Tuesday, January 20, 2015

A Few Things "I am" Relative to the LDS Church

I am the controlling agent in my relationship with the LDS Church, so I am able to get the good out of it without being subject to the cultural bad (or most of it).

I am an "agent unto myself", as the Book of Mormon says I am supposed to be.

I act and don't allow myself (usually) to be acted upon.

I am the subject in the relationship, not the object.

I don't belong to the Church; it belongs to me; it is mine.

I am Mormon to the core - but the primary focus is on "I am" not "Mormon"

I am interested in hearing others' input into what they are in this regard. 


Jettboy said...

"I don't belong to the Church; it belongs to me; it is mine."

WRONG! It belongs to God and we are His invited guests.

Papa D said...

I am not his invited guest; I am his child. I don't belong to the Church; I belong in it.

Anonymous said...

Awesome Papa D. I couldn't have said it better myself.

ji said...

I understand your point, and support it. We're sons, not servants. But I understand Jettboy's point, too. We need to come to the banquet properly dressed with respect for the host and the occasion, or the host will throw us out. I can cite scripture for both of these propositions -- they're both "true"!

Justin said...

I really like this. I'll add:

"I decide my relationship with God. The Church helps me obtain my goals, but it doesn't stand between us,"

and also,

"I participate in rituals within the Church because they strengthen me and help me commune with God."

Papa D said...

I understand his point, ji, but I disagree with the implications of the comment wording - for four reasons:

1) The "WRONG!" is completely dismissive and typical for that commenter.

2) I don't equate membership in the LDS Church as attendance at the wedding feast, which is the genesis of the invited guest classification. I could quote all kinds of scriptures to support that, but doing would turn this into a quote war that I don't want.

3) Equating membership in the LDS Church to a wedding feast invitation implies those who aren't members are not invited guests to that feast.

I have no idea if he meant that, but I have heard it stated that way - and it would be consistent with other comments he has made elsewhere.

4) There is a HUGE difference between belonging "to" something or someone and belonging "with" someone or "in" something. That difference is important to me.

ji said...

I understand -- but...

So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests...

But I do really like the idea of no more a servant, but a son. And yes, the faithful saints are the Church.

Clean Cut said...

This is excellent, Papa D. Thanks for sharing. Amen.