I saw it, I wondered, “How on earth was he supposed to actually sleep in that condition?” I left thinking, “Oh, well. It was just the director’s interpretation. He must have been pretty stupid to think the Lord could sleep through that. If He could sleep through that, how on earth could the disciples even rouse him?” I mean, come on. It would be like waking the dead… a-hem. EDIT: Yeah, like that.

With all due respect Mikbone, I'm sure you weren't being tossed around like a pea in a whistle while having gallons of cold water poured over you. And another thing: if Jesus wasn't woken by the storm, how did the disciples wake him so easily?

Presumably he was both exhausted and not worried about drowning. I'm pretty sure every mortal on the planet had, has, or will have this problem at one or more points in their life.

I learned about the emdash by reading D&C 19. Jesus Christ is speaking, clarifying words like endless and eternal, commanding people to repent. And He takes a moment to reflect on His experience with the Atonement: For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. Wherefore, I command you again to repent... From what I had learned, the emdash was primarily used to join two thoughts together. But there in verse 18, it's used as a pause, where Christ does not continue with another thought, but instead stops talking about the experience, takes a moment, and then starts a new sentence. It dawned on me He could have said more, a lot more about the experience, but instead He wrapped it up and moved back to commanding us to repent. I'm not a scholar or a theologian, but those verses have always spoken to me. It's beyond me to understand the scope of an infinite Atonement, exactly how much Jesus suffered for me, or the lasting impact the experience might have had on Him. But it was enough of an experience to have Him pause in an explanation about it, almost as if He's re-gathering His thoughts. Yep, I'm a fan of the emdash too. My father who was a printer from the days when you actually set type, taught me.

Fine 🎤 Grumpy Bear’s Double-Dactylic Rap: Surprise Twist Edition 🎤 (still grumpy... but raising one skeptical eyebrow) Higgledy-Piggledy, Primary sing-alongs— Popcorn and apricots, Clouds in the sky— Thought it was fluff till I Listened more closely— Turns out the Lamb gets the Final goodbye. Flannel-board-Theology, Hidden apologue— Christ in the cuddles and CTR bling. Under the googly eyes, There’s incarnation— Savior who weeps as the Children all sing. 🥁 (Bridge: reflective grumble) “Yeah, I rolled eyes at the glue and the glitter— But that little Sunbeam’s a gospel transmitter. She knows who died and who walked out the tomb— Wrapped in construction paper and perfume.” Wistfully-Faithfully, Nursery sacraments: Every small snack break a Shadow of grace. Turns out that Primary’s Christ-focused after all— Just through the lens of a Kinder-soft face. ☁️ [Grumpy Bear, voice soft] "Maybe that popcorn was preachin’ to me."

I believe the doctrine is far from neutral: I described it as broad and multi-faceted but always tied to Christ and His Atonement. Only you can evaluate your experience with that, since our perceptions and what goes on in our heads are all we ultimately have to work with, including how we characterize outside formative influences as intrusive or inviting. We each have thus lived in different “systems” within the same Church, the same world. Maybe it is a family thing, a matter of being an adult convert (as I am) raised in different family than you did as a child – not to say that one was better than the other, I do not know. If you have concluded your life-long feelings about conditional grace is not entirely of your own making, I would say the place to begin the deconstruction is with your parents and family which naturally would affect your formative Church experience as a child. Cultural norms would follow a very close second. For example, the public school system in the USA is very influential (my children have told me that their school environment was more influential than their home; granted, that is anecdotal!); at your age of 37ish, I would say your parents and grandparents were raised in a very performance/merit-based reward culture, and their children in a much less competitive one. Not to digress too much, concepts of grace (which I noted earlier was never taught directly by Jesus) have been developed by the tenets of religious leaders for their respective denominations according to their experience with it. Largely informed by the Book or Mormon and other latter-day scripture, the way our Church teaches it can be found here: Newsroom: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/grace Gospel Topics: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/grace?lang=eng This more personal account, which seems to parallel what you described to a degree, might resonate with you: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/08/my-maturing-views-of-grace?lang=eng I understand that words like “work,” “effort” and ‘do” may be triggering, but it helps me to remember that the gospel is primarily the spiritual effort and work of exercising belief and faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation, following the Spirit, enduring to the end, etc., all of which are performed in a material world with bodies of flesh and blood, just as Christ exemplified.

I was once teaching the passage of the Gospel of Luke where the woman touched the hem of the Savior's clothing. And the scripture says: "And virtue went out of him." Immediately, a class member interjected, "But we need to be clear that this did not make Jesus any less virtuous." Duh-uh. But this is the type of thing we seem to be arguing about in this thread. It's meaningless and superfluous to try to debate such a thing.

This is one of things I'm talking about. LDS doctrine does not support the idea of having to be worthy to access the grace of God. We need grace to become worthy. What is required is that we are humble and penitent. When we sin, if we humbly repent God forgives us. That's grace. Likewise, through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost our desires can change from wanting to sin to wanting to be holy. That's grace. The teaching that we are saved by grace after all we can do often confuses people but only because they isolate it from the rest of what we believe. But it's quite straight forward. For example: Say I have a choice to make to choose wrong or right. What is the all I can do in that moment? I can choose the right, in which case God blesses me with guiding and sanctifying influence of His Spirit which is a function of His grace. But let's say I choose the wrong. Well I don't get those blessings because the Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples. Now, in this my unworthy state, what is the all I can do? Humble myself and repent. In which case God extends his grace and forgives me. And this process repeats itself over and over throughout our lives. There's nothing earned. There is no worthiness requirements to access God's grace. His grace is available at every step if we but turn to Him. Through the grace of God we are forgiven and cleansed. And through the grace of God we are sanctified and transformed into new creatures in Christ. Does this process require effort on our part? Yes, because even though we cannot save ourselves God expects us to use what He has given us. And it's in our attempts to obey Him that God can strengthen and refine us.

Another thing about AI: AI has been developing "companions" to talk to. And the pornographic sector is also using AI to generate images that are photorealistic. This is feeding your youth and young adults with a steady diet of "artificial companionship". Consider the above while reading the following quote: So, I'm thinking that as we see all tools being used to disintigrate the family in any way shape or form, that is when we will see all the calamities. At what point would we consider families in general to be "disintigrated"? What would the signs be? What level of which statistics would we need to see for this prophecy to be fulfilled? We've been told that divorce rates are around of 50%. That is no longer true. Fewer people are getting married in the first place. So the divorce rate is around 30% to 35% now. NOTE: These are only first marriages. I can't seem to find a reliable number for multiple marriages. Think about it: People are simply not getting married anymore instead of getting married and then divorced to the point that this statistic has shifted. That's wild. That means that we have fewer broken families. We just have broken "groups of people who were never a family in the first place." All I can do is raise my own kids to value the family. And so far so good. But whom can they marry? My eldest got really lucky and found a wonderful daughter of Zion to marry. My next two kids are home from their missions. And most others seems to have their minds on careers instead of family. And these are the people in the YSA ward. My daughter is smart, beautiful, funny, hard-working, and lives her faith. She's the ideal woman. But she can't seem to find anyone that will stick with her for very long. I have no idea why. I had hypothesized that she was just a bit too smart for all the guys that she dated. We even got some inside scoop which sort of indicated that. But I don't know if that makes much sense. My son is looking for a wife. But he doesn't have much success with women. They all seem to friendzone him after just a few dates. They give him a chance. But they just aren't feeling it with him. I'm not sure why. My next son returns home from his mission in a couple of weeks. And he has the RIZZ all over the place. His problem will not be "finding" a woman. His problem will be finding a career path before a dozen women mob him. I just want my children to have happy, faith-filled marriages. One down. Six to go.

Fear of knights in chess, yeah a typo I did years ago, I liked it, so kept it...

The doctrine of grace has not created for me the pressure that you experienced. I think individuals’ perceptions and management of the doctrine has more to do with their experience than the doctrine, since the doctrine is broader and more multi-faceted that you thought it was at the time you left the Church. Some people extrapolate and work with (or against) a "system" arising from their perception and practice of the doctrine. I think this is because our relationship with God often develops gradually and usually before we can put it into words. Our most basic gospel doctrine, the gate of faith in Christ, repentance, baptism in water and by fire (the gift of the Holy Ghost and its fruits), and enduring to the end (the cultivation of our relationship with God in faith and spiritual knowledge) does not mention grace but rather points to Christ and His Atonement, which speaks volumes about it before even saying the word “grace” once. The mortal and resurrected Jesus never used the word in the scriptures for a reason. We must come to know for ourselves through the means He promised that only He can save us, and then haply discover that we receive grace for grace (John 1:16). As long as your experience brings you closer to God, I trust that it will continue to do so.

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith. You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict... Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours. You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs. Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff. If works don't matter, why does He command them? Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us. One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey. They're not incompatible.

Honestly, if confusion and doubt were spiritual gifts, I would've been an apostle before I left the LDS Church!

I love a good rap battle as much as the next person—but I wouldn’t feel comfortable stepping into something like that, even in jest. My heart is full of love toward the LDS community, and while I may see things differently now, I want to keep the tone of our conversation rooted in mutual respect and care. 🙏💙 And I see that @estradling75 already covered both sides! My favorite part of the pro-LDS version of the double-dactylic rap was the sign off: 😆😆😆

Not bad, but you were supposed to take the pro-LDS position. Now I just lost my testimony after being convinced that this song in nursery takes away from the sacredness of the church experience for the wee ones. I also note that ChatGPT makes use of the emdash almost as much as OP.

OK I know the assignment was not given to me but I could not fight the urge to pop the prompt in to Chat GPT and see what it gave. Here it is 🎤 Grumpy Bear's Double-Dactylic Rap 🎤 (in a huffy beat, arms crossed, cloud over head) Higgledy-Piggledy, Latter-day nursery, Singing ‘bout blossoms And popcorn and trees— Jesus? A whisper. Not in the chorus. Just Flannel-board prophets and CTR rings. Fluffity-buffity, Apricot-ology, Poppin’ distractions from Gethsemane’s weight. Don’t get me wrong, I mean— Christ gets a cameo— But mostly it’s sunbeams and Heavenly cake. 🥁 (Bridge: spoken grumble) “Where’s the atonement? Where’s resurrection? All I got taught was warm recollection— Popcorn, pajamas, and reverent toes— But not why the tomb didn’t stay closed.” Grumbley-tumbley, Wistful revisioning— More of the Lamb and less Of the lamb-crafts. Time to re-center the Christ of the covenant, Not just the smiles in Primary laughs. ☁️ [Grumpy Bear drops the mic] "Try singin' that next Sharing Time."

Was sort of hoping for an epic rap battle. [cue epic dubstep intro] Epic rap battles of Mormondom! VERSUS aaaaaaAAAAAAAAABEGIN!!! If you're willing @fiddle tenders, feel free to word your next post in the format of a double-dactylic rap. Include a reference to the primary song "popcorn popping on the apricot tree" as an example of how Mormons don't focus on Christ enough in our youth education.

What do you mean "no point?" You just gave me my next sacrament meeting faith talk analogy. Gravy: brown or white.