its_Chet
-
Posts
187 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by its_Chet
-
-
So would
- If a Darwin fish offends thee cast it out, or
- Why do we see the fish in our brother's eye but fail to notice the shark in our own?
:)
This much I know:
The members of the Church I knew in Salt Lake City were all, without exception, salt of the earth type people. So were most of the non members and inactive people that I occastionally came into contact with.
But there were bitter non members I met who moved in from somewhere else and resented the high concentration of LDS and the prevailing culture that resulted, and every person I met who had a Darwin fish on the back of their car was the kind of person that makes you count the seconds until you can get away from them.
That's not something I read in a book, but something I observed personally.
I hear a lot about "those Utah Mormons" from uppity people in the Church, who live in other places where the LDS population is similarly concentrated, but I have found members of the Church from Utah to be truly wonderful people. More often that not, it's their critics who reveal signs of an attitude problem, especially people who come to Salt Lake City and are not charitable enough to grant the members of the Church the same cultural rights as Catholics rightfully get in Rome, for example.
So I have a much higher opinion of LDS from Utah than I do of people with Darwin fishes on their cars as a result of my own life experiences. If you feel the need to be my optometrist, feel free, I guess. I really don't see what there is to get all worked up about though.
:chillpill: -
I have heard this "If you don't like it, you can leave", said by my fellow Utahans so many times when someone dares criticize something about our state. Would you extend this to our beautiful Deseret state as well?
It's not mine to extend, but yes, I would. If I didn't love where I live, I'd feel the responsibility to leave, myself. The only other option history seems to exhibit is for malcontents to antagonize those around them and demand that an entire culture adapt to them, rather than adapting to the culture around them which was there first. Kind of reminds me of all those people I saw with "Darwin fishes" on their cars when I lived in Salt Lake City, except that some of them moved to Salt Lake City and expected it to conform to them rather than vice versa.
You gotta respect the culture. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
No offense intended.
-
I was kind of hoping that this big pile o' poo I stepped in might go away, but I can tell I've got more 'splaining to do. Maybe my repentance is incomplete.
There's more to the story. Considerably more. But I'm not comfortable taking it any further, and it's only obvious to me now that I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, or at least should have chosen my words more carefully. By the way, thanks Puff, and you're certainly right about that.
Let's just consider a standard, hypothetical situation, then. Person A disregards the law of chastity as a teenager, having numerous encounters in which various "firsts" take place, all of them with people who come and go. Later on, Person A meets Person B. While Person B cannot claim to be perfect, Person B has done a decent job of observing the law of chastity, and so virtually ever "first" is reserved for Person A. Person B has no one to compare Person A to, because Person A bill be Person B's first for pretty much everything. Not so in reverse. Consider what this will do for Person B's insecurities if Person B is an unusually sensitive person. Consider how it will make Person B feel if they should be made to feel that in spite of their own obedience to the law of chastity, they are made to pay the price for Person A's transgressions, and Person A doesn't care (should that be the case).
In my own situation, there are multiple, additional complications beyond this, which make it rather difficult to handle sometimes. It's fine if there's no sympathy for me in that, but I do ask that any contempt be holstered. I wouldn't wish the pain I've endured on my worst enemy (despite my vindictive nature), and it's only been through applying the atonement in my own life that I'd been able to avoid offing myself years ago over it all, frankly.
Can Person A repent? Yes. Is Person B required to forgive? Yes. IF, and I do mean IF Person A is able and willing to leave everything else behind, is Person B required to let it go and not obsess over it? Yes. IF Person A is willing to forget everyone else but Person B, is Person B justified in dwelling on Person A's past? No. If Person A changes their life, and doesn't allow anything to come between A and B, is Person B to blame if he/she can't let it go? Yes.
But assigning blame is not a smart thing for someone without Priesthood authority to do, much less an under-informed, outside party, and hopefully anyone eager to pass judgment on Person A OR Person B will remember that. There's always three sides to every story, and often, only God knows that third side.
This all goes back to my original post in this thread. All I was trying to say is that it appears that somehow some people get the impression that the law of chastity is only a "suggestion", and that every single consequence of breaking that law can be erased with repentance later on. The reality is that sometimes there are residual effects, and we should bare that in mind before we sin. Repenting might not cure AIDS, for example. My central point was that I hope we can find a way to get through to some of the tougher nuts to crack out there, and get them to understand how important it truly is to observe the law of chastity. We need to get them to realize that the choices they make today can cause others pain tomorrow, and that they need to consider the consequences of their actions. One thing marriage has taught me is that so many of the decisions my wife and I make, no matter how minor they may seem, affect the other one of us. Selfishness can cause pain.
Let's double our efforts to teach our children not to give away what they ought to lock away in a vault until their wedding day, not just for Person A's benefit, but for Person B's benefit also. There is wisdom in the law of chastity. It is not a meaningless task master to keep us from "having fun" when we are children with raging hormones. Obeying the law of chastity prevents all kind of hurt, and if we can't see that, we at least need to trust in Heavenly Father's wisdom on the matter and obey the law of chastity.
To lost87, let me ask you to consider using a different user name. How about "found09"? Please don't allow my unique and complicated circumstances to make you feel that repentance is impossible for you in your own situation. If you're married, you only need concern yourself about how your own Person B feels. If you've repented and done all you can to make sure your Person B feels like he/she and the Godhead are the most important things in your life, than you've got no reason to worry. If you're not married yet, and you've repented, all you have to do is promise yourself that when you do get married, your spouse will have that place of importance in your life, and that you will remember your sins (and those with whom they were committed) no more. If you do that, and your spouse still has feelings of insecurity, it will not be your fault, and your spouse will probably need counseling of one sort or another.
The atonement is an eternal sacrifice, capable of providing us with forgiveness and eternal life, no matter how much or how badly we've sinned (provided we repent, of course), unless it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I would be cheapening the atonement, and demeaning my own Savior if I intentionally suggested otherwise, which I have not. I apologize if anything I've said has been taken that way, and assure you it's not intentional. It tears me apart when I consider the depth of Christ's suffering on our behalf and the injustices done to Him. I don't mean to add to that by suggesting that it wasn't enough. It was. I would never wish to insult Him by suggesting it wasn't.
-
NO. Escort them out. Casting them out might cause injury, which would open the church to unnecessary litigation. Pardon, if my tongue seems to protrude from my cheek, but I decided to fight fire with slightly immature humor.
There is no merit in allowing God's house to become a forum for mockery and sacrilege. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, not, "Hey, next time bring it to the Temple."
Dang, prisonchaplain! Your idea of slightly immature humor is what I consider class and dignity! I hope that says more good about you than it does bad about me. :)
-
Concur...only few people I am aware of had an opportunity to view the afterlife in clarity and lived to talk about it.
Okay, I'm very interested to know what you're referring to here. Would you expound please?
Thanks Hemi
-
I keep hearing on this forum about getting kicked out of the religion for one reason or another. That is not Christs church. There is way too much religion today and not enough faith. Get rid of your religion and turn to Jesus.
Why are you here? This website is clearly designed for the discussion of our religion by us and people friendly to us. If you're looking for a Mormon-bashing website, your search is not over and you'd be a lot less frustrated if you moved along now.
But I gather from what you've said so far that you think it's appropriate for people shoot verbal spitballs in a place of reverence, and everyone's supposed to just put up with it. That is not a house of order. That is not reverent. That, sir, is not Christ's Church.
Have you ever considered that when an entire congregation insists that all religion is bad, and that the only proper way to approach God is through some church that is supposedly anti-religion, that those people have organized a religion themselves? Have you ever considered that for a group of people to gather together and, in unison, declare their shared doctrine to be correct, with one of its focal points being that all religion is evil, that they are themselves a religion? In short, have you ever considered that you've made a religion out of pretending you don't have one? Please understand how seriously your criticisms of the true Church of Jesus Christ will be taken here as they are launched from the soap box you've employed thus far. You, like anyone else here, have an organized system of belief, and yet you would not allow anyone else the right to have such a system of belief if it is contrary to your own. You and people like you have made a religion out of nothing more than telling all others that they're wrong. What lost scripture have your ecclesiastical authorities translated? What Gospel principles have they restored? What laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ have been reinstituted through the authority of your church, and where did it get whatever authority it claims to have?
We happen to know a little something about Christ's Church, thank you. When you are no longer content to merely have a form of Godliness while denying the power thereof, just let us know. We can teach you more about faith and truth than you have demonstrated ever imagining.
I lack the patience at present to explain to you how and why there is a difference between false religion and true religion, and how writing them all off without making an honest effort to prove the hypothesis is failing to show proper diligence in the pursuit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I lack the charity at present to search for something in you that is truly willing to put God before your own pride. So I'll just end here, with much left unsaid.
-
I'm always distressed when it's not okay to find fault with the government. This nation was founded by a bunch of dissenters who saw a better way. If one's only intent is to appear "reasonable", then it's preposterous to chime in and criticize. If one's intent is to make the country better, it's certainly a patriotic thing to do.
Having an occasional and legitmate complaint about your government is one thing, but always blaming it for everything, believing any accusation cheerfully, and adding fuel to the fire when other countries misunderstand our decisions is another. There are too many people who behave as if they are being paid to discredit this country in any way possible, and they are usually very strident in their accusations.
Funny thing is, those same people, when "their team" is in power, are quite unwilling to accept any dissenting opinions from those who disagree with them, which I find to be hypocritical.
We were talking about people who make an every day deal out of criticizing this country, and are never willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, or try to represent it in a positive light when other countries get a false understanding of our intentions and goals.
-
Me too:D
But. what is it with some people who leap at the chance to take the
worlds part against the Church?
I am talking about members of the church who want to seem so fair
as to try to sound like the world.
Expand this outside the Church
I see this with citizens of the US taking sides with those who find fault with this country
in order to appear more reasonable.
Even leaders apologizing it seems for even existing.
OK, fine but to find this inside the Church against the Church?
What next?
"Well, yes Jesus is the head of the Church but He really shouldn't have stirred up the wrath of those Jewish leaders.":huh:
Just wondering:rolleyes:
Bro. Rudick
I agree 100%. I'll never understand why some people feel the need to be the devil's advocate. You can be respectful without bashing your own country, religion, etc. If anything, I find less respect for people when they do that. What good is their faith when they are so willing to criticize it? What does that prove? All it proves to me is that they don't adequately respect their own religion. Sometimes I feel obliged to do that for them, even if it's a different one than mine.
And as far as America bashing goes, I say "Love it or leave it". Isnt' it interesting that after the Saints migrated to Deseret, they had big 4th of July parades? They'd been spit on by various state and lower level governments, and failed to get redress from President Van Buren, and yet their patriotism remained intact. And we've got "angst-ridden" teens in the suburbs wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. Go figure.
-
Perhaps it's being C's mother, or perhaps it's my experience as an educator, but my first response to attention-seeking behavior is don't take the bait.
If the couple's goal was to mock, draw attention to themselves, and make the Church look bad, well, they achieved it. I imagine, if ignored, the drunken couple would've moved along, like a toddler whose tantrum didn't work.
I still think the Church did the right thing. Some offenses are just too much to allow, even if you'd rather the perpetrators just go away quietly.
-
God bless Penny, that's all I can say. If I wasn't typing, I'd be clapping my hands right now.
Hey there sjdean! Good to see another "Dwarfer" out there! Interesting that you mention learning from television, and Red Dwarf in particular. I always found the "Justice" episode to be incredibly insightful myself. I always thought how neat it would be if we could have a justice field here on earth. You'd never have anything of yours get stolen. If someone attempted to inflict physical abuse on you, you wouldn't feel tempted to retaliate because they'd immediately suffer the effects of their assault and you wouldn't. On and on and on..... How marvelous that would be, I thought. And then I realized that it sounded more like Lucifer's plan to do things that way, and that while this world is fundamentally unjust, it's the only way for us to learn to overcome evil, to rise above it. We have to have unpleasant experiences to learn and to grow, as much as I hate to admit it. I still like the idea of living in a "justice field", but I understand now why life isn't like that.
I too learn a lot from television :-)
-
Romney lost the Republican nomination because Huckabee and McCain colluded together to get rid of him. It was very obvious in the West Virginia caucuses, where Romney was way ahead, until McCain told his third place voters to all go over to the Huckabee camp. Suddenly, Romney was in 2nd place. He realized he could defeat them separately, but not if the two of them were going to gang up on him together.
Perhaps you might find this interesting:
-
Hallelujah!!!! Penny is spot on!! And more eloquent than me.
Line upon line, precept upon precept. You can live the word of wisdom, you have family home evenings, you can sample parts of the Church and get a somewhat better understanding of it as the true Church of Jesus Christ without having to take that step of being baptized and provoking the disappointment of your relatives. I think Heavenly Father understands that you need to feel safe in your decision before you get baptized. I think He understands that for converts, we all need that to some degree or another. Like Penny, I told myself that while everything I'd learned seemed undeniably true, if I felt later on that the Church was not true, I could just leave it. But I felt that in the balance, it was what I needed to do. I thought the Church was true. But I didn't know it was true until after I got baptized, and received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
You will experience the same thing, as I did, as Penny did. At some point, you will come to believe the Church is true enough that you feel like getting baptized, even though you will most likely still have some small reservations about it at that point. In the balance, there will come a time where you feel more like getting baptized than waiting any longer. You will not know the Church is true until after you get baptized, because you need the gift of the Holy Spirit for that, and that comes after you're baptized. A leap of faith is required for all of us. I do believe that Heavenly Father will work with you and try to make your particular leap as gentle as possible. That's why I recommend you continue investigating the Church and build on how you've come to view it so far. That will give you more strength to do what you will eventually decide to do if you continue as you are. And that would be a very good thing, I promise you. Whatever sacrifices you make when you do join the Church, you will be more than compensated by Heavenly Father. But there's nothing wrong with minimizing your sacrifices to only what is necessary. But when you realize what sacrifice is necessary, be brave enough to take the next step.
Continue investigating, and be as considerate of your husband's feelings as you can. That's my recommendation.
Remember that your relationship with Heavenly Father ought to supercede ALL else. Families can be eternal, and are important beyond words, but Heavenly Father is most important. If it comes down to it, we are all expected by Him to choose Him even over family members, if it comes to that. I look at it this way: Who died for my sins? My parents? My granparents? Friends of the family? No it was my Savior. And so my relationship with Him should come before all else. And He is my mediator with Heavenly Father. It is Jesus who grants me the ability to return to Father. If my parents or granparents had a problem with me doing what I believed was necessary to honor my relationship with Jesus, I would have to choose Him over them. Luckily I was never in that position. I hope you never are either.
-
Why, thank you.
Chet wrote:
If you do all this and still believe that at the time, I did not have a legitimate concern about Huckabee's attitude toward freedom of religion for non-mainstream Christians, then let's hear what you have to say. And hopefully your point will be more reasonable than merely twisting my words around and throwing them at me like a spitball.
Where did I imply anything about your Huckabee hang-ups? My statement merely articulated a concern I had re: voting for Romney, which I thought was the thrust of this thread. Your sentence structure was just too irresistable.
By all means, you have a right to your opinion. I just inferred that you were turning my words around on me to mock me. If anything, Romney has, in his role as Governor of Massachussetts, gone out of his way to avoid letting his religion influence his policy.
And I don't believe it's fair to be so dismissive of my "Huckabee hang-ups", at least within the context of the time they occurred. He could be a different person now, and I refuse to presume to judge that. But common sense says that there was something bad going on in the primaries. That's why I went from being a Huckabee supporter to not being one. It's not like I had it in for him from the beginning. Far from it, actually.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a militant secularist upset with Huckabee's ability to make a policy decision that is influenced by his faith. I applaud that and I think we need a LOT more of it, regardless of the actual faith of the official. But when I get the impression that someone's ideology might motivate them to use the government to attack my religion, I get concerned. And there is definitely a precedent for that.
My concerns at the time regarding Huckabee were legitimate.
-
There is a family in my ward that is one of those perfect families. You know the type. The movies they watch are all in black and white or animated Disney. All they do is work on the farm all the time. Not nocking them, mind you, just explaining the background here. We're talking about the poster family.
The mother in the family admitted to a friend of mine that she thinks there is some bias against men, if not in principle, at least in practice. She said she thinks that women are coddled while men are not because the men are better emotionally equipped to put up with the bias. She didn't say this to justify or condemn anything, but basically just a matter-of-fact explanation for why she believed things appear to be the way they do.
I suppose it's just one of those things that exists to test us, to try our testimonies. Will we hold on even if it seems there is sexism at work against us sometimes?
I remember standing in line behind a highly influential High Priest in one of my former wards, at a Church buffet. He spilled some of the food off of his plate, and commented on how he thought that men were the weakest link. I wanted to pick up a spatula and whack him. His own individual clumsiness was not justification for disparaging an entire gender, even if he was rumored to be part of it. Just because I can't bare children, it doesn't mean I'm of any less worth in Heavenly Father's eyes. And if the man in front of me spills some food? Forget about it!
I would ask anyone in a leadership position reading this to remember that there are some who feel that the worldly, summarily dismissive attitude toward men is creeping into the Church, and that some men may not have a strong enough testimony to deal with that. I'm not trying to tell the Lord's chosen how to do their jobs, I'm just asking them to bare this in mind.
Belittling anyone is wrong. Belittling an entire demographic is destructive to society.
-
Hi,
Thanks Simon, its nice to know that im not the only one. I am in cannock in the midlands. As for the other posts i do agree, i am not meaning to test God i just want to make sure im doing His will rather than going off and doing what i want, ive been a little bit of a church hopper the past 2 years, and to be honest im not sure if thats because i havnt yet found the church that God wants me to be in or because im looking for somtying that doesnt exist.
If i had my own way and cared about no-one else i guess i would be down at my local Lds church on sunday and just keep going til i fet it was right (or wrong) for me. However this is a very big step for me to make, due to the fact i have been a baptist for 16 years, that my husband does not agree, annd that the pastor of my current church happens to be my father- in- law. I think it would seem selfish and hasty to just go off and "see what happens" although i know that if this is the church God wants me at things will work out.
If this is where God wants me then i just want to make sure before i cause upset in my family and make a stand for a church that im not sure of.
I hope this explains my situation a little better, im not trying to be demanding, i just dont want to flit from church to church any more, and the next time i want to make such a big step i want to make sure that its the right one.
deb
Aha! The plot thickens!:)
This changes things, the way I see it. While I know for a fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Church of Jesus Christ (and anyone else can too if they want to know for themselves), and while I believe you shouldn't postpone joining yourself to it any longer than absolutely necessary, I can see complications to that that I didn't see before.
First, I know what a pain in-laws can be. Best not to invite any wrath if you don't have to. There's another thread around here somewhere about a guy who joined the Church and his wife didn't, and now there's a bit of tension between them. He says she's coming around, in that she is less hostile than she used to be about it, and the PrisonChaplain did a good job of giving us all an idea of what the wife's point of view must be.
So you've got a tightrope to walk here. I can see already that the Holy Spirit is testifying to you of the truth of the Gospel, and make no mistake, that should come first. But not yet having the gift of the Holy Spirit (and I can tell you as a convert what a TREMENDOUS difference that makes), joining the Church for you has GOT to be a little worrisome because you don't yet know that it is true, and most likely won't until after you've been given the gift of the Holy Spirit. For most people, it's a leap of faith. You jump in not knowing how you'll land, but trusting in God that you will land safely. We all do, of course, but going into it, you can't really tell how it will unfold. I had little to lose when I joined, but I was still a bit hesitant.
You've got bridges that may have to be burned, if you join the Church. Not because you want them burned, but because joining the Church has a way of making enemies for people in situations like yours. You won't be the one burning the bridges, but they will burn just the same. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not it's worth it. I doubt you're going to know with the level of confidence I'd want in your situation until after you've gotten the gift of the Holy Spirit and had a few months to read scriptures, attend Church and General Conference, and pray. Doing all that without the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as doing it when you do have the gift of the Holy Spirit. There will come a point where you feel you have to make the decision. I wouldn't rush it if I were you. I'd keep diligently and earnestly investigating the Church if I were you, but I wouldn't take that big step until you're prepared to accept the persecution you may face for doing so. When you feel strongly enough about the Church to do that is a decision you have to make yourself. You're not ready yet. You need more time.
I would recommend you continue to sincerely investigate the Church, and if your father in law gives you any grief, perhaps you might explain that you're only trying to learn more about the Church, and that you haven't made any commitments to it. We commonly have non members use our genealogical research centers with no strings attached. Visitors are welcome, no obligations. We encourage people to hear our message, and we go to great lengths to make it available, but we're not out to wreck your husband's home. Any way you can ease the tension would be helpful to your own situation. Not much more I can say other than this:
Do what you think is right. The Holy Spirit (aka your conscience) will guide you. Have the courage to follow Him (the Holy Spirit), and if you lack courage, pray for it. Your situation is not easy, but God will be there for you.
-
Misshalfway, while there are serious differences, perhaps your sadness should be seasoned with hope. How often do LDS/Evangelical conversations highlight similarities that can at least lead to "bridges of understanding?"
As often as the participants in that conversation are as polite and respectful as you two are.
In other words, not often enough. But I'll take what I can get.
-
The rest of your post is speculation.. which i'm admittedly fond of (speculation itself). But.. I think our scriptures make it clear that all of those created in the image of God are sinners. If there are indeed celestial worlds under our Fathers domain -- it's because they have passed through their judgements accordingly and not because they have (or had) 'superior faith'.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to say is that it stands to reason that of all the other worlds populated in by Heavenly Father's children, they are likely at various stages in eternal development. Some are telestial kingdoms, pre judgment (like this one), or post judgment, with resurrected beings living there, having been judged worthy to receive that particular level of glory. Some are terrestrial kingdoms, some are celestial kingdoms. I did not mean to imply that Father has children or creates worlds that begin in a celestial state, skipping all the growth and maturation that is necessary to demonstrate one's appropriate eternal destiny.
I apoligize if I was not clear.
By superior faith, I meant that on any one of those other worlds, there is insufficient evil for that world's people to crucify the Son of God. If the term "superior faith" troubles you, feel free to substitute something else, and I'm confident we'd remain in essential agreement, as we basically are now.
-
I'm also quite disgusted with the frequency and ease with which certain words used to define reproductive anatomy are used on television these days.
When I was a kid, the worst words I'd ever hear on television started with D or H, and could be found in the scriptures.
-
I'm sick to death of hearing everyone selling food on television using the word "decadent" to describe chocolatey desserts. It's like one grammar school drop out started misusing a word he didn't even know the definition of and a bunch of flunkies and yes men started immitating him. What a bunch of lemmings!
Next, will they start using the word "superfluous" to describe desserts with lemon or cherry in them? Man, that pie was SUPERFLUOUS! And then every time a commercial for nutri-system comes on they'll mention their "superfluous" desserts.
Shakespeare must be rolling in his grave.
-
I concur with Alana.
Jesus is the Savior of all the worlds He has created, delegated the task by Heavenly Father. All of those worlds which are populated by children of Heavenly Father (who look just like us) worship the Savior just like we do, pray to Him just like we do, and look to Him for a remission of their sins. Like us, they too believe that Jesus is the way, the only way to eternal salvation, and that we can only approach Heavenly Father through Him, the great Mediator.
And like Alana says, it wouldn't be that much different to compare people living on a planet where Jesus did not conduct His mortal ministry and be crucified and living on the same planet in a different dispensation. Either way, we know Him only through the Holy Spirit and the Gospel He has given us, and very few people in the world today have ever actually seen Him.
I'm sure He has visited people on other worlds. I'd venture to say such a thing probably keeps Him busy, even now, especially considering that no other world He has created is as evil as this one is, collectively speaking. Maybe He's able to spend more time on other worlds because of their superior faith. Maybe on other worlds His feet touch the ground outside of a Temple. On some other worlds they don't even need Temples, because that world has been Celesitalized and that whole world is a Temple.
Interesting to think about. I always like to ponder the eternal destiny of mankind, and what all it involves.
-
I personally don't believe in any secrets between spouses. While it doesn't mean that I think spouses need to give each other a verbal report of every waking minute of their day, I believe that secrets are destructive. If what I'm doing has to be hidden, and it's not a surprise for her birthday, it's wrong. If she feels the need to keep a box full of love letters from old boyfriends under the bed, that's wrong.
I don't want to be married to someone who is clinging to their past, with other people. I want to be married to someone who only wants to be married to me, and has no regrets about it. I think secrets, even if they don't actually make this so, at least always threaten the possibility. And how can we trust a spouse who feels the need to keep things from us? what are they hiding?
Before I got married, I told my wife all the really bad things I'd ever done. Not to dwell on them, or fail to avail myself of the atonement, or any of the other things that I hear bandied about by sanctimonious folks sometimes. I told her those things for one single reason: so that she'd know the worst I've ever done, so there'd be no unpleasant discoveries in the future, and so that if she was okay with that, I'd know that we could make it. It's like that part in the movie "Meet Joe Black", where that guy who really loves his wife tells Joe, "She knows the worst thing I've ever done, and it's okay. And when two people know the worst the other has done, they're then free to love each other fully." Okay, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's my point.
No hiding. No secrets. Being up front, forthcoming, honest. That's the way to go. A spouse who can't manage this is not the kind of person I'd want to be married to.
When two people get married, do they lose their individuality? I think not. Yes, the two become one, metaphorically speaking, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to get new hobbies or become a different person. You have to take into consideration that the decisions you make now affect two people, not just one. You have to take your spouse's needs and wants into consideration when making decisions that are personal and seem to be your own singular prerogative. That's the discipline. I believe that if a married couple successfully shows consideration for each other when making decisions throughout decades of marriage, they will eventually become more and more like each other, and those kinds of sacrifices will become easier. In fact, you might say that they would be turning into each other, becoming like each other. And in that way, they would perhaps give up their individuality, in a manner of speaking, but it would be voluntary.
In my own experience, after less than two decades of marriage, I've found that my wife is such an indescribably essential part of my identity that without her I'd be a broken, hollow shell of a person. I may not feel that way all the time, but when she is out of town visiting relatives, it's unmistakable. I felt complete before I met her, but without her now, I'd be only a shadow of complete. That's how I think it should be. Married people should need each other like they need air.
-
It may be important at this point to draw a distinction between making a deal with God and seeking a sign or testing God. One is perfectly okay, and the other two are not.
Making a deal with God is okay. It's basically like making a covenant, only not as serious since it's not sealed by the Priesthood, and is usually done from a significantly less enlightened position than a covenant would be. Even when, like in my case that I mentioned on my last post, the deal is made by someone who has little faith and isn't sure what will happen, there is still a modicum of faith required. We don't make deals with a God we're convinced doesn't exist, after all. I guess in a way the deal I made at the airport could have been kind of considered a test, but I like to think that since I went beyond honoring my end of the deal that respect and gratitude were the over riding factors in that deal.
Basically, making a deal with God, as I see it, is a plea for His assistance by a person not fully convinced one way or the other what He will do, but yet believes that He can do something to help. And part of making a deal involves ponying up your end of it also.
Seeking a sign or testing God, on the other hand, are bad ideas. They imply skepticism, cynicism, and pride. It's as if to say "If you're really there, prove it." And invariably, that which is sought by the person doing such a thing is some kind of miracle that only follows faith. Faith which is absent in the endeavor. It's like demanding that a wagon move on its own without a horse to pull it. But in addition to that, it's a slap in the face to God. It's treating him like your own personal "yes man", a breath-taking show of irreverence and disrespect. God builds planets and stars, and governs worlds without number. It is very unbecoming to demand that He satisfy mere curiosity or prove His existence, contrary to the plan of salvation. The plan of salvation requires that we demonstrate faith before we receive any signs. That faith may not have to be much, but at least some is always required.
I don't know how much faith deblldo has, but I think it's safe to say she has enough to get things started here. Perhaps the question is, is she beyond that point? Is she at a point where Heavenly Father, rather than sending the missionaries to her, wants her to seek them out? I think only deblldo can answer that one. Maybe that's the real question. How much faith does she feel the Holy Spirit asking of her? More than she's shown so far? Not more? She may need to consider that as part of the path to getting answers. I think sjdean is onto something.
As a convert, I know that my baptism took a leap of faith. My testimony came later. I got baptized on a hunch. The miracle (in that case, my testimony) came after the demonstration of faith.
-
When I learned that Romney was LDS, I got the impression that he would, if elected, at least in some small way, feel justified in using his office to further the Church.
Cute.
Did Mike Huckabee learn about Mormons when he was in seminary? - By Michelle Tsai - Slate Magazine
Read that, for starters. When you're done, look at the picture I'm attaching, and tell me it's not possibly contrived, and implying something about the eligibility of the other candidates in the republican primary, particularly Mitt Romney. There was much discussion at the time by many people that suggested it was intentionally done just that way.
Next, read this:
If you're up for some in depth analysis of the anti-Mormon materials that were being distributed at the 1998 SBC in Salt Lake City, this is a long, but informative read:
If you do all this and still believe that at the time, I did not have a legitimate concern about Huckabee's attitude toward freedom of religion for non-mainstream Christians, then let's hear what you have to say. And hopefully your point will be more reasonable than merely twisting my words around and throwing them at me like a spitball.
Whether or not Mike Huckabee means it when he now says that he doesn't have it in for Latter Day Saints, that's a decision everyone needs to make on their own, even if it means reevaluating him. But at the time, as I stated in my last post, I had a legitimate concern, based on things Mike Huckabee had said, and on things that the SBC has a well established and ongoing penchant for saying. I could provide links to some of the most revolting anti-Mormon garbage I've ever seen, taking you straight to official SBC websites, but I prefer to leave such lies and deceptions in darkness where they belong. I was living in Salt Lake City when the SBC came in 1998. I saw the billboards and full page newspaper ads they bought. The attitude conveyed by them was not one of charity and respect, but of a condescending group of people who were going to introduce "the Mormons" to a Savior they'd never known. Honestly, there is one, chief reason why the SBC comes to Salt Lake City every so often. They see themselves in a "turf war" with a religion that, unlike themselves, has no paid clergy. Like those who persecuted the ancient Apostles for threatening their livelihood as idol makers, these people are gunning for the Church for the same reason.
Maybe Mike Huckabee has spent enough time outside their influence to learn that "the Mormons" aren't the cult he has undeniably been told we are. I'm willing to take Huckabee at face value today. Are you willing to admit that his behavior during the primaries, in addition to his affiliation with one of the most hardened anti-Mormon groups in the world was at least, at the time, a cause for some concern?
-
Hello Deb,
If you do see the missionaries down your street this week then is it from God or from Satan? could be the question to ask.
No offense, but are you implying something?
The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe
in Book Club
Posted
I'll go a step further. I think it actually makes sense of some of the prophecies I've never fully understood regarding the future of this planet and those who will inherit it. It presents a logical explanation of what it means for this world to pass from a telestial to a terrestrial to a celestial state. It replaces "poof" with reason, and the ability of the Gospel to do that is what attracted me to it in the first place. The logic inherent in the Gospel, compared the lack thereof in my previous religious affiliations, has always been a part of my testimony. I think this book lends logic to parts of the Gospel that I had previously been unable to understand.
There is so much that we don't yet know, and much of it is referred to in scriptures we already have easy access to. It seems to me that every religion requires a certain level of faith, some more than others. And when they reach a point where logic runs out, some religions resort to what I simly call "poof" to explain things. I've never been a fan of "poof". I believe there are logical explanations, such as that rather than abandoning our bodies at death, we will be resurrected some day (why would we only have bodies for such a relatively short time, and for that time only?), or that rather than abandoning our families at death, families can be together forever (why would we have families only in this life?).
I like to understand the mechanics behind the Gospel, whenever possible. It increases my faith and makes the rest of the Gospel easier for me to understand. It just makes me stronger.
I do not regard this book as scripture, though I believe at least most of it is probably accurate. It certainly makes sense to me. But if I ever hear a General Authority say that this book is wrong, I will defer to that General Authority 100%, without question. Until that happens, I am inclined to believe this book to be correct.
Having an open mind has gotten me this far. It's gotten me into the Church. It's gotten me through the Temple. It's allowed me to build a testimony in spite of what at first glance appear to be troubling things that show up in Church History. I choose to continue having an open mind. It's worked out pretty well for me so far.