The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
I wasn't. Were you?
Apparently you assumed I was. You telling me to get a grip was undoubtedly so.
Can you really not understand that coming into the middle of other's conversing and essentially saying "This is a stupid conversation" might be taken as offensive?
Conversely, I can certainly understand that my response to you could have been taken as offensive. I tried to offset the potential "rude" nature of it with the smiley emoticon. Apparently you didn't take the tone. So be it. I apologize for being rude.
But, honestly, if you find it stupid, why are you joining in?
-
Are you saying the spirit is not related in any way to intellect? I believe he is talking about selective intellect.
What I have been trying to put forth in another thread is that the things of the spirit - if it is true and of a true spirit - it will have witness. Can there be a witness that is not empirical? Empirical meaning verifiable or more than one witness? There also exist a spirit of lies. How do you distinguish a spirit of lies from a spirit of truth? Especially if you eliminate any independent empirical witness. I submit that G-d will always give multiple witness (empirical witness) of truth that he gives to man. If you believe there is an exception - I am open to such an example.
This thinking is right in line with Marcos A. Aidukaitis's Conference talk.
-
I didn't say not to discuss it. I just said TO ME it is stupid. For you, it may not be.
Get a grip.
No need for rudeness.
-
Let's see if I can move this discussion along with some of understandings I've gained over the years. Feel free to agree, disagree, fine tune a nuance, etc.
1. Protestant Christians--especially Martin Luther--tend to insist that salvation (i.e. going to heaven and avoiding hell) is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ. Our works are "filthy rags," according to Isaiah. This tenent is so strongly held that if one claims to be a Christian and suggests that his/her good works had any part in appeasing God and earning salvation, we tend to view that person as a heretic. Indeed most of us would wonder if such a one could be labeled a Christian.
2. Many LDS have said to me that salvation is indeed by grace alone, through Jesus Christ. However, that salvation is from the outer darkness, or hell. It gains one entry into the Heavenly Realms--either the Telestial or Terrestial Kingdoms. I've been led to believe that faith in Jesus is not required to enter these realms. That faithful followers of almost any religion could enter the 2nd kingdom, and even some fairly immoral people could enter the 3rd one. It may be that there would have to be some growth in faith in Christ, but that such faith could be gained after death.
3. Protestants--and especially Evangelicals--and LDS tend to talk past each other on this faith/works discussion, because we have such different views of heaven, hell, and the actual meaning of salvation.
4. LDS believe that entry into the highest heavenly realm (Celestial Kingdom) requires certain levels of faithfulness and obedience. Further, exaltation, at the highest levels of that realm, comes only after even greater "endurance to the end."
5. In fairness, many Christians of various denominations would accept the idea that within Heaven there may be some who earn special honors for their sacrifices and faithfulness.
I absolutely agree with you that mostly Christians and LDS tend to talk past each other. I think what you've gleaned from some LDS folk is somewhat accurate, and somewhat mistake...if that's even possible. :) I know you are aware from some other posts that we (LDS) have variable understandings of what salvation is. Salvation is not a single state. Yes, any kingdom of salvation is just that...a kingdom of salvation...in that even in the Telestial state we are saved from something. And that is by the grace of the Savior. However, their is only one state of FULL salvation. And that, too, we believe is given by the grace of Jesus. Anyone who argues that we are not saved by Grace (and claims to believe in the Bible) has no legs to stand on. We are saved by Grace. That is given.
To simplify the discussion, let's refer to "saved" as full salvation (Celestial Kingdom) concerning the LDS p.o.v.
LDS folk believe (or should believe, at least, if they understand) that we are saved by Grace after all we can do, per the Bible. That does not, in any way, mean that we earned our own salvation or that grace was not 100% the means of that salvation.
How does that work. It's simple really. Christ set the standard whereby He would give us His grace. That standard is to follow Him and to keep His commandments. Where the Christian world and LDS talk past each other a bit is in the idea of what it means to accept Christ. We (LDS) contend that if you don't follow His commandments, you haven't accepted Him, in spite of what one claims. The need to do as Christ has asked us to do is paramount. But doing that has no bearing on earning a thing. For our works are, as you pointed out, nothing but filthy rags. We cannot pay for treasure with filthy rags. Regardless, the Savior has asked us to give those filthy rags to him, and that is the condition He gave us for His grace.
-
These discussions are stupid to me.
I always find it humorous when someone states a discussion to be stupid and then proceeds to discuss it. :)
If you don't find it useful to discuss, don't discuss it. Others may find it useful. No reason to criticize that.
-
I've always been taught that Men are ordained the Priesthood and that a Woman holds the priesthood as a partner with her husband (sealed in the temple). It is my understanding that men are given keys to preside in their homes and women hold those same keys. It doesn't make a bit of sense to me that a father and mother wouldn't hold the priesthood keys necessary to take are of their home and family. There has been too much said about Family by Prophets and Apostles to believe otherwise. As an opposite example a bishop would not have the priesthood keys to preside in anyone's home but his own, even though he holds the keys to preside in the Ward. As women we don't exercise the priesthood in the same way as men do, but we do hold keys to the priesthood to preside in our homes, especially when our husbands are not present (single mother).
To think otherwise boggles my mind.
What you're talking about is authority, and in that regard, to think otherwise does boggle the mind. But the term "keys" are most often related to priesthood offices and are a specific term to such. Whereas we can (and sometimes do and have) use the word "keys" interchangeably with authority, it is not necessarily inaccurate to say parents have keys to their take care of their home...but realistically, they have those same "keys" regardless of priesthood. By virtue of having a child together they have that authority. The priesthood is not necessary for them to have that authority. Tell me what a home with an ordained priesthood male can do that a home without cannot? Heal the sick? No. Miracles happen by faith, and the prayer of a single mother is as valid in faith to healing the sick as a priesthood blessing. Revelation? Guidance from the Lord? All of these things come by the Spirit and by faith. So what "keys" are we talking about in the home that fathers (and mothers) have by virtue of the priesthood?
Generally speaking, when talking about priesthood keys, almost every reference I've read, speaks of them in terms of specific offices in the priesthood, and that cannot be applied to home. And usage of the word in that regard is perfectly reasonable without mind-boggling. So I both agree with you and disagree.:)
-
Technically speaking, LDS teachings do teach that we are saved by faith alone. But faith without works is dead, so...no works indicates no faith. Works are highly integral to our salvation because they are the manifestation of our works. To claim faith in Jesus, and then not to follow him (obey his commandments), puts a lie to the claimed faith.
-
I'm disinclined to call the actions of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve paranoia. I can see the argument but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Well, yeah....if that's what they do and the reason they do it, then I give them the benefit of the doubt too. I'm just skeptical that that's really a policy. That's all I'm saying.
-
It brings to mind the 'parable' of the man and the flood, who expecting the Lord to save him, turns down practical means of (physical) salvation because he expects the Lord to save him through miraculous means. Truly, the Lord could use miraculous means to protect the leaders of his Church, reading some of the experiences of Joseph Smith I have no doubt about that, but he may still expect the Leaders of the Church to be wise to the dangerous of the world.
I have no clue if they are:
1) Always 2 short.
2) Always 2 short because of concerns of attacks against the leadership of the Church.
I'm just saying that if they are I don't see anything incongruous with them taking practical steps. President Monson has bodyguards and my thinking concerning them is similar.
Right. Just that there's a difference between practicality and paranoia. :) But maybe.
-
Justified.
-
Granted, FolkProphet, but I\'ve never been told that I\'m an equal partner with my bishop or stake president. In the one instance, we at least talk of theoretical equality; in the other, there\'s a clear hierarchy with a supervisor and a subordinate. I can visualize a situation at Church where I might say \"I respect your opinion, but this falls under my priesthood stewardship and I think this is the way it has to be\" with some degree of regularity. In eleven years of marriage, I think I\'ve used that line of argument twice--I felt (and still feel) that the instances were justified, but it was still a supremely uncomfortable experience that I hope never to repeat.
I had another thought so I'm quoting the same post twice here. I wanted to clarify -- I believe that presidencies should be run more like marriages, rather than the reverse. I also did some digging and came up with this, which implies an intended equality in presidencies.
D&C 90:6
And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom; (emphasis added).
Joseph F Smith interpreted it thus:
And so with the high priest who has been called to officiate in the First Presidency, in which case he is "accounted equal" with the President of the Church in holding the keys of the Presidency (section 90:6) as long as the President remains. When he dies, the calling of his counselors ends, and the responsibility of Presidency falls upon the quorum of Twelve Apostles, because they hold the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood and are the next quorum in authority.
- SpiritDragon and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
About the Jew not cooking bacon, fine, but it is OK to make a vegetarian cook meat? I would love to see a vegetarian competition, rather than the 'let's make 1 veg meal' that has become typical on these shows.
I suppose that depends on whether the vegetarianism was religiously motivated or not. Were I Hindu, it would certainly make me uncomfortable. I guess it's always a personal choice.
-
This may have been my favorite (perhaps 2nd favorite to Holland's) talk in conference.
I have long held the opinion that obedience is the most important principle of the gospel. Love God and neighbor are the greatest commandments. Faith is the first principle. But obedience is the most important, or key principle.
The reason I feel this way is because although Love is the greatest commandment, without obedience there can be no commandments. A commandment is something we must obey, including the need to Love God and our neighbor. Obedience is also the means whereby we learn love. It is it the means whereby we exercise faith.
We cannot, in this life, truly learn to love. Not like God would have us. Even the greatest love we will experience (likely with our families) is only a small taste of the love that God has. Because of our mortality and weakness, we cannot every truly love. Therefore, we have obedience. We may not be able to truly love. But we can truly obey.
-
Another phenomenal talk. Very well given, and I learned from it. I love the idea that we can know truth through 3 distinct means...and that whereas revelation is, perhaps, the most important of those means, and the only way to a sure knowledge, the other means (fruits and experimenting on the word) are important and valid.
-
From Handbook 1. I'm not sure it answers our question on father's and keys related to their homes.
2.1.1Priesthood KeysPriesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see D&C 65:2; 81:2;124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.
Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys (see D&C 43:1–4; 81:2; 107:64–67, 91–92; 132:7).
Seventies act by assignment and by the delegation of authority from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Area Presidents are assigned to administer areas under the authorization of the First Presidency and the Twelve. The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy.
The President of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders so they can preside in their areas of responsibility. Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. This presiding authority is valid only for the designated responsibilities and within the geographic jurisdiction of each leader’s calling. When priesthood leaders are released from their callings, they no longer hold the associated keys.
Counselors to priesthood leaders do not receive keys. They are set apart and function in their callings by assignment and delegated authority.
All ward and stake auxiliary organizations operate under the direction of the bishop or stake president, who holds the keys to preside. Auxiliary presidents and their counselors do not receive keys. They receive delegated authority to function in their callings.
-
Could be his final testimony. I appreciated it greatly either way. Will look forward to more if he's back in Oct.
-
-
I guess I see it slightly differently, and I'm not sure I can explain it well, but I'll try.
It seems to me that keys are in very deed permissions, which is also authority, but different in that the key holder may "loan" keys to others by which they gain authority to act in those positions, while those who have keys on loan are unable to further distribute those keys or authority because only the master key holder can do so.
And you could well be correct. In fact, my EQ example didn't work at all because any permission the EQ pres must seek is simply outside the domain of his keys.
I'm not sure on this. Maybe I'll research and see what I can figure. But..later...conference watching now. :)
-
In what way do you see it as different?
My main take away is that while we all hold the same priesthood, we do not all have the same permissions (keys) allowed to use that power.
The lesson point blank says that a father has the keys to use his priesthood for blessing his family. He has no need to get authorized by another to do so, so long as he worthily holds the higher priesthood.
Well, I think I see it thus: Keys are not "permissions". That is authority. That is part of what Elder Oakes was saying. We can have authority without actually having keys.
I guess the way I see it as different is that keys, in most situations, are carefully and specifically designated. I'll re-iterate for emphasis. Specifically designated.
Referring to keys in terms more generally is not necessarily wrong...the wording of "key" is in many ways synonymous with authority or ability. It's an analogy for being able to access something. So we could use the term key to mean authority interchangeably, and perhaps sometimes it is used that way (as in said article, perhaps).
So I'm not necessarily saying the article is wrong or that a father does not hold keys. I'm still trying to figure this all out too...but I do feel like the usage of the word keys is inconsistent if it only means "doesn't have to seek permission". I think that is only part of keys. But it is not specific enough. The EQ president, for example, holds keys, and yet, he still must have the bishop's "permission" for many things he does in his calling, and defers to the bishop in pretty much all cases.
- SpiritDragon and Wingnut
-
2
-
For about a week once, I thought it would be fun to be a wine connoisseur, and really cool to be one who could do it/be it without actually tasting any of them. Then I realized it was entirely unrealistic. Lol.
I remember in high school I had the idea that this sort of thing would be fun too and somewhat regretted, not that I couldn't drink alcohol, but that wine contained alcohol. It seemed such a romantic thing somehow.
In my adult years I fulfilled this passion with cheese. Perhaps less romantic, but still...cheese connoisseurism is awesome.
Of course in my later adult years I've somewhat had to give up on cheese too because it makes me fat.
-
I really enjoyed this talk!
-
-
It's been fairly clearly taught that abstaining from liquor includes even tastes. I also think it would set a pretty bad example for a member of the church who is temporarily in the public's eye to be consuming liquor in any degree. No one expects a devout Jew to partake of pork. No one should expect a devout Mormon to partake of liquor. If a cooking show requires the use of liquor, a Mormon simply shouldn't be a part of it. A devout Jew would be likewise unwise to join a cooking show called Cooking with Bacon. :)
-
Christian Faith
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
Interesting way to put it. Yeah...maybe. Faith required works to be faith. So in that sense, yeah...not alone.