On May 29th, 2004 at 5 p.m., I will be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
No effing way!!!
Really???!!!
Hell didn't just freeze over. It turned upside down and emptied out, and now we have to start over putting everyone back in.
Sheesh!
Edit: Um...congrats. Sorry. I should've expressed happiness for you finding a spiritual direction and all that. I have the utmost admiration for the LDS in general and while I can't imagine ever joining their particular denomination (for reasons most people here can certainly guess), I do think it's a fine place to find God and fellowship.
So, sorry I was so shocked at the outset, but really, I'm happy for you.
Where are you going to go on your mission trip? You owe one right from the start, don't you?
[ May 20, 2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Wow! So I suppose everyone down there is drinking ice water now, too. Congrats on your decision, Mack.
space opera
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Congratulations.
*looks around* is it getting colder in here?
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Aw, Jamie, you are no good at keeping a secret.
Congratulations on finding your Way!
*hugs using protective gear and having gotten my rabies vaccination in preparation for such a perilous adventure*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
But, doesn't that mean you're not allowed to flip people off any more?
Mormons demand a lot you know.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Edit:
Oh, yeah, I knew that's what it was...
(nope, never would've guessed it in a million years.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm starting to suspect that there's either a conspiracy to baptize all jatraqueros or a conspiracy to make everyone believe that all jatraqueros are getting baptized.
Or maybe they're all just telling the truth.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Congrats, mack. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Holy crap. First Jeff, now Jamie...
Out of interest, dude, why? I thought you took issue with the wackiness of the Catholic Church -- are you really ready to believe the far less mainstream wackiness of the LDS church?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:I'm starting to suspect that there's either a conspiracy to baptize all jatraqueros or a conspiracy to make everyone believe that all jatraqueros are getting baptized.
I'm getting slightly concerned. If you hear of Australian LDS conversions rising in the near future then you know it's TRUE!
Though I do think Tony and I are pretty safe bets not to go.
On a more serious note - Congratulations Mack. I hope this move brings you happiness and you find whatever it is that you are seeking. All the very best.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Actually, Lalo, first Jeff, then Hobbes, then Taalcon (actually, not sure about the order), now Jamie. There is definately something in the wenchcon water.
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
Wow!
Congratulations Jamie!
Just, wow.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
!!!!!!!!!
CONGRATS!!! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm posting this for Dave, since he's busy with his family. He had a suggestion for a revised WenchCon motto:
"Come for the food and drink, stay for the fellowship, leave questioning everything you thought you knew."
Added: Jeff (Rakeesh), Hobbes (Hobbes), and Dave (Taalcon) were all baptized in February.
[ May 20, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Congratulation Mack.
<--*Most surprised, but at least as pleased for you*
[EDIT: If everyone was baptized in February then I was probably first since I got wet on the 1st Ohh, and I love the "Hobbes (Hobbes)" ]
Hobbes
[ May 20, 2004, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Don't worry, mack! Hell is still heating up. The church officially kicked me out in April. I have it in writing and everything - my name is stricken from the list and my baptism is revoked.
My pastor laughed, too, and they did an affirmation of baptism during services for Easter Vigil, so it's all good.
Congratulations. May you find the peace and joy you have been seeking. (((mack)))
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
0_o Never in a million years would I have guessed that. But congrats!!
Even though it's making my friends' claim of me hanging out in a Mormon Forum even more true...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm going to have to start recruiting agnostics, apparently.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If only to even things up. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, weren't you doing that already?
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
I had this feeling....
((((Jamie))))
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
This whole trend [and let's not forget that ak was one of the pioneers of the thing] has given me pause. Clearly I've been going about this all wrong. Instead of trying to induce Mormons to be more cool, I should focus on getting cool people to become Mormons.
All the best to all four of you -- but esp. to mack. Remember: I only tease those I love .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, no, rivka, I wasn't. I was merely being unapologetically agnostic. Being EVANGELICALLY agnostic is something altogether different, I suspect. Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
*was in the know*
Congrats, mack. I'm very happy you have found a place you feel comfortable.
and uh....sorry about this:
(((((mack)))))
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What about the Se--
Oh! Nevermind.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
TomD, isn't it against the rules to do that, evangelically?
Wait, that's the whole point of being agnostics, there AREN'T any rules....lol
Nevermind....
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Congratulations!
Oh, and Tom, how do you go about recruiting agnostics?
"Come, join us!"
"What do you believe?"
"We don't know."
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Being EVANGELICALLY agnostic is something altogether different, I suspect.
"We don't know if there is a God, and NEITHER DO YOU!"
[ May 20, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
By the way, congrats, mackillian! They finally got you too! Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*puts on pig costume*
*hooks wires to harness and tests tension*
*does a couple test flaps*
*signals backstage crew*
"lemme fly"
Posted by larisse (Member # 2221) on :
Congrats, mack. I think that's so cool.
But you are wrong, ya know. Hell's not freezing over. I'm still wearing shorts here. Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
ZING!!!
"I CAN - snort - FLY! - snort"
kudos mack.
fallow
PS Larisse, are those daisy dukes yer wearin'?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Had to pop in and say congrats! Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I hope you're happier with this religion then the previous.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Jamie, this is great! Congratulations! And belated congratulations to Dave too! I just now realized that's what you were talking about in your thread about how cold baptismal fonts are.
Welcome to the church! I'm so happy for both of you!
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
This isn't a joke, is it?
I would never have guessed you were the type, Mack.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> Mabus, what is "the type"?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I have no idea, AK...I just didn't think Jamie was it.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I was wondering that too Anne Kate.
I almost joined the LDS church too, and I never thought there was a "type".
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Congrats mack! Religion can be very fulfilling and helpful. I hope that's the experience you have.
Meanwhile, I'm over in TomDavidson's camp for the agnostics/atheists...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
mackillian: I've had zero interest in religion for two years thought I always would. Assumed so--empty, you know? Anyway, Katie sent me some links, so I went and read them, and kept reading, and stuff was sticking...which was Highly Disconcerting...
Stuff about god's purpose, god's love... things I've "known" and been told over and over by my own religion and others, and always rejected.
JNSB: why the LDS Church in particular?
mackillian: 'cause...I've been through all this crap and god must not care and must be a hateful SOB to let it continue but this time I actually believed it o_O shocked the hell out of me, so to speak. I read the whole site, so then I figured well, the book of mormon has always been an impenetrable brick to me so why not to try to read it, have it be a brick, and then this weird stuff is done with. so I go pull the BoM off the theology book shelves, start reading....it wasn't a brick. o_O so I hid it.
JonnyNotSoBravo: dude, that's just the BoM, baby! kill dXm: where? mackillian: underneath the bookcase.
mackillian: then I'm totally tweaked out...spend two days tweaked. talking to dave and katie and nathan, reading OTHER stuff, finally decide, okay, well, since churches that mean nothing feel empty, i'll just go to church. I talk to the missionaries, go to church...and it isn't empty. o_O
NickMayo2: Discussions? mackillian: and I realize (yeah...except I'm teaching half of it to them because I know so much theology) NickMayo2: Cool. :-)
mackillian: the more I struggled against it, the more disconcerted I got. I mean, it's like you spend your whole life watching a religious train going by and you even MOON that train, then your brain decides to hop on and the rest of you is like "WTF?!?!"
NickMayo2: *gets hilarious picture*
mackillian: but then you're all whacked out, because you're in two places and the more you try to pull off the train, the worse it gets. so then you get on the train and stuff calms around you. and dust settles in your mind.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I'm looking forward to some pics.
Be sure to take an underwater camera.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: Meanwhile, I'm over in TomDavidson's camp for the agnostics/atheists...
:/ I hate it when people group them together. Some agnostics believe in a God! Athiests do NOT.
(is Lutheran/Agnostic)
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
quote: I'm starting to suspect that there's either a conspiracy to baptize all jatraqueros or a conspiracy to make everyone believe that all jatraqueros are getting baptized.
JonBoy, this is one jatraquera that you will never have to worry about being baptized.
Congradulations on finding a direction, Mackillian. May you walk steadfastly down this path of your own choosing.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Ryuko, could you please explain to me how it's possible to believe in God and be agnostic at the same time?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
The basic thing about agnostics is that they believe that you can never know. Therefore, even though I believe in God, I appreciate the fact that I really can't be sure, or I can't be sure at this point. Also, I don't think that anyone has the right to assume what God's will here on Earth is, and that the Bible can't necessarily be taken as written in stone. That last bit's just me, though.
Also, I can identify as Lutheran/Agnostic because I go to a Lutheran Church and appreciate the community, even if I don't share all of their beliefs. Fluid is religion, yes. My God I'm tired.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"mackillian: the more I struggled against it, the more disconcerted I got. I mean, it's like you spend your whole life watching a religious train going by and you even MOON that train, then your brain decides to hop on and the rest of you is like "WTF?!?!" "
What a perfect description, Mack.
Congratulations. I hope you can find peace.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Congrats from the Card House Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Dang, why do I have to be after kacard?
She's doing this after going to a single service, without consulting her shrink, after recently changing medication and hooking up with a nice mormon boy.
I feel myself moving from agnostic to skeptic.
Good luck and all, but don't expect me to be comfortable with this.
[ May 21, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: peter the bookie ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, you're going to have to stop giving people the virtual bird. . . GOOD Mormons don't do that sort of thing.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Wait a sec.
May 29 is a Saturday. Everyone knows you can only get baptized on a Sunday.
You almost had me on that one, mack.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
cow's a mormon?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mack, I read this thread title and actually thought, jokingly, "what, is she getting baptized into the LDS church?" :jawdrop:
This thread reminds me of a thread where I asked what is the definition of atheism.
:long pauses while groping for words:
I'm still, just like, whoa.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Congratulations Jamie.
btw, I and both of my kids were baptized on Saturdays.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
...
Well, that certainly wasn't what I was expecting when I clicked on this thread.
Congratulations mac!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Do we all have to get baptized as LDS in order to get kacard it actually post a personal reply to us?
FG
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Scott, she's merely being baptised. She never said anything about being a "GOOD Mormon." She might end up being one of those Mormons you have to explain to others about. You know, "Uh, we're not all like that. You can't hold the entire religion responsible for every single member."
Jamie, congrats. I hope you'll find peace.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I know a lot of Mormons that flip people off. It's just one of many effective ways to ensure you won't ever be given any really heavy calling, like bishop or General Relief Society President.
My favorite way is to drop subtle hints that I might be teetering on the brink of apostacy, but not so much that I am released from being a Sunday School teacher.
By the way, congratulations to Mack. I always like to see really thoughtful, intelligent people join the Church.
[ May 21, 2004, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Congratulations, Mack. Really. You're getting dunked the same day I'm getting sealed.
It's hard, but it's worth it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I wish you well, Mack...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For a guy, all you have to do is grow a beard if you want to avoid those pesky *serious* callings. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My dad told my brothers that he relies on "calculated grodiness."
Added: Which, by the way, bugs the crud out of me and makes me want to cover my brothers' ears.
[ May 21, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ryoku, by grouping them together they become easier for the artillery to target (or the lightening to strike, yeah...it was lightening)>
Mack Congratz.
I may question those who's faith comes just because they were told to believe by their parents. I never question someones faith who has sought for, and found answers.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Suneun-- Flying Cow and Mack are no longer an item, though I hear rumors of a certain Hot Nathan circling. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
porteiro, I've known several men for whom facial hair was no protection. Although they generally shaved it off after the fact, when they had already been roped in.
No, I think I'll stick with my feigned unorthodoxy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I hadn't known they'd broken up, Olivia, until I read the first post of this thread, and then the first thought in my mind -- literally -- was, "Well, I guess that thing with Matt didn't work out, then." *laugh*
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
mph - Or better yet, do like my boss and have long hair and facial hair....
Congrats Jamie! *hugs Jamie and then flips her off to counteract the hug*
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
sorry for being a lost soul. Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
ludosti,
facial hair and long hair don't work if you're woman. You still "get" to be in the YW or RS presidency...
Rain <---note goatee.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Damn. Mack was one of a very few number of women with whom I would have considered going out, even if she is, you know, a female.
Congratulations, Mack.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Rain - then I guess you have to do like me and dye your hair red/pruple and make it short and funky - I've yet to get to be in the RS/YW Presidencies...
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Congrats, Mack! I'm glad you've found truth and non-emptiness, heaven knows you deserve the answers more than most.
Not that it gets any easier, of course, but we're glad to have you aboard this crazy train ride. Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
Peace, Yo.
Glad you've found it in the midst of all that surrounds you of late.
I've been burninated, I can handle what ever comes of this: ((Mackillian))
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:There is definately something in the wenchcon water.
Definitely not. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
See why I don't go to wenchcon?
I might get what Mack and all have got.
Wait a second. . .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's been quite fun to have a box seat to all the decisions this spring. You'd think that eventually I'd stop being so floored every time I hear a baptism date. To my sweet friends, thank you for the heart attacks.
Jamie, I'm excited for you, and thank you for the description of what you were thinking. I still marvel every time, and I'm so impressed.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Congratulations, Mack! I loved your last post above. Wow. Save those words and read them over again on occasion. I think I will too.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wow... Congrats Macki
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I can't prove to anyone that this choice isn't a result of my illness. I hate the insinuation I get that it could be--because then ALL of my life choices are suspect. Every single one, for my entire life.
Am I fast-thinking? Or ADHD impulsive?
Am I hypomanic or able to think clearly?
Am I depressed or just sad?
Am I incapable of making any sort of choice without consulting my shrink?
What length of time is needed between medication shifts before I'm deemed about to make a choice that isn't suspect? Or can I rely on my doctors' abilities to figure out when I'm stable?
I can't make everyone happy. Obviousy, I should not be dating the nice Mormon boy, not have changed my meds within the last month, should have asked my shrink if it's okay to make a choice, should not be baptized so quickly.
All these shoulds and should nots.
I can't explain how I feel and do justice to it. If I could make everyone happy with my choice, I would.
I didn't want this to happen. I DID NOT WANT TO CONVERT. Okay? Religion takes up time when I'd rather be doing other stuff--or so I thought. I thought this feeling of what, apparently, is the holy spirit, or whatever you call the hand of god in your life, is a crock of crap.
It isn't.
Either that, or I'm just hypomanic. Or it's just a medication induced feeling. But I can't let it be like that. I can't let my life be a farce of medication induced everything or the influence of my bipolar diagosis--because then everything will mean nothing.
And what sort of life is that?
This whole thing isn't logical. I realize it'll just be three weeks. Two hours a day on it isn't enough. But I can't make people happy, even though I'd love to.
I've lost one friend over this completely.
It seems other sit in consternation.
This whole experience threatens to rip apart my life as I know it, and the whole time, I've wanted it to stop. I want off the train and away from it, back to my life that was comfortable and unknowing.
But I can't. And no explanation I give can do it justice.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Mack, I find your words very touching, and inspiring. You are embarked on a spiritual journey that, ideally, every person should make when they commit to a decision of faith. Unfortunately, many do not take it that seriously. Their experience will not serve them as well as yours will serve you, precisely because of your struggle.
I applaud your courage, your sincerity, and your personal integrity. And I'm not saying that just because of my own religious affiliation. I wish you well.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
My first thought on seeing this was, "No way."
My second thought was, "Hahahahahahaha."
My third thought was, "I TOLD you so...three years ago."
My current thought is, "Congratulations, Jamie! I hope things go well for you."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My first thought was, "Wow. Who's going to take pictures of the baptism?"
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Missionaries always take pictures of baptisms. They are some of their most valued souvenirs. Of course, they are not always particularly good photographers, but at least someone will be wielding a camera.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's no pictures during the actual baptism, but lots of every one standing in the church hallway beforehand.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:It isn't.
Mack -- I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when I wished the above wasn't true for me. It would make things easier for me -- not ultimately, not even easier at the core, but easier in how I live my life. And I'm not talking about the moral code here -- or at least the easy part of it -- the not drinking and smoking and all that. It has more to do with my frustration over the inability of language -- language being a major obsession and organizer of my life -- to express that whole holy spirit thing and having to rely on trust in how I relate to the other LDS that affect my life. The trust that they are tapped into the same thing I am. That and the fact that when I do feel it, I then feel compelled to reach out to people. To serve. Which is something that doesn't come naturally to me. Although when I break down all my stupid barriers, it feels completely natural and good.
Anyway, this is just to say that the train ride is still hella scary for me and I've been on it awhile and appear ostensibly like a seasoned, confident, well-spoken rider.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Mack, ultimately you must keep recreating yourself on your own terms. If these are the terms you've chosen, then they belong to you not your illness. Sure the meds can take you places--and as you've noticed, so can religions--but you're the one taking them, they're not taking you.
In my experiences dealing with manic depression within myself and among family & friends, I've basically come to believe that decisions are presented by causality but carried out by choice. To think otherwise would absolve us (not just the medicated, either) of responsiblity, spirit and possibility itself.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Funny, I would think that if you gave this decision a little time, it would become apparent. Is rushing into this going to make the other possibilities disappear? Or will you just be an apostate after this little phase is over?
I don't know, mack. I want this to be true for you. But I don't know, and I don't think you do either. Only time (the one thing you won't give it) will tell.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I can't prove to anyone that this choice isn't a result of my illness. I hate the insinuation I get that it could be--because then ALL of my life choices are suspect.
All your life choices ARE suspect, but so is every choice ever made by anyone anywhere - so I don't think it's something you need to be concerned about. After all, who can ever say that it is certain the choice they are making is correct, and not just something that they have wrongly percieved to be correct? Only people who are lying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's what is meant by a leap of faith. It wouldn't be a leap if the certainty came first.
That applies to many things in life.
[ May 21, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Mack,
As someone who has been an agnostic for as long or longer than you've been alive (not sure of your age), I have a couple of things to say.
First, I am happy for you - I've often wondered what I'd do if faith reared its head - greet it or run as fast as I can in the opposite direction.
For what it's worth, your brief account of the beginning of your journey is not surprising. As someone who has had a lot of exposure to different theologies, I came to the conclusion that nothing external would be a factor in changing my status of perpetual doubt and uncertainty.
So the notion of inner processes leading this type of change isn't a strange idea to me.
And I'd be the last one to recommend asking a shrink for advice on spiritual matters.
Good luck!
[ May 21, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Mack, I hope you didn't take my comment to Suneun as being against you in any way. I was just trying to clarify.
Your decisions are your own. Always. And I will love and be supportive of you. I don't claim to understand the forces that move in peoples' lives that bring them to faith and assurance in religion, but I will not discount your finding of truth (even though I do not find truth in the same way).
No matter what you choose, somebody will always think badly of that choice. So freakin' what! You have to make decisions based on what you feel is right, and no one should be able to determine that FOR you. Don't let other people's doubts bother you, because you know what? They're OTHER PEOPLE'S.
I love ya, Kiddo.
PS-- The WenchCon thing... "I'm not Mormon, but I'm a carrier." Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:And I'd be the last one to recommend asking a shrink for advice on spiritual matters.
And I'd be there too. I might step back a bit, though, to prove a point.
Anyway, Mack, I've already given you my congratulations. Remember that any and all major life changes fluctuate your selection of friends. Your friends change when you graduate and only some go to college; your friends change when you go to war, or when you refuse to go to war; your friends change when you date and marry, and when you refuse to date and marry; your friends change when you move; your friends change when you die; and your friends change when you refuse to die. Choosing Mormonism, or any faith, for that matter, is not unique in this way. Sure, it sucks, but what can you do? Just remember that the friends that downright oppose your choice are the minority, and can easily be "blown off", if you will. The ones that hang by a thread are skeptics, and are only such for your well-being. Really, no choice could be sure (or as sure as any choice can be) unless you had skeptics on both sides of the fence.
That said, I'd like to tell you all about this neat sci-fi author who's one of Jehovah's Witnesses. He's got this nifty little forum....
*cough*
[ May 21, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Congrats Jamie!!! (are you going to the church in nashua?)
Hey! Does this mean that we're going to win the World Series this year???
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
Congratulations, Jamie. Yet again, I never cease to be impressed with the examples of faith that I have come across on this forum. Even though this is a tough decision, I hope it will ultimately bring you happiness. Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Congratulations! I don't post too often, but I wanted to pop in and tell you congratulations. Which is really not a word that's big enough or deep enough to describe the sweet leap of faith that is baptism. I don't have an adequate word, but I wish you well anyway. --Emily
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Celia--I sent you an email.
Others...
Yeah. o_O
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mack, I'll be completely blunt: I'd be a lot happier if you weren't converting at around the same time you're thinking about dating the nice Mormon boy. There are too many emotions wrapped up in other motives at that point, IMO.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*nod*
However, I'm so independent and stubborn that I won't grow my hair out for a guy, much less convert.
But I do see where you're coming from.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Wow, mack!
I'm surprised, but I don't think hell froze over. Hell might freeze over if say, I converted to Mormonism (or possibly Tom). They'd have to pry the coffee beans out of my cold, dead hands...
You say you lost a friend over this. I'm sorry to hear that. I can understand that people might be concerned that you might not be making the best decision, but if they cut you off or become hostile toward you, I believe that says more about them than you. I've lost a few friends myself over theological issues, and I know this is going to sound cliche, but I'm not so sure they were ever "true" friends to begin with. Obviously, I don't know any details past this thread of your situation, but that's just been my experience.
In the end, it's between you and God (I can hear the groanings and mumblings from the peanut gallery ). Even if you are making a "mistake" -- and I hope this is not the case, futhermore, I don't think it is -- you'll learn from the experience.
In the words of Mike Roe, "Go with God, but go!"
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Y'know, I think this is all part of a diabolical scheme on mack's part to spread the "the finger" meme to Nauvoo.
Bad mackillian, bad.
-Bok
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
pat started it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, and you perfected it.
And now you want to pervert Nauvoo.
You almost-Mormon pervert, you.
(I'm only like this because you didn't respond to my IM earlier today... )
-Bok
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What IM?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The one in invisible ink, of course.
-Bok
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
mack - congrats
I can sympathise with the uncertainties which plague you at this time - I don't know the details of what you've been through lately but from reading this thread I've got a hint.
I had a breakdown a few years ago and was diagnosed with clinical depression and put on strong medication. From discussions with my parents and from lots of talk with my shrink it was also realised that this was something I'd been suffering from since I was around 7/8. My Mum tried to get help for me back then but was told it was all in her imagination and I was just highly strung. One thing thats really been affected by this is my memory - I marvel at how much other people remember about their lives growing up but all I remember are a few major events and many times of feeling alone and despairing.
My parents converted LDS when I was 9 and I was baptised then too. I went through the youth and seminary programmes and gained my own testimony. Most of the few strong memories I do have are spirit related. They're not just emotional experiences they're more fundamental than that and I know thats why I remember them when many happy emotional experiences are gone. I recognise what you mean when you say
quote: I can't explain how I feel and do justice to it.
Anyway the point I really wanted to make was when I started on my medication I was really worried about losing my spirituality and not being able to feel the spirit. I had a blessing and was told it was what I needed to do. Things didn't improve depression wise overnight - they never do but the spirit didn't leave me. During this time there were only two thinks I could do by myself (i.e. without one of my parents being with me) go out in the woods walking our dogs and go to the temple. Both those things brought me peace even if only for a short while. Anyway I can testify that medication doesn't stop or replicate the spiritual feelings - I felt the spirit in same way I had before taking it.
I still question why I had to go through this but despite that I know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ love me and were always there when I went to them for help.
I hope you have a wonderful day on the 29th. As an ex-missionary my piece of advice is write down your feelings about it the same day while they're fresh.
[ May 21, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: cochick ]
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Mack, I'm sorry about your lost friend. And the ones who aren't so lost but try to second guess your decisions. You have all the time in eternity. So do they. Who knows? They may change their minds. Stranger things have happened.
Rain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You have all the time in eternity. So do they. Who knows? They may change their minds."
Of course, you must also admit that so might she, right? Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
As someone to whom this same crazy train ride happened, I have an inkling, perhaps, of what you are feeling. Friends who leave will come back, I think, in the long run. At least, those who were worth having. There's so much misunderstanding. My parents were completely appalled, and said things like "we've decided you've just turned off your brain," and other helpful supportive things like that.
It's so odd how my whole worldview had to totally transform, yet in the end it's not all that different in details. It's the fundamentals which had to conform to this new and indisputable observation of the love of Heavenly Father and his watchfulness and care over me, and the directions in which he was pointing me.
Everything in some ways is so much easier now, but in other ways it is WAY WAY HARDER! Before I was just me. Now I have this responsibility to serve everyone, the whole world, and somehow to help it through. It's certainly changed my life totally.
Am I happier? Yes, completely. No question. Though so much more is demanded of me now. In a way it's like being in love and getting married. Though it brings a world of responsibility and difficulties, still in some way the happiest day alone was less happy than the most difficult and trying day together.
I am SO NOT A JOINER! It's fundamentally contrary to my nature. I think I will struggle with that from now on. I really feel part of the community here at hatrack, but never in my wards. I think we need to have a hatrack ward, a virtual ward.
Anyway, I'm so glad for you. It's the most wonderful thing, to taste that white fruit, and to know it's there where you can find it. And not just flashes here and there at long intervals, but right there, anytime you want or need it. Continuously. It's an amazing thing, and I never cease to be grateful for it.
Hearing about your baptism, or Hobbes, or Dave's makes me feel again as I felt when I was baptised. Thank you for that. My joy is full.
(Mac, have you read that part at the end (I think it's in 3 Nephi) when Christ is speaking to the Nephites and he blesses their children and weeps? And the angels come down from heaven and encircle them in fire and they minister to the children? We are those children, mac. You and I. )
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Congrats Mack. I am glad you have found a path, and hope you can work through all your fears.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
Oh and in answer to someones question - you can get baptised LDS any day of the week. You have to be confirmed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost on a Sunday though.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote: You have to be confirmed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost on a Sunday though.
Ummm. No you don't. Many wards like to do it that way. But there's no 'have to' anywhere that I know of.
Practices regarding confirmation tend to vary regionally and have even swung back and forth in some of the wards I've been in -- at times it happens at the same ceremony where the baptism takes place, at other times it takes place the next Sunday at the beginning of the sacrament service.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
I thought they brought a rule out that it was supposed to take place during sacrament meeting - it could be a guideline but it wasn't supposed to be the same day as the baptism. This was in 1999 when I was serving so it may have changed!
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Ryuko wrote:
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meanwhile, I'm over in TomDavidson's camp for the agnostics/atheists... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:/ I hate it when people group them together. Some agnostics believe in a God! Athiests do NOT.
Well some agnostics do not believe in a God but think it still might be possible for Him to exist. I'm an agnostic who believes that God is so highly improbable that it isn't practical to have religion in my life. This, according to your link, is close to atheism. Which is why I grouped them together.
I don't think I would claim to be part of a religion while agnostic. I think it's important to at least believe in God to be a member of a church. Otherwise it seems a little deceitful, or like you're just using religion instead of contributing to it. So if you can group Lutheran/agnostic together, I feel like I can group atheist/agnostic together. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Mack, I realized that I never said congratulations or anything, so here you go:
Congratulations. Having grown up in the Church, I can't imagine what it must be like to have a conversion experience like that. But I think it's awesome that you've had one, and I wish you the best of luck.
(((Mack)))
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was baptized and confirmed on the same day (and it was a Saturday—gasp!).
I don't know if they've changed anything since 1989, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I looked at my membership records recently, and it has me getting baptized one day and confirmed the same day, one year later.
Maybe I should get that changed.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
The confirmation on Sunday thing is a relatively new instruction from the top. It is not doctrinal, as confirmations have historically happened on any day, just like baptisms. When I was a missionary, twelve years ago, we always did confirmations immediately following the baptism.
Come to think of it, I think the current instruction is different for converts than it is for 8 year olds. I can't remember the difference, though.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:The confirmation on Sunday thing is a relatively new instruction from the top.
It was also a practice for awhile during the late 70s and early 80s -- or at least it was in the Utah and CA wards I knew well enough to know what they were doing in this regard. So it's not without precedent.
Point is, as you mention, not a doctrinal thing -- a policy thing.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
True, I remember as a kid that confirmations were usually done on Fast Sundays, just like baby blessings. I guess it has changed several times.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I my ward, we still confirm eight-year-old baptisms right after the baptism. IIRC, the rule to only confirm on Sunday is only for convert baptisms.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think that having the confirmation at the same time as the baptism is in the spirit of the prophet's letter that we not overschedule ourselves with church events. Especially if you have a lot of family traveling from semi-far away to attend, and missing their own meetings as a result. I can also see it being in the spirit of the "no elaborate receptions for departing and returning missionaries" idea, and that if you attend someone else's sacrament meeting, you should attend their whole sunday dealy.
I grew up in the church with a very emotional sort of faith, and my year on lithium really changed that. For a while I repudiated all religious experience outside of the scriptures (this was post- doubting God altogether) and since have come back to a more integrated approach to faith involving both the spirit and the word.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Congrats!
Your posts are making me rethink my own conviction that there isn't a god, I've never heard anyone talk about religion in such a real way before.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Of course, Tom...even you might change your mind! Everyone has a right to choose what they think, don't they? And to change their minds?
However, having gone through a very similar experience, I doubt that Mack will change her mind about this.
Rain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I completely agree, Rain, that people have the right to be as correct or incorrect as they want about issues of hypothetical metaphysics.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Ah, but it's only hypothetical until you know...
Rain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. That is, in fact, exactly my point.
(Don't MAKE me be snarky on this thread, Rain; You can drop me an E-mail if you really want to get smug and self-righteous about it.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom reminds me of the guy who stands up at a wedding reception and gives a toast that says, "The wedding was lovely. May all your weddings be as good."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You already know, Katie, that I'm not exactly thrilled about your Hatrack mission work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you feel about third-rate, thinly-veiled religious poetry, Mr. Grumpy O'Rainyday?
quote: I shall bathe
I've been rolling in dew, running in rain, But I've never seen a river. Never heard water whisper, in love and in pain, So deep to my heart that I shiver And burn.
I've walked in blizzards, and stumbled in mist But I've never heard the sea. Never felt the waves around my legs, and reach to kiss My lips. The hopeful all of me Licks salt.
I shall not wade. I shall bathe.
And this dust that I shake into the waves, Dust from snow, and dew, and rain, May it rest. May it stay lost in the sea of days, And never see the sky again Forever.
Congratulations, Mackillian. I hope that your choices always bring you peace of conscience.
[ May 22, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How about e-mail? This is mack's thread.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Knock that off.
I respect Tom's opinion on the matter. Just let the rest drop, okay?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*falls to the stage*
OINK? snort! that wasn't in the script!
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
Sure it was fallow - just not the copy we gave to you! Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Mack, I wish you good fortune on your new adventure. May you draw close to the heart of God and find Truth.
Wenchcon water, I think, inspires people to look into their hearts and find what is there. It also inspires them to pursue that better self which we hopefully all want to be. In whatever vehicle this comes, I consider it blessed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jenny, that was beautiful. And I agree.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Katie, you have some vacuuming to do in my living room.
Just so you know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jamie, I have feeling I should know what the heck you mean by that.
But I don't.
*fidgets* Did I say something funny and you scattered popcorn? Are you going to make me be Cinderella to pay for a night's sleep? Did we work out a code and I lost the secret decoder ring? *concentrates* Jamie, you need to find my scissors for me. Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I would have made her do the dishes.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort*
1. Why aren't you on AIM?
2. Skittles trick was today.
"And God pours out innumerable blessings."
"All over my living room floor."
"Blame Katie! She even told us to use a BIG bag!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
T_Smith: No houseguests for you.
-- Added:
Mack: I told them to practice! And to do it at the table!
(Because Trillian screws up the downloading, and there's only nine hours left, and it's been 17 already.)
[ May 23, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mack lives in the ghetto where strange people drop off packets in the middle of the night.
Like anyone WANTS to go there.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Stupid Downloading.
Use AIM.
And they DID use the skittles on the coffee table. But they BOUNCE.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't! AIM is even worse than Trillian. AIM makes evil things happen to my computer. Specifically, it won't log me out when I say I'm logged out, so I end up multiplying like Agent Smith, and it's the other Katie that gets all the incoming AIMs.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
How cool would that be if when kat imed people, they're screen names changed into hers?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Maybe it's already happened to TomDavidson and BannaOJ!
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Mack, congratulations. I admire your conviction and your trust in yourself. It's one of the things that I've ALWAYS admired about you. Always trust that. Your relationship with God is yours to know and understand and I'm so glad that you're going to make these promises and covenants. The church will be better with you in it.
And thanks for sharing your thoughts and news with us. It means a lot and I'm really happy for you...and the church. Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Does this mean I don't have to eat lunch in the debate room anymore?
Thinking about it, No. This means I GET to eat lunch in the debate room. Yay!
--
Dagnabbit, I can't remember my password. And the send me my password function doesn't seem to be available on that. *hands on hips* I changed my password around the time of the appearance of the Agent Katharinas, and I don't have to log out anymore. Hmm...
[ May 23, 2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Wow! I'm gone to Australia for two weeks and when I come back the most unexpected things have happened at hatrack. When Yozhik and Anne Kate converted, I could see hints of it in their posts for a couple months before they announced it but Jamie you caught me totally by suprise.
Welcome. May you find joy and happines and may we all truly become the "Latter Day Saints" we have promised to be.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Or we could just forgo the charade, and open the dimensional gate to allow our Lizard masters feast on humanity. . .
D'oh!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man. I'm a way better pawn for our Lizard masters than Scott, and I'm new!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Still with that Shiny New Member fresh scent.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
i'm so tempted to give you a password to one of mine...or maybe one of someone elses....
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
If I get an email telling what the password is, I have an old screenname I would mind giving up.
EDIT: WOULDN'T heh, sorry...
[ May 23, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Damien ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Someone try to log into KatharinaZamboni and request the password?
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Sent. =)
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I am the Lizard King...please do so, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You are NOT the lizard king.
Trust me on this one.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
?
Go check out First Wave...
Wait..the Gua are not lizards. I was thinking of V. Ah well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Damien: Thanks. It worked.
-----
I feel beholden to explain the Skittles. During the fifth discussion, the missionaries talk about tithing, which is 10% of all increase - the interpretation of that being between you and the Lord. There are lots of scriptures about the "windows of heaven opening and pouring out a blessing" when you pay tithing, which is true. To illustrate this, you take a big bag of skittles or M&Ms or whatever, and place 10 in the person's hand. "Okay, now pay tithing." They give back one, and (theoretically), in one smooth movement, the missionary pours out the bag into their hand. It's great - vivid, and you get candy. Best done at a table. To avoid the candy all over the floor phenomomon. Unless the vacuum cleaner is lonely and wants to work to distract itself because the toaster left for college.
[ May 24, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, I got gypped. I didn't get any candy at all! Those missionaries should hand out comment-cards...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jamie's missionaries had never heard of it either, which is why I'm blamed because I had to call them to tell them about it. I don't think Dave got candy either. And I have to admit we didn't always do it - it depended on whether we had cash for a big bag of candy that week or not. Usually that was No. Or we forgot. Okay, we usually forgot until it was too late to prepare.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*adds "big bag on M&Ms" to the list of things to bring to the mack-Shinda* Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Oh yeah. That is one good missionary truc. Wish I'd thought of that one. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I'm thinking that agnostics need to hand out more candy.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It can't hurt.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Everyone is now required to hand out more candy, regardless of faith or religion. [/mandate] Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like peanut-butter M&Ms. And key lime Godiva truffles. (Just for future reference.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, that might not be a bad way to do it, and it would even be a better metaphor:
Since tithing rarely reaps a spiritual reward in the same form as the tithe itself -- since it doesn't return Skittles for Skittles -- you might want to let someone give you a Skittle and then pour out peanut butter M&Ms, to demonstrate the difference. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that's a great idea!
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I can't believe Tom is helping the missionaries do a better job.
That's just... soooo... Hatrack. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've never heard of the candy thingy. It wouldn't work too well in some of the Filipino homes though. They'd just fall through the floor slats into the murky, germ infested water below. :-/
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Olivet: I know. I love it. Sometimes, though, the blessings are in the exact same form. Sometimes it is everything working out financially when it didn't seem possible before. I like the idea of a mix - hand back a skittle, get a combination of skittles, M&Ms, and Sour Patch Kids.
And now I want candy. Anyone?
[ May 24, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
Tom, I said that to mack last night when she was telling me about the skittles. I said it sounded like hollywood karma where you give a begger a dollar and win the lottery.
Why are we helping?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because if it is going to happen, it may as well be done well?
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
it's true.
have any other missionary tricks to bounce off us experts?
edit: oh, what if the first 10 were all the same color skittle and then when you poured the bag out, that was just one of the possibilities?
[ May 24, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: peter the bookie ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
OOOOOoooo, that would work. And that way the broke missionaries only need to buy one bag of candy.
*thinks* There's the one where you make a tower out of cups to explain what Christ's church rests on and what happens when you take away revelation. I can't remember what exactly all the cups are, though. Anyone?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The early church leaders. Once they were gone, the church toppled.
I never liked that one.
I did use the hand in the glove to represent the body and the spirit. That one seemed fairly accurate. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I remember the cups. My missionaries loved playing with the cups. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure it's just the church leaders. Dang it. I need to go and look.
I remember much better when it involves food.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
I can't think "hand in glove" without following it with "the sun shines out of our behinds," and Pat isn't around to get that.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I didn't get candy either.
Though the missionaries did bring me some of this fruit beverage, which I was supposed to try out as a replacement for iced tea. I never got to try it, though. My spouse drank it all after mixing it with vodka. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
My missionaries took me out to eat on my birthday. I think I paid, but still. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I can't think "hand in glove" without following it with "the sun shines out of our behinds," and Pat isn't around to get that.
Don't hurt the wall. There are other fans around here besides you and Pat.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I want to know about the paper dolls.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I got no candy! Waaah! But the relief society gave me a basket of Mormon fruit. Man was that delicious fruit. I think they must have grown it on their own fruit trees and waited to pick it until it was actually ripe or something. It sure was incredibly delicious compared to grocery store fruit!
Also I remember people telling about all the manual labor they did for investigators when they were on their missions. I had all kinds of chores lined up for the missionaries to do for me but they never offered. I thought I should get some free slave labor out of the situation, but hey, it never materialized! What's up with that?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I got nothing. What a waste of an eternal comittment.
Hobbes Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*snort*
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> No joke!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I gave away plenty of slave labor on my mission to people who never converted. Life is simply not fair. (Which I have to admit, has been a dang good things).
[ May 24, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Rabbit: Word. For us it was the less active members. They always seemed to have plenty for us to do.
Though I remember when we got the entire elders quorum to come clear our back lot cause the mesquitos were so bad. So I did get some manual labor as a missionary!! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My first area, the elders lived in the very far corner from the main population of their area, which was right next to our area. So, going home for lunch was out, because of the miles on the car (missionaries can only use so many miles per month. It's not many. Like, 20 a day.)
So, they got permission to use our apartment to make lunch if we were out. That was fine, and in return, they cleaned our apartment. Just the living room/kitchen, of course, but still! Once a week, the elders cleaned the house for us!
No DL quite measured up after that.
[ May 24, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Why aren't you on AIM?
Posted by esl (Member # 3143) on :
Happy Day, mack! and days, too. Have fun.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When I got to college and took a missionary preparation class at the Institute of Religion, I was shocked. I mean, those six discussions cover the gospel much better than the 15 years of primary and sunday school I had attended weekly since toddlerhood.
But I don't know about the Skittles. I guess Merrill J. Bateman, the penultimate president of BYU, was an executive at M&M/Mars. So that could explain the new "doctrine." (quote marks and winkeys inserted per kat's comment)
P.S. I saw the cup thing a while back. There was 12 cups at the bottom which was the apostles. Then four which was the principles and ordinances. One for the prophet. I may be missing a six level which was something... the other offices of the church? Maybe it was temples. Or the offices of the priesthood.
[ May 27, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I don't know about the Skittles. I guess Merrill J. Bateman, the penultimate president of BYU, was an executive at M&M/Mars. So that could explain the new doctrine.
Pooka, I can never tell if you're joking or not.
Just in case you're not, it's not doctrine. It's an object lesson some missionary dreamed up.
The cup thing y'all are describing is definitely different from the one we did. We didn't even use cups - we made a jigsaw puzzle out of it.
I need a digital camera.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I have one. And it isn't waterproof.
Posted by esl (Member # 3143) on :
Does it go *click* when you take a picture?
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Congratulations mack. I go away for a week and look what happens. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: feel beholden to explain the Skittles. During the fifth discussion, the missionaries talk about tithing, which is 10% of all increase - the interpretation of that being between you and the Lord. There are lots of scriptures about the "windows of heaven opening and pouring out a blessing" when you pay tithing, which is true. To illustrate this, you take a big bag of skittles or M&Ms or whatever, and place 10 in the person's hand. "Okay, now pay tithing." They give back one, and (theoretically), in one smooth movement, the missionary pours out the bag into their hand. It's great - vivid, and you get candy. Best done at a table. To avoid the candy all over the floor phenomomon. Unless the vacuum cleaner is lonely and wants to work to distract itself because the toaster left for college.
And this works?
I mean, people actually join a group that would waste M&Ms or Skittles so wontonly?
Is NOTHING sacred?
I guess I should be glad it's not Reese's Pieces. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does it work?
Uh, no idea.
What it IS is fun, and since it comes at the end of the discussion, it's okay to break the mood a little, and since it's the fifth discussion, you know them really well. By the fifth, they have a baptism date too, or you rarely get that far. So, you're friends, and it's memorable.
And you get to throw candy everywhere! Yay!
[ May 25, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
so you get a commitment before you discuss the payment plan?
i think i recall not buying a car from ya'll.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
AAAAND we're pulled back out of the Looking Glass. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
they mentioned something about handing over my firstborn...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lunch has to come from somewhere.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:they mentioned something about handing over my firstborn...
quote:Lunch has to come from somewhere.
This is how nasty, ugly rumors get started.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I think thats what she wanted.
We also come from Mars.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I thought it was Jupiter.
I really should study more.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think it's Jupiter BY WAY OF Mars. That's your confusion. Mars is right on the way. Easy stopover.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
*sings, with appropriate hand motions*
"Popcorn popping on the apricot tree..."
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Congratulations Mack--I've been so busy lately I haven't had a chance to read everything here. I am truly very happy for you. If you ever get out to AZ I'd love to meet you in person. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, I was waiting for the bus today and was perusing the flyers that littered the area when a prominant religious one caught my eye. Apparently all illnesses can be be cured naturally and painlessly by the Allmighty Creator. Things like AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. can be cured with a healthy dose of prayer.
But the one that really caught my eye was bolded and in a larger font size than the other ailments. Apparently God can make my penis bigger. I don't know what the hail mary to dong length ratio is (the flyer didn't say) but it's nice to know that a small dingle is just a test of faith. I guess this isn't a religion where men of cloth are supposed to be celibate, why waste a good tallywhacker? It'd seem ironic to give a man a good sized slip 'n slide and then not let him use it.
Sadly it seems God can't do anything for breasts. If you've got small bazoombas that's just the way God made you.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Mack!
Wow! I banish myself and then I come back and find out hell froze over! I want you to know, there were only four threads I read in my too temporary reprieve, and this was one of them. And I'm stunned! And happy for you.
Congratulations and I hope it is everything and more for you that it has been for me.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
quote: You already know, Katie, that I'm not exactly thrilled about your Hatrack mission work.
Tom, what did you mean by this? That you don't like kat doing missionary work on the board itself? Are the threads in which people ask questions about LDS theology getting too numerous, you mean? (Those aren't started by kat, though.) Or you don't like her doing missionary work among hatrackers, people she met through hatrack? If that's what it means then may I ask why not? Are you thinking that people are being coerced in some way by kat's missionary work? Or are they making their own minds up? Making their own free choices? Is it people making their own minds up that you object to? That doesn't seem like you. Maybe this is just a jesting comment in passing and I am not seeing the joke or making more of it than it means. But this really puzzled me when I read it, and now a few days later it still does. Any thoughts?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Are you thinking that people are being coerced in some way by kat's missionary work?"
That would be a big, fat "yes." I'm sorry if it offends, but I think a forum situation like this one offers an excellent opportunity for effective but slightly coercive recruitment for ANY cause.
Edit: But, Anne Kate, you and I have a slightly different definition of "coercion" in this case, anyway. Arm-twisting and fingernail-prying are not in fact essential elements.
[ May 27, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How on earth do you define coercive in such a way as to include any of Kat's posts to this forum (at least since I got here)?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't believe Katie's posts to this forum constitute the majority of her Hatrack missionary work.
That said, we can drop it now; there is absolutely no way I can elaborate further without offending people I care about.
[ May 27, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, yeah. Move it to e-mail. This is insulting for everyone.
Added: Actually, please move it to e-mail. I'm fascinated by this. I've never seen a conspiracy theory being born before.
[ May 27, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, there's no conspiracy theory involved. I'm just not a huge fan of Mormon evangelism, if only because it tends to be pervasive.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. I read pervasive as persuasive.
2. You mean on Hatrack?
3. *puzzled* How would you know what I'm like off of Hatrack?
[ May 27, 2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
What, no-one else was bothered by the fact that Katharina was actually telling Mack's missionaries the best way to approach her during their teaching sessions?
That's totally unfair cheating!
And I am just kidding, btw. At least mostly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is actually the secret - candy.
--
[ May 27, 2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: That said, we can drop it now; there is absolutely no way I can elaborate further without offending people I care about.
Tom, if you feel this subject is inappropriate for open Hatrack discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
BtL I didn't want to hurt your ego by not taking offense. I mean it took you a long time to type that and no one can talk about anything except something Tom wrote pages back.
Would you please corroborate for me that it was a general comment on religious promotion and not "brought to you by the Mormons"?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
This isn't Katie's fault. Promise.
And I'm a total sucker for candy.
So whichever religion can figure out my FAVORITE...I'm so there.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Just a general comment on religious promotions, mormons seem very uninterested in my slub a dub. No worries.
I should really check what church they were promoting, I'll have to make sure I beat the bus (mind out of the gutter thanks) today so I can look a little more closely.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BtL, your post made *me* laugh anyway.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Well, FWIW, Tom 'coerced' me into reading Tad Williams, Terry Pratchett, Steven Donaldson and George R.R. Martin.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<-- very bribable if said bribe is Godiva key lime truffles
*waits by mailbox* Added: *and e-mailbox...*
[ May 27, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I would be bribable if I wasn't so easily distr--
Oh, look! A penny!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Actually, I had a similar distractability conversation with my shrink.
Talking in his office, a quarter fell out of his pocket and rolled on the floor.
Me. "OH! Shiny!"
Shrink: Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
You guys are all so cute!! Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Dave's summation of the event:
Quarter: 25 cents. Shrink appointment: more than you'd ever like to pay for. Making your shrink burst out laughing: priceless.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Talking in his office, a quarter fell out of his pocket and rolled on the floor.
Me. "OH! Shiny!"
I'd be more surprised by the verbal capabilities of the quarter than by its shininess. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
speaking for myself, JB needs to stop being so uptight about what phrase is modifying which noun.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'll stop being uptight as soon as you people stop dangling your participles.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Ewwwwww! I really didn't need to see those particular participles dangling.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Dangling participles are perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Ah, I think I understand a little better now, Tom, thanks! I'm still a bit surprised that you have so little faith in Dave's and Mac's (and mine and Hobbes' and Yozhik's) own choices, and in their ability to decide to whom they want to talk and about what, and whether they really want to join any given church or not. I can't speak for the others, but I feel I am pretty stubborn and not easily coerced. Just ask my mom. I would venture to guess that about the rest of us as well.
If they have been coerced, then what about you? Were you a little bit brainwashed into believing as you do? Should we be concerned for you? <grins>
Of course, if they gave them Godiva chocolates, then no wonder! In that case I have only one question: Where are my chocolates?
[ May 27, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Don't worry, ak. Tom's just jealous. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Where are my chocolates?
Katharina ate them.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
What did the Hoosiers win the Rose Bowl?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Katie! <shakes fist>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It totally wasn't me. I'm quite shocked by the laxity of missionaries in general concerning the candy payouts. I think we need some hearings into the matter.
*surreptitiously wipes chocolate off her chin*
[ May 27, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Jon, don't make me come over there. *shakes stick*
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
*dangles participles at Jon Boy's Aunties*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm quite shocked by the laxity of missionaries in general concerning the candy payouts.
Don't look at me. I made mint sandwiches with the finest Swiss Chocolate for my investigators when I was a missionary. If more missionaries took this kind of care in their work, we'd have 20 million members by now.
And lets not stop with the missionaries. When was the last time your home teachers brought you fine chocolate? If they would only put this on the Temple Recommend question list, far fewer would slip away from activity in the church.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Dangling participles are perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of.
What about faulty parallelism? You disgust me, Zal.
Oh, and Mack: bring it on. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Speaking of participles, things that dangle have always delighted me. Earings, Christmas tree ornaments, icicles are participles and best when their dangling.
[ May 27, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've had it with linguists and all their silly rules whose primary purpose is to asuage the egos of linguists. Its time for vengence/ All must use a dangling participle in every post.
By using a dangling participle in every post, Jon Boy will be driven by Hatrack to implode.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And I've had it with all you unwashed masses who make no effort to use the language with clarity and precision and who would rather criticize those who bother to educate themselves. But I suppose that if you prefer to use words as a cudgel with which to beat others, I really can't do anything about it.
But just be careful. Editors don't implode; they explode and take everyone else out with them.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Heh. I'm translating Kafka right now. I should post some literal translations of his sentences -- JB's brain would melt like Camembert on a hot August day.
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
::makes note about certain individuals candy preferences::
[ May 27, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Zevlag ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'm not cleaning up the mess.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
That's very uncharitable of you, mack - Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I never said I was charitable in the first place.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
*COUGHreesescups,zev,reesescupsCOUGH*
>_>
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Ooh! Candy!
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
::scowl at D::
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hey, I made bannana bread, zuchini bread, and brownies for my investigators.
Everything from scratch.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
*dies of shock*
I'm serious, I think my heart skipped a beat when I read this. It said, "Really?"
Congratulations!
Posted by Tiger Eye (Member # 6353) on :
hey everyone, it's been forever since i've even BEEN on the site.
congrats mack. *grin* as long as you're happy.
Posted by BlueJacsFan (Member # 6590) on :
What an entertaining thread!
This is the kind of thread that can give a newbie a good feel for the personalities of some of the posters.
Just a few random thoughts, if I may.
First, congrats Mack. I'm not Mormon, but I can see from your posts here that you've put a lot of thought and research into making this decision. Major decisions can often lead to controversy amongst your friends, especially those who don't necessarily like you for who you are. If those with whom you're estranged now were true friends, they'll be back once they've had an opportunity to see that your commitment is genuine.
quote:[size=1]Originally posted by katharina[/size] Sometimes, though, the blessings [of tithing] are in the exact same form. Sometimes it is everything working out financially when it didn't seem possible before. I like the idea of a mix - hand back a skittle, get a combination of skittles, M&Ms, and Sour Patch Kids.
Let me preface this by stating that I am not Mormon. I was raised Wesleyan (think Methodist, but way towards the conservative end of the spectrum), and have never found a valid argument for converting to any other denomination of the Christian faith. The principles of tithing are the same, regardless. I'd like to share with you a concrete example of how this promise has been evidenced in my life.
I used to be someone who would tithe only when I felt I had the funds to spare. A few years ago, I finally decided that I would be obedient to the Scriptures and tithe to my church, regardless of whether I felt I had the funds or not. I was amazed at how the bills always got paid -- even when I couldn't see how the money would stretch.
Within weeks of that decision, I had another company offer me a job. I wasn't looking to change jobs, this was just something that fell in my lap. The offer was enough that I would have been stupid not to consider it. I turned in a resignation to the company I was working for, and within an hour I was called into the Director's office. They made me a counter offer that literally dropped my jaw. The offer was 70% over what I was making. Talk about floodgates! Is it any wonder I'm still with that company?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Talk about floodgates!"
Is it your contention that this is common, or perhaps even the rule?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
God told me that it works for everyone but YOU, Tom.
I don't need to add a , do I? Heavens, don't make me add a .
[ June 07, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
kat's not crazy, i'm just deleting this.
[ June 07, 2004, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw celia, you don't know the certain end from the beginning. Tithing's a blessing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tithing doesn't guaruntee a financial return, but there is a guarantee of a retun in abundance. The Lord is bound when you pay tithing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is He actually BOUND? As in, "you have entered into this contract, by which I am compelled to act," bound?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, just like that. D&C 82:10 "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wonder if the "boundness" is something particular to Mormon theology?
(Just curious -- I know Mormons differ from some other Christians regarding the nature of God in other ways.)
[ June 07, 2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It would almost have to be, given that central to most Christian theologies is the idea that humans are, in general, INCAPABLE of doing what God says.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What Tom said, plus, in many Christians theologies, God is not bound (in the sense of constrained) to anything.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
huh, i think those will go away. pick too personal or extra bitter. a bit of both is probably true.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I get a creepy feeling thinking of God being bound. Doesn't that negate the whole "omnipotent" thing?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Psi-- yes. Mormon theology allows for a god that is not classically omnipotent.
(He STILL throws a mean slider, though)
I'm interested in your reaction-- you would feel more comfortable with a god who had the ability to go back on his word?
[ June 07, 2004, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So he's not really the same as the Christian God? I always thought they were supposed to be the same guy.
I'm not being snarky, I just really don't know. I mean, since no one can prove the existence of their god, the only thing that lets you know you're worshipping the same god as someone else is their definition of him. And if they don't define him the same way as you do, doesn't that make him a different god?
quote: I'm interested in your reaction-- you would feel more comfortable with a god who had the ability to go back on his word
No, my God keeps His word because that's the kind of perfect and loving God he is, not because He's being forced to do it.
[ June 07, 2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think a better way to put it is that the Christian God as described by Mormons is very unlike the Christian God as described by other Christians.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Let's not throw that around. Christian requires belief that Christ died so that we might be saved.
Feel free to call him not your God, but He's a Christian God.
edit: tom is faster.
[ June 07, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good question. The following is a presentation of SMTN: Scott's Mormon Theological Noodlings.
I've said it before without being beat up, so I'll take another chance: from the POV of other religions, Mormons are not traditional, or classical Christians.
Although Mormons believe in Christ's atonement as the one, saving power, the theology we're discussing above may tend to skew us off the path of mainline Christianity.
We do believe that God is omnipotent, in the sense that any power that is available to Him, He possesses. But certain things, like the power to remove man's agency, and the ability to do evil, God MAY NOT do and remain god.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Celia, I really don't know that much about theology. I'm not trying to fight, I am just trying to understand about almost everything.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I know, but I've seen that fight and it isn't pretty. I'm just trying to help you understand in as few posts as possible to avoid even the possibility of starting it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In the interests of not starting a fight while still being clear, let me try to state it this way –
What the LDS believe about God describes a being that would not be acknowledged as God by most (edit: classical, traditional, mainline, orthodox, pick your adjective in this case amounting to 'non LDS') Christian theologies.
Or, to try a balance, if they existed in the same time and place, the Council of Nicea and the LDS church would each consider the other completely heretical.
[ June 07, 2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, my God keeps His word because that's the kind of perfect and loving God he is, not because He's being forced to do it.
This is interesting. I'm still a n00b, so I don't know (and for practical matters like being good I don't regard it as very important), but doesn't that amount to the same thing, PSI?
Let me make an analogy to human beings. A good, honorable, and honest man who gives his word could (and often IS) said to be "bound" by his word. Not because he could not break his word if he wanted to, but because he would never, ever want to break his word, because he has long ago made a decision to keep his word everytime he gives it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But in your analogy, he would be bound by his own choice to remain faithful. The Mormon quote sounds like he's being bound by the actions of others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Moreover, the quote pretty specifically establishes that He is NOT bound by His word if mortals don't hold up their end.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, no, not if the “word” was to do something if someone did something else. A conditional promise is not breaking your word.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
PSI,
quote:The Mormon quote sounds like he's being bound by the actions of others.
Howso? It used the word 'bound' exactly once, and then went on to talk about a promise. That word bound could have either meaing just as easily, and (personally) I think since He talks about making promises and keeping them, that it's more likely God is using the word as an honest person might.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Except that Scott said specifically that God CAN NOT do those things. That he is not even ABLE to do them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes. God has made (numerous) covenants with people. The very nature of a covenant is that if one side breaks a condition, the other side is not obligated to uphold the bargain.
To quote Braveheart, "An oath to a liar is no oath at all." Not the same thing, of course, but the spirit of that statement does apply, I think.
----------
Incidentally, Mormons do worship Christ. So talk of a 'Christian' God might register as a smidgen offensive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, Scott said God cannot do those things and remain God. That if God did violate His word, he would be no longer be God. I think (but I'm a novice, so don't take my word for it) that this might be the same as saying an honest person cannot break their word and remain an honest person.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Actually, I said that he can't do evil and remain God.
Meaning, that just like the rest of the schmoes in the universe, God has to obey laws.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Oh. I figured he can't do evil because God decides what is righteous, and to be righteous is to be God-like, so if God does something "evil" it becomes God-like (righteous) to do that thing. I always felt like "evil" was the opposite of what God does.
Not that I expect God to start doing all these things he said he wouldn't. That's just how great he is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Three
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
HUNDRED!
And hey, I got a nifty, 'The admin doesn't think you're soooo cool. Wait a bit before posting again. Stupid.'
[ June 07, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really, Scott?
----
PSI, I was thinking about your concern, and I want to see if I can sum up what it is. Could you tell me if I'm wrong? (And could the admins tell me if they want me to hush?)
Maybe it's because the word bound implies a power relationship - you could seem uncomfortable with the word bound because it implies that someone/something has power over God. The defining characteristic of God then being that NOTHING has power over him - not another being, and not laws. Is this right? I mean, does that sum it up?
------
I think Rakeesh summed up an essential difference in thinking there. On the one hand, God is God in part because he does right, perfectly. On the other, what God does is perfectly right because he's God.
For the first, God could not do wrong (break his word) and remain God. For the second, it is impossible for God to do wrong. If he did break his word, then breaking his word in that case would be right, because it is God that is doing it. Does that sum it up?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, not in those exact words, Kat.
The verbage was more like, 'The administrator has enabled flood checking. Please wait 30 seconds before posting again.'
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
What is flood checking?
*builds an ark*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Paranoia strikes again. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
On Omnipotence:
It is true that in LDS theology, God is not Omnipotent in the sense that most people probably think of the word.
There are Rules to which even God is subject. Nobody necessarily made those Rules, they just exist, like laws of nature.
Ask yourself, what makes God who He is? What makes him God? Whatever it is, ask yourself, what would happen if God did something that negated the very thing that makes him God?
It is impossible for God to do anything that is contrary to his nature as God. This seems kind of like a tautology, I know. But I believe it's true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The way that I think of His omnipotence in LDS theology is that God can do anything that can be done.
Although this is not perfect, because He cannot lie, and lying can be done.
Posted by BlueJacsFan (Member # 6590) on :
Sorry, Folks, I didn't intend to open up a big can of worms.
I do not mean to imply that the reward of tithing is always going to be monetary. It can be, and in my case it has been. The scripture referenced is Malachi 3:10:
quote:"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that htere may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." [NIV]
Blessings come in many forms. It is God's choice how He chooses to deliver them, and in what form they will come.
As for the "binding God" issue, we are not binding him by our actions. He is free to do whatever He pleases, but He will not do anything that is contrary to what He has said in the Bible. That's just His nature.
But, we cannot make up our own rules (even if we were the Pope) and expect God to abide by it, a la Dogma.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I fully expect my blessing to be in M&Ms. That's what the elders taught me.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If you reacted that way to the M&M's, it's a good thing you're too old for seminary. An LDS seminary teacher would have you believing all kinds of weird things.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Like the kool-aid? And baby-eating?
Where are the pods?!
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Hmm...any good definitions of "omnipotence", as Mormons understand it, in more technical form?
The discussion seems to have suddenly taken an interesting turn right after I tuned it out. Just a few nights ago (I work nights, and alone, so I spend a huge amount of time thinking on things like this), I concluded that the common idea in my church that Mormon theology was inconsistent with the Scripture was itself inconsistent with our normal handling of theological matters and with our positions on other concepts of God. (For instance, nearly every source I've seen acknowledges that Muslims worship the same God we do, even though Islam does not acknowledge the Trinity.)
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Huh?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
The idea that God is not fully omnipotent is necessary to LDS theology for several different reasons. However, one of the most obvious reasons is our notion of the purpose of life. We believe we existed before we were born, and that our time on Earth is a time to learn, to grow, to test ourselves, and to prepare for the eternity to come. In other words, mortal life is an absolutely necessary step in our eternal progression, without which we would be unable to become all that God wants us to become.
Now, if God were truly Omnipotent in the strictly literal sense, then we wouldn't need to go through this life, with all its attendant sadness and suffering. He could just snap his fingers or whatever and *poof*, we would all be exalted without having to go through the middle part. But he can't do that. He literally can't -- it isn't possible for him to do it.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Sorry, Jamie...Dang it, I overqualified my statements.
I'll try and break it down.
Most prominent people in the churches of Christ (to my knowledge) do not consider Mormons Christian due to the differences in their theology. Until recently, I considered this argument adequate.
A few nights ago, I concluded that this argument is inconsistent with several other commonly held positions:
Both Muslims and Jews are considered to worship the same God we do, even though the theological differences are approximately as great.
A wide variety of theological positions has always been tolerated within the churches of Christ. Barton Stone was a unitarian (though not a Unitarian), for instance. And a number of very conservative churches apparently do not believe Jesus is God, from what I read in their publications. Yet these people are all considered acceptable.
*** I could, of course, abandon those positions and continue to hold that Mormons are not Christian, but I believe that they are sound. Moreover, I have begun to suspect that the real reasons for not regarding Mormons as Christians have to do with bad feeling and cultural inertia within the churches of Christ.
However, I am still alert for any serious theological differences that would demonstrate that my conclusion was premature.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Both Muslims and Jews are considered to worship the same God we do, even though the theological differences are approximately as great.
Actually, they’re not. Jewish, Muslim and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are more similar to each other than LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are. Excluding, of course, the doctrine of the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Jewish, Muslim and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are more similar to each other than LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are. Excluding, of course, the doctrine of the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
Those are awfully big things to differ on and consider to be the same God while others agree and are considered too different to count.
Dana, are you referring to the "what does omnipotent mean" discussion? What do you mean exactly?
[ June 07, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Could you rephrase that, Dana? I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say, but it's not computing. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
*nods* I know what you're saying. However, a lot of the things that are considered "fixed" by most churches are quite loosely interpreted in the churches of Christ. Theological matters are typically considered about as relevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, except in a few specific areas.
Some theological matters traditionally considered unimportant by the churches of Christ, as enumerated by Campbell:
quote: 'The Holy Trinity,' 'Three persons of one substance, power, and eternity,' 'Co-essential, co-substantial, co-equal,' 'The Son eternally begotten of the Father,' 'An eternal Son,' 'Humanity and divinity of Christ,' 'The Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son,' 'God's eternal decrees,' 'Conditional and unconditional election and reprobation,' 'God out of Christ,' 'Free will,' 'Liberty and necessity,' 'Original sin,' 'Total depravity,' 'Covenant of grace,' 'Effectual calling,' 'Free grace,' 'Sovereign grace,' 'General and particular atonement,' 'Satisfy divine justice,' 'Common and special operations of the Holy Ghost,' 'Imputed righteousness,' 'Inherent righteousness,' 'Progressive sanctification,' 'Justifying and saving faith,' 'Historic and temporary faith,' 'The direct and reflex acts of faith,' 'The faith of assurance, and the assurance of faith,' 'Legal repentance,' 'Evangelical repentance,' 'Perseverance of the saints,' and 'Falling from grace,' 'Visible and invisible church,' 'Infant membership,' 'Sacraments,' 'Eucharist,' 'Consubstantiation,' 'Church government,' 'The power of the keys,' &c. &c.
Concerning these and all such doctrines, and all the speculations and phraseology to which they have given rise, we have the privilege neither to affirm nor deny--neither to believe nor doubt; because God has not proposed them to us in his word, and there is no command to believe them.
Most of these are still considered optional matters, with an exception or two.
[ June 07, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The whole omnipotence thing, plus the whole creation ex-nihilo thing, plus the whole monotheism thing.
The trinity and Christ don’t really come into it, because what I was referring to was non-LDS Christian doctrine about the first person of the trinity. The way non-LDS Christians describe God the Creator, and the attributes we believe God has, have more in common, IMO, with the way Jews and Muslims describe God than with LDS doctrines of God.
One of the biggies is the Creator-creation distinction. The LDS belief that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man” contrasts rather sharply with the non-LDS Christian belief that God created everything, including time, natural laws, spirits, matter, etc. Before God, and outside of God’s continuing sustaining, there is nothing, no existence at all (in a literal, not metaphorical sense). That is not true in LDS theology as I understand it.
(edit: learn to spell!)
[ June 07, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I believe it would be fair to say that the standard of teaching regarding theology in the churches of Christ has always been, "If you can maintain it without denying any part of the Scriptures, it's not a problem." That's not always adhered to, and it doesn't apply to matters of worship practice or morality, but that's the classic theory.
So theoretically, unless someone can come up with a passage in the Bible that flat-out contradicts these teachings you mention, DKW, it shouldn't be an issue.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm certainly not trying to argue that you shouldn't consider LDS folks Christian. I was just quibbling with the statement I quoted earlier.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Your re-statement makes a lot of sense to me, Dana. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think evaluating which differences are deal-breakers and which is not as important is somewhat arbitrary.
Do Muslims consider that Christians worship the same God they do? I was under the impression that they considered the concept of sharing Godhood with a son, and that God needed a son at all, was too blasphemous to bear.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Hmmm...I should probably point out that my post has more to do with my pleasure in finding out I could regard Mack as a sister in Christ now than the exact details of what my church believes and why. Hopefully no one is offended by my explanations. I'm still feeling rather ambiguous about the whole deal, but generally speaking... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kat, my understanding is that Muslims consider both Jews and Christians to be "Peoples of the Book", and in medieval times, that made them exempt from expulsion from Muslim lands. As non-Muslims, they were also entitled to pay twice the taxes. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Hmm, yeah, I guess I can see how traditional Christianity's idea of God the Father might be closer to the God of Judaism and that of Islam than it is to that of Mormonism. But then you've got to ignore the whole Trinity idea, and I think that's pretty central to traditional Christianity. I'm not sure you can just separate out the Father like that just to point out the similarity.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
UofULawGuy, I was under the impression that the LDS view of the trinity is different than that of Protestants and Catholics, anyway.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ela -- yes, and no. I guess the thing is that Mormons, no matter how different the ideas of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost might be, would never say anyone is not Christian because of that. Many Christians, however, seem to pleasure in calling Mormons (and others) non-Christian. I am not sure why they insist on such so strenuously. Especailly, when they know (or by now should know) how inflamitory that happens to be.
[ June 07, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Yes, the LDS idea of the trinity (or, as we call it, the godhead) is quite different from that of traditional Christianity. My point was that, if you include the traditional idea of the trinity, then the similarities between the God of Christianity and those of Judaism and Islam start to diminish, and the similarities between Mormonism and traditional Christianity multiply.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not sure about that last part. Certainly including the trinity diminishes the similarities with Islam and Judaism, but I don't think it really increases the similarities between LDS and non-LDS Christianity all that much. Our beliefs about the trinity and the nature of God are very different.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Venn diagram. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One explanation I have heard is that Muslims do not believe Jesus was God (or part of a Trinity, etc.) because there is God, and humanity. The closest the two ever come to (directly) mingling is with prophets, and that it is presumptuous (from their perspective) to think God was ever a Man, or vice versa.
But I am no expert. I will search out an essay from an Islamic scholar.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:mackillian: the more I struggled against it, the more disconcerted I got. I mean, it's like you spend your whole life watching a religious train going by and you even MOON that train, then your brain decides to hop on and the rest of you is like "WTF?!?!"
Even when I don't feel like it Mac...you make me smile. I even giggled a bit.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
dkw, the main reason why the inclusion of the trinity makes traditional christianity more like Mormonism and less like Judaism or Islam is the existence of Jesus, as described in the New Testament. In other words, both brands of Christianity believe in the New Testament. They believe that Jesus existed much as described in that book. They believe in his divinity. They believe in his work of Atonement. They believe in his miracles. They believe in his teachings (even if they sometimes differ on just what those teachings meant).
They certainly have different ideas about his nature, or his specific characteristics if you will, and about his relationship to the Father and the Holy Ghost. But the very fact that they believe in him at all gives traditional Christianity and Mormonism a whole lot of common ground that Judaism and Islam do not share.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But, we cannot make up our own rules (even if we were the Pope) and expect God to abide by it, a la Dogma.
One of the things I really hated about Dogma was that if you want your whole movie to turn on a single point of theology, you better get that single point of theology right.
They weren't even close.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Lawguy, I think we may be talking past each other. I’m not trying to disparage LDS beliefs, and I never have and never will claim that you aren’t entitled to use the word “Christian” to describe them. But I think that trying to brush over differences in comparing different doctrines is disrespectful to both doctrines. (Or ‘all,’ since there’re more than two being discussed.) Yes, LDS and non-LDS Christianity use a lot of the same language. But what we mean by the words is very different.
The LDS church considers the councils at which the orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ and the Godhead were defined to be part of an “apostasy.” That claim is, as I understand it, central to the LDS understanding of itself as a restoration of the true church. So how can we not recognize that the LDS understandings of the nature of Christ is different from that of the churches that stand in historical continuity with those councils?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
And most Protestants believe that Catholics are just as wrong? If we are saying which is the greater chasm of doctrine, between LDS and non-LDS Christian or non-LDS Christian and Muslim or Jewish, I would have to say there are more similarities between LDS and non-LDS Christian than the other because there is more shared scripture. Even if some of the scriptures are interpreted differently (remember they are interpreted differently from one non-LDS Christian church to another also), that similarity is still much stronger, IMO than the similarity between non-LDS Christian and Muslim or Jewish theology.
The views of what God is like between them are more similar, though, I will grant you that. But there is *so* much more to a religion than their concept of what God is like.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:And most Protestants believe that Catholics are just as wrong?
No. Protestants and Catholics agree on the creeds and definitions from the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.
And yes, there is so much more to a religion. But for some religions who God is is one of, if not the, highest priority. So please don't dismiss it as an insignificant difference just because it's not as important in your veiw.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sorry, I didn't mean to trivialize your point of view. I can understand that to many people the way you think of God can be the most important thing. I didn't think of it that way, well, because I don't think of it that way.
On the Catholics and Protestants, I guess I don't know enough about it, but I thought there were some pretty big irreconcilable differences. Thus the reasons for Protestants "protesting" against the Catholic doctrines.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Eh. That was Martin Luther. Nailing up those theses and all...dang protesting liberal.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
dkw:"I’m not trying to disparage LDS beliefs, and I never have and never will claim that you aren’t entitled to use the word “Christian” to describe them."
I know, but thanks for repeating it.
Really, I know you're not disparaging anything, and I wouldn't think of trying to ignore the very real and significant doctrinal differences that exist between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.
I just thought that it was interesting to attempt to separate traditional Christianity's beliefs about the Father from the rest of the trinity just to make the claim that it has more in common with Judaism and Islam than with Mormonism. While that is true as far as it goes, it appears to me to leave so much else out that is in fact quite central, as to be almost meaningless.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Mormons do not believe in the Trinity.
The Trinity is not the Godhead, it is a mystery of the identity of three gods in one God. I used to casually call the Godhead the Trinity, but at one point I realized this was incorrect. It was prior to learning that Jehovah's Witnesses also don't believe in the Trinity, though.
Interestingly, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are singled out in Eerdman's History of Christianity as sects that believe theirs is the only way
But Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jehovah is Father in Heaven (which is a metaphor only, in their belief we are not his spirit children). They also don't believe in the Holy Spirit as a personage, but as the active force of God (moved upon the waters, conceived Jesus).
Mormons believe Jehovah is the creator of the world, Jesus. This means that the Muslims Allah is actually Jesus. O_o
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
(Edit: to Lawguy) Ah. I probably could have phrased that part better. The thing is, it isn’t something I made up, nor is/was it done just to show similarity with Judaism and Islam. It’s a pretty common way of laying out a systematic theology – this is what we believe about God in Godself, this is what we believe about God becoming incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, this is what we believe about the Holy Spirit. The incarnation (Jesus) section is predicated on the earlier section. So if that part is different, the beliefs about Jesus start from such a different place that they aren’t truly comparable. Who we think Jesus of Nazareth is is the incarnation (lit. “en-flesh-ment”) of God. The father-son language is metaphorical in classical Christianity. Not so in LDS theology.
The crux of the thing is that trinitarian Christianity still considers itself a monotheistic faith. Trinitarianism is not tri-theism. This was and is A BIG DEAL in classical/orthodox theology. The whole doctrine of the trinity, and all the (sometimes silly) philosophical/metaphysical explanations of it are an attempt to explain how there can be only one God and yet Jesus is truly divine.
As I understand it, LDS theology is tri-theistic. And that difference, for some Christians, is going to be much more “central” than the fact that you believe in the divinity of Jesus.
[ June 09, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
mack:
From one searcher to another, I am happy you've found your way.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Had to pop in and say congrats! ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)