Well, I got a suprise today after church. I was pulled aside privately by a member of the bishopric who wanted to talk to me. I then found out that I had recieved a calling. I am now the teacher of the sunbeams(3-4 year olds).
Another bonus is my youngest sister is in the sunbeams. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Congrats!
I'm somewhat confused, by your use of the word "calling" it must mean something different to you. To me, a calling is something that God lays on your heart, and the only person who can know you have it is you (and God) How can someone else tell you that you have a calling?
Again, it's probably just a semantics issue.
Best of luck, that's a challenging age group, but a fun one!
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Well, I since I got it from the church it's supposed to be god's will that I recieve this calling, or something like that. And I have the ability to refuse the calling.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I guess we'd call that being volunteered for something.
Ah, semantics!
At least it wasn't the "lawn ministry" or the "mop the floors on Saturday ministry."
Have fun!!! Is sunbeams like pre-K Sunday School?
[ March 21, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I already volunteer to clean the church on about every fourth saterday.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I was just pointing out that some churches call that "a ministry." Somehow it sounds better than "I scrub toilets."
When I belong to a church, I usually end up doing something along those lines. It helps keep us from having to spend church money on services so that more of it can go towards good purposes like feeding the poor or supporting missionary efforts (or whatever). So I guess in a sense that the toilet scrubbing is a good thing (or leads to good things). But I still get a chuckle out of pastors who call it a "ministry" in the apparent hope that someone will be suckered into it and do the job. Hey wait! I'm the one that get's suckered into it!!!
The donut ministry is the one that really cracks me up.
I'm always tempted to hand them out liked blessed wafers.
I don't though.
[ March 21, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Callings in the Church:
The Bishop (usually) and sometimes the RS pres or the head of whatever organization, prays to know who to ask to fulfill a responsibilty. The person is asked, and then that person prays to accept. Generally, you accept it unless there is compelling reason otherwise (re: Anne Kate's willingness to be in nursery, but due to traveling, is unable to make the committment to be there every week, so can't be in charge.)
I've seen the prayers to ask and the answers and the results of these callings, and it's really cool. Often, the most unusual, non-intuitive people are called, and it's wonderful to see people grow to meet their responsibilities in ways you'd never think of.
Not to highjack your thread, MEC, but we are also asked to speak in sacrament meeting. The only-halfway-joking joke is that you are asked to speak on principles you need to work on. I was asked last week to speak in April on meekness. I'm not sure what the Lord's trying to say there.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You're too meek, perhaps?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I can relate to the talk thing, just a few weeks ago I was asked to give a talk on fasting, the same day I asked a question about fast offerings in church...lol. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's probably it. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
However, you can prayerfully consider the calling for a very long time . . . Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
My prior calling was as the 10-11 year old girls achievement day leader. It rocked! We did some very cool things. The girls were all great.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
YOu know, if my pastor or our children's ministry director came to me and said God had told them I was being called to lead the 3-4 year olds, I'd tell them God must have been having an off day.
That's interesting. See, in our church, if there is a need we let it be known. For example, if we need someone to help out with the 3-4 year old church, we'd have it announced from the pulpit that there is a need in that area, and ask for people to pray and see if God is leading them toward that.
We've never had a need go unmet. I'm not saying either way is wrong, just interesting in the different approach.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Hey, Bob. I'm a veteran of the donut ministry.. But I put it on volunteering history sheets as a "Hospitality Ministry.."
(On second thought, if I actually heard somebody call it a "donut ministry" I would probably laugh.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
First time I heard the label "donut ministry" was during the announcements at the end of mass. I had to leave the church!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When you ask people to serve in a specific capacity instead of asking for volunteers, the people are often put in uncomfortable situations that they would never have volunteered for. That is a good thing. It's a great opportunity for growth and learning.
My favorite calling is to teach Sunday School to the "problem" classes. I always have a blast with the problem kids. It's the well-behaved ones that I find more difficult to get involved...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Cool
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:When you ask people to serve in a specific capacity instead of asking for volunteers, the people are often put in uncomfortable situations that they would never have volunteered for. That is a good thing
Not necessarily. You can also force people to serve in capacities they are not cut out for and don't enjoy,and that isn't helpful to anyone nor is it what God intends. We are all given certain spiritual gifts. My sister-in-law has the gift of administration. She does not have a strong gift for teaching or for hospitality. She keeps records for her Sunday School class, attendance, financials, etc. She loves it. She does well.
Ask her to teach kids, and everybody would be miserable. She hasn't the patience for it and she hasn't been given the gift for it. She should use the gifts God gave her, and she does. Likewise, take someone with the gift of teaching and ask them to sit down and move numbers from one column to the other and they'd be miserable.
I don't think anyone should be asked to work in a ministry they don't feel led to and don't enjoy and don't have any aptitude for. God wants us to serve with a cheerful heart. And he's gifted us accordingly.
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy teaching the class or the problem kids or whatever you want to do - perhaps that is indeed your calling and if you're happy doing it then it is. But, I think it's wrong to assume that everyone should be pulled out of their comfort zone and asked to do things just because someone else thinks it's a good idea - that's not necessarily the case.
Again, not saying God doesn't want MEC teaching sunbeams or mr porteiro teaching problem kids, or Bob serving donuts. Not for me to decide what God wants. I just think it's wrong to assume every person can serve adequately in every area of ministry - that's not true. Otherwise spiritual gifts would have no place or meaning, and we know from the Bible that they do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Because of me, the donut ministry raked in record profits. Of course, that was just me eating them all and paying for it, but still!!!
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
A drawback of the wholly voluntary system is folks over commit and get burned out. I think there was a thread about that recently.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Presumably, those that pass on notice of the calling to the appropriate person do so on the received word of God.
Posted by karen.elizabeth (Member # 6345) on :
quote:My favorite calling is to teach Sunday School to the "problem" classes. I always have a blast with the problem kids. It's the well-behaved ones that I find more difficult to get involved...
I'm really trying to envision where I'd be placed. Do they have a class for well-meaning but out-of-control hyperactive children? I think that's where I'd show up.
There'd be a lot of asking me to please don't sit on my legs, to maintain eye contact when speaking, and to not speak out of turn. But I'd do my work well and be an enthusiastic volunteer.
--Karen
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The second councilor in our LDS ward bishopric is moving, and all the men in the ward are keeping a low profile.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I like the way callings are handled in our church because almost everyone does them, not just a few, as was true in other churches I've seen. Also, it's great to have to stretch a little out of your comfort zone. You learn more that way, and grow. Standing up in front of the whole congregation and giving a talk was very hard for me. Not in theory, but in practice. When faced with all those people watching me, I just get shaky. But having done several talks now, it's getting easier. Yet I would never have volunteered to do that.
I sort of hope they will assign me to play piano in relief society someday or something. They would have to give me one song at least a month in advance, and let me practice it. Then the next time I played a song would have to be at least 3 weeks later, and so on. Then gradually I might even get good. That would be cool!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Acts 6:1-7
quote:1 AND in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and cwisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip•, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
There's precedent.
[ March 21, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm really trying to envision where I'd be placed. Do they have a class for well-meaning but out-of-control hyperactive children? I think that's where I'd show up.
The nice thing is you end up doing everything. No one holds any one calling for a long time - the longest is bishop or stake president, which is for 5 -7 years - and it means that those who used to be the leaders will step aside and other people will fullfill the responsibilities. It's also a way to grow - the only way to know if you can handle responsibility is to be given some.
quote:She hasn't the patience for it and she hasn't been given the gift for it.
Whom God calls, he qualifies. It's not forever, and there's no work in the church that's beneath anyone.
[ March 21, 2004, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Didnt say there wasnt.
Didnt say the way your church does things is wrong. Just said I dont think it's right to assume everyone can fit into every ministry.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The last two statements are incompatible.
Added: Well no, they are not really, because that would assume that the callings are not being directed. They usually are. In that sense, it's wonderful.
quote:I think it's wrong to assume that everyone should be pulled out of their comfort zone and asked to do things just because someone else thinks it's a good idea
What if it's the Lord's idea?
[ March 21, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Yes, the selections for different callings definitely bear that stamp, that I've seen. They are inspired choices. Certainly mine have been. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I think this is where protestant and LDS theology diverge.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in protestant theology prophets were no longer needed after Christ. Now we have the full Word, and that is all that is needed.
This influences how protestant churches are run. There is no man that has the authority to receive revelation on behalf of a people, or act in the name of God. That is what a prophet is. Since there is no authority from God implied in being a reverend or minister, they do not have the power to call someone in and ask them to minister in a needed capacity. They must rely on the personal revelation the members of its congregation receives in regards to how to fill the needs of the church.
Since LDS people believe there are prophets, this concept of revelation on behalf of those under the leader's responsibility goes all the way down the organization. A bishop acting on behalf of his ward has the responsibility and the authority to ask God and the capacity to recieve an answer as to who would best serve and best be served in a certain position. This revelatory power and responsibility falls on all those in leadership positions.
Bishops generally serve for only about 5 years. Then a new bishop is called by the Stake President.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not having new prophets != not having authority from God, or revelations from God.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Has there ever, in the history of the LDS church, ever been a calling that, in retrospect, looked to be a mistake?
You'll all forgive me, I hope, if I say that this sounds like much backward glancing to "prove" that everything turned out the way God intended it.
I fear I might be treading on a very important tradition in your church without knowing it, or meaning to be particularly offensive.
But I keep thinking of the choir director who turned into Attila the hun and drove everyone out, or the secretary who got power-mad and ran a little influence peddling operation instead of facilitating people's access to the pastor. Or the janitor who refuses to open up the sanctuary on Saturdays so the guitar group can practice, etc. etc.
I gather nothing like that ever happens in the LDS congregations.
And, frankly, I find that so contrary to human nature that I disbelieve it.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Bob, of course your guess is correct that not everyone "magnifies their calling" equally well. I hope there is no thought that we are trying to say that everything is perfect always in the church. From OSC in Lost Boys to mine and kat's discussions about things going on in our wards, I think the board gets pretty much the full story.
I guess the direction that God guides us is not always the one of least strife or zero troubles. Maybe it's the one of greatest growth. Everyone has their free agency, still, even when we operate within His guidelines. I would think if we had wanted the smoothest existence, with the least trouble and strife, we would have opted to stay in heaven. What we tend to get here is the maximum learning and growth potential. Part of that is sometimes failing.
[ March 21, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Since there is no authority from God implied in being a reverend or minister . . .
Where on earth did you get this idea?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
If I understand correctly from a friend, a protestant reverend has the knowledge and training, and hopefully the spirituality to teach, make temporal decisions, and counsel the members of the congregation but they cannot recieve authoritative revelation from God.
In other words, revelation calling someone to do a particular job, because God wants them to.
However, within that they do have the Spirit to guide them as to what to teach, what to do, and how to counsel members.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Bob,
Within that idea are leaders all the way up to General Authorities who fail in their callings. Being called does not mean that you will now no longer make poor decisions or are suddenly perfect. This failure would also affect their ability to recieve revelation on callings, so that they could concievably call the wrong people.
But should the choir director turn into Atilla the Hun, they would be dismissed as soon as their behavior was known. Christlike behavior is held in higher regard than musical ability.
[ March 21, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Sorry folks for a THIRD reply, but more thoughts:
This system is more than tradition. It is a major aspect of LDS organization. There is no professional clergy. There is no college. There is no special training. Everyone is called in this manner.
Even the Prophet, or President of the church gets to his position by being called as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve by the current prophet and then living long enough to be the eldest member of the Quorum when the previous Prophet dies.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
why don't you just edit all the posts into one and delete the others?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sometimes the ideas just flow out separately, and it can be difficult to read as one long post. Though the practice does seem to bother some people, it's quite low on my radar of things to get annoyed at.
I'm much more irate about those dratted pun threads. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And the innuendo. That really ticks me off to no end.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Amka, two thoughts – first “reverend” is a title, not a noun. Using it the way you did is the equivalent of referring to a woman as a Mrs.
Second, if you mean “receive authoritative revelation” in the sense of receiving an instruction that is binding on the whole denomination, than no, we don’t. But there is a huge difference between that and having “no authority from God.” I understand that you don’t believe that non-LDS leaders have that authority, but please understand that not everybody shares that belief. The word “authority” is in our ordination service, and we believe it comes from God, no less than you believe so about your church’s priesthood.
Edit: and the “job description” of ordained clergy is sometimes abbreviated “preacher, pastor, prophet.”
Edit again: In the UMC, the appointment of clergy is much like the LDS call system as it has been described here. The Bishop and the cabinet pray for guidance and then appoint the various available clergy to the various open churches, where we serve for 5-12 years before being sent somewhere else. We do, btw, believe this process is guided by God.
I’m sorry if this is starting to sound hostile, but I really get the impression that many LDS believe that protestants believe God has quit speaking to people. Just because we don’t have one person assigned to receive revelation doesn’t mean we don’t think God speaks and guides the church!
[ March 22, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I was under the impression that titles were nouns: president, king, doctor...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Has there ever, in the history of the LDS church, ever been a calling that, in retrospect, looked to be a mistake?
Sure, there have been callings that didn't turn out well. Once you are called, you still have your free will, and you can choose to behave badly. But just because somebody messes up doesn't mean that they didn't stand a chance.
You might not go along with me theologically here, but I'll present it anyway. I don't believe that Judas Escariot was called to be an apostle just so that he could have Christ killed. He was a full apostle, and was called so because he had the gifts required. But he still chose evil in the end.
But the Bible is full of stories where what looks like a tragedy turns out for the best. The murder of Christ, the selling of Joseph, etc..
quote: I’m sorry if this is starting to sound hostile, but I really get the impression that many LDS believe that protestants believe God has quit speaking to people. Just because we don’t have one person assigned to receive revelation doesn’t mean we don’t think God speaks and guides the church!
Thanks for sharing. While that flies in the face of what many protestant friends of mine have shared, its good to understand you better.
We also do not believe that there is one person assigned to recieve revelation. We believe that each person has the right and authority to recieve revelation according to his calling. Parents have the right and oblogation to recieve revelation concerning thier family. A sunday school teacher recieves revelation concerning how/what to teach. A Bishop recieves for his ward, etc. etc.. But there is one person who has the right/duty to recieve revelation for anything/everything in the church. That is the President or the Prophet. And of course, we believe that it's not just administrative revelations that he can recieve, but anything that the Lord wishes. It might be somthing as simple as telling us to shun pornography or something as life-changing as we all need to pack up and move again (this hasn't happened for a long time).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: In the UMC, the appointment of clergy is much like the LDS call system as it has been described here. The Bishop and the cabinet pray for guidance and then appoint the various available clergy to the various open churches, where we serve for 5-12 years before being sent somewhere else. We do, btw, believe this process is guided by God.
Okay. *confused* That sounds exactly like how all callings are done in the church - every job gets prayed about and someone is asked.
In that case, I'm not sure where the disagreement comes in. Except I do think that implying that the jobs are assigned according to a leader's random whim raised hackles. It doesn't happen like that.
Coincidentally enough, this is what church was all about yesterday. Seriously, a talk in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and RS were all about callings and magnifying (doing your best) in them and what it means. The bishop clarified some things in Relief Society.
He said sometimes there are definite clicks in the brain and heart - this person MUST go here. And sometimes...it doesn't really matter. There are some people that don't feel right, but there's a pool of jobs that need to be done, and a pool of people that need jobs, and he matches them up. He was apologetic while telling us this, as in "Please no one rest your testimony on your bishop's ability to listen." but that does make sense. In terms of decisions in our lives, sometimes it matters terribly what you do next, and sometimes whatever you want to do is fine. Even when it comes to spouses, some people report have practically an angel tell them this was the one, and for other people, the Lord said, "Sure. That's what you want, then go for it. That'd be fine."
No, callings aren't perfect, but nothing executed by man is. I resent the implication that they are handed out according to whim and to satisfy individual agendas, though.
----
Dana, I think some of the confusion is because there is disagreement about what seems to be major points of doctrine. I mean, maybe the thinking is that if God is still talking, wouldn't he bring this up?
Could you explain the role of revelation, general and personal, in your church then? *listening*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Uh, I don't think dkw, or anyone, was saying that LDS church assignments were just handed out randomly. Maybe I haven't been reading closely.
I think there is a tendency among Mormons to think that no other Christian church believes in revelation. It is more accurate, I think, to say that Mormons are among the few who believe in an open canon of scripture.
Is that a more correct estimation of the Protestant view, dkw? That personal revelation, and authoritative revelation (i.e., callings for preachers to preach in Africa, Chicago, etc) from God is alive and well in the doctrines of Protestant Christianity, but that the scriptural canon is closed?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The word Calling means recieving a call from God to do something. The problem seems to be whether God would relay that call through a third person. If I am called to do something by God, I would assume that his voice would be loud enough that I would hear it. On the other hand, I can well imagine that many people don't hear it, or ignore it in favor of their own internal desires.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If I am called to do something by God, I would assume that his voice would be loud enough that I would hear it.
Okay, as far as I can tell, it's a difference between the systems again. The LDS church has a central authority and a distinct line of authority. For an official position within the church, it comes through the person with the authority to fill that. For other things, do what the Lord tells you.
The only calling I can think of where the individual prays first and applies for it is being a missionary. Even with being a missionary, though, the actual call comes from the First Presidency. Not everyone who wants to go is ready or able to. On the other hand, if you don't submit your papers, you won't be called to go.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:No, callings aren't perfect, but nothing executed by man is. I resent the implication that they are handed out according to whim and to satisfy individual agendas, though.
kat, I hope you didn't think I was implying this at all. The thought never occurred to me. I believe that there's a lot of intellect and maybe a fair amount of "direction from God" in these types of assignments. In no way does that mean I think that they are made at random or capriciously.
I just have a hard time imagining as rosy a picture as it seemed the various LDS people here were describing and I wanted to see if I was just missing something.
Essentially, your church sounds like every church I've ever belonged to. And what people believe is the process and the "rightness" of it is often a function of what they want to believe versus anything rooted in reality. Much of it "turning out right" is really revisionist history in my experience.
That doesn't mean it is arbitrary. It just means that there's a lot of looking back in retrospect and saying "God wanted it this way for a reason" when as often as not I think people are just hoping that's true.
I wouldn't say that about someone's call to be a preacher, but for the fact that I've met some pretty terrible preachers. And, obviously, someone who hasn't worked out their own ethical issues in life might also be accused of faking their calling. But that's just my cynical opinion and is nothing specific to the LDS.
I realize everyone likes to put the best foot forward, but sometimes things people say about LDS just don't pass the smell test for me. It's a wonderful religion, and I admire most of its adherents that I have met personally. But when it starts to sound like it is somehow better than other good religions out there, I get skeptical.
Maybe it's a group that accentuates the positive, but I also hear an undertone of something I don't like in some religions -- that they're doing it "right" and everyone else falls short.
Basically, I can't really detect a substantive difference in how the LDS handles most things, and maybe what's going on is that y'all don't know about any other ways of doing it so yours seems best to you.
It's like having a discussion of alternatives to democratic rule with a bunch of Americans. What do we know about living under a different system. We can't even imagine it (most of us, anyway).
I truly meant no offense. And I hope I'm not crossing some line here -- especially with our hosts. I repeat again that I really do admire most of the LDS members I've ever interacted with. And you have all been very patient with me in the past when I've stepped on toes.
But bottom line is we are all human and we mess up and I'd rather see people of faith recognize that than say "isn't it great that God made it work out this way" when things go horribly wrong.
For example, I will never believe that we as a world would've been worse off if we'd somehow managed NOT to kill Jesus. I'm thinking God had an alternate plan that would've been even better had we shown ourselves to be mature and faithful enough to avoid killing his son. To say that Judas' actions "worked out for the best" just makes me cringe.
Actually, if you think about it, the entire doctrine of Original Sin is predicated on the idea that God would prefer us to act differently than we did in a whole lot of situations, and that His planning would've accommodated that result just fine. So to say that "things work out for the best" is really sort of bizarre to me.
NOTE: I'm speaking for the Church of Bob here, btw, so don't take my ravings to mean anything about what a "non-LDS Christian" would believe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But bottom line is we are all human and we mess up and I'd rather see people of faith recognize that than say "isn't it great that God made it work out this way" when things go horribly wrong.
Well, it does go wrong sometimes. My bishop when he was telling about the process of filling callings was very emphatic that he'd hate to have any base their testimony on the process, because he KNEW how fallible he was and how it was sometimes simply a judgement call.
I don't think every calling I've had was meant to be and divinely inspired. I have had one experience where I wanted to make a change in my life and I didn't know how and prayed for an opportunity for it, and the next Sunday I was called to a position that gave me that opportunity. That was very, very cool. It didn't work out only in retrospect - it was very direct, immediate, and exactly what I needed.
I have to admit the reason I was defending the process was because of the statements earlier in the thread how asking someone to fill a position instead of waiting for volunteers wasn't "what God intends."
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
My current calling is Ward Choir Director. Before that I was the chorister in sacrament meeting. Somehow I've been part of the Musicerati in the ward since we moved in. I'm not sure how I got into the Musicerati. Maybe it's because I know how to wave my arm in 4/4.
If everybody took responsibilities upon themselves because they felt called to, every ward would have 200 bishops, 100 Sunday School teachers, and no one to teach Young Mens. There are 2 very good reason why callings are made through the channels of authority the Church has set in place. One is that no person can take upon themselves authority; it must come through proper, recognized channels. Two is that there are many responsibilities in each congregation that need to be filled in order for everything to function well.
When I get a calling I don't particularly feel well suited for, I try to think of the mighty oak dropping an acorn. Eventually there will be another mighty oak standing there. Callings are for strengthening your weaknesses and helping you grow. When you get comfortable and good at a calling, you usually get released and called somewhere else where you need to grow.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bob, thanks for sharing your insights and feelings. I think part of the reason for the resounding positive comments about the LDS church on this forum is that there's a high percentage of members here that have strong positive feelings and good experiences. Beyond that, our faith in the LDS church is very strong. Strong enough that many of us have chosen to serve missions, spending 1.5-2 years telling people how great we think it is.
There are a fair number of people out there who have become disenchanted with the LDS church and would share a very different viewpoint. I am surprised I haven't seen much (if any) of that here.
As for me, I am not suprised to see human fallacy in any church inasmuch as I believe God uses fallable human beings to do His work. But I believe that for those who are truly willing to follow Him and seek His will, He will help them be more than they ever could have been alone. I do not believe that human fallacy reflects badly on a church.
As we have seen here, there are many different ways of doing things. We tend to support and defend the ways of the group we feel most strongly attached to.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kat, thanks.
Thnikkaman...I find that growth often depends on how much fertilizer is heaped on...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
beverly, I totally agree. A church without human fallibility isn't going to have very many members.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
dkw -
Thank you for the information on how to deal with reverend as a title. So if you are using a noun, would you use minister? The minister? Sorry. We use bishop as both a title and a noun.
I've been told some of these things by a protestant friend of mine, although she is of the non-denomonational type with leanings towards baptist. There are all forms of protestantism, sorry if I lumped UMC with other things I've been told.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bob, I agree with T, though.
Sometimes the point is to get people out of their comfort zones - to do things they've never done before and may not be comfortable doing. That's how growth happens.
One of the talks in sacrament meeting yesterday (seriously, the whole day was about callings. My RL and my Hatrack life are intersecting, and it's spooky) was from a girl who joined the church a little over a year ago. She played the piano a little before, and they called her to play the piano in sacrament meeting. Every week. She practiced for almost half an hour every day, mostly out of a desire to avoid public humiliation. Now she's very comfortable up there, she's comfortable with the hymns, which she likes because reading scripture is sort of new for her and she relates to the language of the hymns better, and she's made enough mistakes in public and have everything be fine that she doesn't worry about it. All in all, it's been great.
And she would NEVER have volunteered for it. I think it's wonderful.
[ March 22, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The only thing more rewarding than personal growth is inspiring it in others and having it work!!!
I think that's great. And I'm comfortable with giving credit to God, and the wisdom of the folks who had to decide. It's all good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As long as we also give credit to God for screwing up and "calling" somebody who backs out, does a bad job, and/or loathes every minute of it, I'm okay with it. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I've tried to figure out a reaction to this, Tom.
I guess the best thing is to be honest.
That irritated me.
I'm sure I irritate you and a lot of people, but I don't think it is through biting remarks that aren't really jokes, even if you would have put j/k.
If you were an avowed athiest, it wouldn't bother me.
But you profess to want to know that God exists. You occassionally let show a deep desire to have a relationship with God. And then you say things to imply that since you haven't found that, then all others who claim it must have irrationally deluded themselves into their own experiences and then use faulty reasoning to back it up.
Yeah, and I know I'm being melodramatic and sensitive and stuff, so now I'm even more irritated.
[ March 22, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs Amka* Thanks for saying that. I couldn't figure out how.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*agrees with kat and Amka*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Edit: How on earth did I get an "e" in Tom's name?
[ March 22, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was floating around, left over from Hatrack stopping the misspelling of mine. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And then you say things to imply that since you haven't found that, then all others who claim it must have irrationally deluded themselves into their own experiences and then use faulty reasoning to back it up."
I'm genuinely sorry you're irritated. But I'll be honest, here: I DO think you've deluded yourself, based on every single experience and datum available to me. If God ever sees fit to convince me otherwise, it's certainly within His power to do so.
That said, I should have resisted the temptation to point out the flaws in the logical process above. I apologize.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You realize, of course, that you *could* take those comments as being extremely telling of Tom's ongoing relationship with God/no God, rather than being an attack on everyone who does believe.
But I shouldn't even try to speak for him.
Edit: Largely because of the post above mine
[ March 22, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, knock it off. Your apology was deliberately worse than the original comment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* Bob, if there's one thing I've learned about personal religion, it's that everyone takes it personally. Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
The problem with your line of thinking Tom, and I think what others are fidning offensive, is that you are purporting God to be fallible and making mistakes, which flies in the face of most theology.
Assuming God's perfection, just because someone fails or is in some way not up to the task, doesn't necessisarily mean that it's a complete waste.
Some of the greatest life lessons I've learned came from failing to do things I believe God had intended for me to do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then why are you attacking it? You say you're looking for it, then attack those that found something. Something's disingenuous.
You're not a disinterested observer asking questions - you're making comments designed to make other people look stupid. In your own arrogance, you could ask how the incredibly intelligent people you are talking to came to the conclusions that you see.
[ March 22, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Peter: then, as we thank God for the times the girl learned how to enjoy playing the piano in public, we ALSO need to thank God for all the times God sent her running from the temple in tears, for reasons He kept to Himself for the time being. The classical argument is that the SECOND "thank you" is somehow implicit, but I rarely hear it explicitly stated: "God, thank you for making me miserable for my own good."
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
With all due respect Bob, and admitting that I did laugh at that cartoon, this is exactly the same kind of biting joke but now pointed in Tom's direction.
It may help me feel better about my position, but it doesn't help Tom. Just like Tom's remark doesn't help me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Why get mad at Tom for being honest? He's calling it like he sees it.
You may see it differently but I don't see why you should get offended, when you know Tom is stating something he believes as deeply as you hold your convictions.
I don't think he was even being brutally honest because if he was there would have been a much more mean spirited streak through his comments. Instead he attempted to lighten the disagreement with levity and you guys jumped all over him.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Peter: then, as we thank God for the times the girl learned how to enjoy playing the piano in public, we ALSO need to thank God for all the times God sent her running from the temple in tears, for reasons He kept to Himself for the time being. The classical argument is that the SECOND "thank you" is somehow implicit, but I rarely hear it explicitly stated: "God, thank you for making me miserable for my own good."
Church, not temple. And she never left in tears. The couple of times she did play imperfectly, it wasn't any kind of deal and she's the only one that remembered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You say you're looking for it, then attack those that found something."
Kat, I "attack" those that claim to have found something. The jury is still out on whether anything has genuinely been found.
As you've correctly pointed out, though, sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What jury? You?
You're claiming jurisdiction over other people's experiences?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm claiming the right to judge the validity of those experiences for myself, of course, which is the same right that ANYONE has.
If I made a post saying I had been contacted by the Alien Star Lords, I wouldn't insist that everyone here believe me; if I came back under an alias pretending to be the princess of Ethiopia or something, I would EXPECT skepticism. In either case, I would neither expect nor demand that people accept my stated belief at face value; I would merely expect that they voice their skepticism in as respectful a manner as possible.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and someone thought Tom, kat and I could agree with each other on anything...
I'm somewhere in between kat and tom on the original subject but I'm not sure exactly where <grin>
AJ
Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
Simply because the second "thank you" isn't given as often, doesn't change anything. Plus, maybe you just aren't around to hear it.
It's much easier to be grateful for successes than failures at any level. I was just telling my wife last night about how I have a hard time admitting I am wrong. Those learning experiences I mentioned, I rarely share, because they involve me failing, not because of anything having to do with God or my attitude towards him.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
so clearly kat and Tom disagree on what is actual defined as "respectful" dissent.
AJ
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Yo, Tom. Does that comic bug you?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
No, I prefer Tom's honest evaluation to the biting remark. Thank you very much Tom.
And Tom, I look back at my life and I'm grateful for everything. Even the shit that happened. I have even been known to be grateful at the time, though not always.
More irrational reasoning: There can be no joy without grief. I have great joy in my life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I would merely expect that they voice their skepticism in as respectful a manner as possible.
Exactly. And tact would be nice too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* Not really, BtL. It reminds me a bit of the dwarves in The Last Battle, who also don't annoy me for the same reason: there ARE people out there who, clearly confronted with evidence of God, would deny it. Now, I AM mildly affronted when people who know me well would suggest that I'm one of those people, since it implies that someone I care about clearly doesn't know me as well as I'd hoped, but that happens much more rarely.
[ March 22, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
tact?!
I flunked the school of tact
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You may not believe what they've found, but they have obviously found something. Unless you want to claim that every who has found peace and revelation is lying, they have found something. Something consistent, and warming, and happy, that you say you're looking for.
Banna: Girl, I've got to get AIM back.
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
Tom:
"As long as we also give credit to God for screwing up and "calling" somebody who backs out, does a bad job, and/or loathes every minute of it, I'm okay with it."
There's already been a fair amount of discussion about human fallibility in callings. Might I add that God makes callings knowing full well that the person could mess it up, hate it, or quit. And he won't necessarily stop them from doing that.
However, he will always be there to support those whom he has called, in whatever capacity they are serving, if they choose to put some effort into overcoming whatever obstacles they might be facing in regards to their responsibilities. He will make weaknesses become strengths, and he will help the person come to understand, succeed at, and even love the work he has called them to do. But first the person must decide that they are going to give it their best effort and keep a good attitude.
It's not a church for wimps.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
kat, I'm not looking for something comforting and happy. I'm looking for the truth, which would hopefully be a comfort. That's actually a huge and very relevant distinction.
I've said before that I'm happy for people who have faith -- precisely because they HAVE found a source of comfort that they clearly needed. That's about where it stops, though, by definition, until it's possible to confirm the rightness of their beliefs.
------
"But first the person must decide that they are going to give it their best effort and keep a good attitude."
Isn't that rather like saying that healings work unless the person in question doesn't deserve to be healed, or unless it serves God's purpose for the healing to fail? It's almost EXACTLY like saying that God will send you a sign that He exists once you believe in Him.
[ March 22, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I didn't say I had any tact, just that other people should. Ok, and me too -- it's something I am working on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm looking for the truth, which would hopefully be a comfort.
If that truth you find requires you to change something about yourself, it will not be comfortable.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Amka,
Based on Tom's response the comic stands. I trust he realizes that I was not implying Bob was him, but rather his position taken to an extreme. And, darn it, people don't have to take everything so seriously.
In closing, does the lord work in the way we see in the final panel? Maybe I should start going to church more and explore this possibility.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Well, Tom, I would prefer it if you didn't shut your mouth.
Because of you, I had to reexamine a couple of years ago. You gave me a great gift. More than I can repay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And in further news, someone sent me an email offering to ordain me as a minister . . . Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In closing, does the lord work in the way we see in the final panel? Maybe I should start going to church more and explore this possibility.
Sometimes. Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
Tom:
"It's almost EXACTLY like saying that God will send you a sign that He exists once you believe in Him."
Yes. In other words, faith precedes the miracle.
And, regarding the healing---as stated in the Lord's Prayer, "Thy will be done."
[ March 22, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: The Thnikkaman ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<edited out of sanity>
[ March 22, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
So, can you volunteer for something? Or is there only calling?
Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
Officially, celia, no.
Technically yes. Especially if it's an unpopular job. I love working with kids and started volunteering as a substitute sunday school teacher. (primary in the LDS Church) Within a couple months I was "called" to teach a class of my own on a regular basis.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can't volunteer for leadership positions, but I've had a few bishops ask me what I liked doing. I told him I loved teaching, and got callings that let me do that. That's not precisely volunteering, but I'm sure my answer had something to do with it.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
By the way, this is one of those days where Tom is reading my mind with about 80% accuracy.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There are many non-calling things you can volunteer for. These typically amount to jobs that need to be done but are temporary like "we'll get you the stuff, but can you make this for the ward dinner?" and cleaning the church. Cleaning the church has one calling per ward for someone to organize it, but the actually cleaning is done by volunteers.
But for ongoing jobs that need to be filled, a calling is made.
As stated before the, being a full time missionary is an exception: you need to volunteer.
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
Yeah, not one of Tom's better days, huh? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tom, does your truth have to be my truth in order for it to be actually "true?"
I mean, how can you really know the full story until you've shuffled off your mortal coil and found out how right I was all along?
I understand being bother by the claims of others. I too prefer it when people say "I think" or "I believe" instead of "I know." But I also can't gainsay when someone says that they are certain. They are. Fine. Given the same events I might not be as sure as they are, but what have I got to go on there but a feeling?
Even if you studied this night and day, you couldn't possibly resolve the issue even to your own satisfaction, I suspect, let alone the satisfaction of a believer.
Also, calling it delusional is not helpful. Belief without evidence is the essence of faith. And matters of faith are not even worth disputing, as far as I have ever been able to tell.
Sadly, we humans tend to fight wars ofver them.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
And back on topic, since I really have no grasp of the organization of your church. I wouldn't assume you could volunteer for leadership positions, though I'm not sure we are both defining those as the same thing. How far out does "calling" extend? We did a lot of charity work through the church, building houses, running soup kitchens, stuff like that, are you called for that type of thing as well?
edit: i type slow.
[ March 22, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
hi Celia!
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For service, there is usually a service coordinator in both the Relief Society and the Priesthood quorums. They find the opportunities (like in soup kitchens and such) and yes, people volunteer for the actual helping body count.
[ March 22, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
In most cases, if you are willing to help out, you are not turned down.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
hi, aj! only just got back into town last night. all my online time over spring break was devoted to winning mafia. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Celia, I think that volunteering or someone suggesting a name can definitely influence callings extended by the bishopric. I have seen it happen more than once, and I think it is a very good thing. But the decision ultimately lies with the bishopric, as does responsibility for that decision in the Lord's eyes. They do their best to seek to know God's will. We give them our trust in that matter.
On a side note (lest you worry that our leaders are given full, absolute reign) if for some reason the person in authority is not worthy of that trust, the reasons for that lost trust would be brought to someone in a higher authority and they would be responsible to decide what needed to be done about it.
I do not know much about how this actually would happen because I have not personally ever been involved in such a situation. Others here on the forum may know more than I.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:The bishop clarified some things in Relief Society.
He said sometimes there are definite clicks in the brain and heart - this person MUST go here. And sometimes...it doesn't really matter. There are some people that don't feel right, but there's a pool of jobs that need to be done, and a pool of people that need jobs, and he matches them up. He was apologetic while telling us this, as in "Please no one rest your testimony on your bishop's ability to listen." but that does make sense. In terms of decisions in our lives, sometimes it matters terribly what you do next, and sometimes whatever you want to do is fine. Even when it comes to spouses, some people report have practically an angel tell them this was the one, and for other people, the Lord said, "Sure. That's what you want, then go for it. That'd be fine."
Yep. This makes things a little messy and complicated sometimes (see some of what happens in the Doctrine and Covenants related to callings), but in the end it works. It's another one of those tensions that I harp on -- another thing that allow Mormons to believe that God is interested in and does influence our actions here on earth, but also preserves agency. There's no zero-sum game where it's all either God or it isn't (okay, actually it is on a macro level, but don't know the mind of God so trying to establish patterns from all the anecdotes and how they fit into the overall themes [justice, mercy, progress] is quite impossible). Neither is it some tally board -- this calling went right (check) this calling went horribly wrong (check) that we can check at the end of the day to see if us Mormons are ahead [althought this discourse is not absent from Mormonism].
The beauty and the problem of this whole thing -- and indeed of how Mormons approach truth(s) -- is that our subjective experiences, the anecdotes are what we have. We generalize from those. And I'm not saying that those generalizations are wrong -- I do believe that God directs this church and people although I also understand that let's us do a lot on our own as well (with mixed results) -- but I do think that it becomes difficult to *prove* anything about Mormon theology and the structure of the LDS Church by relying solely on rational arguments i.e. look at how great these results are, the Church must be true -- or -- doesn't this particulare way of doing things make a lot of sense? (it does, but how well is it implemented?), etc.
Of course, teleological thinker that I am, I think God wants these tensions to exist. There's a reason for him wanting us to rely on our subjective, personal experiences/testimony. That reason is rooted in the nature of who we are [his spirit children fused with motral, physical flesh stuck in a temporal sphere] and what we're here to do [gain godly attributes]. Obviously because of the subjective, wholly personal nature of our interactions with God, there need to be tempering elements -- thus science (our senses), scripture, community [the Church], families, leadership structures, official discourse, etc.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Amka, “minister” can be any Christian, since we believe every member is (should be) in ministry. “Clergy” is the most generic term for an ordained person. “Pastor” is someone appointed to serve a church. “Preacher” is often used, but somewhat inaccurate, since preaching is only a part of the duties of a clergyperson. “Pastor” can be used as a title or a noun – I answer to either “Pastor Dana” or, more formally, Rev. Williams. We also use “Bishop” as either a title or a noun.
Kat, I was trying to point out a similarity, not a difference.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Is winning at mafia considered a calling?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
dkw: Thanks. I always appreciate it when you clarify aspects to the Protestant tradition that most of us LDS (myself included) aren't very clear on. We, of course, tend to want to emphasize our differences, to claim unique status. I think there are many very unique things about our theology, but there are also many areas where how we cast that uniqueness in relation to other Christian denominations isn't quite right.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I've been typing this, but had to get my daughter off to kindergarten. I'll finished and then see if there have been other replies to answer.
The BIG answer is that there is no logical resolution.
That is what I learned from Tom.
I crawled all the way back through my assumptions and realized that I could never KNOW this in my life. I would have to die first.
Therefore, there must be a leap of faith.
So I prayed:
I don't know if you exist, but my concept of you is good. I believe the concept of a good and caring God is more beautiful than the concept of no God. So, I want to believe in you. I'll follow you, regardless of your existance. Take this offering and perfect my understanding, if you can, please. Fill in the gaps of my weakness. Help me do good despite myself.
There was little comfort in this, knowing that I must act without knowing, and risk weakness. But this is my truth. It is not rational because by nature, it cannot be.
So this is the other truth: Rationality is cold and meaningless without faith and wonder, compassion and love.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
:ninja:
[ March 22, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sorry that I missed your other question, kat. Look here for what I wrote a while back on revelation / God's guidence in UMC beliefs/practice.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote: Is winning at mafia considered a calling?
No. But it sure as hell is a gift from God.
****
In my ward we have called several persons who are not members of our church to serve in the scouting program, and they have accepted willingly and perform their jobs better than a lot of the dopes in our ward.
***
And guys, we need to leave Tom alone about this. I honestly feel that Tom, in his own way is having a mighty struggle in an attempt to find God on his own terms. I hope he suceeds. I doubt he will.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, does your truth have to be my truth in order for it to be actually 'true?'"
Yes. Or it's not actually truth. That said, I love Amka's approach, and kind of wish I were capable of it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
See, I've decided that truth isn't immutable. Or rather, it doesn't need to be. On some level, it must be, but not in the realm that we normally live in.
The important thing is to find what you can use and accept and not get all wound up in whether people are right absolutely in what they believe and what the say about it.
There's a point at which some people become insufferable in their attitudes, but that's not the fault of their truths either. It's the feeling they get when they ponder their particular truth.
When we accept things that much bigger than ourselves, and make it part of us, sometimes it just sort of busts out in an ugly mess.
Oh well. That didn't make a lot of sense. But it's what I believe.
So it's true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you're defining "truth" as "idea which is valuable." The problem I have is that there are lots of ideas which I think are more or less valuable which may or may not be actually TRUE. And if you value truth as a concept in and of itself, that inevitably reduces the "net" value of the associated idea. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What if you decide that the truth is unknowable in our lifetime? Does that stop you from exploring the valuable ideas?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Faith is illogical. Few in this life are going to believe in God unless they want to believe in Him and put effort into seeking Him. He said many, many times, "If ye seek me, ye shall find me."
Many people in this world are like the apostle Thomas who would not believe until he had physical proof. After he saw, he believed. The Savior acknowledged his belief. The Savior also said that those who believe without seeing are blessed.
I do not know why having faith is so crucial to God and His plan. I have some ideas, but mostly I just don't know. He tells us in the scriptures that it is important, so I believe it is. I believe it is part of our mortal "test", especially since I believe that before this life we all lived with God as His spirit children and had a sure knowledge of Him.
I think there are a lot of people like the above posted comic, they want proof, but what kind of proof? If they had it, would they really change their lives? I think that may be one of the reasons that we have to really want to have faith and work for it. If we didn't we might not be very motivated to live according to our understanding of a universe with a God and divine laws.
Only God knows our individual cases and our desire (or lack thereof) to find Him. He could easily prove His existance if He wanted to. But He doesn't. So either He doesn't exist, or He has a very compelling reason for wanting us to find him through faith rather than proof.
By the way, I believe that faith is based on evidence. I don't believe in "blind faith" (faith w/o evidence), I think it is an oxymoron. I think that we can start out just desiring to have faith. Assuming the desire is genuine, if we seek to have faith I believe we will be given the evidence we seek--in God's way and in God's time.
I totally understand why many people have no faith. I particularly feel for those who desire to have it and get stuck between that desire and the hesitancy to trust without firm evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Many people in this world are like the apostle Thomas who would not believe until he had physical proof."
In all fairness, given that the percentage of the faithful in this country is something like 94%, I'm not sure you can use the word "many" here. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
what's the difference between proof and evidence?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom: That high? I am honestly surprised.
Celia, think of evidence like what is used in court. You can have evidence for a case and evidence against a case. A jury decides if something is proved. Thus Tom's statement, "The jury is out."
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I am that doubting Thomas. I care more about the truth than anything else. Ever since I can remember I've just had to understand everything. I want to know how things work. It was extremely frustrating for me before I understood how everything worked to the limit of what we know. For instance, other people seem satisfied with knowing that if you tell THIS to a computer then THAT happens, but it bothered me that this was no explanation. So I learned about computer languages and software, only those were based on assembly language. So then I learned how it worked, and there was this magic thing called an instruction decoder. It had a firmware base. Then finally I learned in electronics about how flip flops and transistors worked, and I already knew physics from earlier studies, so finally I realized why computers do THAT when you tell them THIS, is simply because the laws of physics are true.
That bottoms out on the question, WHY are the laws of phyics the way they are. Which gets into metaphysics. We can speculate about the whys, and we can invoke the anthropic principle, but the truth is that we don't have a satisfying explanation yet for why the laws of physics are the way they are. That trail stops there.
Yet it's satisfying to understand all the intervening levels. I feel as though I do understand why a computer works, now.
I went into such great detail to explain how I am a doubting Thomas, yet I came (very late) to see that God does exist. What happened first is that the people I most admired in history were religious. Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and so on. No problem, though, since I just decided they were naturally wonderful people who happened to have a rather odd brain quirk in this area. Next it turned out that the people I admired most that I knew in person were mostly religious. Again I dismissed this as being an anomaly.
Finally, though, I realized that someone I admired, who seemed to be so much happier than I, able to spread so much enthusiasm and joy around him, who always had attention and care and love and happiness left over to give away, when so many of us were just hungry for what attention and love we could get from other people, who just glowed with life, who seemed to have a fantastic loving family life, and just enjoyed life so much, that this person understood something about living that I did not. Then I took the truly extraordinary step of taking his simple word for where all that extra joy came from.
So I decided to try praying, unbeliever that I was. I prayed, and was prayed for. I got stuck over one thing, but my friend brought me a C.S.Lewis book that showed me a way past the sticking point. I just honestly sought whether it might be true, with a true thought that it was possible, and then I received confirmation. A little at a time. I took one step toward God and He took two steps toward me. Gradually the way rain melts a mud house, my understanding grew.
Now I have no doubt at all of the existence of God. God proves to me over and over that He exists, that He watches over me and guides me and thinks of me always. That He loves me greatly. Far more than I think I deserve. In fact, when I decided to give my life to Him, I laughed bitterly at what a pathetic revolting gift that was.
Over time, He exalted that gift and gave it back all beautiful and shiny and glorious, even, though I blush to say it. Gave it back so I can give it again, this time without the bitter laugh, this time with the feeling that it's a gift that's worth something. And so it spirals ever higher.
Wow, I totally didn't intend this to be a testimony post, but that's what it's turned out to be. God lives. I, Thomas, know it to be true.
[ March 23, 2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, are we still figuring that Verbatim's just OSC-fan? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Heavens, I hope so.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The Orthodox Church would strongly disagree that it is an offshoot of Roman Catholicism, and they have a historical basis for their arguments.
(Tom and Kat I don't think that there is any need for doubt. Check Verbatim's Recent posts, and note how many have been deleted.)
[ March 23, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I guess I don't understand the purpose of this type of trolling. For some reason, lying about religion seems so much skeeveier than lying about other things.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it is because religion to us, is based on sincere belief. So insincerity is the ultimate betrayal in the way.
Even when there is bickering and church splits (in non LDS churches) most of the time it is because people sincerely believe even trival things that they should lay aside in the interest of harmony. But no one for the most part on either side doubts sincerity.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*nods* That makes sense.
In the interest of disclosure, there have been splits in the LDS church - the big one was when Joseph Smith's widow did not go west, and they formed the RLDS church with Joseph Smith's son. But yeah, I think just about everyone was sincere.
[ March 23, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m going to be extremely cynical, and suggest that if one were interested in attacking a particular religion, pretending to be a member of it and then acting in a way that is less than attractive might be a subtle way of going about it.
Fortunately, as I’ve said before, there are too many intelligent, articulate, and gracious LDS members of Hatrack for such a technique to be particularly effective here.
[edit to delete a stray "n".]
[ March 23, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
dkw -- I have had the exact same thought about that person.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
tact?! ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I flunked the school of tact ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
hi Celia! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)