Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Mormon’

The Fight

Last night The Fight happened. If you’re married you know the one I am talking about. There I was thinking I was in the right being attacked somewhat, so I responded harshly with my Wife who was just trying to offer me a little help and share her concern for me.
I should have seen it happening, my reaction to the situation was like the pushing of the big red button…. Boom, I had nuclear war in my living room.

The biggest stink about it: was that I was totally to blame, it was totally my fault. I had created a situation that stressed me out, someone was trying to help and I offended her out of pride and selfishness.

My wife was about done with a discussion we were having (about my health) and she asked me if I understood what was in a report full of medical shorthand. My big fat mouth spewed the words, “Of course I understand it… I not stupid you know!” That’s when the Fight started.

An hour and 20 minutes later we calmed down and she reminded me that as the priesthood leader of the family it was my responsibility, my duty, to look after the spiritual wellbeing of home and all who dell there, and to promote peace.
She was right, and the fact that I had failed in this pursuit, was the biggest blow of all.
If it were Nuclear War in the preceding hour, this was like a comet to my bloated head, crushing my ego, and blasting apart my pride. She was so right. I was so wrapped in my own worries, and selfish wants, that I neglected my duty and Family.

Sometimes out of war we find peace. In peace we can examine truth, and in examining truth we may find humility and honesty.
Pride never brought about peace, at least not without war first.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I have heard many complain and argue with the LDS Philosophy of Milk before Meat when teaching of Gospel and spiritual things. Many just do not understand what is meant by Meat.

I look at it this way. The simple essentials of the Gospel can be taught rather quickly and bring someone to the understanding of Salvation and Exaltation. From this understanding one can choose to live in accordance to these principals or decide to turn from Christ.

So far this is just Milk.

For evangelical Christians and others that have issue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints philosophy of exaltation, I ask a few simple questions so that I can understand their point of view and help them to understand mine.

  1. What is “Salvation” to you?
  2. How does one obtain “Salvation,” or how is one brought to the point that they are considered “Saved?”
  3. Ok, let’s say you are saved… Now what?
  4. Do you continue to grow in Christ after you are considered “Saved?”

Anything beyond the essential principals of the Gospel is “Meat.”

“Meat” supports the principals and helps us continue in our progression beyond our spiritual infancy. As at one time my boy could not digest anything beyond Milk, we were spiritually at a point that we would not take to anything more than Spiritual Milk. Like my boy, he still young, is starting to eat meat and veggies in his diet, so we must include spiritual meat in our Spiritual Diet, when we are at an spiritual maturity to accept such understandings.

 

As an example of Spiritual Meat, I offer a link to a talk. Listen to Elder Bednar, and see what is really meant as Meat. See how it fits in and supports the Principals of the Gospel.  After you have received this understanding you may wonder What in the “Meat” is so offensive and contrary to the teachings of these other Christians that would cry foul to the LDS Philosophy of “Milk before Meat?”

http://lds.org/broadcast/ces/0,7341,538,00.html

 

God bless each and every one of you,

Ditchu 2009

Read Full Post »

I may be weird but I tend to re-read some old “text”-books from my College Years. Yes I have kept most of my college textbooks… I have only sold-back 1 book and maybe ridded myself of the clutter of a few of my copies of  the same books that my wife had when we married. I find it makes good for public transit when everyone around me is cussing up a storm, I can escape the bastardization of the English language into the thought provoking jargon of intellectual theory, i.e. reading.

Currently I am in the middle of a Mythology (can be applied to folklore, sociology, religion, faith, behavior, or psychology) book:  The Hero with a Thousand Faces  by Joseph Campbell  one of the leading authorities in the study of Philosophy, Myth and Folklore, (God rest his soul). So much so that he was interviewed on his favorite subject of Mythology about a year before he died and that special came out on OPB about 2 years after he had passed from this world to the next. His words do not represent any Church, Religion, or Faith, but sometimes, as with any philosopher, his words represent all.  Here is a part of the book that sums up an experience I have been encountering on-line recently:

 

Totem, tribal, racial, and aggressively missionizing cults represent only partial solutions of the psychological problem of subduing hate by love; they only partially initiate. Ego is not annihilated in them; rather, it is enlarged; instead of thinking only of himself, the individual becomes dedicated to the whole of his society. The rest of the world meanwhile (that is to say, by far the greater portion of mankind) is left outside the sphere of his sympathy and protection because outside the sphere of the protection of his god. And there takes place, then, that dramatic divorce of the two principles of love and hate which the pages of history so bountifully illustrate. Instead of clearing his own heart the zealot tries to clear the world. The laws of the City of God are applied only to his in-group (tribe, church, nation, class, or what not) while the fire of a perpetual holy war is hurled (with good conscience, and indeed a sense of pious service) against whatever uncircumcised, barbarian, heathen, “native,” or alien, people happens to occupy the position of neighbor.106

The world is full of the resultant mutually contending bands: totem-, flag-, and party-worshipers. Even the so-called Christian nations-which are supposed to be following a “World” Re-

deemer-are better known to history for their colonial barbarity and internecine strife than for any practical display of that unconditioned love, synonymous with the effective conquest of ego,

ego’s world, and ego’s tribal god, which was taught by their professed supreme Lord: “I say unto you, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for

them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” 107

Once we have broken free of the prejudices of our own provincially limited ecclesiastical, tribal, or national rendition of the world archetypes, it becomes possible to understand that the supreme initiation is not that of the local motherly fathers, who then project aggression onto the neighbors for their own defense. The good news, which the World Redeemer brings and which so many have been glad to hear, zealous to preach, but reluctant, apparently, to demonstrate, is that God is love, that He can be, and is to be, loved, and that all without exception are his children.108  Such comparatively trivial matters as the remaining details of the credo, the techniques of worship, and devices of episcopal organization (which have so absorbed the interest of Occidental theologians that they are today seriously discussed as the principal questions of religion),109 are merely pedantic snares, unless kept ancillary to the major teaching. Indeed, where not so kept, they have a regressive effect: they reduce the father image back again to the dimensions of the totem. And this, of course, is what has happened throughout the Christian world. One would think that we had been called upon to decide or to know whom, of all of us, the Father prefers. Whereas, the teaching is much less flattering: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” 110   The World

Savior’s cross, in spite of the behavior of its professed priests, is a vastly more democratic symbol than the local flag.111

   The understanding of the final-and critical-implications of the world-redemptive words and symbols of the tradition of Christendom has been so disarranged, during the tumultuous centuries that have elapsed since St. Augustine’S declaration of the holy war of the Civitas Dei against the Civitas DiaboliJ that the modern thinker wishing to know the meaning of a world religion (i.e., of a doctrine of universal love) must turn his mind to the other great (and much older) universal communion: that ‘ of the Buddha, where the primary word still is peace-peace to all beings.112

(Pages 156-159)

 

It is not to be taken that Buddhism is the only religion that holds truth, nor the only way to God. Never the less Buddhism is in reality a Philosophy more than a religion.

 

What is this section from Campbell’s book saying about me? That is a good question to ask. Too often I am coming across the idea from many different people, that belonging to a group, somehow makes us better than everyone else. Often of late I have been dealing with Christians (like myself) but are trying to segment God’s children into little boxes and say “We are saved but you are not.” Or “We are Christian but you are not.” Some sadly do so and think or say that it is out of Love, compassion, or concern for others. In truth it is for no concern of others that this ideal becomes rooted in us. It is out of self-concern, some may even call it greed. Greed for power or position, the ability to say that they are better than others, to believe they belong to a “select group” that would gain the favor of God while others do not. Campbell has pointed out that it is not from love of others but love of ourselves only that we do not accept the divinity and righteousness, the Worth of each of God’s children, of each of God’s creation, in humble equality.  I am not of greater worth in God’s eyes than any of you, for “God is no respector of persons.”  If I mess up the same as you, I find no more favor with deity.  What does it matter if I call myself Christian, and you don’t? What does it matter if you consider yourself Christian and do not want to consider me with that title, because I am “Mormon”? These are just words, words with definitions, and by definition I am a Christian. But how can I deny others who claim the Christian Faith? I cannot see the works they do not show. I cannot determine their faith. If you tell me you are Christian, or Muslim, or even an Occultist, Who am I to say you are not?

 

Words do not replace faith, words do not replace action. It is Faith that brings you closer to Deity, and faith prompts for action.

 

Someone has called me a “Relativist” trying to say that some statements I made speak to him in General terms about there being many paths to God. Those statements, however, were precise and were speaking of his expressed beliefs and mine, in no uncertain terms.

I am not a relativist, but do leave room for differing beliefs and faith practices. I attest that I do believe that there is only one true Path to our Heavenly Father’s Kingdom. However I only know what I know, no one else can say more. I do not tell you how to worship, or who to worship. If you ask we, at best you will get how and who I worship, what I believe, and maybe some reasoning behind it.  I am not here to condemn you but to share the truth I have found. I am not here to claim my rightness over others, but if you can see the light of Christ shine through my love for you, then you may see that I will rejoice in you victories. I hope to celebrate in the Kingdom of Heaven with you someday, even if I am wrong and there are infinite paths there, as I do believe that Jesus Christ is the only way, and we must accept him to enter. But the issue is not if I am right or wrong. The issue is discovering Truth and sharing it with all who will listen. We Christians should not quibble over minor details to segment different Christian groups and labeling them: some “Saved” others “Unsaved.” If we truly believe in the teachings of Christ we should implement them into our daily lives and stop to share His Love with all of our Brothers and Sisters, all of Humanity, all of His Creation.

 

God bless,

 

Dithcu 4 November 2008

Read Full Post »

*Finding Truth: what tells us the scriptures are true?

 

Many have argued that the Bible is both true and valid, but scripture not contained in the Bible is not true or valid.

 

I make the following statement:

The mere inclusion into the Cannon that is today’s Bible is not evidence to its truthfulness nor its quality of being the word of God. On this line of thinking I’d also submit that the mere exclusion of any scripture does not make them any less true or of less authority as the word of God.

 

There needs to be more than some person in history deciding to include a manuscript in a cannon to make it scripture. Although I personally agree that the Bible is inspired by God and I personally revere it as scripture, my decision on this is not due to a meeting that happened in Nicaea in 325 AD. I have a personal testimony of the scriptural value and validity of the truth of the Bible, as I do of some other scriptures.

As LDS, I am constantly encouraged to develop my testimony and faith in what is true.

 

I have heard the argument against the Bible: “any transmission errors at all mean it couldn’t have been inspired by God.”
I disagree with this line of thinking. I tend to think “any transmission errors at all” are due to the fallibility of people, even with the best of intentions and direct inspiration from God some errors are bound to be exhibited by the men writing the record. I also apply this to all scripture. That seems fair to me.

On the other hand, I extend to you that God gave individuals inspiration to write the manuscripts that make up the Bible. But how is it that these people did could not make any mistakes? I think they could have.

 

What tells you that the Bible is true?

For me and many other LDS members that I know do not use the fact that the scripture included in the Bible was the decided on in 325 AD at what we could call a conference led by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. That is not proof of its truthfulness nor should be equated as proof.

I believe the Bible to be True, but my Testimony came from study, question, testing my Faith and receiving Answers directly.

 

I am telling you to find out for yourself if the Bible and other scriptures are true and don’t rely on a second hand Testimony on the matter. Don’t just take my word for it. Challenge yourself, Find out if it is True! Pray about it if you believe in Prayer.

 

About any questions on the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon does not suggest anything contrary to what you find in the New Testament. The only differing factor in the teachings of Jesus is that when he visited the Book of Mormon peoples he had already died and was a resurrected being. Read it before passing judgment, as with any scripture.

 

 

Read Full Post »