Ray

Sorry, what?You lost me at Ray, Ray Ray... Okay, I tried to hear what you said, again, and what you seem to be saying is:That analogy wasn't a perfect representation of the atonement. There were a lot of other details left out. If that's what you think, then that's what you think, but I think my OP question wasn't answered. What is the atonement, how do we get it, and how does it work... from your perspective? You can use another analogy if you don't think that one was good enough. Personally, I think it works, if we interpret it correctly. Or at least I can see some true parallels. And btw, I've already told all of you some of what I think about this. I'm trying to understand what y'all think. ... about the atonement. You don't have to use that analogy to explain it. Okay, I tried to hear what you said, again, and this time this particular thought stood out for me.The reason I am "hung up on" (or, in other words, thinking about) the phrase "at one" is because I am trying to understand the atonement better... even better than I do right now. I know I can ask God, and I already have, and at this point, I want to know what y'all think. I hope that explains why I am asking this question. I simply want to know what y'all think about that. And please don't get offended if I ask some more questions after all of you share what you think. And who knows, that might even become something we talk about. And who knows, that might do "us" some good. :)

Are you over analyzing everyone's responses here Ray? M. No. I don't think so. At least not according to the way I see things. Are you over analyzing my responses, Maureen? Do you really know for sure what I'm thinking... or what I've thought... about anything?

Are you thinking I'm being critical, or something like that? I simply share what I think. Do you see? What you think when I share what I think with you, or others... is that my response-ability? I do try to be careful to correctly convey what I'm thinking... but some people still don't really see me. They only see what they think and they think I thought that. Sometimes, that is very funny. :) Perception... that's the key. Do you see what I'm saying? You can think what you want, as you see. But when you do that don't think that what you see is really me. Unless we are "one" and what you see is really me... ...and I'll know you are "one' with me. :)

What Do General Authorities Do All Day U.S. News – Joseph Smith A Prophet Sincere Question – How am I being hurt? If The Church Wasn’t True, How Would We Know – Testing Truth Why Is The Temple Too Sacred To Discuss Free Agency, The Illusion Of The Autonomous Man And btw, there are more, if you don’t have your own source. I got these from the FAIR Message Board. … but don’t tell them or we may lose this source, or they may try to come here to get them back. ... seeings how I didn't pay them, or anything. :)

I agree with your thoughts, and you said a lot of what I'm saying.It's all about perception... so be careful. I'm not pointing my finger and saying... STOP, DON'T DO THAT!!! I'm just sharing what I think about how it is important to be careful when we share things we believe. And that's it. That's my main point, anyway. Are you thinking I'm trying to be profoud, or something like that? Heh. I think so. You guys don't seem to see me as just "one of you guys". :)

Yes, I do know how you feel.But I think it helps others when we try to help others. Sometimes our efforts are worth more than our results. :)

No, I'm not saying to "not" do those things. Doing those things can be helpful, of course.But to learn what is true we need to go to God, directly. There is no other way to know truth. What I am trying to say is that the act of "studying, pondering and praying" doesn't necessarily involve reading books written by other people. Sure, I know it might help... just like "hearing" thoughts from other people might help, but we don't need to read books, or hear thoughts from other people to learn what is true, about anything.Think about how books are first written. When I have a thought, I study it out in my mind, and I ponder and pray while I do that. I don't need to go read or hear what someone else said. God helps me know truth, personally. And if I then wrote a book or a message about what God revealed to me, what I wrote would be what God revealed to me... even if I didn't give God the credit. But should you then believe what I say or wrote down as I used my own words in that book? Should you believe what Paul said... or what Moses said... just because they said that's what God told them? What I'm hearing from you... and I don't know if you meant this... is that we need to read or hear from other people... first... before we can know what God knows. So I'm saying we don't need to do that, because God can reveal truth to us, personally. You seem to be putting the egg before the chicken... or a book before the author of that book... and all the thoughts from other people don't really mean a thing to me unless I know God really did inspire them. I still don't agree we "shouldn't" say "go to God to learn truth". I am saying that we definitely should.Don't just absorb what others say or write in a book... go to God and ask Him for the truth. Study your own thoughts, ponder them in your own mind, and pray to God yourself, personally. Don't depend on other people... anyone other than God... to tell you what is really the truth. And No, I'm not saying we should stop listening to other people... just don't depend on others to tell you the truth. And btw, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and I know President Hinckley is a prophet... but how do you suppose I came to know that is true? Grab a chair. Sit down, and I'll tell you. I first heard from them... either through books and/or through their spoken words... and then, as I usually do... I studied my own thoughts in my own mind (and of course some of my thoughts were aroused by at least some of what they said), while also pondering and praying to God about what I was thinking about... and then, lo and behold, God spoke to me (in the way that He speaks to me, personally). And do you know what is particularly interesting to me? I've had some similar thoughts, and some questions about what some other people say, or said, before I ever heard from those other people. But they still added to my knowledge because I didn't know about them and some of the thoughts they had shared. And sometimes it not "what" but "how" they share what I already know that causes me to learn some more about a subject. And from personal experience, I have learned many things before other people told me, and our source of all true knowledge is God. So who knows... I might still learn what others know to be true... eventually... if I never hear from some other people. But I wouldn't know them... I will only have their knowledge... from the source from whom we gain our true knowledge. And, to me, the advantage of hearing from other people is that they can, sometimes, stimulate my thoughts a little faster than I would have first thought of those thoughts on my own. God can always tell me the truth, of course... without me ever knowing about other people... and just as soon as I learn about others I usually then come to see that we all have learned some truths from God. And I do know God works through many other people, and that helps to stimulate all our thoughts. Heh, I've seen that movie, but I don't recall what was said. You're not trying to make fun of me, are you?

Okay, Tommy, and others. Just humor me a little bit longer. If the bike represents salvation, what represents the atonement? The “money” the Dad paid to get the bike??? How would that cause the Dad and his daughter to be “at one”??? … by the daughter having enough money for the bike??? Is that what you’re thinking? If so, explain that to me. How does that translate into becoming “at one” with God??? We are one when we receive what he gives us.??? But the Dad has a car while his daughter has a bike… how is that being “at one”, in your mind. I think there's some other way they are both “at one”… while he has a car and she has a bike. I don’t see how the “bike” makes them “at one”, in any way. The bike doesn't appear to be the atonement... and receiving, or taking care of it, doesn't either. And btw, I’m not saying I'm right and all of you are wrong… totally... but it’s clear we aren’t “at one” on this. You might even agree with professor Robinson, totally, but would that mean you're both “at one” with God? What if his interpretation of the atonement was off a little… would you both still be “at one” with God then? Are we "at one" with God because Jesus Christ died for all of us (giving us the money we needed?)??? He paid the full price (we didn't pay a bit of that), so how do we become "one" with Him? By giving Him all my pennies (representative of my works?)??? Is that really what gets me (a bike)? Is that really what makes us "at one"? I know what I think, but I’m not talking about me. What do you think, and are both one with God? And please do a little more to try to explain your thinking to me. I’d really like to know “how” you think of all this.

I can, and I do that a lot. Why believe what I say? Why believe what someone wrote in a book... or a letter? Why believe what you say when you say that I can't just "Go to God" for an answer? Should I now think you don't think what I think about how to find truth?

Okay, here is my breakdown. The main components of the story, I believe, are as follows: Sarah, the daughter, asked her Daddy if she could have a bike. (just something she wanted) He was busy. She was persistent. She didn’t stop asking until she got her father’s attention. (fervent prayer) HOW, and WHEN, she asked. She had already asked IF. (expectation, or hope, based on her faith in her father) He told her to do what she could do, and that she could get it if she tried. She took his word, and proceeded to do what she could do. (the power of faith) He wanted to fulfill her desires, so he made plans to make up the difference between what she could do and what was necessary to get her “what she wanted”. (the atonement, based on love. The actual price would be paid later, but they’re both “one” in purpose at that point. It doesn’t mean they’re exactly alike, just like we’re not alike.) The cost wasn’t prohibitive, in any sense. He wanted to give her what she wanted. And he gave it to her because he knew what she really wanted. (His willingness and determination to actually suffer… because of his love…. to give her that gift. And her gift would be exactly what she really wanted) She wasn’t stupid, she knew what it costs, but she really wanted “a bike”. (what she wanted had a price, and she knew what it actually cost him. He was determined to give it to her, and she accepted His gift) She gave him a big hug and a kiss and she handed over her money. Then he had to drive home, slowly, because she wouldn't get off the bike. (do you think the daughter was thankful? Maybe? I think so. And it made the father feel good. I hope our Father feels good.) And btw, professor Robinson stated, in his own words, … not the bike, specifically. The entire parable was about the atonement. The bike, the way I think of it, was just an answer to her prayers. The father and daughter weren’t “one” because she “had a bike”. The father had a car while his daughter had a bike. Would that be your idea of being “one” with our Father in heaven? He wants us to have what we want, and if we want we can be “one” with Him. He has already paid the price and will do everything possible… except to give us what we don’t want. And how do we show what we want? Have you ever thought about that?

Okay. What I think I am really doing is trying to make a point that the truth can be misunderstood or remain undiscovered because of personal perceptions of the persons who aren't "seeing" the truth. What I think you are saying may be different than what you are saying, or what you intend to say to convey the thoughts you're thinking.Our (LDS) beliefs, TODAY, are based upon revelations from Jesus Christ, TODAY, not from what He said to others in the past... which they wrote down and we now call "scriptures". If you disagree, that's your choice, but I hope you at least understand what I'm trying to say by the words I am writing down to share my idea(s). Are you trying to say it was through the Holy Ghost? Through personal revelation... in his today? That's what I am trying to say too... and that's what made him a prophet. Yes, he did read what others believed, and that prompted him to ask God for himself... but he didn't believe just because some others believed what he believed or hoped might be true. He received his own revelation, for himself, which we refer to as personal revelation. He received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost, our Lord, and our Father. That's how he became a prophet. Do you know how (or if) I did? (I'm not going to tell you. I'm just wondering if you know if that is true.) Okay, I'll try to clear that up for you. What I meant and am trying to say is that we ask God for His personal testimony. And when I said that we listen to prophets... did you notice I am calling them prophets?... I am saying God speaks through them to all of us. Sometimes they are... if we know a prophet is a prophet... then we know God speaks through them to all of us. I have no problem with you splitting hairs. Just don't denigrate my character and we'll get along fine. :)I am trying to be kind and helpful... as much as I can. And btw, ...whoever calls it that might not mean what I think they are saying.

I can agree that it might be the first point from which you and other non-LDS Christians might see what Paul and his contemporaries believed, but the OP wasn't asking what they once believed, but what we (LDS) now believe... or from whence our (LDS) beliefs first originated... and to say we got started doing baptisms for the dead after hearing from Paul (or the Bible) isn't right. We look to our prophets as the revelators of our doctrine, and while it's true there are "ties" to the past, our doctrine doesn't come from the teachings of Paul (or the Bible) but by seeking revelations from our Lord. That's a big difference in our perspective, I think. We don't read what the Bible says, and then read what the Book of Mormon says, and then say: "Oh, okay then, we should do and believe [such and such]." We ask God to guide us, personally, and through all of our prophets... ... the ones who are living TODAY. We don't do and believe what others did in the past... unless our Lord tells us to, of course. We don't follow what prophets did or said in the past. We follow our living prophets TODAY. And yes, there is harmony. I'm not saying there isn't. But our "roots" are not based in the "scriptures". We ask God directly, and we listen to His oracles. This Church, our Church, is in the present. ... so if you want to understand why we (LDS) do baptisms for the dead... ... ask those of us who do that TODAY. (and it's not because "they" once did that in the past)

Who said "the bike" represented the atonement? She had a "desire", her Dad approved of her "desire", and together they both got what they wanted. Or in other words, the story still works... so cheer up. :)

Okay, I can accept that as what you believe, but that doesn't make sense to me. To me, the atonement is the state of their relationship... where the father and daughter are both one. It isn't the money. It isn't the bike. It isn't taking care of the bike. It isn't the daughter saving enough of her money so she can earn enough for the bike. I could say it is love, but it's more than even that. It's also their faith, and their desires. And we can be one, with God, just like that, if that's what we really want, as God does. And btw, I think the point we don't seem to agree on is that the key is her reception of "the bike". What if her father told her she could not have the bike... because he didn't think she should have it? It's not about the bike, and it's not about the money. It's about wanting what God wants us to want.

I appreciate how tactful you are, Tommy. That's one of your qualities I admire. But I don't think I got my point across and I'd like you to see what I'm saying.... you don't have to agree or accept this, of course. I'd just like you to see what I'm saying. I think it is really important for you to know what I am trying to tell you. For instance, if you said this... (if someone asked you what you know about our (LDS) baptisms for the dead) ... you'd be propogating an error about us (LDS) and our (LDS) doctrine. Or in other words, you'd be sharing what you see from your perspective... without really understanding what you're doing... and what you are seeing is not really the way things are. I will later try to explain how what you said is an error, but that is really not the point I'm trying to make. You would be giving a false impression... because you have a false impression... even though it is not your intention to have a false impression and even less to share it. So you can't help someone else understand us (LDS) or our (LDS) doctrine. And you might even help to keep yourself and other people you interact with from learning what is really true about us if they are satisfied with what you tell them about us and our doctrine. And btw, the error is in teaching that the roots for our (LDS) baptisms for the dead come from something Paul said when he wrote one of his letters to the Corinthians... instead of telling others that the roots are based in teachings from Jesus Christ both back then and now today through His authorized prophets and apostles... or at least that's what I believe and you should tell him I said so if you're going to spread what I think to other people who ask you. And if you're wondering "what is the point" of me saying all this I'll now tell you that I'm trying to tell you that we should be very careful when we tell other people what we believe about God (or anyone else) instead of telling them they should get to know God (or the source) for themselves. If we want to know about the Church, we should go to the Church to ask questions. And Yes, while it is true that the Church is the people, or members, of the Church, it is more precisely the "body" of people, and it is best to go to the head instead of being satisified with what a finger tells you.. especially if it has a fingernail that really needs to be trimmed.

We planted some trees on our land we plan to decorate as they keep growing taller and taller. And we have some other trees that are pretty tall already. Some are 30... 40... 50... feet tall. And I noticed that at Costco they're selling large ornaments that would be appropriate for taller trees. I just need to run the power and get some more decorations to have lots and lots and lots of Christmas trees. :) And btw, something else I like about having outdoor Christmas trees is the SNOW... when it falls on them. We just got our first snow the other day, and it's snowing more today. We have 5-6" already. :)

Well. What do you know (now)?:)

Oh, okay. I didn't know and was thinking it might have been related to that song (lyrics here) about there being 12 days of Christmas and that maybe you're supposed to gradually add to the Christmas tree during the 12 days until the whole thing is put up, or something. I wonder where that idea came from? ... that there 12 days of Christmas, I mean.

I've never even heard of that "rule". What is the rule and what do you think it means? Does it have any significance at your house?

I think that is good, and I would appreciate that if I didn't know anything about the Church. That is the tricky part, I think. I believe you're a good guy who doesn't intend to cause problems, but your "comparisons" of other doctrines would have to come from your perception and your perception of those things could be flawed. For instance, I know all the doctrine that the "Church of Christ" teaches, and I also know the LDS doctrine. Would you be comfortable with me teaching the doctrine of the "Church of Christ" now that I'm no longer a member of that Church? I do know their doctrine and could share those without errors, but when I started making "comparisons"... would you like that? Do you believe I could do that while being totally fair? But our words are not the only thing that help others learn from us. We also learn from body language, actions, and examples. And what I'm learning from you now is and would be very different than what I'd be learning from you if you simply changed your religion while still being totally sincere while your religion was a reflection of you. I probably would have done the same thing. But do you see that they were doing what they thought they should do, and you, from your view, saw things differently?And btw, we haven't strayed from the topic of this thread. Being and becoming "temple worthy" means something. For one thing, for us, it means we see things as they are. And those who don't see what we see do not see why we think what we think is important... at least not enough to believe that what they're actually seeing is the way things really are from God's perspective.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.I agree that her "reception" is key, but does simply receiving a gift she really wants from her Daddy automatically make her "at one" with her Daddy? What is the "atonement", how does it work, and how does she get it... in that analogy? I could give you some more hints, but I'd like you to tell me, and I'm hoping that we both will agree. :)

You don't need an introduction, or instructions, from me, Jack. You can find God if you want to, when you want to. If you seek, you WILL find. God has promised that to all of us. Just don't give up, ever, and you will eventually find Him. And it could be that you did or almost did at one point, but then for some reason, turned away. Are you determined to keep on looking until you find Him? He is out there. And there are only so many places where He can hide. :)

I've had both "fake" and "real" trees for Christmas trees before but now we try to only use "real" ones. (I can't call them "living" because they're not actually living after they are cut down for our use). The main reason I like "real" ones is for the symbolism, but I like the way they feel and smell too. And in case you've never thought about it... I haven't always thought about this... I'll tell you what the Christmas tree means to me: The tree was alive before "we" killed it... or it was killed... so it's a symbol of the (mortal) life of our Savior. The angel on top... or sometimes we use a star... represents the heavenly beings (or bodies) who announced His birth. We use a "female" angel because we think she looks pretty... and there were probably some in the choir. The gifts under the tree are the gifts we give each other. That's pretty much a no brainer, I think. The ornaments on the tree represent the gifts we give to Him... which He also gave to us for our benefit. And they also represent the best gifts we have to give, to Him or anyone. Each type has their own benefit and meaning. The lights on the tree represent the true gospel message... which we use to light the room and those around us. The angels on the tree represent those who are sharing the gospel message... an angel is a messenger, so that's us too. The candy canes on the tree represent the staffs of God's prophets. There's a lot of symbology there too, I think. The tinsel on the tree represents specific gospel messages... they reflect some (sometimes a lot) of the light from the lights (which represent the full gospel message from our Savior) The bulbs on the tree (in many colors and shapes and sizes) represent the people we help to teach the gospel to... all other people. They also reflect some of the light we shared with each of them, personally, as we tried to help to bring them to the true Light. We also use a dove, or a symbol of one, and a few strings of pearls. I think you know what those mean. And there's probably a few more things I'm not mentioning right now, but I think this helps you to know what I am thinking. It just wouldn't be the same if we used a "fake" tree, and of course we have to use lots of lights. :) And we use "white" lights to represent purity and cleanliness. I guess we could use colored lights too, but that'd be different. Oh, and we keep our lights stored all wound up on some sticks. That helps to make them easier to find and un-scroll. And they represent the scriptures... which are words God has revealed to all of us through all His prophets... or at least those we know of and have words from. And we search all of them to make sure they're all working. We have the kind that still light up when some aren't working. But it's easy to see which lights are working, and which ones aren't. Some have light, and some don't. We can tell by the light.

I've always like that one, allmosthumble... or at least since the first time I heard it. And now I'm going to ask you to go out on a limb. What is the atonement, how did she get it, and how does it work... in your analogy? Hint: In my analogy, it isn't the money... and in yours it isn't the money, or the bicycle. At least that's what I think. So what do you think, now? Are you willing to share your thoughts, in your words?

Have you seen that movie, yet? It's, like, deja vu, man. Just more of the same stuff... but more dramatic. :)