Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Stormin' Mormon]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What is the eternal state of a person who does not ever accept Mormonism's doctrine and ordinances?

A Kingdom of Glory.

Edited January 25 by Stormin' Mormon

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

A Kingdom of Glory.

Nice dodge. 

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This is a rhetorical flourish, not an analytical calculation.  Based on the quote I cited from Stephen Robinson (twice now), I was making the point that Historical Christianity has a glass that is more than half full.  I could have chosen any number between 51% and 99% to make the same point.   

Pray do tell us then. What truths would a convert from Islam or Catholicism be able to bring with them if they converted.  What would they have to leave behind.  Your pithy comment that about someone who does not accept Mormonism gets a kingdom of glory is really rather disingenuous.  They get less than the best so they must be missing something majorly important.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

We may have the fullness of the Gospel, meaning what knowledge God has deemed necessary for mortal man to know so as to be able to return to his presence,

I think many critics and those not of our faith, and even some who are of our faith, materially misunderstand the Church's claims regarding "the fullness of the Gospel," or of it being the "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30), or else its other exclusivistic claims. 

For example, Joshua appears to construe the Church's claims on these matterss as being equivalent the Latter-day Saints asserting they "are the only people on earth who possess the complete truth."  "Complete."  This just ain't so.

First, one of the most basic tenets of our faith, one of the "Articles of Faith," posits that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (AoF 1:9).  Ipso facto, we cannot be said to claim to have "the complete truth."

Second, the broad scriptural definition of "truth" is "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24).  The Church has never taught, either explicitly or implicitly, that it has received "the complete truth," and in fact has specifically disclaimed this (in, inter alia, the Ninth Article of Faith).

Third, the Church has never claimed to be the sole receptable of light and truth from God.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Mormon view of truth is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean truth is limited to the Mormon experience. As Elder D. Todd Christofferson said, “Truth is scattered liberally across the globe.”[5] And it was Joseph Smith who encouraged us to “get all the good in the world”[6] and to “receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[7] Truth has many aspects — spiritual, physical, philosophical, historical — and in the end they all fit together into one great whole.

President Hugh B. Brown, then a member of the Church’s First Presidency, said in 1969 that even with the Church’s many important and unique truths, “there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers — that we in fact have a corner on truth. For we do not.”[8]

Indeed, as one Mormon scripture teaches, God “will yet reveal many great and important things.”[9]

The Mormon approach to truth trusts in the unchanging truths of the gospel while acknowledging the many unknowns. Mormon general authority B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) taught that this Church was established “for the instruction of men,” and God “is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place.”[10]

In that spirit, the First Presidency made the following statement in 1978: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” [11]

So, according to Roberts, “God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend.” Thus, he continues, “wherever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, lo! he makes of him a teacher of men.”[12]

Because truth is scattered among all nations and peoples, Mormons believe in learning “out of the best books”[13] of things that “have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and perplexities of the nations, … and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms.” [14] Such knowledge helps Latter-day Saints be not only better citizens and neighbors but also better Mormons.

An expansive vision of truth can bring more depth, clarity and love into our lives and make us more willing to listen, more able to understand and more inclined to build up rather than tear down.

• "'Truth is scattered liberally across the globe.'"
• "'{G}et all the good in the world.'"
• "'{R}eceive truth, let it come from whence it may.'"
• "{T}here is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover.'"
• "'Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know.'"
• "'It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers — that we in fact have a corner on truth. For we do not.'"
• "{T}he Church was established 'for the instruction of men,' and God 'is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place.'"
• "'The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.'"
• "'God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend.'"
• "'{W}herever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, lo! he makes of him a teacher of men.'"
• "{Latter-day Saints} believe in learning 'out of the best books' of things that 'have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and perplexities of the nations, … and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms.'"
• "An expansive vision of truth can bring more depth, clarity and love into our lives."

These statements are generally incompatible with Joshua's characterization of Latter-day Saint doctrine and belief.

Fourth, to the extent certain claims by the Church, such as the Book of Mormon containing the "fulness of the Gospel" and the declaration in D&C 1:30 that the Church is the "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth," there are plenty of resources which explain and clarify these things, both from the Church and from faithful Latter-day Saints.  A sampling:

• Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry: True and Living Church
• Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry: Fulness of the Gospel
• John Walsh: Does the Book of Mormon Teach the 'Fulness of the Gospel'?
• Dean B. Farnsworth: Fullness of the Gospel
• Book of Mormon Central: If the Book of Mormon Contains the Fullness of the Gospel, Why Does It Not Contain Many Distinctive Latter-day Saint Teachings?
• BYU Studies article by Michael A. Goodman: “Oh Say, What Is Truth?”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Why would God want to give less.

Why look on it as less instead of different?  Just because someone has less of the gospel doesn’t mean they aren’t abundantly blessed in other areas including ones that bring them close to God just as the gospel does.  Just because someone has the gospel doesn’t mean they are skilled or gifted in communicating with God.

I assume two possibilities for the differences in gospel exposure in mortality.  I am going for a simple development (for me at least) to avoid being too confusing.

First could be God does this because different individuals need to learn different things and most need to develop certain skills/gifts that cannot be learned as effectively within the context that the fullness of the gospel provides because they are meant to develop the uniqueness of the individual and that means going without God’s assistance as much as possible.

The second possibility is based in part on my personal belief it is likely that post life learning from our mortal experience will be done vicariously by somehow sharing our experiences with each other.  The experiences of living with or without the fullness of the gospel are going to be both necessary, but will be fully available to everyone so in the end it doesn’t matter that some had less of the gospel during mortality.

As to why God didn’t ensure that everyone or even just a majority had the gospel available since we teach life is better with the gospel and surely God would want the best life possible for his children, I believe mortality is to a great extent about learning what life without being up close and personal with the Father would be like so when it’s time to make our fully informed choice of accepting God’s gifts of salvation and exaltation, we will know exactly what that means.  So I believe God likely went with the minimum needed to be exposed to the Gospel rather than the maximum so all of us would have as much separation from God as we could handle and benefit from during mortality as an effective contrast to what was likely imo a very immediate and inclusive relationship we had with God in the preexistence.   We likely will have that closeness again to some extent after death before the learning period is over with due to the veil being lifted and our pre earth memories being restored…which will likely restored much of our relationship with God, so mortality is the only time really where such a separation can take place without lasting eternal consequences.  And my guess is if there were much more experiencing the gospel in mortality, there would be much more revelation being received and spiritual skills developed just as the rate of scientific knowledge has increased with more people getting a scientific education.  By God’s laws, he can’t hold back blessings if we have done all that is required to receive them, so an earth full of Saints would be flooded with his spiritual presence such as happened in the City of Enoch and after Christ’s visit resulted in there being no more “-ites” among the Nephites and Lamanites for a time.  That spiritual flood would negate part of the purpose of earth life, to experience separation from God so we can then have the chance to accept of reject his gifts fully understanding the consequences.
 

Back to the vicarious memory sharing concept, I also believe having a majority of mortal experiences for us to engage with while learning or processing prior to the final judgment that are from the POV of a more limited spiritual connection with God is the most beneficial because we likely had eons of intimate association with God in the past, so we need a goodly amount of experience without him to give a fair judgment of what it would truly be like.

As the scriptures say, to know the sweet we must know the bitter.  The best way to know the value of having the spirit of God with us imo, to know the importance and effect of the Gift of the Holy Ghost among other things, is to include a time of not having access to it in our experience and to require us to have to work for it when we do have access to it.

Hope that makes sense….

Edited January 25 by Calm

[Nofear]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think many critics and those not of our faith, and even some who are of our faith, materially misunderstand the Church's claims regarding "the fullness of the Gospel," or of it being the "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30), or else its other exclusivistic claims. 

For example, Joshua appears to construe the Church's claims on these matterss as being equivalent the Latter-day Saints asserting they "are the only people on earth who possess the complete truth."  "Complete."  This just ain't so.

 

An interesting thing about our faith (and Christianity) today is that we are much more tolerant of other's having some understanding of reality than other belief systems -- like say atheism. That belief system actively asserts that most of humanity is deluded or otherwise incorrect. Our faith and Christianity is much, much more generous and liberal in its thinking.

Quote

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe.  If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through.  If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.  If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.  When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.  But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong..  As in arithmetic – there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

The first big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not.  On this point, Christianity lines up with the majority – lines up with ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans [sic], etc., against the modern Western European materialists. (C. S. Lewis, “The Rival Conceptions of God,” in Mere Christianity)

As quoted by Dr. Peterson's recent blog post (Something Christians don't need to believe).

A tangent for the thread, but based on the recent comment I thought to share.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Pray do tell us then. What truths would a convert from Islam or Catholicism be able to bring with them if they converted.  What would they have to leave behind.  Your pithy comment that about someone who does not accept Mormonism gets a kingdom of glory is really rather disingenuous.  They get less than the best so they must be missing something majorly important.

I like this quote from what I referenced earlier:

Quote

Thus all persons are on their own pilgrimages back to their Heavenly Father. All of us who were reserved for and born in these latter days are working on an aspect of our spirituality that our Heavenly Father knew we needed to hone. Perhaps I am a Latter-day Saint because I need to learn how to serve. Perhaps a Hindu is learning how to unite himself or herself with God. Perhaps a Buddhist is learning how to let go of the things of the world. Perhaps a Muslim is learning how to live an ethical life before God. Perhaps a Jew is learning how to obey the law of God. And many more scenarios could be developed.

https://rsc.byu.edu/light-truth/why-bother-other-faiths#_note-1

If any of the above converted, they can bring the spiritual gifts and skills and knowledge they have already developed through the teachings of their former faiths to their practices of the gospel though the implications of these gifts will be altered as they grow in spiritual knowledge just as a Saint’s understanding of the gospel changes as they grown more familiar with it.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

CFR, please, that Latter-day Saints claim to be "the only people on earth who possess the complete truth" (emphasis on the "complete" bit).

What is the eternal state of a person who does not ever accept Mormonism's doctrine and ordinances?

First, that's not responsive to my CFR.

Second, I think your question is too broad, to the point of it being difficult to answer.  Does is apply to people who never accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ ever, either now or after death?  Does it apply to people who never hear about the Gospel, and thus lack any meaningful opportunity in this life to "accept" it?  Is your referenced non-acceptance a matter of choice, or circumstance?

Third, even the most wicked of us (apart from the Sons of Perdition) will receive the Telestial Kingdom, which "{a}lthough the least of the degrees of glory, yet {it} 'surpasses all understanding' (D&C 76:89)."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your pithy comment that about someone who does not accept Mormonism gets a kingdom of glory is really rather disingenuous.  

How is this disingenuous?  It is the actual, literal doctrine of the Church.  From the most recent General Conference:

Quote

The revealed doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all the children of God—with exceptions too limited to consider here—will ultimately inherit one of three kingdoms of glory, even the least of which “surpasses all understanding.”

That's a better deal than is being offered by any other religion I know of.  If you think a Kingdom of Glory is worse than everlasting hellfire and damnation, then I don't know what else to tell you.  

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Pray do tell us then. What truths would a convert from Islam or Catholicism be able to bring with them if they converted.  

I'm not an expert on Islam, by any means, but it seems that of the Five Pillars of Islam, at least one of them can be carried with the convert wholesale into their new LDS life, without modification (the giving of alms).  Another two (prayer and fasting) exist within the restored Gospel of Christ, though in a different fashion. They have plenty that is good and wholesome and true that would fit at home within an LDS context. Why one earth do you think they do not? 

Nor am I an expert in Catholicism, but do they not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the savior of the world? That marriage between a man and a woman is a holy sacrament, with spiritual as well as civil responsibilities?  Don't they include the anointing of the sick as one of their seven enumerated sacraments?  They too espouse many true doctrines and practices.  Why on earth do you think they do not?

What a bizarre question!  

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why look on it as less instead of different?  Just because someone has less of the gospel doesn’t mean they aren’t abundantly blessed in other areas including ones that bring them close to God just as the gospel does.  Just because someone has the gospel doesn’t mean they are skilled or gifted in communicating with God.

I assume two possibilities for the differences in gospel exposure in mortality.  I am going for a simple development (for me at least) to avoid being too confusing.

First could be God does this because different individuals need to learn different things and most need to develop certain skills/gifts that cannot be learned as effectively within the context of the fullness of the gospel provides because they are meant to develop the uniqueness of the individual and that means going without God’s assistance as much as possible.

The second possibility is based in part on my personal belief it is likely that post life learning from our mortal experience will be done vicariously by somehow sharing our experiences with each other.  The experiences of living with or without the fullness of the gospel are going to be both necessary, but will be fully available to everyone so in the end it doesn’t matter that some had less of the gospel during mortality.

As to why God didn’t ensure that everyone or even just a majority had the gospel available since we teach life is better with the gospel and surely God would want the best life possible for his children, I believe mortality is to a great extent about learning what life without being up close and personal with the Father would be like so when it’s time to make our fully informed choice of accepting God’s gifts of salvation and exaltation, we will know exactly what that means.  So I believe God likely went with the minimum needed to be exposed to the Gospel rather than the maximum so all of us would have as much separation from God as we could handle and benefit from during mortality as an effective contrast to what was likely imo a very immediate and inclusive relationship we had with God in the preexistence.   We likely will have that closeness again to some extent after death before the learning period is over with due to the veil being lifted and our pre earth memories being restored…which will likely restored much of our relationship with God, so mortality is the only time really where such a separation can take place without lasting eternal consequences.  And my guess is if there were much more experiencing the gospel in mortality, there would be much more revelation being received and spiritual skills developed just as the rate of scientific knowledge has increased with more people getting a scientific education.  By God’s laws, he can’t hold back blessings if we have done all that is required to receive them, so an earth full of Saints would be flooded with his spiritual presence such as happened in the City of Enoch and after Christ’s visit resulted in there being no more “-ites” among the Nephites and Lamanites for a time.  That spiritual flood would negate part of the purpose of earth life, to experience separation from God so we can then have the chance to accept of reject his gifts fully understanding the consequences.
 

Back to the vicarious memory sharing concept, I also believe having a majority of mortal experiences for us to engage with while learning or processing prior to the final judgment that are from the POV of a more limited spiritual connection with God is the most beneficial because we likely had eons of intimate association with God in the past, so we need a goodly amount of experience without him to give a fair judgment of what it would truly be like.

As the scriptures say, to know the sweet we must know the bitter.  The best way to know the value of having the spirit of God with us imo, to know the importance and effect of the Gift of the Holy Ghost among other things, is to include a time of not having access to it in our experience and to require us to have to work for it when we do have access to it.

Hope that makes sense….

Well honestly, this is simply your own speculation to make a sense of a seriously flawed plan to redeem humans.  And you do it to make it work in your understanding based on your belief that Mormonism if God's true religion. So no, respectfully, this does not make sense.  The main reason is because none of it appeals to common sense IMO.  Not trying to be rude. Just sharing what I think.  It seems to me that only a cruel being would set up such a system.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What is the eternal state of a person who does not ever accept Mormonism's doctrine and ordinances?

Their eternal existence will be the one that person has chosen for themselves.  If the person has chosen not to join God in His work that existence won’t require the person to do that work, to organize and populate worlds where agency brings about the entire spectrum of mortality.

The person will miss out on the endless joy and endless pain of having spiritual progeny.

They will miss out on the eternal joy of having some of that progeny join them in their work.  

The person will also miss out on the eternal Godly sorrow which results in part from having to stay their hand as some of their progeny rape, murder and abuse innocents, as others starve and die of disease or neglect and will also not experience the Divine role of comforting those innocents.

Many turn away from Deity in mortality because they cannot believe Deity would allow the degree of pain and suffering that takes place on Earth.  If all one has are mortal eyes, such a result is understandable.

Devine wisdom acquired by a humble heart with eyes willing to see afar off is required to enable one to choose to join Deity in their work.  If one never acquires that wisdom, they won’t, IMHO,  feel like they’re “missing out” in not engaging in Divine work.  What I believe they will feel is the futility of trying to find lasting happiness in anything other than Divine, eternal relationships.
 

 

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well honestly, this is simply your own speculation to make a sense of a seriously flawed plan to redeem humans.  And you do it to make it work in your understanding based on your belief that Mormonism if God's true religion. So no, respectfully, this does not make sense.  The main reason is because none of it appeals to common sense IMO.  Not trying to be rude. Just sharing what I think.  It seems to me that only a cruel being would set up such a system.

I don’t have a problem with your assessment.  I expect it would only sound  ‘maybe it’s close to being right ‘ as it sounds to me at this time  or as valid speculation to someone who shared a lot of commonalities with the set of what I accept as inspired revelation from the Church (and others now I think about it), my own personal revelation experiences, and the assumptions I bring based on my experiences as parent, child, human in this world that I used in putting it together.

If you don’t even have the starting point that a perfectly loving God could and would send his children to a screwed up world like this one is because there are good and loving reasons to do so, it’s a nonstarter. 

Edited January 26 by Calm

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'm not an expert on Islam, by any means, but it seems that of the Five Pillars of Islam, at least one of them can be carried with the convert wholesale into their new LDS life, without modification (the giving of alms).  Another two (prayer and fasting) exist within the restored Gospel of Christ, though in a different fashion. They have plenty that is good and wholesome and true that would fit at home within an LDS context. Why one earth do you think they do not? 

Years ago my daughter struck up a friendship with a wonderful young woman from Egypt, who is an observant Muslim.  She originally came to the U.S. to attend school in, I believe, Oklahoma, but later transferred to BYU because she found it more compatible with her religious beliefs.  During her stay at BYU and after she graduated, our family invited her to our house on many occasions.  We view and treat her like a member of the family.  We have had a number of conversations with her regarding similarities and differences between our respective faiths.  Although she has never expressed any interest in joining the Church (and we never broached that topic, either), she has often commented on how much we and she have in common in matters of faith and religious observance (particularly in contrast to her experience in Oklahoma).

There are, of course, substantive differences.  But there are large swaths of similarities and shared values as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

How is this disingenuous? 

Because I am fairly certain you knew what the point I was getting at.

 

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

It is the actual, literal doctrine of the Church.  From the most recent General Conference:

Well that is nice. But there is a permanent separation possible from loved ones isn't there?  I think it was Legrand Richards who said something like for a Latter-day Saint, salvation without exaltation is damnation."  I used to imagine how I might feel in the eternizes if I was in a lower kingdom for some reason and the rest of my family and good friends were in the celestial without me. I felt like that would still be a form of hell.  An eternal FOMO.

 

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That's a better deal than is being offered by any other religion I know of.  If you think a Kingdom of Glory is worse than everlasting hellfire and damnation, then I don't know what else to tell you. 

Yea I agree the eternal status that Mormonism provides is better than a lot of others. Of course it is likely none are accurate and we just die and that is the end.

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

I'm not an expert on Islam, by any means, but it seems that of the Five Pillars of Islam, at least one of them can be carried with the convert wholesale into their new LDS life, without modification (the giving of alms).  Another two (prayer and fasting) exist within the restored Gospel of Christ, though in a different fashion. They have plenty that is good and wholesome and true that would fit at home within an LDS context. Why one earth do you think they do not? 

I di not say what would and would not fit into Mormonism. I asked you the question.  But go read what our Catholic friend @MiserereNobishad to say about all that he would not be able to bring with him into Mormonism if he converted.  A bunch of you believers seem to think it is just a nice slide into things for a convert. It is not. It is silly and even marginalizing to think and argue that a convert to Mormonism is simply bringing all the good they have and adding more good things to it and thus hip, hip hooray. The fact is that Mormonism claims that JS was told to join no church and all the creeds of such religions were an abomination in God's sight. And that the professors of such drew near to the Lord with their lips but their hearts were far from Him.  That the LDS Church is the ONLY TRUE AND LVOING CHURCH with which the Lord is well pleased.  So just stop pretending the message missionaries take out is just a warm and fuzzy offer.  Read what @calm shared about what she tells young missionaries she knows before they go out to preach about how it will be a major impact in the lives of those they convert and to have empathy for them in the process.

 

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Nor am I an expert in Catholicism, but do they not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the savior of the world? That marriage between a man and a woman is a holy sacrament, with spiritual as well as civil responsibilities?  Don't they include the anointing of the sick as one of their seven enumerated sacraments?  They too espouse many true doctrines and practices.  Why on earth do you think they do not?

Dude, get a grip. I did not say what they could or could not bring. I asked you. Sure there is some common beliefs.  But there is a heck of a lot they give up as well if they want to be a good Mormon.

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What a bizarre question!  

No. What is bizarre is your reaction to the question.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, that's not responsive to my CFR.

Your CFR was not to me and I am under no obligation to respond to it.  Your post simply prompted my question.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Second, I think your question is too broad, to the point of it being difficult to answer.  Does is apply to people who never accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ ever, either now or after death?  Does it apply to people who never hear about the Gospel, and thus lack any meaningful opportunity in this life to "accept" it?  Is your referenced non-acceptance a matter of choice, or circumstance?

It really was a simple question. @let’s rollgave a pretty good response that reflects Mormon doctrine on the topic.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Third, even the most wicked of us (apart from the Sons of Perdition) will receive the Telestial Kingdom, which "{a}lthough the least of the degrees of glory, yet {it} 'surpasses all understanding' (D&C 76:89)."

Thanks,

-Smac

"Salvation without exaltation is damnation" to a Latter-day Saint.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well honestly, this is simply your own speculation to make a sense of a seriously flawed plan to redeem humans. 

I think the Plan of Salvation is a fascinating, and quite rational, summary of God's plan for us.  It touches on all the Big Questions.  Who are we?  Where did we come from?  What is our relationship to God?  What are His attributes?  What is the role of Jesus Christ in our lives?  If God exists, why does He allow evil and suffering in the world?  Why are we here, and what should we do and not do while on this earth?  Will we continue to exist after we die?  Will our decisions in this life affect us in the Hereafter?  Where are we going?  What doe God intend for us?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And you do it to make it work in your understanding based on your belief that Mormonism if God's true religion.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So no, respectfully, this does not make sense.  The main reason is because none of it appeals to common sense IMO. 

"Common Sense" sure seems to be a malleable thing when we want it to be.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Not trying to be rude. Just sharing what I think.  It seems to me that only a cruel being would set up such a system.

In your apparent denunciation of God as "a cruel being" (or in your denunciation of the Church's teachings about His character, attributes, motives, etc.), you need to account for the Telestial Kingdom, and the characterization in D&C 76:89 of its glory as "surpass{ing} all understanding."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

"Salvation without exaltation is damnation" to a Latter-day Saint.

Huh.  Fifty years in the Church, and this is the first time I'm hearing this statement.

Legrand Richards said this was "a little saying" in the ward when he was young.  And apart from his 1973 talk at BYU referencing it, it has apparently never been repeated in any Church publication.  As Elder Andersen so aptly noted some years back:

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

To me, your quote comes across as a remnant of the more strident rhetoric and flourishes that were more common in the 19th century.  It is merely a snippet of one talk by one General Authority, in which he characterizes the statement as "a little saying" from his childhood in the last part of the 19th century.  It typifies what Elder Andersen was referencing as something "hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk."

I don't think it is fair or accurate to characterize it as a doctrine or teaching of the Church.  This is particularly so where you deliberately omit far more authoritative and clear statements and characterizations of the Church's doctrines and teachings on salvation.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 25 by smac97

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well honestly, this is simply your own speculation to make a sense of a seriously flawed plan to redeem humans.  And you do it to make it work in your understanding based on your belief that Mormonism if God's true religion. So no, respectfully, this does not make sense.  The main reason is because none of it appeals to common sense IMO.  Not trying to be rude. Just sharing what I think.  It seems to me that only a cruel being would set up such a system.

How in the world is such an abundantly merciful plan of salvation, that saves and redeems the entire human family except for those few who choose not to be saved, “a seriously flawed plan to redeem humans?” There are, no doubt, many critics who know in their hearts that the plan of salvation of the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is, by far, the most perfectly fair and just plan of salvation ever propounded by any of the other churches of Christendom; but in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary they persist in pressing on with their demonstrably false assertions because they have an anti-Mormon ax to grind that will not allow them to concede the point.

In his most recent General Conference address, President Dallin H. Oaks testified that the lowest kingdom of heavenly glory, the telestial kingdom, is so marvelous and wonderful compared to life on this earth that it is beyond human comprehension. Does this sound like part of “a seriously flawed plan to save humans?’” These naysayers may as well quit because they’re never going to be able to convince any fair minded person that the marvelously merciful plan of salvation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is somehow cruel and unmerciful. In large part, it was the wondrous, joy inducing Latter-Day Saint Plan of salvation that motivated me to learn of the restored gospel and join the the church 54 years ago this year, and I’ve rejoiced in the knowledge of it every day of my life since the day I was baptized in the warm waters of nearby a lake on August 22, 1970.

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;

 43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.  (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Edited January 25 by teddyaware

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What is the eternal state of a person who does not ever accept Mormonism's doctrine and ordinances?

Well now that's the 64K dollar question. The boards have touched on this before though I believe there is still much more to be said and explored.

I would first rephrase your question thusly - "What is the eternal state of a person who does not ever accept Christ's doctrine and ordinances?"  If you were still a believer how might you answer that?

[Stormin' Mormon]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But there is a heck of a lot they give up as well if they want to be a good Mormon.

Well, yeah, I agreed with that sentiment waaaay back in my response to you on Page 18.  It's so self-evidently obvious that I called it tautological.  The very definition of conversion requires for things to change, to be converted.  

Perhaps I misread your preface when you used the phrase "pray do tell us," as being doubtful or sarcastic.  With that phrase at the lead of your question, it sounded to me like you doubted that there were ANY truths in Islam or Catholicism that a potential convert could confidently carry with them into the future.  If I misread your tone, I apologize.  Seems like a common hazard in online discussion.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

"Salvation without exaltation is damnation" to a Latter-day Saint.

I don't feel the need to defend a statement that lacks all scriptural support, and is the opposite of what apostles and prophets have consistently taught for decades. But luckily for me, I need neither to embrace nor defend a statement said by one apostle one time during a BYU speech and can be found nowhere on the Gospel Library app or on LDS.org (as far as I can tell, though I am open to correction).  

 

 

Edited January 25 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I di not say what would and would not fit into Mormonism. I asked you the question.  But go read what our Catholic friend @MiserereNobishad to say about all that he would not be able to bring with him into Mormonism if he converted. 

I hold MiserereNobis in high regard, as he (?) is knowledgeable about Catholicism and offers a welcome (and very civil) "outsider's" perspective on our faith.

That said, his perspective is limited by the fact that he is only speaking speculatively.  In my experience, those who join the Church of Jesus Christ from being an observant member of another faith tradition typically find plenty of commonality.  That's not to deny the difficulties inherent in leaving some things behind, and/or altering those things they are bringing with them.  But the ones who seem most adept at managing the transition are those who have "caught the vision" of what the Church of Jesus Christ claims to be.

I wonder if @Raingirl might be willing to chime on this.

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A bunch of you believers seem to think it is just a nice slide into things for a convert. It is not.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.  Some transitions are difficult, some are not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Salvation without exaltation is damnation" to a Latter-day Saint.

Nope (in my not so humble opinion), that isn’t a teaching that is taught by enough leaders to be established doctrine (I see it as a catchy saying like “ponderize”) though it comes close to it in how any separation of God is labeled “damnation”, but when we take care to align the definitions with others’ understanding of salvation and damnation (as in actual suffering endlessly and not as in being invited to only some of the family of God gatherings, I don’t think we actually teach that).

I was actually quite surprised when the last time salvation/damnation came up with how rare it was actually mentioned.

Edited January 25 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

How in the world is such an abundantly merciful plan of salvation, that saves and redeems the entire human family except for those few who choose not to be saved, “a seriously flawed plan to redeem humans?”

Because there is a massive amount of suffering that takes place before that redemption happens that shouldn’t just be waved away by a “it doesn’t matter in the long run” or “ it amounts to a couple of seconds when compared to eternity” and if one believes in a perfect God it seems flawed that he would need us to suffer so horrifically.

An analogy would be taking a perfectly good Toyota Camry, in good shape and then deciding the best way to turn it into a Rolls Royce is by completely trashing it and then putting it back together with the additions….only the Camry has feelings and it hurts bad while it’s being torn apart.

Edited January 25 by Calm

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Because there is a massive amount of suffering that takes place before that redemption happens that shouldn’t just be waved away by a “it doesn’t matter in the long run” or “ it amounts to a couple of seconds when compared to eternity” and if one believes in a perfect God it seems flawed that he would need us to suffer so horrifically.

An analogy would be taking a perfectly good Toyota Camry, in good shape and then deciding the best way to turn it into a Rolls Royce is by completely trashing it and then putting it back together with the additions….only the Camry has feelings and it hurts bad while it’s being torn apart.

Hmmm. I hope you're not saying it is a seriously flawed plan.

There is One who did suffer that marvelous amount of suffering, needlessly if another refuses His offering.

DC 19:15-18 - "Therefore I command you to repent — repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore — how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit — and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink..."

Jesus suffered this, he who had no need to do so, because he had no sin. Are you saying that there is any degree of injustice in requiring one to suffer this, who refuses to repent and accept Christ's suffering on his behalf?

You have to understand that God doesn't want to punish those who do not want to repent. He must punish them, or else the penalty to God seems to be the loss of His godhood:

Alma 42:25 - "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God."

 

 

Edited January 25 by Stargazer

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hold MiserereNobis in high regard, as he (?) is knowledgeable about Catholicism and offers a welcome (and very civil) "outsider's" perspective on our faith.

Thanks! I'm a he: Jesse. I think the picture of Mary that I use plus the fact that Jesse can be a woman's name has confused some in the past.

I appreciate your views as well. I like that this board has a variety of perspectives. I miss some of the old "stalwart" voices, such as @Scott Lloydand @Bernard Gui. I think one can learn much about a faith by listening to/reading the interactions between adherents (and former adherents) that have differing views on the faith. Catholicism is replete with this!

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, his perspective is limited by the fact that he is only speaking speculatively.  In my experience, those who join the Church of Jesus Christ from being an observant member of another faith tradition typically find plenty of commonality.  That's not to deny the difficulties inherent in leaving some things behind, and/or altering those things they are bringing with them.  But the ones who seem most adept at managing the transition are those who have "caught the vision" of what the Church of Jesus Christ claims to be.

I agree. If a Catholic were to decide/find out that the LDS church was the true church, then he or she would surely find commonality. That's what conversion entails. My point was that President Hinckley was speaking of someone who has not yet converted, calling them to investigate, and the statement, on its face value, seemed to downplay the difficulties you mention. 

But I don't need to discuss this point any further. It's a small thing.

Edited January 26 by MiserereNobis