The Church

[KillerDog]

The other possiblity is that God isn't involved. That's what most rational people care to examine the situation conclude.

I see your Lavelle Edwards analogy. Reading the OT it seems to me God has a problem winning in the post season. Things go along fine for a long time then pretty much invariably everything turns to shit. But I don't think God advocated the Israelites only scheduling patsy opponents.

I agree that is a possibility but you forget that I am both a rational person and a person of faith. The two are not mutually exclusive. As a result, my default is that God exists and is involved. The logical side dictates two choices, the faith side picks the one that is God centric instead of man centric.

[JohnnyLingo]

I suppose there is something the Church could do that would make me leave. I don't think the Church would ever do it, however. Basically, it would have to be something so drastic and overt that I could not reconcile the Church and what I know of God. I won't give you an example, but I dont' think the Church will ever get to that (personal) point.

Thanks for your honest answer. I think a lot of people are this way, but not many take the time to think about it.

He is a great delegator and allows those he delegates to the authority to mess up. He does reign them in if they get too far afield.

Ah ha, so here we have the "God will strike me down" doctrine, yes? Do you have an example of Church leaders being reigned in for getting too far afield? What, in your opinion, constituted "too far afield"?

[KillerDog]

Thanks for your honest answer. I think a lot of people are this way, but not many take the time to think about it.



Ah ha, so here we have the "God will strike me down" doctrine, yes? Do you have an example of Church leaders being reigned in for getting too far afield? What, in your opinion, constituted "too far afield"?

I noticed a decided "thinning of the herd" in the general authority ranks in the years leading up to the declaration that every worth male could hold the priesthood. Some might say that the deaths of certain brethren caused a shift in balance that allowed for the vote to swing the other way. I prefer to think that God got tired of the mistaken belief that this was doctrine and he struck down those that needed to be struck down. One of the beauties of the "struck down" concept is also that we don't know what someone would have done if they hadn't been struck down. There have been many members of the Q of 12 who never became prophets. I don't know what they were planning to do but I assume some were going to lead the Church astray.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Recent discussions on CUF have me thinking about the relationship between the Church and God. Plenty of individuals here take issue with things the Church does or says (Family Proclamation, blacks and the priesthood, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Yet no one rails against God, not even SU.

I'm just wondering how everyone (this does not include SU) deals with the disconnect of believing the Church is God's church, yet disagreeing so intensely with what it does.

Because if God is the one calling the shots on said troubling aspects of the Church, then your argument is with Him, right?

And on the other hand, if God is not calling the shots, at what point is the Church going rogue and just making stuff up? When do you reach the point of Jarid in Cedar and just leave?

Now is my name being used as an adverb or an adjective in this sentance? Hopefully an English major can clear that up. I look forward to the day thay my name will be used as a verb. That would be awesome.

[SoonerCoug]

What proposition? I never said I believe God approves of everything the Church does.

But my follow-up question still applies.... at what point do you see the Church as being not worth your time anymore? Or is there no such point?

The Church is always worth time. At a minimum, there is plenty of entertainment value. I enjoy observing tribal group think, etc. And I do think there is plenty of value in wholesome living. The trick is remaining intellectually independent and psychologically undamaged.

[KillerDog]

Now is my name being used as an adverb or an adjective in this sentance? Hopefully an English major can clear that up. I look forward to the day thay my name will be used as a verb. That would be awesome.

One day, I may Jarid in Cedar my wife.

There you go.

[JohnnyLingo]

I noticed a decided "thinning of the herd" in the general authority ranks in the years leading up to the declaration that every worth male could hold the priesthood. Some might say that the deaths of certain brethren caused a shift in balance that allowed for the vote to swing the other way. I prefer to think that God got tired of the mistaken belief that this was doctrine and he struck down those that needed to be struck down. One of the beauties of the "struck down" concept is also that we don't know what someone would have done if they hadn't been struck down. There have been many members of the Q of 12 who never became prophets. I don't know what they were planning to do but I assume some were going to lead the Church astray.

Right, others on the board have espoused this theory, but it makes me wonder why God can't just reveal the new doctrine to His mouthpiece and be done with it? Would these men actively resist it? Would the prophet himself?

Wouldn't you think these men have a relationship with God, and would therefore be able to get confirmation from Him as to whether or not this new doctrine was from Him?

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm leading you anywhere... I'm just thinking and typing.

Now is my name being used as an adverb or an adjective in this sentance? Hopefully an English major can clear that up. I look forward to the day thay my name will be used as a verb. That would be awesome.

Nah, your name is just a noun in that sentence. "The point of Jarid" = "Jarid's point."

I'll see if I can verb it one of these days.

[SeattleUte]

I agree that is a possibility but you forget that I am both a rational person and a person of faith. The two are not mutually exclusive. As a result, my default is that God exists and is involved. The logical side dictates two choices, the faith side picks the one that is God centric instead of man centric.

I don't think there's a smattering of rationality to belief that the LDS Church is "God's one true Church." It's utterly irrational. In fact, while I more than entertain the idea of a Creator or Supreme Being, and fully apprecitate religion's importance to who we are, and religion's contining enrichment of our imagination, I find the idea of one true church completely offensive, indeed a form of bigotry.

Take the Jews, the classic, the inventors of the one true church paradigm. The Jewish people, for all their hugely outsized importance to our culture, needed a symbiosis with our pagan side to really achieve their full flowering as a people (for all the oppression they suffered from the pagan side). The same is true for Mormonism, even more so. In fact, there's little or nothing original in Mormon practice or belief or doctrine (I can't think of an organization that is more of a magpie). Indeed, in the past 30 years Mormonism has become a more tolerant, loving, admirable, enlightened organization ONLY because of secular society's influence and pressure (though it has a long ways to go).

The human story has been much if not wholly about a given people or race or tribe having to learn that it is not the center of the world, sometimes in a very painful way, and becoming better for it. I think that's one of the purposes of religion, to set up the conditions for that lesson.

[SoonerCoug]

Wouldn't you think these men have a relationship with God, and would therefore be able to get confirmation from Him as to whether or not this new doctrine was from Him?

I think the nature of their relationship is grossly exaggerated.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Recent discussions on CUF have me thinking about the relationship between the Church and God. Plenty of individuals here take issue with things the Church does or says (Family Proclamation, blacks and the priesthood, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Yet no one rails against God, not even SU.

I'm just wondering how everyone (this does not include SU) deals with the disconnect of believing the Church is God's church, yet disagreeing so intensely with what it does.

Because if God is the one calling the shots on said troubling aspects of the Church, then your argument is with Him, right?

And on the other hand, if God is not calling the shots, at what point is the Church going rogue and just making stuff up? When do you reach the point of Jarid in Cedar and just leave?

To answer your question, it comes when you decide that the church is not what it says that it is. Which specifically is God's church here on Earth. When you reach that point, then the LDS church is bascially no different than the dozens(hundreds?) of other christian faiths.

Churches are an organized way for someone to worship God. God's influence is directed at the individual to help them live, learn, and grow. God does not influence the organization and its leadership and then say "Ok, now go out and direct the masses for me."

People attend a specific church, hopefully, because is a focal point for them to develop a closer, more personal relationship with God. When you look at the failings of the LDS church, or any other religion, it is when they lose sight of that purpose.

[Jarid in Cedar]

One day, I may Jarid in Cedar my wife.

There you go.

[falafel]

Nah, your name is just a noun in that sentence. "The point of Jarid" = "Jarid's point."

I'll see if I can verb it one of these days.

"point" is the noun, Jarid's is the descriptor. In other words, its an adj. Everyone so far has Jarid in Cedar'd it up.

[JohnnyLingo]

"point" is the noun, Jarid's is the descriptor. In other words, its an adj. Everyone so far has Jarid in Cedar'd it up.

You are correct. I don't know what I was thinking. Probably not much.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The Church is always worth time. At a minimum, there is plenty of entertainment value. I enjoy observing tribal group think, etc. And I do think there is plenty of value in wholesome living. The trick is remaining intellectually independent and psychologically undamaged.

I like that phrase.

[byu71]

I'm just curious, sorry for making you angry.

You don't need to participate in this thread if you feel I am being nosy.

Whose angry? I didn't think you were nosy either. I was just suggesting because an answer isn't the one you wanted doesn't make it vague.