The Doctrine Of Exclusion

[Auggybendoggy]

 

People talk about God's love and I am trying to feel it, but I don't know God loves me I have never heard him say that to me or have felt his love. I have had spiritual experiences but love wasn't one of those things that I found out as a result. I talked about this previously but in Feb. 2003? I think Elder Nelson wrote that article about God's love and I wrote him about it and he answered me, I struggle with this whole concept

Duncan, I hear you.  For me God's love is mostly because it resonates true in my heart.  I can't prove God is love, but logically, I believe if an eternal entity exists, then either he is perfect love or he is not.  If he's not perfect love, then he's no different than us.  Being God is holy, I assume he is love and from what I read of the bible, that is exactly where Jesus and the apostles were leading us.

 

[stemelbow]

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.

I listed some examples of sins we seem to tolerate just fine.

[stemelbow]

God's love is unconditional. God's acceptance is conditioned on repentance and obedience.

Sure we say these things, but we also seem to say other things that may be problematic on this issue.

For one, not all of our sins are repented of and no one is obedient in the sense of being observant of every thing.

Another, we also tend to preach that many who had not lived the gospel in this life, or weren't aware of it, can also be exalted.

[stemelbow]

I think many of these harsher statements by Jesus were likely added by later redactors and compilers.  Not necessarily the dividing father/mother/son etc... as that pertained directly to the building of the Kingdom of Heaven.  But all that hell talk, to me at least, doesn't really work well textually within the greater context of Jesus' teachings.  But, of course, this is just a guess on my part.  No real evidence -- one way or the other -- to say for sure.

On this point, though, we know that what is written regarding what Jesus said was written many years afterward by people who were not present when Jesus might have said what they wrote. So its easy enough to suggest things like you said above because we wouldn't know either way.

[rodheadlee]

I listed some examples of sins we seem to tolerate just fine.

Really? I've been waiting for 25 years for someone to give me a TR even though I smoke.

[Kenngo1969]

That dude is one ugly dude.

Hey, at least, "That ... that ... dude [don't] look[ ] like a lady!"  (Well, actually, maybe he does ... a really ugly one ...)

 

Edited July 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Dang.

 

I agree with half- but not the other half.   I'll let you guess which is which. 

How did you know I was lying about the "poor" part?  (Man, that gift of discernment must really be something!)

 

[Kenngo1969]

Duncan and JLHProf,

 

Yes, I do believe in the scripture that says that blessings are predicated on obedience. But—while I freely admit that I don't understand the interplay between what God causes, what He allows, and what He chooses to intervene to prevent (or not)—we need to let go of the idea that when good things happen to us it's because God likes us, and that when good things don't happen to us (or, heaven forbid, when actual bad things happen to us) it's because God doesn't like us.

 

As I've said before, God isn't Santa Claus: he doesn't give us presents when we're good and lumps of coal when we're bad. There are lots of potential reasons for the bad stuff, some of which God has more to do with than others, I think: man's inhumanity to man, hap crappening, the law of the harvest (one reaping what one has sown), Mother Nature throwing a hissy fit, that some of the bad stuff is part of our own individually-designed, specially-tailored test here in mortality, et cetera. But, although, as human beings, we always want to try to assign specific effects to specific causes, sometimes (often, in fact) that's not easy to do (in fact, it may be impossible for mortals to do).

 

Some of you are familiar with my recent trials from the (now closed and deleted) “Job Offer” thread. (And no, I'm not comparing any of my trials with anyone else's: I can only speak to what I know.) I won't rehash all of those trials here. Perhaps I should have tried to hold on longer or should have fought harder, even though I saw the writing on the wall; perhaps I should have talked to someone in human resources. Suffice it to say that I felt as though I was in an impossible situation, in which it seemed I couldn't do anything right: Knowing what I know now, there's no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks I would have taken the job, moved, signed a lease for an expensive apartment, et cetera. Last night, my car was towed because I inadvertently parked in the wrong spot, and I spent almost 300 bucks I don't have getting it back. I already totaled one car on my first trip back home. Now, I have nine months left on my lease and no job. I look back and wonder, “Maybe that fleeting butterflies-in-my-stomach feeling I had when I was on my way out here to look at the apartment and to sign the lease actually was a stupor of thought.” The only real answers I have are that—in foresight, at least—there aren't very many people in my position who wouldn't have taken the job; nothing ventured, nothing gained; and there was no real reason (other than my own pure pessimism) why I shouldn't have taken it.

 

Considering his trials, many of Job's friends said, “It must be something you're doing: what're you doing wrong?” Nephi wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean he deserved everything his two (very annoying, to say the least) older brothers did to him. Joseph Smith (though he wasn't perfect) didn't deserve many of his trials, either, which led him to ask the Lord, “O, God, where art Thou, and where is the pavillion that covereth thy hiding place?” Even though Christ is perfect, many of his followers went away and “walked no more with him,” and He received some of the most inhuman, inhumane treatment possible. And speaking of Christ and Joseph, the former asked the latter, “The Son of Man hath descended below [all things]; art thou greater than He?”

 

I try to hold onto the idea that whatever else happens, the thought that God loves me is non-negotiable. If I give that up, what else do I have? As the great philosopher, Colonel Sherman T. Potter of M*A*S*H fame once put it, “If you ain't where you are, you're noplace.” And, as I've said so many times before, so often in life, we cannot choose our circumstances: the only thing we can choose is how we react to them.

 

I wish you both well.

[Mystery Meat]

Sure we say these things, but we also seem to say other things that may be problematic on this issue.

For one, not all of our sins are repented of and no one is obedient in the sense of being observant of every thing.

Another, we also tend to preach that many who had not lived the gospel in this life, or weren't aware of it, can also be exalted.

 

Are you purposely making this hard? Is it that we are more forgiving of certain sins, OR is that some sinners have a broken heart and are more repentant than others? No one is perfect and we don't expect this (this is gospel 101 and the fact that I even have to reiterate this baffles me). That is what the Atonement is for. But there are many, try as we might to love and teach them, who won't repent and exclude themselves from the Kingdom. There have been plenty of high profile excommunications lately. A practicing homosexual who has no DESIRE to repent is also self-excluding. Yes, there are many sinners who seem much more comfortable at Church, but that is because they do have a DESIRE to repent.

 

The whole point of this thread is to debunk the stupid and uneducated notion that many (I bet most of them have never read the Bible and if they have they do not understand it) people have about Christ's teachings. God's laws do not change and therefore will leave many excluded from exaltation. Man, it would seem, would have the Church change God's laws so everyone can feel warm and fuzzy. 

Edited July 1, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Auggybendoggy]

Can someone tell me what is "OW"?

[Buckeye]

Can someone tell me what is "OW"?

 

http://ordainwomen.org/

[stemelbow]

Are you purposely making this hard? Is it that we are more forgiving of certain sins, OR is that some sinners have a broken heart and are more repentant than others? No one is perfect and we don't expect this (this is gospel 101 and the fact that I even have to reiterate this baffles me). That is what the Atonement is for. But there are many, try as we might to love and teach them, who won't repent and exclude themselves from the Kingdom. There have been plenty of high profile excommunications lately. A practicing homosexual who has no DESIRE to repent is also self-excluding. Yes, there are many sinners who seem much more comfortable at Church, but that is because they do have a DESIRE to repent.

 

The whole point of this thread is to debunk the stupid and uneducated notion that many (I bet most of them have never read the Bible and if they have they do not understand it) people have about Christ's teachings. God's laws do not change and therefore will leave many excluded from exaltation. Man, it would seem, would have the Church change God's laws so everyone can feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm not trying to make this hard. This is hard stuff. There are billions of people out there and we're no better than any of them. In my mind, we, as in everyone on this earth is in this together. In Church, as is often the case, members tend to speak as if only members are in this together. I think the level of exclusivity at Church is problematic, at least for the larger goals of life. Thus, I comment. I think we can disagree and everything's still cool between us.

When you say what you say above, it raises for me, a lot of questions and concerns. Take your last line, for instance. "man" in your sentence, is billions of people with billions of perspectives and thus potentially billions of ideas. treating everything that is not inline with your thinking as the ideas, purposes, and stuff of man is just difficult for me to buy into. I know examples usually get people worked up around here, but take the priesthood restrictions for instance. There was a time when the top leaders of the Church were teaching things about that that today leaders reject. You say God's laws don't change. Well, what changes is man's understanding of God. Recall with me, as it relates to Race and the Priesthood, McConkie's oft-quoted lines about how members need to get in line with modern prophets and realize the ideas of past leaders were wrong, as they presumed to speak prophetically on matters that they were wrong about. This examples, and others, speak plainly to the idea that if one is going to say "God's laws or unchanging" that one must acknowledge the Church is not God and is most likely wrong about some of it's ideas and pursuits.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm not trying to make this hard. This is hard stuff. There are billions of people out there and we're no better than any of them. In my mind, we, as in everyone on this earth is in this together. In Church, as is often the case, members tend to speak as if only members are in this together. I think the level of exclusivity at Church is problematic, at least for the larger goals of life. Thus, I comment. I think we can disagree and everything's still cool between us.

When you say what you say above, it raises for me, a lot of questions and concerns. Take your last line, for instance. "man" in your sentence, is billions of people with billions of perspectives and thus potentially billions of ideas. treating everything that is not inline with your thinking as the ideas, purposes, and stuff of man is just difficult for me to buy into. I know examples usually get people worked up around here, but take the priesthood restrictions for instance. There was a time when the top leaders of the Church were teaching things about that that today leaders reject. You say God's laws don't change. Well, what changes is man's understanding of God. Recall with me, as it relates to Race and the Priesthood, McConkie's oft-quoted lines about how members need to get in line with modern prophets and realize the ideas of past leaders were wrong, as they presumed to speak prophetically on matters that they were wrong about. This examples, and others, speak plainly to the idea that if one is going to say "God's laws or unchanging" that one must acknowledge the Church is not God and is most likely wrong about some of it's ideas and pursuits.

 

So what will happen to you in twenty to thirty years when the Church's inspired leaders are still actively teaching marriage between man and woman and that homosexuality is sin?

 

You seem to think that God's laws (or our understanding of them) will merge or catch-up with the values embraced by the world, in these the latter days. That contradicts the scriptures, as I understand them.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[stemelbow]

So what will happen to you in twenty to thirty years when the Church's inspired leaders are still actively teaching marriage between man and woman and that homosexuality is sin?

Any number of things, I suppose. I could be out of the Church for all I know. I could also have changed my mind and perspective completely. I could be working it in the spirit world. Or I could be living with a dude happily married--even though I have no desire to "be" with a man at this present time. I suppose you never know what the future holds.

Edited July 1, 2015 by stemelbow

[Tacenda]

go home you're drunk 

It didn't dawn on me until MF said that, but he's right! You, out of probably a few million get a letter? Bingo, your a winner! Wait...was it a stamped signature or his own hand written? Just joshing it's still the same.

But very tempted to write a letter just to hear from my former bishop turned stake president that has totally ignored me since coming out to him with my faith crisis.

[Duncan]

It didn't dawn on me until MF said that, but he's right! You, out of probably a few million get a letter? Bingo, your a winner! Wait...was it a stamped signature or his own hand written? Just joshing it's still the same.

But very tempted to write a letter just to hear from my former bishop turned stake president that has totally ignored me since coming out to him with my faith crisis.

 

 

do it! it never even occurred to me at all that this letter is a sign of God's love! 

[thesometimesaint]

So what will happen to you in twenty to thirty years when the Church's inspired leaders are still actively teaching marriage between man and woman and that homosexuality is sin?

 

You seem to think that God's laws (or our understanding of them) will merge or catch-up with the values embraced by the world, in these the latter days. That contradicts the scriptures, as I understand them.

 

If I live that long it won't bother me a bit. I still consider it a sin, but not punishable by law. I'm well over the age of consent to drink alcohol, and/or use tobacco. There is nothing in the law that prevents me from doing both. Nor should there be.

 

We are not nor have we ever been Scriptural literalist. We depend on modern day Prophets, Seers, and Revelator's for Gods word to his Church in this day.

SEE Articles of Faith #9

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[mfbukowski]

Hey, at least, "That ... that ... dude [don't] look[ ] like a lady!"  (Well, actually, maybe he does ... a really ugly one ...)

 

His former wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Jagger

"You're so vain- you probably think this song is about you..."

[Auggybendoggy]

Buckeye, thanks for the info.

[Kenngo1969]

Can someone tell me what is "OW"?

Sure: it's an interjection or exclamation often uttered when someone experiences an unforeseen event resulting in pain.

 

 (Sorry; Couldn't resist!)

[Auggybendoggy]

  funny.

[Auggybendoggy]

In protestant circles, I def hear the love the sinner, hate the sin mantra.  But it seems to me that it's more love the sinner even though they've got an agenda against us and they're going to burn in hell for their wickedness.  Makes it hard for me to believe they really "love" them.

[Kenngo1969]

In protestant circles, I def hear the love the sinner, hate the sin mantra.  But it seems to me that it's more love the sinner even though they've got an agenda against us and they're going to burn in hell for their wickedness.  Makes it hard for me to believe they really "love" them.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with the the "even though they've got an agenda against us" phrase.  It's true that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are charged with the unenviable, often unpleasant task of not suffering wolves to enter in among the flock: that includes minimizing the damage that someone whose agenda includes attempting unauthorized change from within otherwise might do.

 

What I will call "mere sin" (to differentiate it from someone whose agenda might harm the Church as an institution) is another matter.  All sins, great or small, separate us from God, and "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," to use Paul's phrase.  Too many people, however, want to abandon God and become comfortable with sin rather than abandoning sin in order to become comfortable with God.  That said, one of our leaders, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Church's First Presidency, has encouraged us to not judge others unduly or harshly simply because they sin differently than we do.  Sometimes, attempting to love the sinner is the rough equivalent of trying to hug a porcupine: some sinners make it easier to love them than others.  Where one's heart is makes a huge difference.

 

As for going to hell, it's really hard to do that in Mormon soteriology.  We don't hold to a simple Heaven-hell dichotomy.  Going to "hell" would require turning utterly against God after having received a sure, undeniable witness of His divinity (someone like, for example, Joseph Smith: see Joseph Smith-History 1:25, available here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.25).  Everyone else will receive a kingdom of glory, whether celestial, terrestrial, or telestial (see Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians15:40, available here: http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/108).

Edited July 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Bobbieaware]

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.

If you had gone a little farther in the quote from Moses 7, it goes on to say God manifests his love to those for whom he is crying by thrusting their spirits into hell for about three thousand years, where they will suffer for their sins (not atone for their sins -- only Christ can do that) in the hope that by the time Christ makes his atoning sacrifice they will be chastened enough to be ready and willing to come unto the Savior and repent. God's love can seem harsh, but it is calculated to bring about the best possible results and the greatest degree of salvation possible for each individual. Here's the part you left out:

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?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands. (Moses7)

Context is important.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Auggybendoggy]

 

Sometimes, attempting to love the sinner is the rough equivalent of trying to hug a porcupine: some sinners make it easier to love them than others.  Where one's heart is makes a huge difference.

Well said. 

I only meant that often I hear a mean spirit amongst Christians.  My guess is that it's like everyone else in the world, some kind, some not so kind, some hateful. 

I totally agree however that loving our enemies can be quite a task.