Truth Dancer and The Spirit

[_mfbukowski]

Your idea of many roads to OZ still does not conform to what the church teaches. The church teaches that other paths may lead closer to the true path but in order to be with God and all that you will eventually need to find that path.

If Oz is the Celestial Kingdom, I am missing what you are saying. Let's try hard not to get caught up in semantics here ok? It seems like a distinction without a difference.

[_mfbukowski]

I think the church's doctrine in a hundreds year will look nothing like they do today. Maybe they will look more like MFB ideas.

I don't take any credit for these ideas- there are many TBM's who would agree today. Clearly Kevin C is one of them, I believe. Blake Ostler I think is another, though I have not read him extensively.

I personally think you need to study these other positions more, and yes, the church is a dynamic and living entity- it grows organically as all living entities do.

Think of a 2000 year old olive tree. Is it the "same tree" it was 2,000 years ago when it was a seed?

As culture changes, the church must change- THAT is the reality of a living church

I recall that just before I was baptized, the Blacks and the Priesthood revelation was given and someone- I don't remember who- but definitely a GA said "For those who do not believe in revelation there can be no answer, and for those who do, there can be no question."

And THAT was one of the main reasons I got baptized.

Many here condemn the church for changing, I embrace it. It must change to stay a living church.

[_Themis]

Your idea of many roads to OZ still does not conform to what the church teaches. The church teaches that other paths may lead closer to the true path but in order to be with God and all that you will eventually need to find that path.

If Oz is the Celestial Kingdom, I am missing what you are saying. Let's try hard not to get caught up in semantics here ok? It seems like a distinction without a difference.

Let me help then. I have no problem with the idea that many roads can lead to OZ. If OZ is the Celestial kingdom, then no, the Church does not teach that many roads lead to OZ. You may believe that(I have no problem with that), but the church certainly does not teach that. It would be more correct to say that many roads can lead to the only path that will lead to OZ, but you will eventually have to take that path in order to get to OZ.

I would ask when it come to the Celestial kingdom, do you think one can get their with out finding the LDS path, whether in this life or the next?

[_mfbukowski]

Oh, I totally understand this. However, the bottom line is, if someone doesn't believe in the LDS church and Joseph Smith, they are not going to be with God in the CKHL. Period.

Pardon the informality, but this is straight talk

Listen, I agree with you. This is an "if - then" sentence.

IF Joseph was a fraud, who should follow him? Nobody! So the whole CKHL is a fraud too, right?

So let's say I get over there and meet Joseph and look him straight in the eye and spend an afternoon with him (time doesn't mean anything, right?) and decide that "this guy is crooked as can be" I am out of there!

Buddhism, Catholicism, etc- whatever-- here I come!

THIS is how I honestly believe it will be "over there".

But here is the clincher- THOSE OTHER RELIGIONS DON'T SAY IT WILL BE THIS WAY- they say there will be no opportunity to change in the afterlife.

I don't believe that there will be no opportunity to change in the afterlife- I have believed that since before I joined the LDS church.

So where does that leave me? Either I messed up and I go to hell- but sorry, I don't think that is what a loving Father (also my belief before I joined) would do to somebody who earnestly was trying here would do-- OR I get another chance.

But this church is the only one which teaches I get another chance so......

[_Themis]

I don't take any credit for these ideas- there are many TBM's who would agree today. Clearly Kevin C is one of them, I believe. Blake Ostler I think is another, though I have not read him extensively.

Those in apologetics usually do end up with some different ideas then the mainstream or it leaders.

I personally think you need to study these other positions more, and yes, the church is a dynamic and living entity- it grows organically as all living entities do.

Think of a 2000 year old olive tree. Is it the "same tree" it was 2,000 years ago when it was a seed?

As culture changes, the church must change- THAT is the reality of a living church

I've never committed to not studying, and even as a believing member I was very open to other positions and possibilities. The church is a human made entity, and as such will change over time. This is a positive things as well as a necessity in order to survive.

I recall that just before I was baptized, the Blacks and the Priesthood revelation was given and someone- I don't remember who- but definitely a GA said "For those who do not believe in revelation there can be no answer, and for those who do, there can be no question."

And THAT was one of the main reasons I got baptized.

Many who do believe in revelation can't seem to agree on what that revelation is. I think you may have been a naïve atheist in regards to what you thought the mind and body were capable of, and when an experience happened you probably incorrectly concluded some unseen divine being must been responsible. Revelation is suppose to be about reveling, yet I wonder why God goes to such great lengths not to revel. No loving God would be need someone to believe first before reveling themselves. It's really just an excuse religions give to keep people from leaving

Many here condemn the church for changing, I embrace it. It must change to stay a living church.

I don't think most are condemning , but using those changes as evidence against some of the truth claims the church makes. I agree that those truth claims will eventually change, which is good, but may take a a while.

[_Analytics]

But this church is the only one which teaches I get another chance so......

I predict your next religion will be Hinduism.

[_mms]

So, to be clear, am I to understand that you believe it may very well be that God is guiding me out of the Church?

I do not think that, but in your position YOU may think that, and it is an inescapable conclusion from my position that such a thing is possible.

I think your insights are helpful and interesting, so thank you. I, however, cannot at this point agree with even the possibility that God would guide me out of the Church considering my circumstances if, in fact, the Church was the ONE with the authority to conduct oridinances essential to me. I do believe your position requires this possibility, as you stated and, thus, for now, I remain puzzled as described in my original post. And considering the lengths to which you have to go to provide an answer to my puzzlement, I think the reason TBM's (other than you) have avoided my question is that they find it impossible that God would lead me out of the Church, so they are stuck with me being deluded, deceived and Truth Dancer being simply a tool of the Adversary. Perhaps they are being polite by avoiding the question.

Thanks again mbf. I am going to do some reading along the lines of your thoughts and KC's post.

[_mfbukowski]

Let me help then. I have no problem with the idea that many roads can lead to OZ. If OZ is the Celestial kingdom, then no, the Church does not teach that many roads lead to OZ. You may believe that(I have no problem with that), but the church certainly does not teach that. It would be more correct to say that many roads can lead to the only path that will lead to OZ, but you will eventually have to take that path in order to get to OZ.

I would ask when it come to the Celestial kingdom, do you think one can get their with out finding the LDS path, whether in this life or the next?

I believe we create our own "kingdom" which is another way of saying that "we get what we think we are going to get." I also think this idea of creating our own world- universe- is what each of us do every morning when we wake up- but that is for another thread-- we all create our own realities.

That relates perhaps to what Analytics was saying about symbolism and parables, but that is another story.

So if you believe in Catholic heaven, and follow that path, that is what you get. You get Catholic theosis as a possibility.

If you believe in zen enlightenment, that is what you get. Unity with the universe forever.

If you believe in the LDS Celestial Kingdom, you have a shot at getting that. It is all related to self-actualization (still another language game laid over another- sorry to be confusing- words don't always work because the contexts get mixed)

So to put it into an LDS language game, you have to be LDS to follow the path to the LDS Celestial kingdom, otherwise you will end up elsewhere.

But the point is, no other faith that I know of gives humanity the potential to become more than what humanity can become though the LDS faith. This is why I think it is the "greatest" path.

And the entire doctrine of degrees of glory is in my opinion exactly what is being taught here- my characterization of it is different - but what the church teaches is that we will all be where we are "most comfortable"- those who want to be angels and praise God all day will be in the Terrestrial kingdom doing just that. Those who want to hang out with their buddies and drink beer and play pool will be in the Telestial etc.

The linguistic descriptions are different, but the "reality" of what is being taught is the same.

I hope that clarifies it, but I suppose it won't.

[_Themis]

THIS is how I honestly believe it will be "over there".

The problem is we are not there, and it assumes that there is an over there where ae can go and talk to Joseph about it.

But here is the clincher- THOSE OTHER RELIGIONS DON'T SAY IT WILL BE THIS WAY- they say there will be no opportunity to change in the afterlife.

So then we should pick one of them to better our odds.

I don't believe that there will be no opportunity to change in the afterlife- I have believed that since before I joined the LDS church.

So where does that leave me? Either I messed up and I go to hell- but sorry, I don't think that is what a loving Father (also my belief before I joined) would do to somebody who earnestly was trying here would do-- OR I get another chance.

But this church is the only one which teaches I get another chance so......

I don't like that idea either, but that doesn't make your idea anymore correct, and logic would say to go with the ones that don't allow for second chances in case your wrong.

[_mfbukowski]

Those in apologetics usually do end up with some different ideas then the mainstream or it leaders.

But note that these apologists receive encouragement from "mainstream leaders". What does that tell you?

Many who do believe in revelation can't seem to agree on what that revelation is. I think you may have been a naïve atheist in regards to what you thought the mind and body were capable of, and when an experience happened you probably incorrectly concluded some unseen divine being must been responsible. Revelation is suppose to be about reveling, yet I wonder why God goes to such great lengths not to revel. No loving God would be need someone to believe first before reveling themselves. It's really just an excuse religions give to keep people from leaving

naïve? Not in the slightest. Before my graduate work in philosophy, my bachelor's was a dual major, philosophy and psychology from UCLA, and the psychology concentrated on physiological psychology. (chemicals and brain states) I got into psych from pre-med, and got so into physiological psych that it had philosophical implications around just this question.

The real philosophical question is about what reality is and the relationship between what we perceive and what "is".

I did a bunch of responses to a thread here on this forum called "obsucante terroriste" if you want to read more on that point, just search it.