Are You Only "Good" Because You Are Afraid Of Being "Bad"?

[bcuzbcuz]

edite to ad: If I couldn't travel with Heavenly Father as my forward guard and my rear guard,Ii wouldn't travel. It is also amazing to me that He loves me enough to guard me and my boat in hostile ports or stormy seas.

Your travel experiences are very different than mine. You define a world that is different by degree and scale. Maybe it is because you came by boat or maybe because you think you have a heavenly father that is your forward and rear guard, or maybe it is because you think you need a guard.

As I stated in another post, my wife and I travel to at least three different countries a year. Yes, bribes can be common place, yes, police and the law makers can be corrupt, but the average person on the street is a pleasure to meet and deal with. We get smiles and a warm welcome regardless of whether we are in a European country, or travelling in Africa or the Middle East or South America.

We don't let a few rotten apples spoil a trip or an experience. We travel to many countries to see historical sights and sites but we go back because of the people.

[Questing Beast]

I see it as all inter-related....what is the yardstick to determine what is good and bad if not a final judgement? Without a final judgement, at best, good and bad is arbirtrary to who ever is in power at the time.

What is a final judgement without a final reward/punishment such as heaven and hell?

soooo....without heaven and hell, there is no final judgement. Without a final judgement there is no yardstick to determine good or bad, so that leaves only an emotional reaction to stimulus.

We don't need a "final judgment" in order to give definition to "good and bad". Our current state validates and condemns us at the same time, since nobody is perfect. What we are doing well seems good and right, what we are failing to understand causes mistakes which vitiate our Joy. The process of immortal existence is definition enough of "good and bad", since the rules rewarding Joy and misery never change....

[Questing Beast]

Questing, I wasn't able to use the quote feature nor to make a straight copy due to the formatting of your reply to me, so I will try to catch what you said or at least what inspired more thoughts in me.

Yes, I dislike this forum's quotation tool. Too clumsy. Just cut and paste the whole thing and ignore the tool next time?

Thanks for sharing your definition of dogma. Are you also saying that all religion is dogma, and that the only conclusion to religion is dogma and the consequences of dogma on the human mind, spirit and life?

Not all religion is dogmatic. For instance, personal religion is often the antithesis of dogmatic, being a fresh and individual exploration and not a reliance for validation upon established dogma/doctrine. Then some dogma is pure, such as "the golden rule", and the basic Ten Commandments regarding behavior toward each other, etc.

I should also note that I understand "what Joseph Smith" revealed to be a lot different than how you are presenting it; and I reject and have rejected and did reject the idea of the "assignment" of the soul in an afterlife; and I learned to reject this through my study of the gospel (and personal revelation if I dare assert that). The idea of "assignment" offends me to the core; and I can't say whether this idea is truly supported in other religions (I suspect it is, but I cannot speak for them; let them speak for themselves), but I do not find the idea of "assignment" in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as given to Joseph Smith. There may be some mention with some terminology, but a more whole study of what is possible for the eternal human journey, one can see that this journey has nothing to do with "assignment". Or at least, that is what I am seeing now. I suppose I could be wrong; BUT perhaps a better point for purposes of the discussion is that at the very least there is more than one way of looking at the material (i.e. Joseph Smith revelations of human potential) and you have seen "assignment" and I have not. In the gospel, I find the ideas of creating and overcoming and becoming and progressing and living--not being assigned.

Then you are a worthy "heretic". Because the BoM teaches nothing but final and eternal salvation or damnation, it doesn't even contain the "levels" of glory, i.e. no kingdoms of glory whatsoever. Joseph Smith's "kingdoms of glory" are self-contained, that is, they do not evolve into higher kingdoms of glory, ever. Those inhabiting (assigned to) them can increase in glory/levels within them, but no more.

To be even more plain, should I by some strange toon world find myself faced with a God that exists and that wishes to "assign" me to somewhere--I won't participate. And if I am given no choice, then the question is moot, isn't it? But agency and choice is the foundational element of the gospel. It begins in agency; it "ends" in agency. The rest of the gospel information must bow to the most fundamental property of being alive and being human--agency; or my word for it; self-determination. (Actually agency means a lot of things to me, but here I will equate it with self-determination. I forgo the word choice because I don't think we all have all choices all the time--we can only do with what we have right before us.)

I believe that the doctrine rests upon the concept of limited choices. This is agency, just not free access to your every imagination. So Mormon doctrine teaches that this life is the time to prepare to meet God and the judgment, and once that judgment is passed upon us the opportunity to choose eternal life or damnation is over forever.

I don't consider the three degrees of glory to be three actual places. I think this is a template, a primer template at that, to help us begin to understand what is possible. One must understand further (or as I imagine) or one doesn't understand all or even much at all. You call the kingdoms under celestial, hell; I most certainly do not, nor do I think Joseph Smith and the gospel ask me to. I take great delight in knowing that all of God's children are destined for glory (NOT hell--I'm pretty sure I know hell, having lived it; I'm pretty sure we all know what hell is, having lived some version of it; I don't imagine any hellfire awaiting anyone as an "assignment"; Joseph Smith said that if we ever ended up in a hell like that, we would just turn it into a heaven.) So if you understand that to be hell, well, as you wish; but I see the same material, the same symbol, as a treasure trove of knowledge of a much different kind than you seem to have found in the same box. That's ok--but again, more than one way to look at it, is all.

"Hell" is where GtF does not dwell, where his immediate presence is not. So everything (not everywhere) that is beneath the glory of GtF is "hell", because only the uppermost "level" in the CK has eternal increase. At least the lower levels in the CK are in the presence of GtF and minister to the topmost glorified beings, who are the only ones exactly like GtF in every aspect, including eternal increase and "the lives", i.e. spirit children. David fell, and after his redemption his kingdom is finite, in that he has no wives but will be as a ministering angel to those worthy of a higher glory. (I am merely repeating what I recall of Mormon doctrine, not what I believe.)

Damnation is one of those words that I think should be another thread because I think all people, even and especially religionists--in the words of Princess Bride, "I don't think it means what you think it means." The misunderstanding of that word in and of itself has done so much damage to our paradigm (and here I'm agreeing with you again); but I don't think we understand its original meaning. I.e. damnation is not an afterlife judgment, for one thing. But another thread perhaps.

Damnation in Mormonism is to stop progressing, you inhabit a finite kingdom of lesser glory, compared to GtF's kingdom. But we are taught that "endless punishment and eternal punishment are God's punishment" because Endless and Eternal are names of God, therefore he can revoke as he sees fit. It is even admitted by God that the words "endless and eternal punishment" are so used to better work upon the minds of men, i.e. make them behave more readily!

I love your Pursuing God, ha ha. I found this out for myself, for sure. That he is always coming after me. That he WANTS me. That I belong to him and he belongs to me. That he cannot lose me and still live with himself; that he cannot lose me and still breathe. I learned that by a special experience when I was small but I won't share; but I say that only to differentiate that I did not find this out by reading or by hearing in my mind/heart, as I learn a lot of things; rather, I learned it by passing through something.

Yes, God "purses" us forever. Each one of us is a unique "project" of precious value to "God". I cannot accept that the creation of a person is anything less than to become a soul-mate, and a unique one at that.

You bring up Islam, but I should say that for myself at least, I don't experience Islam as a separate or other paradigm (overall; details, of course; but the GOD paradigm); for that matter, I don't experience any of the world religions as something separate from my journey in the Church and gospel. I consider that God's raising up Muhammad is just like Him to do that; to always have a project to lift, protect and teach his children. As you said.

I don't see any religion as separate either. Each influences the others, and the later ones that come along are all outgrowths of earlier religions. This is positively true about Islam and Mormonism. I have (lightly) posited that if Joseph Smith and Muhammad changed places, that each would have come up with the religion of the other.

I agree with you that to tell the truth to yourself, oneself, is the only place to start (and end! ha ha).

Edited February 16, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

Many people would be more than 50% I am not BIC, nor do I live in Utah. My view may be bleak but it is realistic. I just spent a month sailing through Panama. Every port captain wanted a bribe, er um a tip, at every port. They hide the rules instead of giving you advice on the paperwork needed so they might catch you in an exspensive mistake. I can give an anecdote of every place I've been or sailed to but you still won't believe me because it doesn't fit your pardagrim. No doubt there are nice people out there but they still have an agenda to seek advantage over me or you.

We could talk about the home construction industry in Calif and how certain general contractors withhold payment to framing contractors in order to break them and not pay their bill. or how these framing contractors when they do go TU simply open up in another name after not paying the carpenters that actuallly framed the houses and if some money does get deposited in the TU company it's he who has the fastest car gets his money first and the last one in line gets nothing,

I know there are laws and attorneys to sort this all out but it cost too much money for the average Joe to be able to hire a lawyer.

Right now in Calif there is a pharmacy worker witholding my wife's medication, because she can. I want to sue her for causing unneeded pain to my wife. If I had the money for that I would simply fly my wife home to get her meds. Some people believe the elderly disabled among us should stay home in a darkened room with a TV changer in our hands. Some people believe because you choose to live on a boat that you are rich and they will charge you more for everything that they can. Entire governments do this. Want a visa 3 dollars please, oh you came on a boat, 100.00 please.

edite to ad: If I couldn't travel with Heavenly Father as my forward guard and my rear guard,Ii wouldn't travel. It is also amazing to me that He loves me enough to guard me and my boat in hostile ports or stormy seas.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing RL details outside of "happy valley". I do try to keep up with the tenor of the world at large. What you describe is just "business as usual", because everyone is caught in the mesh of it and to get ahead you have to play by the "rules". But there are no direct "soul-selling" requirements at work here. Everyone is on the take because everyone is on the take. It isn't seen as violation of a personal ethic by most people, that's what I have to conclude. Otherwise, that mindset would extend into the neighborhoods where these people go home to live, and the same rapacity would extend to those neighborhoods. The "on the take" is specifically for the job at hand, don't you think? Now you describe Cali, which is a lot closer to home for most of us on this forum. Yes, we have gov't agencies to inspect contractor fraud and suchlike, both my sister and brother-in-law have worked for them and have stories about the dishonesty that they discovered. But surely this is nowhere fifty percent of the contractors....

[Questing Beast]

...

Of course we can find manifestations of Korihor's philosophy. His is a rather facile, unconvincing false logic, incomplete and weak. He asserts that everyone can do whatever s/he wants and it is no crime, and that the strong conquer according to their strength, and that everyone will be "saved" and nobody lost/damned, etc. He says all of this, yet leaves out disbelief in afterlife, an essential feature of such philosophy as "conquer according to the strength of the creature" with nothing being a sin, because "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". Only in the BoM does afterlife figure in, everywhere else such a philosophy is the creed of the atheist who believes in no existence after death. Then Korihor says the devil taught it all to him after manifesting as a being of light, declaring "there is no God", yet who/what is this "devil as an angel of light"? Obviously a metaphysical apparition without a cause, which makes Korihor an idiot.

@Smac: sorry about that, I was wrong and Korihor DID include "when you are dead that is the end thereof", words to that effect. But it was "tacked" onto the end of his dogmatic assertions almost as an afterthought. Usually, today, when someone justifies living by "Korihor's philosophy" the first thing they justify it with is "when you're dead you're dead, this life is it". But Korihor hardly mentions it, and follows up at the end with what I pointed out, his "revelations" from the devil as an angel of light, justifying his acts by "revelation" in fact, which is totally inconsistent with how people justify their hedonism today....

Edit to add: "We do believe that God will save all men." (Alma 21:6) I was conflating "heresies" here, and in fact it is a Nehor philosophy, not Korihor's....

Edited February 16, 2013 by Questing Beast

[rodheadlee]

Your travel experiences are very different than mine. You define a world that is different by degree and scale. Maybe it is because you came by boat or maybe because you think you have a heavenly father that is your forward and rear guard, or maybe it is because you think you need a guard.

As I stated in another post, my wife and I travel to at least three different countries a year. Yes, bribes can be common place, yes, police and the law makers can be corrupt, but the average person on the street is a pleasure to meet and deal with. We get smiles and a warm welcome regardless of whether we are in a European country, or travelling in Africa or the Middle East or South America.

We don't let a few rotten apples spoil a trip or an experience. We travel to many countries to see historical sights and sites but we go back because of the people.

We get smiles and warm welcomes too. I just have a bad taste in my mouth from Panama. But even in Costa Rica, where we have been warmly welcomed, you can't just anchor out anywhere. If you leave the boat, your stuff will get ripped off. In Golftio you had to be back to the boat by sunset or they ripped you off while you were at dinner. We had to have a neighborhood watch in the mooring field.

I anchored tonight right across from the fire station in Punta Arenas. Once my local friend found out where we were he was worried we'd get robbed while we were aboard. He sent the yacht club out to guide us into a safe zone. They were very friendly and I am happy to be here.

How long do you stay in one place when you travel? We spend anywhere from a week to 3 months to a few years, depending on the hurricane season and the visa policy. You get to know people better the longer you stay. My last trip through Polynesia I really enjoyed and met a lot of nice people and the only person that ripped me off belonged to the Church and that covered a 4 year period, well my generator got ripped off after the tsunami but I would have given it to them if they had asked. There is a very high percentage of Church members in Samoa and Tonga, we didn't make it to Tonga.

I'm from Los Angeles and I sail a small boat boat in a large ocean so I'm pretty sure I need a rear guard and a forward guard. I don't think I have a Heavenly Father, I know I have a Heavenly Father because He speaks to me occassionally and when He does I do my best to listen.

[rodheadlee]

Edited February 17, 2013 by rodheadlee

[ERayR]

It is a very good reason. Being bad can cause so many problems.

[smac97]

Questing Beast

> If there is a thing I am NOT, it is coy. Read my posts, responses, and you'll see that I absolutely believe in "God".

==I was trying to elicit a bit more specific information out of you. Never mind.

> LOL! I know "everything" about LDS doctrine about "the nature of man".

==Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that. You appear to know very little about Korihor, for example.

>> I propose that you label whatever you dislike with pejoratives (like "indoctrination"), and that you are overly fond of broadly-worded jabs at "religion" (ironic, since you appear to have your own set of religious beliefs - no doubt originating from "indoctrination").

> I agree, and the irony is galling to me. Yet we can only do with what we have/are.

==Nonsense. You can stop carping on others for adhering to religious tenets when that is exactly what you are doing too.

>> Uh ... this is from the guy who doesn't like dogmatism?

> Yes, I am in danger of engaging in debate with my OWN dogma. The last thing I want to do is set up a dogma to take the place of dogma!

==And yet that is precisely what you have done.

>> That sounds nice, but godlessness does not lead to this result, notwithstanding your dogmatic (ha!) assertion to the contrary.

> It is possible, because of 'the light of Christ" (our origin from "God"), that a person in this venue can be good without a belief in "God". It is even likely.

==A person who does "good" only does so because he is adhering to the commandments of God. He may kick against the pricks and deny that, but that isn't availing. He may as well say "Yes, two plus two equals four, but I arrived at that conclusion not through mathematics, but through my own alternative source of knowledge." A person who concludes that 2+2=4 is using basic math to do so. He can claim he isn't, but that claim doesn't hold up.

==On a related note, we believe that a person who engages in behavior which could be perceived as "good" (such as giving a gift), but who does so with an improper motive, has not actually done something "good." Moroni 7:8 states that "if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God." In my opinion, this verse teaches us that actions have no innate "goodness" or "badness" about them. The act is only "good" if the motive for that act is "good." For example, a Columbian drug load, Pablo Escobar, was famed for his philanthropy. But since those efforts (building schools, football fields, etc.) were apparently intended to curry favor amongst the poor of Columbia so as to grease the skids of his drug cartel, I do not think those actions were "good." Conversely, I believe a person who does something which is perceived as "bad," but has pure motives for doing so (e.g., Les Miserables's Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving family) may be rewarded.

==I am reminded here of the story of Emeth from The Last Battle the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series by C.S. Lewis (the following is paraphrased from the Wikipedia entry on Emeth).

==Emeth is a Calormene character was raised to follow Tash, the antithesis of Aslan, and did so with an emphatic devotion and loyalty. Nevertheless, Emeth manages to travel to Aslan's paradisaical country after the destruction of Narnia, and is welcomed by Aslan.

==Aslan's words to Emeth, in which he ratifies the good deeds the latter did even under the name of Tash, are as follows: "I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash [the false God]... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me [Christ] that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."

==The implication is that people who reflect a righteous heart are to some degree justified, regardless of misbelief. This is a cornerstone of Christian theology: one party cites the Christian paradigm that faith in Christ alone saves, and the other wants to account for the fate of those born and raised into another faith. There has been extensive commentary on the question. In a letter from 1952, Lewis summarized and explained his position: "I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ."

==I think C.S. Lewis was essentially correct in his soteriology, a view which I think is widely shared amongst the Latter-day Saints. While the saving ordinances for the "Emeths" of this world will be necessary (just as they are necessary for those who are raised with an actual knowledge of and testimony of Christ), the countless numbers of God's children who have lived and died on this earth without having had a chance to hear about and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will nevertheless have the same access to the Restored Gospel and the salvation that comes through it as is available to those of us to are given a chance to hear and accept the Gospel.

> We are all in that mindset up to some point in our lives, then the "terrible question" enters in and never departs.

==What "terrible question" is this?

> With me it came as a child, causing me to question/doubt what I was being taught as the "ultimate source of truth", etc. The God the Father I was taught could not be the Cause of Existence in the First Place. It took half a century for me to "jump off the cliff" and find out what is waiting at the bottom.

==I truly have no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry.

> I don't possess any "potato chips" or anything at all, but I do get to enjoy the use of all things in their season....

==Potato chips?

> Nothing is "provable", we only have evidence to convince us "beyond a reasonable doubt".

==I disagree. From an evidentiary standpoint, there is such a thing as "proof." Moreover, the Judgment Bar of God apparently involves the stripping away of all falsehood, sophistry, errors, and so forth, such that "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God" (Rom. 14:11). This will not be the result of coercion, but of unfettered Truth. Proof.

> We see "good and bad" all the time, here and now. We see no evidence of "heaven and hell", anywhere, since we see nothing of the "afterlife" evidenced in this world.

==I strongly disagree. My wife has had six children. With each one she has had a tradition of waking up in the middle of the night after they are born (she has been in the hospital for each one) and having the nurse bring the baby to her. She has then cradled each of our newborn children and spoken with them. She has had marvelous spiritual experiences associated with each of these events. She has experienced "evidence" that our children existed Before, and that they have just passed through the Veil to her. If she can perceive evidence of a pre-existent state, then it follows that we can also find evidence of a post-existent state as well.

==We also have ample scriptural references to heaven and to hell. You can, of course, dismiss these references on evidentiary grounds. But then, we'd be free to dismiss your perception of "good" and "bad" on those same grounds. This is a massive inconsistency in your reasoning, such that your "reasoning" utterly fails because of it.

> Some of us are convinced by "evidence" of the paranormal, or metaphysical as I prefer to call it, but that "evidence" is not on offer for anyone else, i.e. we cannot call it forth. But we can point to "good and bad" examples everywhere and agree that they exist.

==Designating something as "good" or "bad" is just as much an exercise of faith as proclaiming belief in heaven and hell. Just. As. Much.

>> Huh? Korihor "made up revelations?"

> "The devil ... appeared unto me in the form of an angel and said ... Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God," etc.

==Yes, I know that. What makes you think he was fabricating this experience? The text of chapter 30 gives no such indication.

> We observe our brothers and sisters doing "bad" things more from ignorance and weakness (which we are told by God is his "fault", as our weaknesses are "given" to us by him) than malice-a-forethought.

==There is plenty of malice aforethought in the world. And malice and "weakness" are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, someone who is acting out of malice is necessarily acting out of weakness (having succumbed to the temptation to sin).

> As I said, I don't know anyone who deliberately says "I am bad and I am going to do bad things now".

==You must not get out much. I see this all the time. In my line of work (I am a lawyer), I see people lie. All the time. About all sorts of things, including testable things. And yet they not only lie, but they lie under oath. In a court of law. I see deliberate dishonesty all the time in my line of work (as well as situational dishonesty stemming from pride, desperation, etc.).

> That would be because of Islam increasing naturally at a faster rate of population expansion, and many Christians divesting themselves of the religion of their fathers in favor of something that suits them individually better.

==Not just Islam. "No religion" is one of the fastest-growing options in polls on religiosity.

> @Smac: sorry about that, I was wrong and Korihor DID include "when you are dead that is the end thereof", words to that effect.

==Yeah, I know. That's why I took your previous boast ("LOL! I know 'everything' about LDS doctrine about 'the nature of man'") with a grain of salt. I suspect you don't know much about us.

> But it was "tacked" onto the end of his dogmatic assertions almost as an afterthought.

==Alma 30 doesn't portray this as an "afterthought" at all. It is a central tenet of Korihor's philosophy. His gospel of hedonism arises directly from the proposition that "when a man was dead, that was the end thereof." If there is no afterlife, there is no judgment. If no judgment, no sin. If no sin, no righteousness. If no distinction between sin and righteousness, then hedonism is the order of the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2013 by smac97

[bcuzbcuz]

We get smiles and warm welcomes too. I just have a bad taste in my mouth from Panama. But even in Costa Rica, where we have been warmly welcomed, you can't just anchor out anywhere. If you leave the boat, your stuff will get ripped off. In Golftio you had to be back to the boat by sunset or they ripped you off while you were at dinner. We had to have a neighborhood watch in the mooring field.

I anchored tonight right across from the fire station in Punta Arenas. Once my local friend found out where we were he was worried we'd get robbed while we were aboard. He sent the yacht club out to guide us into a safe zone. They were very friendly and I am happy to be here.

How long do you stay in one place when you travel? We spend anywhere from a week to 3 months to a few years, depending on the hurricane season and the visa policy. You get to know people better the longer you stay. My last trip through Polynesia I really enjoyed and met a lot of nice people and the only person that ripped me off belonged to the Church and that covered a 4 year period, well my generator got ripped off after the tsunami but I would have given it to them if they had asked. There is a very high percentage of Church members in Samoa and Tonga, we didn't make it to Tonga.

I'm from Los Angeles and I sail a small boat boat in a large ocean so I'm pretty sure I need a rear guard and a forward guard. I don't think I have a Heavenly Father, I know I have a Heavenly Father because He speaks to me occassionally and when He does I do my best to listen.

I'm envious. I wish we could stay longer when we travel, maybe when we retire. We have stayed longer in Chilé and Canada but then we mooch off of relatives. In both Chilé, Greece and Middle East countries we ask locals who are standing around to look after our vehicle or valuables. It has never failed us. We fully expect to be robbed some day but so far we have only had a few pick pocket attempts while in large centers (I lost my pocket dictionary...haha)

We have travelled by car around Europe but mostly fly and then rent vehicles. Renting a Yugo car in Greece was the most memorable (Yugos were made out of recycled pop cans, I think)

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast

...

> LOL! I know "everything" about LDS doctrine about "the nature of man".

==Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that. You appear to know very little about Korihor, for example.

I know all there is to know about Korihor, I just have a leaky brain. How fortunate for you if you don't have a leaky brain! (and I was being ironic when I said "everything", in quotes, because I mean that I know as much as you do, I bet).

>> I propose that you label whatever you dislike with pejoratives (like "indoctrination"), and that you are overly fond of broadly-worded jabs at "religion" (ironic, since you appear to have your own set of religious beliefs - no doubt originating from "indoctrination").

> I agree, and the irony is galling to me. Yet we can only do with what we have/are.

==Nonsense. You can stop carping on others for adhering to religious tenets when that is exactly what you are doing too.

Where did I say that others are wrong to adhere to religious tenets/dogma? If it works for them then they are right to do so. But there will be a problem if their adherence includes rejecting the religious or non-religious adherence of others. If that rejection becomes proactive, such as we see when the Baptists congregate in Happy Valley and try to disabuse Mormons of their false doctrines, it can become unjust, especially if/when the "ante" is upped to include forced conversion as has occurred in the Christian history many, many times. (I am reading about the Thirty Years War right now, which is one of those times.)

...

> Yes, I am in danger of engaging in debate with my OWN dogma. The last thing I want to do is set up a dogma to take the place of dogma!

==And yet that is precisely what you have done.

You misunderstand my caveat: I am not suggesting that anything I say is to be held as binding on anyone other than myself.

...

> It is possible, because of 'the light of Christ" (our origin from "God"), that a person in this venue can be good without a belief in "God". It is even likely.

==A person who does "good" only does so because he is adhering to the commandments of God. He may kick against the pricks and deny that, but that isn't availing. He may as well say "Yes, two plus two equals four, but I arrived at that conclusion not through mathematics, but through my own alternative source of knowledge." A person who concludes that 2+2=4 is using basic math to do so. He can claim he isn't, but that claim doesn't hold up.

You throw out the word "commandments" as a fact. What if there are no commands at all? What if you and I are supposed to learn to do right by our inner light and that's all there is to it? And by doing right, that "light" increases and reveals Joy in more clarity and abundance, forever?

...

==I am reminded here of the story of Emeth from The Last Battle the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series by C.S. Lewis ...

C.S. Lewis was a converted Christian apologist, and I enjoy him too. However, is soteriology assumes the existence of "heaven or hell", necessarily. To a person who does not accept the dogmatic view of "salvation", it is all problematic to assume that there is even such a thing as ultimate relegation to either "eternal" state, based on this life's decisions. That's the whole point behind my OP question. If we strip away the fear of "screwing up", i.e. getting damned, then will we alter what we do/are? I don't think most people will change much or even at all if they stop believing in "heaven and hell". So being loyal to a falsehood isn't the problem, since loyalty is the important thing. Once you know/suspect that you have been believing a falsehood, you should ditch it, not continue to adhere to it out of habit or fear.

> We are all in that mindset up to some point in our lives, then the "terrible question" enters in and never departs.

==What "terrible question" is this?

Why existence instead of nothing?

> Nothing is "provable", we only have evidence to convince us "beyond a reasonable doubt".

==I disagree. From an evidentiary standpoint, there is such a thing as "proof." Moreover, the Judgment Bar of God apparently involves the stripping away of all falsehood, sophistry, errors, and so forth, such that "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God" (Rom. 14:11). This will not be the result of coercion, but of unfettered Truth. Proof.

We disagree on the definition of "proof". To appeal to an equally-asserted "judgment bar of God" is not helpful here and now. Anyone can say, "You'll see".

> We see "good and bad" all the time, here and now. We see no evidence of "heaven and hell", anywhere, since we see nothing of the "afterlife" evidenced in this world.

==I strongly disagree. My wife has had six children. With each one she has had a tradition of waking up in the middle of the night after they are born (she has been in the hospital for each one) and having the nurse bring the baby to her. She has then cradled each of our newborn children and spoken with them. She has had marvelous spiritual experiences associated with each of these events. She has experienced "evidence" that our children existed Before, and that they have just passed through the Veil to her. If she can perceive evidence of a pre-existent state, then it follows that we can also find evidence of a post-existent state as well.

To leap to "heaven and hell" because of talking to newborn infants is a huge leap. Especially if that talking is expected to reveal anything about either asserted state. This leap is known as "observer bias", and she/you are interpreting the experience based on your already held beliefs. So there is no proof given by the experience of an afterlife let alone a preexistence.

==We also have ample scriptural references to heaven and to hell. You can, of course, dismiss these references on evidentiary grounds. But then, we'd be free to dismiss your perception of "good" and "bad" on those same grounds. This is a massive inconsistency in your reasoning, such that your "reasoning" utterly fails because of it.

Yes, if I came up with a "Brian David Mitchell" definition of "good and bad" you'd be justified in rejecting it. I am not suggesting that MY definition of "good and bad" needs to replace yours or anyone else's definition. Dismiss away. I am bound before "God" by my definition of "good and bad". So are you, and you can leave scripture entirely out of it.

> Some of us are convinced by "evidence" of the paranormal, or metaphysical as I prefer to call it, but that "evidence" is not on offer for anyone else, i.e. we cannot call it forth. But we can point to "good and bad" examples everywhere and agree that they exist.

==Designating something as "good" or "bad" is just as much an exercise of faith as proclaiming belief in heaven and hell. Just. As. Much.

You continue to miss the pointed difference: your personal metaphysical "evidence" is not available to anyone else, but "good and bad" happens all the time and can be pointed to and defined, which it is without much disagreement most of the time. Arguments on the reality of "heaven and hell" are not resolvable, which is why we have thousands upon thousands of religions. Yet we have ONE code of laws that govern us all, based on "good and bad/evil" being defined.

> "The devil ... appeared unto me in the form of an angel and said ... Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God," etc.

==Yes, I know that. What makes you think he was fabricating this experience? The text of chapter 30 gives no such indication.

Because Korihor did not accept it as a revelation as part of what he taught, but excused himself for being deceived after he was caught out. Why would Alma or anyone else believe Korihor's excuses anymore than his earlier lies?

>As I said, I don't know anyone who deliberately says "I am bad and I am going to do bad things now".

==You must not get out much. I see this all the time. In my line of work (I am a lawyer), I see people lie. All the time. About all sorts of things, including testable things. And yet they not only lie, but they lie under oath. In a court of law. I see deliberate dishonesty all the time in my line of work (as well as situational dishonesty stemming from pride, desperation, etc.).

You are working in the "forest". There is a whole "world" out there that does not end up in court, in trouble, desperate and resorting to lies to escape or get an advantage on someone. It's like cops, the longer they work with the people they run into all day long, year after year, the more they see the whole world through that cracked, exaggerated "glass".

> That would be because of Islam increasing naturally at a faster rate of population expansion, and many Christians divesting themselves of the religion of their fathers in favor of something that suits them individually better.

==Not just Islam. "No religion" is one of the fastest-growing options in polls on religiosity.

"No religion" means no affiliation, not disbeliever. If someone asked me in a poll what "religion" I adhered to, I would end up in that demographic you mention here.

> @Smac: sorry about that, I was wrong and Korihor DID include "when you are dead that is the end thereof", words to that effect.

==Yeah, I know. That's why I took your previous boast ("LOL! I know 'everything' about LDS doctrine about 'the nature of man'") with a grain of salt. I suspect you don't know much about us.

"Us." BIC here.

> But it was "tacked" onto the end of his dogmatic assertions almost as an afterthought.

==Alma 30 doesn't portray this as an "afterthought" at all. It is a central tenet of Korihor's philosophy. His gospel of hedonism arises directly from the proposition that "when a man was dead, that was the end thereof." If there is no afterlife, there is no judgment. If no judgment, no sin. If no sin, no righteousness. If no distinction between sin and righteousness, then hedonism is the order of the day.

And no "reclaim this people" either. So his entire paradigm made no sense at all. He wasn't reclaiming anyone if everyone ends at death. Reclaim them from what?...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Questing Beast]

It is a very good reason. Being bad can cause so many problems.

Yes, once you screw up and get your comeupance, then, only then (since you were not smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others) can you fear being "bad" because of the problems it causes. That is one way to learn what Joy is not, and it is an effective way, if not a "good" way....

[rodheadlee]

I'm envious. I wish we could stay longer when we travel, maybe when we retire. We have stayed longer in Chilé and Canada but then we mooch off of relatives. In both Chilé, Greece and Middle East countries we ask locals who are standing around to look after our vehicle or valuables. It has never failed us. We fully expect to be robbed some day but so far we have only had a few pick pocket attempts while in large centers (I lost my pocket dictionary...haha)

We have travelled by car around Europe but mostly fly and then rent vehicles. Renting a Yugo car in Greece was the most memorable (Yugos were made out of recycled pop cans, I think)

I'm envious of you too:) I can't afford Europe. We are retired and doing it on a tight budget. There are no stores in the middle of the ocean.

[Daniel Peterson]

Are You Only "Good" Because You Are Afraid Of Being "Bad"?

Who says I'm being good?

My critics would laugh at the very thought. Which is one of the reasons why I haven't participated on this thread.

[wayfarer]

Are You Only "Good" Because You Are Afraid Of Being "Bad"?

Who says I'm being good?

My critics would laugh at the very thought. Which is one of the reasons why I haven't participated on this thread.

[Questing Beast]

Are You Only "Good" Because You Are Afraid Of Being "Bad"?

Who says I'm being good?

My critics would laugh at the very thought. Which is one of the reasons why I haven't participated on this thread.

You say if you are being good, to hell with your critics. Are you being a good boy, Daniel?...

[Stargazer]

You say if you are being good, to hell with your critics. Are you being a good boy, Daniel?...

He can't be being a good boy, because he posted in this thread!!

[ERayR]

Yes, once you screw up and get your comeupance, then, only then (since you were not smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others) can you fear being "bad" because of the problems it causes. That is one way to learn what Joy is not, and it is an effective way, if not a "good" way....

Putting it another way. I am very much afraid of the effect of being bad can have on me. What it can do to me and through me what it can do to others.

Edited February 20, 2013 by ERayR

[Questing Beast]

@ERayR: That is the perfectly understandable reason for avoiding "bad". "Heaven and hell" don't remotely impact such a decision. That's the point I have been making. "Good and bad" are provable choices here and now. "Heaven and hell" are assertions about a future that cannot be shown....

[ERayR]

@ERayR: That is the perfectly understandable reason for avoiding "bad". "Heaven and hell" don't remotely impact such a decision. That's the point I have been making. "Good and bad" are provable choices here and now. "Heaven and hell" are assertions about a future that cannot be shown....

It has come to me through the same revelatory process that gives me an assurance of the gospel of Jesus Christ as promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Questing Beast]

That's the problematic part: the "source" of the feelings.

I am "out" in that I don't believe in any LDS exclusivity doctrines, at, all. I see the Church as merely one of thousands of religious, denominations and sects extant, and a fairly recent one at that. All religions borrow from already existing ones and build as they borrow. This paradigm fits the evidence best, imho. It answers far more questions than it raises, which is the opposite of what I was dealing with trying to make Mormonism work. The collapse of that effort came as suddenly as one thought leading inexorably to the next. The catalyst was JS's polyandry, but everything began to finally fit into place.

That was almost nine years ago, and this morning I feel confident in saying that I was right in that moment to toss any further efforts to make Mormonism work. What happened as an immediate result? Nothing much in my private life. I have continued to attend Sunday meetings, pay tithing, keep a temple recommend, live as a "Saint" in my personal habits. What has changed? I do not look to any man as an "authority" to speak for God to me, I can do that for myself. And other than being more at peace inside my own skin, nothing in my desires has inculcated "sin" into my life. Like Joseph Smith said, the desire to sin has never been in my nature.

I want inner peace, because I know it leads to Joy, and the only way inner peace is possible is to not live a lie, "Never lie to yourself", the first and greatest commandment. It allows you to love "God", because all truth is the realm of "God", and only a person who loves truth above all else can begin to "see God". Such a life will naturally seek to do good continually, with no vacations from being good. Each moment defines what you ARE. We live in the moment, and always will, as far as evidence indicates. What we choose to pursue NOW defines what we are. If the WHO we are wants evil/bad/dishonest things then that is what/who we are. No religion can make us otherwise. Only experience can disabuse us of lying and wanting bad things. And my personal religion says that everyone ultimately understands why they are less than joyful and moves away from what is preventing Joy.

Some of us are "darker" and require more "time out" to learn, that's the only difference between us that matters in the eternal scheme of things....

[Avatar4321]

I don't know that I've ever been good, let alone been good because Im afraid of being bad. I don't know that I've ever really thought about being bad.

But I know I've always been attracted to virtue. Ever since I was a child. It's light to me, if that makes any sense. I know that doing good things makes me happy. And when I recognized the love of God in my life for the first time, I have had a strong desire to love people like God loves them. Not worried about being bad. just about doing good better.

[Avatar4321]

That's the problematic part: the "source" of the feelings.

I am "out" in that I don't believe in any LDS exclusivity doctrines, at, all. I see the Church as merely one of thousands of religious, denominations and sects extant, and a fairly recent one at that. All religions borrow from already existing ones and build as they borrow. This paradigm fits the evidence best, imho. It answers far more questions than it raises, which is the opposite of what I was dealing with trying to make Mormonism work. The collapse of that effort came as suddenly as one thought leading inexorably to the next. The catalyst was JS's polyandry, but everything began to finally fit into place.

That was almost nine years ago, and this morning I feel confident in saying that I was right in that moment to toss any further efforts to make Mormonism work. What happened as an immediate result? Nothing much in my private life. I have continued to attend Sunday meetings, pay tithing, keep a temple recommend, live as a "Saint" in my personal habits. What has changed? I do not look to any man as an "authority" to speak for God to me, I can do that for myself. And other than being more at peace inside my own skin, nothing in my desires has inculcated "sin" into my life. Like Joseph Smith said, the desire to sin has never been in my nature.

I want inner peace, because I know it leads to Joy, and the only way inner peace is possible is to not live a lie, "Never lie to yourself", the first and greatest commandment. It allows you to love "God", because all truth is the realm of "God", and only a person who loves truth above all else can begin to "see God". Such a life will naturally seek to do good continually, with no vacations from being good. Each moment defines what you ARE. We live in the moment, and always will, as far as evidence indicates. What we choose to pursue NOW defines what we are. If the WHO we are wants evil/bad/dishonest things then that is what/who we are. No religion can make us otherwise. Only experience can disabuse us of lying and wanting bad things. And my personal religion says that everyone ultimately understands why they are less than joyful and moves away from what is preventing Joy.

Some of us are "darker" and require more "time out" to learn, that's the only difference between us that matters in the eternal scheme of things....

I have to say, Im curious. I hope it isn't too person. But how do you fail to believe and never lie to yourself and yet still have a current temple recommend. It seems that if you don't believe than you wouldn't be able to honestly say that you do when you are asked about your faith and testimony in the First questions of the Temple recommend interview. If I didn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I don't think I would be able to answer that I had a testimony. How do you reconcile this for yourself?

[ERayR]

@ERayR: That is the perfectly understandable reason for avoiding "bad". "Heaven and hell" don't remotely impact such a decision. That's the point I have been making. "Good and bad" are provable choices here and now. "Heaven and hell" are assertions about a future that cannot be shown....

Heaven and hell is a convenient dichotomy for defining good and bad. Using a religious context for defining and reinforcing the concept is not a bad idea.

[Questing Beast]

I have to say, Im curious. I hope it isn't too person[al]. But how do you fail to believe and never lie to yourself and yet still have a current temple recommend. It seems that if you don't believe than you wouldn't be able to honestly say that you do when you are asked about your faith and testimony in the First questions of the Temple recommend interview. If I didn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I don't think I would be able to answer that I had a testimony. How do you reconcile this for yourself?

The last question is the most important, and I answer that easily "Yes". The exclusivity doctrine ones would be a problem to simply say "yes" to, because my belief does not stop there. I don't believe in "the restored gospel" as an exclusive event, I believe Joseph Smith was "working for God" in that the religion was going to "take off" in a big way and help make the world a better one. But it isn't the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth", not by any stretch. So I answer those first few questions "Yes, but I believe more than that too", or, "Yes, but that is not the end of it for me". If asked to elaborate, I explain that I see the world as bigger than a single religious view, that the "restoration" is only part of what is going on, that the atonement is one way of seeing God's love for his creation, etc. This can cause a wrinkle of worry on the brow of the bishopric member or stake presidency interviewing me. I explain that I believe priesthood authority governs this church. And I know of, recognize, no other "authority" in conflict with the priesthood. We move on to the other questions, and they are all easy to answer, and I get my recommend renewed. But I also don't get extended any teaching or leadership callings, which is understandable and okay with me....