What Do People Considering Leaving The Church Have To Fear?

[Alvino]

You also seem to recognize your lack of holiness. if Holy is good, unholy is not.

No, holy is best. Unholy is everything else. My parent's aren't holy but they are good, still.

Then your question is an issue for all, rather than an issue for none.

Well, it isn't an issue for this issue, I meant.

What impact does an unholy individual have, by carefully doing what they thought best, on a Holy being?

"Impact"?

Does the notion that a fellow thought about what they were doing in a careful sense have more impact? If so why?

(I'll take "impact" to be "make any difference") Because it isn't the same to do things you know are bad and doing things you think are good, albeit actually bad or not as good.

[Alvino]

You'd be missing out on the things you could have enjoyed doing had you believed doing those things could have made your life better.

For example, if you don't get sealed to a woman as your spouse in a temple of the Lord because you don't believe that would help to make your life better, both now and later when you get to the next stage of our existence after our resurrection, then you'll miss out on having a spouse with you in eternity, along with the other blesssings you could have from an eternal marriage.

Right, and I'm saying that doesn't seem fair at all if one is an honest disbeliever. If I'm a father and I see my son missing out on a lot of the good stuff simply because he is mislead by the available facts and such, then I think it would be rather cruel of me to not give him the sufficient info, wouldn't you think?

You might be able to change your mind later, before it's too late, by going through the required ordinances with a willing partner either personally or by proxy, but if you don't ever do it because you don't believe it would help you, then you'd be missing out on that blessing, forever. And until you do, if you do, you'll be missing out on it.

At some point it may be too late for you to change your mind, ya know. You need to do what you should do as soon as you can.

You could say that this system here is what a God who somehow knows better than we can understand now is a possible response to this seemingly unfair state of affairs, but what I intend to show in this discussion is that, as far as we can see, this system is unfair.

[thesometimesaint]

So do you think anyone goes to hell in an eternal sense... or even goes hell in the sense that they are annihilated at some point?

Yes, but it is entirely their own choice. All they have to do is accept the Atonement.

They become vessels of wrath, from which they choose to never repent.

[thesometimesaint]

Right, and I'm saying that doesn't seem fair at all if one is an honest disbeliever. If I'm a father and I see my son missing out on a lot of the good stuff simply because he is mislead by the available facts and such, then I think it would be rather cruel of me to not give him the sufficient info, wouldn't you think?

You could say that this system here is what a God who somehow knows better than we can understand now is a possible response to this seemingly unfair state of affairs, but what I intend to show in this discussion is that, as far as we can see, this system is unfair.

No one is held responsible for what they didn't know. All will be taught whether in this life or the next. We all will be judged by what we did with what we knew.

The system God set up is entirely fair. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. All we have to do is repent, and God will remember our sins no more. We all die, and God gives us all back our lives. Entirely fair, and entirely just.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If I'm a father and I see my son missing out on a lot of the good stuff simply because he is mislead by the available facts and such, then I think it would be rather cruel of me to not give him the sufficient info, wouldn't you think?

And what if your son doesn't find the 'info' compelling?

What I intend to show in this discussion is that, as far as we can see, this system is unfair.

Good luck with that. My prediction is that you're going to have just about as much success at this endeavour as Corianton did with his father:

'And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery' (Alma 42:1).

[Megalodon]

I was listening to the podcast posted on the "John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction" thread and thought, what do people facing faith crises have to fear?

If God is as good as he is said to be, why the fear of leaving the Church or going to where one's best mental efforts take you? If God is good, what do I have to fear if I truly did what I carefully thought was the best? Maybe this idea of God is wrong but I can't imagine a good God that will punish someone who honestly did what they saw as the more honest and better approach to their lives and beliefs, even if that meant disobeying God's commands.

My wife and I were reading chapter 12 of Alma last night. It's a worthy chapter, so I'd recommend it, but in respect of fear of leaving the Church, God is definitely good, but according to that which we read, if we have rejected Christ and His atonement, there is something to fear that we will be required to endure in the end.

17 Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.

18 Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God’s justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption.

In short, if we have rejected Him, Christ's atonement will not cover us, but we will have to take personal responsibility for our own sins. And we will have to suffer as He suffered.

But there is still comfort even after this, for we will still inherit a Kingdom of glory, assuming we have not gone so far as to qualify for being a Son of Perdition.

I am told that the Telestial Kingdom is a wonderful place, just not quite as nice as the Terrestrial, or certainly the Celestial.

You remember the old joke, There is No Reason to Worry?

Don't worry, there are only two things to worry about: if you're sick, or if you're healthy. If you're healthy, there's nothing to worry about. If you're sick, there are only two things to worry about: will you get better; or will you die. If you get better, there's nothing to worry about. But if you die, there's only two things to worry about: will you go to Heaven or Hell. If you go to heaven, you have nothing to worry about. And if you go to Hell, you wil be so busy shaking hands with friends you won't have time to worry. So there's nothing to worry about.

Now I'm getting ridiculous. From the sublime there is so far to fall.

[mfbukowski]

So do you think anyone goes to hell in an eterenal sense... or even goes hell in the sense that they are annihilated at some pointi?

That's one that Mormons tend to have mixed understandings about and doctrine is not very explicit on, at least how the scriptures are interpreted by Mormons.

Most think that total annihilation may happen to very few, perhaps the Sons of Perdition but of course all that is pretty speculative and debatable. Philippians 2:10 is variously translated that every knee "will" or "should" confess the name of Jesus- that is an important word and an important distinction.

If it's "will" does that mean all will be saved? I will yield to your far superior understanding of Protestant theology on that one.

But Mormons are pretty darn close to being universalists as far as "salvation" at least in that meaning of "salvation" (meaning a release from hell and going to a "better place" as opposed to meaning "exaltation") is concerned.

The classic LDS position is that very few will become sons of perdition because doing so requires them to have full and perfect knowledge of God and Christ's redemption and yet denying its truth. Their position is analogized to looking directly at the sun and yet denying that it is shining.

It's hard to understand why anyone would do that. So yes, only a few will be sons of perdition, but it isn't clear if they get annihilation or eternal punishment.

In my opinion, I think it's necessary for LDS to think that they get eternal punishment because there are scriptures that only make sense if the sop's do in fact get eternal punishment. But regardless, the attitude is that there will be very few of them.

[Alvino]

No one is held responsible for what they didn't know. All will be taught whether in this life or the next. We all will be judged by what we did with what we knew.

The system God set up is entirely fair. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. All we have to do is repent, and God will remember our sins no more. We all die, and God gives us all back our lives. Entirely fair, and entirely just.

Glad you look at it this way, sometimesaint. Just to be clear, though, you are using here "what they didn't know" to refer to what they either ignored or believed was false, correct? I think it's important to distinguish that because some think it's enough to have the information (for example, having been told that God exists and that Mormonism is true), and this suffices to be held responsible for not having done what Mormonism teaches is correct. In philosophy, the traditional rough definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" and if we go by that, then honest disbelievers don't actually know Mormonism is correct even though we know what claims Mormonism makes.

[Alvino]

And what if your son doesn't find the 'info' compelling?

That would be strange. By "info" I meant what was sufficient for the son to realize what the truth was; that is, information that will correct the reasoning process to see the truth.

I was not thinking of God repeating over and over "But I'm just, son, that's the truth!" That's info but it's obviously of little to no use because the information required for the honest disbeliever to see the truth is other information.

Well, that or the honest disbeliever is not smart enough to get it, which I don't think is much of a problem to solve for God.

[Ahab]

That would be strange. By "info" I meant what was sufficient for the son to realize what the truth was; that is, information that will correct the reasoning process to see the truth.

So what info do you think you might be missing to be able to realize the Church is our Lord's Church, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is, or that you need to be sealed by the priesthood of God to be able to have an eternal marriage... or anything else you don't believe in right now? What would it take for you to believe in it?

The "info" is available to all. If you haven't seen it before, you can look for it and find it. Just Google it. You'll find it, although you may also find a bunch of garbage along with your search, and if you have trouble seeing the truth when it's right there in front of your face all you have to do is ask God to help you know what is true.

Problem solved. Simple solution. All you have to do is believe the truth when you find it.

I was not thinking of God repeating over and over "But I'm just, son, that's the truth!" That's info but it's obviously of little to no use because the information required for the honest disbeliever to see the truth is other information.

What info do you seek? Ask a question. Someone around here can probably answer your question, or you could just look somewhere else for your answers. I usually ask God when I really want to know what is true because I know he always tells me the truth, but he's told other people what the truth is on at least some issues, so you can also ask others who God has told.

Well, that or the honest disbeliever is not smart enough to get it, which I don't think is much of a problem to solve for God.

That's right. You can be as dumb as the biggest dummy you can imagine. All you have to do is believe the truth when you find it, and God can help anyone know what the truth is if they'll just ask him while paying attention when he answers.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That would be strange.

Yeah, a bit like people who know the causative link between tobacco and cancer and yet smoke anyway, which, er, never happens ...

The information required for the honest disbeliever to see the truth is other information.

What exactly would this 'other information' be which would prove so compelling?

On this point, you've reminded me of something I posted in an earlier thread:

A co-worker and I had ended up at a cheap Mexican place after working overtime, and we got talking about faith. Her husband was a formerly lapsed Church member who had returned 'with vengeance,' and both of her children had chosen to be baptised as well. All three of them desperately wanted the mum to join them in the Church, but she just didn't believe any of it. They kept telling her she needed to have faith, but that just sounded like a lame excuse to her. If there really were a God, she claimed, then he'd be willing to make things easy for her and just give her something obvious she could accept.

I asked her to give me an example. She said it would help if, for example, He would show Himself to her and tell her that 'Mormonism' was the right way. I thought about this and then felt inspired to ask her a question. I asked her to assume for a moment that, on her way to her car that night, God did descend in a pillar of light and tell her that He was real and wanted her to become a Church member. Then I asked her how far down the road she would get before she'd convinced herself it hadn't actually happened. She considered the question and then answered honestly that she wouldn't make it home before having done so.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Maidservant]

Don't worry, there are only two things to worry about: if you're sick, or if you're healthy. If you're healthy, there's nothing to worry about. If you're sick, there are only two things to worry about: will you get better; or will you die. If you get better, there's nothing to worry about. But if you die, there's only two things to worry about: will you go to Heaven or Hell. If you go to heaven, you have nothing to worry about. And if you go to Hell, you wil be so busy shaking hands with friends you won't have time to worry. So there's nothing to worry about.

LOL. Cute. I'm gonna remember this one.

[Alvino]

Yeah, a bit like people who know the causative link between tobacco and cancer and yet smoke anyway, which, er, never happens ...

I thought by "compelling" you meant that you recognized the truth of it. Did you mean, "What if an honest disbelievers recognizes the truth of Mormonism and doesn't accept it?"?

What exactly would this 'other information' be which would prove so compelling?

I told you already: how does my reasoning fail? For example, I'm terribly unconvinced by the existence of the God of Mormonism because how he is described as being is too incompatible with the world. Prayers don't work, there are no miracles, etc. God could tell me how prayers work so that I missed it. Or he could tell me the relevant facts either about the world or his nature so that I will not think (as I do now) that this world is almost completely not what I could reasonably expect if God existed.

On this point, you've reminded me of something I posted in an earlier thread:

How in the world can you remember what you posted almost a year ago?

I can imagine many ways in which even she would have been convinced of God's existence. For one, the second coming could come about and we can all see Jesus resurrected flying around and imparting knowledge never before seen. I recall when someone I loved died and the first feeling I had was that of incredulity; it just seemed unreal. After a little while, though, reality settled in and I recognized the fact. If I were to "see God while on my way home", I would think I'm losing my mind. No sudden experience while I'm alone, no getting worked up, no dreams. Those won't work.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Alvino

[ERayR]

Right, and I'm saying that doesn't seem fair at all if one is an honest disbeliever. If I'm a father and I see my son missing out on a lot of the good stuff simply because he is mislead by the available facts and such, then I think it would be rather cruel of me to not give him the sufficient info, wouldn't you think?

However, one had better be an honest disbeliever and not a stubborn egotist who wants to tell God how unfair he is.

You could say that this system here is what a God who somehow knows better than we can understand now is a possible response to this seemingly unfair state of affairs, but what I intend to show in this discussion is that, as far as we can see, this system is unfair.

I can not accept your premise that God's plan is unfair. Your interpretation of it is unfair but not God's system. If you could stoop so low as honestly listen perhaps you too could see how it is ultimatly fair and just.

[Alvino]

However, one had better be an honest disbeliever and not a stubborn egotist who wants to tell God how unfair he is.

Sure, but even if one was not an honest disbeliever I imagine there might be quite a few mitigating factors. Let's not concern ourselves with those cases for now.

I can not accept your premise that God's plan is unfair.

It ain't strictly a premise; I gave reasons.

Your interpretation of it is unfair but not God's system.

Did you mean here that the interpretation I gave makes it sound as if it were indeed an unfair system? Or that I'm interpreting it unfairly and fail to give it its due weigh?

If you could stoop so low as honestly listen perhaps you too could see how it is ultimatly fair and just.

It's good to accustom oneself to defend the faith with more than these kinds of statements. You offer no reasons, no evidence, and a strawman.

Why is it fair? Why don't my reasons work?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Alvino

[CV75]

If God is as good as he is said to be, why the fear of leaving the Church or going to where one's best mental efforts take you?

Mental efforts alone are inadequate. To purposefully rely only upon mental efforts, and disregarding emotional, spiritual, social/relational, and other efforts is one way of constructing a psychic safety by ignoring the input from other facets of one's makeup. The problem is, at some point that equilibrium will be upset by a “greater intelligence” and at that point some fear will result. So fear is not necessarily a function of whether God is good or not, but what we are doing with all the personal resources that we have at our disposal.

What I'm trying to show is that they would be leaving very little in comparison to what they think they'd be.

Until the "greater intelligence" shows them otherwise.

Edited February 8, 2013 by CV75

[Ahab]

Why is it fair?

It's fair because it works for everybody in the same ways. What do you think is unfair about it?

Why don't my reasons work?

Because they don't stand up to scrutiny.

If you can't see some good reasons to believe in something, anything, all you have to do is ask a believer why he believes. If he can't explain it very well, you can then ask another believer while using the reasoning that there must be some reason why people believe in it, whatever it is, and somebody should be able to explain it. Once you then understand some reasons why people believe what they believe, you can then determine what makes the most sense to you while you then choose to believe in something.

There is nobody who doesn't believe in something, and everyone who believes anything has a reason for why they believe it.

Stop focusing on trying to justify or understand why a unbeliever doesn't believe in something. Instead just focus on believers and ask them to help you understand why they believe what they believe. We do have reasons, and you can get to the point where you understand our reasons.

[Alvino]

Mental efforts alone are inadequate. To purposefully rely only upon mental efforts, and disregarding emotional, spiritual, social/relational, and other efforts is one way of constructing a psychic safety by ignoring the input from other facets of one's makeup.

I'm sorry that you have that view of "mental efforts". Social/relational/emotional aspects are what are weighted when we reason. Reason moves these aspects around to see what we really want or value emotionally or socially. That there are several aspects to consider when taking a particular decision does not mean one isn't going to be using one's mental efforts. It is definitely a mistake to not take emotions and social/relational aspects to one's decisions and never here have I been ignoring them when I talk about "metal efforts" or "reason". It isn't my fault some here have such a caricature of ideas like "mental", "intellect", or "reason".

The problem is, at some point that equilibrium will be upset by a “greater intelligence” and at that point some fear will result.

What equilibrium? Upset how? Fear of what will result?

So fear is not necessarily a function of whether God is good or not, but what we are doing with all the personal resources that we have at our disposal.

Well, in that respect an honest disbeliever has little to worry as compared to the believer since this applies to all.

Until the "greater intelligence" shows them otherwise.

OK, so we would be leaving quite a bit, in which case you have to say what and provide reasons.

[Ahab]

I'm sorry that you have that view of "mental efforts". Social/relational/emotional aspects are what are weighted when we reason. Reason moves these aspects around to see what we really want or value emotionally or socially. That there are several aspects to consider when taking a particular decision does not mean one isn't going to be using one's mental efforts. It is definitely a mistake to not take emotions and social/relational aspects to one's decisions and never here have I been ignoring them when I talk about "metal efforts" or "reason". It isn't my fault some here have such a caricature of ideas like "mental", "intellect", or "reason".

What equilibrium? Upset how? Fear of what will result?

Well, in that respect an honest disbeliever has little to worry as compared to the believer since this applies to all.

OK, so we would be leaving quite a bit, in which case you have to say what and provide reasons.

It is your intent to keep this discussion vague, or would you mind giving some examples.

You're asking what people have to fear in the case of... what?

In the case of them honestly not believing something? Okay, why didn't they believe it?

As an example, do you have a reason for why you honestly don't believe in something?

Maybe some people are just afraid of finding out the truth of what they don't believe in. That's an example of something they might have to fear. If you'd like to believe, or at least understand why people believe what they believe, all you have to do is ask believers to provide some reasons for why they believe what they believe. Some of them will tell you. Don't be afraid to ask.

[CV75]

I'm sorry that you have that view of "mental efforts". Social/relational/emotional aspects are what are weighted when we reason.

You left out /spiritual/ which is key to this discussion.

What equilibrium? Upset how? Fear of what will result?

As stated, the [temporary, artificial, contrived, or poorly or incompletely developed] equilibrium of psychic safety. Upset by "greater intelligence," even if that is one's own suppressed reasoning. Fear of whatever he had been saving himself from with denial.

Well, in that respect an honest disbeliever has little to worry as compared to the believer since this applies to all.

For the time being, perhaps. You may want to redefine or rephrase what you mean by "honest disbeliever."

OK, so we would be leaving quite a bit, in which case you have to say what and provide reasons.

Whatever is being denied by not using one's spiritual resource in his reasoning (see parable of the sower)--even quite a little can be quite a bit. Now if he doesn't have any spiritual resource for some reason, then I appeal to John 9:3: "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Which means, in this case, that person will have a spiritual resource with which to reason.

Edited February 8, 2013 by CV75

[Alvino]

You left out /spiritual/ which is key to this discussion.

Sure. Obviously, spiritual for me has nothing of spirits or souls or ghosts, etc.

As stated, the [temporary, artificial, contrived, or poorly or incompletely developed] equilibrium of psychic safety. Upset by "greater intelligence," even if that is one's own suppressed reasoning. Fear of whatever he had been saving himself from with denial.

Got it, boss.

For the time being, perhaps. You may want to redefine or rephrase what you mean by "honest disbeliever."

No, thanks, I've clarified that already.

Whatever is being denied by not using one's spiritual resource in his reasoning

Such as...

[Alvino]

It is your intent to keep this discussion vague, or would you mind giving some examples.

You're asking what people have to fear in the case of... what?

In the case of them honestly not believing something? Okay, why didn't they believe it?

As an example, do you have a reason for why you honestly don't believe in something?

I've answered these already several times. Don't feel like repeating.

[CV75]

Sure. Obviously, spiritual for me has nothing of spirits or souls or ghosts, etc.

Then why bother discussing what you have to fear with those that do?

Got it, boss.

So you agree that D&C 123:12, “…there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—”applies both spiritually and non-spiritually. Also, we see many times that people are in danger of being deceived even though they may not perceive it, or perceive it yet. So the danger for those who leave the Church is very real, though they may not perceive it yet. But every person ever born will eventually realize the dangers inherent in his fallen state.

No, thanks, I've clarified that already.

I haven’t seen a coherent definition on your part that can really carry the conversation. In case I missed it, please re-post--thank you.

Such as...

I recommend a study of the dangers of the fallen state that are countered by the Atonement.

[Alvino]

Then why bother discussing what you have to fear with those that do?

Because this doesn't change anything. Think about it.

So you agree that D&C 123:12, “…there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—”applies both spiritually and non-spiritually. Also, we see many times that people are in danger of being deceived even though they may not perceive it, or perceive it yet. So the danger for those who leave the Church is very real, though they may not perceive it yet. But every person ever born will eventually realize the dangers inherent in his fallen state.

So there are dangers in whatever position you might be in. I don't see the relevance of saying that. We are all in this fallen state.

I haven’t seen a coherent definition on your part that can really carry the conversation. In case I missed it, please re-post--thank you.

Take the ones I offered you think are incoherent. If you have a problem with them, I want to know.

I recommend a study of the dangers of the fallen state that are countered by the Atonement.

No, CV, I'm asking about particular dangers to us disbelievers.

[ERayR]

No, CV, I'm asking about particular dangers to us disbelievers.

Missing the blessing reserved for the believers.