What Do People Considering Leaving The Church Have To Fear?

[Maidservant]

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.

I loved this. You said it better. Also I would say that being in celestial unity with each other IS the presence of the Father, but I think you are more right the way you say it--bringing us to Christ and to the Father.

[CV75]

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).

I guess you lost me here. If D&C 88 describes God’s point of view, it applies to how He views all His children, and allows them the danger or safety they are willing to enjoy. This includes “honest disbelievers,” which, the more you try to explain what they are, become less distinguishable from any other permutation of dis/honesty and un/belief. What is ambiguous to you, and how is ambiguity a problem?

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.

What makes “people who just see the Church as false and have good reasons for holding that position” inherently honest, or even honest about that point, or even knowing what a good reason is? In other words, how do you establish the honesty, and what is a good reason?

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.

No, I want to say that everyone is in a degree of spiritual danger and safety, depending (among other things) on their degree of dishonesty and honesty. No one is 100% honest or dishonest, so we all face this.

Edited February 5, 2013 by CV75

[Garden Girl]

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.

Hello bcuzbcuz...

This is quite a statement...

The Celestial Kingdom would bore you to tears?? Hmmm... I guess your idea would be to party-hardy with some of the folks in the Terrestrial, or better still, the Telestial... while those of us foolish enough to struggle to reach the Celestial Kingdom will have to settle for inheriting all that our Heavenly Father has...

GG

[Walden]

Thank you clarifying that your views were not based in family relationships. And it doesn’t make sense to me, either, that one would (or could) act in religious faith, hope or good will in relation to the LDS Church without a spiritual witness of it, or that he would believe in God when unable to find supporting spiritual evidence or a need to do so.

What was the basis for your belief in a god during those years you believed in one (just not the LDS version)?

Also, what are the authenticity and integrity tied to, or what standard do you use to evaluate your authenticity and integrity? As I mentioned in previous posts, I think D&C 88 is one model for how this works.

What was the basis for your belief in a god during those years you believed in one (just not the LDS version)? Honestly, I think that I believed in a god for a time after I left the LDS church because the alternative was just too scary a proposition for me to consider at the time. In my own mind, I could not separate the conflicting ideas of the "meaning of life" and a godless world. Though I think that I felt this way for much longer than I realized, I was not brave enough at the time to admit to myself that there is no god. So, instead of considering the scary proposition that god does not exist, I convinced myself that it was just the LDS variety of god that does not exist. So I studied other Christian interpretations of god, as well as other culture's interpretations of god and/or deities (to note, I am still completely fascinated by Buddhism and believe that it provides the most coherent and obtainable path to contentment and growth and understanding, in the context of the worlds great religions).

Also, what are the authenticity and integrity tied to, or what standard do you use to evaluate your authenticity and integrity? My sense of authenticity and integrity are grounded in any number of standards, most of them on a very personal level, but probably most aligned, if there must be some overarching, easily discerned standard, with the eight-fold path of Buddhism (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, etc.). Likwise, the following quote, attributed to the Buddha, sums up much of my view rather nicely:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[CV75]

What was the basis for your belief in a god during those years you believed in one (just not the LDS version)? Honestly, I think that I believed in a god for a time after I left the LDS church because the alternative was just too scary a proposition for me to consider at the time.

What I meant to ask was, for that part of your life when you believed in God (not because you feared the alternative), what was the basis for that more confident belief?

Also, what are the authenticity and integrity tied to, or what standard do you use to evaluate your authenticity and integrity? My sense of authenticity and integrity are grounded in any number of standards, most of them on a very personal level, but probably most aligned, if there must be some overarching, easily discerned standard, with the eight-fold path of Buddhism (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, etc.). Likwise, the following quote, attributed to the Buddha, sums up much of my view rather nicely:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

I see this as consistent with one of the messages of D&C 88: that after all the observation, analysis, and reasoning (in which some choose to involve meditation and prayer), and once oriented to consider what might be "conducive to the good and benefit of one and all," people “enjoy that which they are willing to receive.”

Of course D&C 88 also addresses those who do not observe, analyze, reason, mediate, pray, etc. or who don't care about what is "conducive to the good and benefit of one and all," and they too “enjoy that which they are willing to receive.”

[Ahab]

You know, the Church doesn't generally have the categories of believer and non-believer.

I agree, generally, because people who don't believe in God or the Church or whatever still believe in something. Interesting that we don't use a term very often that appears in our scriptures, though.

The categories they set up are member, non-member; active, inactive--and tellingly, recently changed to say "less active".

Proof that the Church (we the people, the members) are still progressing. There never have been any inactive.

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.

Slight disagreement with you here, unless I don't correctly understand you. The goal of our Father and our Lord, who work with the Church (we the people), is to help us to be better people while also helping us to cope/work with other people to also help them to be better people. We can do well and get a lot done when each of us is self-sufficient, but we do better and more when we work together with other people, even if all we have is one other person (a spouse) to work with while following all that God our Father (and/or Lord) want to teach us.

We're all going to be living somewhere, somehow, forever, ya know. Might as well make our interactions with each other as beneficial to us and to them as we can.

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

Thanks for sharing. You're one of my favorite people to hear from.

[Alvino]

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

And since none of us are also Holy, this applies as much to LDS as to honest disbelievers. Hence, not an issue.

[Ahab]

Being holy only means being set apart from the rest, usually for a specific purpose or because of a specific reason.

We're all commanded to be holy, but only those who are set apart as God is actually are.

[altersteve]

There never have been any inactive.

Yes, there have. I've been inactive before. My whole family currently is. I believed but I never attended church or practiced anything. That's "inactive."

[Alvino]

I believe the Church has an even more fundamental objective regardless of how members talk about the degree of one's participation.

Could be, though not regardless of the degree of one's participation, does it? What or how "members talk" is not what we are talking about here.

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.

Well, no one's saying the sole purpose of the Church is that you participate more in it.

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.

What is to "know our Father more fully and completely"? Please be as explicit as you can. Second, why is that so important?

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.

Seems too vague to me to respond here.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Being holy only means being set apart from the rest, usually for a specific purpose or because of a specific reason.

We're all commanded to be holy, but only those who are set apart as God is actually are.

Let me understand you. Where exactly is this 'setting apart' taking place? If we are commanded to be 'set apart' then you seem to mean here on Earth... but we certainly wouldn't say you are as Holy as God is, would we? So it looks like God is also frightening to the faithful.

On the other hand, it is clear God isn't frightening to honest disbelievers though He could be when we realize He exists in the afterlife somehow.

Would appreciate it if you could clarify that for me.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

Yes, there have. I've been inactive before. My whole family currently is. I believed but I never attended church or practiced anything. That's "inactive."

No, although that is the term they once used to refer to that type of status. It's more correctly referred to now as less active, though, and that term is technically more accurate.

As Brigham Young tried to teach the saints many many years ago, a person is either moving closer to or further away from God. Hence, nobody is inactive as far as their relationship with God is concerned. As far your status in the Church goes, you were either a member or you had resigned or withdrawn as a member, so then it's a matter of determining how active you are either in or out of the Church.

The real question is how much you were active as a member of the Church, regardless of whether or not you attended any church meetings in a Church building, and regardless of whether or not you held any Church callings. Hence some are less active or more active than others. And then there are those who are active outside of the Church, meaning they are no longer members of gthe Church, as they do whatever they are doing.

[Ahab]

Let me understand you. Where exactly is this 'setting apart' taking place? If we are commanded to be 'set apart' then you seem to mean here on Earth... but we certainly wouldn't say you are as Holy as God is, would we?

As holy? I'm either set apart, or I'm not. The question then is in what way am I now set apart, or holy, and the answer to that is as God has commanded me to be set apart, which is by becoming a member of his holy Church. Those who are in the Church, as members, are now set apart as God has commanded us to be set apart. And then there are those who are still outside of the Church, who God has also commanded to be set apart. We don't just go out there and do it without their consent, though. Those who wish to be set apart as God's people must voluntarily choose to join with us.

So it looks like God is also frightening to the faithful.

Neh, no, not really, although I can see some good reasons for people who are not faithful to fear. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but as you become wise enough to be faithful there is no longer a reason for you to be afraid.

On the other hand, it is clear God isn't frightening to honest disbelievers though He could be when we realize He exists in the afterlife somehow.

They just don't know what's coming yet, or they do and they're choosing to act foolishly anyway. Wise people know enough to prepare themselves for the day when they will see God, face to face.

Would appreciate it if you could clarify that for me.

I hope I helped some.

[Alvino]

I guess you lost me here. If D&C 88 describes God’s point of view, it applies to how He views all His children,

I wasn't talking about the whole chapter. You quoted a specific part and that's what I was addressing.

and allows them the danger or safety they are willing to enjoy. This includes “honest disbelievers,” which, the more you try to explain what they are, become less distinguishable from any other permutation of dis/honesty and un/belief. What is ambiguous to you, and how is ambiguity a problem?

Here it is again: "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."

What makes “people who just see the Church as false and have good reasons for holding that position” inherently honest, or even honest about that point, or even knowing what a good reason is? In other words, how do you establish the honesty, and what is a good reason?

Nothing about a person makes it "inherently honest". Being honest is a state much like smiling is a state or being happy is a state. Nothing about you makes you inherently happy; that's a silly way of talking about things.

How we actually know what a good reason is or if someone is honest is irrelevant to this conversation, actually, because we are talking about if-then statements. If I'm an honest disbeliever, then so-and-so follows. That's it.

What is a good reason and what is honesty? Whatever working definition you have will suffice.

No, I want to say that everyone is in a degree of spiritual danger and safety, depending (among other things) on their degree of dishonesty and honesty. No one is 100% honest or dishonest, so we all face this.

So, ceteris paribus, an 80% honest LDS and an 80% honest disbeliever are in the same spiritual danger. Is this wrong?

If that's the case then the disbeliever has no particular cause of worry because, honesty levels being the same, being an LDS believer wouldn't change the spiritual danger.

[CV75]

If that's the case then the disbeliever has no particular cause of worry because, honesty levels being the same, being an LDS believer wouldn't change the spiritual danger.

I'm glad that you are finally paying attention. But both have cause to worry; danger is danger.

[Ahab]

I'm glad that you are finally paying attention. But both have cause to worry; danger is danger.

The danger is only applicable to those who don't do what they believe they should do, though.

If you think something will improve your life, or might, and you don't do that something (whatever it is), then you'll face whatever danger is associated with not doing what you should do or have done.

Danger seems like a strange word to associate with this, to me, though. I'd rather think in terms of a benefit/loss situation.

[Alvino]

As holy?

Sorry. I meant "holy as God is". Would you say you are holy as God is?

I'm either set apart, or I'm not. The question then is in what way am I now set apart, or holy, and the answer to that is as God has commanded me to be set apart, which is by becoming a member of his holy Church. Those who are in the Church, as members, are now set apart as God has commanded us to be set apart.

Being set apart as God has commanded is not the same thing as being set apart as God is set apart.

And then there are those who are still outside of the Church, who God has also commanded to be set apart. We don't just go out there and do it without their consent, though. Those who wish to be set apart as God's people must voluntarily choose to join with us.

This little exchange about being holy or not started with a post by Mudcat to which I replied. Anyways, I doubt he meant "Holy" as "being part of the Church" (after all, wouldn't a member of the Church be frightened also by God's Holiness if he were to appear to her?). And just to be clear, are you trying to defend what Mudcat said or are you just explaining what being holy is and that we are commanded to be holy?

Neh, no, not really, although I can see some good reasons for people who are not faithful to fear. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but as you become wise enough to be faithful there is no longer a reason for you to be afraid.

And, I'm sure you understand, God is even less frightful to honest disbelievers because, well, we don't believe in God.

They just don't know what's coming yet, or they do and they're choosing to act foolishly anyway. Wise people know enough to prepare themselves for the day when they will see God, face to face.

Why should we be frightened, then? What's coming that's so frightening?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

Sorry. I meant "holy as God is". Would you say you are holy as God is?

That's what I understood when I asked that question. I believe you're either holy (or sete apart) or you are not. I believe I am, and in the way God has commanded us to be set apart from the world. Or in other words, I believe I'm holy in the same way God is holy.

Being set apart as God has commanded is not the same thing as being set apart as God is set apart.

I can see that. Like how we are set apart for callings in the Church, sometimes. Now you're getting technical though in regards to "how" I am set apart (holy), rather than just asking if I am set apart (holy). I am in some way, and I believe the way God wants us to be set apart mainly has to do with being separated from the world, in general, with the world considered to be wicked, in general, as God is not.

This little exchange about being holy or not started with a post by Mudcat to which I replied. Anyways, I doubt he meant "Holy" as "being part of the Church" (after all, wouldn't a member of the Church be frightened also by God's Holiness if he were to appear to her?).

No, I don't think so, at least not if that member of the Church was holy as God is holy.

And just to be clear, are you trying to defend what Mudcat said or are you just explaining what being holy is and that we are commanded to be holy?

I wouldn't characterize it as trying to defend him, but I do pretty much agree with at least part of what he was saying. He said:

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

And, I'm sure you understand, God is even less frightful to honest disbelievers because, well, we don't believe in God.

That doesn't necessarily mean you don't have anything to be afraid of.

Maybe later you'll be afraid that you missed the boat, so to speak.

Why should we be frightened, then? What's coming that's so frightening?

As I said, I don't know of anything to be afraid of, but I do think it's wise to prepare to meet God someday, face to face.

The main thing I'd be concerned about, if I were you, is all you'd be missing by not being prepared for that day when it comes.

[Calm]

Hello bcuzbcuz...

This is quite a statement...

The Celestial Kingdom would bore you to tears?? Hmmm... I guess your idea would be to party-hardy with some of the folks in the Terrestrial, or better still, the Telestial... while those of us foolish enough to struggle to reach the Celestial Kingdom will have to settle for inheriting all that our Heavenly Father has...

GG

I can understand how one might not want the responsibility as I have heard even faithful saints say they couldn't handle watching their children suffer and not step in to protect them...thus depriving their children of the necessary mortality experience to get to where their parents are, however calling participating in creation boring does seem a bit unreasonable to me, but some people have different ideas on what is fun.

[CV75]

Danger seems like a strange word to associate with this, to me, though.

Just trying to meet him where he stands and speak in his language.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Help me out here, please, Alvino. When Ahab asked you if embracing and following what you called the 'morals, rites, dogmas, etc.' of 'Mormonism' would be an improvement over not embracing them, you answered this way:

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.

Meanwhile, in relation to the Celestial Kingdom, you wrote the following:

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.

So I ask again, why exactly does the Celestial Kingdom sound like a 'good place' to you when it's based upon a foundation of 'morals, rites, [and] dogmas' which you feel do not improve one's life (unless perhaps, as you suggested, one is a 'drug addict') and can easily be 'surpassed by other activities and experiences'?

Consequently, in an attempt to answer your original question, I suspect you have nothing to fear. From what I can tell, you don't really like the things of God, for which choice God is going to 'punish' you by allowing you live for all eternity far removed from the things of God. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Maidservant]

Watched Lord of the Rings movie today and it made me think of this thread. Why? "Celestial Kingdom", or rather what that phrase represents as to our eternal potential, is a quest through the straitest of struggles with the greatest of rewards being in the soul and not external; it's not a present for being on the right team.

[Alvino]

So I ask again, why exactly does the Celestial Kingdom sound like a 'good place' to you when it's based upon a foundation of 'morals, rites, [and] dogmas' which you feel do not improve one's life (unless perhaps, as you suggested, one is a 'drug addict') and can easily be 'surpassed by other activities and experiences'?

By "improved life" I understood improved earthly life, that's why I mentioned being a drug addict. If being in the celestial kingdom is the best thing to do, then I want to do that but even if it were a great thing that doesn't mean the things that get you there are beneficial at all in this life.

Consequently, in an attempt to answer your original question, I suspect you have nothing to fear. From what I can tell, you don't really like the things of God,

I don't believe in God, period. Asking me if I like the things of God is strange.

Few people actually dislike the attributes God is preached to have. Who doesn't like love, charity, power in the use of good, wisdom, mercy, justice, etc? A quote by Friedrich Nietzsche comes to mind:

"What differentiates us is not that we find no God - neither in history, nor in nature, nor behind nature - but that we do not feel that what has been revered as God is 'god-like'"

The problem is that the love that's said God has is no love one can recognize nor is his intelligence smart.

for which choice God is going to 'punish' you by allowing you live for all eternity far removed from the things of God. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

And if I'm mistaken, what kind of god would allow me to stay in error when it would be rather easy to convince me I'm incorrect? It would be like a brother who honestly thinks he is correct after careful deliberation but you know better and refuse to tell him what will probably convince him. That ain't sound like a very good God to me at all, to tell you the truth.

That God doesn't seem to care much for whether disbelievers believe in Him or not can be forgiven with regards to this life because you guys make it sound like we ain't missing much here in comparison to LDS believers. That doesn't seem to apply to the next life.

Neither have we talked about the state of those not in the celestial kingdom.

[Alvino]

That's what I understood when I asked that question. I believe you're either holy (or sete apart) or you are not. I believe I am, and in the way God has commanded us to be set apart from the world. Or in other words, I believe I'm holy in the same way God is holy.

Fair enough.

I can see that. Like how we are set apart for callings in the Church, sometimes. Now you're getting technical though in regards to "how" I am set apart (holy), rather than just asking if I am set apart (holy).

I wasn't asking how you get to be set apart or holy, but about the state of being holy.

I am in some way, and I believe the way God wants us to be set apart mainly has to do with being separated from the world, in general, with the world considered to be wicked, in general, as God is not.

I take it here you are talking about how you are set apart, not the state of being set apart.

No, I don't think so, at least not if that member of the Church was holy as God is holy.

Then it isn't "being a member of the Church" because they obviously already are but being "not wicked"... in which case you wouldn't be holy as God is in this life.

That doesn't necessarily mean you don't have anything to be afraid of.

Right but, again, we are not frightened by God so there's another way to not be frightened by God other than being holy: not believe he exists or believe he doesn't exist.

Maybe later you'll be afraid that you missed the boat, so to speak.

Why if there is no serious risk to missing the boat? You have given very little reason for honest disbelievers to worry.

As I said, I don't know of anything to be afraid of, but I do think it's wise to prepare to meet God someday, face to face.

lol Got it.

The main thing I'd be concerned about, if I were you, is all you'd be missing by not being prepared for that day when it comes.

Like what, Ahab? What would I be missing that's so important?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Alvino

[Hamba Tuhan]

By "improved life" I understood improved earthly life, that's why I mentioned being a drug addict. If being in the celestial kingdom is the best thing to do, then I want to do that but even if it were a great thing that doesn't mean the things that get you there are beneficial at all in this life.

I suspect you don't understand LDS thought on this subject. What makes people happy here is precisely what makes people happy in the next life. The Celestial Kingdom is merely a natural extension of enjoying here the benefits of a Celestial lifestyle.

And if I'm mistaken, what kind of god would allow me to stay in error when it would be rather easy to convince me I'm incorrect?

As I've learnt repeatedly by personal experience/observation, realising that one is in error is not the same thing at all as wishing to adopt the alternative. In the end, all people will be 'convinced' of what is correct. Only those who love it will choose it.

You guys make it sound like we ain't missing much here in comparison to LDS believers. That doesn't seem to apply to the next life.

I certainly haven't made it sound like that. There is a deep and fundamental difference in the quality of my life as a Latter-day Saint, one which means all the world to me and which I sincerely wish I could share with every single person on this planet. My existence is filled with happiness and peace I'd never before even imagined and is characterised by miracles which constantly surprise me. Once again, the Celestial Kingdom will just be a natural extension of this existence, 'coupled with eternal glory'.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan