CarstenNorgaard

I am not sure where the discussion in this thread is right now. Just saw the OP's experience and decided to share something here. About 5 years ago I was completely inactive. I was sad. I had a ton of personal problems and the majority (meaning ALL) of my time was spent sitting in a depressed mode at the computer. Something about the misery made me decide to find out if what my parents had taught me as a kid really had something to it or not. But not on their terms, or the Church's terms. I would use the Internet. Everyone's secrets are available there. I didn't get into the temple stuff right away. I was reading a lot of anti-Mormon literature and also general literature that was just critical of the Church and its beliefs. And I was also reading the LDS apologetics and doing my best to understand the actual doctrine. The doctrine itself it often not understood by the faithful adherents to a faith. No matter which religion we are talking about. This includes the members of this one, and I still find that kind of a struggle. But then one day I decided to go to YouTube to learn more, and learned more about the temple. A video there showed the very things you really do promise to not share. It was a moment of surprise and also disgust, because what was really going on was so innocent and simple and symbolic. But someone had decided to share it against all advice with direct, powerful feelings of evil meanspiritedness and an intention to harm the members of the Church. I could feel the presence of evil so strongly that time, it made me disgusted. And I was already quite experienced with feelings of what happens when you sin. It became a great testimony to me. It became a witness that the powers of good and evil actually do exist. They are not relative. There was nothing going on in that video that I felt was immoral. I may well have disagreed so strongly with that person who uploaded it, but why did that cause feelings of shame for watching it on my part? Feelings of spiritual pain? It must mean that this balance is real. That means evil is real. On the other hand, memory and experience tells me that when I do the opposite, something good happens. Peace. So good must also be real. So there's a universal constant of good and evil. It helped me because by knowing that and experiencing it, I was able to check the truths of the gospel in the scriptures and everything else. I was able to recognize that the feelings of peace and comfort DID in fact come from the principles and ideals that God advocates in this Church. It was a huge evidence that God lives and that this is his sponsored organization on earth. When we run into the forces of evil, let's shun it and then go fill our spirits with a nice spiritual "glass of living water". Those bad feelings are a sign of danger. Let's flee and go focus on something better and more spiritual. I say that in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

OP: You are not on dangerous ground, but there is an important perspective here. There are many ways to God. He is willing to communicate and cooperate with as many who are willing to come to Him. He is happy whenever someone repents and shows Him goodwill, and shows that the person really wants to know God. That said, this organization being "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [the Lord is] well pleased," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clearly should have something to offer that any other religious path would not. Three quite important things that this Church can offer is a correct understanding of God's identity; the most detailed, full and rewarding perspective on the purpose of life and God's purpose with humans; and an organization that is fueled by divine power by being directly authorized by our Creator to do certain things on His behalf, which He has requested us to do to receive an eternally happy life at His hands, through covenants in particular. From a more neutral point of view I want to say that the facts concerning the nature of God, the Plan of Salvation, and the Restoration of the true Church of God can be tested and verified. They can be thought about it. I want to bear a personal witness that some blessings can come only through the Church of God. But I also want to very strongly stress that we do not have a monopoly on truth, nor on spirituality. It's like education. Lots of people know facts and figures, but not everyone makes it through to getting their phD and beyond. The Church provides the kind of permission, support and funding necessary to do this, and it offers this to anyone willing to undergo that transformation. It's a gem, a marvelous work and a wonder, and anyone seriously willing to know God more personally will eventually find their way to this Church, in time. :)

So just because there is an awkward sentence structure you believe it's okay to reverse the meaning of that word, and even go beyond just adding a footnote to change the meaning? I don't see a problem with the way it is currently written. He can say that it's not okay to insist that someone stop being a vegetarian and follow up with the admission that he ordained animals to be used, among other things, as food. Speaking of that chapter in the D&C, which I have in mind to study in terms of the Joseph Smith Papers project, everyone seems to have forgot that two verses down it reads: "And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need," which really means all of us in the Western world where we do have access to everything necessary to have a complete protein without eating animal protein. And speaking of interpretation, why does everyone in the Church take "sparingly" to mean "once in a while" when the word has a just as valid meaning of "to be sparing of", as in sparing a life? (This is certainly how the word sparing was used at the time of the revelation, as Chris Foster also points out in his presentation.) I really think that there is weighty evidence that vegetarianism has big blessing associated with it, and feel that it is right to recommend others to try it out. I want to invite all of you to try it out and feel the difference To quote J. Ruben Clark

The Gospels contain no record that Jesus ate lamb. The one time he is described to eat the Passover is also the time when he replaces it with the Sacrament. You are free to make your own conclusions about Jesus being raised a Jew and thus having to eat it, but even if he did as a child there is no guarantee that he did during his three-year ministry. And as you will remember, the Gospels do contain numerous examples of Christ deviating from Jewish law and custom, for example in the question of keeping the Sabbath day holy. Those honestly seeking to make Jesus an example of non-vegetarianism will either be resigned to portray him as a pescetarian, a semi-vegetarian who only eats fish, or to dig deep into personal speculations built without direct scriptural support.

Hey guys It seems that more people have found great quotes to support the decision to eat meat sparingly in the sense of "in a sparing manner", meaning pretty much not at all. As far as I can see, the three major arguments to make this choice are: * We should not support the unnecessary killing of animals, which is a sin. * Today killing animals for food is not necessary in developed areas in the world. There is access to vegetables and fruits all year. * General abstinence from meat brings spiritual and temporal blessings. I wrote up a reference with statements that relate to these arguments here: Mormon Vegetarianism/Flexitarianism: Statements, Scriptures and Commentary (June 2012) And I also want to show you a presentation by Chris Foster, Professor of Philosophy and Logic at the University of Utah, who presented why he felt that Mormons should be vegetarian, at least today: For the last 6 years I have experimented with reducing meat, vegetarian and flexitarian diets. For the most part I was a pescetarian, meaning that the only meat I ate was fish. But in the recent few months after coming home from my mission, I and my (new) wife have felt increasingly certain that there are blessings to living on a meat-free diet that we would not like to be without. It simply feels right. So, let's have a talk about this? What do you think, personally, and why? One thing that seems to be returning to my mind is also the idea that when man will live to the age of a tree (in the millennium and after), his food will be vegetables and fruits. That makes sense: The world is going to be restored to a terrestrial world first, then a celestial. And back when the world was terrestrial in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were probably vegetarians. At least no human is described as having been permitted to use animals as food until the time when Noah stepped off the ark. Lorenzo Snow even said that he felt that "the time was near at hand when the Latter-day Saints should be taught to refrain from meat eating and the shedding of animal blood", perhaps along the lines of preparing a people for the millennium. So there's a lot of really exciting ideas here, and I think it is worthwhile for every Latter-day Saint to seriously consider a vegetarian diet. It certainly does not harm your spirituality, nor health. :)

That sounds like a cool idea :) it reminds me of something Elder Bednar taught me last year when he was in Denmark to teach the missionaries and talk at a fireside for anyone who wanted to come. He recommended going through the Book of Mormon with one single theme in mind, and marking anything that had to do with that theme. Then doing it again with another theme. He challenged us all to do it, starting out with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. He told us that back home he has a suitcase full of BoMs, marked up. One time he contemplated giving them to his kids, but realized that they would not get the testimonies or experiences out of it that they would by doing it themselves. When Elder Bednar participated in the introduction videos for Seminary 2010-2011, one of the videos has a short clip zooming in on his quad. He shows the students his quad, see. The page is the last one in 2. Nephi, and there is this big arrow in red with the text "Nephi's last recorded words!!" Seeing that just made me excited. It gave me a feeling that the GAs became who they are today through things like that. Another popular quote (which may be folklore, who knows, I never verified it) was that somewhere else another GA had said something to the effect of "I am not a scriptorian, just an avid user of indexes." Another cool technique is to go through the scriptures studying all the footnotes too, marking them up and writing notes on WHY this verse cross-references with this other one. It's not always obvious, and sometimes it even seems like it contradicts. I did that with the Book of Mormon and also the New Testament, all footnotes, and it changed my life forever.

Spirit of the law. The whole discussion on grace versus good works in the Scriptures exists for the very reason that we should know the problems with putting our trust in the letter of the law. Some people pay respect to the Atonement only with their lips because of their deeply held trust in the letter of the law.

Hello everyone :) I was reading the Book of Mormon today, but suddenly got inspired to write a blog post about a way of noting down how concepts relate to each other, and its uses. This reminded me of Elder Richard G. Scott, who has stressed the importance of writing down notes and impressions from the Spirit. He says that it can help receive even further light. What are your scripture study techniques, and, more specifically, what ways of studying or taking notes or highlighting or anything like that have helped you the most in receiving personal revelation? I have the impression that Elder Scott is very right. The Scriptures did not really come fully alive to me until I began taking notes according to my own system. Then suddenly the most crazy ideas and answers to prayers started happening, over a period of 14 months, and it motivates me very much to learn more. Looking forward to read your replies :)

Thank you for the quotes, Onhech :) they are very useful. I did not realize so much had been said about it :)

If the Book of Mormon is truly from God it follows that its translator (and not author), Joseph Smith, Jr., was truly a prophet of God. The BoM being from God, its contents can be trusted as being the word of God, just like the Bible. Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, his subsequent revelations can likewise be trusted. So far so good. But that is not always enough. Various events in the history of the Latter Day Saint movement make it so that there have several faith societies who accepted both the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as having a divine mandate. In my opinion, it really helps to ask oneself the question and to seek the Lord for answers as to whether the current prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is called and authorized of God. Also, individual facts found in the Book of Mormon or the teachings of Joseph Smith need to be verified through experimentation and personal revelation. These are complicated literary matters, and what you think you read or hear is not always the truth that God intended for you., nor the thought intended to be understood by the author or speaker. In this respect, the chain of reasoning used by previous missionaries doesn't really work well. I find it kind of unhealthy. But it does provide one piece of acknowledgement that is critical to understand about the difference made by receiving a testimony of the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph Smith: If these things are true, a widespread apostasy has and still is occurring. The ecumenical creeds of the migration period are an abomination, an incorrect appendix to the gospel preached by Jesus Christ and his disciples in the ancient Christian church. Also, if these things are true, a restoration is taking place, beginning with Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is the first piece of tangible evidence for this restoration. It is the word of God, and it gives access to so many plain and precious truths of the gospel once lost, changed or misunderstood. The restoration of the gospel entails a priesthood and the re-establishment of the true church of God. That church exists today. It is the church of Christ, and it accepts and acknowledges both the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Also, Joseph Smith organized it. So, if they are true, it is worth finding that organization and participating in the restoration. The chain of reasoning works at least that far. You can't really put those things to the side. But it doesn't excuse you from learning principle by principle, line by line, step by step, here a little and there a little. Neither approach excludes the other. Some things do follow as one thing is reasoned, but the problem is just taking it so far as to say "I know the Book of Mormon is true, therefore I have a perfectly sound testimony about the Law of Chastity". No. Get your testimony of the Law of Chastity separately. In that way the Church is a university.

This is an old thread with a really interesting subject. I want to add a comment. Perfectionism is a concept that comes out of a modern understanding of what it means to be perfect. It is not official church doctrine, and you will not find the idea of perfectionism in the scriptures, at least not applied to human beings in this life. For example, see Matt 5:48. A footnote explanation of the greek term, τέλειοι ὡς, describes the term as being "complete, finished, fully developed". More nuances of this koine Greek term are: "brought to its end, finished, wanting nothing necessary to completeness, consummate human integrity and virtue, full grown, adult, of full age, mature". As Elder Russell M. Nelson explains: As he also says, Finally, a quote from a bit earlier in the talk: In my opinion, the "Mormon perfectionism" described by the OP is very real, and is a sign of something missing in terms of understanding, appreciating and using the atonement of Jesus Christ. It might be the number one thing that makes others say we are not Christians, and honestly, some members of the Church DO think that we can become justified by good works alone. An example is a missionary in the book "Believing Christ" by Stephen Robinson. The missionary mentioned went on a mission and came back mistakenly thinking that we believe in personal perfection. He told the author that he expected to be perfect around the age of 30 or so, which is ridiculous. To answer OP's questions, because they are cool: Does anybody struggle with perfectionism inside the church culture? Since modern-day perfectionism is far from the will of God, a healthy answer on the part of members everywhere would be "yes". I know I do. But I also know cognitively that contemporary perfectionism is not what God had in mind. Anybody confuse perfectionism with church doctrine or perhaps was raised by someone who did? Lots of people do it. It seems to saturate every meeting, every interaction with another member. Sometimes I feel like my parents and the Church here raised me to believe that the worldly perfectionism was the only thing pleasing to God, justification by works alone. Any thoughts about the correlation between perfectionism and becoming judgemental??? If you know the Myers/Briggs type indicator tests, some people are naturally more prone to being judging and others are more prone to being perceiving. As Dallin H. Oaks has explained, which I like, we are expected to make temporary judgments based on sound wisdom and the Holy Ghost, not final ones though. I am a perceiving type, in general, who has a hard time even making temporary judgments, but even those people turn SUPER FREAKING JUDGING when they adopt perfectionism as part of their mindset -- judges of themselves, down to the last pixel. That's my opinion, and it sucks. I've tried it. Finally, a thought on perfectionism in the Church right now. Did you know that perfectionism is a somewhat central element of addiction theory, and that most recoveries entail confrontation with perfectionism? See, for example, The Dance Of Perfectionism And Addiction: Why ‘Good Enough’ Is The Gold Standard in Recovery. Right now, pornography is a really big problem in the Church. President Monson has literally said that the information about this problem is "extremely alarming". That means addiction, and that means perfectionism. It's much more widespread than we think it is. But a proper understanding of the Atonement will, I believe, bring anyone who is addicted to sin through real addiction or simply through a state of being fallen, to recognize that "Good Enough" is where it's at, moving away from thinking everything must be without error. This is something that becomes really, really important as the world becomes more and more addicted through emerging technologies. More people have addiction problems these days, and the hot ones are computer games and pornography. So... it is evidence that people, Mormon or not, do have issues with perfectionism. :)

But of course that does not even affect the most meat-restrictive part of the Word of Wisdom: 14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; 15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger. Since "grain" is not plural, the only plurality that verse 15 could refer to is the list in verse 14, "the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth". (It is not possible bending it to be about the grain, either. It would fundamentally change important parts of the entire revelation, not just this verse alone.) Thus, verse 15 says "and [the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth] hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." (This is worth emphasizing because people seem to willfully ignore it, which they cannot do. But of course it is worth remembering that the WoW is a principle with a promise for this part, and that God also did allow meat to be eaten. It just shows his intention really clearly, and as the revelation mentions at the end of the chapter, great blessings are available. )

I agree :) Jesus Christ certainly had knowledge beyond faith, both as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Christ in the New Testament, but still supported the work of the Father. In fact, he said that he was not able to do anything except that which he had seen the Father do. Scientists who do not believe in God still have to stand on the shoulders of giants in their work. The very idea of peer reviewing to distinguish truth from error is a basic scientific method, the implementation of which certainly shows that obtaining truth requires team effort (especially in mortality, which would probably still exist in a universe where knowledge was the 1st principle). Even with knowledge, one fact remains: The truth existed before you, and it will exist after you. It does not belong to you. It simply is: Intelligence is light, and it was not created. The truth simply consists of things as they really were, as they really are and as they really willy be. That's that. In my opinion, that is why the unforgivable sin is unforgivable: It is knowing, direct and willful action against the eternal laws of the universe, against intelligence and light. Actually, following the pattern of opposition in all things, Jesus Christ is the perfect example as to how a perfect knowledge leads one to obey and follow principles that came from someone else, opposed to the nature of Satan. What do you think? :)

The following is pure speculation. In my opinion, the reason faith is so important is because it brings a chance of failing into the equation of being tested in mortality. The entire world would have to be redesigned to work differently for something else than faith to be the primary principle of the Gospel. That is my gut feeling. Everything is designed for faith.The world has been created to testify of God, but as you may have noticed science is still not quite sure if he's there. Now, let's assume that faith was not the property we were to be tested on, but intelligence and reasoning. Everyone has an individual strength of intelligence. But if the test is going to be fair at all, it must mean that everyone must be able to distinguish that this-and-this is a fact about God. There can be no gray zones about certain facts, because we must have access to the material necessary to pass the test. If that was the case, two problematic types of lives would exist: Those who would not have access to the truth would, because there is no faith in a different and better world beyond what is immediately observable, see their lives become a non-test. The purpose of their creation vanishes, at least if God's word about this life being a probation are to be trusted :) Those who do have access to the truth (which all people should in order for such a plan to work) have a problem. The end goal of the plan is that everyone becomes like God. They are not yet like him, so they are not yet ready for the reality of what it is like to be him. But since it's not about faith and yet there is supposed to be a test, much information must be readily available. If they do not process it correctly, that must indicate that God created them in a way that couldn't meet the demands of the test anyway, and if they do process it correctly their inability to accept all of the available truth, which can easily be proven to be true in a world where reasoning becomes the primary thing to focus on, means that nobody gets to be where God is. I also wondered about the Atonement. Its power is real. And the Holy Ghost, the power of which is also real. With these two things, people could easily test and see that something happens when you do this and this, and this. It would really take the test away from all of us. Basically, I think it would be a non-test for so many reasons. Maybe an in-depth analysis could show more nuances? But that seems to be the most likely outcome. There are so many good reasons that faith is what works best as the first principle of this mortal trial. It helps bring focus back on spiritual matters, for one. /end speculation

Sorry to come in late. Just wanted to say that I personally think Steven E. Robinson is right in his book Believing Christ, in which he says that even the intelligence of man is fallen, that is, is made imperfect because of the effects of the fall, which are temporary to mortality. I mention this because this is really the only big problem with science. Just like it is theoretically possible (far out there) for someone to keep all the commandments all the time, as Christ did it, it does not mean anyone else will do it. The plan doesn't work that way. The reason is that we are fallen. In the same way it is theoretically possible for science to eventually discover all truth, but that does not mean it will happen before the Plan of Salvation has been followed through to its last step. We are also fallen in intelligence. In this precious life when we do not have more than just a limited amount of years, two things become incredibly much more value than sitting in a room and experiencing the whole world a priori: Conclusions based on a posteriori experience, and personal revelation. The OP points out that humans have not been able to agree about ethics and morals through religion. Science is then introduced as a phenomenon that is in total agreement. But how can something that is developing and changing all the time ever be in total agreement? The "truth of science" may be, as far as it is discovered, but certainly the scientific community is not exactly unified like the idea of the United Order. That's no different than the religious world. The "truth of God" is TOTALLY unified, as far as is discovered, but certainly the religious communities are not exactly unified. Don't tell me that no theories ever came out of differing interpretations of this and this scientific fact, which is exactly the same as differing interpretations of this and this theological fact. (Of course, even what counts as "fact" is up for debate much more in religion, though also in science.) Everything crashes as soon as we get into the interpretation of facts, including scientific facts. This is exactly the same as what the OP is describing is the problem with religion. Here is science. It is in "total agreement" because it has the truth. It is NOT in total agreement because people perceive that truth differently. (For example, the Big Bang totally makes God impossible, right? And so does evolution, right?) Here is religion. It is also in "total agreement" because it has the truth. It is NOT in total agreement because people perceive that truth differently. There's no contradiction here. Science and religion are still two halves of the same coin, but the OP is comparing two different and incompatible sets of criteria to determine that religion has a problem, which it does not. As Henry Eyring remarked, the only confusion between science and religion occurs in the minds of men, not in the mind of God. Yes, there is one morality. We are still discovering it, just like science is still discovering the universe -- but heck, there are many many different images of that one too. Just like one poster in this thread who said that we NOW know that earth is round. They knew that thousands of years ago, too. We could then argue "one science versus multiple sciences?" just because philosophically, everyone walks in their own image of science. This is a result of fallen intelligence, and of limited time of being alive. We can't know every fact and every detail at all times. So in theory, all of us have an incomplete view of science, and that really debunks any idea of "total agreement" in science, or any idea that it is a better alternative, if such is a thought to be had. So let's not feel bad about seeking God and worshiping Him as He approaches us step by step, even if others disagree. That is a natural result of agency and intelligence and faith. There is still one morality, and it is still available to anyone who will seek God, though under his terms and in his timing. Ultimately, not multiple moralities. Just one.