JudoMinja
-
Posts
1763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JudoMinja
-
-
"Questioning" and "asking questions" are two different ways of saying the same thing. Perhaps it might be better to call the one "questioning," and the other "doubting" or "criticizing" (in the negative sense of the latter, though there are different definitions of that, too). I don't like it so much when authors redefine words when there are already perfectly usable words for the concept. It creates unnecessary confusion....
I just prefer to avoid the unnecessary redefinition of words.
I agree that they could have made a better distinction using different words, but defining terms for the purpose of an article or paper is nothing new. They provided their definitions for the terms as it pertained to their purposes, and the definitions made the distinction well enough. Just, the terms themselves probably could have been better fitted. However, also remember the audience. This is a New Era article meant for teens- and the majority of teens tend to be very less nit-picky about word choice.
If somebody has doubts there is usually a good reason for it. It's not enough to simply plaster over doubts with faith. That is a temporary effort that will not last for long. Doubts and fears need to be faced and resolved. And the answer doesn't always come out like we expect. The key is to have an open mind. To accept greater knowledge.
I don't think that faith is used to "plaster over" doubts. That makes it sound like trying to put a bandaid on a fatal injury. Rather, I think faith is the cure to doubts, and seeking out answers or greater knowledge is like an exercise program. Both are important, but starting an exercise program while you are wounded would be severely detrimental and have an adverse affect on your health. While first taking the cure for your ailments and THEN starting an exercise program to maintain your health and prevent falling back to illness will strengthen you more than just relying on the cure itself.
Because we find what we seek, it does us little good to question with a lack of faith. The answers to our questions will not give us faith, just as we will not experience/see or understand miracles until after we have the faith sufficient for those miracles to happen and/or be perceived. Faith has to come first. Or our doubts will always remain and eat away at us, no matter what answers we dig up to try and counter them.
-
I went through a time where I did a lot of questioning and eventually ended up asking questions. I think that the key difference between these two is not just the purpose or intent behind the questions, but our predisposition toward the answers. If we lack faith and believe that any answers we receive will be faulty, incomplete, and/or inadequate- that is what we will get. However, if we believe the answers will provide greater understanding and enlightenment- that is what we will get. No matter what we ask- we will ultimately find what we seek.
This is why reason, logic, knowledge, etc. is not really the path meant for determining or finding truth. Our reasoning capacity certainly works as a wonderful "assist", but only when our faith and strength of belief is already in place. When we have doubts, we must counter those doubts with faith, and then seek out the answers- "for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith." (Ether 12:6) Whatever our questions, we will only be open to the Truth through communication with the Spirit. We must trust in our ability to discern, as we seek to separate the Truth from the half-truths, partial-truths, near-truths, and flat out lies.
-
cryophil, some of the members on the board are going to end up questioning the validity and sincerity of your questions the same way you are questioning the validity of the Church. I hope that doesn't steer you away from continued participation and searching.
No matter where you search, you are bound to come across others who are going to be questioning you just as much as you are questioning. Everyone wants to be certain of the truth, and we all have limited information with which to ascertain that truth. Some will be more trusting and take you at your word, reserving judgement until you do/say something that will make your purpose clear while others will be more skeptical.
I, at least, have enjoyed reading through your thoughts and answering some of your questions with thoughts of my own, and I'm sure others here have as well. It can be difficult to tell the difference between honest inquirers and those just looking to support a position they already hold when the questions steer into such philosophical and doubt-filled areas. But you can rest assured that there is no need for you to prove yourself honest and members here will continuously engage in discussion with you so long as you make that discussion available.
-
The role of the Spirit is to testify of Truth- wherever it may be and however we may happen upon it. Because He works within us, it is impossible to measure the validity of His testimony through scientific means. And, because we all come from such different backgrounds and hold such a wide variety of environmental factors that influence our searching and thinking, the Truth's of which He testifies can seem very contradictory. I will use an example I've used many times before, as it seems very fitting to how the Spirit works:
Three blind men are presented with an object they are told to identify. The first reaches out and touches something long, thin, and corded. He believes the object is a rope. The second reaches out and touches something flat, sturdy, and rough. He believes the object is a wall. The third reaches out and touches something thick, round, and flexible, actively moving under his hand. He believes the object is a snake. They all disagree and argue with one another, certain that they are correct and the others are wrong based on the "facts" present in front of them. However, were the blind men able to see they would find that they were each equally correct and equally wrong, for the object in front of them was actually an elephant.
The Truth of all things is even more complex and difficult to study and understand than it would be for these three blind me to correctly identify an elephant. If you get stuck trying to understand and argue the seeming contradictions, you will be like those three blind men- equally correct and equally wrong. Yet if those three blind men had collaborated instead of arguing- shared their "facts" and information and worked together to examine even deeper, to feel out the entirity of the elephant together, they may have been able to reach an understanding of the Whole instead of the Parts. Right now, you are stuck trying to understand the Parts and determine which Parts are correct and which are wrong based on your reasoning, which is limited by your background and abilities. A better approach would be to collaborate and determine how those Parts can come together to create a Whole.
I am still young and don't consider myself an expert in anything- but I have engaged my life in the active study of the sciences, eastern religions, and other sects of Christianity. Like you, I have found many areas where the Parts seem contradictory, especially where the basic tenants of many beliefs are so contrary to what I personally believe. Yet, I have also found that as I dig deeper and engage in studies and discussions with those who believe differently than I do- that we have much in common. There is Truth in evolution, Truth in chakra, Truth in Catholicism, Truth in reincarnation, etc. But without bringing everything together to understand the Whole, all these Truth's are piecemeal and limited.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the few religious organizations that supports seeking out the Truth in all things and bringing it together. It is a young organization compared to those of the rest of the world, which in part explains the small numbers, but it is wise in encouraging members to collaborate and bring everything from all their backgrounds together as a collective. Because of this, the beliefs of the members are extremely varied and diverse. On the topic of evolution, for example, some believe in a very strict creationism, some that God created us through the process of evolution, some that the story of the creation and the Garden of Eden was pure symbolism, etc. Our leaders do not take a stance on the matter, because it is not important to the core doctrine or their purpose to stand as witnesses of Christ. So, we as members are free to do our own research and believe as we wish.
Unlike evolution though, the question about the validity of the First Vision is central to the LDS belief. Like the validity of the workings of the Spirit, it is not something that can be measured or proven scientifically. Believing that Joseph Smith truly was visited by God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and that they carried with them the message Joseph claims is an important stepping stone in believing in the Truth and validity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So how can you determine for yourself whether or not this really happened? Since the validity of an eye-witness account cannot be proven through scientific means or supported with reason since there is plenty of information out there that could lead an individual to believe in its truth or that the entire thing was nothing more than a con or a hallucination, the only way to come to know of it's Truth is through the Spirit. So the only way you will come to know for yourself if the First Vision was real is if you can first trust the workings and whisperings of the Spirit within you.
This will require trust, hope, belief, and faith like that spoken of in your "Why is faith the 1st principle?" thread. However, believing in the First Vision requires many other steps be met first in building up your faith and belief. Since you are struggling with your belief in even the existence of a God or in the testifying power of the Spirit, if you truly want to have faith and belief in the Church you need to start from the bottom up. Start with the foundation and the bedrock of faith itself, or you will get nowhere.
-
For me, I've found that it depends on how much you interact with them and in what setting. I don't know any of our General Authorities in a personal capacity, but I've known several bishops having been in several wards. My relationship with each and how I refer to them all is very different.
There is one I can think of who I have been on first-name basis with. He was my bishop when I was in primary, and my family moved about the same time he was released. When my family stayed in touch with him and his family, they would always refer to him by his first name, so that's just how I think of him now.
Another, who was my bishop while I was in the young women's program, is a much older fellow who I've always greatly respected. Our family is very close to him and his wife- my father and brothers helped them move, and he works at the bank where both my parents and myself hold bank accounts. However, even though we know him personally and he's been released as a bishop, we all always refer to him as Bishop.
And, one other example I can think of to reflect the diversity is the bishop who was called after the one I just mentioned. He was called after I moved out of the area, so I never really thought of him as "Bishop" until I moved back and he was the one who helped me through my repentance process. It was a little difficult to transition in my head between thinking of him as "Brother" to thinking of him as "Bishop", and then it confused matters even more when he was the one who hired me- so at work I have to refer to him as "Mister". With him- the reference I use changes with each scenario in which I interact with him. At church I call him "Bishop", at work I call him "Mister", and in less formal settings I'll either refer to him as "Brother" or by his first name.
I think you will probably see a similar variety in how people interact with and refer to the general authorities. Our personal relationships with each and the capacity in which we interact with them will determine whether or not we call them by their title or by name. However, refering to someone by their title is not necessarily a sign of a lack of closeness, as with my example of the gentleman my family still refers to as Bishop (and really, almost the entire ward still calls him Bishop- even the current Bishop). Titles can be a formality, out of respect, a recognition of service, or even nothing more than a sign of endearment.
-
Haven't seen the show but I'm starting to like this Sheldon character...
Sheldon is as I picture Vort in real life, thanks to some help by another poster.
Bazinga!
That, and Sheldon really makes the show. The other characters have their funny moments and they interesting qualities, but if it wasn't for Sheldon I wouldn't even watch The Big Bang Theory.
-
I think you'd have a hard time making the connection between the shot-gun driver, and someone who is officially acting in a teaching capacity. What such a claim boils down to is, "I was just following orders." Anyone with a learners permit knows it is against the law to run a red light. If it wasn't known to be an illegal move you might be able to try that defense though.
Very true. He might have been able to work that defense though better than the necessity plea, taking into account the stress of the situation, Penny's mental state, etc. It's not a wholly solid defense, but I think it would have been more workable than what he was trying. Overall though, he knew running the red light was wrong and it was still his decision to do so.
I think the necessity defense would fit to situations similar to his, but where the passenger being transported to the hospital was in need of immediate medical attention. My mother, for example, once drove my father to the hospital and ended up with a police officer tailing her but she didn't stop. My dad was curled up and in tears from abdominal pains, and she'd had a very difficult time getting him in the car and didn't want to wait for an ambulance. When she pulled up where the ambulances usually pull up though and buzzed the people inside to come get my dad out of her car- the police officer just left and didn't even talk to my mom about her driving. If he had given her a ticket or arrested her for not pulling over for him, she could have used the necessity plea.
-
At this point in the discussion, I'm finding an important thing to note is that getting married is not seen as a solution to the problem. It is simply seen as a (possibly) responsible decision (depending on the details of the situation) that would alter the circumstances in such a way that it would be easier to avoid the temptations to give in to such a serious sin.
When I broke the law of chastity and had pre-marital relations with my now ex-husband, and we then went to our bishop together- the bishop instructed us to do everything in our power to avoid continuing to break the LoC. That meant refraining from sexual relations until after we were married.
The bishop won't say something like "go ahead and keep having sex since you're doing it anyway and hurry up and get married to make it okay". It's more like- "This is a very serious sin that needs to be avoided and the temptation is clearly very strong. It would not be a sin to be engaging in this behavior if you were married, but you are not. So you need to change the circumstances. I would like to encourage you to marry now or as soon as possible so that the temptation to sin is no longer present, but until you do marry or decide to break off the relationship entirely, you need to do everything in your power to avoid having sex."
In cases of co-habitation and/or where the girl is already pregnant, the push to go ahead and get civilly married is very strong, because avoiding the temptation to continue having sex while co-habiting is almost impossible, and if pregnant you already have a new life on the way for which the two of you need to bear responsibility.
Here's the crutch though. You two are already breaking the BYU honor code. Getting civilly married would change the situation so that you are both no longer sinning and no longer breaking the honor code, but acting to do so without confessing first is a sign that you are not truly repentant. Going to your bishop after your married to say something like "We were breaking the honor code but we got married so we aren't now" isn't going to cut it. The consequences for your decisions will follow, eventually. You will experience some kind of fallout for your mistakes. Do you want to own up to your decisions now and have that fallout be only the temporal consequences, or do you want to wait and face eternal consequences?
The fact that this has been a continuous problem for you and that this scenario has now come up with at least two men and you are still avoiding confession means that whenever this actually does get brought to your bishop, the likelihood of you being excommunicated is becoming very very high. When you go to your bishop, it is to seek his help in working on improving yourself, your situation, and your ability to overcome your sins and weaknesses. Avoiding that help is a sign that you don't want to progress, you don't want to improve- you just want to remain in your sins and expect to not have to face the consequences.
-
As it pertains to Sheldon's scenario- even if the judge had been willing to entertain his claim of "Defense of Necessity" I think it would have failed. He ran the red light when Penny told him to go for it, but it was not necessary for him to run the red light. Penny's dislocated shoulder was not a life threatening issue that required she reach the hospital as quickly as possible. So, he could have stopped and everything would have been fine.
If he had been using the defense to explain while he'd been driving her vehicle, fine. But it was okay for him to drive it anyway, because he had a permit and had someone over 18 sitting in the passenger seat. He might have been able to win the defense and blame it on Penny if he'd appealed to the fact that drivers on permits who go to a driving school are supposed to follow all the instructions of their teacher, and Penny qualifies as his teacher since she was the one instructing him. I think this would fall under something like being under duress? He was just doing what he was told, and Penny was the one who failed to instruct him properly, so it was really her fault.
-
Have some cake!
-
Oh, and I don't think you'll get banned for your questions. You seem to be honestly, earnestly seeking for answers and input. Just don't link to anything "anti"
. -
That's an awesome concept. Is that what the Church teaches?
It is what I believe, based on my personal study of the gospel through the teachings of the Church, the scriptures, and science.
If you would like me to expound, I would be glad to start another thread on the topic since it strays from the main theme of this thread.
-
As I've said, the quandry is that the Church migrates its teachings toward science, not the other way around. So my original question is, why wouldn't I just start with science?
Well, from what I've seen the Church does not migrate it's teachings toward science- apologetics do.
Apologetics explain and interpret things the Church teaches in relation to current scientific studies and discoveries. So, naturally, the stories we get from apologetics are going to continue to alter and flow alongside science. However, apologetics are not Church leaders, nor are their interpretations officially endorsed by the Church. So, they can be wrong.
The gospel doesn't migrate. It doesn't change. It is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But we don't have all of it. Never have. If you study the gospel from the old testament to now, you will see that there are periods where the gospel has been added upon, but not changed. The prophets are there to receive any further revelations that will add upon what we currently have, and we will eventually be privy to the entire gospel when Christ comes again to rule and reign.
Since neither science or the apologetics have the whole truth, you can pick and choose what to believe from both and seek to apply it to the gospel. It is good to have faith in current scientific discoveries that you have tested and "proven" for yourself- just remember that the possibility is always out there that such discoveries are wrong, even if only slightly. As Seminarysnoozer said- most new science requires building on old science and having faith in its truth. But, you can also go the other direction- if you do not have faith in those findings that have come before you, you can critically examine them and design experiments to prove them wrong and elicit a new discovery. Most of the biggest steps in science happened this way, and they happened because someone believed in something no-one else did and sought to prove it. When those leaps are made, everything that was built on the previous faulty assumptions is proven for naught.
Belief in the Savior is to believe in a foundation that will not be pulled out from under you. I would not give up on the gospel, until you have truly tested it properly- not in the half-way sense you seem to be doing it. However, I also strongly believe that people need to follow where their faith leads them- even if it leads them away from what I believe to be true. If you can come to understand how faith really works, really study the gospel and the basics and the foundation of the Church as it stands and not make assumptions about the teachings and interpretations of apologists, and you still lack faith... follow where your faith leads you. Whether or not that faith is misguided will eventually come to light.
-
I've heard this, but then, this is one of the arguments Christians use to say that Mormons aren't Christians because they believe in God as a part of the universe instead of outside of it, and as such, is really just an alien being that is far superior.
The confusion for me on this particular point is, if God created the universe, but resides in it, how can he have full understanding of what he is in? It regresses to infinity fast. Plus, is this the same universe that God resided in when he was a Savior? Like Christ did here? Or is it a new universe?
Why can't it be both? He exists both within and without the universe.
-
you have a valid point that faith is a motivator. With my original post, I was referring to the kind of faith that is placed in metaphysical, spiritual, religious beliefs. I think that scientific faith is really about trusting that the observations one can make and that have been made by others are consistent and verifiable. Religious faith says that you have to believe without evidence.
My other question then is, what happens when the evidence found by science contradicts the faith I've placed in Mormonism?
But to the first question, I realize that Mormonism tells me to have faith like a seed, plant it in my actions and see if it grows into knowledge.
So does faith supersede knowledge?
Alma chapter 32 verse 21 teaches that "—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Then a few verses later (verse 26) the author states that "Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge." From this it is clear that the Book of Mormon teaches that "faith" is not a perfect knowledge. Now what Alma doesn't discuss is what happens when the facts (what you can see) start to disagree with what you had faith in (what you can't see). So what happens when your knowledge supersedes your faith?
Further on in verse 34 it explains that, once your knowledge is perfect in a particular thing your faith is then dormant. In other words, once you know a thing, you no longer need faith in that thing because you now know it. So, the thing that was not seen, is now seen. Here clearly knowledge takes precedence over faith or if you like belief.
There are those that once had the faith that the Church was true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and so on, but then they study other information that they see as true facts and contrary to the claims of the LDS church concerning these things. That knowledge disagrees with the things they had only had faith or belief in. They believe the knowledge they acquired from science and other secular sources supersede their faith.
It almost seems as though the teachings in Alma condemns the Mormon faith based belief when superseded by facts, if the facts do indeed contradict the teachings.
Hence my original quandry.
Your quandry exists because your interpretation of how to go about acquiring knowledge, based on faith, is faulty. Finding contradictory information in the world is going to happen, but that contradictory information does not equal "a perfect knowledge". The thing is, nobody has a perfect knowledge. Those who put out information that contradicts the teachings of the church are working on their own faulty knowledge and assumptions, so you cannot just accept what you read from them as fact.
Scientists understand that all the information they gather is going to carry with it bias. They base the likelihood of that information being true, correct, and accurate on how well it stands up to other equally biased information, and everything is considered an approxamation of truth. Even those things we regard as facts, scientists assign only a "probable" truth that could potentially be proven wrong with further scientific discoveries. So when an amatuer scholar looks at scientifically based information and claims it to be fact which discounts their religious beliefs, they are not properly applying to principles of scientific inquiry. Science cannot, does not, and will not provide a "perfect knowledge" of anything.
Pefect knowledge is gained through the exercising of faith. This is why Alma compares the gaining of such knowledge to the planting and nurturing of seeds. Let us use a small and simple example. Is there a God? Science cannot tell us the answer to this question. There are many many pieces of information out there that could be used to support or contradict his existence, but all of it is faulty and incomplete. So, instead of gaining an "approximate knowledge" through science, reason, and comparative study- you can gain a "perfect knowledge" by exercising faith. Plant a seed of faith in God's existence in your heart, or even the opposite- plant a seed of faith in his lack of existence. Nurture that seed, and examine your results after you have given it enough time to grow and bear fruit.
The eventual result of having faith in God's existence is that He will eventually show Himself to you. Maybe while you still live, maybe not. There are few who had a strong enough faith to see Him before they died- but those few who did see Him then had a "perfect knowledge". If you've seen God, talked with Him, walked with Him... you don't need to have faith because you KNOW. And those who did see Him would not deny His existence for anything- even their own lives.
Faith begets growth, and this life is about growth. So it is more important for us to have faith than knowledge, while in this life- excepting those few who are called to testify of His existence. Once we KNOW something, our opportunity to learn and grow from exercising faith ceases. This is why God does not command in all things, why He does not reveal all things to us. He wants us to grow and learn.
Think of your schooling. Do you learn more from being told the answers, or from working to find the answers for yourself? Does a lesson stick with you better when someone walks you through it and makes it easy for you, or when you have to struggle and stumble and recover from your mistakes. Think about that. That is what faith is for. That is why faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel. Because the gospel is designed to help us grow, to prepare us for what will be required of us when we do gain a perfect knowledge.
-
Judo... I have a cousin...
You have several, lol.
-
What do I think of marriage? ...
I think marriage is the ultimate refiners fire, which brings out both the best and worst of our character.
We are given the opportunity to sacrifice and serve while being blessed by the sacrifice and service of another. The success of marriage depends on each party's willingness to give, forgive, and pursue perfection. One must be willing to take on greater responsibilities yet recognize when things are beyond their control, and let go.
It is a partnership dedicated to the growth and development of not only each other, but of children. It is a sacred calling in which a man and woman are trusted with the raising, rearing, guiding, teaching, and care of young people who will move on to become new leaders and builders and shapers of the future. It's ultimate goal is to see everyone enriched beyond measure as they work together in conquering their imperfections.
-
Its still with Sony and it's directed by Marc Webb - a newcomer to the big screen.
I didn't know it was still with Sony. Poo. Maybe it won't be as good as I'm hoping.. Ah well. From what I can tell of the previews, it is going to be following the comic much better even though they're going into his parents background. You are right- that was never covered in the comics, but it was hinted toward at least. So... now I'm feeling a bit skeptical about it. I guess we'll see.
-
How did we ever survive before cell phones and texting I shall never know. Oh wait..I do know.
I like how handy they are for the reason I stated above- emergencies. It is great to have a quick method of contacting others on hand, so that you can coordinate and respond faster should there be an emergency in need of attention. While I was babysitting for my brother, for example, one of his kids got a severe bump on the head and I wasn't sure if she would need to go to the hospital or not. I couldn't drive her there myself because I did not have a vehicle with enough seats for all the kids, so I needed to either call an ambulance or contact my brother. His cell phone was off, but I tried my mother first and she was able to talk me through what I needed to check before deciding to call an ambulance. And since my brother had no landline phone, I had to make these calls with my own cell-phone.
So, cell-phones are wonderfully useful. It's not that I couldn't survive without them, couldn't find ways to get in touch with who I needed to without them, or couldn't wait to find out about things until I could check an answering machine... but it is such a comfort to know that if there is an emergency, I can be contacted immediately or can contact someone else immediately. I just expect those who need to get in touch with me to respect the fact that if it is not an emergency I won't always respond right away.
Aside from that though- I think cell-phones get immensely overused and that many people are basically addicted to them. Especially the newer "smart" phones that allow people to be linked to facebook, twitter, etc 24/7. It is especially annoying when someone with a smart phones works on the assumption that everyone has one and everyone has facebook and that everyone checks their email and messages and status the moment they hear a beep. My cell is a little basic flip phone that doesn't even have a camera. And I don't plan on upgrading as I don't need to.
Matters of ettiqutte, propriety, and manners aside- people in general have become far too dependant on their phones.
-
I answered "Depends on the situation" for your poll, because I believe texting while with someone else should be avoided excepting for such things like emergencies, waiting for an important response to something, or checking in on a babysitter, etc. I think it is just plain rude and wrong to have your attention on your phone while you are supposed to be spending time with another person, yet that person should be able to be understanding of a few quick messages to check on kids or needing to leave your phone on for an emergency.
-
So I just saw this last night. :) One of the few movies I was willing to fight the crowd for to see as soon as I could. I was already excited about how good I knew it would be as I've been impressed with the Marvel movies since Marvel actually took them back over, and I've also been impressed with Joss Whedon (Firefly anyone? :)). I can definitely say that The Avengers met and even exceeded my expectations. One of the best movies I've ever seen.
I was never really a big fan of Hulk, Thor, Captain America, or Ironman when I read the comics. My favorites were always Spiderman and the X-Men. But I've found myself enjoying all of the Marvel made Marvel movies so much that I've been going back to those comics. The only one I was still unimpressed with after seeing his movie was the Hulk, but The Avengers cured that. Most of the best parts involved him. I'm so glad Marvel decided to stop selling the rights to their characters and get personally involved in the films.
With how well Marvel has been doing, this is building in me an enormous amount of excitement for the Spiderman remake coming out soon- as Spiderman was always my absolute favorite superhero. I doubt it will be as popular or as good as The Avengers, but it will most certainly be better than the first attempt- which while they didn't follow the comics well at all I still enjoyed them.
-
Try applying the same formula to anything else. It will still work.
Well... it doesn't work if applied to anything else... Just look at the examples Dravin gave in the post where he first mentioned it. Pornography in moderation? Taking the Lord's name in moderation? .... Seems pretty clear that there are some things we are simply meant to abstain from because they are flat-out bad. When talking just about substances with the potential for being addictive, the formula you gave for moderation makes sense- but those tend to be things that fall within the WoW and it doesn't extend to other areas of the gospel like Dravin was trying to point out.
-
My question is: do any believe that God mandates complete abstinence (in my example, as pertaining to the WoW), as a stepping-stone to the eventual (and much more difficult to regulate) practice of true moderation? Let me explain...
While what you are suggesting makes sense and may possibly be true, I've always thought pretty much the opposite:
That the WoW and other commandments are a stepping-stone that the weakest can follow, because we are not ready to follow what would be much harder- meaning when we are ready for it and can handle it we will be asked to abstain from even MORE than we already are.
The Lord wants us to take in only those things that are good and healthy for us, but he also doesn't want to "command in all things"- so he gives us guidelines that should be easy enough to follow that everyone is capable of doing it. When you think about it, the requirements for entry into the temple are very easy and even the weakest of people would be capable of meeting those requirements if they at least have the desire to do so and have the full support of their friends and families. And, throughout the history of His church, as His people have proven themselves capable of following the "basics" he lays out, He then requires of them even more.
With the WoW as an example- this would mean that while we are currently only instructed to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea... If we ever reach a day where nearly everyone is abstaining from these drinks, the Lord will then ask even more of us- and what He asks of us will be conducive to our health and strength since that is the purpose of the Word of Wisdom.
-
Faith is an attitude, a motivation, and a hope. Tell me... if you have hope in nothing... what will you accomplish? Nothing. There are countless examples of the great feats man has found himself capable of when he believed in his strength, courage, and ability to accomplish those feats. When we cease to believe... we cease to acheive. Faith gives us purpose and direction- and faith in JESUS CHRIST will never lead us astray.
Without Christ, our life has no purpose. Without the atonment, without forgiveness, without mercy, without grace... everything we do is for naught. Faith in Christ is the catalyst for pursuing a life of purpose, as such faith will drive an individual to acheive the impossible. Driven by that faith, an individual will desire to study His ministry and to act on His teachings. With the faith of even a mustard seed, individials will be able to perform miracles on the scale of moving mountains.
If you will note my signature- you will see I have quotes pertaining to being true to what we believe... I also greatly enjoy inspirational books and films in which individuals find themselves pushed beyond their limits and take a leap of faith.. who CHOOSE to believe in themselves, their abilities, and in the many good things of the world. There are many reasons for us to doubt. Many frailties, weaknesses, and the low expectations of the worldly. But faith is a power all it's own, and without it... the worldly may as well be right.
And of all the things in which we could place our faith- Jesus Christ is the only thing that will not falter, will not fail, and will not leave us comfortless. He is our Lord, He is our Savior, He is our Redeemer- and He is the truth, the light, and the Way. He gives us purpose. He gives us direction. How could anything else possibly stand as the first principle of the gospel?
Articles of Faith #10
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
This refers to the events of His Second Coming, when He will come in Glory to Rule and Reign. There are many scriptures which speak of the events that will take place at His coming. There are some scriptures which specifically speak of the gathering of the lost ten tribes in both the Book of Mormon and the D&C, but references to this are more vague in the Bible. In particular, some that come to mind with relation to Article of Faith #10-
"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
"Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock." (Jeremiah 31:10)
"Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel." (Hosea 1:11)
"And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." (Haggai 2:7)
"So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.
And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 59:19)
"Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously." (Isaiah 24:23)
"In that day, saith the Lord, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted;
And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever." (Micah 4:6-7)