Shopping for a Church OR Church vs. State

[Guest]

This is sort of a continuation of the thread "This is Why People Leave".  But it is taking it down a different direction, so I thought I'd start a new thread.

Yesterday in priesthood, we went over Pres. Eyring's talk "The Lord Leads His Church."  As part of that lesson, the instructor asked the question,"When people are looking for a church, what do they look for?" After much discussion we came to the conclusion that most are not looking for truth.  They're looking for a faith that agrees with their own lifestyle.  This, to me, is the epitome of creating God in man's image.

A lot of people aren't looking for God.  They're looking for someone who's going to tell them that whatever they're doing is just fine.  So, they sit and listen for a while to the minister and if they say things that tell them they DON'T need to change, then they'll stay.  They think what they're doing is just fine.  And they don't need to change. (Hello, Trump). Is that was God is about?  "Don't change a thing.  I love you so much that I don't think you need to change a thing."

What do the prophets tell us?

Quote

We are not here to while away the hours of this life and then pass to a sphere of exaltation; but we are here to qualify ourselves day by day for the positions that our Father expects us to fill hereafter.

-- George Albert Smith, Gen Conf, Apr 1905

Now, there are also those who actually seek after truth.  They really are seeking after God.  Yet, they still make the mistake of creating God in their own image.  They don't listen for God's word.  They determine it.

Quote

 In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.

-- D Todd Christofferson, Gen Conf, Apr 2012

The path the Lord has set is quite different from either of these.

Quote

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

Mark 8:35

We are not just talking about our literal life, but also our lifestyle.  We are supposed to be a peculiar people.  We're supposed to be set apart from the rest of the world. In fact, that is part of the definition of the word saint.  We need to give up who we are to take upon ourselves the name of Christ.

Quote

Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end submit with ever fiber of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.

--CS Lewis, Mere Christianity

People don't realize the difference between Faith and Government.  We maintain freedom from earthly government by being powerful enough to tell the government what to change.  With God, we increase our freedom by changing ourselves to become what God would want us to become.  It is the confusing of these two principles that messes people up in the faith department.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

Wait up.  You lost me with the Trump reference.

[Rob Osborn]

I think the devil has been doing a pretty good job of confusing how we define morals. Satan wants religion out of the proclaiming morals business. Satan wants that to be self defined by each individual. Then to ensure his products he gets government to pass laws to protect these devious behaviors.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think the devil has been doing a pretty good job of confusing how we define morals. Satan wants religion out of the proclaiming morals business. Satan wants that to be self defined by each individual. Then to ensure his products he gets government to pass laws to protect these devious behaviors.

Correction.  Satan doesn't get government to do anything.  The government simply reflects the rising culture.  At least in a government built upon the Democratic process. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Wait up.  You lost me with the Trump reference.

I was referring to the interview Trump had where he said two things that made me raise an eyebrow:

1) I have a great relationship with God.
2) I don't need to go to church regularly because I never do anything wrong.

Yes, they're paraphrases. But that is what I got out of what he said.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was referring to the interview Trump had where he said two things that made me raise an eyebrow:

1) I have a great relationship with God.
2) I don't need to go to church regularly because I never do anything wrong.

Yes, they're paraphrases. But that is what I got out of what he said.

LOL!  Yep.  Trumpism.

We need to send missionaries to the White House. 

 

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Correction.  Satan doesn't get government to do anything.  The government simply reflects the rising culture.  At least in a government built upon the Democratic process. 

Hum...so, you dont think Satan had anything to do with passing laws allowing same sex marriage? 

[Guest MormonGator]

Americans are used to being in control. If I don't want to go Target, I can go to Wal Mart. If Panera doesn't bring me my meal in 5 minutes, I go to McCallisters. The power is in our hands (and that's a glorious thing, I thank God I'm an American all the time) so I think we expect the same thing from religion to some degree.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was referring to the interview Trump had where he said two things that made me raise an eyebrow:

1) I have a great relationship with God.
2) I don't need to go to church regularly because I never do anything wrong.

Yes, they're paraphrases. But that is what I got out of what he said.

Well, at least we have a President that at least acknowledges God and wants laws passed that support where our church stands on issues. That has to say something about his character.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, at least we have a President that at least acknowledges God and wants laws passed that support where our church stands on issues. That has to say something about his character.

So he can have a probable affair with a porn star, be openly unfaithful to wife 1 with wife 2, knock up out of wedlock the woman who would become wife 2, yet because he talks about God that speaks well of his character? 

If he was a democrat the right would be ripping his moral fiber to shreds. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

56 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The path the Lord has set is quite different from either of these.

"My sheep hear my voice."

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Americans are used to being in control. If I don't want to go Target, I can go to Wal Mart. If Panera doesn't bring me my meal in 5 minutes, I go to McCallisters. The power is in our hands (and that's a glorious thing, I thank God I'm an American all the time) so I think we expect the same thing from religion to some degree.

You may be right that this is part of the cause of such mentality.  It promotes the idea that we can essentially "shop for truth".  We want to change our truth simply by buying it from a different source.  Again, this is making God in our image.  And this is something that has been around for a long time, not just since the founding of the US.

It is really the basis of idolatry both literal and figurative.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

"My sheep hear my voice."

Do you think this would play into the "believing blood" theory?

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

.  And this is something that has been around for a long time, not just since the founding of the US.

Pilate himself said "We both have truths, are yours the same as mine?" so yes, the question has been around for awhile. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

So he can have a probable affair with a porn star, be openly unfaithful to wife 1 with wife 2, knock up out of wedlock the woman who would become wife 2, yet because he talks about God that speaks well of his character? 

If he was a democrat the right would be ripping his moral fiber to shreds. 

Hum...are you tryi g to say you yourself never sinned? Have you ever cheated and shut out God and looked at porn? If you say no to either of these questions you are a liar. If you say yes to at least one then you are a hypocrit. Take your pick. Regardless of your sins and what not I think you have great character. What does that in turn say? If you have done it unto one the the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...are you tryi g to say you yourself never sinned? Have you ever cheated and shut out God and looked at porn? If you say no to either of these questions you are a liar. If you say yes to at least one then you are a hypocrit. Take your pick. Regardless of your sins and what not I think you have great character. What does that in turn say? If you have done it unto one the the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me.

No, it's cool. When I'm excommunicated for my infidelity and cocaine use, I demand you tell everyone about my "high character" because I've testified that I believe in God too, so I'm the same as Trump I guess. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you think this would play into the "believing blood" theory?

Maybe. Maybe not. I really have no idea. I'm not at all sold on the "believing blood" theory, primarily because we have no firm context in which to understand it. But however that may fall out, Christ's sheep hear his voice. We have neither the duty nor even the need to sell the gospel to anyone. We merely present it and see if anyone wants in.

That's not to say that Christ's sheep won't have issues to overcome. They will. But his sheep hear his voice. That's the bottom line.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

That's not to say that Christ's sheep won't have issues to overcome. They will. But his sheep hear his voice. That's the bottom line.

So, in other words, even Christ's sheep will be "shopping" for the truth.  But his sheep will buy the truth, while others will pass it by and buy something else.  Would that be a way to paraphrase in terms of the original post?

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, it's cool. When I'm excommunicated for my infidelity and cocaine use, I demand you tell everyone about my "high character" because I've testified that I believe in God too, so I'm the same as Trump I guess. 

It wont matter what I say, people are already talking.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

Very cute @Rob Osborn, baby Gators are adorable. We saw this girl in the pond down the road. She was no baby. She'd take your arm off in a heartbeat. 

And I think I hit the nail right on the head. Donald Trump would be excommunicated for what he did and the LAST thing people would talk about is his "high character". But, because people agree with him politically, he must be a great guy. 

It's not you, I see it all the time in politics. All the time. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, in other words, even Christ's sheep will be "shopping" for the truth.  But his sheep will buy the truth, while others will pass it by and buy something else.  Would that be a way to paraphrase in terms of the original post?

I guess so. People have all sorts of crazy ideas, most of which turn out to be false. Christ's sheep are people, after all. But they hear and respond to the voice of their master.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Very cute @Rob Osborn, baby Gators are adorable. We saw this girl in the pond down the road. She was no baby. She'd take your arm off in a heartbeat. 

And I think I hit the nail right on the head. Donald Trump would be excommunicated for what he did and the LAST thing people would talk about is his "high character". But, because people agree with him politically, he must be a great guy. 

It's not you, I see it all the time in politics. All the time. 

Im not saying hes a great guy, I just said that it does say something of his character that he at least acknowledges God and tries to pass laws that uphold morality.

[lostinwater]

A very compelling series of points you bring up - well elucidated, as usual.  Thank-you.

One thing - and this is just my opinion (fair warning  ).

People see God, themselves, and others, through a huge range of lenses.  You've got a spectrum of lenses that ranges from Westbro baptist church to Mother Teresa, all claiming to speak for the same God - the same Jesus.  i'd actually say that everyone on this spectrum is looking for God - though in very different ways.  Mother Teresa is not seeking the God as portrayed by those in the Westbro Baptist Church, or vice versa.  If you move your endpoints even further from the middle, you have a situation where people begin to call what the other person is pursuing not only as not being the fullness of God, but as being the devil.  

When a person rejects a "God says this is how it is" or "God demands you do this" statement, i'd say that most people are not rejecting God - they are rejecting the idea that those statements were accurately classified as coming from God.  

Each one of us has to choose what labels we will accept - and this is fine.  In fact, it's necessary. 

If a catholic sees a mormon attend a mass, criticize it because of X/Y/Z, and then labels that mormon as choosing not to accept God's will for them (citing the presence of 1.2 billion catholics, a Pope, some bible passage that could be countered with a different bible passage, or some more modern religious text believed to be divine - perhaps the catechism - that says they ought to), that catholic has in my opinion made some rather invalid assumptions about that mormon.  You could substitute members of almost any two religious factions, in almost any order, for catholic/mormon in that example.  

Edited March 12, 2018 by lostinwater

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

A very compelling series of points you bring up - well elucidated, as usual.  Thank-you.

One thing - and this is just my opinion (fair warning  ).

People see God, themselves, and others, through a huge range of lenses.  You've got a spectrum of lenses that ranges from Westbro baptist church to Mother Teresa, all claiming to speak for the same God - the same Jesus.  i'd actually say that everyone on this spectrum is looking for God - though in very different ways.  Mother Teresa is not seeking the God as portrayed by those in the Westbro Baptist Church, or vice versa.  If you move your endpoints even further from the middle, you have a situation where people begin to call what the other person is pursuing not only as not being the fullness of God, but as being the devil.  

When a person rejects a "God says this is how it is" or "God demands you do this" statement, i'd say that most people are not rejecting God - they are rejecting the idea that those statements were accurately classified as coming from God.  

Each one of us has to choose what labels we will accept - and this is fine.  In fact, it's necessary. 

If a catholic sees a mormon attend a mass, criticize it because of X/Y/Z, and then labels that mormon as choosing not to accept God's will for them (citing the presence of 1.2 billion catholics, a Pope, some bible passage that could be countered with a different bible passage, or some more modern religious text believed to be divine - perhaps the catechism - that says they ought to), has in my opinion made some rather invalid assumptions about that mormon.  You could substitute members of almost any two religious factions, in almost any order, for catholic/mormon in that example.  

That is the way MAN sees truth -- the colored lenses concept. This states that there may be a truth out there, but we can only perceive our lens colored version of it.  And there is no way around it.  That is only half true.

True spiritual humility means we're asking God to remove our lenses for a moment to allow us to see the pure truth, unvarnished, unfiltered, and unaltered.  We cannot remove them by ourselves.  But we so often want to cling to our lenses that we never allow him to do that.  That is where "I can't imagine God would... or would not..." comes from.  

There is no such thing as,"I realize I have colored lenses on.  But I already see God's truth."  What you're really saying is,"I refuse to admit I'm looking at things through colored lenses." or "I'm not going to let God remove them."

Humility says,"I don't believe it now, but if God wants me to believe it, I will have to change to become the person that will believe it."  But change is such hard work that most are simply unwilling to go down that road.  It is MUCH easier to say,"No, I already have the truth.  I'm fine."

[lostinwater]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Humility says,"I don't believe it now, but if God wants me to believe it, I will have to change to become the person that will believe it."  But change is such hard work that most are simply unwilling to go down that road.  It is MUCH easier to say,"No, I already have the truth.  I'm fine."

Thank-you Carb.

This part i completely agree with.  i just don't believe that everyone who doesn't believe the same as what the mormon church espouses is automatically saying "No, I already have the truth.  I'm fine" - to God.  i'm not saying truth is relative.  i'm just saying it's almost always incorrect to believe that disagreement about what is truth presupposes at least one of the involved parties is indulging in an attempt to make all truth relative so as to numb their spiritual senses.   And i know you didn't ever state the presuppositions i am referring to - important that i should acknowledge that.