Posted on 11/06/2010 8:55:29 AM PDT by Colofornian
In sacrament meeting last week, the bishop got up and announced he had received a letter from the First Presidency. As he prepared to read it, the congregation perked up.
Moments like this are always attention-getters for Mormons. Normally, we get direction from the top during General Conference.
Occasionally something can’t wait and it comes in the form of an official letter from the brethren telling us to start (or stop) doing something.
Because it’s important enough to warrant pronouncement from the top, the subject could be anything from a formal declaration of the Second Coming to an admonishment regarding inappropriate Sabbath footwear.
“This is it,” my brain hollered as the bishop got ready to read. “We’re going back to Jackson County. I told you to change the oil in the truck. C’mon, let’s go find a map!”
“Shut up,” I said.
Apparently that last part was out loud because the last two rows of worshippers turned and looked at me.
The letter turned out to be something of no real concern to me. Basically, it told/counseled rank-and-file Mormons to stop pestering church headquarters for clarification of church doctrine.
Apparently some members get so stressed about the finer points of doctrine that they’ll fire off a letter asking for the final word. Church HQ can’t handle the demand.
I’ve never done this, but a letter calling for doctrinal clarification probably goes something like this:
“Dear President/Elder [Pick One]:
“When is it appropriate for worthy Latter-day Saints to burn a witch?”
“Please settle a bet. I say Neanderthal man could never hold the priesthood.”
“After much prayer and thought, I can’t decide if the Holy Ghost could beat up Optimus Prime.”
“May I use Chapstick on Fast Sunday and still hold a temple recommend?”
Disclaimer: I’m probably wasting my breath here, but I made up all of those doctrinal questions. Do not forward this column to church HQ. The answers (in corresponding order) are: never; maybe; our money’s on H.G.; and get a grip.
According to the First Presidency’s letter, members with real doctrinal concerns were to seek the counsel of our local leaders — stake president, bishop, Scoutmaster, building custodian, etc.
I’m blessedly free from this mandate because I don’t wrestle with any huge doctrinal questions. I divide church into two distinct categories: stuff I’ll do and stuff I won’t. In both cases I rely on the counsel of my brain, keeping in mind that it isn’t always right.
For example, after sacrament meeting I ran into my stake president in the hallway. When my brain saw him, it immediately began shouting for us to run away.
“Calm down,” I told it.
Apparently that part was out loud as well, because President Russ Davey said, “Robert, I’m always calm when I see you in church.”
Robert Kirby can be reached at rkirby@sltrib.com.
OK. take ONLY this one statement of yours at face value, and then combine it with John 3:16.
What might we conclude?
(a) Jesus shed blood & died for the whole world (John 3:16)
(b) That blood saves
But then does that add up to meaning the whole world is saved?
Jesus didn't indicate that. In fact, He said at one point that wide is the road that leads to destruction.
So, we need to dig deeper as to what leads many to this wide-road destruction -- deeper than your cute statement that theology doesn't save, Jesus does.
So what's the hang-up, then?
Well, for starters, let's focus on what the apostle Paul stressed in 2 Cor. 5: 18-20: Reconciliation, which is, after all, a Relationship word.
But simultaneously, we can still realize, "Hey. Identity theft exists. People can still enter into false relationships...thinking they've encountered the genuine God or the genuine Christ." (Jesus discussed false messiahs in Matthew 24).
Consider some of the horror flicks strewn about by Hollywood...ones where the female victim has mistrusted the wrong guy...having misid'd him as her would-be knight in shining armor. As the flick script goes, the guy is originally billed as a supposed "good samaritan" who changed her tire or offered to give her ride from a broken-down vehicle.
The irony is...if Hollywood would ever finish these storylines to the end...these knights in shining armor who "saved" these women in distress...who as the movie progresses, winds up preying upon false trust...do at times indeed wind up "dying for" these women...as they are strapped into the electric chair for killing them, that is!!!
My point? All "theology" is -- is the "study of"...
...
...and if some lady starts relating to a guy online -- and "misid's" him...IOW, she failed to "study" who he really is, or if she fails to "study" who the potential "good samaritan" is...
...well, that has or can become a fatal fault.
So while it sounds great that theology doesn't save you, lack of knowing who God really is (which is the heart of theology) can still leave you in your sins.
If I don't know the true you, Newheart, inevitably if I try to describe you I will be off base. Even if I've heard some correct things about you, and relay that to others...if I don't you, and try to relay to others who you are...at some point, if I keep it up, I am going to be so off-base that I'm no longer describing YOU. At some point, I thereby flunk Newheartology. Well, so it is with God.
Jesus made it plain in John 17:3 that what moves us into that relationship with God and with Christ is "Knowing the ONLY TRUE God." If you misidentify who God is and who Jesus is, then your response to Him is going to be faulty. And while your point is that it's faulty already for all of us; my point is that at some point, people move away from responding to the true God as He is...and wind up responding to a charicature of Him.
Theology can be so poor that many people do indeed respond to a mere charicature -- a totally false ID of who God is.
You can't just say that all responding to conflicting attributes about God is still leads us all to the same relationship with Him.
It wasn't only a fairy tale where we learned about a wolf attempting to gobble up others.
The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian church for three years night & day about savage wolves who wouldn't spare the flock...and how did Paul say they would do that?
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31)
I'm sure much of the flock through the centuries that hasn't been spared knew that Jesus died for them. But knowing that cognitively -- and actually being in a relationship with the true Christ and the true God -- are two different things.
AMEN!
Ping for later read
It is indeed faulty for all of us. Today we see as through a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face. It is our fallenness that prohibits us from having the clearest vision of Christ today and we must recognize that fact about ourselves with humility. But fortunately, our vision is also not what saves us—another 'cute' phrase, I suppose. Instead it is Christ's work on the cross, plus nothing. It is always that 'plus nothing' that leads us all into trouble. Mormons and Christians of all stripes alike.
Yet with Paul, "I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." Phillipians 1:6
And I pray there are many who call themselves Mormon today who are in that category.
bttt
Isn’t that adorable how he calls the Holy Ghost “H.G.”?
Isn’t that adorable how he calls the Holy Ghost “H.G.”?
Or more accurately, in the garden, sweating blood.
I've lived in Utah for 15 years and when asked why they don't wear crosses or have them on their church buildings, I've been told "we don't focus on that".
I've also heard from Mormons here on FR explaining that Jesus' method of death was unimportant, just a period at the end of a sentence. "If he had been shot to death", they'll say, "would you wear a tiny gold revolver on a chain around your neck?"
Q: The Mormon church claims to be a "restoration" of the original Church Jesus Christ started.
Well, imagine that! Either George Washington, who came up with that word "president" to apply to himself, either knew by some hidden occultic source that Jesus Christ used that strictly English term in the Middle East and the supposed Book of Mormon Americas 2,000 years ago...or...
...George Washington invented that term in the 1700s and Jesus was prophetically using that term 2,000 years ago...only for some reason, saw fit to have it stricken from the Bible...and the Book of Mormon.
All, what do you think as to which, if any, answer fits the bill here? [Of course, Option #3 is that the Mormon church isn't a "restoration" of anything remotely Christian]
Oh, and for you non-Mormons, allow me to define "the First Presidency" as Mormons have defined it: It's who they regard as their "prophet" in conjunction with two general authority "counselors" -- often men who have served the Lds church as "apostles."
I mean...just think of all those letters the apostle Paul rec'd from New Testament churches at Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, Philippi, the Galatians and the Colossians! Now imagine that instead of over 1/3rd of the New Testament being filled with Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, we have repetitive "form letters" from Paul reading:
Dear Insert Here,
In response to your letter, hey, stop pestering me for clarification of church doctrine. Besides, I'm on a mission, anyway. And you should know missionary rules mandate that I'm to write "less frequently to...acquaintances" [Literal missionary rule #32] than I am to my parents [Literal rule #31] Source: see Lds Missionary rules @ Post #24
However, if you’re asking these questions with sincerity and real intent, and if you’re a member that has real doctrinal concerns, please seek the counsel of your bishop or stake president.
(I know I haven't mentioned anything about these "stake presidents" in my communications with you...and I know Jesus didn't, either...but if you don't like that, take it up with the "First Presidency")
Uh. On second thought, don't. We're overwhelmed as is.
And, of course, I'll understand if you don't know what a "president" is...We'll explain that later...like almost 1,800 years later.
Signed,
The apostle Paul, Missionary and Missionary President-at-large
First Presidency with Peter and James
Where's the wonder of "present-day revelation" in the most important act of choosing the Prophet, Seer and Revelator? You'd think the previous prez would have had a revelation before he was transported directly to the Celestial Kingdom. Or, one of the Twelve, since they are all prophets would have...oh wait...how convenient would that have been? "I had a revelation that I'm to be the new Prophet."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.