This is why people leave

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Namaskar said:

Who was it again that volunteered to save us all?

I do not believe He volunteered.  I believe He was chosen and accepted the call.

[Maureen]

23 minutes ago, zil said:

I do not believe He volunteered.  I believe He was chosen and accepted the call.

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=eng

M.

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, Namaskar said:

Who was it again that volunteered to save us all?

You don't think Christ was called to that position by his Father? I certainly do.

[Namaskar]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

You don't think Christ was called to that position by his Father? I certainly do.

It doesn’t matter what I think because I am not God and don’t speak for him. But it is what the LDS church teaches. You can find that lesson guides use the word volunteer as well. 

I find it so admirable that Christ volunteered, as a brother of all of us. And can only imagine the pain as a father but also love and admiration for it all. I mean now we’re going off topic, but it’s beautiful. 

[Namaskar]

47 minutes ago, zil said:

I do not believe He volunteered.  I believe He was chosen and accepted the call.

And that’s fine to believe whatever we want to believe. I don’t remember what happened so I don’t really know. But the church definitely teaches the idea that it was volunteered. 

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng

 

[zil]

30 minutes ago, Maureen said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=eng

M.

And that's just fine, as is everything @Namaskar quoted.

[Namaskar]

57 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Now, don't go putting logic into it; next you'll be questioning how D&C 58:26-29 is supposed to square with the "not my calling" culture.

Haha. I’m not questioning anything. And it wasn’t just him volunteering that he became the savior. I love logic and I love not logic

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-7-new-testament/lesson-2-jesus-christ-volunteered-to-be-our-savior?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng

Abraham 3: 27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Namaskar

[NeedleinA]

@Namaskar if the prior video (God's Will) was helpful, focus on that. This is one of those topics that invites all the disgruntled forum members to come out and shine at their best. If one wants a pity party, this is the thread for it. If one wants to find tools and inspiration to do better, I would suggest other threads might serve you better.

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, Namaskar said:

And that’s fine to believe whatever we want to believe. I don’t remember what happened so I don’t really know. But the church definitely teaches the idea that it was volunteered. 

You seem to be under the impression that "volunteered" and "called" are mutually exclusive. I don't believe that is the case.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

You seem to be under the impression that "volunteered" and "called" are mutually exclusive. I don't believe that is the case.

Note that it doesn't say "God told Jesus to come into His office sometime in second hour and close the door behind Him, then 'offered' Him the calling, with the unspoken yet ever-present bit about how He is expected to say yes."  

He interrupted the biggest meeting in history to ask everybody for volunteers and then picked from the two who spoke up.  A very different process.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Note that it doesn't say "God told Jesus to come into His office sometime in second hour and close the door behind Him, then 'offered' Him the calling, with the unspoken yet ever-present bit about how He is expected to say yes."  

He interrupted the biggest meeting in history to ask everybody for volunteers and then picked from the two who spoke up.  A very different process.

You infer a great deal from a limited account.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

You infer a great deal from a limited account.

Infer what, specifically?

Quote

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

So everybody important was there.

Quote

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

And He asked then, among all, who's up for this job, and two hands went up.  He picked one.  Not at all the same as pulling one person into a private meeting to be told what they're going to do.

Edited February 23, 2018 by NightSG

[Namaskar]

7 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

@Namaskar if the prior video (God's Will) was helpful, focus on that. This is one of those topics that invites all the disgruntled forum members to come out and shine at their best. If one wants a pity party, this is the thread for it. If one wants to find tools and inspiration to do better, I would suggest other threads might serve you better.

Who’s pity party? I think discussions like this can promote better understanding if one is truly trying to understand one another and not just echo themselves  

I watched the video you suggested, now I invite you to try and understand who im assuming you’re labeling as the party needing the pity: https://mormondom.com/why-people-leave-the-church-and-never-come-back-410e3e817a3a

The world need more honest to goodness love. The LDS church needs more love, less judgement, less assumption about one another. I don’t assume anything but goodness from your words because I make a choice to see the best in people. Everyone is doing their best. 

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

6 hours ago, NightSG said:

Note that it doesn't say "God told Jesus to come into His office sometime in second hour and close the door behind Him, then 'offered' Him the calling, with the unspoken yet ever-present bit about how He is expected to say yes."  

He interrupted the biggest meeting in history to ask everybody for volunteers and then picked from the two who spoke up.  A very different process.

You infer a great deal from a limited account.

 

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Infer what, specifically?

Off the top of my head, here are a few:

1. If the scriptures don't say that something happened, then that thing didn't happen. (Argument from silence, a classic logical fallacy. But I digress.)
2. The Father never revealed to the Son his plan before revealing it to everyone else.
3. The Son had no other source of understanding of the plan of salvation than everyone else and did not communicate with the Father about it, finding out what would be needed.
4. Any counseling that might have taken place between the Father and the Son (or for that matter, presumably between the Father and anyone else) would necessarily have been public knowledge, not a private conversation.
5. The barebones scriptural account we have is a complete and robust transcript of every notable thing that happened during that great council.
6. No other such council had ever before been convened; this was the single largest council ever to have existed premortally, bar none.
7. The Father's question, "Whom shall I send?", was not an invitation to counsel together, but only a call for volunteers.
8. There were exactly two voices who spoke out at that time. (If you dispute this, see #1.)
9. No possible sense of the word "volunteer" could possibly include someone who knew of a need and had been counseled that he alone was uniquely fitted for the job. That doesn't count as volunteering, even if no one made him do it, because, you know, it just doesn't.

These are a few of your inferences that I either doubt or outright disagree with. I'm sure there are many other inferences you made in your brief statement.

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

Quote

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

So everybody important was there.

Seriously? "Many" means "everybody"? I mean, I'm not sure I disagree with the point, but -- well, your scriptural intuition is either simply astounding or padded with a tremendous amount of assumption and conjecture.

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

Quote

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

And He asked then, among all, who's up for this job, and two hands went up.  He picked one.  Not at all the same as pulling one person into a private meeting to be told what they're going to do.

See previous short list of your unwarranted inferences.

[anatess2]

I'm confused by this "volunteer" discussion.  It's like y'all expect that Christ was chosen because he volunteered.  There was NO OTHER person that can fulfill the calling except Christ.  The fact that Christ offered himself to God - Here I am, send me - is a descriptor of the character of Christ and not necessarily why he was called.  After all, there were 2 volunteers yet Christ was chosen.  There was no other that can be called to do the job.

 

[NeedleinA]

10 hours ago, Namaskar said:

Who’s pity party? I think discussions like this can promote better understanding if one is truly trying to understand one another and not just echo themselves  

I watched the video you suggested, now I invite you to try and understand who im assuming you’re labeling as the party needing the pity: https://mormondom.com/why-people-leave-the-church-and-never-come-back-410e3e817a3a

The world need more honest to goodness love. The LDS church needs more love, less judgement, less assumption about one another. I don’t assume anything but goodness from your words because I make a choice to see the best in people. Everyone is doing their best. 

The pity party wasn't in direct reference to you, or I would have happily stated such. This is however the thread for pity party members to "echo themselves" as directly manifested by the comments found here. You can decide for yourself if you are a member of the club or not. Are you here to complain OR are you here to make yourself a better person?

"The LDS church needs more love, less judgement, less assumption about one another."
Or perhaps better said, "Some individuals need more love, less judgement, less assumption about the LDS church".

The general "pity party" excuse I see over and over again is "Member X or Members R, S, T, U, V, X,Y & Z really offended me, therefore the LDS Church is to blame and needs more love, tolerance, etc."
Rather than chalk their personal experience up and gripe about specific said members (which is totally fine), they try to toss the entire church under the bus and make blanket statements like, "The LDS church needs X".  Why not simply say "Members X,Y & Z" needs such and such". It appears far easier and simply more convenient to blame the entire institution as a whole.

This is one of my favorites: Why wont' girls date me at my singles ward.... it can't be me or changes I need to make...it must only be the sinister institutional oppression of the Church.
No chance that it is simply "themselves" instead.

Edited February 23, 2018 by NeedleinA

[Lee]

I have been "called" to do things in the church all the time but if I don't want to do it  I just say no thank you. I am a grown man no one tells me what to do. My wife is less inclined to say no, when she says yes and then complains about it after a few weeks I tell her she should have said no.  

[lostinwater]

On 2/23/2018 at 8:05 AM, NeedleinA said:

No chance that it is simply "themselves" instead.

My thoughts on this have modified over time.  And i think that's a good thing.

A lot of things in that article are absolutely accurate in my opinion.  i think the lack in separation of self-worth and mormon church that gets drilled into a child from the moment they are born plants landmines that when detonated later in life (especially in sensitive souls) - through the almost natural course of human imperfections - damages a person in ways that are difficult to express.  And well-meaning attempts at reactivation or calls to repentance out of 'love' is often like drop-kicking a friend's broken bone - because you are angry they broke it in the first place, or are mad that it isn't knitting together faster.  

But so are the things that many of this forum's hard liners (i hope you take this to be a compliment) are saying.  You'll never satiate the thirst of someone else with your tears - nor is it reasonable for someone else to expect you to try.  Especially when that person or group of people have a lot of hate and anger towards what you believe that they've not dealt with or let go of yet.

It's difficult.  i get that many members can't accept someone who isn't in the church in the same way they accept someone who is in the church - because if they did, it would almost feel like they were admitting that what they believed wasn't important.  And when that person believes that what they believe = what God believes - they have even a stronger motivation for not doing so - whether that's true or not.  And all the other person feels is rejection - often by those closest to them.  And not only rejection, but rejection for something that they 'know' - as strongly as the member says they 'know' what they believe - isn't important in the slightest.

Honestly, maybe a little/lot separation between the two is the best (though not ideal) course of action.  

But i wish that everyone (myself included) could at least listen to what the other group of people is trying to say.  Maybe most of the time, that's just listening, honestly pondering on it, and the rejecting it in a respectful way.  But at least listen without the assumption of malice, rather than trying to find a thread of incorrectness in their perception/beliefs that you can twist around their neck - scoring some points at their expense.

There's a lot we could learn from one another.  Or at least a lot of dislike of one another we could reduce.  Or at the very least, we'd get better at *really* listening to someone else in general.

And yes, point conceded in advance - this is advice i need to do a better job of following myself.  Hopefully by admitting that, it will be a stronger motivation for me actually practicing what i preach.

[Guest]

A need was discussed:

Quote

And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? 

We had two volunteers.

Quote

And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me.

And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. 

One was called

Quote

And the Lord said: I will send the first.

No, not mutually exclusive.  Yes, volunteered.  Yes, called.

I'd like to think that both were part of the process.  But if you really want to get pedantic about it, volunteering was a prerequisite, true.  The calling was the actual mechanism of action/choice.  Notice that Satan's volunteering had nothing to do with whether he was to be the Savior or not.

This is similar to us needing to be baptized to be saved.  It is a prerequisite, as is accepting the Name of Christ.  But the actual mechanism of salvation is Christ's Atonement.

***********************************

Now, we see a difference between this calling and the callings we receive on earth.

At church, we have ecclesiastical authorities discuss the needs in the ward and present names for consideration.  Then we call in people to ask them if they would be willing.  So, the steps in the process are reversed.  But what is the actual mechanism of the calling?  It is actually the inspiration from the Lord that extends the calling.  Then it is finalized/solemnized when one is set apart.  So, even though it is later in the process, the volunteering is only a prerequisite.

In secular matters I'm sure the procedure varies quite a bit.  But for me, I spent a lot of time considering, wondering, and praying about what I was to do with my life.  It was when the Lord told me that the path I had been considering was the path for me that I knew I had found my calling(s) in life.  Having received mine errand of the Lord, I went forth voluntarily to fulfill that calling to the best of my ability.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

volunteering was a prerequisite

Was it?

I know how the scriptures describe this event, but I really, really do not believe that a big counsel of lots (let alone everyone) in heaven at the time was the moment when Christ was chosen as our redeemer.  I think there was a lot going on before the whole group was involved.  As with the creation, we're getting a specific subset intended to teach specific things, not necessarily an accurate factual recounting of sequential events.

Edited March 8, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Was it?

I know how the scriptures describe this event, but I really, really do not believe that a big counsel of lots (let alone everyone) in heaven at the time was the moment when Christ was chosen as our redeemer.  I think there was a lot going on before the whole group was involved.  As with the creation, we're getting a specific subset intended to teach specific things, not necessarily an accurate factual recounting of sequential events.

Well, it could well have been a "council" much like a ward council.  It is not the entire ward.  But the leaders were present.  So, let's take a look at it from that perspective.  I don't know if the number of people or the setting really changes the nature of the exchange being composed of need, volunteering, and calling.

I'll share an experience.

There was an elderly lady in our ward who was not exactly an invalid.  But she had some difficulty going any great distance.  So, she was mostly just around the house and only ventured out when she really had to.  As a result of her diminished capacity, she had asked for help from someone to go buy her groceries.  He had cash, but she couldn't go out and about on her own.

So, the bishop asked the council,"So, who should we ask to do this?"

I replied,"I can do it.  I don't live too far from her house.  And I have time."

The bishop accepted and said,"OK.  Call her and set things up."

The fact that the entire ward was not in attendance doesn't really change the dynamic. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Well, it could well have been a "council" much like a ward council.  It is not the entire ward.  But the leaders were present.  So, let's take a look at it from that perspective.  I don't know if the number of people or the setting really changes the nature of the exchange being composed of need, volunteering, and calling.

I'll share an experience.

There was an elderly lady in our ward who was not exactly an invalid.  But she had some difficulty going any great distance.  So, she was mostly just around the house and only ventured out when she really had to.  As a result of her diminished capacity, she had asked for help from someone to go buy her groceries.  He had cash, but she couldn't go out and about on her own.

So, the bishop asked the council,"So, who should we ask to do this?"

I replied,"I can do it.  I don't live too far from her house.  And I have time."

The bishop accepted and said,"OK.  Call her and set things up."

The fact that the entire ward was not in attendance doesn't really change the dynamic.

OK, but this doesn't feel the same to me as deciding who will go help the lady get to the grocery store.

Either way, the simple fact is that we have next to nothing revealed about how this process went.  We also don't volunteer for the big stuff - prophet, apostle, other GAs or any calling.  We volunteer to perform acts of service (though I know a lot of people who think this is a mistake and they too should be assignments when the setting is as you describe as opposed to an individual both noticing and going to fill the need without discussion).  Anywho, what was was, and we'll remember / learn it later.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, zil said:

OK, but this doesn't feel the same to me as deciding who will go help the lady get to the grocery store.

Either way, the simple fact is that we have next to nothing revealed about how this process went.  We also don't volunteer for the big stuff - prophet, apostle, other GAs or any calling.  We volunteer to perform acts of service (though I know a lot of people who think this is a mistake and they too should be assignments when the setting is as you describe as opposed to an individual both noticing and going to fill the need without discussion).  Anywho, what was was, and we'll remember / learn it later.

I'm not arguing about what we do or don't know about the council in heaven.  What I'm arguing is that calling and volunteering are not mutually exclusive. If you're given a calling in the ward, you always have the option of turning down the calling.  It is never forced.  I don't see why that would be any different for the Savior.

Here is a situation that "feels" more similar to the role of the Savior.

When the Fukishima nuclear power plant was rocked by tsunami, the reactor leaked radioactive material all over.  The people at the plant and the government specialists all understood the problem and had a path forward.  They asked for volunteers.  Several stepped forward. Those finally chosen were from among those who volunteered. The volunteers understand that they are most likely giving their lives for the repair work.  The lead suits just are not that effective.  They would be going into areas of radioactivity that almost laughs at the suits.  And their time and exposure would probably take them well beyond the LD50 limit.

In situations such as these, it is usually men who don't have to worry about little ones.  So, there is an understood requirement for the volunteers.

In the case of the Savior, there was an understood requirement of the one who would be the Savior.  Everyone knew the need.  Everyone knew what would be required of the Savior.  And most knew that only ONE could actually succeed.  Jehovah was one who knew that only He could do this.  Duty? Love? Obedience? Need?  Whatever else plays into it, He made the choice to offer Himself.  And the Father accepted that "Offering Divine".  The offering was both from the Father AND the Son.  The Father because of the calling.  The Son because of the volunteering.

[zil]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What I'm arguing is that calling and volunteering are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, I agree with that.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, zil said:

We also don't volunteer for the big stuff - prophet, apostle, other GAs or any calling.

Of course not.