- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:If the definition of being agnostic is not knowing for sure about God then everyone would have to be considered an agnostic.
My definition of Agnostic is – admitting that you don’t know if god exists, and claiming that no one else can know for sure either. That is why Mormons, and most religious people feel “agnostic” is akin to the dirty word “atheist.” Most religious folks, even if they dont KNOW if god exists, believe that someone else does…
Even though I am willing to admit that I don’t really know for sure if God exists and assuming that he does I don’t believe that much of what I read in the Bible is really the “word of God” I still wouldn’t want to call myself an agnostic mostly because I still believe in God and an afterlife. All things considered, I basically think it is more probable that there is a God than the possibility that everything just happened this way by chance.
My guess is that religious people think “agnostic” is a dirty word because when it comes to everyday decisions agnostics might as well be an atheist for practical purposes. Without the belief that God is watching us, the fear is that this lack of faith will generally lead to more irresponsible and destructive hedonism with less regard for the ethical treatment of others. I’m not saying this mistrust of unbelievers is a fair or accurate way to think but this is the perception that some people have. I do think being agnostic is slightly less offensive to religious people than atheism mostly because agnostics often act somewhat neutral or indifferent toward religion whereas many atheists are very much opposed to religion and like to argue against it.
Quote:What about the whole, “you can go up levels in each kingdom, but you can’t go up to the next level…” nonsense that I hear several times a year. I would be interested in hearing you try to defend this statement – and I mean that respectfully.
I won’t try to defend it, cwald – since I don’t believe it.My point is to differentiate between what “Mormons” teach and what “Mormonism” teaches – and I think there is a real and important difference that isn’t just splitting apologetic hairs.
I’ve shared this before, but one of my favorite quotes goes something like this:
Quote:Don’t worry about being Mormon and believing something strange. At some point, some Mormon apostle has taught it.
I really love that, since it points out that there really has NEVER been unanimity about almost anything in “Mormonism” – even at the top, apostolic level. A core rejection of the concept of creeds, combined with an effort to understand everything, mixed with a belief in Absolute Truth, stirred around with an acceptance of continuing revelation, capped off with strongly-held beliefs and perspectives drives many people flat-out nuts – but it’s comforting to me, since it “frees” me to interpret almost everything however I want to do so and figure out what makes sense best to me.
So, to the example in question:
“Mormonism” at its broadest says that God will judge ALL based on the intent of their hearts and the sincerity with which they lived what they understood and knew. It also says that we won’t be punished for anything anone else does – and, again at its broadest, for those things we inherit as a result of the Fall (which includes, imo, our genetic weaknesses and multiple “issues”). Finally, it says that the ONLY judge will be God, since God is the only one who can see the actual intent of our hearts and know how well we lived according to waht we personally understand and know.
“Mormons” at their narrowest say that those who have what they consider to be a real opportunity to understand, know and hearken and don’t live lives that they consider to be diligent and faithful and obedient and temple-inclusive cannot make it to the Celestial Kingdom – but there’s nothing in the principles of the Gospel in Mormonism at its broadest that says we have ANY clue who will get what rewards when it comes right down to it. The D&C speaks in broad terms, but even in those passages there is nothing that allows us to look at any particular person and make the call. The Stake President who appears to be living a nearly perfect life might be a horrible hypocrite, while the drunk on the street – or the atheist who argues vociferously that there is no God – or the crazy lady who manacled the missionary – or the homosexual couple next door – or any other “obvious sinner” might be living the best they can and be rewarded with more than the Stake President in question.
The concept and symbolism of universal temple ordinances is what makes this view a legitimate Mormon view – so “Mormonism” doesn’t teach that only temple-recommend holding, temple attending members will make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, even though too many Mormons (including leaders) do. We often don’t grant the same degree of grace to those we know as we do to those we don’t know – but that’s a human failing, not a theological failing of Mormonism. Mormonism actually grants the same degree to all.
cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Mormonism has corrupted this idea somewhat by insisting that we know that anyone without a temple recommend will not receive the highest possible reward in the next life
This is a great example of what I mean by separating the grand cosmology from the created detail.
“Mormonism” actually DOESN”T insist this. Some Mormons certainly frame it that way
What about the whole, “you can go up levels in each kingdom, but you can’t go up to the next level…” nonsense that I hear several times a year. I would be interested in hearing you try to defend this statement – and I mean that respectfully.
Perhaps this should be a discussion for a new thread.
i would be interested in hearing this too. My first thought at a defense would be that the D&C indicates that you have to have entered into the new and everlasting covenant to achieve eternal progression. Does it say you have to have a current temple recommend though? I’m not sure it does. I never thought of it till now. In fact, I think all you need is baptism to go to the lowest level in the celestial kingdom, and therefore overcome spiritual death — need to check on that.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
Personally I think the attitude that we should expect to know the absolute truth is a relative weakness in Mormonism that really needs to go away. What’s worse is that they have leveraged this hard-line position to make all kinds of unreasonable demands in terms of time, money, and strict rules. This all-or-nothing mindset is a perfect breeding ground for future atheists and agnostics that will often be left with a cynical attitude about religion in general.I would have to agree with this. I would actually be much more comfortable at church not having to deal in absolutes. Maybe that is why I struggle with searching for truth. I have been taught all my life truth is absolute so I keep looking for truth in an absolute way, but do not find it in Mormonism.
Old-Timer wrote:won’t try to defend it, cwald – since I don’t believe it.
My point is to differentiate between what “Mormons” teach and what “Mormonism” teaches – and I think there is a real and important difference that isn’t just splitting apologetic hairs.
The thing is Mormonism is what Mormons teach. Unless someone that’s authoritative teaches something either from the pulpit or in print, these opinions such as the ones expressed are as valid as yours. You may feel a witness that they’re correct and that the others are wrong but the only standard is what’s pronounced in general conference or some other way by a general authority and even that is suspect and can be explained away.
I’ve been commanded all my life to get a testimony and “know” the truth. Well, t didn’t happen and I expect that to my grave I’ll always had some fleeting sense that it’s my fault that I couldn’t stand up and say the church is true. I’m pretty confident about the gospel if you mean the “good news” that Christ is risen but the church? I just don’t know.
GBSmith wrote:Old-Timer wrote:won’t try to defend it, cwald – since I don’t believe it.
My point is to differentiate between what “Mormons” teach and what “Mormonism” teaches – and I think there is a real and important difference that isn’t just splitting apologetic hairs.
Quote:Unless someone that’s authoritative teaches something either from the pulpit or in print, these opinions such as the ones expressed are as valid as yours.
I think that’s his point — that much of what we believe to be true is the cascading of leaders’ opinion down the ranks. In one Stake, the doctrine of “it’s easy to get revelation in the service of other people; it’s a lot harder to get it for yourself” was prevalent. Everybody was preaching that in the Stake I used to belong. Then I left on a mission, and never heard it again in any other Stake.
I think that happens when certain Apostles or GA’s make comments that resonate with people; they are still opinions, but they get entrenched in our culture and become akin to doctrine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.