let’s roll
-
Posts
140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by let’s roll
-
-
Just a thought...consider how comfortable you are when you see Xmas during the Christmas season.
If you support the notion of not taking Christ out of Christmas, it’s only logical you’d support not taking Christ out of the name of His Church.
But even more important than the Church’s name is how its members think of themselves. Do we really know whose we are? That we were bought for a price? If so, why would we ever react in any manner other than enthusiastically to an invitation to always have Christ on our lips, in our minds, and in our hearts.
-
On occasion I’ve chosen to take offense or be hurt by the advice of an ecclesiastical leader. I get over it by choosing to no longer take offense or be hurt by such advice.
-
As I’ve communed with God, I’ve felt clear direction that the Church provides the best combination of environment and understanding/doctrine to maximize my devotion and discipleship.
It also gives me a wonderful forum and structure within which I can serve God’s children and my brothers and sisters of all faiths.
-
On 2/26/2019 at 3:39 PM, prisonchaplain said:
OPEN QUESTION: So, I received an interesting "like" on this article, over at LinkedIn. The individual is a female, outed-lesbian Catholic priest (obviously, not Roman Catholic...must be some smaller group claiming the 'Catholic' title), who does masses with her life-long partner/wife. Part of me is pleased that such a person would read a conservative-Evangelical-Pentecostal preacher's material, and like it! Another part of me wonders if I communicated clearly. Another post of mine, very much with the same type of messaging, was appreciated by a vaguely spiritual psychologist, who finds my writing to be "progressive and inclusive." Again, I wondered if I am just really good at communicating the mercy and grace of God outside my own faith community, or if I am somehow failing to deliver "Thus says the LORD?"
Perhaps folks here can help. After all, I'm not LDS. Do my posts wound like those of an open-minded Pentecostal, or am I coming across as a 'dry' LDS church member? In a way, both would be good. I'm not trying so much for either--just to communicate God's truth in an open, empathetic, yet clear manner.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, your posts come across to me as “sharing” and not “preaching,” intended to help, not condemn or provoke. For that reason, I read them and appreciate your perspective.
- Jane_Doe and prisonchaplain
-
1
-
1
-
Since the opening prayer in the second hour is gone and isn’t likely to return, I invite anyone who has an issue with that to pray for peace of mind regarding the change.
That seems a better choice than debating why it’s been discontinued.
-
I put it down 14 years ago and have never had any desire to pick it back up.
- NeuroTypical and unixknight
-
2
-
The scriptures teach that all will confess God’s judgments are just. Thus, while we can spend time speculating on how we, and others might be judged, we can take comfort in the promise that at the time of judgment we will agree that not only God’s judgment of us is just, but his judgment of all others as well.
-
I’ve had a number of powerful and poignant experiences as I’ve pondered regarding our Mother in Heaven. I treasure those experiences and hold close the feelings and light that accompanied them.
-
10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Almost certainly they will do so via work for the dead, which I expect will be in the Millennium, when we have angels guiding that work.
That must be a very large and active YSA group. 😇
-
5 minutes ago, Vort said:
I have intentionally steered clear of commenting on this thread, exactly because my opinion directly contradicts what many leaders have taught. For this reason, I haven't even followed this thread very closely, so forgive me if I either repeat points already made or go off on some weird tangent that's irrelevant to the present discussion.
My current, not-tightly-held opinion is that Section 131 looks (to me) to refer quite clearly to what Section 76 calls the "degrees of glory". When read in that light, and of course in my opinion. Section 131 simply makes a lot more sense than supposing that it means the celestial kingdom itself is tripartite. What would a three-part celestial kingdom even mean? The Lord makes it abundantly clear that if we are not one, we are not his. How, then, can there be division in the very celestial kingdom of the Father and his Christ?
What kind of man or woman would, indeed could, live the gospel and abide tightly by its precepts to the point of receiving celestial glory, but then refuse THE VERY RELATIONSHIP THAT DEFINES CELESTIAL GLORY? To me, it is utterly unimaginable. A celestial kingdom peopled with those who refuse to make the very covenant that brings eternal life? To my mind, this is absurd in the extreme.
Having written the above, I must quickly concede that the common understanding of a tripartite celestial kingdom is held by most if not all current Church leadership—or at least if they don't hold that view, they keep their opinions on the matter to themselves. Though I am no General Authority and thus am free to speculate privately without danger of anyone misunderstanding my speculations as LDS doctrine, I nevertheless don't really pipe up with this interpretation of Section 131. I feel no need to preach my own private interpretations. Ultimately, either I'm right or I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, the less I say, the better, and if I'm right, then the truth will ultimately come out without my preaching.
I am reminded of those so-called Saints in the 1960s and early 1970s who insisted that the Church was wrong to deny the Priesthood to those of black African descent. Many today would say that they were right—and be it noted that I am not one of those; I think quite the opposite. But even if they were factually correct, which again I disbelieve, even then they were out of bounds in proclaiming their private interpretations. They were apostate, Those who were excommunicated for their teachings and actions fully deserved it. I do not want ever to be classified with such people. I would rather be wrong with God's chosen leaders (or be right and shut up) than proclaim my own brilliance in defiance of them. So there you go.
Lots of wisdom there.
Another thought. What of the billions promised the Celestial Kingdom who died before, or never achieved, accountability in mortality, so of necessity never married in mortality.
Are we to believe they receive some inferior version of the Celestial Kingdom (prophets have said no) or will they enter into the new and everlasting covenant outside of mortality. If so, that path is likely to become the one more often used to arrive at exaltation.
-
Channel. Invite one of them to come in for the last 5 minutes of each Ward Council meeting to provide a spiritual thought on a scripture you’ve assigned along with a suggestion on how the Council/Ward might better live the principle set out in the scripture.
Then when approached in the hallway with an ad hoc suggestion, you can kindly suggest they consider whether they want to share that the next time they give a thought in WC.
Then prepare to marvel at their ability to weave au gratin potatoes into whatever scripture you assign them. 😇
-
2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:
Hmmm. I rather think that if the situation were reversed, and only 3 Caucasians were CEOs of fortune 500s, you would be kicking up a stink all round. And, it may surprise you to learn, were that to be the case, I would endorse your position whole-heartedly. But it isn't. And I don't.
Best wishes, 2RM.
PS. Oh, and by the way, that's me done for the night. But by all means talk amongst yourselves. Sweet dreams!
I breathlessly await the strong righteous protest of our social injustice warrior to the NBA regarding the gross underrepresentation of white athletes on NBA rosters (he then can move on to the NFL). 😀.
And remind me what, other than perceived power, worldly recognition, and embarrassing salaries makes being the CEO of Fortune 500 a desirable position?
-
-
I try to take the approach of enthusiastically embracing Prophetic direction without expecting to fully understand God’s purpose in providing that direction before I begin applying/living it.
Thus my prayers regarding such directions are along the lines of, Dear God as I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically abide by this new counsel and direction, please prompt me as I do so to see they divine purposes and hand in this.
My experience has been that the wisdom and purpose of new direction is much more easily seen and understood as it is experienced.
-
1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:
Ummm. I'm not the one whose Church (according to one of your missionaries I met once) insists on a tripartite heaven, LDS believers being assured the best place. Regard my post as my gentle, indirect enquiry towards understanding why this might be.
Best wishes, 2RM.
It’s the difference between the love of learning/knowledge and grade grubbing.
-
I think the answer @Fether provided to the OP was spot on, so I’m ready to move on.
In fact, I’d suggest that if 2RM had understood the depth and breadth of that response there would have been no follow up, since the follow up seems to be an invitation to speculate on who will be closest to God, akin to the unhealthy debate among the apostles about seating proximity to the Savior.
I choose to pass on that invitation.
-
32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
My pet peeve with a lot of religious people is their discrimination against "rich people" and painting them to be villains.
Materialism is not about how much money you make, how many cars you own, etc. etc. You can be making less than minimum wage with 5 kids and still be materialistic. You can own 3 Rolex watches and not be materialistic.
Money is simply a tool or a resource. It is nothing more than that. If your actions and your heart is on accumulating materials for the sake of accumulating materials, then you're materialistic. If your actions and your heart is on accumulating materials as a resource for your life's work in the service of Christ's Kingdom, then you're not materialistic.
I agree with the premise of your comment, but would have chosen a different example for folks who have means but aren’t materialistic.
I’ve probably met 20-25 people who own 3 or more Rolex watches. I’m not sure I’d characterize any of them as not being materialistic, even those whose watches are knock-offs. 😀
But I could be wrong.
-
If Christ were to invite you to sell all your possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and join Him in His work (He’s been known to do that), would you do so happily.
Regardless of how we’re doing temporally, that’s always a good question to ask ourselves to evaluate how we’re doing spiritually.
-
To learn to love God and our brothers and sisters.
To develop a mind that understands the work of God and a spirit/heart willing to accept His invitation to join Him in that work, both in mortality and thereafter.
-
As someone said to me in Church last week, the three hour block never seemed to be that long until they announced the two hour block, now it seems to drag on forever...not sure how I’m going to survive another month of the three hour block. 😀
-
In discussing school with my children I counseled them that tests should be understood as a means to verify that you know what you were taught, not as a declaration that you believe everything you were taught is true.
In fact if there were answers to test questions that a student found particularly troublesome I don’t think it would be inappropriate for them to answer with what they were taught and add a hand written post script at the end of the exam saying the answers herein reflect what I was taught but not in all cases what I believe to be true.
-
-
-
Name of the Church
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
A sincere thank you for the background you provided.
While the origin of the term is interesting, it is unknown to the vast majority of people who use the term today, which is why style guides denigrate its use and etiquette guides say it shouldn’t be used in polite conversation.
My hope is that my attempt at a simple analogy didn’t distract you, and others, from the invitation I was trying to make in the last paragraph of my post.
Godspeed to you.