- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
FWIW, I tend towards near-universalism. I think only very extreme examples will get no salvation. I like to think 90%+ will though. The Catholics are onto something with purgatory IMHO. It’s a doctrine that has some merit. People can work off their sin. We have an equivalent in Spirit Prison – I see that as preferable to eternal damnation for people who are not totally warped, but have done some serious things.
There is also the idea that when we die, we get to see our lives again, but feel what all the other people felt. I find that thought very scary, especially in the cases where I hurt people and didn’t know it.
I worded my earlier coment’s opening sentence sloppily. I realized that when I re-read it. There are relatively few religions that are unanimous internally with regard to universal reward. As to which religions and Christian denominations are universalist (or even close to it), in the sense that every human has a chance at salvation/exaltation/reward of some kind regardless of their observable actions, expression of faith, and formal religious affiliation and activity – or lack thereof:
Many Eastern religions comes to mind immediately. Universalism is spelled out in much clearer terms and accepted more universally within much of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, the Baha’i Faith, etc. than in Western religions. That reflects their communitarian beliefs as opposed to the Western focus on individualism. Pockets of Judaism fit, but certainly not all Judaism. The United Universalists are an example within Christianity. General Protestantism, even much of liberal Protestantism, certainly does not. Catholicism’s core theology is universalist to a great degree, but the Catholic Church membership has widely varying views about universality. Islam has the foundation, especially for “people of the book”, but universality is not embraced by many Muslims. The Greek Orthodox Church is fascinating in regard to this topic, especially with its embrace of theosis (becoming like God).
My main point is that Mormonism is not unique in its general view of universalism and its use of “ordinances” (sacred acts) to symbolize faith, desire, and intent – nor is it unique in that not all its adherents embrace universality of some kind. Most of the exceptions throughout religion to this general view are conservative pockets / denominations /sects of various religions, which vary in size within religions and denominations. Mormonism is an interesting mixture of so many aspects of everyone else – and it is a fascinating example (to me) of a religion that has see-sawed doctrinally back and forth on this issue over time.
I think LDS’ theology’s elements are often not unique but the way they are mixed together are – a bit like a recipe. The near universalism happens to fit my views pretty well. I also feel the degrees of glory make more sense to me than a neat dividing line between heaven and hell.
Quote:Islam has the foundation, especially for “people of the book”, but universality is not embraced by many Muslims
The Koran is extremely contradictory on this matter. For every verse for them, there is one against, which means each side can quote away to their heart’s content.
I’m not so sure about Hinduism and Buddhism as universalist because their views of afterlife are so different. Buddhism has heaven and hell realms but they are temporary, and the end game isn’t salvation but annihilation. (Which isn’t as bad as it sounds.)
SamBee wrote:
I think LDS’ theology’s elements are often not unique but the way they are mixed together are – a bit like a recipe.
I belive this is very true. It’s also fascinating how religions, ALL religions, change overtime, while trying to remain “consistant”. Right now, our societies heavily focus on aspects like equality, fairness, universal love, feminism, racial equality, freedom, etc. We value these things, and therefore attribute them to our perfect God. But in order to maintain universal consistancy in our religion, we end up redefining prior doctrines. Hence, God did not curse Cain with dark skin, like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and most of their era believed. The curse of “dark skin” was symbolic only, because God loves all races equally, and dark skin is beautiful.
Catholicism is one of those religions which has historically been very un-universal, but has since become very universal. In the past several decades, they even published the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, which in effect made universalism Catholic doctrine (including conversion and joining the Church post-mortem). I’d even say most Protestantism has become universalist; God loves everyone, has a perfect plan, and will grant everyone every opportunity to come unto Him and be saved. But of course, there are plenty of doctrinal contradictions to this stemming from God’s perfect word, the scriptures. The ability of a religion to be molded by the society it is in, really helps it to last much longer than it might’ve otherwise.
Old Timer wrote:
General Protestantism, even much of liberal Protestantism, certainly does not. Catholicism’s core theology is universalist to a great degree, but the Catholic Church membership has widely varying views about universality.
I’d say most protestantism is universalist, maybe even more than the LDS. Most would say final judgement is up to God, and don’t believe in any particular ordinances required for salvation. Some are not, but views will vary. It’s not cut and dry what is doctrine and what is not. Plus, all Christian religions (especially LDS), have a strong focus on “correctness of belief”, and will seek to convert all others to the “truth”, regardless of their belief in universalism. Where anyone purely “universalist”, there would be much less bickering between the sects, or “worry” over those on a “different path to God”.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
God is going to have a lot of explaining to do…
Lol… God explaining…😆
I got a chuckle out that as well. On the one hand, God doesn’t have to explain anything – He’s God and can do what he wants. I’m going to need more than two hands here. On the other hand, is it God who will have to explain or us? That is, if God forgives them why aren’t we forgiving them especially in light of God asking us to forgive them? Third hand, is it God who sees some sins are more grievous than others or is that man made? God said He couldn’t look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Therefore, is the sinner who steals or lies worse than the sinner who murders? Last hand, and probably most relevant to Sam’s original statement: God may have already explained. I think there are many examples in scripture, I will use just two (which are both personal favorites). Christians love to quote John 3:16, and some of us quote verse 17 along with it.
Quote:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
LDS theology is that at some point every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. That sounds like believing to me. But even better is the parable of the prodigal son. I believe that we are sometimes the prodigal son, sometimes his brother, and less often the father (because I think the father is mostly representative of God).Quote:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Old Timer wrote:
My main point is that Mormonism is not unique in its general view of universalism and its use of “ordinances” (sacred acts) to symbolize faith, desire, and intent – nor is it unique in that not all its adherents embrace universality of some kind. Most of the exceptions throughout religion to this general view are conservative pockets / denominations /sects of various religions, which vary in size within religions and denominations. Mormonism is an interesting mixture of so many aspects of everyone else – and it is a fascinating example (to me) of a religion that has see-sawed doctrinally back and forth on this issue over time.
I agree that this is fascinating. I have undertaken a fairly in depth study of our culture and history of late, relying mostly on the accounts of believing members (like Bushman and Givens) and original sources (principally the Joseph Smith Papers). I recently learned that until around the 1960s the idea that people could progress through the kingdoms was widely accepted and taught (this is from Wrestling the Angel by Terryl Givens, and he does provide references). While the church has grown tremendously since that time and there are few members alive now who would remember that, it was indeed our doctrine for well over 100 years. It’s just been fascinating enough to see how Joseph’s own theology changed from 1830 to the early 1840s, and the kind of influence converts brought to our theology – stuff from other churches that Joseph didn’t necessarily believe or teach and that he and Brigham disagreed over.
Getting technical here. Is it god saying things or is it man saying that god said things? When someone accepts something as scripture, is there still a difference? nibbler wrote:
Getting technical here. Is it god saying things or is it man saying that god said things? When someone accepts something as scripture, is there still a difference?
If your perspective and reality are different, can you tell?
That being said, I highly doubt our scriptures are on God’s list of favorite books of all time. I figure at most He’d give it 2 Stars. “Way too thick. Too wordy. Too many metaphors. Overly ambiguous in some places, which really hinders it. Lots of claims, but poor citations. Kind of boring, TBH.”
nibbler wrote:
Getting technical here. Is it god saying things or is it man saying that god said things? When someone accepts something as scripture, is there still a difference?
There is that. But the additional caveat I have is “Are you accurately perceiving what the man saying that God said things actually said and meant”?
My faith transition started because I realized that assuming that God was saying things to man that God actually wanted humanity to know, my brain was wired to miss up to 40% of it because it would be conveyed non-verbally. It’s humbling to rebuild looking for the 40%…
NOTE: Assuming that God directed the words I needed to be written down and the message I need to be communicated in a way that I can perceive, I am still going to be missing things. There are going to be key unspoken points (usually cultural) that I will not pick up and I will not fully get. I get a lot of hand-waving “but God can and will send messages tailored to your brain” from others… which is not helpful because then the next question my brain redirects to “is how do I know it is from God and not just my divine spirit and/or common sense”? Also not helpful. Referencing the scriptures goes back into that loop – did I really get what they meant?.
At this point, I have grown comfortable with living life as if the heavens are silent. It’s not perfect – but it is a step up from waving my fist in the air while shouting “Why don’t you answer me?” or “Why don’t I get it? Everyone says that they are getting these wonderful clear messages these days (which I am happy for them and their certainty)…” I like to think that I am the first to tune in when I believe that a better truth is being communicated to me…
nibbler wrote:
Getting technical here. Is it god saying things or is it man saying that god said things? When someone accepts something as scripture, is there still a difference?
Excellent point, and from my point of view it seems to always be the latter – some guy saying God said something.
I accept scripture as people’s best efforts to share their views of who God is and what God has said. I value scripture highly – not as a record of God’s words but as a record of human understanding of God. I am fascinated by the evolution of scriptural content over time and across humanity – by what stays essentially the same (albeit in different terms that make people believe it has changed) and by what actually does change.
Theology and the resultant doctrine change regularly as people change, so scripture changes, as well – even if many people don’t understand that simple fact.
I’m trying to let go of the literalism of scripture. It’s interesting that this has been easier for me to do this with the bible, than it is for the BoM. Perhaps because I have been taught since birth that the bible was fallible but the BoM was the literal word of god via a direct link from JC/God to JS. By removing literalism and certainty for the scriptures, I have started to enjoyed them more. This is a big deal for me. The only other time I really enjoyed the scriptures was in the MTC and at certain times on my mission. The following axiom about the Bible from an early episode of the Liturgists podcast resonated with me (given that it is a non-LDS but Christian podcast, this just references the bible but can be applicable to the BoM perhaps even for skeptics):
“The Bible is AT LEAST a set of writings where a people group describes their experience with and understanding of God over thousands of years. EVEN IF that is a comprehensive definition of God, study of scripture is warranted to understand our culture and the way in which people come to know God.”
Great quote, Ruminat8. Thanks for sharing it. I think some people experience a form of Hell in this world. In fact some have suggested this is a Hell world (there are reasons I disagree – there is too much beauty and goodness here, despite the evil.) But no, I can’t see how it is fair for good or even mediocre people to be lumped next to the most evil and degenerate.
God’s forgiveness is said to be infinite, but even if people forgive each other of the worst atrocities, they shall still be reminded of them by the presence of those who did that to them, and those who did such things will be reminded of what they did and see it for the terrible thing it was. So even forgiveness will not remove that stain. It would be a form of Hell for both parties.
Elizabeth Smart, who I admire very much, has said that she has forgiven her captors but can never condone what they did to her. In this she displays both Christlike attributes and a wisdom beyond many people. However, I doubt she wishes to be constantly reminded of her experience or to have those people living in the same house with her own children. She has expressed a desire to move on.
I think when people grasp the magnitude of what they’ve done, it will be difficult for them. The bag snatcher may hurt people and cause pain, but that is nothing compared to someone who murders repeatedly in cold blood or deliberately tortures them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.