Temple Worthiness

[Ray]

Ray, I really think you're splitting hairs on a microscopic level.

Okay.

What I think I am really doing is trying to make a point that the truth can be misunderstood or remain undiscovered because of personal perceptions of the persons who aren't "seeing" the truth.

Of course are beliefs are rooted in the scriptures.

What I think you are saying may be different than what you are saying, or what you intend to say to convey the thoughts you're thinking.

Our (LDS) beliefs, TODAY, are based upon revelations from Jesus Christ, TODAY, not from what He said to others in the past... which they wrote down and we now call "scriptures".

If you disagree, that's your choice, but I hope you at least understand what I'm trying to say by the words I am writing down to share my idea(s).

Joseph Smith didn't have the divinity of Christ as Savior revealed to him in a vision.

Are you trying to say it was through the Holy Ghost? Through personal revelation... in his today? That's what I am trying to say too... and that's what made him a prophet.

He was raised Christian and was taught from the Bible that Jesus is our Savior. In fact the Bible, among other things, prompted his prayer that became the First Vision.

Yes, he did read what others believed, and that prompted him to ask God for himself... but he didn't believe just because some others believed what he believed or hoped might be true. He received his own revelation, for himself, which we refer to as personal revelation.

He received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost, our Lord, and our Father.

That's how he became a prophet.

Do you know how (or if) I did?

(I'm not going to tell you. I'm just wondering if you know if that is true.)

I'm also confused about your point. You first say we ask God directly for truth, then in the same sentence you say we listen to the prophets.

Okay, I'll try to clear that up for you.

What I meant and am trying to say is that we ask God for His personal testimony. And when I said that we listen to prophets... did you notice I am calling them prophets?... I am saying God speaks through them to all of us.

It seems contradictory (though I know you didn't mean it to be). It sounds as if you're saying our personal prayers to God are answered through the prophets.

Sometimes they are... if we know a prophet is a prophet... then we know God speaks through them to all of us.

Anyway, before I become guilty of splitting hairs too, I'll forbear.

I have no problem with you splitting hairs. Just don't denigrate my character and we'll get along fine. :)

I am trying to be kind and helpful... as much as I can.

And btw,

PC, I have no problems with the way you'd handle inquiries into the LDS Church. I'm actually impressed a tad that you'd connect 1 Corinthians to baptism for the dead...and there is indeed a connection between the two...it's called a Biblical foundation for ordinance. :)

...whoever calls it that might not mean what I think they are saying.

[prisonchaplain]

I have not read the entire thread but have been reading it most recently. Mostly since it has become a thread of how PC presents LDS teachings to those who ask without the opportunity of having LDS members there to share. From what I have read I think that PC would give a fair, imparcial explaination. Not sure what more would be expected of him in his current capacity and with the resources at his disposal.

It's probably even less than you imagine. Nobody would mistake me for representing the LDS church. Most often, if I got a question, it would be a Protestant Christian asking his/her clergy person what I knew (i.e. a Protestant perspective) about a given LDS practice. To put it in a nuetral perspective, I'd have no problem with a Buddhist monk giving Buddhists a Buddhist take on Christianity.

Of course the ideal would be to have missionaries assigned to visit the prison on a regular basis.

We have a couple of volunteers who are applying. The Church usually does not send missionaries. I forget what the title is, but they are usually signficantly older--having something to do with the stake, I believe.

Here in Nevada we have an older couple called as missionaries who visit the prison regularly to visit with those who are members and those who are interested in knowing more. That would be the ideal situation.

Correct. My job is best done when I am able to get live representatives to come in. Tapes and literature are a distant second.

As far as going to God for answers to all things that is correct but from what I have read, mostly in the Doctrine and Covenants, we are told first to study it out in our minds, make a decision, then ask God if that decision is a correct one. If so we shall have a burning in our bosom. If not so a stupor of thought.

Can't just tell someone to "Go to God" for an answer.

Ben packs clear truth into his answers.

In my not so humble opinion.

You don't have to be very humble when you're right.

[Ray]

Can't just tell someone to "Go to God" for an answer.

I can, and I do that a lot.

Why believe what I say?

Why believe what someone wrote in a book... or a letter?

Why believe what you say when you say that I can't just "Go to God" for an answer?

Should I now think you don't think what I think about how to find truth?

[prisonchaplain]

Ray, everyone who acknowledges God 'goes to God' in his/her in way. They may find God's answer through person impressions and intuition, through an appropriate passage of Scripture, through an appropriate word from a friend, or even from a non-LDS prison chaplain at LDSTalk.com. :-)

[BenRaines]

Trying to understand what you are saying Ray. Don't go to the scriptures, don't listen to the talks given by Church Leaders, Prophet and General Authorities, just go to God? That is what I am hearing. Maybe not what you are saying but that is what it sounds like.

What I am saying is to study it out in your mind, as instructed by Jesus Christ as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith and written in the Doctrine and Covenants. To make a decision and then take it to God.

If it were so easy just to take it to God then we would not need to study, ponder and pray we would just need to pray.

That is how I understand it.

Perhaps I should have said "Shouldn't instead of can't. Of course you can but Christ has taught us through his prophets that we should do other things before just going to God. As I recall it was Oliver Cowdrey who wanted to translate but did not do the things that the Lord had instructed. Just thought he could or should be able to do it.

Ray, your last line reminds me of the line between the mercenary and the dread pirate Roberts, or Wesley in Princess Bride while they are playing chess

Ben Raines

[Dr T]

I'm sure other feel similar to me on this.

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

I'm sure other feel similar to me on this.

Dr. T

Come on, now, Doc! Tell us how you really feel

[Ray]

Trying to understand what you are saying Ray. Don't go to the scriptures, don't listen to the talks given by Church Leaders, Prophet and General Authorities, just go to God? That is what I am hearing. Maybe not what you are saying but that is what it sounds like.

No, I'm not saying to "not" do those things. Doing those things can be helpful, of course.

But to learn what is true we need to go to God, directly. There is no other way to know truth.

What I am saying is to study it out in your mind, as instructed by Jesus Christ as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith and written in the Doctrine and Covenants. To make a decision and then take it to God.

If it were so easy just to take it to God then we would not need to study, ponder and pray we would just need to pray.

What I am trying to say is that the act of "studying, pondering and praying" doesn't necessarily involve reading books written by other people. Sure, I know it might help... just like "hearing" thoughts from other people might help, but we don't need to read books, or hear thoughts from other people to learn what is true, about anything.

Think about how books are first written.

When I have a thought, I study it out in my mind, and I ponder and pray while I do that. I don't need to go read or hear what someone else said. God helps me know truth, personally. And if I then wrote a book or a message about what God revealed to me, what I wrote would be what God revealed to me... even if I didn't give God the credit.

But should you then believe what I say or wrote down as I used my own words in that book?

Should you believe what Paul said... or what Moses said... just because they said that's what God told them?

What I'm hearing from you... and I don't know if you meant this... is that we need to read or hear from other people... first... before we can know what God knows. So I'm saying we don't need to do that, because God can reveal truth to us, personally.

You seem to be putting the egg before the chicken... or a book before the author of that book... and all the thoughts from other people don't really mean a thing to me unless I know God really did inspire them.

Perhaps I should have said "Shouldn't instead of can't. Of course you can but Christ has taught us through his prophets that we should do other things before just going to God. As I recall it was Oliver Cowdrey who wanted to translate but did not do the things that the Lord had instructed. Just thought he could or should be able to do it.

I still don't agree we "shouldn't" say "go to God to learn truth". I am saying that we definitely should.

Don't just absorb what others say or write in a book... go to God and ask Him for the truth. Study your own thoughts, ponder them in your own mind, and pray to God yourself, personally. Don't depend on other people... anyone other than God... to tell you what is really the truth.

And No, I'm not saying we should stop listening to other people... just don't depend on others to tell you the truth.

And btw, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and I know President Hinckley is a prophet... but how do you suppose I came to know that is true?

Grab a chair. Sit down, and I'll tell you.

I first heard from them... either through books and/or through their spoken words... and then, as I usually do... I studied my own thoughts in my own mind (and of course some of my thoughts were aroused by at least some of what they said), while also pondering and praying to God about what I was thinking about... and then, lo and behold, God spoke to me (in the way that He speaks to me, personally).

And do you know what is particularly interesting to me? I've had some similar thoughts, and some questions about what some other people say, or said, before I ever heard from those other people. But they still added to my knowledge because I didn't know about them and some of the thoughts they had shared. And sometimes it not "what" but "how" they share what I already know that causes me to learn some more about a subject.

And from personal experience, I have learned many things before other people told me, and our source of all true knowledge is God.

So who knows... I might still learn what others know to be true... eventually... if I never hear from some other people. But I wouldn't know them... I will only have their knowledge... from the source from whom we gain our true knowledge.

And, to me, the advantage of hearing from other people is that they can, sometimes, stimulate my thoughts a little faster than I would have first thought of those thoughts on my own. God can always tell me the truth, of course... without me ever knowing about other people... and just as soon as I learn about others I usually then come to see that we all have learned some truths from God.

And I do know God works through many other people, and that helps to stimulate all our thoughts.

Ray, your last line reminds me of the line between the mercenary and the dread pirate Roberts, or Wesley in Princess Bride while they are playing chess

Heh, I've seen that movie, but I don't recall what was said.

You're not trying to make fun of me, are you?

[Ray]

I'm sure other feel similar to me on this.

Dr. T

Yes, I do know how you feel.

But I think it helps others when we try to help others.

Sometimes our efforts are worth more than our results.

:)

[Ray]

i have a question here. isn't anyone teaching about any religion, weither their own or not, simply that religion according to their perspective?

even two lds do not always agree. the only way to not taint something with your own perspective is to quote it exactly. example if someone askes what the church teaches about a principle and i quote an article of faith. that is pure doctrine, however, if i give any further explaination in my own words or from my own experiance i have now tainted the true doctrines with my personal perspective. does that mean i've corupted the doctrines and made them false? i hope not, but possible.

that is the wonderful thing to me about the gospel and even temples. it is line upon line. each learns and develops at their own pace and understanding. going to the temple does not mean that you are perfect but that you are trying to improve yourself and living certain covenants. in the end i am the one who deems myself worthy to go to the temple or not. in the end i will be my own judge. i will sit with my savior as i sit with the bishop and account for myself and determine my worthyness and thus reward.

i guess my point is that i think, given the things said, pc would be doing a good job in fact possibly better than some lds because he would be starting the conversation with the preface of it's not my religion this is my understanding. where as and lds person may forget to say this is my religion from my perspective and experiance and thus be taken as doctrine. i understand what ray is saying, but at the same time i think we are all subject to unintentionally taint our own bleifs when explaining them. and on the other side of that is how is it being received? we may quote only pure doctrine from the prophet himself and it still not be understood by the receiver. they will as the information comes in taint it to their perspective and understanding. it may not be as clear as the one presenting thinks.

religion and faith are very personal things.

that is why comunication, and willingness to share and talk and have a dialoge comes in. that is also why the use of the holy spirit is so important, only god truely knows what and how we will understand. the holy spirit is different for each of us, how i hear may not be how someone else hears and because we will all be given the opportuninty to understand it must come in a way that each can hear. that is also why i can't be the judge of somone else. it's up to me to have mercy and forgivness. justice and judgement belongs to the lord.

some of my random thoughts anyway. :)

I agree with your thoughts, and you said a lot of what I'm saying.

It's all about perception... so be careful.

I'm not pointing my finger and saying... STOP, DON'T DO THAT!!!

I'm just sharing what I think about how it is important to be careful when we share things we believe.

And that's it. That's my main point, anyway.

Are you thinking I'm trying to be profoud, or something like that?

Heh. I think so. You guys don't seem to see me as just "one of you guys".

:)

[BenRaines]

No not trying to make fun of you. I would never do that to anyone in these forums. Remember my whole job is to try to stop personal attacks.

Comment was regarding the last line of the post where you said something to the effect of "I don't think you understand what I think you understand that I don't understand" or something to that effect.

No making fun of you intended.

Ben Raines

[Gwen]

Are you thinking I'm trying to be profoud, or something like that?

Heh. I think so. You guys don't seem to see me as just "one of you guys".

:)

i was just sharing some random thoughts on the topic, so i thought. not intended to be anything but that. :) my faith from my perspective, that's all i can offer.

[Ray]

Are you thinking I'm being critical, or something like that?

I simply share what I think. Do you see?

What you think when I share what I think with you, or others... is that my response-ability?

I do try to be careful to correctly convey what I'm thinking... but some people still don't really see me.

They only see what they think and they think I thought that.

Sometimes, that is very funny. :)

Perception... that's the key. Do you see what I'm saying?

You can think what you want, as you see.

But when you do that don't think that what you see is really me.

Unless we are "one" and what you see is really me...

...and I'll know you are "one' with me.

:)

[Maureen]

Are you thinking I'm being critical, or something like that?

I simply share what I think. Do you see?

Are you over analyzing everyone's responses here Ray?

M.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Are you thinking I'm being critical, or something like that?

I simply share what I think. Do you see?

Are you over analyzing everyone's responses here Ray?

M.

No. I don't think so. At least not according to the way I see things.

Are you over analyzing my responses, Maureen?

Do you really know for sure what I'm thinking... or what I've thought... about anything?

[miztrniceguy]

how do you know when you've stopped analyzing and begun over-analyzing? where is the line drawn?

[CrimsonKairos]

Well first we have to sketch out the question in graphical form, and then we come up with a mathematical equation, but then compare it to philosophical axioms, to be followed by a rigorous hypothesis test...that has to be qualitatively verified before being applied, until finally we have a one-sentence descriptor that accurately defines what over-analyzing is...that is, once we've run multi-lingual word definitions for all the elements in that one-sentence descriptor which--now that I think of it--was formulated incorrectly and needs to be re-written from scratch...

*sigh*

Am I over-analyzing here?

And Ray, I'm sorry if you felt I was denigrating your character. My describing one or more of your posts as "hair-splitting" was meant to evaluate your written words...not the worth of your soul. Go easy, good buddy...no one's tryin' to pick a fight.

[miztrniceguy]

Well first we have to sketch out the question in graphical form, and then we come up with a mathematical equation, but then compare it to philosophical axioms, to be followed by a rigorous hypothesis test...that has to be qualitatively verified before being applied, until finally we have a one-sentence descriptor that accurately defines what over-analyzing is...that is, once we've run multi-lingual word definitions for all the elements in that one-sentence descriptor which--now that I think of it--was formulated incorrectly and needs to be re-written from scratch...

*sigh*

Am I over-analyzing here?

/quote]

very good CK/AK B)

gotta say, i'm guilty of over-analyzing soooo many things, especially how other people react to my words and actions, as i'm often misunderstood.

[Ray]

...gotta say, i'm guilty of over-analyzing soooo many things, especially how other people react to my words and actions, as i'm often misunderstood.

I can hear you on that, good buddy.

And btw, do you mind that I'm using that phrase? ... the term "good buddy", I mean?

I'm not accustomed to using it, but it seems to be a nice term. I know some other people who say that.

CrimsonKairos said that to me... and the Skipper said that to Gilligan... so it must be okay.

Right... good buddy?

I guess it all depends on what I'm comfortable with.

... or maybe it depends on what you are comfortable with.

I think that is why I asked you if you mind me saying that.

I'll stop saying that, if I know you don't like it.

But to know you don't like it, I need for you to tell me.

At least that's what I think about that.

But will you tell me what you think if you think I might get offended by the fact that you don't like that term?

Maybe you'll think that I will, and you never would tell me, unless I told you it was okay to tell me.

But then maybe you'd be offended that I told you it was "okay" to tell me what you were really thinking.

You might think "Of course it's okay for me to say what I think. Why do you need to say it's okay"?

And then there we're both offended because I simply said "good buddy", and I never meant to cause an offense.

Bewildering, isn't it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was I over-analyzing, just then?

I'm simply trying to be considerate... to understand how you feel about something.

... and I don't think I can think too much about that.

Hmm.

Can I think too much about anything?

I think I'll think about that for a little bit longer. And then I'll think of some other things later.

But I may come back to it and think some more about it later.

I'll probably stop when I'm really sure I know the truth.

But, then again, will I really stop thinking or analyzing what I know?

What does it mean to "over-analyze" something?

I think I'll also think some more about that.

:)

[miztrniceguy]

<div class='quotemain'>

...gotta say, i'm guilty of over-analyzing soooo many things, especially how other people react to my words and actions, as i'm often misunderstood.

I can hear you on that, good buddy.

And btw, do you mind that I'm using that phrase? ... the term "good buddy", I mean?

I'm not accustomed to using it, but it seems to be a nice term. I know some other people who say that.

CrimsonKairos said that to me... and the Skipper said that to Gilligan... so it must be okay.

Right... good buddy?

I guess it all depends on what I'm comfortable with.

... or maybe it depends on what you are comfortable with.

I think that is why I asked you if you mind me saying that.

I'll stop saying that, if I know you don't like it.

But to know you don't like it, I need for you to tell me.

At least that's what I think about that.

But will you tell me what you think if you think I might get offended by the fact that you don't like that term?

Maybe you'll think that I will, and you never would tell me, unless I told you it was okay to tell me.

But then maybe you'd be offended that I told you it was "okay" to tell me what you were really thinking.

You might think "Of course it's okay for me to say what I think. Why do you need to say it's okay"?

And then there we're both offended because I simply said "good buddy", and I never meant to cause an offense.

Bewildering, isn't it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was I over-analyzing, just then?

I'm simply trying to be considerate... to understand how you feel about something.

... and I don't think I can think too much about that.

Hmm.

Can I think too much about anything?

I think I'll think about that for a little bit longer. And then I'll think of some other things later.

But I may come back to it and think some more about it later.

I'll probably stop when I'm really sure I know the truth.

But, then again, will I really stop thinking or analyzing what I know?

What does it mean to "over-analyze" something?

I think I'll also think some more about that.

:)

so you're gonna analyze some more?...lol

i dont mind the term "good buddy" at all....i've taken to calling my son "lil buddy"...he's almost 1 yr old.

[Ray]

so you're gonna analyze some more?...lol

i dont mind the term "good buddy" at all....i've taken to calling my son "lil buddy"...he's almost 1 yr old.

As of now, I'm still not very comfortable using that term... no offense at all intended towards you.

It just seems, to me, to be a tad disrespectful... ironic as that may seem, or sound.

To me, it's kinda like having someone put their hand on me, when they're talking to me, being friendly.

I don't mind being hugged and giving hugs to others... even men... but there's just something about that I don't like.

It's probably related to my association of that action... what I think... not what you think about it.

I would like to think you are really my friend, though.

It's just the term... good buddy... I don't like.

... at least at this point that is what I am thinking.

Maybe with more thought I will think something else.

:)

[BenRaines]

And this has to do with Temple Worthiness how?

Ben Raines

[Ray]

Tommy first asked what it meant to be temple worthy.

I later got into "perception".

Kinda like...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean to be temple worthy?

What do you think it should mean?

How do you know that is what it should mean?

How do you know you know truth?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...kinda like that.

And btw, some may say we have drifted from the topic... but does that mean that we really have?

Being worthy of the temple means a lot of things to me... and for one thing it means we see the truth.

... and

... pssst

... don't expect everyone to agree on that thought.

[CrimsonKairos]

Anyone can call me good buddy that wants to. Guess you just can't win with some people...

p.s. Ray, on Gilligan's Island, the Skipper didn't say "Good buddy," to Gilligan...he said "little buddy."

[boyando]

I have been gone for a week and could not connect to the internet, so I haven't read the whole thread.

Temple worthy means that you are worthy to enter Gods presences. It means you have taken upon yourself the name of Christ and have done all that you can, as little as that is, to let his grace take over and allow you to "enter in".

There are the mechanics that the Lord has set up, mainly to help us feel worthy.

We do so little and then grace takes over.

allmosthumble