Thursday, August 18, 2011

On Calling and Election

Restored post
Thursday, August 18, 2011

I got this idea from unblogmysoul. It was mentioned there that one could possibly have one’s calling and election made sure, and not realize it. That's the idea I got there.

Joseph Smith said that once God had proven a person, proven that s/he would serve God at all costs, then that person would have his/her calling and election made sure. What I am beginning to understand is that this does not mean the person needs to have rocks in his/her pockets to keep him/her from disappearing from the earth. 1

An interesting insight comes from Nephi. He saw Christ. His calling and election were made sure. Yet read what he says in 2 Nephi 4. In verses 17 through 19, he is lamenting his wickedness, his weakness of the flesh. To have one’s calling and election made sure is not to become perfect. It is simply to prove to God (and perhaps to one’s self) that one is willing to serve God no matter the cost.

Let’s take these three things: calling and election, translation, the second comforter. They are not the same thing. They are three separate things, and they may happen years apart. They also do not necessarily happen in an LDS temple. 2

Calling and election. I knew someone who had a crisis of faith larger that s/he had ever had. This person was at a crossroads. “Shall I leave the church? Shall I stop believing in God?” This crisis of faith was so large, that it seemed like all was futile, all was false. Personal revelation, God, the church’s teachings about God and revelation. It was all a big joke. After much thinking, this person came to the conclusion that no other organization had as much truth as the LDS church. This person also came to the conclusion that the only alternative to God was the devil, and s/he would never willingly go that way. S/he decided that, even if God was all of the negative things that s/he felt at the moment, there was no one else. S/he would be on His side, no matter the cost, even if s/he ended up in hell, s/he would go there kicking and screaming, determined to hold onto God as hard as s/he could. The crisis was huge. The decision was huge. It fits the description of being willing to serve God at all costs. Yet, this person is in no way perfect, is in no way in danger of being lifted off this earth because of being too perfect. I believe that this person passed the test.

Then there’s the second comforter. I don’t really know if that should be capitalized or not. Is it really a proper noun? Or a descriptive noun?

The unblog site mentions another test before one receives the second comforter. One is more likely to recognize this for what it is. I had always thought there was only one test - to see if one would serve God at all costs. Apparently, there is another. This one is where God asks you to do something that doesn’t make sense to you. Scriptural examples would be Abraham’s test, Joseph Smith being told to take another wife (and his wife another husband), Nephi killing Laban. I can’t think of any others, but I am sure there are many examples; we may not have them written in our histories/scriptures, though.

I seriously doubt that God would tell us to kill anyone today. I actually have no idea what kind of test this would be. It seems to me that it’s another “will you do anything I command?” which, I suppose it could be argued, is a bit different from, “will you serve me at any cost?”.

Anyway, receiving the second comforter is apparently not only to see Jesus Christ, but to touch him. This is the fulfillment, the reality of what one does in the temple. The temple is the practice. Seeing Christ is the reality. There are people who have gone into the temples, and shared sacred things, things they promised God they would not share. The result of this is that God will not share anything else with them. The real thing is kept hidden from them, because they have shown God that they cannot be trusted with sacred things, hence, they have disqualified themselves from having a personal audience with Christ in this life. And they probably won’t be very comfortable being around him when they finally do get the chance to see him. They’ll want to hide, according to the scriptures. They’ll want to cease existing.

According to my studies, when one sees Christ, he offers them a gift. See an example of this in the scriptures: the twelve apostles in the old world, the twelve disciples in the new world. Solomon was offered a gift (he chose wisdom). The word “endowment” means “gift”. At this point, Christ is offering you anything you want, so I understand. Some people choose to be translated (Moses, Elijah, John, three unnamed Nephites, Alma, etc.) and some choose something else.

To be translated, is to have one’s body changed: 3 Ne 28:37-40 – “But behold, since I wrote, I have inquired of the Lord, and he hath made it manifest unto me that there must needs be a change wrought upon their bodies, or else it needs be that they must taste of death; Therefore, that they might not taste of death there was a change wrought upon their bodies, that they might not suffer pain nor sorrow save it were for the sins of the world. Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place at the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them, insomuch that Satan could have no power over them, that he could not tempt them; and they were sanctified in the flesh, that they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them. And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens.”

My understanding is that, next, Christ requests that the person do something for him, some work. Having never experienced this, I do not know. It is my opinion, though, that if one chooses translation it is because one wants to continue serving God.

The unblog site connects seeing Jesus with becoming a Zion person, someone able to live in a Zion society. It seems that the DS blog says the same thing, just not as plainly. We cannot build Zion unless our hearts are changed to the point that we are able to receive the second comforter, the proper noun of which is Jesus Christ.

I cannot do this subject justice. You’ll need to go to the two websites I mention below, in footnote 2. They have references galore. They are not teaching some new and strange doctrine.



1 This has reference to a false belief among latter-day saints, that if one reaches a point of translation/guarantee of eternal life, one is automatically removed from the earth, being too perfect to stay here. Those who believe this conveniently ignore the fact that John the Beloved/Revelator stayed, and so did the three Nephite disciples. I don’t think they ignore this on purpose. I am finding out that, just like Denver Snuffer and others point out, the truth hides in plain sight.

2 If you want “proofs”, I would recommend you go to Denver Snuffer's blog and do a search for these three things. At this time, he has a list of labels on the left side that you can peruse. On the right, is a list of dates that can be clicked on (click on the little arrows), to see the title of the entries in each month. Also go to unblog my soul and do a search for these things. These two men have not only spent years researching these things, but they have some personal experiences to give credence to their words.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

On Blogging

Restored Post
Sunday, July 31, 2011

So I look at other people's blogs and most of them follow a single theme: LDS raw food, Freedom, Being a Natural mother (like natural foods, babywearing - a term I despise - etc.). Me? I flitter around. One day, I may talk about religion. Another day, it's all about venting about something because I'm a parent. Another time, I may discuss my views on healing. Or I may take a break altogether.

At one time, I used to be considered good at writing. I was afraid of rejection, however, so I didn't pedal my writings/push my writings on anyone. Now, with blogs so easily available, I can write and feel relatively anonymous. I mean, few people are interested in this blog. I am most definitely an unknown factor.

Having read so many LDS blogs, I think I will just see if I can do this on a more regular basis, just a bit at least. I agree with some parts of some blogs. I am turned off by the arguments, and by the degeneration into polygamy discussions. Polygamy is just a tiny part of the gospel, and it is possible that it was never intended to be part of it; simply a test for Joseph Smith Jr and a few others. History is so convoluted, and we do not view things in at all the same way as people did 150 years ago. We have no real frame of reference in our souls on which to hang the words and opinions of those days.

The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints (no TM)

Restored post

Sunday, July 31, 2011

I've spent a lot of time reading a lot of people's blogs. I have even added my own two cents' worth. Sometimes I couldn't, because their comments were closed. (At the time, I didn't think about bringing my comments over here, where I could chat to my heart's content.)

I have learned a lot from these blogs, which are LDS-based. Personally, I hate the word, "bloggernacle" and that is the only time I intend to use it. Mormon blogs is what they are. They range from slavishly defending to mocking (yet they all claim to be LDS blogs). I had no idea so many people were dissatisfied with the church.

Enter Denver Snuffer. Okay, I only said that to be dramatic. I was looking at his blog along with many others. At first, I dismissed him. He was boring. Then I finally decided to read what he had to say. I read nearly everything in his blog, eventually - then I bought some of his books. His is the voice of reason among so many other voices, centered in worshiping Jesus Christ instead of the leaders, but urging to stay with the church and let Jesus do his own housecleaning if housecleaning there must be.

I have to say that I am a different person for having been exposed to all of these blogs. I'm beginning to tire of them, now. I have no interest, for example, in banding together to remove the church handbook "no one" is allowed to read. I have no interest in polygamy, nor "line marriages". I have no interest in starting my own church, nor in attending churches that are more "fun" or that pay more attention to me.

The fact is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS the Church of Jesus Christ. It belongs to Him. Even if it has become a corporation whose only legal member is the president of the church. Why would we want to be a member of a legal corporation anyway? I want to be a member of the church of the Firstborn. The only way to that is through the ordinances of the Church of JC of LDS.

No matter how imperfect the people, no matter how imperfect the organization, this is Jesus' church. He will do His own housecleaning, and I assure you that He will do it, if He isn't already doing it. We are not to steady the ark. But, as Denver Snuffer points out, God does things in ways we don't anticipate. He raises up people from places we don't expect. He fulfills His prophecies in ways we would not have guessed, no matter how learned we may think we are. We can't second-guess God.

Things are scary today. Maybe we aren't as prepared as we should be. Myself, I am as prepared as I am able to be - which seems woefully inadequate at the moment. Even if we think we are prepared, even . . . you know this reminds me of my preparedness friends, who have much storage (or hope to have it) and intend to protect that storage with guns, should someone come along who wants to steal it. They expect marauding gangs, etc. to come along. They have reason to believe that.

But what if what happens is something that never occurred to them? What if no one comes to steal or to kill? What if something totally unexpected happens?

So much of the time, so many people seem to think they know so much. (I'm returning to my other topic now.) We don't know the hearts of the leaders of the church. We don't know anything, even about ourselves and why we do and say things; we are certainly in no position to judge others. Yes, things have changed. Yes, some of those changes seem to be steering the church away from the intended course of a gloriously happy rendezvous with Jesus. But those changes are prophesied all over the Book of Mormon. We can see it if we read "LDS members aka ME!" in every place the book says "gentile(s)". Nearly all of those (if not all) apply to present day LDS people, me included.

There was a reason Pres. Benson urged us to read the Book of Mormon. There was a reason he said we were still under condemnation. If you're unsure of how to read the book and apply it to us (you and me), read some of Denver Snuffer's posts on the books of first, second, and third Nephi.

1 Nephi
2 Nephi
3 Nephi
Gentiles in general

Righteousness

Restored post
Sunday, July 31, 2011

I had a friend ask me today whether I thought priesthood is always attached to an institution, and what I thought the definition of righteousness was. I decided to share my answer here.

I don't know that the priesthood is always attached to an institution. I think it often becomes an institution, though. The gospel requires a few things:

*authority to perform ordinances (i.e. priesthood authority)
*actually performing the ordinances
*places to perform the ordinances
*people meeting together often to
*partake of the Lord's supper (to renew covenants)
*uplift each other
*worship God
*places for the people to meet

The people are to have a specific lifestyle, such as

*sharing one another's burdens
*helping the poor
*not reviling against revilers
*praying for those who harm or try to harm them and/or their loved ones
*being honest and kind
*it would appear that eating mostly plants is part of it
*praying often to God
*humility, meekness, charity, et al

I would think that righteousness is a frame of mind, or perhaps I should say a state of being that is framed (as a picture is framed) by humility, faith, and love/charity.

We cannot be righteous (or at least it is very difficult to be so) if we think we know more than God, if we are deriding our fellowmen, if we think we are better than others, if we are not open to the fact that we don't know everything, etc. I would classify that under humility.

Could we really be righteous without believing/having faith in the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not only for ourselves but for others? This reminds me of an experience I had a few days ago.

As I was praying, I began praying about all of those who had hurt me in my life - from perverts to peers to siblings. As I prayed, my mind and heart opened up and I wanted with all of my heart and mind for them to be forgiven. As that happened, I saw very clearly that if I refused to condemn them, the Atonement cleared them, and it was as if they had never done anything to hurt me. The up side of that was, not only their salvation, but that it had never been done to me. The whole thing, the whole experience was (or could be) wiped clean - as if I had never been wounded and as if they had never hurt anyone. It was an awesome thing to witness, to see. A complete wiping away of the whole experience. And I saw that, in this way, each person is pulled away from Satan, who thinks he owns us.

I think what I saw was the full effects of humility, faith, and love as one person forgives. Multiply that by a billion, and you've got Satan losing, wholesale. Even a million people with that experience, ongoing, would put a serious dent into his plan to capture and enslave all of us. I rather like the idea of erasing other people's sins. Of course, being healed from the wounds is pretty enticing, as well.