What Do People Considering Leaving The Church Have To Fear?

[Ahab]

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?

I believe that, but the disbeliever will need to become a believer in some things and then act on those things to make his or her life that much better.

[Alvino]

138 does not address the examples of the consequences that inescapably flow from a person's choice to believe or not.

lol and why should I have addressed that?

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.

OK. I tried and didn't work. So it is (pragmatically) false for me and a bunch of other honest disbelievers. Not only that but I think there is no good reason to believe in God apart from my experiences (non-pragmatic truth). I think there is a fact of the matter in whether there is a God or not or whether the Church is legitimate or not, and the answer is that God doesn't exist and the Church is not what it claims to be. That may be a topic for another time, though.

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.

[Alvino]

I believe that, but the disbeliever will need to become a believer in some things and then act on those things to make his or her life that much better.

..I guess I can go with that.

[Ahab]

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.

The question is, though, Do you believe those things are or could be an improvement?

If you're an honest believer in something because you think that thing (whatever it is) helps to make your life better, then you can live with that until you find something else that you think could make your life even better than that. if you thought it was a falsehood but you still thought it helped to improve your life, don't you think you'd still be accepting that thing (whatever it is) in your life anyway?

I don't know about you, but what I look for are things that will help make my life better, and better, building as I go along.

And the belief that it improves lives is not in honest believers most of the time.

What? Like in what instance? Please give me an example of what you're thinking about.

Also, some of us consider not living based on what we know are falsehoods correct, that is not helping us improve.

We covered this already, I think.

I'm baptized, but to others, no.

What do you mean by this? The only question you need to answer is whether or not you believe what you believe in is helping you to make your life better. Who gives a flying flip what other people think about your choices. Just go for what you think will help you to make your life better.

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

I think that depends on what they honestly don't believe in? I don't recall the Q&A section for getting baptized right now.

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)

Why do you call them honest disbelievers, instead of just "disbelievers". I think most people who don't believe something are not believing because they honestly don't believe in it. The point is they could believe if they wanted to believe and if they thought having the belief would make their life better.

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.

How could anyone know or believe something was false and yet somehow know or believe it is true?

I think if anyone believes something is true then they don't believe or know it is false.

Have you ever known anyone who has any conflictions between their knowledge and their beliefs? I don't know of any.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Ahab

[Hamba Tuhan]

OK. I tried and didn't work.

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?

In light of your first statement quoted above, do you sincerely believe that an 'ex-Mormon honest disbeliever' would want to go the Celestial Kingdom?

Is that what you want?

Edited February 4, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[go_utes01]

lol and why should I have addressed that?

OK. I tried and didn't work. So it is (pragmatically) false for me and a bunch of other honest disbelievers. Not only that but I think there is no good reason to believe in God apart from my experiences (non-pragmatic truth). I think there is a fact of the matter in whether there is a God or not or whether the Church is legitimate or not, and the answer is that God doesn't exist and the Church is not what it claims to be. That may be a topic for another time, though.

I thought you asked for consequences of choosing unbelief. I provided some consequences. I thought you might want to address that, since that appeared to be the point of this thread - but, whatever. If you don't want to discuss the consequences of choosing unbelief, that's cool. I don't understand your statement that "there is no good reason to believe in God apart from my experiences." Our experiences are the only things we can actually "know," but you don't believe our experiences are a good enough reason to believe in God. I guess we just disagree on that one. My experiences are the best reason for my belief in God.

[Ahab]

You were confusing having information of what Mormonism teaches with having information necessary to believe what Mormonism teaches is true.

Nobody needs any information to believe something is true, other than the information about what they could believe in. Anyone can believe anything is true and without any evidence.

All you need is some idea about what you could believe, and then believe it.

One obviously isn't reprehensible by just having the information of what Mormonism teaches and the other one doesn't work for honest disbelievers.

What you call honest disbelievers are just people who have chosen to not believe something. Everyone honestly doesn't believe what they don't believe in.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Ahab

[Maidservant]

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

You are right. If I communicate again like that, I will take the time for specific examples.

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.

I think if you re-read carefully, you will see I agree with you. I am saying that ALL unbelievers are honest. Where are the dishonest ones? I don't think there are any. So I agree totally.

do particular God-behaviors towards honest disbelievers seem right or wrong?

Ok, I'll stick with that if I have more to add.

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.

Makes sense. As long as we are discussing God-behaviors that are those imagined within the subject religion of Mormonism.

This is a discussion forum

I mentioned this also in my post if I recall, and I agree with you. The only reason I bring up the 'none of your business' is not because we can't talk about it in a discussion, but to offer it as what I see as an actual view point of behavior in the situation of the question (I thought) you were asking--that is, punishment or some other negative. NOT applicable necessarily to the discussion board or at all, but to the situation where there is a third person involved in the choices a "unbeliever" makes--there shouldn't be a third person involved generally as a bystander (unless they are directly involved in our choices) nor should that third-person bystander be offering negativity; Mormonism implies that a bystander having an opinion and offering a negative opinion is not appropriate to a person making choices about their belief. As you brought up, Article of Faith 12 and other scriptural places.

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.

Well, I'm like you. I like to use the working definition of YOU, not ME, ha ha. And you want to use MINE, not YOURS. Ha ha. So who wins? I guess you are the OP. I won't say more on a working definition in general, but if I get to a specific instance, I'll try to be clear on what mine is on a specific word or concept.

And I think I did make myself pretty clear, that a punishing God is not the Mormon God. So that's a working definition. So if we are at that definition (MY working one, the one I understand to be the MORMON working one), how can we even discuss your question--'Why would an unbeliever be punished/or negative?" Because MY working definition takes us out of the question. So what to do?

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

Well I supposed that is a big, big question. Maybe better stated not as what one could lose, but what one could enjoy or obtain through the Atonement of Christ and through covenants. I guess we should be making a list. What I understand my destiny to be because of the atonement and my covenants is that I will be a being of light, a Mother, a Wife, a person completely unified with the people all around me, a person with all forces of the universe subject to me (and not me subject to them), a person free from all captivities, free; a person released from my weaknesses.

So if you do not take that path-the covenants offered by the Priesthood of Jesus Christ as authorized to be administered through the Church of Jesus Christ--then, yes, you won't BE that person. You won't be the person that your Father and Jesus Christ is able to create (with your help). You'll be the person YOU created. It's up to you to decide if that means you lost anything.

And it IS a path. It's not something that can be just handed to a person. You have to walk it, be it, live it, create it--you will become.

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.

Well, I agree with you. Just to say someone is our Father doesn't say it all. But I just mean to say that if we discuss the God of a Church, this is only a portion of the discussion. Especially with the Mormon Father God. And I don't know that I was trying to solve the entire problem (how could I in a sentence?), just trying to say just what you also clarified--there is more to say.

Leaving the Church is one thing. But have you left being God's son? Mormons say 'no'. You can't stop being a son or daughter of God, so you always have that. I was trying to present a positive, since you keep talking about being punished.

As I mentioned, God and I fight all the time. I learn stuff from him as he clarifies things I misunderstood and sometimes I even think he listens to me and has responded to me in a way that wouldn't be the case if I didn't exist in HIS life.

I don't think anyone is afraid to get into the idea that God has done wrong or is cruel--because everyone has to wrestle with that idea. But we don't all end up at the same conclusion (or neverending process?) due to that wrestle. You have what you know; I have what I know. But we all have to wrestle with a God/Father that seems to have screwed up big time a lot--maybe A LOT. (You might like hearing some thinkers who decided that God needs our help and that God needs our forgiveness--some of this thinking came from the people having gone through the Holocaust. In any case, this thinking means a great deal to me and I have absorbed it.)

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.

Well, I think about this kind of thing, too. And I have been known to say to God, "Why are you LYING to us??" But one thing I think I have learned is that we are NOT little children. We are adepts. We lived and learned for eons before we came here. We came here on purpose for the final bath, the final refiner's fire. Or not. Maybe it's not final. But it's one important progression. Because who we are is not located here, it's located in the eternities, and this earth life is just a momentary baptism for the purpose of transforming us.

Also since I think about this kind of thing, I think I am also starting to learn that it may be impossible to mess this mortal life up in any eternal sense. I think we WILL all get to the other side and just look at each other and say, "What was THAT??" and then proceed to learn some MORE about what we learned HERE--and it will take everyone's experiences and points of view. We will need everyone. I don't think it will be about 'bad' people, and 'good' people--because you are right, we're all down here BLIND.

So if we ARE blind, and God sent us here, and we sent ourselves here--you are right--WHY? What IS the reason if it's not what we think we thought it was all this time?

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.

What she said and what I already tried to say.

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.

Well, I think that's another thread. God's culpability. It's a great question. But a different one, I think? I don't know, hm.

But really, God has flooded the earth with information--you have Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Shamanism, just beautiful nature and gentle philosophy, you have peace-loving no-religion or atheists--how are we, as humanity, missing out on information? What I find confusing is HOW, after having ALL THIS INFORMATION FROM GOD, we STILL, as humans (and I mean me!) manage to mess this place up (planet, our families, our lives)!

Also I think you know about the principle of baptism for the dead (and other ordinances for the dead). No one is going to miss out on anything based on the structure of the church. It will be available to everyone. The only thing is if we want that. So the Mormon God has already made a plan about honest disbelievers. It's one of the reasons people often like the LDS approach--there's no hell. It's just three degrees of glory and you can create as much glory as you want.

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?

Now that's a completely different question! Ha ha.

No one "go"s to the celestial kingdom. It's not something that gets handed out based on a ticket one has (i.e. our baptism). We BECOME celestial, and then all around us in our presence is the celestial kingdom. I love a quote by Joseph Smith that says something like, it's okay if we get thrown into hell, because then we will make it into a heaven.

No one, by virture of simply being Mormon, is "going" to the celestial kingdom.

If one is a disbeliever, how would that one have created celestiality? I daresay you could create quite a bit, because basically it is love and unity and cleanness. If a person lives a life like that, and happened to honestly disagree with some of the other structure, then when we "get to the other side", we can correct our misperceptions and keep going forward.

No one is going to be celestial just right after they die. We will have more work to do on our progression. EVERYONE. So we are ALL honest disbelievers, because none of us have it all figured out yet.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Maidservant

[Lightbearer]

Personally I do not think there is an apostate alive who does not believe they are "honest" or that they have good reason to leave the Church. Jesus taught this "he that believeth shall be saved and and he that believeth not shall be damned!" So I guess the urgency for unbelievers is to try to hedge their bets, or be absolved by the "true believers" into not worrying about the damnation part... unless their God is a cruel heartless tyrant. A nice straw man. The truth is God is the judge and he is both just and merciful, therefore I cannot tell what is in a person's heart. Of course your implication of an "honest disbeliever" is that all the believers are dishonest or are liars and hypocrites! I reject that out of hand and simply say choose you this day whom ye will serve! If one does not want to believe the truth you are not compelled to believe. But there are consequences to unbelief, I cannot and will not deny it. Check this out:

"These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:75-79)

Even honest honorable men can be blinded by the craftiness of men and will suffer loss.

[Libs]

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.

No, that's not clear to me, at all. I take people at their word, unless I have good reason not to. I don't really understand your statement that "the Father picture of God absolves him of culpability, when it doesn't". Culpable of what? The choices "we" make? His duty to judge us...or, what do you mean, exactly?

[Ahab]

So if you do not take that path-the covenants offered by the Priesthood of Jesus Christ as authorized to be administered through the Church of Jesus Christ--then, yes, you won't BE that person. You won't be the person that your Father and Jesus Christ is able to create (with your help). You'll be the person YOU created. It's up to you to decide if that means you lost anything.

Interesting thought, as Forrest Gump asked, Won't I be me? The issue is who we learn from and how well we follow our Master.

And who knows, maybe someday we'll be both our own self AND our Father in heaven AND Jesus Christ AND the Holy Spirit.

What would that be called, I wonder. Instead of the Trinity, will we be the Quad?

...

Well, I think about this kind of thing, too. And I have been known to say to God, "Why are you LYING to us??"

or as I often put it, "What the HECK do you mean by THAT? Doesn't that contradict something else you have told me??"

But one thing I think I have learned is that we are NOT little children. We are adepts. We lived and learned for eons before we came here. We came here on purpose for the final bath, the final refiner's fire. Or not. Maybe it's not final. But it's one important progression. Because who we are is not located here, it's located in the eternities, and this earth life is just a momentary baptism for the purpose of transforming us.

Who we are is here and now. Who we will be we don't see yet unless maybe vaguely through a mirror as we look at who we are following.

Also since I think about this kind of thing, I think I am also starting to learn that it may be impossible to mess this mortal life up in any eternal sense. I think we WILL all get to the other side and just look at each other and say, "What was THAT??" and then proceed to learn some MORE about what we learned HERE--and it will take everyone's experiences and points of view. We will need everyone. I don't think it will be about 'bad' people, and 'good' people--because you are right, we're all down here BLIND.

Or maybe just not seeing as well as we are now seen by our Father and Lord. I also think the judgment may be only an assessment of how far we have come with the very real possibiilty that we will still be able to keep moving onward and upward in our eternal progression.

So if we ARE blind, and God sent us here, and we sent ourselves here--you are right--WHY? What IS the reason if it's not what we think we thought it was all this time?

For the experience, I believe, even if for no other reason.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

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.

Not to mention the problem of communication.

If each individual doesn't clearly know what God wants him to do, I don't think that such a god would have a right to condemn someone for not doing what he wants.

And writing it all in some dusty tome that is thousands of years old with many competing tomes that are also thousands of years old with no way to select between which tome is "correct" doesn't count either.

That's why Mormons have work for the dead.

Edited February 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Mudcat]

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?

Circumspectly, I think a God that is Holy is a fearful thing unless you yourself are also Holy.

[mfbukowski]

Circumspectly, I think a God that is Holy is a fearful thing unless you yourself are also Holy.

Can you be holy without being merciful?

[Alvino]

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.

I obviously didn't mean all posters, Mod. Not all provided the Father approach as a solution here.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

In light of your first statement quoted above, do you sincerely believe that an 'ex-Mormon honest disbeliever' would want to go the Celestial Kingdom?

Is that what you want?

I don't want it because I believe it doesn't exist. If I find myself in the afterlife making sense of what today doesn't and realize the error of my ways, it does sound like a good place.

[Alvino]

I thought you asked for consequences of choosing unbelief. I provided some consequences. I thought you might want to address that, since that appeared to be the point of this thread - but, whatever. If you don't want to discuss the consequences of choosing unbelief, that's cool.

Oh, I actually hadn't seen your post 136, that's why it was weird that you asked that. I'll respond to that.

I don't understand your statement that "there is no good reason to believe in God apart from my experiences." Our experiences are the only things we can actually "know," but you don't believe our experiences are a good enough reason to believe in God. I guess we just disagree on that one. My experiences are the best reason for my belief in God.

I was talking about non-pragmatic truth and the idea that even if it were to work for me, that doesn't mean there are good reasons to believe God apart from that experience of "Mormonism working for me". That Mormonism "works for you" in your personal experiences doesn't mean it is true. There are other things that are also known without experience. I'm not an empiricist.

[Alvino]

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.

Sensible enough.

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.

I don't think I'm getting exactly what you are trying to say. Of course someone who never believed in God would never have the experience of having, in her mind, pleased God by following His commandments. That's different from saying the never-believer would be closed from having the same joy in intensity and quality of someone who thinks he is pleasing God by following His commandments. It seems to me you must be confusing these two because then you say you are not sure what a person who chose belief would be foregoing. Clearly he would be foregoing the experience of being an atheist, for example, so it looks like there we would have to talk about joy, not experience.

[Alvino]

The question is, though, Do you believe those things are or could be an improvement?

That depends on where one starts from. If you are a drug addict and the experience of being religious helps you get out of those addictions, have at it. For the most part, I don't think they are. In the few aspects I think they can be an improvement most of the time, they are surpassed by other activities and experiences.

If you're an honest believer in something because you think that thing (whatever it is) helps to make your life better, then you can live with that until you find something else that you think could make your life even better than that. if you thought it was a falsehood but you still thought it helped to improve your life, don't you think you'd still be accepting that thing (whatever it is) in your life anyway?

Of course not.

I don't know about you, but what I look for are things that will help make my life better, and better, building as I go along.

Although I couldn't really blame you, that attitude is not for me nor for most people. Just imagine if Joseph Smith would have thought that.

What? Like in what instance? Please give me an example of what you're thinking about.

I meant honest disbelievers there, sorry if that caused confusion.

What do you mean by this?

...it means that I'm already baptized, Ahab, and that I don't think getting baptized helps people in the vast majority of cases.

The only question you need to answer is whether or not you believe what you believe in is helping you to make your life better.

This actually is a different question to whether or not Mormonism can make lives better. But to this question, definitely yes.

Who gives a flying flip what other people think about your choices. Just go for what you think will help you to make your life better.

I don't subscribe to this view, Ahab, and I would feel offended if I ever adopted this view, to tell you the truth. It's just feels too weak.

I think that depends on what they honestly don't believe in? I don't recall the Q&A section for getting baptized right now.

We were talking about disbelievers with regards to the Church or God. You need both to pass the Q&A honestly.

Why do you call them honest disbelievers, instead of just "disbelievers". I think most people who don't believe something are not believing because they honestly don't believe in it. The point is they could believe if they wanted to believe and if they thought having the belief would make their life better.

Just wanted to make it clear that I'm not talking about people who got offended by another member and out of rebellion left the Church and stopped believing. Just to make this clearer, really.

How could anyone know or believe something was false and yet somehow know or believe it is true?

I think if anyone believes something is true then they don't believe or know it is false.

Have you ever known anyone who has any conflictions between their knowledge and their beliefs? I don't know of any.

I don't think beliefs are that clear cut, specially to ourselves. It is helpful for some conversations to take them to be, though.

[Alvino]

Nobody needs any information to believe something is true, other than the information about what they could believe in. Anyone can believe anything is true and without any evidence.

All you need is some idea about what you could believe, and then believe it.

I couldn't and most people wouldn't think so. I couldn't make myself believe my parents didn't love me without any evidence or that you are a ghost in the internet and not a real person. Your position seems rather outrageous.

What you call honest disbelievers are just people who have chosen to not believe something.

You'll find that becoming a disbeliever is sometimes rather painful experience and one doesn't want it. One does want to reach truth, however.

Everyone honestly doesn't believe what they don't believe in.

I don't think this is correct, either. Upon reflection one can discover that certain beliefs one had were the result of rebellion or some other psychological or emotional factors. I say "honest disbelievers" to separate them from those.

[bcuzbcuz]

In light of your first statement quoted above, do you sincerely believe that an 'ex-Mormon honest disbeliever' would want to go the Celestial Kingdom?

Is that what you want?

I'm going to butt in here. Your question is one I had to take a stand on, based on a question from my mother. My mother died a few years back, a faithful, active member for more than 60 years. She mentioned me often in her prayers both in the privacy of her home and in temple ceremonies. She wanted me, her loving son, but totally non-believing son, to turn around and return to the faith so "our family could reunite in the celestial kingdom".

But that was her dream, not mine. I have a number of reasons why, for me, existing in a celestial kingdom would bore me to tears and is definitely not my idea of how I would want to spend eternity. So I would say, "Thanks, but no thanks.

[go_utes01]

I'm going to butt in here. Your question is one I had to take a stand on, based on a question from my mother. My mother died a few years back, a faithful, active member for more than 60 years. She mentioned me often in her prayers both in the privacy of her home and in temple ceremonies. She wanted me, her loving son, but totally non-believing son, to turn around and return to the faith so "our family could reunite in the celestial kingdom".

But that was her dream, not mine. I have a number of reasons why, for me, existing in a celestial kingdom would bore me to tears and is definitely not my idea of how I would want to spend eternity. So I would say, "Thanks, but no thanks.

This, I believe, was the point. Heavenly Father would not force somebody to live in a kingdom they would not be comfortable in. We will live in the kingdom we are prepared for and around other like-minded individuals.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't want it because I believe it doesn't exist. If I find myself in the afterlife making sense of what today doesn't and realize the error of my ways, it does sound like a good place.

Well, there's some cause for hope then.

I have a number of reasons why, for me, existing in a celestial kingdom would bore me to tears and is definitely not my idea of how I would want to spend eternity. So I would say, "Thanks, but no thanks.

A very good reason not to believe.

[Maidservant]

Interesting thought, as Forrest Gump asked, Won't I be me? The issue is who we learn from and how well we follow our Master.

And who knows, maybe someday we'll be both our own self AND our Father in heaven AND Jesus Christ AND the Holy Spirit.

What would that be called, I wonder. Instead of the Trinity, will we be the Quad?

or as I often put it, "What the HECK do you mean by THAT? Doesn't that contradict something else you have told me??"

Who we are is here and now. Who we will be we don't see yet unless maybe vaguely through a mirror as we look at who we are following.

Or maybe just not seeing as well as we are now seen by our Father and Lord. I also think the judgment may be only an assessment of how far we have come with the very real possibiilty that we will still be able to keep moving onward and upward in our eternal progression.

For the experience, I believe, even if for no other reason.

Thank you for adding to and correcting what I had to say. Loved it.

I woke up this morning thinking about this thread, agh!

You know, the Church doesn't generally have the categories of believer and non-believer. They categories they set up are member, non-member; active, inactive--and tellingly, recently changed to say "less active".

I think the project of the Church is to bind us together in love as human beings. While I think it can be honestly said that the Church may not be necessary for that (although I think some argument could be brought as to the necessity also), I think it is good to understand the angle at which the Church/God/Joseph Smith understood it's own project. Of course, believing/having a basic paradigm would be essential to even wanting to participate or thinking one needed to. But I think the idea is less about what you think and more about what you do to love and serve each other.

I don't know if that makes any difference to what is being discussed here, but just what I woke up with today.

[Storm Rider]

I believe the Church has an even more fundamental objective regardless of how members talk about the degree of one's participation. The Church's sole purpose is to aid in leading each child of God back to his presence. I think it causes confusion when we discuss degree of participation with purpose of the Church. If one should leave the Church one may risk slowing, at times to a significant degree, the process of learning to know our Father more fully and completely. I have always appreciated Joseph's talk about helping each of us come to see the face of God; what a humbling commitment he had in regards to each of us. I think some leave the Church and may benefit for a period of time; however, I also believe that over the long run the Church as a purpose to fulfill. She may do it well and she may fail at times, but that does not release her from the daunting challenge of bring all to Christ.