What if it's ALL true?

[canard78]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like your angle.

But I do have one question.  Your post seems to imply that even if everything is true, you still can't conceive of anyway that the concept of God being just could be true.  

I say that because parts of your post (bolded above) clearly blame God, should you end up having chosen wrong.  You seem to be saying that, while you would accept whatever eternity holds, it wouldn't really be fair and that if God had only been a better Father/God, you would have a different outcome.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on 'what if it's all true' that don't ignore the 'God is merciful and just' doctrine that the LDS church is built on.

Hi, thanks for the genuine and fair questions. 

If God is entirely the deity that Mormonism describes, then you're right that he will also have to be merciful and just (because Mormonism says so). If so, then it's not possible that the actions he's taken will be unfair. Having said that, if it's all true and if there's a final judgement, I will still want to understand why he designed it in this way.

From the point of view of one who no longer trusts that feelings are a reliable source of truth, given they appear to lead to such an array of contradictory beliefs, I'll be keen to gain an understanding of why God did it that way anyway (assuming that's the case).

From my point of view, today, Mormonism is very difficult to believe in. There are many aspects that appear to have internal conflicts. There are many things that have barely any supporting evidence, beyond "I feel it's right."

I spent many years studying, pondering and praying about whether it was right or not. In the end, in prayer, I reached the conclusion that it was not right. If Mormonism is right, then the very system that God designed for discovering its truthfulness was also the process that led me to conclude it is not.

Fair or not, I'll still be keen to understand the logic behind that approach, if it's true.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Why not? Will the question even need to be asked, and if so, will it actually be answered or will it be discovered?

This (bolded) is why I point to "discovery."

If it all turns out to be true, I'll certainly want to ask the question. I suppose if all the books are opened and every sin is shouted from the rooftops etc, we won't need to ask, we can just check in on that big show. 

I'm not sure what your pointing to "discovery" means. Please clarify that a bit. I'm interested to know what you mean by that.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"A bright recollection of all our guilt" That could certainly be a possibility. But that wasn't my point. My memory of what I've done in my life isn't a fog or filled with rosy pictures. When you're married and have free spoken children, those rosy pictures are often shattered with a simple, "No, that wasn't what happened at all."

My take on it is that much like a runner who knows he/she is outclassed, isn't heartbroken when he/she looses a race. There are people who act and proclaim their goal to the highest of salvations (and this whole thread is devoted to the idea that that, somehow, is going to be the reality). I imagine those who announce such as their goal will be extremely disheartened if they fail to make the grade (because they overlooked some essential issue or stumbled at the finish line).

Me, I'm quite content to pace myself. I live my life with a goal not featured in an afterlife, but to live it in the here and now. I spend time and money on working with refugees and handicapped. If that doesn't measure up to some external standard, I'm not going to cry buckets in self deprecation or even to fear supposed penalties for goals missed. I am content with my decisions

On the other hand, you quote scripture. The Bible has dozens, many dozens, of verses concerning the afterlife and the day of judgment. Painters like Michelangelo, and a whole host of medieval painters, preachers, priests and scaremongers have tried to portray an awaiting doom for those who have not done well in life. Current day hellfire and damnation preachers also revel in screaming out a doctrine of fear. They glory in defining the utmost of gory details of eyes being poked out by fiery spears and the sinner's innards torn out from living bodies, all in an attempt to bring the sinner to repentance through fear of damnation.

How's that going for them?  Are those preachers gaining ground? Are people turning from their sinful ways to strive for a better judgment. Judging from world news and internet tubers posting pictures of wild fests in LAs Vegas, I think the fear of damnation is not gaining much ground.

Back to the question. What will be the end result of getting to the afterlife and finding everything taught by Joseph Smith was 100% correct, or finding that 100% of everything taught from the GA's mouths was the complete truth? From me, a shrug of my shoulders. I lost a race I refused to participate in. It's like scraping a lottery ticket to find out you didn't win the big prize. A fleeting disappointment that goes over like a puff of wind. 

LDS doctrine says that you will be rewarded for all of the good that you do in this life. While there are warnings against the evil deeds, the overall message is one of hope. A person can quote scripture to make just about any point he or she wishes. So I will quote another scripture that is pertinent to my comment. "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you." (John 14:2)

As to your final comment, if the doctrines of the LDS church are all true, there will be many people like you, who have refused to participate for whatever reason. And all of those will receive their just reward. But the Gospel is not like scratching a lottery ticket where the odds of winning are slim, stacked in favor of those who are running the lottery. The Gospel is set up so that anyone who has ever lived, who is now living, and who ever will live have the same chance of exaltation. The requirements are not onerous. There are a few ordinances required, and a few simple rules to follow. And everyone that avails themselves of the ordinances and follows the rules will be able to make it.

As I noted in my earlier post, the stumbling block for so many is the lack of faith. That is the first principal of the Gospel and "without faith no man pleaseth God." (D&C 63:11) I have no idea what the Kingdom of Heaven will be like. None. I only have faith that what God has in store for me will be worth any efforts I might make.

However, I do not think that a person can realistically say just what they will do when face to face with the Savior. But I do not believe that there will be any diffident shrugs of the shoulder, if the doctrines of the LDS church are all true.

Glenn

 

 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Despite your misunderstanding of some main LDS doctrines (like the relationship between faith and works and the Atonement), I think it's awesome that you were willing to actually answer the question.  Most of the posters who have replied on this thread haven't been able to even mentally go there.  

Per your last question, definitely not outer darkness or Telestial kingdom (if you've represented yourself accurately here).  Possibly terrestrial or celestial.  No LDS person worth anything would ever actually try to judge where you'll end up in the eternities though.  None of us have enough information to do so.

I agree with you here bluebell.  But so many have decided exactly where I will end up.  That must be the one thing an LDS person knows enough about.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

If it all turns out to be true, I'll certainly want to ask the question. I suppose if all the books are opened and every sin is shouted from the rooftops etc, we won't need to ask, we can just check in on that big show. 

I'm not sure what your pointing to "discovery" means. Please clarify that a bit. I'm interested to know what you mean by that.

By discovery I mean that such things will not need to be asked or explained because we’ll have the full picture right there in front of us. Right now a lack of that bigger picture, and bias, can affect how things appear, but I think in the afterlife, everything (the good, the bad and the ugly) is readily available for all to see.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

 if it's all true and if there's a final judgement, I will still want to understand why he designed it in this way.

I think this is a bit different than discovering what happened in mortality because it is more a function of remembering what we had known before mortality, and why we came.

[bcuzbcuz]

28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

LDS doctrine says that you will be rewarded for all of the good that you do in this life. While there are warnings against the evil deeds, the overall message is one of hope. A person can quote scripture to make just about any point he or she wishes. So I will quote another scripture that is pertinent to my comment. "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you." (John 14:2)

As to your final comment, if the doctrines of the LDS church are all true, there will be many people like you, who have refused to participate for whatever reason. And all of those will receive their just reward. But the Gospel is not like scratching a lottery ticket where the odds of winning are slim, stacked in favor of those who are running the lottery. The Gospel is set up so that anyone who has ever lived, who is now living, and who ever will live have the same chance of exaltation. The requirements are not onerous. There are a few ordinances required, and a few simple rules to follow. And everyone that avails themselves of the ordinances and follows the rules will be able to make it.

As I noted in my earlier post, the stumbling block for so many is the lack of faith. That is the first principal of the Gospel and "without faith no man pleaseth God." (D&C 63:11) I have no idea what the Kingdom of Heaven will be like. None. I only have faith that what God has in store for me will be worth any efforts I might make.

However, I do not think that a person can realistically say just what they will do when face to face with the Savior. But I do not believe that there will be any diffident shrugs of the shoulder, if the doctrines of the LDS church are all true.

Glenn

 

 

I always enjoy reading your comments. But you do have your blind spots.

Your comment, "There are a Few Ordinances Required, and a Few Simple Rules to Follow", conceals everything from temple ordinances to coffee and tea. The churches 50,000 missionaries are not permitted into many countries of the world. The church does not have access to the vital statistics of billions of deceased from many countries. (Many, many countries do not keep sufficient records, in many muslim countires grave markers are outright forbidden)

I'd say those ordinances were like the "eye of a needle" except that would probably upset some of the wealthy Mormons.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree with you here bluebell.  But so many have decided exactly where I will end up.  That must be the one thing an LDS person knows enough about.

Thank goodness those types won't be in charge of actually judging anyone!

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/18/2016 at 10:41 AM, SteveO said:

Are you really going to pretend you don't know the answer to this?  Read the title page of the BoM.

Humor me.....I am pleading ignorance.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Humor me.....I am pleading ignorance.

[The Lord] re­minds us, in the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants, “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known” (D&C1:24-25). This is a remarkably complete and sobering inventory of the problems involved in putting God’s knowledge of the universe into human language and then having it understood. It should make us careful about claiming too much for “the gospel,” which is not the perfect principles or natural laws themselves—or God’s perfect knowledge of those things—but is merely the closest approximation that in­spired but limited mortals can receive.

Even after a revelation is received and expressed by a prophet, it has to be understood, taught, translated into other languages, and expressed in programs, manuals, sermons, and essays—in a word, interpreted. And that means that at least one more set of limitations of language and world-view enters in. I always find it perplexing when someone asks a teacher or speaker if what she is saying is the pure gospel or merely her own interpretation. Everything anyone says is essentially an in­terpretation. Even simply reading the scriptures to others in­volves interpretation, in choosing both what to read in a par­ticular circumstance and how to read it (tone and emphasis). Beyond that point, anything we do becomes less and less “au­thoritative” as we move into explication and application of the scriptures, that is, as we teach “the gospel.”

Yes, I know that the Holy Ghost can give strokes of pure in­telligence to the speaker and bear witness of truth to the hearer. I have experienced both of these lovely, reassuring gifts. But such gifts, which guarantee the overall guidance of the Church in the way the Lord intends and provide guidance, often of a remarkably clear nature, to individuals, still do not override individuality and agency. They are not exempt from the limitations of human language and moral perception that the Lord describes in the passage quoted above, and thus they cannot impose universal acceptance and understanding.

--Eugene England

Emphasis is mine

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Your comment, "There are a Few Ordinances Required, and a Few Simple Rules to Follow", conceals everything from temple ordinances to coffee and tea. The churches 50,000 missionaries are not permitted into many countries of the world. The church does not have access to the vital statistics of billions of deceased from many countries. (Many, many countries do not keep sufficient records, in many muslim countires grave markers are outright forbidden)

I'd say those ordinances were like the "eye of a needle" except that would probably upset some of the wealthy Mormons.

What you say is absolutely correct. Add to that the millions, maybe billions that have lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel about Jesus Christ whose names are lost to the records of this world. Knowing that the sealing power and the ability to do vicarious work for those who have passed the mortal portal without benefit of those saving ordinances, that vicarious work will be done, either through perspiration (research) and inspiration. After all, there is going to be a thousand years with Jesus Christ ruling personally on tis earth. No wars to fight. No poor. We are going to have to have something to do. From what I have heard over the years from LDS general conferences and such, getting this work done will be the primary focus of the church in the millennium.

I truly have a lot of blind spots. There are a lot of things I do not know. That is where faith comes in.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

Even after death? Will the truth of whether blacks were denied the priesthood based on human bias or godly command still only be answered through feelings?

That has already been documented as a mistake and the church has admitted it.  Where have you been?

And no, I do not pretend to know what will happen after death.  I use the church's model because I think it is a useful model that makes sense and I have a testimony that living the principles of the church are confirmed, in my opinion, by God's personal revelation to me.  It coheres well with other beliefs I have about humanism- that we should be the best humans we can be and that worshiping an Idealized Human whom we regard as our "Father" makes sense as a perfect Archetype worthy of worship.

[theplains]

On 18/12/2016 at 0:35 AM, JLHPROF said:

What if ALL recorded official/semi-official teachings and doctrines of Mormonism turn out to be absolutely true?

But just for kicks, what if you get to the other side and find out everything taught over the pulpit by the prophets and apostles was true.  What if they were absolutely right on the realities of eternity?
Is truth more important than feelings?

If they turn out to be absolutely true, then I would be wrong in mortality, but I would have the opportunity
to hear the true gospel again in the spirit world after I die.  But if some key teachings of LDS theology (like
Heavenly Father and Jesus becoming gods and a second chance after death) are wrong, then the person
is lost because they have followed a false god.

Feelings can deceive people. You can feel good about being a Buddhist or Hindu, but that won't help you.

Many Jews failed to enter the Promised Land when they fell into disobedience in the desert. They failed
to enter "God's rest" (Hebrews 3:18).

Thanks,
Jim

[canard78]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That has already been documented as a mistake and the church has admitted it.  Where have you been?

And no, I do not pretend to know what will happen after death.  I use the church's model because I think it is a useful model that makes sense and I have a testimony that living the principles of the church are confirmed, in my opinion, by God's personal revelation to me.  It coheres well with other beliefs I have about humanism- that we should be the best humans we can be and that worshiping an Idealized Human whom we regard as our "Father" makes sense as a perfect Archetype worthy of worship.

The church has admitted and documented that the ban itself was a mistake? 

Where? Not here.

[Peppermint Patty]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That has already been documented as a mistake and the church has admitted it.  Where have you been?

CFR

[JLHPROF]

Still more focus on the next life than this one.
A lot of "well, if I get there and find out I'll accept it (or not)".

What about those who discover HERE in mortality that something they fundamentally disagree with is actually God's truth?
We ask faithful members on a daily basis, what will you do if it is shown to be false.
I am asking critics and doubters, what would you do if something you fundamentally disagreed with was shown to be true.

What if it was possible to prove to those on this board who hate polygamy that it really came from God?
What if it was possible to prove to those who support SSM that God really despises it?
What if it was possible to prove to the scientific community that a global flood happened?
What if it was possible to prove that Brigham was right about his teachings

What should their step be?  Why is it always the members who have to answer the question "what would you do if you found out you were wrong?"

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, canard78 said:

The church has admitted and documented that the ban itself was a mistake? 

Where? Not here.

Close enough for me, I don't know how else to interpret this

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

CFR

See above.  Their previous position was racist.  Now they unequivocally condemn past racism.

If that is NOT an admission of a mistake, then I don't know what to call it.

Edited December 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

See above.  Their previous position was racist.  Now they unequivocally condemn past racism.

If that is NOT an admission of a mistake, then I don't know what to call it.

That's the beauty of the church's essay. You can read as disavowing the ban itself, while members like Scott Lloyd can cling to the belief the ban was from God. The church gets it both ways. In 40 years the church can unequivocally disavow the ban, point back to this essay and say nothing has changed. </derail>

Edited December 20, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cdowis]

del

Edited December 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Physics Guy]

A global flood would be a geological shocker, and it would make me decide that the Biblical Noah story was more closely based on a historical event than I had thought. I don't know the teachings of Brigham Young. 

I can't imagine how to prove that polygamy was from God, or that God despises same-sex marriage, other than by somehow hearing God say so directly. If that happens, then we're in a next-world scenario one way or another.

When I talk about God, as a non-Mormon Christian, I mean the ultimate being who is the author of all reality. The Mormon God is not that being, but only an exalted mortal who was himself originally created by an earlier deity. And so if all Mormon teachings were true, to me the Mormon God would still not really be God, but only something like a super-powered alien who happened to control the planet on which I was born. I would be unhappy to discover this situation, because to me the Mormon God seems very immoral. I would hope that the real God might some day deliver me from him.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That's the beauty of the church's essay. You can read as disavowing the ban itself, while members like Scott Lloyd can cling to the belief the ban was from God. The church gets it both ways. In 40 years the church can unequivocally disavow the ban, point back to this essay and say nothing has changed. </derail>

I have no problem with that.  Both paradigms need to be satisfied and this statement does it admirably.  I think the church is finally figuring out how to do PR.

The task was to harmonize the paradigms and they pulled it off well.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

A global flood would be a geological shocker, and it would make me decide that the Biblical Noah story was more closely based on a historical event than I had thought. I don't know the teachings of Brigham Young. 

I can't imagine how to prove that polygamy was from God, or that God despises same-sex marriage, other than by somehow hearing God say so directly. If that happens, then we're in a next-world scenario one way or another.

When I talk about God, as a non-Mormon Christian, I mean the ultimate being who is the author of all reality. The Mormon God is not that being, but only an exalted mortal who was himself originally created by an earlier deity. And so if all Mormon teachings were true, to me the Mormon God would still not really be God, but only something like a super-powered alien who happened to control the planet on which I was born. I would be unhappy to discover this situation, because to me the Mormon God seems very immoral. I would hope that the real God might some day deliver me from him.

An interesting statement from someone who calls himself "Physics Guy".

What is the physical evidence for your "real God" as opposed for our super powered alien who is immoral?

Using Occams Razor, which is more likely- a real alien we see as God or a transcendent spirit no one can see or imagine who fills the universe but can dwell in our hearts?

How do you do an experiment to find that "real" God?  And how about defining the Trinity in physical terms?   What kind of substance is "Substance" as in "consubstantial"? 

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Still more focus on the next life than this one.
A lot of "well, if I get there and find out I'll accept it (or not)".

What about those who discover HERE in mortality that something they fundamentally disagree with is actually God's truth?
We ask faithful members on a daily basis, what will you do if it is shown to be false.
I am asking critics and doubters, what would you do if something you fundamentally disagreed with was shown to be true.

What if it was possible to prove to those on this board who hate polygamy that it really came from God?
What if it was possible to prove to those who support SSM that God really despises it?
What if it was possible to prove to the scientific community that a global flood happened?
What if it was possible to prove that Brigham was right about his teachings

What should their step be?  Why is it always the members who have to answer the question "what would you do if you found out you were wrong?"

I'll leave Brigham out of this conversation, I know so little about him.

But I'll take the others in reverse order. A global flood? If there was one, God has done a magnificent job of hiding all the pertinent bits of evidence. If there was a global flood, then it would mean that all those who have never bothered to study a scientific text on geology but who buy into any of the nutcase arguments on the internet about the Grand Canyon being evidence of such a flood, would be right.

I can accept being wrong. It happens all the time. But the only way you could prove a global flood to the scientific community is by forcibly making them jump through a million series of mental gymnastic hoops. Opposition would either be bought out or shut up. 

But, if given your premise, that on that last day, the final judgment, God springs it on everyone: "Guess what? There really was a global flood." My response would be a slow drawl of, "Well, I'll be d_ _ _ _d." And fully expect to be.

If God declares, I mean, officially declares  that he despises SSM (or did you mean homosexuality), then I'll go stand with those I know who are in that group and say, "I prefer to be here."

Polygamy? I went through the temple the first time in 1964. It was the Salt Lake City temple. I was married in the Bern, Switzerland temple. Nobody said anything about polygamy the whole time I was there. Nor did they say anything in the London temple, nor in the Provo temple. Maybe I just went to the wrong temples or I failed to listen carefully enough to somewhat obscure messages about polygamy.

I married one wife and swore fidelity to one person. Was all that misguided loyalties and poppycock? If God declares that he really does endorse polygamy, my answer is clear. "No thanks. Not for me," He can't force me, can he?

You seem not to be hearing what I'm saying. If 'free will' really is a principle, I can choose, of my own free will, NOT to be in the circle of people where polygamy is required, where love for a person of the same sex is despised, where science needs to be twisted to be 'true'. I can choose who I want to be with and be content about my choice. The members of my family would also be free to choose where they want to be and cannot force any other family members to be in a group they don't want to be in. Once those choices are stated, then the rules apply: You choose such, therefore you can only go . .. .. ..

I'm good with that.

You're expecting wailing and gnashing of teeth? Sorry to disappoint.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Close enough for me, I don't know how else to interpret this

I think if the Church said, "We made a mistake," I would interpret it that way. But presiding over the same living organization by virtue of the same keys, I’m not sure how the Brethren can rightly admit in behalf of their predecessors that they made a mistake in using them. While they condemn racism, that is with regards to the theories that justified the ban, and not presiding over the ban itself.

That may be a fine line, but it is consistent with Elder Oak’s observations on the subject of apology (see the paragraph beginning with “Mormons have generally apologized…” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary ) where he points out the practical difficulties in accurately identifying others’ past mistakes. I’m not sure they know enough about who did what with the keys to establish and administer the ban. Through which lens are the Brethren to gather the facts?

It is also consistent with his reported statement (The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them") and the quote, "I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them… We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward." http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

I think if I were passing through the pearly gates, the last thing I 'd be seeking is an apology...