MrShorty

Members
  • Posts

    1495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from Anddenex in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    I don't know if any of this will make sense, but I'll share my reaction to Pres. Oaks' description of the degrees of glory.
    tl:dr -- it begins to feel very universalist to me. It has been often observed that the early saints were reluctant to accept "the Vision" (D&C 76) because, to them, it was too universalist. To some degree, Pres. Oaks is showing ways that we can interpret this in a universalist sense. Read on if you want to try to make sense of my thinking (don't worry, I'm not sure it makes sense to me, so no shame if it doesn't make sense).
    At the facetious, tongue in cheek level, I envisioned Garth Brooks talking to God about preferring his Friends in Low Places or Randy Travis talking about spending eternity with a Better Class of Loser. Or any number of other country songs singing about an active choice to live a (stereotypical) lower-class lifestyle over a (stereotypical) upper class lifestyle.
    Elder Holland famously said (if memory serves as part of an interview with PBS/NPR):
    I don't know how intentional Elder Holland was in choosing "my" over "a" in this statement, but I think we all generally assume that he was speaking of Patricia, Matthew, Mary Alice, and David. Since my wife and children have left the church, I have sometimes tried to imagine "sad heaven" type scenarios. For now, let's just say I'm not sure if I won't be happier living alone in a cottage in the same neighborhood as my wife and children than I would be living in a mansion with someone who married me (and I married her) just for my (her) righteousness so we could live in a big house on a hill. (I acknowledge a certain caricaturieness (word??), but I think it helps make the point.)
    The way Pres. Oaks talks here, wherever I end up in the next life, it's where I will happiest. So, by definition (or tautology or circular reasoning, I'm not sure which), I am assured to end up in "heaven," (because "heaven" is where I will be happiest). Maybe "heaven" for me is not Celestial (though, I don't know that I can say that out loud in our high demand religion that wants everyone to aspire to the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom). Of course, that is the common criticism of universalism -- people who aren't aspiring to the highest aren't always inspired to keep all the rules and laws and commandments with exactness.
    I don't know, friends. The universalist inside of me likes what Pres. Oaks said. The part of me that grew up in a high demand religion that insisted I should aspire to nothing less than everything the Father has is less comfortable with what he said.
  2. Like
    MrShorty reacted to laronius in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    I appreciate everyone's comments so far. As I have pondered in this topic and everyone's remarks two related thoughts come to mind. The first is that it's easy to just assume that what we view as the law here in mortality will be the same in the next life. But some of the most serious laws here like not murdering won't really exist in the next life. The other related thought was that there is still much we don't know about the next life. Likewise we don't really know the full effect of time spent in hell for those required to do so. How much of a change really takes place there? But I do appreciate everyone's comments and it is interesting to think about.
  3. Like
    MrShorty reacted to CV75 in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.
    I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.
  4. Like
    MrShorty reacted to zil2 in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    I think I'm not saying things right.  It's not that I don't believe in or teach the ideal.  It is that I don't assume everyone in my class is wanting the ideal at that instant and so I don't speak as if they do.  I might encourage them to pursue the ideal, but I don't assume they already want it.  Because to someone struggling, speaking to them as if they weren't can just cause more pain or make them think they'll never be good enough, that there's nothing in the lesson for them, that they probably shouldn't bother with Church because the lessons are never "for them", or whatever.  Instead, I focus on the Savior - if anyone will help them want the ideal, it's him, and he'll do it as they are ready.  Whether you wish you had never existed, or whether you hope to one day live in an eternal family with your spouse and children in the kingdom of God, Christ will help you to overcome whatever you need to overcome.
  5. Like
    MrShorty reacted to CV75 in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    I see the two views as compatible in that Christ invites us to be one with Him (John 17, and is that not something to put first?), but many parables show that we do not place that vision foremost. Jesus uses the phrase “may” and “might” constantly with regards to our receiving His blessings, because He leaves the choice to us. Our Church must put it first just as Christ does in His Intercessory Prayer.
  6. Like
    MrShorty reacted to zil2 in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    A few years ago, I stopped making all the assumptions that a lifetime in the Church tends to instill: that everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that everyone wants an eternal marriage, that everyone wants an eternal family, that everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc.  I also stopped assuming that every Sunday School Answer™ leads to every Sunday School Promise™ for everyone in observable time.  In my teaching, I stopped presenting things as if all those assumptions were true and all those promises were as mechanically obtained as Church culture had always suggested.  I think the assumptions and promises hindered the progress of those who struggled with them.  These days, I testify of Christ - his love, of his desire and ability to help, and that life is better with him than without him even when life doesn't seem good.
  7. Like
    MrShorty reacted to mikbone in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
  8. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Carborendum in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    If the exact, logical wording of D&C 88 is not sufficient, I'd propose a different perspective.
    It is not about "obeying laws" or "breaking laws."   It is a matter of being.  It is a matter of mindset.  It is a matter of faith (in the sense that Joseph Smith spoke about it in Lectures.
    We spend so much time thinking about laws, rules, obedience, etc.  And to be sure, that is very important -- no doubt.  How much time do we think about repentance?
    The Telestial law:         We obey because we're forced to.
    The Terrestrial law:      We obey because we know the rules and we want to be obedient.
    The Celestial law:        We obey because we've internalized eternal principles, and obedience is just a by-product of who we have become through the love of God and the love of all mankind.
  9. Like
    MrShorty reacted to CV75 in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    One way to look at this, I think, is in terms of stewardship. The celestial stewardship is the business of creating life (in addition to maintaining and using), terrestrial stewardship is the business of maintaining life (in addition to using), telestial stewardship is limited to the business of using life. Each kingdom's limits and opportunities are ours, according to our agency's alignment with God's ideal. The celestial scope (especially exaltation) is perfectly aligned, terrestrial somewhat, and telestial less so.
    He used the word "comfortable," which tends to eliminate striving for improvement at that point.
    Adam and Eve lived the terrestrial law in Eden; after the Fall their wayward posterity lived the telestial kingdom, and in the resurrection Adam and Eve are exalted.
    I think it is very interesting that President Oaks framed his remarks in this fashion, as if to say, "If you don't want to be part of pursuing the ideal, you can go someplace else more comfortable, but respect our mission. God still loves you and prepares a place for you." As if the Church is going to spend less time and energy addressing the demands of detractors and more wherewithal proactively building Zion (as Elder Bednar pointed out in terms of those in the "last wagon").
  10. Like
    MrShorty reacted to zil2 in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    A study of D&C 88, especially the first 50 verses, may help.
  11. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    No. Laws are according to kingdoms. The celestial law exists only in the celestial kingdom, among those who inherit that kingdom. There is, for example, no eternal marriage outside the law of the celestial kingdom. It does not exist among the non-exalted, for that is the meaning of exaltation.
    We think of "sin" as something written on a list of do-nots, or perhaps something lacking from our personal list of should-dos. We are wrong. Sin is not the mere transgression of something someone said (even God). Sin means doing something false, something that transgresses the basic, fundamental moral physics of the universe itself. By "transgresses", I don't mean doing something impossible, because that is (by definition) impossible. Rather, to commit Moral Action A and then expect that the result will be Consequence B is sin. The consequence of Moral Action A is always Consequence A, never Consequence B. Choosing to commit Moral Action A, knowing full well that the consequence will be Consequence A (assumed to be something negative or destructive), is also sin, sin of a greater magnitude, the sinning of the damned.
    Those who live in terrestrial glory do so exactly because they abide a terrestrial law. Those who dwell in telestial conditions are allowed to do so because they obey telestial law. Those who will not conform to law are left to abide in a kingdom of no glory whatsoever, because being utterly lawless, they are incapable of receiving any glory to any degree. And the celestial will abide a celestial law, with the exalted receiving God's own fulness.
  12. Like
    MrShorty reacted to laronius in Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory   
    Elder Oaks' talk got me wondering about the lesser kingdoms of glory when he spoke about inheriting a kingdom according to the laws we are willing to abide. Does this mean that the commandment to obey the same laws as the celestial kingdom will still exist for them but with the realization that they won't obey them all, in other words they still sin, or are there few laws that exist for them but they are expected to obey them or is there some other state of "law abiding" altogether that exists in those kingdoms?
  13. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Trump 2024?   
    Nothing bad comes from donuts. Some of us do develop a bit of "tactical girth" however. 😉
  14. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to mordorbund in Trump 2024?   
    @mirkwood Forget what I said earlier. Apparently I misunderstood when @LDSGator said he was "packing my 45 tonight".
  15. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Trump 2024?   
    I confess to being confused about all this weakness/vice talk. @prisonchaplainwould never past pictures about harmful substances. 

  16. Like
    MrShorty reacted to zil2 in Trump 2024?   
    Boston Kreme - serious yums.
    ETA: Though I remember the days when they were just Boston Cream - I suppose there's no cream anymore, so they have to say Kreme...
  17. Like
    MrShorty reacted to LDSGator in Trump 2024?   
    I have a strict “no donut” policy in my house or I’d eat 45 of them at one time! 
  18. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in "God is a Gas"   
    Extruaneous U's toutally rulue!
  19. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in "God is a Gas"   
    I don't fault others for having a different concept of Deity than I do.  There's a lot of "everything is all one, and heaven is to rejoin the ether", and "there is only a single being out there, and it splits itself into what we think of as the universe so it can understand itself better" type stuff out there.   Fine by me.
    I'm quite satisfied and grateful to have my conception as God as my literal Father in Heaven, with parts and passions, who knows and loves me, and is also the Author of all love and goodness in the world.
  20. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to Jamie123 in "God is a Gas"   
    Chocolate chip ones?
  21. Like
    MrShorty reacted to zil2 in "God is a Gas"   
    Come to the dark side1, @Jamie123!  Not only do we believe God is a person, we believe his is literally the Father of your spirit - the very definition of personal and approachable.   (And we have cookies - at 7pm, in the gym....)
     
    1By which, of course, I mean the light, aka, the light of Christ.
  22. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Jamie123 in "God is a Gas"   
    I don't suppose many of you are familiar with Alan Partridge. Alan Partridge is a comedy character on British TV, played by Steve Coogan. He is the worst chat-show host imaginable: he is rude, ill-informed, badly researched, self-important and foul-tempered. He only has two real friends: Liz and Michael, who are about the only people stupid enough to put up with him. In the later series he also has an Eastern European girlfriend with an obsession for teddy bears.
    Anyway, in one memorable episode Alan is interviewing a Christian lady. It went something like this:
    Christian Lady: Alan, do you believe in God?
    Alan: Er... (thinks about it for a moment) ...yes I do.
    CL: How do you see God? What is he like?
    Alan: God is... God is... (temporarily stumped, but then has a sudden inspiration) God is a gas!
    CL: What???
    Alan: Yes! Well... he's not a little gas. He's not like Calor Gas. He's a Big Gas... Like Oxygen! Or Carbon Dioxide. Oh no... that's bad isn't it? That's the Devil!
    I always think of people who pooh-pooh the idea of a personal God as the "God is a Gas" crowd. A few years ago my wife really wanted to go to the spiritualist church in Kingston, so I took her. I hated - not least because it had all the trappings of a church (including the Stations of the Cross and Holman Hunt's "Light of the World" above the altar) but hw many times do you think Jesus was mentioned in the service? Not even once! Anyway, afterwards I went out into the little garden at the back and started talking to this bloke who was sitting there. When I asked him if he saw God as a person, his attitude was definitely "pooh-pooh" - as if he couldn't believe anyone could be so backward as to believe such a thing. Then he started driveling on about how "God" just means the same thing as "good"... and how the two are really the same thing. This is exactly what I mean by "God is a Gas": if all God is is "good", what's the point of God? We already have (if you'll excuse the pun) a perfectly "good" word for "good" so why do we need "God" too. We might just as well say that the Smurfs are God because they were good and Gargamel was bad...etc.
    Anyway, I told all of this to our vicar at the time. As well as being our priest, she was also moderately famous on the radio - though I don't think I ever listened to her. I was surprised to find that she was "God is a Gas" too. She seemed momentarily shocked I should believe God was a person... but then checked herself and said (rather patronizingly I thought) "Well OK I guess if that's how you want to see God..."
    That helped me put a few other things she'd said into context too... about the "afterlife" being no more than the memories our friends and families have of us. There was something else she said too about how she was convinced of the existence of "God" (whatever the word "God" actually means to her) by pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope and "Oh the colours! The beauty!) Well just as much beauty is to be found in the Mandelbrot Set and yet that is just z=z^2+c. And the Golden ratio? Just the limiting ratio of terms in the Fibonacci sequence. Is God merely mathematics? Is that all our Heavenly Father amounts to - just numbers? He might just as well be "A Gas"!

  23. Surprised
    MrShorty reacted to pam in What a lucky forum member!!!   
    In just 2 weeks one of our forum members gets the extreme pleasure of meeting me in person.  🤣🤣🤣
     
  24. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Sex in scripture   
    Oh, the thing is very real, and yes, it does impact women more then men in the church.  They call it the "Good Women Don't" syndrome.  There's an entire chapter on it in Brotherson's book (which is also named, partially to combat this notion).

    By the way, this is a good book.  Wife or I will be giving copies to daughters in coming years.  It's the LDS-approved version of a "how to do it" book, with everything you'd expect from such a book except for pictures.  Brotherson had the church leaders review it, made a change or two at their suggestion before publishing it.
     
  25. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Sex in scripture   
    As Saints, we strive to keep sacred things sacred, and sex is at or near the top of that list. We normally try to keep sex sacred by simply not talking about it openly. But this leads to a certain kind of naivete, a sort of opposing reaction to our sex- and filth-saturated world that so often portrays sex as "the nasty". It's one thing to not understand (or to refuse to understand) double entendres and degraded sex jokes; it's quite another to fail to see sex or sexual metaphor when it's used in holy writ. In the latter case, failing to understand the sexual nature of scripture, whether literal or metaphorical, can impede our grasp of what the scriptures mean.
    I have noticed quite a few examples of these, though I can't remember most of them. I haven't made a list of sexual mentions and metaphors in scripture; that might be a useful exercise. But consider that our most primal relationships are defined by the sexual act, either by engaging in the activity (in the case of a spouse) or by being the product of the activity (in the case of parents and children, brothers and sisters). We even call each other "brother" and "sister", implicitly invoking an intercourse-based relationship between us. As for our God, the Most High, the greatest Being of all, we call him Father—and this by instruction from our Savior and Redeemer (who is himself our elder Brother).
    The scriptures themselves mention sex openly, though often using euphemism (e.g. "Adam knew his wife...", where "to know" is a very old metaphor in many languages meaning "to have carnal knowledge of"). Perhaps just as often, it is built into the wording of certain verses, many of which we probably fail even to recognize as sexual metaphor. I remember reading Isaiah 51:1-2 (cf. 2 Nephi 8:1-2) many years ago and realizing it was probably a sexual metaphor:
    Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
    I may be wrong about this verse, but when the metaphor idea occurred to me, the verses seemed to take on a more solid meaning. The earthy nature of the metaphor seemed to realize (i.e. to make real) the otherworldliness of what was being discussed.
    Now I am fully aware that many of the Saints of our day, and more especially the sisters, are sensitive to such things and find them distasteful. I have met a surprising number of women who are truly offended at the metaphoric reference to electrical parts as being "male" or "female". (I had a discussion about this with my wife a few days ago, the latest of a string of such discussions through the years. She assured me in all seriousness that she would very much prefer "innie part" and "outie part" to "female" and "male".) I have mentioned this particular issue to my sisters, my daughter, and a few family friends, and have found near-unanimous agreement among the womenfolk. Nevertheless, the raw earthiness that I perceive in the Isaiah verse above (for example) adds to the impact and personalization of the verse.
    I suspect there is a deep-seated idea, more common among the sisters, of the sexual act being not just private and sacred, but somehow a little...wrong. Or shameful. Or icky. Something like that. Whatever it is, it makes people (mostly women) uncomfortable when sexual metaphor is included in a place not normally associated with sex, such as electric fixtures or scripture.
    Anyway, my thesis statement is that if we are more willing to hear and consider such readings in scripture study, I think we'll get a much fuller picture of what the scriptures are addressing. I also realize that any time sex is invoked in a discussion, everything we write is likely to be viewed through a lens of double entendre. I have actually read back through and removed a couple of "no pun intended"s from this little essay exactly because I don't want to be perceived as jabbing my elbow in people's sides for some vulgar laughter. I mean this in perfect seriousness, no vulgarity or ribald humor intended.