The Doctrine Of Exclusion

[Mystery Meat]

I have, in recent days, seen some calling out Christians for not living up to Christ's so-called doctrine of inclusion. My question is this: does such a doctrine even exist? I don't think it does.

 

Yes, the Gospel was eventually made available to all, but since when has "wide is the gate and all incompassing is the path" been the motto of Christendom? Christ, after all, did not come to unite but to divide (the wicked from the righteous). Heaven, exaltation, membership and discipleship have always been marked by seemingly impossible demands, including denying oneself of unholy natural tendencies.

 

Christ doesn't seem to concerned about excluding the unrepentant wicked from His kingdom. I am not either.

[Avatar4321]

I tend to agree. Christ didn't teach any such doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

The idea that Christ because he loved us all would accept us all exactly as we are is not scriptural. The Bible is very clear that Christ had specific standards.

[Storm Rider]

You are messing up the agenda; stop that this instant.  Jesus is only about love, the airy, fairy, cotton candy kind of love where all is rainbows and sweet; there are no commandments, no laws, no responsibilities, no purpose, no plan, no covenants, and most of all, no consequences.  Desist from throwing cold water on the parade, you old party pooper!  

[thesometimesaint]

It's a two edged  sword. Too inclusive and nobody wants to join, as there is no particular benefit. So that particular religion dies. IE; The Judaizers of the early Christian church. The other side of that sword is that the self-righteous "my way or the highway" religions also die. IE; The Zoramites of the Book of Mormon.

[longview]

The idea that Christ because he loved us all would accept us all exactly as we are is not scriptural. The Bible is very clear that Christ had specific standards.

Yeah, the sheep on the right hand and the goats on the left hand. Not too hard to understand.

[stemelbow]

I don't get the "It's Jesus will that we not include very many" mantra. Salvation on LDS thought is dependent upon all bowing to the knee and confessing and then be granted kingdoms and glory for eternity. There is salvation, thus inclusion, for those who are saved into the Telestial realm. We were, after all, always reminded that Joseph thought many would kill themselves right away if they knew the beauty and glory of the Telestial glory.

Is there not any level of inclusion on this? And if so, who are we to judge? We are just people grouped together moving along, pretending we're reaching for exaltation when we already know many of us aren't going there. The Church is just the Church. It seems to me the attitude is we won't have a Church if we open up too much. If we love too much. If we accept too much.

Seems backward to me.

[Mystery Meat]

It's a two edged  sword. Too inclusive and nobody wants to join, as there is no particular benefit. So that particular religion dies. IE; The Judaizers of the early Christian church. The other side of that sword is that the self-righteous "my way or the highway" religions also die. IE; The Zoramites of the Book of Mormon.

 

The Gospel is available to all! And it should be. We send missionaries out into the world to teach. Members are to testify not only by the way they live but in actual word. Every man, woman and child is invited to taste of the sweet fruits of repentance. Not all will do so (even those who are members of the Lord's Church...many are called, few are chosen). 

[Mystery Meat]

I don't get the "It's Jesus will that we not include very many" mantra. Salvation on LDS thought is dependent upon all bowing to the knee and confessing and then be granted kingdoms and glory for eternity. There is salvation, thus inclusion, for those who are saved into the Telestial realm. We were, after all, always reminded that Joseph thought many would kill themselves right away if they knew the beauty and glory of the Telestial glory.

Is there not any level of inclusion on this? And if so, who are we to judge? We are just people grouped together moving along, pretending we're reaching for exaltation when we already know many of us aren't going there. The Church is just the Church. It seems to me the attitude is we won't have a Church if we open up too much. If we love too much. If we accept too much.

Seems backward to me.

 

Stem, you make a fair point. There is inclusion for the vast majority of people in a kingdom of glory (the mercy of God is breathtaking). However, I suppose I should have explained that my post and the Church is focused on getting people to the Celestial Kingdom and to exaltation. To reach that goal there are requirements. People will be excluded based on choices they make. The Church and its members can (and IMO do) extend the hand of fellowship to those who are struggling, weak, etc. But the Church (ie, a group of people bound by covenants) is not a place for those who show no desire to repent (if I understand the scriptures correctly).

 

Therefore, if you open it to people who don't understand the covenants associated with membership, then NO it won't be the same.

 

If you put people under covenant who have no desire to repent, then NO it won't be the same.

 

If you put people under covenant who are actively trying to usurp power and teach against revealed truth, then NO it won't be the same.

 

If you ask covenant makers and keepers to accept sin, even to the point of celebrating it, then NO it won't be the same. The Church (its leaders and its members) have a sacred responsibility from God to preach repentance and true principals.

 

Your line about "love too much" is a strawman. I don't think there are many (if any) members saying we shouldn't love one another. But it is because we love (PRECISELY BECAUSE WE LOVE) that we don't sacrifice our values. It is because we love that we tell a gay man that he is sinning when he engages in homosexual activity. To tell him that all is well in his personal Zion, when God has taught that it is not would be the most damming and hateful thing we could do. The problem I have with how you seem to be defining "love too much", and the stupid hashtag I have seen all over #lovewins, is that love has been defined in a way that is if you don't accept, condone and support my love, then you don't love. I strongly reject such a silly notion.

[thesometimesaint]

The Gospel is available to all! And it should be. We send missionaries out into the world to teach. Members are to testify not only by the way they live but in actual word. Every man, woman and child is invited to taste of the sweet fruits of repentance. Not all will do so (even those who are members of the Lord's Church...many are called, few are chosen). 

 

Any organization must exist within its own rules. If people accept those rules then everything is great for that organization. IE; Say if I wanted to become a Buddhist. Unless I'm willing to accept the rules of that religion. It really isn't a good choice for me.

[stemelbow]

Stem, you make a fair point. There is inclusion for the vast majority of people in a kingdom of glory (the mercy of God is breathtaking). However, I suppose I should have explained that my post and the Church is focused on getting people to the Celestial Kingdom and to exaltation. To reach that goal there are requirements. People will be excluded based on choices they make. The Church and its members can (and IMO do) extend the hand of fellowship to those who are struggling, weak, etc. But the Church (ie, a group of people bound by covenants) is not a place for those who show no desire to repent (if I understand the scriptures correctly).

I get where you're coming from, but I see no reason whatsoever to think the Church is only for those who are to be exalted. I tend to think most exalted won't have been a part of the Church at all while in mortality. I tend to think many who are in the Church will be some of those not chosen. I tend to think we're drawing lines in the sand where we ought not--kinda like where we drew the line as per the priesthood restriction, which restriction we're still dealing with the consequences of.

 

Therefore, if you open it to people who don't understand the covenants associated with membership, then NO it won't be the same.

Change is inevitable and it is silly and arrogant to assume we are so good and so close to knowing it all now that we won't change.

 

If you put people under covenant who have no desire to repent, then NO it won't be the same.

Everyone save perhaps for a very select few, have desires to repent, change, learn and grow. To some extent.

 

If you put people under covenant who are actively trying to usurp power and teach against revealed truth, then NO it won't be the same.

You're mentioning, what I would think, are really rare outliers.

 

If you ask covenant makers and keepers to accept sin, even to the point of celebrating it, then NO it won't be the same. The Church (its leaders and its members) have a sacred responsibility from God to preach repentance and true principals.

You are kidding yourself if you think any members or most members don't accept some levels of sin.

 

Your line about "love too much" is a strawman. I don't think there are many (if any) members saying we shouldn't love one another. But it is because we love (PRECISELY BECAUSE WE LOVE) that we don't sacrifice our values. It is because we love that we tell a gay man that he is sinning when he engages in homosexual activity. To tell him that all is well in his personal Zion, when God has taught that it is not would be the most damming and hateful thing we could do. The problem I have with how you seem to be defining "love too much", and the stupid hashtag I have seen all over #lovewins, is that love has been defined in a way that is if you don't accept, condone and support my love, then you don't love. I strongly reject such a silly notion.

I, of course, see it much differently. It's not a matter of what you say. Anyone can hear another say he/she loves him/her, but at the same time feel like that person does not love. If gay people felt love from LDS, generally, then that'd be cool and you'd have a point. But such is clearly not the case. They want the freedom to feel as though others hear them, understand they are people with their own thoughts feelings, desires, and even personal spiritual life. When they hear an LDS say, "well we love you but we hate your sin" type of stuff, there's no real love there. And that's pretty much the message they get, whether those exact words are uttered or not.

We should view people as individually, personally working with God--whether they believe God is there or not. God could very well accept that an individual gay person is doing his/her best while also intimately sharing physical love with another of his/her same sex. I think it's too arrogant to speak for God on this.

[thesometimesaint]

Neither our God nor we as LDS people accept any level of sin. We call ALL to repentance, though not all heed the call.

[stemelbow]

Neither our God nor we as LDS people accept any level of sin. We call ALL to repentance, though not all heed the call.

We may not say we accept any level of sin, but that would make no sense at all since every LDS person sins and we simply don't kick them out for sinning. Added to that, it doesn't seem to me we each can account for each of our daily sins. We try, some probably do better than others, but I wouldn't doubt if each of us have some little sin we simply overlook each and every day.

We also accept nicely the bigotry of an old man in the ward, the cursings of another, perhaps even laughing them off. We accept that the Bishop might get a little carried away with pride, or the teenager disrespecting his/her parents. We accept young parents getting frustrated and yelling at their babies, if we didn't we wouldn't have any young couples and babies in Church at all. Some of us have even gone so far as accepting those addicted to porn into Church, those who struggle with alcohol, tobacco, and drug addictions.

That to me is what I meant by accepting sin. We accept it, and deal with each other as we sin well enough. It's kind of silly and arbitrary that we've seen others as too sinful and thus worth our vilest of condemnations.

[Senator]

Christ doesn't seem to concerned about excluding the unrepentant wicked from His kingdom. I am not either.

 

That's not the God I worship.

 

From my favorite book of scripture:

 

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

 29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

 30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

 31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

 33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

 34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

 35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

 36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

 37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

 

 

I believe that Christ is very concerned over those who will be excluded. In fact, I don't think we mortals even have the capacity to comprehend the concern he has for the excluded.

I don't think we aught to project our own fallen, schoolyard level of sensibilites upon God.

[Glenn101]

The Gospel is a gospel of inclusion. It includes al; those who will obey the laws and abide by the covenants we must make. Those who do not wish to do so effectively exclude themselves.

 

Glenn

[Glenn101]

I believe that Christ is very concerned over those who will be excluded. In fact, I don't think we mortals even have the capacity to comprehend the concern he has for the excluded.

I don't think we aught to project our own fallen, schoolyard level of sensibilites upon God.

 

That is one sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

Glenn

[stemelbow]

The Gospel is a gospel of inclusion. It includes al; those who will obey the laws and abide by the covenants we must make. Those who do not wish to do so effectively exclude themselves.

 

Glenn

That's everyone in the Church and out. No one obeys the laws and abides the covenants to perfection. We're all weak, and as it is, in this together.

[thesometimesaint]

We may not say we accept any level of sin, but that would make no sense at all since every LDS person sins and we simply don't kick them out for sinning. Added to that, it doesn't seem to me we each can account for each of our daily sins. We try, some probably do better than others, but I wouldn't doubt if each of us have some little sin we simply overlook each and every day.

We also accept nicely the bigotry of an old man in the ward, the cursings of another, perhaps even laughing them off. We accept that the Bishop might get a little carried away with pride, or the teenager disrespecting his/her parents. We accept young parents getting frustrated and yelling at their babies, if we didn't we wouldn't have any young couples and babies in Church at all. Some of us have even gone so far as accepting those addicted to porn into Church, those who struggle with alcohol, tobacco, and drug addictions.

That to me is what I meant by accepting sin. We accept it, and deal with each other as we sin well enough. It's kind of silly and arbitrary that we've seen others as too sinful and thus worth our vilest of condemnations.

 

What sin do/should we accept? I'm about as far from perfect as a person can get. However I do believe in repentance. Without which all would be lost. Most sins aren't at the level of requiring Church Discipline. even then it is only for Church membership in good standing.

 

Then the condemnation is on the condemner.

[Kenngo1969]

This is an ideal which I fall miserably short of reaching much (if not most) of the time, but the only thing I have left to give back to God that He didn't give me in the first place is my will.

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/on-submitting-my-will-to-gods/

[Jeanne]

And yet He loved everyone.  "Love Ye One Another as I have loved you".  Where is the exclusion in that?

[Calm]

We were, after all, always reminded that Joseph thought many would kill themselves right away if they knew the beauty and glory of the Telestial glory.

 

IIRC, this has not actually been able to be traced back to JS and may be apocryphal.

[Mystery Meat]

And yet He loved everyone.  "Love Ye One Another as I have loved you".  Where is the exclusion in that?

 

No doubt, there is no exclusion when it comes to His love. But such statements must be read with an eye to his other teachings and actions.What about Jesus who walked up to temple vendors and cast them and their peddling products out? By today's standards that is harsh and unloving. Yes, he did not condemn the woman taken in adultery (He had the advantage of being able to see into her heart), but did command her to sin no more. I imagine the Savior very much loved the pharisees and scribes. Because of that love he used pretty strong language to rebuke them (in a very public manner no less) for their hypocrisy and sins.

 

Christ's love is awesome! But His love does not equal the warm and fuzzies that our contemporary culture has tried to mold it into. 

[Jeanne]

No doubt, there is no exclusion when it comes to His love. But such statements must be read with an eye to his other teachings and actions.What about Jesus who walked up to temple vendors and cast them and their peddling products out? By today's standards that is harsh and unloving. Yes, he did not condemn the woman taken in adultery (He had the advantage of being able to see into her heart), but did command her to sin no more. I imagine the Savior very much loved the pharisees and scribes. Because of that love he used pretty strong language to rebuke them (in a very public manner no less) for their hypocrisy and sins.

 

Christ's love is awesome! But His love does not equal the warm and fuzzies that our contemporary culture has tried to mold it into. 

I respect your opinion in this..but at the same time I see it as a justification for what is so simple about love, toleration and forgiveness.

[JLHPROF]

And yet He loved everyone.  "Love Ye One Another as I have loved you".  Where is the exclusion in that?

 

The exclusion has NOTHING to do with love.  Nothing can separate us from the love of God.

But loving us does not mean tolerating all our behavior, weakness, sin, and false beliefs.

 

Christ can love every murderer unconditionally.  But he will still follow law perfectly with regard to their final situation.

[JLHPROF]

I respect your opinion in this..but at the same time I see it as a justification for what is so simple about love, toleration and forgiveness.

 

# 2 is wrong.

 

1. Love - Check

2. Toleration - Nope

3. Forgiveness - Only if repented of.

 

God and Christ cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.  But they still love us.

Edited June 30, 2015 by JLHPROF