quote:For example, if you believe that humans have free will, that we have the power to resist or even defy the will of God, well then God can't have the power to force us. The two are mutually exclusive. A God who had ALL POWER, would be very undesirable from my perspective since that would mean that none of us could power over anything at all, even our own hearts and minds.
They're not mutually exclusive. What God can do and what God chooses not to do are different things.
God could force us to do things. He chooses not to. That doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It means free will is something so valued by God that he chooses to limit himself in enormous ways, even to tolerating great evil, in order to preserve that free will.
This makes free will more precious and more of a gift, because it doesn't have to be. It is because God wills it to be so, and it is preserved because of the great care He takes in interacting with us.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Dag, but that is a logical contradiction. If God has the power to force us, then we do not have the power to resist his will. God could have the power and choose not to use it, but that would not give us the power to resist him. Either he has the power or we do -- this is a mutually exclusive situation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry Dag, but that is a logical contradiction. If God has the power to force us, then we do not have the power to resist his will. God could have the power and choose not to use it, but that would not give us the power to resist him. If he has the power or we do -- this is a mutually exclusive situation.
Unless you are tautologically defining free will as something that doesn't exist if omnipotence exists, the two are not contradictory. Free will is the ability to choose. Omnipotence carries with it the possibility of overriding a person's will. Our will is free - present tense - because God is not overriding it. It will continue to be free because God will not commence overriding it.
A blue house does not stop being blue because I might paint it red someday.
Free will does not mean no limitations. It means we are free to choose. Whether we are free to choose because God let's us choose or because God can't stop us from choosing, it's still free.
Further, God's knowledge of the conditional is absolute. He knows what any given being endowed with free will would freely choose to do given any complete set of preconditions. He is also capable of setting conditions in any way he wishes. However, this does not contradict free will, any more than a parent placing chocolate and broccoli on a table contradicts a kindergartner's free will, even though the parent knows the kid will choose the chocolate.
This, of course, presupposes that physical limitations are distinct from whether a person's will is free. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I really liked your explanation. It was very clear and I got a lot out of it. Thanks for posting it. Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're interested in what I think on the matter, there is a fascinating speech written by Cleon Skousen called the Atonement(nondoctrinal) that is pretty close in line with what I think and can do a much better job of explaining than me bantering back and forth with you. I'd be happy to read something that explains your position if you would like.
I appreciate your gracious offer. I found an excerpt from Skousen's "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement", however I can not find a place to get the full text without purchasing the DVD or audio of it. If you could link me to the text (or free audio), I would read it. I do not have anything for you to read. I don't know that I've ever read something that expressed how I feel about this. I'm certain such texts exist, I've just never been exposed to them.
The necessity of Christ's death just doesn't make sense to me and I doubt that it ever will. When it comes down to it, I don't believe it can make sense without faith. All of you appear to have faith that it was necessary and that this was the best option God had available. All of the explanations seem to start with that premise. I do not have that faith and thus I also lack that premise. I think that wonderful explanations of how it could all be logical have been presented. But they are not convincing in and of themselves.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that what it usually boils down to though? You always seem to need just a little bit of faith to get you started. At least that's how it seems to me.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think of explaining the Atonement as the "hot stove principle," where you could tell a child the physics of heat, the cause/effect relationship of electricity as it applies to turning a knob, and the physical changes along the skin as intense heat makes a connection, the damage to nerve endings, and the body's complex reaction to actual contact.
But the kid ain't gonna get all that, so we say "No touchie! Stove hot!"
I figure issues like the Atonement will be covered in "Celestial Dynamics 201," taught sometime after our passing onto the next sphere. In the afternoon, I might take "Debunking Urban Myths 101" and the ever-popular "Why?" lecture series.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, this is a great discussion. I like the differing points of view being offered up here. So perhaps I can add to the discussion.
One of my favorite scriptural sayings (being mormon myself, at the moment I don't know what scripture it comes from) is "My house is a house of order". I love that saying because in the debate concerning why was the sacrifice and atonement necessary, it is very relevant.
Creation is the act of establishing order from chaos. For that order to be maintained rules and laws must be established that cannot be broken by anyone, not even the creator. If the creator broke the laws of order, then those things that he created would slip back into chaos and he would cease to be a/the creator. By creating order and the laws that govern it, the creator then binds himself to follow those rules to maintain the order he has created.
The rules and laws that govern our universe are exact and can be easily defined, even if we don't fully understand all of them yet. However everything that happens in the universe can be defined as an action or a reaction. To maintain order, the universe has to have an equal balance of action and reaction. This concept is a base premise of physics.
God is omnipotent because he had the power to create order out of chaos in the first place. However, he remains God because he maintains the order that he has created.
Okay, justice vs mercy now. Someone above gave the example of the guy beating up his neighbor and then the proscutor has to send the offender to prison. Both the victim and the proscutor are equally powerful in determining the offender's fate. From the side of the proscutor, he/she is bound by the law to proscutor the offender to satisfy the demands of justice. I would like to point out that under our system of government (United States), a proscutor can press charges even if a victim does not or does not want to. Cases of Statutory Rape give prime examples of where a victim would completely oppose the proscution of an offender, but the law ignores the wishes of the victim and convicts the offender anyway. The law in all cases demands justice and justice must be fulfilled.
Now in the case of our offender, the victim can be equally powerful in deciding the fate of the offender. The victim who decides not to proscute fulfills the similar role that Christ does in the atonement. If the victim chooses not to press charges against the offender, the proscutor, who represents justice, can decide that, due to the mercy of the victim, that justice has been fulfilled and the offender can go free.
Now it is important to point out that justice must be satisfied, even under man's law, corrupt or fair. In order for the offender not to suffer the demands of justice, it takes a mediator, someone to step in the place of the offender and satisfy the demands of justice and extend the offender mercy. In the case of your example of both the beating up of the neighbor and of Dick Cheney, someone had to step in, satisfy justice, and extend mercy to the offender. In the case of the neighbor beater it was the victim. In the case of the the VP, it was the sheriff and the friend of Cheney.
Now let's go back to the concept of God, order, and chaos. In order for God to maintain order perfectly, he must also be perfect. Any imperfection would create chaos and chaos is the opposite of order. God maintains order and is therefore a perfect being. In order to live in God's presence, one must also be perfect as well. The scriptures confirm this to us by saying that man is imperfect and that god cannot look upon sin with the least degree of tolerance. Sin is, in its simplest definition, imperfection. So since God is perfect and man is not, how can man enter into God's presence? The answer is Christ. Christ is our bridge into the presence of God.
Now Christ himself was perfect. This is also confirmed by the scriptures, but we can assume that because if he had any imperfections then he too would not be able to stand in the presence of perfection. In order to build this bridge Christ had to do what God, being perfect and perfectly committed to maintaining the order of the universe, could not do himself. In other words, God already had a job. Christ had to be the one to build the bridge to God and pay the toll for our imperfections that we could not. Order demands perfection. Man by the nature of his existance commits sin and therefore becomes imperfect. We cannot undo the sin that we have committed. We can strive to live perfectly, but just one sin makes us imperfect and all of us will commit many sins over the course of our lifetime. Christ was able bridge the gap because he was perfect and able to live a life without sin. Since Christ lived a life without sin, only he could accept the sins of man, or the man's imperfections and still be able to enter back into the presence of perfection. Justice/order demands that only those who are perfect can live with God. Christ was perfect, but accepted the imperfections of man of his own free will. Because Christ was without sin and freely accepted the sins of others, justice is satified and order maintained. Christ's own perfection nullified the imperfections that he freely accepted, thus creating the bridge by which man can be perfected and live with god. If we choose freely to accept Christ as our mediator/bridge/savior, then his choice applies to us.
Free will is important here, because choice is essential. We must choose as Christ did to accept God's order and live by those laws. However if we do choose order over chaos, we, like God, are bound by those laws to maintain order. The big difference here though is if we choose chaos, then only we are affected, but if God chooses chaos, then everything ceases to exist. This binding does not limit God's Omnipotence, because he, like us has the power to choose. However, he will always choose order because if he did not he would cease to be God. Since God is perfect, he would never choose to be anything else.
Okay, that is about all I want to add at the moment. Go ahead and tell me where my logic fails, but please realize I am making my conclusions based on the idea that we share a common belief in Juedo-Christianity. I really am not presenting this as a arguement of faith vs atheisism, but rather as a statement of the necessity of the atonement of Jesus Christ in the context of this thread.
posted
I 've been following this thread with interest (like all religion-related threads.) I don't have time to read all of the recent posts (I'm already late for class) related to the ideas of Justice versus Mercy, so I'll just link to a talk given by the Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer on the subject: The MediatorPosts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the case of statutory rape, the victim technically isn't a full adult in the legal sense, and therefore is essentially (helpless). This is analogous to someone who is murdered; they are "helpless", legally, to press charges, therefore we require our law-enforcing agents to presume defense. For instance, I think if a victim of statutory rape's parents decides not to prss charges, there isn't much that can be done.
quote:For instance, I think if a victim of statutory rape's parents decides not to prss charges, there isn't much that can be done.
Nope. We just did a case where a 14 year old had consensual sex with a 28-year old and got her pregnant. The parents didn't want charges pressed because he was going to marry her (she's 15 now).
Subsequent marriage used to be a defense against statutory rape charges in some states. It still might be.
We do a fair bit of prosecution against the wishes of the victim. At least a third of my domestic violence cases are like that. In some of the cases where proceed against vitim wishes, we are doing so because of future danger to others. In some cases, though, we are acting on the basis of the victim being unable to truly choose. It's rather paternalistic, but when you get a chance to go after a serial abuser whose wife has changed her mind on 6 previous prosecutions, you go for it.
P.S., I'm using "statutory rape" in the generic sense of sex with an underage girl. Most such statutes are no longer "statutory rape."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm afraid I don't have the full text other than on some photocopies in a box somewhere. Like I said before, it's not the official doctrine of the church, but there is some scriptural basis to what he's saying. In reading Children of the Mind and Xenocide I wondered if Card was influenced by Skousen's (or similar) ideas.
You are right about faith. At some point faith will be required, no matter how detailed or logical the explanation. And again, it's really a lot of conjecture. Believers know the atonement is absolutely necessary and we have some basic reasoning as to why. And really, that's all we need to know at this point in time. Sometimes it's just fun to wonder what if.
Edit: I found a link to the complete audio. I think it should be find since it sounds like it was a live recording. I apologize for not being able to find text, I'm a bit more visually oriented myself, but this is better than nothing.
posted
Here's an analogy that illustrates a little bit how I feel about the Atonement. What if your child had some horrible form of terminal cancer, and medical science came up with a way for you to take it instead. The procedure cures the child totally, while giving the cancer to you, the parent, instead. The doctors won't do it without full consent of both parties. If you take it on you, you're gonna die but your child will be totally cured of this disease. Would you do it? I think a lot of parents would want to. Their love is such that they would gladly die to save their child.
What if you were the child? Would you accept that gift from your parent? (Assume you're old enough to make serious moral decisions.) What would you do? I think most kids would say no, they wouldn't let their parent die to save them. That just wouldn't be right.
Now what if you were the parent and you had to decide yes or no, but you didn't know whether or not the child would accept? In other words, you commit 100% and will get the cancer and die regardless of whether or not the child accepts your gift and becomes healed. Isn't that really the only chance you have of the child accepting since they love you and don't want you to die to give them life? What would you do then?
If you were Christ, you answered "yes" to that question. It's done. He already took the disease, all we have to do is accept the cure.
Then comes the miracle part. That was such a crazy wonderful pure elevated and totally selfless thing to do that it altered the laws of creation. The universe changed to one in which life eternal becomes an option. Christ's act turned the key in this level of creation, to allow access to the next one. It's as though he beat this level of the RPG we're all playing (in which the characters we play are ourselves), and though he died on this level, he came back in the level above.
Now if we follow him and do our best to do just what he did, we can gain access to the next level by that same path. He opened the way, and we accept his loving gift to follow him on through. People who don't find any key to the next level use up all their lives here on this level and then their game is over.
A mixed up analogy, that's not the official theology of any church I know of (though I'm LDS, and I don't think it's incompatible with LDS teachings), but just the way that I think of the Atonement.
When you realize what he did for us, and that the correct answer for us to make is "yes" (I had a very very hard time thinking it was okay for me to let Him accept the evil consequences that I deserved) there's just this total breakthrough, a feeling of joy and liberation and anything-is-possible-now-ism. Honestly, there's no possible way that I could ever have found that on my own, not in 1000 years. But he solved this level, so all we have to do is pay attention to what he did and do the same thing.
The next level will be harder. Each level all the way up will be harder, and everything we gain just gives us the power to tackle the really tough stuff that's coming up. But there's a baseline of joy and committment and fulfillment that we attain here that we shall never lose. It comes about when we realize what he did, and we accept his gift.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, you're right! Thanks! I fixed it. I always reword stuff about 10 times when I'm writing it. Lol!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, one of the things I have learned is that arguing about stuff like this isn't the right path. It's like the monk who asked if a dog had a Buddha nature. The answer is mu, neither yes nor no. Mu is the answer that unasks the question.
The first thousand times we talked about this, I was thinking you were actually curious to know what I thought, of course. In that situation it can be helpful to discuss. But as things are, since I am fairly certain you only are interested in trying to refute, then I think I will decline to engage you on this. I'm telling my feelings and experiences. It's not really something that can be refuted, since I exist and I'm me.
If you would tell your own feelings and experiences, that would be cool, I think.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I finished listening to the entire talk. I enjoyed it. I loved his passion and I found the bit about intelligences very interesting. I remember Beverly speaking about that before, and I think I now understand the concept a lot better. Yet as we've both agreed, it all still rests on faith.
This talk reminded me of everything I love about religion and everything that makes me feel alienated from it.
Brian, I'll read the talk you linked to, but it might take me another day. I'm feeling a bit burnt out on the subject right now.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's like the monk who asked if a dog had a Buddha nature. The answer is mu, neither yes nor no.
And yet that's the essence of a philosophical cop-out, isn't it? Because if the dog does have a Buddha nature, wouldn't that be incredibly relevant to our understanding of the nature of the Buddha? You have a curious, analytical, and scientific mind; how can you not, metaphorically speaking, wonder why you're supposed to overlook the matter of the dog's nature in favor of a hypothetical "big picture?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, no comments on my post. Was I being too abstract? Did no one understand it? Did that not help at all?
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that arguing about the nature and qualities of God is just a very low-benefit activity (or even negative-benefit) compared to experiencing his company. The monk was so hung up on this question of what did and didn't have a buddha nature, that he could not progress. The "mu" was a way to deliberately break the mind of logic, so to speak. A way to direct our attention to those things that can't be said using words.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel that arguing about the nature and qualities of God is just a very low-benefit activity (or even negative-benefit) compared to experiencing his company.
I would agree. But I think you have to demonstrate why investigating the qualities of God is necessarily an impediment to experiencing his company.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Careful. TomDavison is doing his usual fishing expedition by making an argument out of a non-argument.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tom. But then, I'm a theologian, so obviously I'm in favor of investigating (discussing, and even arguing about) the nature and qualities of God.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like it too, but I think it depends on what the other person is going for. If both people aren't looking for that in the conversation, it's rude to push it.
It's insisting on having a different conversation that the other one started, without their consent.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Tatiana may be getting at is that either she's been down this road before with Tom, or witnessed others do the same. She seems to be implying that (for Tom at least) the point of productive, informative discussion is past- i.e. faith would really be necessary to any deeper understanding of the nature of God, since Tom seems to have a very good intellectual grasp as to what Mormons believe to be the nature of God.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm kind of worried/nervous about the Mormons coming back on Sunday. I'm not positive I want to go back to the church, and I'm sure they'll be pressuring me to go (and I will probably cave to pressure). Worries piling up.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Tom and I have been talking about religion with each other (or past each other ) for seven or eight years now. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are worried, take your time. Here is an article on Missionary Tactics. Since OSC is Mormon and many of the established personalities here are Mormon, I hesitate to post this link.
I already left the church and so I may very well have feelings that are anti-Mormon. I like to think I am neutral--but personal change takes personal reasons for the change. The only reason I am posting this link is because there have been sincere testimony that has been expressed, so I feel free to present an article about how I feel about the conversion process—even if I didn't write it..
However, the above link is not malicious. I feel it takes a neutral view of missionary work. As a RM (return missionary), I can confidently say that what they present about he missionary goals and book is true. I don't find it snarky.
quote: And just as a judicious juror needs to be aware of the techniques that lawyers use to make their cases, a shrewd investigator needs to know the techniques that missionaries use to make their cases. Again, this is true even if the missionaries are teaching the truth.
posted
Door-to-door religion salesman can be quite entertaining people. When I had more time I used to like to argue with them.
Then I made a game of trying to trade their literature for the stuff the last guys left.
Alas and alack, although Mormons are thick in these parts, they seem to be aware of my family's status vis-a-vis the LDS church, so they never talk to me.
Not like they were gonna get a convert, anyway, so I guess I should commend them for being up on their stuff.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Why study the missionaries strategy and tactics? The missionaries' objective is to baptize you--not to assist you in learning the whole truth about the church. "
I haven't read the entire link but I will a bit later but before RL calls, I'd like to respond to the above quote.
I think that it's true and not so true. Of course an objective of a missionary is to baptize and they DO want someone to learn the whole truth.
I've been a member of the LDS church my whole life and I find that I am still discovering parts of that truth. I don't know it all yet. Have I learned things that were disturbing to me? Sure.
I heard an analogy that the gospel is like a puzzle. When you are putting it together, first you might turn all the pieces right side up so you can examine them. Then you start grouping the edge pieces in a pile, a blue pile, red pile, etc...
Once the grouping is done it's time to start trying to put the blue picture together and suddenly you can see a part of the whole picture. The more you put together, the clearer the image is.
I've put puzzles together before that have had a piece or two missing. I didn't immediately throw the puzzle away, I looked under the table, looked in the box for it. Sometimes a piece was missing until I finished the puzzle and I found it in one of the other color piles.
I compare this to gaining a testimony. There might be things that make sense immediately. But the missing pieces might take a long time to resolve. Does that mean you focus on that missing piece? I guess that depends. But I don't because it hasn't been a bit enough of a deal to me and I think that my questions will be resolved (back to the faith that Tatiana has been talking about).
So, do missionaries want people to know the whole truth. Of course. Is it realistic? No. They want to give investigators enough tools to discover truths for themselves and to progress in getting the entire puzzle together.
quote: I'm kind of worried/nervous about the Mormons coming back on Sunday. I'm not positive I want to go back to the church, and I'm sure they'll be pressuring me to go (and I will probably cave to pressure). Worries piling up.
If you are worried, make sure someone else is with you when you talk to them, and let that person know up front that you are worried.
When I briefly investigated the LDS church and went through their six visits (I was thinking of joining at the time, but in the end, decided against) -- it was intimidating even to ME (an outgoing person) to have so many of "them" vs. "me" when I asked questions. Because I would have the two elders in the room, plus another couple (who were LDS friends of mine) and the pressure to agree with them was dramatic.
So take another non-LDS person with you to help keep the balance and maybe that will help you with the worries.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alas and alack, although Mormons are thick in these parts, they seem to be aware of my family's status vis-a-vis the LDS church, so they never talk to me.
The missionaries change every few months, and they do not keep records of people in the town that don't like them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True! I would totally chalk it up to not enough time and people to get around to everyone.
I was hoping the missionaries would tract into me for a whole year, during which time I had made up my mind to join the church, but was procrastinating about making the time commitment. They tracted into my mom at her house but never to mine. Finally I ended up calling them and telling them I was ready to take the lessons and be baptized. They were ecstatic about that! I laugh to remember it.
My missionaries were so great! Another reason they shift them around is so we don't get too attached to the individuals, I think. But Elder Mooney and I still keep up with each other online, which makes me glad. He's such a great guy! You guys met him when he posted here once looking for me when he lost my sn, didn't you?
There have been four or five sister missionaries in my ward in the last year that I've made good friends with, too. I got their email addresses so when they get done with their missions, hopefully we can also stay in touch. They are some of the greatest friends I've made in the church.
quote:The missionaries change every few months, and they do not keep records of people in the town that don't like them.
Well, it is slightly more complicated than that. My family has a long history with LDS going back to when my great-great-maybe-one-more-great-grandparents came over with Brigham Young. We've had a bit of a falling-out since then, in an incident that varies somewhat depending on who's telling the story... but my dad did find it remarkable that all the Mormons stopped talking to him the day he married my mother.
I'm not exactly sure how this works on the LDS end of things but I suspect it's something like "excommunicated for seven generations" or something equally goofy.
Not that I'm objecting. Gives me more time to torment the Jehovah's Witnesses. Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I now have a sort of made up excuse if I don't feel comfortable going to church with them. I have "plans" with a friend at that time. Whether said "plans" actually happen or not depends on how comfortable I am with the missionaries and going to church with them.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a good idea pfresh85. However, if they push too hard, I think you should let them know.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, if they push me too hard, I'll let them know. I'm not one to get pushed around a lot without at least speaking up. Thanks for the concern though, sweetbaboo.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, do missionaries want people to know the whole truth. Of course. Is it realistic? No. They want to give investigators enough tools to discover truths for themselves and to progress in getting the entire puzzle together.
It's my understanding that missionaries push for Baptism long before they try to teach the entire Doctrine. To me this seems a little bit like trying to get somebody to commit without telling them exactly what they're commiting too. It strikes me as deceptive.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard the same thing (about pushing for baptism before teaching everything doctrine-related). That was why I tried to read as much as I could about LDS doctrine before even first speaking with the missionaries. I wanted to have a good footing to discuss stuff.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to understand, for LDS baptism is more than a way to express membership. It is a saving ordinance. Ideally, a person should feel the Spirit of the Lord telling them the Church is true. That can come at any time, regardless of what you might know about the teachings of the Church. The main job of an LDS missionary, regardless of the importance of teaching, is to get the person to focus on communicating with God and finding things out for themselves.
Besides, Mormonism is a religion where learning is constant and never finished. There is no "everything doctrine-related." Get the idea of "entire Doctrine" out of your head if you are ever going to understand Mormon teachings. Although it has plenty of teachings that can be roughly translated as orthodoxy, Mormonism is mostly an experimental theology open to various and personal interpretations. The best you can do is learn the "basics" and work from that.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a slight problem, Occasional, with the idea of the missionaries trying to get me communicating with God. I'm all for trying to teach communication with God; that's fine. It's the answers I get when I tell the missionaries that I don't hear anything back from God that bother me. I rarely get a "it takes time; just keep at it." It's more of a "you aren't praying the right way then." To me, that's not an encouraging response, and it's part of the reason I'm always unsure about joining the Mormon religion.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case, I don't feel you are seeing the missionaries for the right reasons. On the other hand, I don't think the missionaries are doing THEIR jobs when they say that. Next time they say that, ask them what the RIGHT WAY is and see if they have any answers. Frankly, I agree with you about the real answer being "it takes time; just keep at it."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it's something I'll think about bringing up tomorrow. I can tell you that I pray about a lot of this stuff, about whether this is the right move for me, whether this is the truth and such. I really don't hear anything back from God though. It may be something to bring up tomorrow.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will give you a suggestion I learned at the time I gained what I consider a testimony of the Mormon faith. Don't just learn and pray; but actually put what you learn into action. Doing something often opens up answers from God where simple prayer might be only an aknowledgment of need. They may not say it in so many words, but Mormons are big on God helps those who help themselves.
What I mean is, lets say the lesson is about Christ overcoming sin and death. From that, try to live a life closer to the teachings of Jesus as you know them. Or, comfort those who might be grieving about a loss or some kind of sorrow. Another more Mormon specific teaching might be how Joseph Smith got answers from his prayer about religious questions. From that you might also decide to have a specific question to take to God and then both research and pray about it. The point is, find something to DO with what you learn more than just Hear and Pray.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I too served an LDS mission and I even taught missionaries for two years, so I am both 1) obviously biased and 2) familiar with "how things really work" with the process.
Occasional is right on here. Remember that you're dealing with missionaries, and their mission is to teach those who have a genuine desire to know truth for themselves. Any pressure you might feel may be the result of the individual missionaries, but it is neither church policy nor particularly helpful in the conversion process. Besides, look at it logically: pressuring people into baptism doesn't serve the church in the least. It defeats the purpose of the gospel. Any sales-like "tactics" or supposed pressure defeats the purpose of true conversion––it's a spiritual process, not a sale. If that's how this process feels, well, it's time to be honest and share your concerns with them.
It's not like they're going to lose a commission.
Now you need to ask yourself some hard questions. If you do not have a genuine desire to know for yourself, then what's keeping you involved? And if you do have a real desire, then live it first. THAT'S why reading scriptures and struggling with committed prayer over the process of time is the best course of action. The LDS Church teaches that one gains a witness "after the trial of your faith," and the word trial implies work, effort and possibly some discomfort.
And let's be honest here––the earlier link to uncovering the "tactics" of the missionaries to "convert" you is a very subtle but clear attempt to debunk the LDS Church's approach. Do not be fooled by the so-called "neutral" approach there. It isn't neutral. Its use of language implies that there is a underlying attempt to manipulate, trick, smooth-talk or lure you into conversion. That is a lie. Missionaries are taught that without the Spirit, "...ye cannot teach," so a purely intellectual approach is a failure from the get-go.
Your spiritual experience is personal and unique, and you should only commit and attend when YOU feel it is right. "Showing up" or going through the motions isn't conversion; it's insincere, and it's tough to get answers to prayer that way.
Have fun! This is an opportunity, not an obligation!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Now you need to ask yourself some hard questions. If you do not have a genuine desire to know for yourself, then what's keeping you involved? And if you do have a real desire, then live it first. THAT'S why reading scriptures and struggling with committed prayer over the process of time is the best course of action. The LDS Church teaches that one gains a witness "after the trial of your faith," and the word trial implies work, effort and possibly some discomfort.
I have a desire to know the truth, but that's not the only desire that keeps me involved (and I think that's been mentioned here before). I do read the scriptures (I've read a good deal of the Book of Mormon since my first visit with the missionaries). I pray nightly, asking about what is the truth and what is right for me. There is a measure of discomfort in the whole thing (talking to the missionaries, reading the Book of Mormon, and even praying about it). My family (for the most part) is staunchly anti-Mormon, and so for me to even be looking at the church brings about discomfort. I keep thinking that eventually I will get some sort of feedback for my efforts, that my faith will be affirmed. Instead, I feel like my efforts are futile gestures. My faith wanes with each passing day that I don't feel confirmation. I only had so much faith to start with, and to feel it chipped away little by little isn't so good.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not like they're going to lose a commission.
Wait, you didn't get paid per baptism? You must not have served in Europe.
I'm kidding, of course, but actually I had people offer me money several times on my mission (which, naturally, we turned down). I remember talking to one sharp-looking business-type guy in Reggio Emilia and asking if we could come visit him. He said no, and offered us a donation, instead (around $50, as I recall). I told him we'd rather have an hour of his time. He was actually really nice; I remember being disappointed that he was willing to part with some money but not some time.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I served in Switzerland, and I think my bank account's still teeming.
pfresh: We live in a world that provides instantaneous gratification, but the Lord himself talked about spiritual growth as "a seed" and uses garden allegories all the time. Conversion is never instantaneous, and it takes time.
Your description of prayer is very familiar to me. I've struggled at times, and I've learned that a lack of an immediate answer is not in and of itself proof your faith is failing. Here is a great talk on the subject that helped me when I was feeling much the same way. I liked its honest approach, so hopefully it might serve.
Your experience should be a fun, positive, enlightening experience. If it's not, it's time to tell the missionaries straight up. If you're finding yourself making excuses not to be involved––yet you have a desire to know––then it's time to ask yourself "why."
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) for seven or eight years now. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
