What Do People Considering Leaving The Church Have To Fear?

[CV75]

There's an ambiguity in there, isn't there? If by "not willing to enjoy that which they might have received" it means that we recognized the truth of Mormonism but refused it for, say, having been offended by another member of the Church or finding that these true doctrines are too hard for our habits, then that's not really what an honest disbeliever is and this verse doesn't address the issue. It can also mean, however, honest disbelievers that think that Mormonism is false after having believed, so then these might not be willing to enjoy what they think is not going to happen or what is based in falsity. Although this last interpretation may include some honest disbelievers it is not exhaustive for there are still those who don't believe Mormonism is true yet are willing to enjoy that which they might have received if it were true.

Yes, there is some ambiguity in there, for some. Clarity and ambiguity are part of the fertile field where agency can be exercised and tested. Honesty is helpful for getting the most out of clarity, ambiguity and agency.

For example, honesty and willingness are possible responses to clarity and ambiguity for the purpose of establishing belief. The relationship between the level of honest disbelief and the level of willingness to enjoy that which God offers is a mutually supportive one. In other words, the more honest one is in his disbelief, the more confidence he has and the more open his mind is (there is less need to justify or defend his disbelief), and the more willing he will be to change his mind with new truth (as clear or as ambiguous as it may be in his perception), and thus enjoy God’s gifts.

[Alvino]

Alvino, it seems that you are asking the question from several different viewpoints, but when a person answers from one of the viewpoints, you change and say, no not THAT viewpoint, the OTHER one. These are the viewpoints I got out of your question so far--maybe you can tell me which one you want the most? or from all? or if there is another viewpoint I'm missing?

PLEASE give reasons when you say something like this; otherwise it's hard to see what you mean.

1-- from the point of view of the honest disbeliever (by the way, where are the dishonest disbelievers? I can't imagine any or a subgroup so unutterably tiny that it is an anomaly to the question)

Honest disbelievers are those that leave the Church or belief in God and the truth of the Church, because they came to honestly believe it is false through reasoning, information, etc. Where are they? I think I'm one and Libs said she is one, also. I would think this includes most disbelievers, though, but that's neither here nor there.

2--from the point of view of God (which in reality, no one can know, but which for the sake of discussion we can imagine an LDS approach to what God might be thinking)

3--from the point of view of the honest believer watching the honest disbeliever leave, and the opinion that the honest believer will hold about the honest disbeliever (which, at final, is none of the believer's business what the disbeliever does, since we're all human beings and just doing the best that we can).

As far as we can reason ("we" including believers and disbelievers), do particular God-behaviors towards honest disbelievers seem right or wrong?

From which of the points of view above?

1--of course not; just made a liberating choice with greater rewards

2--you have your agency and you will have what you create; *you* define spiritual danger, not God or us, once you have the definition then you can know if the LDS God and his Church creation would be of any assistance to you in that; what dangers do you even consider there could be; it's not about the afterlife, it's about your whole life at any time; God will continue to be with you

Definitions (really, working definitions) don't arise out of thin air. They are formed to make sense of other ideas and experiences while guided somewhat by our intuitions. If you think we are doing something like axiomatic set theory (like a rationalist approach like that of Descartes or Spinoza) you are sorely mistaken. What I'm trying to show those to which I respond is that as far as we can see, with the best working ideas of good and bad, certain God-behaviors are not good or even immoral.

3--none of their business

This is a discussion forum, Maidservant. You can not answer anything if you so desire.

But where do you get this God? He is not in Mormonism.

The LDS God is your Father and cannot be understood without first understanding that.

As I said, all I need is that YOU use your working definitions and answer a few questions as clearly as possible. If you think they don't apply or are based on bad assumptions, please state where I missed; preferably, wait for objections to be clear before saying I'm assuming too much. Most of the times I'm not.

You are referencing a God they don't subscribe to in the first place.

No, people here have said that you will lose some blessings but they are somewhat coy saying what those blessings are.

If you accept the LDS God either in reality or for discussion sake, then he is your Father. This is the foundational element before you can understand anything else.

I know but you seem to assume this solves any of the problems I'm raising here. AS FAR AS WE SEE God may appear cruel and callous but, somehow, be said to want the best for us as our Father. This would mean that "what is best for us" may be something we actually see as "something cruel that is not the best for us at all". Now, that is something people are afraid to get into but that seems to be a normal conclusion out of their principles, they just don't see it.

Plus, there are mistaken Fathers, there are unloving Fathers, there are Fathers who say are loving but do a lot of damage because of twisted ideas of love or good, etc. That He is our Father means nothing by itself. You need to say more.

The second element is that you are eternal and have been his child before you came here and you came to earth on purpose for some specific reasons. The concept of THE CHURCH is a secondary concept several times removed from some more foundational ones.

How does this help at all?

I.e. from point of view 2--my child leaves my church--but he didn't leave off being my child--continues to act as a Father--but YOU are responsible for what you create and if you are satisfied with your creation, what else is there?

Saying I'm responsible for what I create is naive here. Obviously if you have any level of responsibility towards your son, and see that the information you gave him are merely HINTS towards the right answer and he didn't see it after his best efforts, then you as a farther are greatly responsible - if you can provide more and better information - for your son picking the wrong option. You effectively withheld information you could have given when your son was in need of it and asking for it and that makes you responsible, too.

Okay this is point of view 1. And from that point of view you already made the right decision.

This viewpoints thing is misleading you. I'm asking there for reasons why the honest disbeliever ought to have chosen something different than leaving the Church when the evidence pointed to leaving it.

No. Because if there is nothing you want from what the Church offers and from its understanding of what your Father offers, then you haven't lost anything.

I was asking there for reasons why one is reprehensible for having chosen what you believe is the wrong option after the honest disbeliever did their best rational effort.

Is God "ok" with it (point of view #2), then define "ok". Impossible to answer otherwise. Are you still his child? Yes, he'll keep loving you, blessing you, walking with you. Did he create the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to represent the best of what he could offer his children at this time on this planet while we are working out our purpose here? Yes. And you don't want it? Well, if you gave the best gift you could give someone and they don't want it, then, it's a bit disappointing, yes. Is the atonement real and are ordinances necessary for the full working of it in your life? from the LDS God point of view #2, yes.

Is one reprehensible for having chosen the wrong option when the evidence pointed to the wrong option?

[CV75]

What about in the eyes of God?

What spiritual dangers? Please be as explicit as possible.

RE: the eyes of God, this is explained in D&C 88.

RE: spiritual dangers, see post above (dishonesty is a spiritual danger because it is an impediment to perceiving and accepting truth). Since everything functions as a matter of degree, any degree of dishonesty associated with leaving the Church would present a danger (but it would also present a danger in staying with the Church) Any degree of honesty associated with leaving or staying with the Church would not. Since no one is 100% dishonest or honest in every point of belief or disbelief, each person has to recognize he is living with some degree of spiritual danger and/or some degree of spiritual safety. This is humility.

[Alvino]

leaving the church is going against the dictates of your own conscience. I know there are those who claim their conscience does not testify to them of God, but I believe that they are lying. Everyone has a conscience, and everyone's conscience testifies of God.

Wow! Now, this is an interesting answer - albeit a rather disturbing one. Rep point for that!

Unfortunately, I think one can show within Mormonism that this is wrong:

Articles of Faith:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Plus, AoF are canonized as opposed to the Bible Dictionary so it takes precedence.

That shows the possibility is open that one's conscience can say to leave the Church (or not join) but it doesn't address whether our conscience tell us whether there is a God or not. Even if it did, though, that doesn't mean one can always distinguish what one's conscience says (so you could make honest mistakes and not be culpable for them EVEN IF your conscience said something different or was pointing another way), and it also doesn't mean that one is culpable if one doesn't follow one's conscience because one could believe there are certain reasons that may override what our conscience says.

Anyways, I don't think the Bible Dictionary part you brought up is talking about God's existence. It seems it is just talking about morally right and wrong and in that case that wouldn't go against what I said because of the following: For all we know, one's conscience could be saying that one ought to follow what the evidence suggests to non-believers because it could be true that one is NOT culpable or that it is not wrong for them to leave the Church. IOW, you beg the question if you say one's conscience always points to what is right or to what is wrong because it could be the case that it is in fact right for honest disbelievers to leave based on the available evidence and their best efforts )as I claim) and that that is actually where their conscience is pointing towards!

Had fun responding to it, though. I certainly appreciate thought provoking posts.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Alvino

[go_utes01]

No, I believed, then I didn't. I also didn't choose anything, I was convinced.

This is where I think things go off the rails. In matters of faith, I do not believe that either belief or unbelief/disbelief is compelled by the "evidence." I think there is sufficient ambiguity that each can and must choose either to exercise faith or not. And, we are all accountable for the choices we make. I like the explanation that the degree of our honesty/dishonesty in our choice on the question of faith will be an important factor in how we choose to judge ourselves (actions, motivations, etc.) at the day of judgment.

Edited February 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[Alvino]

RE: the eyes of God, this is explained in D&C 88.

Because of the ambiguity I pointed out, CV75, what you quoted may or may not talk about honest disbelievers. Please clarify (and preferably, justify) the interpretation you take out of the two (or if you believe there is a third, have at it).

RE: spiritual dangers, see post above (dishonesty is a spiritual danger because it is an impediment to perceiving and accepting truth).

And I'm asking about what spiritual dangers honest disbelievers face by leaving, not dishonest ones. I'm talking about people who just see the Church as false and have good reasons for holding that position. If you don't see the Church as true then you aren't really dishonest in leaving it... unless you think we, honest disbelievers, don't really see Mormonism as false.

Since everything functions as a matter of degree, any degree of dishonesty associated with leaving the Church would present a danger (but it would also present a danger in staying with the Church) Any degree of honesty associated with leaving or staying with the Church would not. Since no one is 100% dishonest or honest in every point of belief or disbelief, each person has to recognize he is living with some degree of spiritual danger and/or some degree of spiritual safety. This is humility.

Each person? So things don't change much if one becomes a Mormon and one isn't really in any specially dangerous risk by leaving the Church as an honest disbeliever, then?.

I think what you want to say and show is that honest disbelievers are in some type of very low spiritual safety.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

This is where I think things go off the rails. In matters of faith, I do not believe that either belief or unbelief/disbelief is compelled by the "evidence." I think there is sufficient ambiguity that each can and must choose either to exercise faith or not.

Well, if there is ambiguity, and the ambiguity is cleared by the evidence (either rational or empirical) then that could very well tip the balance towards belief or disbelief, wouldn't it?

I just find your claim unbelievable. If someone has faith that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates, and somehow we could travel to the past with very advanced tech and watch Joseph actually without any golden plates but making it up, wouldn't that compel one to disbelief?

Or if you believe prayer and fasting for a sick person will tend to cure the sick more than if you didn't, but yet you are shown studies that indicate no correlation between prayer and healings, wouldn't that tip faith towards disbelief, also?

You seem to be saying here that faith is impervious to evidence, which I also find to be empirically false. We SEE people leaving faiths because of evidence all the time. Are you saying there probably is a logical breach or some other more subtle difference? If so, please explain.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

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.

God isn't in the business of punishing people. At judgment he'll just send people to live around others who live by the same standards they live by, Those disobedient to God will live with others who are also disobedient to God, and vice versa for those who were obedient, to whatever degree someone is obedient or disobedient.

[go_utes01]

Well, if there is ambiguity, and the ambiguity is cleared by the evidence (either rational or empirical) then that could very well tip the balance towards belief or disbelief, wouldn't it?

I just find your claim unbelievable. If someone has faith that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates, and somehow we could travel to the past with very advanced tech and watch Joseph actually without any golden plates but making it up, wouldn't that compel one to disbelief?

Or if you believe prayer and fasting for a sick person will tend to cure the sick more than if you didn't, but yet you are shown studies that indicate no correlation between prayer and healings, wouldn't that tip faith towards disbelief, also?

You seem to be saying here that faith is impervious to evidence, which I also find to be empirically false. We SEE people leaving faiths because of evidence all the time. Are you saying there probably is a logical breach or some other more subtle difference? If so, please explain.

If you have a time machine I can borrow, we could definitely obtain more "evidence" of the "truth." I am saying that we do not have a time machine and on the "evidence" that is available, there is sufficient ambiguity for people to choose either way (I would submit this ambiguity is purposeful). You mention many people leaving faith based on "evidence." I, obviously, could show you many people that are joining faiths based on "evidence." However, I would submit that neither group of people were compelled by the evidence, but rather each either chooses to exercise faith or not. And, the second part of my original response still remains my position. It will be based on the relative honesty (necessarily subjective/personal honesty) of our personal weighing of the evidence that we will base our self-judgment on at judgment.

Edited February 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[Alvino]

God isn't in the business of punishing people. At judgment he'll just send people to live around others who live by the same standards they live by, Those disobedient to God will live with others who are also disobedient to God, and vice versa for those who were obedient, to whatever degree someone is obedient or disobedient.

Impressive that this is the standard answer. The problem is that if one entered into a lifestyle one thought was right (but in reality wasn't) and God didn't provide enough information so that one live that higher standard, then it looks like God either didn't really want a lot of people to live that better lifestyle according to his commandments or that God is largely responsible for disbelievers having not followed his words or both. It looks like that whole "Father" feel to God kind of crumbles.

[go_utes01]

As for consequences of our choices re: faith, I disagree that there is punishment or that a person is "reprehensible" because of their honest choice. This, however, does not obviate the consequences of our choices. There are certain things you forego in choosing disbelief, just as there are presumably certain things people forego by choosing belief. For example, in choosing disbelief, it would be difficult to feel the joy associated with pleasing God by following His commandments. Also, the reassurance of a belief of eternal life or eternal families would be absent if a person chose disbelief. Or the comfort of belief in Heavenly Parents who love you, or a Savior that was willing to sacrifice for you and can understand how to succor you. I am not sure what a person choosing belief would forego - maybe you have some suggestions.

[Ahab]

Impressive that this is the standard answer. The problem is that if one entered into a lifestyle one thought was right (but in reality wasn't) and God didn't provide enough information so that one live that higher standard, then it looks like God either didn't really want a lot of people to live that better lifestyle according to his commandments or that God is largely responsible for disbelievers having not followed his words or both. It looks like that whole "Father" feel to God kind of crumbles.

Maya Angelou once said, When I didn't know better I did the best that I could, but when I knew better then I did better.

Of course you can't make improvments in your life beyond what you know you can do, but when you get an idea about how to improve your life you then have the choice of doing it, or not doing it. Your life is what you make of it with the choices you make.

And yes, God our Father does give us ideas both personally and through other people. You still end up doing what you want to do out of what you know you can do, though, and in the end you will be sent to live with other people like you.

Nothing to be afraid of. Really.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Ahab

[Alvino]

If you have a time machine I can borrow, we could definitely obtain more "evidence" of the "truth." I am saying that we do not have a time machine and on the "evidence" that is available, there is sufficient ambiguity for people to choose either way (I would submit this ambiguity is purposeful).

...of course we don't have time machines. The point is that it is easy to see how evidence can influence faith to disbelief and that it isn't a matter of definitions. IOW, it doesn't logically follow that because one has faith therefore one can't be influenced into disbelief - you need to provide more argument to show that.

You mention many people leaving faith based on "evidence." I, obviously, could show you many people that are joining faiths based on "evidence."

And I would believe you! There definitely are many smart, well-informed people within the faith. BTW, that shows what you said previously is false. Clearly, these people you have in mind were influenced by evidence into belief, didn't they?

However, I would submit that neither group of people were compelled by the evidence, but rather each either chooses to exercise faith or not.

Brother, to show that one is not compelled by evidence into BELIEF you need more than showing one used faith to arrive at that belief. It could be a 50-50 import of faith and evidence and that means evidence compelled into belief, too, because just with the 50 of faith isn't enough. "They used faith to believe; therefore, they didn't use evidence" does NOT follow.

And, the second part of my original response still remains my position. It will be based on the relative honesty (necessarily subjective/personal honesty) of our personal weighing of the evidence that we will base our self-judgment on at judgment.

So, if this applies to everyone, whether Mormon or not, then this is irrelevant to whether honest disbelievers are in any particular predicament as opposed to believers.

[Alvino]

Of course you can't make improvments in your life beyond what you know you can do, but when you get an idea about how to improve your life you then have the choice of doing it, or not doing it. Your life is what you make of it with the choices you make.

Please be careful, Ahab. It does not suffice that we "get an idea about how to improve our lives" but that we believe it is a better way than the one we have. This means that even if I have the information of what Mormonism preaches, that is not enough for me to be justified in practicing what they teach or to believe it is true and follow it. I also have to believe that 1) what Mormonism preaches is correct or mostly correct, and 2) that that path is better than the one I'm on today.

Honest disbelievers do not normally have 2 but always have 1. You are confusing having the information of what Mormonism preaches with the information necessary to believe that what Mormonism teaches is true (which was the one I was talking about and that seems relevant here). If having the information is all it takes then that seems like a rather unfair situation because it would mean that knowing that Mormonism teaches that we should be baptized means one is culpable if one didn't believe one actually ought to be baptized. If believing that what Mormonism preaches is correct is what we are talking about, then you are not addressing honest disbelievers who obviously don't accept Mormonism is true.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

So, if this applies to everyone, whether Mormon or not, then this is irrelevant to whether honest disbelievers are in any particular predicament as opposed to believers.

Their predicament will be only that they did not believe when they could have otherwise chosen to believe.

You can go either way, with or without any evidence. You don't need to be convinced, either way. Nobody can do anything to make you believe anything, anyway, regardless of how much evidence they think they have. If you choose to not believe in something, it will be because you chose to not believe in it. Or vice versa, if you believe it will be because you chose to believe it.

Personally, all I need is for God to assure me that something is true, and then I will believe it. Without that, I may believe, if it seems like believing it would give me some good results, but usually I'll wait until God helps me realize that something is true or a good thing for me to get into. All good ideas come from God, in my perspective, so if it seems good to me and God doesn't help me to see otherwise then I'll take that as God's whisper to me.

What standard of measure do you use to believe, or not believe, in something? If I don't believe I'll usually think it at least might be true. Do you consider the possibilities?

[Libs]

Is one reprehensible for having chosen the wrong option when the evidence pointed to the wrong option?

The answer is "no".....but, I did wonder why you keep asking this. Has someone told you that choosing a "wrong option", based on the knowledge you had, was reprehensible? I'm not sure why you work from that basic premise.

[Alvino]

Their predicament will be only that they did not believe when they could have otherwise chosen to believe.

You can go either way, with or without any evidence. You don't need to be convinced, either way. Nobody can do anything to make you believe anything, anyway, regardless of how much evidence they think they have. If you choose to not believe in something, it will be because you chose to not believe in it. Or vice versa, if you believe it will be because you chose to believe it.

Personally, all I need is for God to assure me that something is true, and then I will believe it. Without that, I may believe, if it seems like believing it would give me some good results, but usually I'll wait until God helps me realize that something is true or a good thing for me to get into. All good ideas come from God, in my perspective, so if it seems good to me and God doesn't help me to see otherwise then I'll take that as God's whisper to me.

What standard of measure do you use to believe, or not believe, in something? If I don't believe I'll usually think it at least might be true. Do you consider the possibilities?

This post is based on a confusion I point out to you in post #139.

[go_utes01]

The answer is "no".....but, I did wonder why you keep asking this. Has someone told you that choosing a "wrong option", based on the knowledge you had, was reprehensible? I'm not sure why you work from that basic premise.

I agree. I can't figure out the motivation here. It seems that there has been a general consensus that a truly honest disbeliever has no reason to fear punishment or to be considered "reprehensible." If somebody told Alvino that an honest disbeliever is somehow reprehensible in the sight of an understanding and loving God, I am truly sorry that people would hold such beliefs (and they are far from my personal understanding of God). This does not mean that there are not consequences for our choices re: faith/belief. As I explained above, there are consequences that flow from our choices and they are inescapable. I pointed out a few of the benefits that a person who chooses disbelief forfeits.

Edited February 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[Alvino]

The answer is "no".....but, I did wonder why you keep asking this. Has someone told you that choosing a "wrong option", based on the knowledge you had, was reprehensible? I'm not sure why you work from that basic premise.

Isn't it clear to you that people here do believe that and they don't even realize it? They think the Father picture of God absolves Him of culpability when it doesn't.

We have all kinds of people here. If you can't have a discussion without assigning all posters certain traits you won't be here long.

[Alvino]

I agree. I can't figure out the motivation here. It seems that there has been a general consensus that a truly honest disbeliever has no reason to fear punishment or to be considered "reprehensible." If somebody told Alvino that an honest disbeliever is somehow reprehensible in the sight of an understanding and loving God, I am truly sorry that people would hold such beliefs (and they are far from my personal understanding of God).

I don't know if you saw it but I responded to you in post #138.

I'm still interested, though. Do you think someone can be an ex-Mormon honest disbeliever and die as such and still get to go to the celestial kingdom and to the highest level of glory?

[Ahab]

Please be careful, Ahab. It does not suffice that we "get an idea about how to improve our lives" but that we believe it is a better way than the one we have.

Hence, it would be an improvement to how we live our lives, which is what I was talking about.

This means that even if I have the information of what Mormonism preaches, that is not enough for me to be justified in practicing what they teach or to believe it is true and follow it. I also have to believe that 1) what Mormonism preaches is correct or mostly correct, and 2) that that path is better than the one I'm on today.

All you really need is to believe it would (or at least might) help to improve your life.

Why would you care if it's correct if the correctness of it wouldn't help to improve your life? If it wasn't correct but still helped you to improve your life wouldn't you make that at least a little part of your life anyway?

Honest disbelievers do not normally have 2 but always have 1.

One is enough, I think, unless maybe all you know is that it is correct. What you really need is to know the knowledge can help you to improve your life.

You are confusing having the information of what Mormonism preaches with the information necessary to believe that what Mormonism teaches is true (which was the one I was talking about and that seems relevant here). If having the information is all it takes then that seems like a rather unfair situation because it would mean that knowing that Mormonism teaches that we should be baptized means one is culpable if one didn't believe one actually ought to be baptized.

Just take it one line or idea at a time. Do you think baptism could help to improve your life? If you think it would, or at least might, then you should just go ahead and ask someone to baptize you. Why wait? What else are you waiting for except for those things that will help you to improve your life?

If believing that what Mormonism preaches is correct is what we are talking about, then you are not addressing honest disbelievers who obviously don't accept Mormonism is true.

When you say honest disbelieves, what are you talking about? People who honestly don't believe? Do you see that they could believe, if they wanted to? People can believe pretty much anything they want to believe. Why not believe in whatever you think will help you to make your life better?

You could make a missionaries day, right now, by just calling one and asking him to baptize you. What are you waiting for?

[Ahab]

This post is based on a confusion I point out to you in post #139.

I don't see what you mean. What confusion?

[Alvino]

All you really need is to believe it would (or at least might) help to improve your life.

Why would you care if it's correct if the correctness of it wouldn't help to improve your life? If it wasn't correct but still helped you to improve your life wouldn't you make that at least a little part of your life anyway?

I, and probably most people, don't consider living a falsehood improvement in most contexts, specially when believing in Mormonism is such quite encompassing: morals, rites, dogmas, etc.

One is enough, I think, unless maybe all you know is that it is correct. What you really need is to know the knowledge can help you to improve your life.

And the belief that it improves lives is not in honest believers most of the time. Also, some of us consider not living based on what we know are falsehoods correct, that is not helping us improve.

Just take it one line or idea at a time. Do you think baptism could help to improve your life?

I'm baptized, but to others, no.

If you think it would, or at least might, then you should just go ahead and ask someone to baptize you. Why wait?

No honest disbeliever would pass the Q&A section to get baptized, remember?

When you say honest disbelieves, what are you talking about? People who honestly don't believe? Do you see that they could believe, if they wanted to? People can believe pretty much anything they want to believe. Why not believe in whatever you think will help you to make your life better?

Honest disbelievers are people who think they have good reasons to reject Mormonism or God (one can be an honest disbeliever with regards to different things)

You could make a missionaries day, right now, by just calling one and asking him to baptize you. What are you waiting for?

You are pretty much asking people to believe as true what they know to be false, Ahab. That seems awfully dishonest to oneself. A bit unorthodox, too, btw.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Alvino

[go_utes01]

I don't know if you saw it but I responded to you in post #138.

I'm still interested, though. Do you think someone can be an ex-Mormon honest disbeliever and die as such and still get to go to the celestial kingdom and to the highest level of glory?

138 does not address the examples of the consequences that inescapably flow from a person's choice to believe or not. To further explain my understanding of how one best determines the truthfulness of principles - even without empirical/scientific evidence is explained in Alma 32. If a person just has sufficient desire to believe, he/she can put those principles to the test and determine if they become "sweet" unto him/her. If living a certain principle/holding a certain belief is beneficial to your life, then you can know of its truthfulness - at least for that individual. We will never be able to scientifically prove the existence of God or the truthfulness of Mormonism (or any other religion), but we can know if certain principles/beliefs are pragmatically useful (true) in our lives.

But, to answer your question. Sure - I believe an ex-Mormon honest disbeliever could reach the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom - not while remaining in his disbelief, but after accepting Christ as his savior and presumably being sufficiently educated concerning existence in the Celestial Kingdom, going through the necessary ordinances, etc., and deciding that he/she would be willing/able to live a Celestial law.

Edited February 4, 2013 by go_utes01

[Alvino]

I don't see what you mean. What confusion?

You were confusing having information of what Mormonism teaches with having information necessary to believe what Mormonism teaches is true. One obviously isn't reprehensible by just having the information of what Mormonism teaches and the other one doesn't work for honest disbelievers.