Looking beyond the Mark.

[askandanswer]

On 6/4/2019 at 5:23 AM, mikbone said:

Then I thought about how we (LDS) sometimes look beyond the mark. 

If you look beyond Mark you will find Luke. If you look even further you will find John.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I'm going to forget for a moment that you apparently have no clue what "looking beyond the mark" actually means to everyone else.  

I'm going to humor you for a moment and work with the definition you've decided to use and say it means "going above and beyond" what is commanded of us.

Why do you condemn such a practice?  Do you think it is a righteous principle to do only the bare minimum of what is required of us?

Sorry, I think that I have been pretty descriptive in my explanations.  

Quote

"Focusing on the philosophies of men, pursuing “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal, and elevating rules over doctrine are ways we may look beyond the mark." - Quintin L Cook

I think that it is much more important that we concern ourselves with Core issues like following the commandments.  Faith, Repentance, Ordinances.

But If you feel that abstaining from caffeine makes you a better Latter-Day Saint, then more power to you.

Just don't mock me or any other LDS for consuming chocolate or a soda product.  

Dark Chocolate (60-85% cacao solids)
1 ounce (1/4 Lindt chocolate bar) = 23 milligrams

Cocoa Powder
1 tablespoon = 12 milligrams

Dark(ish) Chocolate (45-59% cacao solids) 
1 ounce (3 dark chocolate Hershey Miniatures) = 12 milligrams

Chocolate Cake With Chocolate Frosting
1 slice (1/12th cake with 2 tablespoons frosting) = 9 milligrams

Milk Chocolate 
1 ounce (4 milk chocolate Hershey Kisses) = 4 milligrams

Chocolate Pudding Cup
1/2 cup (4 ounces) = 4 milligrams

Chocolate Chip Cookie
1-ounce cookie = 3 milligrams

Chocolate Ice Cream 
1 small container (3.5 fluid ounces) = 2 milligrams

Chocolate Whole Milk
1 cup (8 ounces) = 2 milligrams

White Chocolate
1 ounce (2 tablespoons Nestle white chocolate chips) = 0 milligrams

Edited June 5, 2019 by mikbone

[carlimac]

40 minutes ago, Mores said:

I'm going to forget for a moment that you apparently have no clue what "looking beyond the mark" actually means to everyone else.  

I'm going to humor you for a moment and work with the definition you've decided to use and say it means "going above and beyond" what is commanded of us.

Why do you condemn such a practice?  Do you think it is a righteous principle to do only the bare minimum of what is required of us?

I'm obviously not mikbone but wanted to respond to this question. We've been told by many leaders of the Church that going beyond the mark isn't necessary. Just search the term "going beyond the mark" or "looking beyond the mark" for the pages and pages of references on LDS.org.   Another way to look at it is that "going beyond the mark" for some may be way more than they can handle, whereas someone else can keep their sanity and bodily health in check by not doing so. I have a dear friend who has a picture of Christ or a temple or a scripture plaque in EVERY SINGLE room of her house. For me, that would be going way beyond what is necessary or helpful. For her, it's what she likes and needs- apparently to remember Christ and to help her family. This friend has been known to live life in high gear with a zillion things going on at once. When I first met her she was extremely strict with computer use with her children. Over the years she's lightened up a bit. But she herself makes sure everyone knows she doesn't use social media and has dim views of it...just shy of acting as though it's against the commandments. For her, personally,  maybe it is.

So what YOU may think is the bare minimum of what is required may be someones very best effort- all they can muster. And I believe that's acceptable to the Lord.  For someone else, it may not be enough and the Lord will ask why talents weren't expanded and resources used to do more? I fear the admonition to "magnify our callings" meant that some would go overboard and that it would be used as a measuring stick to beat upon those for whom doing the minimum feels just right. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by carlimac

[The Folk Prophet]

58 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Yes, at times some of them have done so.  Whatever you do, do not read the following articles!

http://www.ldsliving.com/What-the-Prophets-Have-Really-Said-About-Caffeine/s/86182

I can't decide if your reading comprehension is poor or if mine is. But it strikes me that this article pretty plainly states exactly what we've been taught about the use of addictive substances and how "There are many habit-forming, addictive things that one can drink or chew or inhale or inject which injure both body and spirit which are not mentioned in the revelation. . . . Obedience to counsel will keep you on the safe side of life."

Is this your evidence of them looking beyond the mark?

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news--getting-it-right-august-29

The below is a quote from the Church news room...

Quote

Finally, another small correction: Despite what was reported, the Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine.  The Church’s health guidelines prohibit alcoholic drinks, smoking or chewing of tobacco, and “hot drinks” — taught by Church leaders to refer specifically to tea and coffee. *

I see no contradiction -- if that's what you were trying to point out. There is, and never has been a "prohibition" against caffeine. There is, and always has been, counsel to not use habit forming addictive things.

You're more than welcome to do as you see fit with caffeine. You're more than welcome to disregard any counsel given by any authority in the church. No one disputes that right. But when you try and sell us on some non-sequitur idea that the leaders must be looking beyond the mark because they give us counsel concerning any given thing that you happen to disagree with -- I'm not buying what you're selling.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

But they are men and can make mistakes.

Which is entirely irrelevant.

God leads this church through them. When you tell me that the overwhelmingly consistent directions the brethren have unitedly given about the use of addictive substances is mistaken then you're telling me that God is not able to guide His own church on the matter. I reject that premise.

Caffeine isn't forbidden -- and I believe that is partly because there is wise usage of it. I use it sometimes in pre-workout mixes. And I'll have a bit if I have a major headache. And, of course, to be safe in long drives at times. But I know very well that when I was consuming Dr. Pepper willy-nilly with no regard for the amount of caffeine I was consuming, and was physically addicted to it in that when I did not get it I had caffeine withdrawals and felt like garbage -- I know very well that was not within the spirit of the Word of Wisdom or inline with the counsel given me by the Lord's anointed. So I changed.

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

And I routinely make mistakes that are much worse than theirs.

And yet you're so confident that your caffeine usage is of no concern. Hmm.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I think that it is much more important that we concern ourselves with Core issues like following the commandments.  Faith, Repentance, Ordinances.

You forgot about humility.

[mikbone]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And yet you're so confident that your caffeine usage is of no concern. Hmm.

As an orthopaedic surgeon I am exposed to x-ray radiation on a routine basis. 

It is of concern.  But it is how I make a living...

[carlimac]

On 6/4/2019 at 5:26 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

No. (About the church putting forth uninspired policy.)

 

So what was the deal with the change in policy about the children of gays first not being able to get baptized till 18 and gays being called apostate,  then a year and a half later the policy changing and those restrictions being dropped? Which was inspired? The policy or the undoing of it so quickly?

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So what was the deal with the change in policy about the children of gays first not being able to get baptized till 18 and gays being called apostate,  then a year and a half later the policy changing and those restrictions being dropped? Which was inspired? The policy or the undoing of it so quickly?

Both.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So what was the deal with the change in policy about the children of gays first not being able to get baptized till 18 and gays being called apostate,  then a year and a half later the policy changing and those restrictions being dropped? Which was inspired? The policy or the undoing of it so quickly?

Your question presupposes that both cannot be. Can you defend that presupposition?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

As an orthopaedic surgeon I am exposed to x-ray radiation on a routine basis. 

It is of concern.  But it is how I make a living...

I'm....following......exactly.....what.....you.........mean........with..........perfect.........clarity.......

[carlimac]

Sugar is an addictive substance.  Even food can be addictive for some people who can’t control the quantity they eat. Food actually becomes harmful to their bodies. 

[Anddenex]

 

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

Lets look at a few of Joseph Smith’s interactions with the Lord.

D&C 130:14-17

&

The Kerfuffle with Martin Harris and the 116 pages 

So prophets can make uninspired or poor decisions or can receive an answer that is ambiguous, right?

I lead my family & I can tell you that despite my intentions to seek devine guidance sometimes I am left to make my own decisions.  I have received what I believe to be revelations, be they visions, promptings, or feelings of rightness.  But I still have to make the decisions and provide family policy.  I have never been privy to provide family doctrine.  And I lean heavily on my wife.

I don’t think that our Latter-Day Prophets lead the church much differently.

I don’t think that the Prophet speaks with the Lord face to face on a routine basis.  The apostles are special witnesses of Christ.  But I assume that the majority of revelations come from the Holy Ghost.   AND THIS IS OK.

 

I honor and follow all the Prophets.  But I recognize that just like me, they are men and can make honest mistakes.  But the Lord will never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray.

President Nelson’s background as a surgeon has empowered him to ask questions, find answers, and act.  Surgeon’s are adept with tools and one of our preferred tools is the scalpel. 

The Lord choose Brigham Young as the second prophet because he had the spirit and skills to grow the church and get us to Utah.

Lets look at a few of Joseph Smith’s interactions with the Lord.

Just to clarify. Our discussion is stemming from the priesthood ban and the feelings you shared. We find agreement that the Lord will allow certain things to happen (even out of prophetic weakness); however, I think comparing the 116 pages to the priesthood ban is comparing an apple to an orange.

The 116 pages would be similar to President Nelson praying about lending the seer stone to someone. The Lord says "No" but President Nelson continues his petition until he receives a "satisfying answer" of "Yes, you can lend the seer stone." Then the seer stone disappears and is never returned.

The example highlights that prophets are human, fallible. We even know Nephi said something to this nature, "I did as the Lord commanded, not withstanding my weakness."

So prophets can make uninspired or poor decisions or can receive an answer that is ambiguous, right?

Yes, prophets are human they can make (personally) poor decisions, and we can also make poor decisions in light of presentism. This happens all the time with Atheists and the Bible (particularly the Old Testament). What we may look at -- today -- as uninspired was actually inspired according to their time, according to their knowledge, what the people were ready for, what the people disregarded (although inspired), and according to the will of the Lord.

So, I would caution anyone (especially in our day when the brethren are unified -- all 15) to say any of their given policies were "uninspired." That in my opinion is one concept of "looking beyond the mark" also.

I also, think we as members need to make the distinction between "uninspired" decisions and decisions that are made from them doing their best (in light of the Lord remaining silent and expecting them to act for themselves). There is a major difference between being "uninspired" (acting according to one's own will and testimony), and acting according to the best knowledge God has given us. The prophets and apostles will make decisions according to their knowledge and make policies that appear to be what we need. They at times have removed the change (not because it was uninspired, but because we weren't ready as a people).

Example, when I first returned home from my mission the Church removed Spanish branches/wards (might have been all foreign language branches/wards), which wasn't uninspired. I actually would call it inspired as that would bring us together, but members didn't like this and a few months later Spanish branches/ward in California were once again part of the Church.

I honor and follow all the Prophets.

Not in question. From my experience with you on this forum I wouldn't think otherwise.

But I recognize that just like me, they are men and can make honest mistakes.  But the Lord will never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray.

I think we will probably have a difference of thought regarding what "mistakes" and "uninspired" policies or practices the Lord would not prevent. I think far too many Church members forget that the Lord works through vertical revelation to the prophets and apostles, not horizontal revelation. Horizontal revelation in opposition to vertical (keys and priesthood) is in part why the Church has always experienced some form of apostasy. This happened with the children of Israel (especially when Christ was born, and after he died), and is occurring in our day now.

President Nelson’s background as a surgeon has empowered him to ask questions, find answers, and act.  Surgeon’s are adept with tools and one of our preferred tools is the scalpel. 

I don't think President Nelson has anymore privilege or special blessing that allows him to hear the voice of the Lord better than Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F & Fielding Smith, President McKay, or Spencer W. Kimball.

However, what scriptures seem to highlight though prophets of particular times and dispensations appear to be able to move the Church forward. At other times, the Lord is waiting. My thoughts though, if we as a people began living the gospel more fully we would see a lot more revelation occurring from our prophets. With that said though, as we see right now, the Lord will move according to his timeline also and people will either follow or be left behind.

The Lord choose Brigham Young as the second prophet because he had the spirit and skills to grow the church and get us to Utah.

I would say this is partially true. Brigham Young was mainly chosen because those who should have been in that position apostatized. If I am remembering correctly, Oliver Cowdery, if not for apostacy, would have been the next in line to lead the Church as the Lord's anointed and prophet.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Anddenex

[carlimac]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Both.

Can you explain how and why?

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Can you explain how and why?

What you're asking is basically a philosophical question on the order of, "Why are leaves green?" There are many correct answers—they contain chlorophyll, which is green; green is the color perceived by our retinas; the wavelengths that reflect from the leaves represent the plant's best million-years-long evolutionary effort to extract maximum energy from the sunlight; God made them green—but none of those answers really get to the basis, which is definitional: "Green" is the word we use to name the color we perceive in leaves.

I think it would be easier if you shared why you think both cannot be inspired simultaneously, and we can shoot down the reasons one by one.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Vort

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Can you explain how and why?

This is a relatively easy question to answer with another question. Was the policy/practice of polygamy inspired, or was the policy/practice to disband polygamy inspired?

Your making an assumption that God is not able to initiate a policy (for whatever reasons) and then later (time is unimportant to God) rescind or revoke it.

Quote

Wherefore I, the Lord, command and ^arevoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the ^brebellious, saith the Lord.

Quote

I command and men ^aobey not; I ^brevoke and they receive not the blessing.

The "how" is easy. The "why" not so much, as God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. A change in policy doesn't dictate a lack of inspiration.

[carlimac]

What was accomplished by having the children of gays policy in place for only 18 months? The policy of polygamy was in place long enough to have a huge impact on women and families for good. 

 

[mikbone]

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, carlimac said:

I'm obviously not mikbone but wanted to respond to this question. We've been told by many leaders of the Church that going beyond the mark isn't necessary. Just search the term "going beyond the mark" or "looking beyond the mark" for the pages and pages of references on LDS.org.   Another way to look at it is that "going beyond the mark" for some may be way more than they can handle, whereas someone else can keep their sanity and bodily health in check by not doing so. I have a dear friend who has a picture of Christ or a temple or a scripture plaque in EVERY SINGLE room of her house. For me, that would be going way beyond what is necessary or helpful. For her, it's what she likes and needs- apparently to remember Christ and to help her family. This friend has been known to live life in high gear with a zillion things going on at once. When I first met her she was extremely strict with computer use with her children. Over the years she's lightened up a bit. But she herself makes sure everyone knows she doesn't use social media and has dim views of it...just shy of acting as though it's against the commandments. For her, personally,  maybe it is.

So what YOU may think is the bare minimum of what is required may be someones very best effort- all they can muster. And I believe that's acceptable to the Lord.  For someone else, it may not be enough and the Lord will ask why talents weren't expanded and resources used to do more? I fear the admonition to "magnify our callings" meant that some would go overboard and that it would be used as a measuring stick to beat upon those for whom doing the minimum feels just right. 

That's just how I believe.  It certainly isn't what mikbone is saying.

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Sorry, I think that I have been pretty descriptive in my explanations.  

I think that it is much more important that we concern ourselves with Core issues like following the commandments.  Faith, Repentance, Ordinances.

But If you feel that abstaining from caffeine makes you a better Latter-Day Saint, then more power to you.

Just don't mock me or any other LDS for consuming chocolate or a soda product.  

Dark Chocolate (60-85% cacao solids)
1 ounce (1/4 Lindt chocolate bar) = 23 milligrams

Cocoa Powder
1 tablespoon = 12 milligrams

Dark(ish) Chocolate (45-59% cacao solids) 
1 ounce (3 dark chocolate Hershey Miniatures) = 12 milligrams

Chocolate Cake With Chocolate Frosting
1 slice (1/12th cake with 2 tablespoons frosting) = 9 milligrams

Milk Chocolate 
1 ounce (4 milk chocolate Hershey Kisses) = 4 milligrams

Chocolate Pudding Cup
1/2 cup (4 ounces) = 4 milligrams

Chocolate Chip Cookie
1-ounce cookie = 3 milligrams

Chocolate Ice Cream 
1 small container (3.5 fluid ounces) = 2 milligrams

Chocolate Whole Milk
1 cup (8 ounces) = 2 milligrams

White Chocolate
1 ounce (2 tablespoons Nestle white chocolate chips) = 0 milligrams

WOW!  You can't even see your own hypocrisy.  I'm thinking I was wrong and @dsnell was right.

[Anddenex]

47 minutes ago, carlimac said:

What was accomplished by having the children of gays policy in place for only 18 months? The policy of polygamy was in place long enough to have a huge impact on women and families for good.

What is or is not accomplished (good or bad), or how long a policy lasts is irrelevant to a policy/practice being inspired, or not inspired. The fact remains, the policy to begin polygamy was inspired. The policy to end polygamy was inspired. This answers your question on how a policy or practice can be both when initiated and when changed or updated.

The policy regarding baptism was inspired. The policy update is inspired also. But I think we are still waiting on your premise as to why it wasn't, or as @Vort said, "I think it would be easier if you shared why you think both cannot be inspired simultaneously, and we can shoot down the reasons one by one."

You haven't mentioned why you believe they both can't be inspired and that it has to be one or the other. I have clearly demonstrated how it can be both. An easy principle to recognize also is line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept. There is plenty of evidence in scripture how God is able to command and then revoke according to his will and pleasure.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Anddenex

[carlimac]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

What is or is not accomplished (good or bad), or how long a policy lasts is irrelevant to a policy/practice being inspired, or not inspired. The fact remains, the policy to begin polygamy was inspired. The policy to end polygamy was inspired. This answers your question on how a policy or practice can be both when initiated and when changed or updated.

The policy regarding baptism was inspired. The policy update is inspired also. But I think we are still waiting on your premise as to why it wasn't, or as @Vort said, "I think it would be easier if you shared why you think both cannot be inspired simultaneously, and we can shoot down the reasons one by one."

You haven't mentioned why you believe they both can't be inspired and that it has to be one or the other. I have clearly demonstrated how it can be both. An easy principle to recognize also is line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept. There is plenty of evidence in scripture how God is able to command and then revoke according to his will and pleasure.

I never said they can't both be inspired. That's not my premise or my belief. I was just asking the question - "Could one of these have been an uninspired policy?"

[carlimac]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

What you're asking is basically a philosophical question on the order of, "Why are leaves green?" There are many correct answers—they contain chlorophyll, which is green; green is the color perceived by our retinas; the wavelengths that reflect from the leaves represent the plant's best million-years-long evolutionary effort to extract maximum energy from the sunlight; God made them green—but none of those answers really get to the basis, which is definitional: "Green" is the word we use to name the color we perceive in leaves.

I think it would be easier if you shared why you think both cannot be inspired simultaneously, and we can shoot down the reasons one by one.

Wow that sounds like an unpleasant and fruitless exercise. No thanks. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

I never said they can't both be inspired. That's not my premise or my belief. I was just asking the question - "Could one of these have been an uninspired policy?"

Your question speaks otherwise:

Quote

So what was the deal with the change in policy about the children of gays first not being able to get baptized till 18 and gays being called apostate,  then a year and a half later the policy changing and those restrictions being dropped? Which was inspired? The policy or the undoing of it so quickly?

 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

"Could one of these have been an uninspired policy?"

If the general authorities are liars, sure.

Do you believe they're liars?

[The Folk Prophet]

Has anyone else noticed what a perfect example of looking beyond the mark the OP about looking beyond the mark is?