- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ray, you make a good point in saying that everything is subjective, but what do you say to many members of the church or other religions that will say that can’t be right? God will not save people that break the law of chastity and don’t repent or God will not save those people that are ungrateful to him. What do you say to those people? Haven wrote:I’m wondering if you believe that temple ordinances are necessary for salvation?
Do you believe that those who don’t receive them on earth wait in spirit prison until their work is done?We’re taught that they do and that in the next life it’s harder to accept the Gospel. This doesn’t feel right to me though. None of my family are members and those who have passed on I was told are in prison until they accept. 😥 And if they’ve heard about the Gospel and don’t accept it in this life then they won’t go to the celestial kingdom. D & C 72. So is this an example of when I choose not to believe something and somehow shut off feelings of fear because I’m going against scripture?:crazy: How do you all manage to stay healthy and happy?First off we use a very small smattering of scriptures to establish the doctrines surrounding spirit prison. The most detailed is probably Alma 40:11-14 but even that relates more to paradise. Also, there’s no mention of a failure to receive ordinances preventing people from entering paradise in those verses. It’s all contingent on righteousness.
Jesus told the penitent thief that he would be with him in paradise. I could be wrong but I don’t think the penitent thief had the opportunity to receive the endowment. Maybe not even baptism or the gift of the holy ghost.
For what it’s worth I’ve only heard that the ordinance of baptism and receiving the gift of the holy ghost as being the required ordinances to transition from prison to paradise. I’ve never heard the endowment in that context, even though the endowment is viewed as a required saving ordinance. Maybe someone will point me in the direction of a few scriptures that actually establish this doctrine more clearly.
Doctrine and Covenants 138 is another place that gives more detail but I find it interesting that the doctrines presented in that section go in direct opposition to the verse that served as its catalyst (so even Joseph F. Smith didn’t feel too concerned with going against scripture). Most of that section appears to be an attempt to rationalize how Jesus could have preached the gospel to all the spirits in prison in the short interval between his death and resurrection.
1) I don’t know why Joseph F. Smith felt like Jesus could only preach to the spirits in prison during the interval between Jesus’ death and resurrection. Why limit it to that time frame?
2) The doctrine he presents kind of goes against Jesus’ modus operandi. Jesus didn’t go among the wicked to preach to them? What happened to: They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick?
Peter’s “he went and preached unto the spirits in prison” gets interpreted as “he must have organized servants to do that part of the work because he didn’t have the time and the wicked were beneath him.” At best the explanation offered by Joseph F. Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 138 projects how missionary work is done during mortality onto the spirit world. Maybe he’s correct, I have to entertain the possibility.
Haven, I’m kind of in the same boat as Mom3 – instead of saying “I don’t know, maybe,” I say I’m not sure. We know so little about the afterlife it is hard to draw any conclusions about it, and frankly I believe Joseph Smith made up a great deal of stuff, often on the fly. There may well be a spirit prison, it is mentioned in the Bible, but like many things I believe Mormon tradition has made the idea of it something it is not. My biggest fault in my TBM days was being a black and white thinker. Through my transition I came to realize almost nothing is black or white.
I stay happy and healthy by focusing on the core principles of the gospel, which do not include details like spirit prison.
Quote:what do you say to many members of the church or other religions that will say that can’t be right? God will not save people that break the law of chastity and don’t repent or God will not save those people that are ungrateful to him. What do you say to those people?
I say:
Quote:“‘We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all (wo)men everywhere the same privilege…’ I can understand and respect your view. I hope you can understand and respect mine.”
I heard an amazing sermon yesterday on grace and foreignness given by a pastor of a different faith. This was a much needed sermon for me, as one of my biggest complaints about the LDS church is we don’t understand mercy and grace at all. We spend WAY too much time focusing on works and not enough time focusing on grace. Now I’m not saying works aren’t great but there must be a balance. At any rate, my belief since my transition is that all the things that are required, as you quoted are fine and good, but we don’t need to stress about checking them all off. I think we just need to believe in Christ, be baptized and live a good life, the rest is icing. Just be agnostic about the church and its claims. That is where I am right now. Be involved for the good it does, now, independent of doctrine. Focus on right living in the absence of dogma.
And just be content that no one really knows for sure whether JS’s and subsequent prophets claims are correct. Sure, everyone is all jacked up about “faith”, requiring you to believe in the claims before you can even have knowledge yourself. But there are SO MANY things you can have faith in, and still not receive any sure “witness”. Taken with the fact that the modern prophets generally do not share visions or visitations, and that we can’t see the plates or any of the artifacts that spawned our religion, everyone is in the dark. All we have is our own mental gymnastics, our own faith promoting experiences (often subject to severe subectivity and sometimes, confirmation bias), it’s hard to know for sure what is beyond this life.
I like what Marcus Aurelius said — live a good life. If the Gods are just, they won’t care about how devout you are. if they are unjust, you don’t want to follow them anyway. And if there is no God, then your good deeds will live on in the hearts of the people you served. [paraphrased].
I am with you Tatania, it was when I heard someone of another faith describe how in their view it is grace that allows for the “mighty change of heart” that thenleads to righteous works — something clicked for me. It is similar to “I am able to love because I was first loved” or “I forgave myself, then found I was able to forgive others.” These arguments around whether the “cart” or the “horse” should go first are pointless in my view, whatever works for the person is what is right. Haven, it is a very simplified list. I have learned to fill it out with what resonates with me. I am glad our church teaches us to get our own answers, that is the only way we can make it to God. In my view the scriptures are “answers” that someone else received, they are guidelines but not always meant for me exactly as written. I can receive my own answers that are perfectly tailored for me, and that is the book of scripture that I need to heed the most.
I accept your response nibbler and agree that it would be wonderful if everything would tie back to the atonement. What is the central piece of our religion? One might think that the central piece is the restoration of the true church that is divinely led by prophets. One might think that if you dedicate your life to the church and living the church customs then all will be well with you.
My point is that our church would work just fine if you removed Jesus and the atonement from it. I do not believe that it is critical to our theology. All that we would need to do is have God lead the church personally. It would be up to us to make reconcilliation with God and up to God to accept our lame attempts at reconcilliation. That is not to say that the LDS church is not effective, I just believe that our doctrine and culture brings us to God via a different method. It is structured and ascending – focusing on our noble potential inherent in ourselves rather than our need to be saved. It is the SYSTEM and our adherence to it that saves and exalts. Jesus is just the figurehead at the top of the system and could be replaced by Adam or JS or God the Father without too much trouble.
Roy, I think that is a legitimate way to describe how many members live it in practical terms– but I think there is an important limitation to its accuracy: I don’t know a single “average” member who would say it that way or would agree with it when said that way, so it’s not what “The Church” or the church membership actually believe and teach.
I think that’s an important point. I wouldn’t say the LDS Church could go on without the concept of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. I think it would shrivel quite quickly if it stopped preaching and teaching Jesus crucified, resurrected and still living today as Savior and Redeemer. I simply think, like way too many other things, that concept is now assumed so much and so naturally that it isn’t mentioned directly in lessons and talks as much as in many other denominations. (“Everyone believes it, so what’s the point in talking about it all the time?”)
Sorry about that, Ray. I didn’t want to sound like I didn’t allow you to believe what you did. I was just offering a scenario of how too many members of the church would react if they heard that phrase everything is subjective. Either way, I still respect you for having your beliefs and me having mine. 🙂 Roy wrote:I accept your response nibbler and agree that it would be wonderful if everything would tie back to the atonement.
What is the central piece of our religion? One might think that the central piece is the restoration of the true church that is divinely led by prophets. One might think that if you dedicate your life to the church and living the church customs then all will be well with you.
I agree, Roy, that the majority of the active membership believes something like this. I also think this is a major reason for inactivity (with the caveat that “It is not that simple”). That is, when a member who fully believes all will be well if you just do what the church asks and suddenly all is not well, we have the catalyst of a crisis, particularly when there are multiple instances.
I also agree with Ray, though. I see what you’re saying Roy, and I don’t discount it because in the end it does appear we work out our own salvation (and/or exaltation) and Christ’s role in that is easily questionable. HOWEVER, I think the idea that Christ gives so many people hope (which is why he was so appealing to the Jews to begin with) is essential to the church. While I think the church is fine as a brand of Christianity (even if only we think that), I don’t think it would be fine if it were branded more like Judaism or Islam.
Ilovechrist77, I am SO sorry that I was rushing a bit and messed up the punctuation in my response to you. I didn’t mean the last sentence to be directed at you; I meant it to be directed at the people whom you referenced. I understand and respect you too much to think I would need to say that to you. I fixed the quotation marks to try to make that clearer.
That’s fine, Ray. Just as long we both understand. Old-Timer wrote:Roy, I think that is a legitimate way to describe how many members live it in practical terms – but I think there is an important limitation to its accuracy: I don’t know a single “average” member who would say it that way or would agree with it when said that way, so it’s not what “The Church” or the church membership actually believe and teach.
I agree!
Old-Timer wrote:I think it would shrivel quite quickly if it stopped preaching and teaching Jesus crucified, resurrected and still living today as Savior and Redeemer. I simply think, like way too many other things, that concept is now assumed so much and so naturally that it isn’t mentioned directly in lessons and talks as much as in many other denominations. (“Everyone believes it, so what’s the point in talking about it all the time?”)
DarkJedi wrote:I also agree with Ray, though. I see what you’re saying Roy, and I don’t discount it because in the end it does appear we work out our own salvation (and/or exaltation) and Christ’s role in that is easily questionable. HOWEVER, I think the idea that Christ gives so many people hope (which is why he was so appealing to the Jews to begin with) is essential to the church. While I think the church is fine as a brand of Christianity (even if only we think that), I don’t think it would be fine if it were branded more like Judaism or Islam.
I agree with these statements as well. It was overly broad of me to say that Christ and the atonement could be removed wholesale from the church. He is deeply imbedded in our most sacred texts. We also live in a Christian country where common Christianity opens doors that would otherwise be closed. I suppose I am imagining a different time continuum where Christ did not exist. I imagine in that scenario an LDS church could exist that would rest upon the plan of salvation and the restoration of the authorized church administered by prophets of God. As Ray said “in practical terms” this alternate church and the daily lives of the membership would function and look quite similar. I personally do not believe that it would wither or be a hollow shell because I don’t believe that the success of the church is due to any divine influence (although I respect others differences of perspective on this point).
We seem to agree more than we disagree and I am satisfied on this point. Thanks for the respectful discussion!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.