Traveler
-
Posts
15848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
In a conversation with Ray I have wondered about an old question I once posted on this board. I have found my discussions with Ray delightful and interesting. I am particular pleased with his efforts to communicate good things in a clear manner.
There are a few concepts I would like to ask and open up to the forum. These have the form of which is more important. These conceptual questions are asked to probe individual concepts and how the individual envisions how their ideas will affect others according to immediate impact as well as eternal consequences. As you consider the questions, please respond with your best insight. The questions concern informing others about your belief in G-d, his covenants, commandments, work blessings and anything else:
Is it more important to understand correct doctrine concerning G-d or to demonstrate and be an example of some portions of G-d’s attributes?
Is it more important to believe in G-d’s grace or to be gracious as he is?
Is it more important to believe in G-d’s love or to love others as he does?
Is it more important to believe in G-d’s kindness or to share G-dly kindness with others?
As best as can be understood:
Is it better to believe in G-d or is it better to be loyal (blindly loyal if you have to) to G-d?
Finely is there something about G-d (such as his power) that we should believe in but should not emulate him (do as he would do) in any such manner?
The Traveler
-
Ray: Help me a little here. Are you LDS or what?
The Traveler
-
I hope no one takes offense or thinks that I am trying to force my ideals on anybody. But I have a personal covenant when it comes to Sunday worship. Often when I am involved in discussions of keeping the Sabbath holy I try to avoid the common do’s and don’t’s. The question I as is, what is your personal Sabbath covenant and do you keep your covenant?
I do not think everybody has to have the same Sabbath covenants that I do but it is my opinion that you cannot keep the Sabbath holy unless you have a covenant and honor that covenant. Personally I believe you ought to include worship attendance in your covenant. For example one of my covenants is to attend all meeting of the block to which the L-rd has provided opportunity. Sometimes it is difficult and I am tempted to break my covenant. When my nephew had his mission farewell several friends and family came to his sacrament meeting. After sacrament meeting most went to my brother’s house for an open house thing – I attended the other meetings and was accused of being anti-social.
Again our family was on vacation at Bear Lake. When we went to church there were so many visitors they asked that the visitors do not attend the other meetings and allow the local’s to attend because they could not accommodate the numbers visitors (it was like stake conference). In that case I do not feel any covenant was broken by not attending meeting not provided.
What I do not understand about some attitudes concerning covenants:
1. When others feel they must force their personal covenants on others.
2. When someone does not think they (or anyone else) should have personal covenants. Prove it by scripture attitude.
3. When someone makes light of other’s covenants.
If you have not considered making personal covenants - you might want to consider it. I suggest you try living by covenant - a line upon line upon line - concept upon concept upon concept - covenant upon covenant upon covenant - All according to your heart, might, mind and strength.
Let us learn to respect covenants and encourage anyone that has a personal covenant to be loyal to their covenant. If you do not covenant I am not sure you have much to offer. If you do and feel you ought – please share some of your thoughts.
The Traveler
-
Indy: Do not think I am looking down on anybody about anything. I realize that everybody has their struggles. But what I am trying to get a cross is that we struggle simply because we struggle. Sometimes I step back from problems I cause my good wife and ask myself - why did I do that? The simple reason is because I let myself do it.Originally posted by lindy9556@Aug 16 2005, 05:20 PM
You know Trav~
Sometimes it's hard for anyone else to know the covenant that another person makes with God, and what bearing does that have on anyone else anyway? I don't think that anyone should look down on those that struggle with any kind of commitment period. Regular attendance, irregular attendance...if someone is trying to do what they can, when they can....why question their motives?
What I am trying to say is that it can be done - I know it can be done because I've done it and I am nobody great. I not the prophet, I'm not the bishop or the stake president, I a real regular person that is no better than anyone else - that is why I know it can be done. But more than just knowing it can be done - I also know that it is worth it.
Why? Well for one thing I have walked through the valley of death, I have held someone injured while they died - I been there when the world has fallen apart and I am thankful that I was taught commitment and been trained in understanding that what you regullarly do is who and what you really are. If you want to change yourself - change what you do on a regular basis. Where do people turn when there is real trouble? They turn to G-d - it's just better when you do in trouble what you have learned to do on a regular basis. But Indy I see you as a regular friend - not a sometime kind of friend - I'm quit sure you are very regular at what is important to you.
The Traveler
-
Please do not think I am trying to give you a bad time. I just want to make sure I understand what you are trying to say.Originally posted by Ray@Aug 16 2005, 05:12 PM
And without His help, or inspiration, there are some things we will simply never know.
When you say there are some things we will not understand without his help; what are you implying? My point is that we already have his help - everybody does. If there is something we do not know it is not because he is not allready helping us. It is because we are not paying attention and helping ourself to what he willing gives to everybody.
Preaching the Gosple of Jesus Christ is not so much about telling as it is about doing. Don't tell about being merciful and kind demonstrate mercy and kindness. Don't tell about love demonstrate love.
Sometimes I think devout people are like a bunch of geese that waddle through the mud every week to get to church to talk about flying and then waddle back home through the mud.
The Traveler
-
Just a thought: I use to teach the HP group in our ward. I asked the members why they came to church. One member of the stake presidency that lived in our ward responded by saying "I come to be inspired and uplifted". So I asked "Then if you are not inspired and uplifted some week you will not come anymore?"
He was quite taken back by my question.
There is another member that has struggled with his membership. He had been excommunicated and was trying to get himself back together. I asked him why he came to church. He replied that he made a promise to G-d that he would do it and in turn hoped that G-d would help him with putting his life back together. BINGO
Regular attendance is a covenant between you and G-d. Who wants an agreement with anybody that does not feel a need for consistent commitment?
For those of you that do not feel that regular commitment is needed – I would really like to borrow $100,000.00 from you with the promise that I will pay it all back with interest and see if your really mean what you say or if you will expect a regular commitment.
The Traveler
-
I offer you 5 points (testable) of G-d dealing with man:Originally posted by Ray+Aug 16 2005, 12:47 PM-->
Heh, I think I “post” for the same reasons that all the prophets have “preached” the gospel… because I know the joy (or at least some of the joy) that comes from knowing God and the blessings He desires to share with all of us, and I want to share “this” with others.<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@ Aug 16 2005, 12:29 PM
Then why post?
My father, in talking about investing, (he did very well) use to say that the point is to get other people to invest their own money. When they do they catch on very quickly. It is not a matter of how to invest it is a matter of investing. I think the point is to become invested. Someone may think they trust in G-d but there is a connection between G-d and our fellow men. Jesus said if you cannot love those you have seen how can you love G-d who is unseen?
Do you suppose that all the prophets “preached” or are now “preaching” because they wanted or want everyone to follow them?
I think I can identify that which is divine among man, I simply do not preach about man...at least not to the point of suggesting that a man should be worshipped.Let me put it this way - if you cannot identify that which is divine among man why do you think you can identify that which is divine?
Do you think I would better serve God and my fellow man by suggesting that other people seek wisdom or approval or an assurance of truth from President Hinckley?...or Joseph Smith??... or any other prophet of God???
And btw, your point about investing is well taken, but there is only One being which can make us truly rich.
1. G-d will not do anything for you that you can do for yourself.
2. G-d will do for you what you cannot do for yourself.
3. G-d will not do anything for you that results in your eternal detriment.
4. G-d will do for you that which is of eternal benefit for you.
5. G-d will not do anything for you without your concurrence and approval.
You will note that the variable in these points is you (me or us) and that the constant is G-d. In short my friend I think you are wasting your time (as well as everybody else’s) suggesting that G-d will change what he is doing for them – if they will just ask. What I suggest is that what is really required to obtain anything from G-d is a change in the individual.
How does an individual change? Quite simple. They must stop doing something (on a regular basis) that they have always done before and start doing something (on a regular basis) they have not done before.
What I am trying to get across is the process of seeking and finding, asking and receiving, knocking and having a door opened. I think the main difference in our point of view is the concept of process that assumes you are the only variable that needs change. I may have misunderstood you but you appear to me to be suggesting that G-d changes what he is doing if we make a big enough fuss about it. That has not been my experience but if it works for you that is fine – just letting you know it has not worked for me – if I’m not willing to walk a mile with someone’s burden I will never learn what happens when I walk a mile carrying someone else’s burden. I can call (trust and rely) on G-d for years and years and never learn a thing about carrying burdens till I change me and actually do it.
The Traveler
-
Then why post?Originally posted by Ray@Aug 16 2005, 08:46 AM
Traveler,
Your post is interesting and you make some good points, but I think we’re talking about 2 different things. I was talking about how we need Faith or an assurance from God to be able to know the truth, and you seem to be talking about how we need to set a good example so other people might learn that we are willing to practice what we preach.
And frankly, I prefer to talk about how we should put our trust in God and seek answers from Him, instead of talking about how we should be good examples so other people might be more willing to learn from us… because I don’t want people to put their trust in me or you or anybody else but God.
My father, in talking about investing, (he did very well) use to say that the point is to get other people to invest their own money. When they do they catch on very quickly. It is not a matter of how to invest it is a matter of investing. I think the point is to become invested. Someone may think they trust in G-d but there is a connection between G-d and our fellow men. Jesus said if you cannot love those you have seen how can you love G-d who is unseen?
Let me put it this way - if you cannot identify that which is divine among man why do you think you can identify that which is divine?
The Traveler
-
Sorry for the confusion - I was refering to myself and my post. The finger was pointed at me and no one else. I believe the problem of pride is when we try to convince someone else that the pride problem is for them and not for me. Sorry again - as you were.Originally posted by pushka@Aug 15 2005, 05:26 AM
I've been reading and re-reading Traveller's and the original post on this thread today, trying to figure out where Traveller is coming from in his reply...
I hope that I am on the right track in assuming that he is not referring to SF's post as being 'this post', and is actually referring to K Anderson's post instead. That he is thinking that perhaps K Anderson may have become too proud of his own church attendance, and is therefore judging the others in the congregation, who he assumes will become complacent and stop attending church, due to their own pride...hope this is making sense, btw. So, Traveller, can you confirm that you think it is K Anderson who thinks he is not part of this problem of 'pride'?
To me, there is a difference between being genuinely proud of something you or someone else has achieved, and being boastful and I think that is the difference that Traveller was also pointing out...
The Traveler
-
There is an old saying - "What you do thunders so loud in my ears I cannot hear a word you are saying."
The ancient word for saying or claiming to believe one thing but doing something else is hypocrisy. Jesus called many of the religious leaders of his day hypocrites because they taught ideals that they would not live.
We have our hypocrites in our day. They say Jesus is merciful and kind, but in reality they think Jesus is only merciful and kind to them. They think he will damn anyone that does not believe correct doctrine. Yet Jesus said if you do not forgive others you will not be forgiven by him. Jesus also said if you are only merciful and kind to your friends you are no better than robbers and thieves – that you should love your enemies and do good to those that curse you. But Jesus would not do what he asks us to do? Is Jesus a hypocrite?
Gandhi said he is the example of what he believes –Jesus is as well. If you are not an example as Jesus is an example you have not taken upon yourself his name – the name you have taken upon yourself is that of an imposter.
My opinion – and I am always looking for someone willing to be an example.
The Traveler
-
I believe pride is an effort to increas one's importance or to diminish the importance of others. It is an effort to justify one's self or actions over that of others.
Pride is thinking that what we do is okay but what someone else does is not okay.
Pride is shelfishness
The worse thing about pride is - any attempt to over come pride only results in one becoming over come by pride.
Pride is pointing out what is wrong with others.
Pride is what happens when an effort is made (like this post) to excempt one's self from being a problem.
The Traveler
-
One of the interesting terms of both the Old and New Testament has never been translated in any modern tongue and therefore is somewhat lost in our modern era. We are basically left with speculation as to the meaning? Or so it would seem. When Jesus entered into Jerusalem on what is sometimes called palm Sunday the Jews shouted a most curious phrase. In our current Bibles we see the following: “Hosanna in the highest” and “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the L-rd” (with specific reference to YHWH. If one looks up hosanna in an unabridged dictionary the evolution is given. We see that in the Latin evolution the meaning was changed along with the word “osanna”.
Because of the Dead Sea Scriptures we now know that the meaning was changed late in the first century of the Christian era (sometime shortly after 74 AD). Most likely this is when the Latin influence began to change the meaning and the manner in which it was spoken. Among the scrolls preserved near the Dead Sea, Hosanna is carefully explained and we are given additional meaning of this phrase that has been lost for generations. The explanation is given in 3 different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The scrolls that preserve this understanding predate Christ and the Christian era by over 300 years which gives indication that this was not a passing fancy of an Essen culture but a deep and significant part of Jewish theology.
When the Dead Sea Scriptures were found there were great effort to prevent exposing the scrolls that referenced “Hosanna” from modern Christians and Jews. What we find in the Dead Sea Scriptures is specific reference to the Messiah of Israel and the G-d of the Old Testament. This is a recognition of the Messiah and a plea for deliverance from YHWH. But there is more, Hosanna is a plea or prayer to YHWH, the very G-d of the Old Testament to save, redeem and deliver. The word “Hosanna” implies recognition of YHWH as the savior and redeemer or in other words YHWH is the name given by which men are saved. Contrast this with Acts 4:12 where most Christians think that Jesus in the name by which man is saved. But Hosanna is a call to YHWH to save. This presents a significant problem for the Trinitarian concept of G-d and the three persons that comprise the one G-d. The problem is two fold. First that the person Jesus is the very YHWH (singular G-d) and second that the meaning of Hosanna (to osanna) was changed at the very time the Trinity was being formulated.
This also presents a problem to the critics of the LDS doctrine that Jesus is YHWH and is distinct and different from G-d the Father. Since man is fallen, G-d the Father cannot save man and one and only one G-d - YHWH that is the same person as Jesus and is the only savior - ever (OT or NT).
The Traveler
-
My friends of the forum. Obviously our friend is not aware of Tetragrammaton or the effect of textual variation in the ancient scripture. Nor is our friend able to understand the ancient manners of symbolism, and respect for speaking in reference to G-d. It is also obvious to me that he has little or no understanding of the ancient languages that G-d chose to speak to his word. There is not a single example in any ancient scriptural text where any reference to G-d (title or name) where the text provided complete text to speak or pronounce any reference to G-d (title or name). The casual reference to divine title and name is a development that has occurred after all Biblical scripture was complete.
The criticism of indirect reference to divine name and title is ill placed and is a criticism of scripture itself. Never once did Jesus criticize the scriptural text referencing divine name or title in a manner that could not be spoken. Tetragrammation or the altering of text in reference to G-d’s name or title dates back to well before the Babylonian captivity. Because of the sacredness of reference to divine name and title I avoid getting involved in arguments of this kind. I ask the forum to end this discussion. If there is any blame for this - let it now be upon me.
The Traveler
-
When Jesus was a Jew and walked the earth he was respectful of Jewish law. But there was a group of religious people that were the scum of the earth. In fact, of all religions that existed in that era it was considered the most corrupt, more corrupt than pagans or if you will devil worshipers. The group was the Samaritans. Even in our day the Samaritan scriptures have been ridiculed for deliberate changes in doctrine and examples of corruptness.
Yet Jesus singled out the Samaritans – not for their doctrine or care in attending to religion or even the mercies or grace of G-d. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given as an example of how Christians of even our modern era should treat other whose faith is different from their own.
Am I less rightious because out of person care I write G-d? I have never criticized anyone or felt they must write G-d as I do.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Aug 10 2005, 10:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 10 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Aug 10 2005, 05:50 AM
This is not about LDS. It is about all religions. Those that would learn of Islam should learn from those that honor that faith. The same applies to Catholics, Baptist, Jews or whatever.
Yeah - maybe - partly.
Do you think the best source to learn about Scientology is from Tom Cruise and Courtney Love?
About like Donny Osmand for LDS. But I doubt you have access to Tom or Courtney for a personal conversation - having their remarks edited and filtered by the media is not ideal eather - tends to create prejudice. There is a figure in the NT that ask the question, "Does our law judge a man before it has heard him speak?"
The Traveler
-
Would G-d ever command a loving parent to kill their child in a ritualistic sacrifice? Would such a thing be more demeaning than polygamy?Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 12 2005, 04:24 AM
I am bearing my testimony that I 'know' that God did not command polygamy. I have prayed about it and prayed about it, and got the answer from God some time ago.
Heh, those of you who think He did just haven't listened to Him.
A God that is a loving Father would not command something which is so demeaning
The Traveler
-
Again there are those that cannot see. To my friend Snow – from a previous conversation some that do not see - do not know how to look or even what to look for – therefore even their questions display their folly and disrespect of sacred things as well as their inability to covenant or comprehend truth. This thread is another fine example.
In Exodus G-d gave Moses commandments written in stone. One command said “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet in other places in the Old Testament G-d commanded that those that commit certain sins or involved in certain battles be killed.
The point is that to the uncommitted, covenant and commandment is not at all understood. When someone covenants with G-d part of that covenant is to do or not do many things of their own choice. Even though, by commandment, a covenant child of G-d would not choose to do something on their own – kill for example – that does not exclude G-d commanding that it be done. The choice of man is to covenant with G-d or be taken in servitude by Satan. One way or the other we become servants of our master. That service reflects in every way the wish and desire of our master.
It is like the principle of compound interest – Those that understand the principle invest and receive compound interest by contract. Those that do not understand the principle are caught up and smothered in servitude of payments. In America over 90% of the population will die in debt. It was not because they loved dept but because they could not or would not see their way out of it.
The Traveler
-
As I child I dreamed in following in the foot steps of great scientist like Dr. Verner Von Bron. As a teenager I abandoned the dream to launch a rocket into space when a particular rocket exploded and drew a little too much attention. I still have a dream to complete a particular project left unfinished by Nicola Tesla.
The Traveler
-
Your questions are based on misunderstanding because your eyes cannot see eternal things. Your questions are like me asking you, "When will you stop abusing children?Originally posted by Shawn@Aug 10 2005, 06:03 PM
In my first post I asked:
Just taking a poll. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if Gordon B Hinckley announced that the BOM will no longer be considered scripture to members of the Church?
The responses varied, but I thought far too many people spent too much time explaining why this situation would never, ever happen.
In Part II,I'd like to preface my question by providing a example of two announcements many Latter-day Saints thought they would never hear (but did). First, that the practice of plural marriage was to be discontinued and, 2) that black men would be given the priesthood. With these situations in mind, here is "Would You Care Part II.
How would you respond/react if Gordon B Hinckley announced in the October General Conference that the Priesthood would be given to women?
In Jesus Always,
Shawn
Those that listen carefully to what they are taught at the temple know that women will hold the priesthood - it is only a matter of when. Those that understand covenants with G-d know that the covenant of marriage (polygamy) as G-d covenants and commands has never changed since Abraham and will not, for the things of G-d are eternal. It is the confusion of men that causes some to see with eyes that cannot comprehend eternal things.
It would seem you have the same problem as king Ahaz when Isaiah said to him, “im lo ta aminu ki lo’ te’ amenu”.
The Traveler
-
Ray: You may not understand my post. I do not contend that someone not consider multiple sources. What I do contend is that all consider their sources. If someone is relying on anti-LDS or anti anything they should be clear what they are involved with and honestly portray their sources. The problem is not so much what a person is asking as much as what they present themself as. When someone says they are considering LDS doctrines then ask questions based on anti-LDS sources that should be a RED flag. This is not according to my opinion but based on teachings of Christ. He advises that such types be avoided.Originally posted by Ray@Aug 10 2005, 08:58 AM
Traveler,
Taking your point to the logical extreme seems to suggest that we [all people] should only seek information about God from God, which really is the only pure and living source of that knowledge, and while I am staunchly in favor of that approach as being the only real way to truly know the truth, which is why I try to talk about Faith so much, I still do not see that as the only way to acquire knowledge (or information) concerning God.
And I don’t see that as the only way to acquire information of any particular religion or anything else, either, even though we are all more likely to hear positive things about something from people who accept the information concerning whatever it is they’re talking about.
I think the main idea we need to keep in mind is that no matter where information comes from, we should all Ask God for wisdom and His assurance of the truth, and that until we do that, we will never know the truth.
Anyway, I truly do appreciate your point about how we shouldn’t go around trying to gather “grapes of thorns or figs of thistles”, which is what someone is doing when they try to gather knowledge without Asking God for Faith. And further, someone who goes so far as to teach against the principle of Faith is someone who is doing the work of Satan, trying to chock out the fruit produced by Faith. But someone who is simply asking for information to help them understand some other information they have heard may yet Ask God for wisdom and His assurance of the truth, even if for some reason they feel the need to Ask other people too.
If someone has a better interpretation of "gathering grapes of thorns or figs of thistles" I would be willing to entertain their thoughts but I think it is quite clear.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Aug 9 2005, 07:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 9 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Aug 9 2005, 10:09 AM
When someone says they are studying LDS teachings and doctrines and asks questions that obviously are not from LDS teachings but inspired by anti-LDS teachings – know with certainty, as Christ prophesied, we have encountered someone attempting to gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. LDS grapes do not grow among anti-LDS thorns. What motivates this individual is not LDS teachings but the teachings of anti-LDS. Is this particular deception, as described by Christ, a new experience for you?
The Traveler
Marsha used to ask the same questions. She got baptised. What's the harm in giving a small benefit of the doubt?
Traveler, if you read my posts, you know that I am like an attack dog when I think someone has ill-intentions, and I think that about a fair number of new posters over time. This one may just be playing it cool but what's the harm in finding out without running the risk of offending someone unnecessarily - like I said, Marsha got baptized.
A very good friend of mine was raised as anti-LDS. He has posted on this forum but not for some time. He too was baptized, but it was not until he was willing to drink pure water from the source. Once he experienced pure water he has not been able to deal with water that is not pure. The invitation I offer is to those that would drink pure water from the source. As Christ talked about the seed that would be planted he told of a seed that was chocked out because of weeds and thorns. The weeds and thorns are the teaching of the anti.
This is not about LDS. It is about all religions. Those that would learn of Islam should learn from those that honor that faith. The same applies to Catholics, Baptist, Jews or whatever. My father told me once that if I desired to succede I should seek knowledge from those that have succeded and not from those that have failed. Not because there is nothing to learn from failures but because those that have success understand something that those that failed never understood.
It apears to me that Jesus dealt with the same issue. It is about source. Those that pass judgement on any group or person based on their accusers have errored in justice. The point is simple. Do not misrepsent yourself. If someone has questions because of anti-LDS sources at least be honest about it. I may not be an expert on Marsha, but I do not recall that she ever misrepresented herself or the source of her questions.
The Traveler
The Traveler
-
One of the great paradoxes of existence is in understanding need and necessity. Most people have very limited scope and tend to focus on immediate need and necessity and ignore anything that may be of long term consequence. The question of this thread is if regular attendance at church is necessary? What does the word “regular” add to the question? Irregular and uncommitted involvement in anything is usually a sign of hypocrisy and insincerity though I am sure some of you could be the exception.
What is the advantage of someone that is irregular and uncommitted? For all the excuses offered, I find little or nothing I believe to be good for society, only excuses for personal egos. Should someone regularly attend their job? – yes if they expect to be paid and keep their job. Should someone regularly spend time with their spouse and children? – yes if they expect to foster a family relationship. Is it necessary to have regular sleep, food, exercise, friendship, justice or anything? Should we be regular in spiritual commitments? – yes if you expect familiarity with the divine.
The point my friends; is that if something is worth while, if it is a good thing in society it is best to apply such things with regularity. It is foolish to be irregular and uncommitted to worth while things. If it is not worth while it is silly to do even once, although not impossible to get away with. Just because something can be done for a short interval or because we can get away with something without the sky immediately falling – does not indicate that such things are unjustified or unnecessary in the long term.
If church is not worth regularity it has no worth what-so-ever. We are better off if we regularly are not involved with church. BTW - regular to me does not mean every time it is convenient or when there is nothing else to do. Regular means there is a priority. Personally I have greater respect for those that are committed to a worth while cause over those that think of cause in terms of personal convenience or ego.
The Traveler
-
In the 7th Chapter of Matthew, Jesus is in the process of concluding his most celebrated sermon with a chilling warning. He warns against the effect of false and deceptive individuals as a primary threat to his followers. He tells us that these individuals will employ a sly tactic in that they will pretend to be sheep but their intent is not loyalty to the shepherd or to the safety of the fold. They are really wolves in sheep clothing with the intent to usurp the shepherd and destroy the fold. He then warns that the only way to really discern them is by their fruits and he gives a very specific example in the form of a question: “Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?”Originally posted by Snow@Aug 7 2005, 02:12 PM
Try reserving judegement. The poster may be well-intentioned and at any rate hasn't said anything to the contrary.
When someone says they are studying LDS teachings and doctrines and asks questions that obviously are not from LDS teachings but inspired by anti-LDS teachings – know with certainty, as Christ prophesied, we have encountered someone attempting to gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles. LDS grapes do not grow among anti-LDS thorns. What motivates this individual is not LDS teachings but the teachings of anti-LDS. Is this particular deception, as described by Christ, a new experience for you?
The Traveler
-
First off, I do not believe this post is honestly seeking LDS doctrine. These questions are typical of non-LDS that preach not the gospel of peace but a gospel of contention and lies. The answers are well know in LDS circles - I do not believe this post is honest. The questions come from communing with anti-LDS and not from seeking any LDS understanding.Originally posted by Mathias@Aug 5 2005, 12:20 AM
I have been considering joining the LDS church for a long time, but there have been a few questions that I can't find answers to. I'm sorry if they seem hostile or whatever, but all the 'softball' questions I had were answered quite easily on the www.mormon.org website. But as for questions I haven't found answers to there, I was wondering if some of you could help me out. (I tried calling this hotline or whatever, but the guy said he hadn't been in the church very long so he didn't know).
So, and I derived this from the website, in 1978 (I think it was) the Priesthood was extended to all worthy males in the church, right? I was wondering, prior to '78, who exactly had been excluded, and what rationale had kept them out, and what reasoning decided that they should be allowed in? Because the way I understand it, the basis of the religion is largely that Living Prophets give God's true word. So were the living prophets before '78 wrong, or did something happen whereupon The Lord decided to extend the priesthood?
Secondly, what is the Church's view point on romantic relationships between LDS members and non-mormons? Obviously they should respect eachother enough to respect one another's religious guidelines regarding sexual activity and family structure and whatnot, but should mormons also be wary of emotional attachment to those who don't belong to the church?
Bringing me to the third question, which is what the LDS believe about the fate of other Christians, and their levels of glory. The first time I considered becoming LDS, this was one of the big issues I had, but I was talking to one or two people only.
Any answers to these questions would be very much appreciated. For the most part I've gotten only answers from bitter ex-Mormons, which is something like reading the Augsburg confession to learn about Catholicism. I would be very grateful if any of you guys are knowledgable in any of the areas addressed by the questions.
~Mathias
To the first question: There is an order in all things in the Kingdom of G-d. As to the priesthood and those who officiate for G-d there is an order based on genealogy. In ancient Israel only the Levites held priesthood to officiate in the ordinances. Those that were not properly connected in genealogy were not to receive the Priesthood (See Ezra 2-62). A similar order of things was established in the last days. The Priesthood was not given to those who’s genealogy had not yet been reconciled. That has changed for the first time in history. In preparation for the coming of Jesus all worthy males are under covenant and commandment to uphold the priesthood. Prior to this time some were not under such covenant.
The second question is quite immature. It is never wise to seek romance with those that do not share your faith in G-d. If you cannot see eye to eye in sacred things - it is unwise to ask G-d to bless your marriage and force you to become one against your individual and separate wills.
As to the final question - The LDS view of the plan of salvation is the answer. It is the LDS gospel or Good news in Christ. I cannot believe you have considered becoming LDS and not have heard of this doctrine called the “plan of salvation”. Temples are built to “redeem the dead” of all peoples - including those that lived loyal to other faiths.
Please try to be honest. If you are seeking to become LDS - you should not have sought grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. This identifies you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing (see Matt 7:15-16).
The Traveler
How Important Is Regular Church Attendance?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Yes, I am LDS. Why do you ask?
If you’re wondering how I answer the TR question concerning whether or not I attend all of my meetings, I usually say Yes with the understanding that that is what I usually do, and if something unusual came up I then shared my story with members of the bishopric and stake presidency, if I hadn’t done so already.
(I’m the Exec Sec in my ward so I usually talk with members of the bishopric and stake presidency regularly.)
And btw, next time, please just ask me to clarify something you don’t understand from what I said, because whether or not I am speaking the truth has nothing to do with whether or not I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... except that by having received the Holy Ghost, Who I was told to receive by some men with that authority, I now have access to His gift of truth, which I otherwise would not have received unless God so desired to bless me.
The reason I asked if you were LDS was not so much to judge you or what you were saying. I thought to persue some ideas with you but I was not sure how to go about it. You could call this a pre-assement to get an idea of where you are coming from.
Knowing that you are LDS does not change the truth but it does color a little how I might attempt to present some thoughts. I am also LDS. Unlike yourself I do not do well in presidency possitions (execitive secretary - bishiprics etc..) though for some reason I keep getting called to them. Maybe if I could get it right just once and pass the test I could be called to something I am more suited to do.
By profession I am an scientist and engineer so I am not known for my communication skills. Currently I work in the automation and robotics industry.
I have several non internet things I must take care of at this time. If I get them done I will come back tonight and add some thoughts. If not - later.
The Traveler