Moonbeast32

The conditional testimony

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Mores said:

But I finally had to repent and ask the Lord what he thought of it.  And I received the answer that it was really from Him, not a mortal man.  I don't know why.  And it still doesn't make sense to me.  But I know that is what He wants. So, I do it.

Here's something I've found helpful:

When the Lord chooses someone for a role, do you suppose He isn't aware of that person's opinions, preferences, judgement, and even political standing? When The Lord chooses someone, he chooses everything about that person. This is why presidents often have a singularly unique life of experience before their appointment.

 

We can go deeper. I think when someone is called to an office, it is more often because of their opinions and judgement rather than in spite of. Yet, we all do this, we tend to more often think of church leaders in terms of the latter; especially true when the believe something we disagree with.

 

Here's the bottom line: there is no office or calling in this church that isn't filled through the will of the Lord. I repeat, there is no office or calling in this church that isn't filled through the will of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Yes.
Yes. (even if the Lord banned whites from the priesthood this is still the Lord's Church)
Yes. (Irrelevant because the Church isn't a socialist organization)
Not Applicable. (The Church isn't going to change the laws of God, irrelevant condition)
Yes. (Doesn't change anything except if the law of tithing is ended I am probably living a higher law. If not, then I have more money to spend at the end of each month)
Yes. (The Church could add Moutain Dew, Kool-aid, etc... doesn't change anything)
Yes. (Although nothing in scripture purports this to be something that will happen, there is nothing in scripture that specifies this as sin and abomination before the Lord (i.e. gay marriage or actions) )
Yes.
Yes. (Already probably does (think about immigrants). The Church in our area supported the building of a temple of another religion. I understand the sum of support was around 4 million. The Church practices what it preaches.)

This actually rather supports what I'm saying.  If we bar any discussion about "how likely is it that..." any of these would happen, I did my best to construct a list that anyone could look at and say, "If the Church did [item on list] I'd have a problem with that."  

The fact that you have strong convictions about any of those makes it seem likely that if the Church suddenly announced today "The Church will be solemnizing gay marriage" you might have a problem with that.

And that's okay.  It's good that people have convictions of faith. Anyone that could look at that list and honestly say that any of those could happen without them taking any issue with it at all is someone who I am genuinely concerned about.  Do they even know how to form an opinion? Do they have any convictions at all?

The point of the list is to encourage empathy. The way you feel about the prospect of the Church solemnizing gay marriage is how someone else feels about instituting polygamy, is how someone else feels about donating money to muslim groups. 

I guess my thesis is that everyone has a conditional testimony. Which is why it's kind of absurd to single out a specific form for criticism*.

 

* yeah, I know, there are exceptions to that, but can we stick to the general concept for now? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Moonbeast32 said:

We can go deeper. I think when someone is called to an office, it is more often because of their opinions and judgement rather than in spite of. Yet, we all do this, we tend to more often think of church leaders in terms of the latter; especially true when the believe something we disagree with.

I actually rather disagree with this. I tend to believe that nearly all people are called in spite of their opinions. Because, ultimately, it really has very little to do with their opinions, and more to do with their capacity to help others develop their faith in Christ. 

Case in point - if leaders were called because of their opinions, it's highly unlikely I'd be called to anything beyond toilet scrubber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This actually rather supports what I'm saying.  If we bar any discussion about "how likely is it that..." any of these would happen, I did my best to construct a list that anyone could look at and say, "If the Church did [item on list] I'd have a problem with that."  

The fact that you have strong convictions about any of those makes it seem likely that if the Church suddenly announced today "The Church will be solemnizing gay marriage" you might have a problem with that.

And that's okay.  It's good that people have convictions of faith. Anyone that could look at that list and honestly say that any of those could happen without them taking any issue with it at all is someone who I am genuinely concerned about.  Do they even know how to form an opinion? Do they have any convictions at all?

I don't have any problem with a person coming up with a list or items that might come up that a person would have to think about. The problem with some items is they are never going to happen so making something that is never going to happen as a condition isn't a condition at all.

For example, if I added to your list and said, "If the Church solemnized beastiality in the temples would you have a problem with it"? We could add a whole lot to this list of things that would never happen (as they are contrary to God's plain and clear laws). Well, of course, the obvious is I would have a problem with it because it would be a sign of apostasy in the Church as a whole. I don't think you were referring to the Church going into a state of apostasy with your list. If you were, then yes, there would be items on any list that we could come up with that would cause a person to take issue. Another example would be, "If the Church decided to institute the Law of Moses again would you have a problem with it"? Not going to happen, so is there a point to this list item? It really isn't a condition if I have a problem with it, it is really understanding the gospel.

Or a person who doesn't question has come to a state of mind and heart spiritually that questioning isn't a requirement or need anymore. Our exemplar, Christ, wouldn't question the Father due to the relationship he has with the Father. Strong conviction do not equate with the inability to form an opinion, and a person can have convictions that align with truth or God's will. Do we assume that the Savior's strong convictions some how mean he is a man without opinion or conviction?

Quote

The point of the list is to encourage empathy. The way you feel about the prospect of the Church solemnizing gay marriage is how someone else feels about instituting polygamy, is how someone else feels about donating money to muslim groups. 

Empathy/charity is very important in the kingdom of God.

Quote

I guess my thesis is that everyone has a conditional testimony. Which is why it's kind of absurd to single out a specific form for criticism*.

 

* yeah, I know, there are exceptions to that, but can we stick to the general concept for now? :)

I would say, in the beginning, everyone has a conditional testimony. Some members, as myself (in the beginning), didn't know we had conditions until a condition was enticed. Through study (understanding true doctrine) and receiving the spirit of prophecy and revelation a person will come to the point where there are no conditions as they progressively become more like Christ -- who had no condition with the Father and the Father's will -- they were/are one.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2020 at 3:12 PM, anatess2 said:

Yeah.  Me too.

Then I'm reminded by last Sunday's Gospel Class that all 3 Witnesses to the Book of Mormon - all visited by angels and having a firm testimony of the Book of Mormon to their dying breath - have all been excommunicated by the Church. 

None of the witnesses came west with Brigham Young - They all either died or left the church.  All that left the church - left the church over the events of the Kirkland Safety Society.   I believe the Kirkland Safety Society to be the single greatest blunder of Joseph Smith.  However, it is most interesting to note that those that left the church over the great depression and loss of wealth involved in the Kirkland Safety Society were initially strong advocates that convinced Joseph that it was a good and "necessary" thing.  Joseph lost more than anyone - but never-the-less, those dissenters were convinced that Joseph had fallen and failed as a prophet - and not protected the church and it's leaders from the bad economics of the time.  

My Father once said to me that most people are more converted to money than to spiritual things and given the choice, when circumstance so dictate, will bow down and worship money before they will worship G-d. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 10:41 PM, Moonbeast32 said:

Still, I worry for that one non-member, and all other people both non-member and member. I'm not sure if that principle works if you deliberately state that you have a limit. I think we must be ever prepared to do anything, and have trust in God when it comes to the things we think we cannot do. But those are just my own conclusions. Thoughts?

I would tell a story - In my youth an individual came to my scout troop claiming to be from the scouting counsel.  He had a lot of interest in myself and the other boys.  He befriended us and bought us gifts (mostly food and scout stuff).  He would great us all with hugs.  Some parents became suspicious and looked into his background - soon after he disappeared forever.   At the time I thought it strange that he disappeared so quickly - since he claimed to be a "friend".

I did not think much about this until later in life - but there was another time of experience.  When I joined the army I weighed 120 and looked to be 13 (I was 17).  I was approached every week by someone that claimed to want to befriend me.  I quickly learned what kind of friend they wanted to be.  They would approach me at times when I was alone and it was not uncommon for such invitations for friendship to end in violence.   Though I was small and young looking I had grown up with knowledge and experience of defending myself.  I know how to hurt someone if it is necessary.  My experience enabled me to strongly dislike guys that had certain attraction towards me or guys in general.  It was not uncommon for me to initiate pain when I thought a guy was getting too close in my personal space - I still do not like guy hugs.  I learned all the "lines" and "excuses" and to be honest became very bitter towards anyone that would even defend "gayness".

On my mission I was transferred to a new area.  The first day in the new area, I went with my companion to teach a discussion with a "golden" contact.  From the moment I met this contact - I knew he had a problem to overcome before he should be baptized - and I would have nothing to do with him.  I was very open with my concern.  I refused to teach this fellow but I would sit with my companion while he taught but I would not say even a word.  The guy ended up being baptized but I would not baptize him or be one of the witnesses - though I did attend.  I also would not participate in confirming him a member.  I did not believe he was worthy

Fast forward over 15 years later.  I was serving as a Scout Master and our troop was at a very cold winter camp near Park City Utah.  I was approached by a stranger that asked, "Do you remember me?"  I look at him and said, "No!"  I did not recognize him.  He then said that he remembered me and that I was the missionary that taught him and brought him into the church.  I still did not remember him.  He then carefully reminded me who he was - long ago.  But so much had changed, he was now married with children and we was a bishop.  It was like I was hit by a ton of spiritual bricks.  I apologized and we talked about many things - but I learned that he had often prayed to meet me again.  

To this day I still resent the arguments and excuses I hear about those that choose to be gay. (note that I believe important things in life are a choice).  I have experience enough to know certain LIES!  But I also have learned about forgiveness and spiritual connections to the atonement of Christ.  What I once thought could never be forgiven and brought into full fellowship of the church - I now know can - and I am so grateful for that profound and strong convert.  All good things will be brought into the fold of Christ - and what I though I could never accept - I can and will be so lead by the spirit - as should we all.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't view this as a "conditional testimony" as much as I do the habit members seem to have of speculating.  I had to endure a one-sided conversation on why there are dinosaur bones recently.

Why try to guess about what the Lord may reveal?  Why worry about how you'll react to what's to come?  

You have instructions.  You make covenants.  You follow them.  Through that, you grow faith.  With that faith you'll face what's to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now