Now, I'm not ready to say that I don't believe that "true love conquers all." That's not something that can really be assessed while you're still alive, and it's not happily ever after until the fat princess sings. In our very real world, we know a few stories of romantic connections that turned out well in the end, but we know endless stories of star-crossed lovers whose initial romantic bliss ended tragically.
Not all ends are necessarily tragic. They are dreadfully painful, but not tragic. These are the ones in which, despite finding true love and all the heady delights it promises, duty and honor are more important. Throughout history, many people have married for convenience, or to serve a familial responsibility, or sometimes to avert wars through the alliance that is formed, even though their hearts were desperately, gloriously and irrevocably given to another.
In the fairy tale version, the two lovers are separated, but stay true to each other in some manner until whatever magical, mystical thing occurs to reunite them in an eternal state of joy. Westley comes for Buttercup disguised as the Dread Pirate Roberts, because thanks to true love, even being dead a couple of times isn't enough to keep them apart. Does this never happen (except for the being dead part) in the real world? Are there no real happy endings? It probably happens far more than we realize, but the key is the remaining true part.
Once in a while, two people choose to shirk their responsibilities, run off together and it actually works out. Most of the time- not really. People who are that impetuous and undisciplined usually find the magic wearing off as soon as hunger and other facts of day-to-day existence make themselves felt. Prince Charming on his gleaming snow-white steed is much less appealing after you have to eat the horse because he didn't happen to have put in the time to learn a trade. Having a few babies on your hip and still having to go to the convenience store job while he "looks for work," is a pretty sure romance killer.
What is more likely is that the person who marries for duty, knowing their obligations, will devote themselves to making the best of things. They may carry the love of that person they feel "true love" with in their hearts, never really abandoning hope, but still determined to serve in the place where they are appointed. Who knows what will occur in this life, or the next? It is their belief in the next life, or their sense of duty to society that obligates them to stay in their situation as long as it is just rather than give in to their emotions.
The people that want to believe in fairy tales would say that it's a shame; that it's a waste to spend a life in that way rather than to fulfil their love. I recall a line in a mediocre song from the 70's: "It's so sad to belong to someone else when the right one comes along." Poppycock. What is sad is to throw away a family, or a kingdom, or your eternal soul for a mere selfish gratification.
To quote Miracle Max, "True love is the greatest thing in the world..." We are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world. True love IS the greatest thing, and some people never know it in this life, because it must be a mutual feeling of respect, charity, unselfishness and desire for the other's happiness, not for their body. Adultery is not true love. Fornication is not true love. True lovers are willing to sacrifice any earthly pleasure, property or emotion for each other. Too many are willing to give up what could be a wonderful exaltation of the relationship that is possible between a man and a woman for a mere moment's pleasure.
The portrayal of true love in the movie "The Princess Bride" is the ideal. The young man a woman put off the consummation of their love, because the man is going to earn a living so he can support a family. When he is thought dead, Buttercup remains chaste and faithful for ten years, and only agrees to marry the Prince when it seems certain that Westley will never come back, and because the Prince is deceiving her anyway.
Likewise, Westley can be assumed to have been celibate for his time in the crew of the Revenge, or else he is a phenomenal hypocrite for condemning Buttercup for "only" waiting ten years. The couple's virture is also implied to remain intact (or else be inconsistent) throughout the rest of the movie, and even makes a point of the marriage to Prince Humperdinck being not legal, and void, rather than just having Westley kill the Prince and take his bride, like most movies these days would.
Of course it's fiction and some would imply, outrageously unrealistic. So, why do we have such stories? Don't we want to emulate these ideals rather than the notion that love that isn't immediately fulfilled sexually is tragic. It may not be the popular view in today's hedonistic society to believe that we can live up to those standards, but we still want our heroines to be virtuous, and our heroes to be honorable.
Why do we sell ourselves short? If we keep teaching that true marital fidelity is impossible, we will raise a generation that sees no purpose in marriage, and soon afterward the family will be an outdated concept, rather than the basic building block of society, without which there will be no society.
Sure we fall short of the standard, but that's no reason pull it down lower. We should rather aspire to live a higher law. Changing your goals to be easier is not the same as achieving them. I think we do want to believe that virtue is possible, and that's why we keep telling the stories. I believe in true love, but unless it is chaste, unselfish, humble and honorable it can't conquer anything.
New Zeal Blog Has Moved
13 years ago
7 comments:
I should wait to comment until I've read the post....but I just want to say that I'm so happy you are doing this. It gives me something to look forward to...reading it I mean. Right now I'm exhausted and determined to begin my own scripture study (thanks to you) this very evening, so I better get on it. I will be back....m
I don't want to hurt you. I had hoped you would read between the lines, and maybe have a better understanding of what true love is to me. God will not stand with us in unrighteousness. If we don't have God on our side, nothing else is important. I can't speak more plainly and still serve duty myself, but trust me: I know how much it hurts.
I think of you...my heart aches...my life will never be the same. I will stay with Sid like I said. I love God and Obey him. You are my friend 4 ever. Dont ever let go of me.
Hi David, i like your comments on Christ, the one Christ I am privileged to know is Jesus Christ of Nazareth.When I was in Germany, where I grew Up 65 Years ago, and we always saw 2 guys in black suits on bicycles, I talked to told me that blacks cannot be priests in the Mormon Church. They can be members, but not Priests. when I came to Idaho and talked to them, they say that this was rescinded.The Bible I read, nothing has been rescinded since it was written.
As a Messianic Jew I am very careful what I read, and let the Holy Spirit work in my Spirit to tell me Truth.
Now a friend of mine was looking to become a member of the LDS, they wanted to look at her Income Tax return before they even talked to her about conversion! Whats up with this?
I remember in 1948 the boxes of food that came to Germany, they had two hands clasped together printed on it. I was told later that the Mormons send them. Is that why they require such strict rules for the Tithes? My teachings have been on the order: give with a joyful heart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you can ,if You want to, reply to me :
Claudia.C.Shapiro@gmail.com
I would like to hear from you.
claudia
I don't claim to be an authoritive source on any church doctrine, nor can any member that is not given that authority specifically. Still, we are all encouraged to know our doctrine and share it as the Holy Spirit directs, and only as that Spirit directs and testifies to us of its truthfulness.
Nonetheless, we are human and prone to error, so anything any member of the church says should be compared to what others say, and particularly to official church doctrine as can be found on the official church websites www.mormon.org and www.lds.org. This is not to say that you shouldn't seek information from any source you choose, but just always remember to consider the source and their motivation.
The denial of the priesthood to blacks was church doctrine until the revelation in 1978 that made the blessings of the priesthood available to all living men, and therefore to their families. We do not take this priesthood authority lightly, and then only at our peril. Our scriptures are filled with warnings about how it can, and should not, be abused.
Why it was denied to blacks prior to 1978 is a much pondered question with many suggested answers, but no definitive answer has even been forthcoming from any president of the church, so those suggestions are all simply conjecture. For myself, I don't care why it was. I just delight in the fact that it is no longer prohibited.
There is actually a great deal of precedent for things in the Bible to be "rescinded," and if I understand the beliefs of Messianic Jews, then that is actually one of the big issues for them. To their credit, that makes them one of the more consistent belief systems today, but even Messianic Jews do not practice plural marriage (that I know of), though that was clearly a common and sanctioned practice among the Israelites, at least in the Old Testament.
Church welfare has always been voluntary and separate from the paying of tithes. Tithes can and have been used for welfare, but the primary purpose of tithing is for the construction and maintenance of temples and other church buildings. In short, to support the church, as tithes are accepted to be in other churches. The law of tithing is as old at least as Abraham (see Hebrews 7:5-6,9) and is a separate measure of obedience. There are numerous references in the Bible to the paying of tithes; why it is a requirement and what are the blessings that come of paying it faithfully.
Welfare, or charity, is technically voluntary, but the Savior clearly expects us to do that as well, and if it is not a commandment, it is still a mandate for any honest follower of Christ. Nonetheless, the nature of that sort of giving is left voluntary as a test of our hearts, and not just of obedience.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, there is never a statement to anyone of what they should give to welfare or how much, but it is undoubtedly expected of us to give of our time, talents and means to support the poor and needy in whatever ways and to whatever degree we are able. The success and effectiveness of the church welfare system is something that you can personally attest to, as well as the fact that it is given freely and without condition. To whatever degree anyone in the church gives welfare with any implication of obligation to the church or any of its members or programs, they are being unrighteous at the worst, and overzealous at the least.
We give with joyful hearts. Indeed, there is no greater joy in all of this existence than helping others, because "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40. We are never more in the service of our God than when we are in the service of our fellow beings. Anyone that understands our doctrine differently than that, doesn't understand our doctrine.
I appreciate your interest in my writings and look forward to further communications. I prefer to keep the bulk of it in this forum just because it makes it available for others to read, and it will save me having to repeat myself to each person that may stumble upon my blog and have similar questions.
APRIL 25,12.53 AM
having looked up Joseph Smith in depth, i cam across the Urim and Thummim ,it intrigued me. Having heard the Rabbies talking about the Building of the new Temple and having now all the Implements needed to hold a service.They also were talking about the Urim and the Thummim, as part of the Ephod, that was used by the High Priest.The meaning of the words are
revelation and truth
lights and perfection
In the Old Testament they were used to inquire of the Lord God what course of action to take.
Ex 28:13-30
1 Samuel 14-41
Numbers 27:21
Judges 1:1
20-18
20:28
1 Samuel 23-9-11
30:7-8
1 Samuel 28:6 and when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams nor by Urim, nor by the prophets. Ezra 2:63 they were waiting till a priest stood up with the Urim and Thummim. The same thing in Nehemia 7:65.
Now the illustrative of the light and perfection of Christ, the true high priest:
deuteronomy 33:8
John 1:4 in him was life and the life was the light of men
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Now the interesting part is that the use of the U&T was discontinued by Solomon.
Until Joseph Smith used them for the translation of the Book of Mormons. To do that he sat, with his hat covering his face.
My thoughts go back to jewish tradition, when the men pray they cover their head with the Talis.
Now my train of thought goes to the Indian tribes Medicin men,any time they had to make a decision regarding anything pertaining decisions for the Tribe or even an individual quest, they shook a bag of different items, including 3 to 5 stones.
Now Joseph Smith named an Indian, Moroni, who lived or died over a 1000 Years ago.
Than we have Nephi, his father was Lehi, who had 6 sons, the daughter are not mentioned.Nephi spent eight years in the wilderness and flight to the Promised Land.
we Jews have a similar story, only we wandered fourty years in the Wilderness, befor we entered into the promised Land.
But now with Nephi we start the quest of the Mormons.
Dr.Rabbi Moshe Dror brings us up to date, the modern world,"Remember that we started our journey with the blessings of Abraham that uses the metaphor of sands and stars-minerals and lights-silicon and photons."
the same two entities of silicon and photons in optical fibers. these are the exactly samematerials that go back to the tome of Abraham and later is made for the Tabernacle and in the Temples in the Breastplate, the Hoshen of the High Priest, Ex28:13-30.
Now the stones are still in possession of LDS. They went from Joseph Smith to
Oliver Cowdery to
Brigham Young in 1850 to
Zina D.H. Young in1877 to
Zina Y card, her daughter, who gave them to John Taylor and in 1882 Apostle Franklin D. Richards.
Wilford Woodrruff , in 1888 dedicated the Temple in Manty Utah had the stones on the Altar. They are now kept in the First President's private vault.
in 1982, a decedent of Brigham Young, Mary brown Finnage was allowed to see the stones.
In 2006 a special display of the the different artifacts of Joseph Smith were shown, the stones were not included.
Now there are quite a few things to ponder about.
I guess the next study should be the book: Pearl of Great Price. until than, God bless and give revelation to his truth and wisdom. His agape to all.
Post a Comment