What Do People Considering Leaving The Church Have To Fear?

[Garden Girl]

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'.

Mine too, Hamba... I've walked in both worlds and even though I had a good but worldly life, it pales in comparison to the happiness and peace I too feel in my life since reactivating. (BTW, the term used to describe me was "inactive." )

GG

[Alvino]

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 what lifestyle is that, my friend, and how is that lifestyle very different from other good folks' lifestyles?

We both like to help people and that makes us happy. Same with generosity, spending time with our families (something that actually isn't so clear we all could enjoy in the afterlife, is it?), some of us like to drink alcoholic beverages once in a while (given church history and just history I wouldn't count this as much of a difference), we value hard work, we value knowledge and honesty, etc. So, in what relevant ways do we differ? Some LDS folks like shooting; will they get to shoot in the CK?

I'm not being facetious there. Just pointing out there is very unclear and you need to zero-in on it to make sense.

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.

Well, I'm assuming one is an honest disbeliever, remember? an honest disbeliever isn't leaving the church out of rebellion or simply because she finds the rules and regulations of the Church boring.

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.

I don't doubt the quality of your life as an LDS is better today than before you were LDS. But so what? My life as an atheist is better than my life as a believer. At times, also, my life as an atheist has been better than other times as an atheist. I know LDS believers who have gone through what can be described as hell on earth. You can't only be trying to say here that one can be happier as an LDS than as a non-LDS now because, while true, it is also true that one can be happier as a non-LDS than as an LDS. You want to say more here, Hamba.

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'.

You might not believe me but I think I understand what you are saying. I did believe I was seeing miracles when I was a believer and felt the feelings you seem to be describing here.

But, as I've stated before, it is a mistake (although the single most useful one religions commit) to believe that your religion has a monopoly on these feelings and experiences. That you didn't feel as amazing when you were not a believer does not mean you couldn't have. That you didn't doesn't mean others don't; I do, for example. I can be just as uplifted by a helping hand, or by selflessness and creativity as I was uplifted to tears by what I perceived were the powers of the holy.

But, anyways, getting a little more real-wordly: http://www.psycholog...-people-happier

Edited February 6, 2013 by Alvino

[Maidservant]

I guess for whatever reason, this thread or maybe not this thread, but other recent similar discussions, have captured my thoughts and feelings wherever I'm walking around, and a lot of things I see remind me of it. Maybe because it's a really great, important question.

I read this today.

"Somewhere in the not-too-distant history of our civilization, we created the imperative to look closely into things, to understand the stuff everything is made of. And so with drunken fervor, we contrived a feverish linearity of a society in which nothing else mattered that did not fall into the boundaries of our fixed gaze. We took things apart, categorizing the pieces as we journeyed into smallness, speaking rapidly about what we hoped to find when we happened upon the 'thing-that-could-not-be-broken-any-further', and celebrated our evolving abilities to demolish things. Piece after piece, shrapnel after shrapnel, element after element, with breaths held blue, and silence in the room, we finally arrived at the 'thing-that-could-not-be-broken-any-further'...except that it wasn't a 'thing' after all: it was us, wounded, undone, outspent, disillusioned, and decrepit. By that time it was too late: the many voices from beyond our fences were already long buried; in the quest for the song, the bird's entrails were exposed; and the fear of the other was the beginning of our separateness. We had created our own isolation and summoned Hades itself. Meanwhile, echoes of a sniffy chuckle filled the air - the suggestive remnants of a cosmic joke we were only just becoming aware of."

- Adebayo C. Akomolafe"

Actually I think it was not this thread but another where the question was asked, "Why can't God give a person [fill in the blank]?" And also asking "What will a person lose?" This is asking for the Song and expecting the answer to be the dissection of the bird, and when dissecting the bird does not produce the Song, then it is pronounced that there is no Song.

I also think of it this way--knowing all about the plumbing of your house does not give you water. NOT knowing all about the plumbing does not turn on the water. Turning on the water turns on the water, and both a plumber and a non-plumber can enjoy water on that basis.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its baptism (by those with authority and commission from Jesus Christ, or as claimed) is a gateway. It's the only the beginning or entrance part of the path. The Church is the interface--it faces out to the world, to all of our Father's children who are struggling (or may be) and suffering and who are good people (or not) and are living with the light they have but, as the Church claims, there is more light. So if a person comes out of the world, and knocks on that door, the door is baptism. But the Church also "faces" the other way--towards those who have entered in the fold. The use of the term fold is important--its a refuge, a safety, and once inside the safety of the fold, where one has protections from the Adversary, then one is free in that safety to continue work out one's entire progression to sanctification and exaltation which are just single terms that describe our human potential as children of God. That potential can also be stated that we become like our Father and enjoy all that the Father has--that is his invitation. Those of us who want that don't understand it all either, so it's impossible to answer. Yes, we are giving a lot of trust to Jesus and our Father for those things we don't understand, until we can.

If a person enters by baptism, but doesn't continue to change who they are, then their baptism as simply a token, is not going to be of help to them.

So, at least as claimed by the Church, what a person would lose is the opportunity to become like the Father, ultimately; whatever that means. Of course, if one gets to the other side so to speak, or at any point they change their mind that a they wants that, then they can begin where they are at. You can't lose it completely, you can just waste time. Some think you can lose it completely. I'm not sure. I think the chances are unlimited. But it can't just be handed out, it has to be created, lived. You can't sit down and play Beethoven if you've never gone through the Shaum Primer A piano book. Someone can't HAND that to you. You have to have the EXPERIENCE, the TRIAL(s).

More immediately, a person could also lose the safety of the refuge. Now, I don't know that the Church is the ONLY place you could get a community of people willing to help or the ONLY place where you can know and keep the commandments and get the safety blessings from those actions (blessings = natural consequences as well as additional grace). I'm sure that this kind of blessing is available in lots of ways, and a path that involves atheism but right living and loving neighbors etc, will certainly experience that. Our heavenly Father is anxious to bless all his children in whatever sphere the are in, to the degree that he can (keeping in mind natural consequences for our actions). But he HAS taken the time and effort to BLESS THE EARTH with his Church. He did it! It's done! It's here! It's not missing any more! (or as claimed).

I personally think that priesthood covenants do provide protection that cannot be found elsewhere, but that is an experience someone has to have for themselves. I also think that priesthood covenants are necessary for my growth and progression and understanding, as a daughter of God. But that is what I have found. Others may find out differently.

Perhaps we don't need the Church. But I wonder at a world where it didn't exist at all, and I'm glad I don't have to live in that world. Even just the ONE thing--the spectacular emergency disaster response that the Church is capable of and utterly willing to do--just that ONE THING in and of itself justifies the Church's existence in my sight. So that is something everybody on the planet would lose if there wasn't a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The following is a personal revelation I received from God quite a while ago and it was a turning point in my understanding of life:

"...Alice . . . went on. "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don't much care where--" said Alice.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

Or in the words of Jesus to Joseph Smith:

D&C 76:60

"And they shall overcome all things."

. . . so a person will lose that if they haven't taken the path of covenants.

[Maidservant]

Ha ha, on the idea of inactive v less active--I just think the terminology changed to acknowledge the very thing we are talking about that simply by virtue of being a human being and living life and of being fathers, mothers; husbands and wives, we are still doing "church work" even if we don't make it to Sunday meetings etc. I like the change.

[Ahab]

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

We're talking about what you would be missing by not believing in things that could help to make your life better. Right?

The answer to your question is that you'd be missing out on everything that could make your life better that you didn't do because you didn't believe those things would make your life better.

Understand now?

If it helps you, think of an example for yourself. Think of anything you already do which makes your life better, and then imagine how not doing it anymore wouldn't give you the benefit(s) you get now by doing that thing in your life. And why would you not do it anymore? Because you wouldn't believe it made your life better anymore. It's making your life better now, though, isn't it? Remember this is your own idea of something that makes your life better, so if it's not really making your life better then it's not an appropriate example of what I'm talking about.

[mfbukowski]

Mine too, Hamba... I've walked in both worlds and even though I had a good but worldly life, it pales in comparison to the happiness and peace I too feel in my life since reactivating. (BTW, the term used to describe me was "inactive." )

GG

I will "third" that idea! (since you "seconded" it!)

[mfbukowski]

And what lifestyle is that, my friend, and how is that lifestyle very different from other good folks' lifestyles?

Oh just little things like temple worship and enjoying the word of wisdom and having miracles happen on a regular basis- you know, knowing when to call people when they are in trouble, and making the right decisions as guided by the spirit, and having God speak to you on a moment-to-moment basis as needed. Understanding Alma 32, being aware of one's ancestors and feeling them nearby, and being part of serving others on a regular basis.

You know- just the joys of being LDS.

You know, just little things like that.

[Alvino]

We're talking about what you would be missing by not believing in things that could help to make your life better. Right?

No. I asked "Why should we be frightened, then? What's coming that's so frightening?" To which you answered, "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."

You talked about a day and what I'd be missing out by not being prepared that day. What would I be missing?

[mfbukowski]

I guess for whatever reason, this thread or maybe not this thread, but other recent similar discussions, have captured my thoughts and feelings wherever I'm walking around, and a lot of things I see remind me of it. Maybe because it's a really great, important question.

I read this today.

"Somewhere in the not-too-distant history of our civilization, we created the imperative to look closely into things, to understand the stuff everything is made of. And so with drunken fervor, we contrived a feverish linearity of a society in which nothing else mattered that did not fall into the boundaries of our fixed gaze. We took things apart, categorizing the pieces as we journeyed into smallness, speaking rapidly about what we hoped to find when we happened upon the 'thing-that-could-not-be-broken-any-further', and celebrated our evolving abilities to demolish things. Piece after piece, shrapnel after shrapnel, element after element, with breaths held blue, and silence in the room, we finally arrived at the 'thing-that-could-not-be-broken-any-further'...except that it wasn't a 'thing' after all: it was us, wounded, undone, outspent, disillusioned, and decrepit. By that time it was too late: the many voices from beyond our fences were already long buried; in the quest for the song, the bird's entrails were exposed; and the fear of the other was the beginning of our separateness. We had created our own isolation and summoned Hades itself. Meanwhile, echoes of a sniffy chuckle filled the air - the suggestive remnants of a cosmic joke we were only just becoming aware of."

- Adebayo C. Akomolafe"

Actually I think it was not this thread but another where the question was asked, "Why can't God give a person [fill in the blank]?" And also asking "What will a person lose?" This is asking for the Song and expecting the answer to be the dissection of the bird, and when dissecting the bird does not produce the Song, then it is pronounced that there is no Song.

I also think of it this way--knowing all about the plumbing of your house does not give you water. NOT knowing all about the plumbing does not turn on the water. Turning on the water turns on the water, and both a plumber and a non-plumber can enjoy water on that basis.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its baptism (by those with authority and commission from Jesus Christ, or as claimed) is a gateway. It's the only the beginning or entrance part of the path. The Church is the interface--it faces out to the world, to all of our Father's children who are struggling (or may be) and suffering and who are good people (or not) and are living with the light they have but, as the Church claims, there is more light. So if a person comes out of the world, and knocks on that door, the door is baptism. But the Church also "faces" the other way--towards those who have entered in the fold. The use of the term fold is important--its a refuge, a safety, and once inside the safety of the fold, where one has protections from the Adversary, then one is free in that safety to continue work out one's entire progression to sanctification and exaltation which are just single terms that describe our human potential as children of God. That potential can also be stated that we become like our Father and enjoy all that the Father has--that is his invitation. Those of us who want that don't understand it all either, so it's impossible to answer. Yes, we are giving a lot of trust to Jesus and our Father for those things we don't understand, until we can.

If a person enters by baptism, but doesn't continue to change who they are, then their baptism as simply a token, is not going to be of help to them.

So, at least as claimed by the Church, what a person would lose is the opportunity to become like the Father, ultimately; whatever that means. Of course, if one gets to the other side so to speak, or at any point they change their mind that a they wants that, then they can begin where they are at. You can't lose it completely, you can just waste time. Some think you can lose it completely. I'm not sure. I think the chances are unlimited. But it can't just be handed out, it has to be created, lived. You can't sit down and play Beethoven if you've never gone through the Shaum Primer A piano book. Someone can't HAND that to you. You have to have the EXPERIENCE, the TRIAL(s).

More immediately, a person could also lose the safety of the refuge. Now, I don't know that the Church is the ONLY place you could get a community of people willing to help or the ONLY place where you can know and keep the commandments and get the safety blessings from those actions (blessings = natural consequences as well as additional grace). I'm sure that this kind of blessing is available in lots of ways, and a path that involves atheism but right living and loving neighbors etc, will certainly experience that. Our heavenly Father is anxious to bless all his children in whatever sphere the are in, to the degree that he can (keeping in mind natural consequences for our actions). But he HAS taken the time and effort to BLESS THE EARTH with his Church. He did it! It's done! It's here! It's not missing any more! (or as claimed).

I personally think that priesthood covenants do provide protection that cannot be found elsewhere, but that is an experience someone has to have for themselves. I also think that priesthood covenants are necessary for my growth and progression and understanding, as a daughter of God. But that is what I have found. Others may find out differently.

Perhaps we don't need the Church. But I wonder at a world where it didn't exist at all, and I'm glad I don't have to live in that world. Even just the ONE thing--the spectacular emergency disaster response that the Church is capable of and utterly willing to do--just that ONE THING in and of itself justifies the Church's existence in my sight. So that is something everybody on the planet would lose if there wasn't a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The following is a personal revelation I received from God quite a while ago and it was a turning point in my understanding of life:

"...Alice . . . went on. "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don't much care where--" said Alice.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.

"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

Or in the words of Jesus to Joseph Smith:

D&C 76:60

"And they shall overcome all things."

. . . so a person will lose that if they haven't taken the path of covenants.

Bravissima! What a post!

It's not a question of what we have that cannot be found elsewhere- though clearly there are many of these- it's a question of where to find it all in one place.

This is sure the only one I have found!

[mfbukowski]

That you didn't doesn't mean others don't; I do, for example. I can be just as uplifted by a helping hand, or by selflessness and creativity as I was uplifted to tears by what I perceived were the powers of the holy.

Yeah, but what happened to that?

It really sounds like you are trying to convince yourself.

Edited February 6, 2013 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

You talked about a day and what I'd be missing out by not being prepared that day. What would I be missing?

I think if you considered that posters are really answering as if it were them doing the leaving, you would understand--but only if you could put yourself in their shoes. Try and empathize to understand; after all, you started the discussion, inviting input and new persepctives.

[Alvino]

I think if you considered that posters are really answering as if it were them doing the leaving, you would understand--but only if you could put yourself in their shoes. Try and empathize to understand; after all, you started the discussion, inviting input and new persepctives.

What do you think I'm not understanding?

I understand how they say they would feel leaving, what they think they would lose, etc. What I'm trying to show is that they would be leaving very little in comparison to what they think they'd be.

[Alvino]

Yeah, but what happened to that?

It really sounds like you are trying to convince yourself.

That is gone. Well, the activities like praying or going to the temple are gone, but not the regularity or quality of uplifting experiences.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

No. I asked "Why should we be frightened, then? What's coming that's so frightening?" To which you answered, "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."

You talked about a day and what I'd be missing out by not being prepared that day. What would I be missing?

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

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

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

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

[Ahab]

What do you think I'm not understanding?

I understand how they say they would feel leaving, what they think they would lose, etc. What I'm trying to show is that they would be leaving very little in comparison to what they think they'd be.

We'd still be leaving something behind which we now believe helps to makes our lives better.

You don't think these things we believe in really do help to make our lives better, though, so you don't see any problem with us just forgetting about all those things. To you it doesn't make any difference whether we believe in those things or not, because you don't believe in those things and therefore you don't believe that belief in those things makes our lives better.

Apparently, you don't believe that being a member of the Church adds anything of value to our lives, or at least not that we couldn't get from anywhere else, but we do. We believe certain things, certain blessings, are available only to people who enter the Church and receive those blessings that are available only through our Lord's Church. Certain blessings that are available only to people who have accepted the ordinances required to obtain those blessings.

[CV75]

What do you think I'm not understanding?

That you can limit your perception of fear (or danger) by relying only upon mental efforts, and disregarding emotional, spiritual, relational, and other efforts. It’s called denial. People can develop a sense of security by making themselves very small, by ignoring the input from other facets of their makeup that would suggest or reveal their vulnerability. The problem is, at some point that equilibrium will be upset by a “greater intelligence.”

While God punishes people for willful disobedience He also offers them a way out of both willful and ignorant disobedience and the consequences thereof. And D&C 88 shows how people live below their potential, from God’s perspective, and how the comparison with what they could have freely had, in all fairness, will someday be imposed upon them. In fact, this is why people repent, if they are able.

People in crisis fear something, virtually by definition, until they resolve the crisis. Relative to faith, there are spiritually functional and spiritually dysfunctional ways of going about it. Even people not in crisis fear something if they think about it long enough. At the other end of the spectrum, some allow fear and crisis to feed off each other. And probably most importantly, fear is not necessarily a function of whether God is good or not.

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

But the faithful are too enlightened for you to succeed.

Edited February 6, 2013 by CV75

[Walden]

Mine too, Hamba... I've walked in both worlds and even though I had a good but worldly life, it pales in comparison to the happiness and peace I too feel in my life since reactivating. (BTW, the term used to describe me was "inactive." )

GG

Funny, I had a similar experience, just the other way around. I've walked in the Mormon world and now in the humanist world, and my life in the Mormon world "pales in comparison to the happiness and peace I feel in my life" since embracing a humanist viewpoint.

[Ahab]

Funny, I had a similar experience, just the other way around. I've walked in the Mormon world and now in the humanist world, and my life in the Mormon world "pales in comparison to the happiness and peace I feel in my life" since embracing a humanist viewpoint.

Not all "Mormons" get the full effect of being a "Mormon".

Some fall far short of the joy they could have, even as members of our Lord's Church.

And there's nothing wrong about embracing a "humanist" viewpoint. Our Father in heaven is the same species we are, so whether you refer to that species as "God" or "human" really doesn't matter. It's just that he's as advanced as our species can get, and we have a long way to go before we get to where he is, personally.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And what lifestyle is that, my friend, and how is that lifestyle very different from other good folks' lifestyles?

A partial answer to your question: A couple of years ago, one of my inactive priests showed up at church. During Sunday school, we sat outside in the courtyard and discussed where he was and where he was headed. By his questions, he seemed to want me to assure him that he wasn't going to have a miserable life if he didn't come back to activity. I happily gave him that assurance. I told him that, in many observable ways, his life with and without the Restored Gospel didn't have to be much different. I pointed out to him that, either way, he could be the guy who upon seeing an elderly couple on the side of the road with a puncture, immediately pulls over and cheerfully changes their tyre for them. He could still be a kind and decent neighbour, a thoughtful and invested father, a husband who cheers his wife on in every good endeavour. Either way he could work hard and invest in the community around him. He could be honest and upright.

But knowing this particular boy's heart well, I pointed out to him that inevitably there would come a dark day in his life when all of this wouldn't be enough for him. The day would come when, faced with a sick child, he would crave the ability to lay hands on the child's head and speak in the authority of God. Or lying next to his distraught wife at night, he would wish desperately for the windows of heaven to be open to him, to feel the peace which comes when no peace is to be found, to hear the voice of the Lord provide specific and unmistakable directions, to converse with and be ministered to by angels.

It would be on those days, I told him, when everything else he'd been missing all along would become clear and obvious to him.

I don't doubt the quality of your life as an LDS is better today than before you were LDS. But so what? My life as an atheist is better than my life as a believer.

Which is why you left the Church and abandoned your faith and why I never will.

But you may wish to ask yourself why a person might feel the need to seek repeated assurance from an anonymous message board that he hasn't really given anything up.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Actually I think it was not this thread but another where the question was asked, "Why can't God give a person [fill in the blank]?" And also asking "What will a person lose?" This is asking for the Song and expecting the answer to be the dissection of the bird, and when dissecting the bird does not produce the Song, then it is pronounced that there is no Song.

There are few people in life that I am jealous of their ability to write....you are one of them (not that there aren't tons of better writers out there than me, just that it is only a very few that get to a level where I am in awe of them PLUS wish I could capture ideas in the way they do). Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mudcat]

Can you be holy without being merciful?

I can't be holy without mercy.

[Mudcat]

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

Actually I think it's a fairly decent issue.

You asked, "If God is good, what do I have to fear if I truly did what I carefully thought was the best?"

You also seem to recognize your lack of holiness. if Holy is good, unholy is not. Then your question is an issue for all, rather than an issue for none.

What impact does an unholy individual have, by carefully doing what they thought best, on a Holy being? Does the notion that a fellow thought about what they were doing in a careful sense have more impact? If so why?

[The Nehor]

They should fear Danites.

[mfbukowski]

I can't be holy without mercy.

Actually I think it's a fairly decent issue.

You asked, "If God is good, what do I have to fear if I truly did what I carefully thought was the best?"

You also seem to recognize your lack of holiness. if Holy is good, unholy is not. Then your question is an issue for all, rather than an issue for none.

What impact does an unholy individual have, by carefully doing what they thought best, on a Holy being? Does the notion that a fellow thought about what they were doing in a careful sense have more impact? If so why?

Amazingly excellent questions!

What I was driving at in asking about mercy was the whole issue of justice. Surely a holy being must also be just. So we have the classic problem of justice versus mercy, or holiness vs mercy and compassion- perhaps the same conflict in slightly different terms.

In my opinion the only way to resolve the issue is to factor in the entire purpose of the plan in the first place.

Why were we created/organized? What is our purpose in being?

Perhaps that is where I do not understand the answers of traditional Christianity. I am not sure how that question is answered at all, really.

For us, our loving Father made us to become like him- that is the plan from the beginning. As a loving parent, even though he is holy, he knows we are sinners, but on the other hand, we are ignorant children who don't really know better, and it is his role to teach us how to grow up to be like him.

So of course he is merciful- and has provided the atonement as part of the plan from the beginning to enable us to learn to become holy in a very imperfect world while we learn to value the good over the evil.

The contrast between being sinful creatures and our holy Father for us, is a question of our lack of progression, not a question of our nature or ontological inferiority. We are no more expected to be holy at first than a newborn would be expected to teach advanced calculus. The issue is seen as emphasizing our potential to become holy rather than stressing our fallen nature as an insurmountable obstacle to holiness.

The demands of justice are therefore both absorbed by the atonement as well as a final judgement which is postponed, happening not immediately upon death, but after a period in the afterlife as well, where repentance and progression still goes on.

So the understanding of how we attain holiness is quite different of course in Mormonism, and the contrast between us and our Father is lessened by allowing us to progress longer as well as being judged more on good intentions than actual results.

That's a pretty huge difference.

[Mudcat]

Amazingly excellent questions!

What I was driving at in asking about mercy was the whole issue of justice. Surely a holy being must also be just. So we have the classic problem of justice versus mercy, or holiness vs mercy and compassion- perhaps the same conflict in slightly different terms.

In my opinion the only way to resolve the issue is to factor in the entire purpose of the plan in the first place.

Why were we created/organized? What is our purpose in being?

Perhaps that is where I do not understand the answers of traditional Christianity. I am not sure how that question is answered at all, really.

For us, our loving Father made us to become like him- that is the plan from the beginning. As a loving parent, even though he is holy, he knows we are sinners, but on the other hand, we are ignorant children who don't really know better, and it is his role to teach us how to grow up to be like him.

So of course he is merciful- and has provided the atonement as part of the plan from the beginning to enable us to learn to become holy in a very imperfect world while we learn to value the good over the evil.

The contrast between being sinful creatures and our holy Father for us, is a question of our lack of progression, not a question of our nature or ontological inferiority. We are no more expected to be holy at first than a newborn would be expected to teach advanced calculus. The issue is seen as emphasizing our potential to become holy rather than stressing our fallen nature as an insurmountable obstacle to holiness.

The demands of justice are therefore both absorbed by the atonement as well as a final judgement which is postponed, happening not immediately upon death, but after a period in the afterlife as well, where repentance and progression still goes on.

So the understanding of how we attain holiness is quite different of course in Mormonism, and the contrast between us and our Father is lessened by allowing us to progress longer as well as being judged more on good intentions than actual results.

That's a pretty huge difference.

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