jb789

Members
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jb789

  1. I think this is a great question - myself I've thought a lot about this, and have done a fair amount of study into Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism, as well the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti (though he isn't associated with any religion/organized philosophy), and I can say there is much good in all the world's great religions. And getting a fresh perspective from them has certainly helped me be more in tune with the Spirit and draw closer to God. At the same time, to me, the clear and fundamental difference is the Christ's Church (LDS Church) is guided by direct revelation. This is quite a stunning realization - it means that, beyond the light of Christ (which all good people have access to), our church is guided by leaders that literally communicate with God, as did prophets of old. It is more than simply learning how to live in peace (which is a very important thing!) It is having revelation, which is visions, talking with God (literally), etc, that are the fruits of Christ's true organized church. I agree that where someone's heart is is the most important thing - we are judged ultimately by our receptivity to truth, and if we love God and fellow men. All inspired leaders of various religions/philosphies have lived according to the light they had, the best they could - and if this isn't criteria for inheriting the Celestial Kingdom, I don't know what is! Nonetheless, being guided by the light of Christ is not the same as a church founded directly by God, with revelation. Joesph Smith saw God! This is different then being guided by the light of Christ, it is a striking experience that blows all doubt out of the water - it is truly "not of this world". So, I very much agree that the founders of the world's great religions are inspired by God - they are inspired men, teaching according to the light within them. Yet, God's organized church was founded by Him, through revelation - this is the critical difference. And all who live according to the light within them, will surely be receptive to this truth when (in this life or the next) it is presented to them.
  2. Hi all, I've been thinking about the scripture 'There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it' (1 Corinthians 10:13) also “… humble yourselves before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the Holy Spirit. …” (Alma 13:28.) I'm wondering, does this mean that, if we desire it enough, we can truly resist ALL temptation (in this life), and thus cease entirely to give in to temptation/weaknesses/etc? Or, perhaps, does the statement from 1 Corinthians, "make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it", refer to the Atonement - that enters in when, despite our weakness and at times giving in to temptation due to our weakness, the Atonement and faith in Christ are this "escape" spoken of? Which is different than, due to our willingness, simply being able to resist sin entirely in all cases to begin with? The reason I ask is, (like all) I have personal weaknesses that I continually struggle with - in my mind I would like to be able to resist them entirely in all cases, but experience suggests that this probably isn't possible - rather, in the course of getting stronger/better, failing at times, and then trusting in the Savior, are the only way on the long road to perfection. Is this fair to say, that the "way to escape" described in 1st Corinthians is the Atonement? And that, despite our sincere desires to resist all temptation, we may simply not be capable of doing so at the present moment? (for an analogy, for example, I might want to be able to lift 200 lbs, an have a sincere desire to do so, but simply may not be strong enough now to do so). At times I wish that it was as easy as simply making the choice not to sin, but the reality of being strong enough to resist all future temptations is quite a different matter, and it seems to me that sometimes we just aren't strong enough at the present time to resist all temptation? Thanks!
  3. This was the point I was getting at. Obviously such a thing as adultery in moderation would be ridiculous! I used the WoW as an example, not the only thing moderation might be applied to. Though I do remember a BYU professor of religion, stating that, if we indeed could be free of lust and see the human body as a thing of beauty, then nudism as in art could be observed in a pure/true light. This is another example perhaps of moderation - if we are highly prone to lust, then complete abstaining from viewing anything that would trigger this is recommended. But, if we have more control of our thoughts, we can see the beauty in nude art, and thus it can actually increase our appreciation for the human body. Ultimately, what I'm saying is, that moderation/living by the Spirit is the higher law, and that until people are ready for that, the Lord prescribes more absolutes (such as strict commandments). The more developed spiritual person does not live by strict commandments, but is guided by love of God and fellow men at the core. In this sense, I believe being guided by the Spirit, as opposed to strict laws of absolutes, is the higher law, and that the concept of moderation, applied to many things, has a role in this (whereas strict commandments are given when one has not developed enough spiritual sensitivity to judge correctly).
  4. Yes, I'm very much in agreement. I think the church presents Joseph often in a "bigger than life" view, to help the faith of those very new to the gospel. When one's faith is in a "seedling" state, it is quite fragile, and care must be taken not to introduce items (even historical truths) that might shake it. However, as one's faith becomes more strong, I think it's very important to understand the entire truth, no whitewashing whatsoever - this actually results in a more mature and enduring testimony.
  5. I would agree that the Church focuses on the essentials of Joseph Smith (his life and prophetic mission), as these truly are the essentials of gaining a testimony. I understand where you're coming from about additional details of Joseph Smith (polygamy, treasure seeking, etc) not being commonly mentioned in church literature. I actually have an interest in learning more about Church history, I've been reading Rough Stone Rolling and it's given a bit more insight into the details of Joseph's life. Despite this, I must say (to my surprise!) that seeing Joseph as a human being, with weaknesses like us all, has given me a greater testimony and love for him. The very apostles of Christ (Peter, for example) were severely rebuked by the Lord, as well as prophets in the bible. Modern prophets are no different - they are fallible human beings, doing the best they can to do what's right and serve God. To me, the weaknesses of Joseph and other prophets give me hope that even I, with my many frailities, can have hope through Christ to be saved, and can hopefully be a help to others also as they were. It should not come as a surprise to any to learn that Joseph or any other prophet had weaknesses and difficulties, and was misunderstood. The entire history of Christian prophets is evidence of this!
  6. Hi all, I'm curious what thoughts people have on the role of moderation/temperance in gospel teaching. For example, we know that the word of wisdom prohibits any drinking of alcohol, usage of tobacco (other than for washing of beasts), etc. 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... As we know, using the WoW example, alcohol and tobacco are very addictive. Thus, it is much easier to refrain from them entirely (thus completely avoiding possible addiction), then say to partake of a bit of alcohol on rare occasion, with judgement and moderation (an example of this is, prior to the WoW, general authorities would smoke, and Joseph himself, according to Rough Stone Rolling, would drink on occasion, yet never to excess/drunkenness). Is it fair to say that, knowing the tendency of people to easily give in excessively to their carnal desires, that God prescribes complete abstinence from these things? Whereas, if we had a more mature and developed self control, we could indeed partake of them in true moderation and temperance? It appears to me that true moderation, if one is actually capable of this, is the higher law, yet due to the "weakest of the saints", complete abstinence at this time is prescribed in several cases (the WoW being one of them). Thoughts?
  7. Yes, this makes sense, thanks =) Definitely a difference between being inspired by the light of Christ, and receiving actual revelations/visitations/etc, to specifically form a Church (Joseph Smith).
  8. Agreed, certainly without Christ they are missing the cornerstone of the gospel. I guess what I'm saying is, is it fair to say that other, non-Christian world religions, are also inspired by God? In my experience the answer would be a definite yes, but at times in LDS church meetings I feel like if I were to make a statement like that it would be vastly misunderstood, or perhaps outright rejected as impossible (people thinking God is a god of order, so how could he inspire different world religions?) Again, I understand that Christ is an essential part of the gospel. My question is, despite this, are other world religions (particularly their founders) inspired by God themselves? Meaning they are not just the "philosophies of men", but are literally founded by very spiritual, choice children of God, perhaps some of the "noble and great ones" the scriptures speak of?
  9. Agreed! Knowing this, then how does one reconcile this knowledge that the world's religions indeed (in their pure forms) are truthful, with the commonly taught LDS idea that our church is the "only true church"? This has perplexed me for a while. In Joesph Smith's first vision, he was told none of the other Christian sects at his time were true, they were false. Yet no mention was made of other world religions, however, in LDS culture, we often take this revelation to Joseph Smith, then apply it to all world religions, deeming them (in my understanding incorrectly) to be false, and thus ours the only true religion.
  10. Definitely in agreement about Western seekers required to join an institution, and that organization intended to help them along the way. However, in the case of the Buddha, though he formed no formal organization, he did dedicate he life to helping others understand truth and the means to end suffering. For reincarnation, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand neither the Buddha himself (nor Lao Tzu) taught reincarnation as it's commonly thought of, meaning when we die we are literally reborn again. Rather, he taught that through right understanding/living the SPIRITUAL cycle of birth/death may be ended - that is, the cycles of attachment/disappointment, cravings, etc, may be ended. Whereas, if we don't achieve self-understanding, we will forever be slaves to our desires, and thus the spiritual cycle (duality) of pleasure/pain, hope/fear, ups/downs, etc, continues. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that literal reincarnation is a false understanding, one not taught originally by either Buddha or Lao Tzu. Kind of like Nicodemus, who thought the spiritual re-birth Jesus spoke of was meant to be literal/physical.
  11. What are people's thoughts on the origin and nature of the world's religions, including Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, etc? I fully believe the LDS church is true and of God. At the same time, I've read a lot about Eastern religions (Buddhism, Taoism), and to be completely truthful, they've been a great help to me also, and I've found nothing in them that contradicts truth I've learned through the Book of Mormon, LDS teachings, etc. Indeed, at some level, they both seem very much compatible, teaching one to be a "peaceable follower of Christ", yet in the case of the Eastern philosophies, it's almost like they know the truth/have followed the light within themselves, yet know not from whence it comes (Christ). What are other's thoughts on the validity/truthfullness of the world's religions? I've thought about this a great deal, and truly believe that people like the Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc, were very spiritual and inspired people, living in a time/place where the gospel was not restored. Like all religions (Christianity as well), the pure original teachings can be corrupted, turn into idol worship, lose their purity, etc. But, from my understanding, these other religions are truthful as well, perhaps without the "fullness" of the restored gospel, yet nonetheless inspired speak of truth. Thoughts? (Sorry for the two back to back forum questions, these thoughts just came to me now =))
  12. Hi all, Has anyone here read Max Skousen's "Looking Beyond the Mark" books? I've only been able to find them as pdfs: Max Skousen-Looking Beyond the Mark If any have read these, what are your thoughts? Have you found them helpful for any gospel/spiritual insights? I read them a year or so ago and found them very helpful, I'm curious what some others who have read them think of them. Thanks =)
  13. In my limited experience and knowledge, I would say this is accurate. Surely when prophets in the scriptures had revelatory dreams, they knew they were from God. Likewise, as Joseph Smith has described, a true dream or vision (use whichever term you'd like) is accompanied by eternal glory - this is very different from a regular dream, which has no such glory of God experienced! Ultimately, only the experiencer can know if it is from God, though we do have to be careful we aren't assigning meaning to dreams when they were just the wandering of our own minds. If it is from God, and is a revelation, it will stand in stark contrast to any other kind of dream one might have had, they are completely different things.
  14. Assuming this actually happened (and I hope it didn't, but I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if it did), this is clearly an incident of gross oversimplification. When I was a teenager I remember thinking a bit along these lines of "if I always do what's right, I'll avoid sorrow, disappointment, hardship, etc..." Of course I quickly saw the un-reality of that! At times the lack of practical sense that people display in religious contexts is quite amazing. Such an idea, that religion/righteousness can protect us from things such as depression, anxiety, etc, are based in the (often subconscious) childish desire to avoid hardship and pain. As one noted, Jesus himself suffered a great deal, being called "Man of Sorrows"! I think ideas of being able to entirely avoid pain and hardship through righteous living are really the infantile desires to have security, avoid pain, etc - in this case, assigning religion to prevent all this. If the Relief Society President did actually say this, clearly she is afraid (perhaps subconsciously) of admitting to/accepting the inevitable hardships of life, and thus religion becomes more of a security blanket then a quest for truth.
  15. Indeed if one has a true dream/vision from God, it won't be shared for speculation, only in the most sacred of circumstances when it can be of benefit to another to hear an account of it. But, for your question if these happen for people that wake slowly, in early morning, etc, in my limited experience it has nothing to do with these factors. If God wishes to communicate to one in this manner (via dreams), it will be in his time and manner (D & C 88:68) It has nothing to do with family history, or what kind of sleeper we are, etc - it comes when one has their mind and will "single with God", and when it is necessary for one's personal spiritual progression.
  16. From reading the scriptures (such as Joseph Smith's visions in D & C, or Nephi's) dreams and visions are basically the same thing, meaning the mind is opened to the glory of eternity, yet visions occur when awake, and dreams when sleeping. The process is the same though, in that if the dream is truly revelatory and of God, there will be no mistaking of this by the person having the experience - if it is truly of God, it will be as Joseph Smith described in the first vision - he knew it was of God, there was no doubt in his mind. Often I think people can get confused when they dream things they think might be revelation, but in many cases it can be just our own minds. This is very different than the experiences Joseph, Nephi, and others had, where it was coupled with "eternal glory", leaving no room for doubt it was from God.
  17. I can't give advice from a married perspective, I'm a single returned missionary so am somewhat in the same boat as yourself. However, for your question about how not to get frustrated, I've found that for myself, frustration stems from wanting certain outcomes to happen that are largely out of our control. It is difficult to do, but if you can learn to enjoy the process, and not be attached to the goal or outcome, this will greatly reduce frustration in your life. Eastern philosophy states that desires (meaning wanting things our way) is a great obstacle to personal peace. I've found that by being more open to how life unfolds, and not having preconceived notions of how I'd like it to be, greatly reduces frustration. For dating, this may mean simply accepting you may be married later than your friends, and to not see this as any less desirable than getting married now, will help reduce your frustration. P.S. I actually graduated from BYU without marrying, this was a cause of great disappointment to me, as I really wanted it to happen. Only when I really investigated the cause of my frustration did I come to see it was due to my attachment to this goal, and seeing it as something that had to happen at that point in time.
  18. That is a great reply, I think you are spot on in stating that the need to help others with their progression is very important (love thy brother as thyself) - I think this may indeed be the answer to my question!
  19. No, my ward doesn't have the family history class the 2nd hour, good suggestion though. I can see what you mean about changing the focus of attending the meetings, might take me some time to figure that out but I suppose as the years go on our purpose/reasons for attending church and classes each week can shift/evolve.
  20. Yes, thanks for your comments, you make good points. I hope I don't come across as arrogant in any way - I truly do not mean or think this - I'm just honestly thinking about this lately.
  21. At times (not always) I have studied the lessons in advance, I do contribute comments when I have something worthwhile to mention, and always follow along with the scriptures we read, etc. However, I wouldn't be honest with myself if I didn't pose this question - that perhaps in one's development spiritually, the instruction given in Sunday School may begin to play less of a pivotal role in one's development. This really is my question - if I am correct in understanding that to a point, church lessons will be of great aid, but eventually one must learn more from personal revelation, their own experiences, etc. Even the scriptures indicate this, with Abraham stating in Abraham 1:2 - "having been myself a follower of brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge..." The endowment also hints at this, that when we are "true and faithful in all things", greater understanding and light may come, through revelation.
  22. I've thought about this teaching of the Savior a lot, and I believe that at a certain point in one's spiritual progression, when they are living "by the Spirit" day to day, meaning truly trusting in God and have become as a little child, that this instruction to "take no thought for the morrow" is fulfilled. That is, even in temporal matters, because we seek the Lord's guidance and submit to Him in all things, we can truly get to the point where we no longer need to give "thought for the morrow" - our faith has made us whole. For many this sounds ridiculous and even impossible - how could we give up our goal setting and planning? And of course to abandon such things prematurely would be foolish! The prophets always teach to the level of understanding of the saints at the time - Moses did this with the law of Moses, Christ did this to his disciples on the Sermon of the Mount. The living prophets today do the same thing - they teach to the level of understanding of the members. Throughout the scriptures the prophets stated they knew much more than they were permitted to write - and why? - because the people were not ready, and it would confuse and mislead them. Thus, we are continually counseled now (and rightly so) to make preparations for the morrow, to plan, set goals, etc. However, at a certain point in one's spiritual journey, the need for such planning is transcended by a living faith and guidance by God daily - it is then that the Savior's words of "take no thought for the morrow" are fulfilled.
  23. Hi all, I have a question about the role that Sunday School plays in our learning/spiritual progression. Just to clarify, I have a strong testimony of the truth of the Church and the Savior, and the Book of Mormon, (I served a mission as well, have had many callings, etc). Over the past 2-3 years I seem to be getting less out of Sunday School (gospel doctrine, elder's quorum) meetings. This is primarily due to having been a member of the church my entire life, and it seems the lessons are continually repetitions of the same material, year after year. I understand the need of the church to keep the material doctrinally basic (the milk) because the church is growing and there are so many new members. For example, as a missionary we teach very basic principles of necessity, this is completely appropriate for where the young members and investigators are at. However, it seems to me, at a certain point in our personal spiritual progression, lessons learned through church sunday school classes become less pivotal in our development. Indeed, for myself, the temple and personal study/revelation have been much more instructional. So, my question is, does there come a point in one's spiritual journey, where one's development will come more from personal revelation and study, and thus the very basic lessons presented currently in Sunday School will be less helpful? I enjoy attending sacrament meeting and feeling the Spirit there, but often I feel time spent in sunday school is very unproductive because the lessons don't seem to be helping me to progress. Often an argument is that we aren't preparing ourselves before attending the meetings, yet I read scriptures and pray daily, attend the temple regularly, fulfill callings (2 at this time), etc. It has dawned on me that perhaps the time comes in one's progression when the role of the church meetings and basic level of gospel instruction there plays less of a role in one's development (like in school, when one learns what is taught in grade school, they move on to new instruction, etc). I don't say this out of any pride, rather, I am completely honest in acknowledging this. Am I correct in thinking that there comes a time when the majority of one's instruction won't come from church lessons, but rather from personal revelation and experiences? Thanks =)
  24. That's a great point, about "reaching the point of frustration" in order to finally realize the law can't save us and then we gain a real testimony of the Atonement! Interestingly enough Max Skousen, in one of his writing, suggested the same thing, that the point of the law is to bring us to this very realization that we can't do it alone. He suggested that the law/commandments are designed to be unfulfillable by man, and that they work their magic by finally, after enough continual striving to live up to all the standards/ideals, the natural man is finally "broken" and learns that Christ is the answer, not trying to be the moral superman. This is what Max Skousen termed "entering into the rest of the Lord", when the endless striving and vain attempts of the natural man to "save himself" end and we fully accept the Atonement and the peace it brings (like what you said about being "free in Christ).
  25. Hi all, I have a questions/am looking for input on the role of commandments, strict laws, etc, and how they relate to spiritual maturity of a people. When studying the Old Testament in gospel doctrine last year, I found it very interesting to note the way the gospel was presented to the children of Israel at the time. As we know, they as a collective people were not ready for the fulness of the gospel (to the point of asking Moses to commune with God at the mountain top in their place, due to fear). As such, they were given a harsh law, or "taskmaster", which was the law of moses. A primary motivator for them was fear of punishment, as such, I believe, the Old Testament seems to present a much more vengeful God than the meeker, more Christlike approach of the New Testament. It seems throughout the course of Church history that the more spiritually mature a people are, the more they live with Christ-like attributes (patience, love, etc) as opposed to needing strict and rigid laws and moral codes. In reading some writings by Max Skousen, a very interesting comment he made was that "law is for those that are spiritually dead". While this may sound harsh at first, I believe it illustrates the point that all commandments, laws, etc, are teaching tools for pointing people in the right directions, that is, Christ. However, the laws are not ends in and of themselves, more of a spiritual "training wheels" of sorts until one has developed a more personal relationship with the Saviour and is more fully guided via direct revelations, such as the Holy Ghost/living by the Spirit. I guess my question is, do others also agree that while the laws/commandments are important, ultimately they are stepping stones towards a more personal relationship with God and Christ? Even in the final Celestial room of the temple, it's very interesting to note that no verbal instruction is given there. Rather, we are "instructed from on High" via personal revelation. If this is true, and I believe that it is, it would also suggest that in our own spiritual journeys we may reach the point where rigid adherence to the written "laws" alone (we should do this, shouldn't do that, etc) can become a stumbling block, as it prevents us from seeking more direct revelation from God, and to be ultimately motivated by true love for fellow men and God, as opposed to motivated by avoiding punishments or the seeking of blessings (both of which are ultimately self-centered motivations). Not that laws and commandments are not necessary, but rather that they are a lower form of spiritual instruction so to speak, which are eventually surpassed by becoming more like Christ (as in the two great commandments of love), and through living by the Spirit, which will "teach us all things we are to do". Any thoughts on this? Thanks =)