Enduring to the End

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:28 pm

You really think not having sex makes you a happy person? You think NOT doing things makes you a happy person? Please explain that to me.

Certain drugs will make me miserable? Gotta tell you certain drugs are a JOY! And don't regret it.

Denying yourself enjoyments of life make you a better person? HOW? Isn't it COMPLETELY possible to enjoy everything life has to offer without it hurting others or yourself? Why do we believe these things actually hurt us? Because society says so? I wonder how I'm flawed? I only wondered that because society said there is something DEFINITELY wrong with me. Screw that. Nothing wrong with enjoying pleasure. Nothing.

Post by **_Runtu** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:29 pm

Scottie wrote:So what I'm hearing here is that we should all just turn into beasts. That we should eat and drink anything we want because it feels good, that we should have sex with anyone and everyone because it feels good, that we should take what we want because it feels good...consequences be damned.

Where are you getting that? I think everyone needs to decide what they want to do based on what they believe is in their best interests. The problem comes when you accept someone else's template and spend your lifetime trying to make it work, when you know deep down that the template is not in your best interests.

All of these things go against the natural man. Yet, we all strive every day to NOT do these things because, in the end, we will be better people. And, we will be happier in the long run.

I don't know. I think deciding who I want to become and working to become that person is what makes me happy.

Post by **_MishMagnet** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:52 pm

For a little while, after concluding the church wasn't true, I still had Visiting Teachers. I remember having a lesson about this Natural Man subject. Although I had heard the term numerous times in my upbringing I guess this time I was hearing it with new ears. I can say I've never heard the term elsewhere.

It seems a bit of a dichotomy to say 1) I'm a child of God, made in His image. 2) Without church guidance I would be whoring, drinking, drugging, stealing. Thus is the Natural Man.

I do believe that every human being is capable of all of the above. A long time ago I stopped saying "Well, I would NEVER...." Circumstances can lead us to do things we never thought possible. I guess the difference between now and then is that now I rely on reason and then I relied on the church. I can't have sex. It's against my religion. I'm married now but was single for several years after leaving the church. I did have to make up my own mind about sex. I found that, based on reason, my resolve was much stronger than my church fall-back. I'm nearly 40 years old, I have never used drugs. Why have I not used drugs. They are illegal and I have an addictive personality. When I have been 'tempted' to use drugs I feel it's just curiosity, not any devil or natural man issue.

As with the word 'enduring' perhaps this is just a difference in wording. In any case, for the record, I don't think of life as anything to be 'endured' nor do I subscribe to "The Natural Man".

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:07 pm

Phaedrus Ut wrote:"Enduring to the end" seems to be a carrot and stick philosophy that exists in religions that require high committment. It reminds me of the many paintings you see in LDS homes with the quote "I never said it would be easy I only said it would be worth it". *
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=2168925

Both sayings ring very true in the minds of LDS members. All of the emotional investment, time obligations, and financial requirements to be a active member in the church can be tiring to many. I think the hope is that they made the right decision and it will be worth it in the end. Hopefully a life of High Committment = High Reward

* Even though this quote may ring true if you are LDS because it accurately describes your reality. The truth is Jesus never said it. In fact his words are quite the opposite.

Matthew 11
(28) Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Phaedrus

I hate that 'worth it' quote.

"In addition to doctrines, principles, laws, covenants, ordinances, and standards, we find another common element--but this one not originated on high, but instead originated on the moral agency which the Lord gave unto every human being (Doctrine & Covenants 101:78). I call this element "lore," and it includes morals, aphorisms, sayings, slogans, clichés, stereotypes, and even banalities spread by word of mouth or other means of social exchange. A number of these display some degree of harmony with divine laws and Church standards-and these we might categorize as those the Lord referred to when he commanded us to "... seek ... out of the best books words of wisdom ..." (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) However, others may contradict gospel doctrines and standards in some degree.

Let me give you a popular example of one such disagreement: One day I was at the home of very kind and faithful Latter-day Saint friends. As I glanced around their room I noticed a beautiful flier with the saying: "I never said it would be easy; I only said it would be worth it."

The pronoun in the sentence suggested that those words would have been declared by the Savior. I pointed to my host that in reality the Savior had never expressed the idea that living the gospel wouldn't be easy, but instead he had stated: "... my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30) My host then stated: "You're right. The Savior said the opposite." But after a moment the person added: "But the statement is so beautiful ... I'll keep it where it is." With that reply, I didn't say another word.

Another example is the popular heart-warming allegory titled "Footprints on the Sand," which attempts to convey the not-entirely-accurate idea that the Lord will literally carry his children in his arms in times of trouble and adversity. In reality, the Lord never promised to exempt us from the challenges of mortality. To do so, would require a violation of some of the very purposes of mortal life. He will support, strengthen, and encourage his children, and with his divine assistance we will overcome the adversities of life.

Just because an account sounds believable, poetic, or heart-warming, it doesn't mean that it is doctrinally accurate. And if a doctrinally inaccurate idea is used as "faith-promoting," what kind of faith would it promote?"

http://w3.byuh.edu/academics/religion/m ... s-talk.htm

Post by **_gramps** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:25 pm

The Nehor wrote:
Phaedrus Ut wrote:"Enduring to the end" seems to be a carrot and stick philosophy that exists in religions that require high committment. It reminds me of the many paintings you see in LDS homes with the quote "I never said it would be easy I only said it would be worth it". *
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=2168925

Both sayings ring very true in the minds of LDS members. All of the emotional investment, time obligations, and financial requirements to be a active member in the church can be tiring to many. I think the hope is that they made the right decision and it will be worth it in the end. Hopefully a life of High Committment = High Reward

* Even though this quote may ring true if you are LDS because it accurately describes your reality. The truth is Jesus never said it. In fact his words are quite the opposite.

Matthew 11
(28) Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Phaedrus

I hate that 'worth it' quote.

"In addition to doctrines, principles, laws, covenants, ordinances, and standards, we find another common element--but this one not originated on high, but instead originated on the moral agency which the Lord gave unto every human being (Doctrine & Covenants 101:78). I call this element "lore," and it includes morals, aphorisms, sayings, slogans, clichés, stereotypes, and even banalities spread by word of mouth or other means of social exchange. A number of these display some degree of harmony with divine laws and Church standards-and these we might categorize as those the Lord referred to when he commanded us to "... seek ... out of the best books words of wisdom ..." (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) However, others may contradict gospel doctrines and standards in some degree.

Let me give you a popular example of one such disagreement: One day I was at the home of very kind and faithful Latter-day Saint friends. As I glanced around their room I noticed a beautiful flier with the saying: "I never said it would be easy; I only said it would be worth it."

The pronoun in the sentence suggested that those words would have been declared by the Savior. I pointed to my host that in reality the Savior had never expressed the idea that living the gospel wouldn't be easy, but instead he had stated: "... my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30) My host then stated: "You're right. The Savior said the opposite." But after a moment the person added: "But the statement is so beautiful ... I'll keep it where it is." With that reply, I didn't say another word.

Another example is the popular heart-warming allegory titled "Footprints on the Sand," which attempts to convey the not-entirely-accurate idea that the Lord will literally carry his children in his arms in times of trouble and adversity. In reality, the Lord never promised to exempt us from the challenges of mortality. To do so, would require a violation of some of the very purposes of mortal life. He will support, strengthen, and encourage his children, and with his divine assistance we will overcome the adversities of life.

Just because an account sounds believable, poetic, or heart-warming, it doesn't mean that it is doctrinally accurate. And if a doctrinally inaccurate idea is used as "faith-promoting," what kind of faith would it promote?"

http://w3.byuh.edu/academics/religion/m ... s-talk.htm

How you determine doctrinal accuracy, nehor?

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:02 pm

Thanks Nehor, great points,

We received a framed "footprints" for our wedding 20 years ago. I have always been disturbed in some degree with it. Having had a couple devastating experiences in my life as a TBM, I'm not sure where Jesus was the entire time. It wasn't as if He was bearing my burdens, I felt them profoundly, although there were times when I thought I felt the opposite. Are we that stupid and unfeeling that we can't tell the difference?

But then again, maybe it was my lack of faith. Maybe so.

The poem states that the guy complained that there was only one pair of footprints and he thought he felt the full weight of his burdens. The fact that the author (not Jesus) says He was carrying me doesn't jive with the actual experience at all. Otherwise, why do so many of us end up on medication and a psychologist instead of Jesus? (reminder: prozac, real big in Utah)

I dunno. I'm kindof asking. Just tired of the platitudes though.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:23 am

There is a saying that a persons testimony is sealed by their death.

Its when a person is gone that those that knew them review their life. They ask, "What is it that they will be remembered for?"

Did they live their life in crescendo? Did they go out of this world striving to emulate Christ?

Over time a person develops habits and establishs a culture that identifies them. If we live our lives enduring through the temporal pleasure seekers and cleave to those who embrace the precepts of eternal happiness, we then are seen as one who has endured to the end.

And such as these are labeled children of Christ, because those who knew them can state that their names, like Christ, can be associated with Salvation.

Post by **_mormonmistress** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:33 am

Gazelam wrote:Did they go out of this world striving to emulate Christ?

From the little I've read from your posts Gaz, you should be really worried. You sure as hell don't emulate Christ.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:22 am

mormonmistress wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Did they go out of this world striving to emulate Christ?

From the little I've read from your posts Gaz, you should be really worried. You sure as hell don't emulate Christ.

that's becasue your perceptions are askew. The God you want isn't so much a Father in Heaven as he is a Grandfather in heaven. The kind that gives you all the candy you want and lets you run around like a wild indian.

Welcome to the real world.

Post by **_keene** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:42 am

Gazelam wrote:
mormonmistress wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Did they go out of this world striving to emulate Christ?

From the little I've read from your posts Gaz, you should be really worried. You sure as hell don't emulate Christ.

that's becasue your perceptions are askew. The God you want isn't so much a Father in Heaven as he is a Grandfather in heaven. The kind that gives you all the candy you want and lets you run around like a wild indian.

Welcome to the real world.

God's in the real world? Where? I only ever see him on sundays, and I haven't seen that since I moved out of Utah...