- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I see some univeralism taught here and there in the church (and not enough, IMO). For example, in General Conference for Oct 2000 by Dallin Oaks, “The Challenge to Become”, he speaks of the parable the Lord taught about the laborers in the vineyard, and how at the end, all were paid the same amount. He taught:
Quote:Many who come in the eleventh hour
have been refined and prepared by the Lord in ways other than formal employment in the vineyard.These workers are like the prepared dry mix to which it is only necessary to “add water”—the perfecting ordinance of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. With that addition—even in the eleventh hour—these workers are in the same state of development and qualified to receive the same reward as those who have labored long in the vineyard. This parable teaches us that we should never give up hope and loving associations with family members and friends whose fine qualities (see Moro. 7:5–14)
evidence their progress toward what a loving Father would have them become. Similarly, the power of the Atonement and the principle of repentance show that we should never give up on loved ones who now seem to be making many wrong choices. Instead of being judgmental about others, we should be concerned about ourselves.We must not give up hope. We must not stop striving. We are children of God, and it is possible for us to become what our Heavenly Father would have us become. [Emphasis added]If laboring in the vineyard = being in the church and working for the Lord, then it seems the Lord does not care how long we are in, and that therefore others that are “out” are progressing just fine outside of employment, as long as they are progressing in other paths. The laborers may grumble, may not think it is fair, and may call for uniformity, exclusivity, and conformity…but that is not what the Lord is teaching, and not what is truly mormonism, just because some mormons want it to be. Church leaders are calling these people to repentance, and to get the true picture of mormonism, while at the same time trying not to de-motivate the committed vineyard worker.
Also, regarding the ordinances, and maintaining the teaching that they are necessary with proper authority, it should be understood they are also never excluding anyone without those ordinances, because they really aren’t what is important. At any time, they can be a formality (“just add water”), but the real measure of our progress from the Lord’s point of view is our heart, and who we are becoming, whether becoming that in the vineyard, or in other employment. It simply doesn’t matter to the Lord that prepares a way possible for all His children, and pays all that become like Him the same.
Indeed, how can we each be paid “all that He hath”, unless we accept the abundant mentality? Mormonism cannot have a monopoly on God’s love.
This is mormonism, which if understood from a certain point of view, is universalism, and is being taught in the scriptures and by a current Apostle(s).
If universalism is understood from the point of view that nothing matters, that all are saved no matter what they do or none are saved no matter what they do, that no laboring is required to get any pay, or that it doesn’t matter what our hearts become because there is no vineyard or Lord or payday…well, that universalism is not mormonism, IMO.
I agree completely with you, wayfarer, that the LDS Church is not universalistic in many ways – but that it also is universalist in other ways. Local congregations, members, local and global leaders, etc. also vary radically in how universalistic they are. That, however, is not the same thing as saying that Mormonism, if understood, is universalism. Mormonism and the LDS Church are not synonymous – as anyone who considers themselves Mormon but not LDS can attest. Some Mormonism is even more exclusive and non-universalistic than the LDS Church, and some is less exclusive and more universalistic than the LDS Church.
That is why I always use the term “pure Mormonism” or talk about the theology when I talk about the universalism of Mormonism. I know that is a subjective term and that other members won’t agree with me, but I don’t care. I see pure Mormonism as incredibly expansive, inclusive and universalistic, and I’ve seen lots of local areas where the members also are – and even more lots of local areas where they aren’t,
I agree with Ray. When I started the thread I was thinking specifically about the core, foundational theology of Mormonism. That all are part of God’s plan, that all are put in the right place and time for the best possible outcome. That God instructs people in their own tongue and culture to support them in their progression towards godliness. That every one will be in a degree of God’s glory, except those who don’t want to, with no limitations on their potential eternal growth. That the covenants made to express and manifest a willingness to serve him by serving each other are made available to all, even after death. None of this is hidden. Whether you take all of the above as literal or a principle taught through symbols, all of it is taught in our scriptures and talks and manuals.
mackay11 wrote:I agree with Ray. When I started the thread I was thinking specifically about the core, foundational theology of Mormonism. That all are part of God’s plan, that all are put in the right place and time for the best possible outcome. That God instructs people in their own tongue and culture to support them in their progression towards godliness. That every one will be in a degree of God’s glory, except those who don’t want to, with no limitations on their potential eternal growth. That the covenants made to express and manifest a willingness to serve him by serving each other are made available to all, even after death.
None of this is hidden. Whether you take all of the above as literal or a principle taught through symbols, all of it is taught in our scriptures and talks and manuals.
I’m sorry but where does it say “we are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome?”
Where does it say “we’ll be in a degree of God’s glory with no limitations on eternal growth?” Are you talking about movement between degrees?
And lastly how can your separate out the restrictive nature of the ordinances and the temple covenants from what you call the “core foundational theology or Mormonism?”
Just wondering.
GB, it’s well past my bedtime over here. I’ll get back to you tomorrow if that’s ok? GBSmith wrote:I’m sorry but where does it say “we are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome?”
GB makes a very good point. The danger in believing there is a purpose behind everything is that the it makes one wonder how the “best possible outcome” can be supported for the crack baby born in unwarranted and terrible circumstances, dying without any resolution or good outcome.
Trying to put the wisdom of God behind every situation we find ourselves in this world makes my head spin sometimes.
Quote:“we are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome”
This is where theology of any kind gets squishy, but within Mormon theology there are some things that point toward the wording above. Two of those things are:
1) The case of the crack baby: If we accept the idea that all children who die before being accountable inherit the Celestial Kingdom (which my heart loves, but by head has a hard time accepting due to my dislike of predestination – but which is clear in the official doctrine), that baby gets the best possible reward for what s/he suffers in this life.
2) Our temple work does not require anyone to accept God or Jesus or Mormonism or the LDS Church or anything else in this life – and it leaves the final judgment completely in the hands of God. The standard really is what type of person each individual becomes, relative only to their personal effort and circumstances – and, again, that judgment is God’s alone.
My problem with the quote above, as worded, also is with the phrase “in the right place” and how it can be interpreted. I simply would say,
Quote:“All who are born will receive the best possible outcome, according to the wisdom and grace and love of God. Everyone who ‘keeps their first estate’ will be rewarded for it.”
I don’t know a single member who would argue with that wording as representing what is taught in the LDS Church and within Mormon theology.
Old-Timer wrote:
2) Our temple work does not require anyone to accept God or Jesus or Mormonism or the LDS Church or anything else in this life – and it leaves the final judgment completely in the hands of God. The standard really is what type of person each individual becomes, relative only to their personal effort and circumstances – and, again, that judgment is God’s alone.
I assumed that we are baptized and do baptisms for the dead and endowments and sealings for the living and the dead because they were essential for exaltation and that if we do not accept either in mortality or after them we won’t able to enter the presence of God or the celestial kingdom.
Yeah, GB, but it all rests on the idea that people with good, sincere hearts will recognize the truth and accept it when they hear it. Who can argue with that, especially since I said nothing about ordinances and doctrinal beliefs? I really don’t think anyone in the LDS Church would argue with how I phrased that statement, since I said “the best possible outcome, according to the wisdom and grace and love of God”. The second part about keeping the first estate is straight out of our scriptures.
People might add qualifiers, but the feeling still is that sincere, honest people will accept God’s truth when it is presented to them.
Heber13 wrote:GBSmith wrote:I’m sorry but where does it say “we are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome?”
GB makes a very good point. The danger in believing there is a purpose behind everything is that the it makes one wonder how the “best possible outcome” can be supported for the crack baby born in unwarranted and terrible circumstances, dying without any resolution or good outcome.
Trying to put the wisdom of God behind every situation we find ourselves in this world makes my head spin sometimes.
I believe, and I think there is some scriptural support that I’m going to have to dig up later, that we are not simply victims of a God-imposed set of circumstances. It seems ridiculous that someone would chose the body of a crack baby. I’ve no idea why they would and no real certainty that they did.
I believe the idea that every person is born into the best circumstance for that person is a conceit of luxury. It’s a way to justify one’s own privileged position and rationalize others’ horrible circumstances. It’s also one of the reasons I am open to the idea of multiple mortal lives, here on earth or elsewhere, even though I don’t preach it or believe it passionately. I lean toward a structure of eternal progression that is WAY more expansive and extended than our limited focus on mortality allows. I do believe that this life is the most important stage in our eternal progression at this moment, but I also believe our previous stages were the most important at those times and that our future stages will be the most important at those times. I believe all is present unto God in the sense that the past is gone and the future will be whatever the present makes it be.
I think all we can see is the here and now, so we do the best we can to understand the stark differences all around us – and, because we see through a glass, darkly, we each end up with partial views that make sense to each of us. That’s why I try to understand the best I can and allow others the same privilege, let them understand how and what they may.
Old-Timer wrote:I believe the idea that every person is born into the best circumstance for that person is a conceit of luxury. It’s a way to justify one’s own privileged position and rationalize others’ horrible circumstances.
“Conceit of luxury” – Exactly!!! I very much dislike when our doctrine of the pre-mortal existence is used to justify inequalities in this life. It says that they somehow deserve what they get and therefore we can stay our hand of assistance. I haven’t heard in a very long time that some spirits were less valiant but I have heard the opposite – That the youth of today were exceedingly valiant and reserved for the last days. I think there is much value in pondering being born in different circumstances and having your choices limited by those circumstances. Agency or the freedom to choose can be extensively trammeled. I believe this exercise makes us more compassionate and charitable….and if I remember correctly, charity is something we are to seek for.
:thumbup: Old-Timer wrote:I lean toward a structure of eternal progression that is WAY more expansive and extended than our limited focus on mortality allows.
I agree Ray.
Mackay11, can you clarify for me your thoughts from these two statements, and how you reconcile them?
mackay11 wrote:When I started the thread I was thinking specifically about the core, foundational theology of Mormonism. That all are part of God’s plan, that all are put in the right place and time for the best possible outcome. That God instructs people in their own tongue and culture to support them in their progression towards godliness. That every one will be in a degree of God’s glory, except those who don’t want to, with no limitations on their potential eternal growth. That the covenants made to express and manifest a willingness to serve him by serving each other are made available to all, even after death.
mackay11 wrote:I believe, and I think there is some scriptural support that I’m going to have to dig up later, that we are not simply victims of a God-imposed set of circumstances. It seems ridiculous that someone would chose the body of a crack baby. I’ve no idea why they would and no real certainty that they did.
I remember watching Henry V (Shakespeare’s) and being shocked that one of the knights eagerly volunteered to lead the vanguard into battle. An action that would result in certain death. He took the choice because of the merits he thought those actions had. Why would anyone choose a life that would culminate in being rejected by your own, be scourged and crucified when only 33? But Mormon doctrine Christ chose and embraced that eventuality. Did he know the manner of his eventual death? Maybe not. Was he aware that the ‘turn on earth’ would lead an eventual tragic end by human standards? I believe so. Or at least I believe there’s room in Mormon doctrine to believe so. This isn’t predestination. This is co-selected foreordination. Co-selected with God, but with a large say from us.
In The God Who Weeps (p.60), the Givens say:
Quote:
“Plato… thought life was most likely a choice… spirits were allowed to select their lives from a range of situations and environments. Intuitively, most would choose the easy and attractive path through mortality, but Plato indicates that… the comfortable, effortless life was, in all likelihood, not the life most wisely chosen. The greater good… was the quest for greater virtue and goodness… “call a life worse,” he said, “if it leads a soul to become more unjust, and better if it leads the soul to become more just.”
I have no idea why someone would choose a life in the gutter. In order for us to fulfil the instruction to house the homeless, visit the sick and feed the hungry as Matt 25 teaches us to, as a qualification for eternal life (or perhaps the only qualification) there has to be at least some who are starving and homeless.
The idea that they might have selected this option in a former life doesn’t absolve me for one minute of trying ease the pain of that experience in this one.
mackay11 wrote:I have no idea why someone would choose a life in the gutter. In order for us to fulfil the instruction to house the homeless, visit the sick and feed the hungry as Matt 25 teaches us to, as a qualification for eternal life (or perhaps the only qualification) there has to be at least some who are starving and homeless.
The idea that they might have selected this option in a former life doesn’t absolve me for one minute of trying ease the pain of that experience in this one.
Sorry but that’s way more than a stretch. If this were the old mormon matters I’d feel some license to say what I really feel about your idea. In Bart Ehrman’s book “God’s Problem” he explores the idea of evil and suffering and explains what he totally lost his faith over the whole business. I’m beginning to appreciate what he meant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.