The 14 Fundamentals: Number 4

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

[quote=”Orson The Mormon way or the highway…

Not sure I agree with that one. Mormons believe that non-temple recommending-holding, non-priesthood holding, non-temple-married men can go to the Terrestrial kindgom, living a single life with Jesus, and without eternal progression (although there is some debate on that last one).

The other Churches believe they will live with Jesus, single, with no expectation of eternal progression if they get saved, which shows in a good life. According to Mormon theology, people in other churches will get exactly what they expect if they live their lives as they espouse, and that expectation is totally in line with Mormon theology.

So, you can live your life as a non-priesthood holding, non-temple recommend-holding, unmarried person who smokes and drinks and still go to the same place most of the traditional Christian believers believe THEY will go.

So, the Mormon way encompasses the traditional Christian way.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

“The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”

This is true by definition. Next.

I guess I don’t understand what you meant by this because to me this statement is clearly false and I don’t believe it is quite so trivial if you really consider some of the implications of it. Are you trying to say that prophets get to decide what “astray” really means for the Church simply because they are the official leaders? Maybe LDS prophets can’t really force anyone to follow their advice so if members are victims of this setup it is their own fault to some extent but this callous attitude doesn’t really help all the members that think disobeying the prophet will put their eternal salvation at risk because they are convinced that he is generally speaking directly for God.

For Church leaders to abuse the trust people have in them (intentionally or not) is absolutely leading people astray in a big way in my opinion. For example, to take the idea that we should make so many sacrifices in this life mostly for the sake of some promised reward in the next life to such extremes in proportion to the level of confidence or hope we can realistically have that this will really pay off already makes the LDS Church very much “astray” compared to many other religious sects that aren’t quite as harsh and intrusive into their followers’ everyday lives.

Personally, I think many of the heavy demands and guilt-trips that the Church subjects members to are a direct result of this nearly infallible prophet myth because of the assumption that if some of these doctrines and policies weren’t really necessary then God would supposedly fix them or else they wouldn’t have been established in the first place. So because the Church is still emphasizing all these things like tithing, home teaching, etc. then they supposedly must be vitally important based on the typical devout TBM perspective.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

cwald wrote:

[quote=”Orson The Mormon way or the highway…

Not sure I agree with that one. Mormons believe that non-temple recommending-holding, non-priesthood holding, non-temple-married men can go to the Terrestrial kindgom, living a single life with Jesus, and without eternal progression (although there is some debate on that last one).

The other Churches believe they will live with Jesus, single, with no expectation of eternal progression if they get saved, which shows in a good life. According to Mormon theology, people in other churches will get exactly what they expect if they live their lives as they espouse, and that expectation is totally in line with Mormon theology.

So, you can live your life as a non-priesthood holding, non-temple recommend-holding, unmarried person who smokes and drinks and still go to the same place most of the traditional Christian believers believe THEY will go.

So, the Mormon way encompasses the traditional Christian way.

Nope. Oh come on SD. Mormon’s teach and believe only those who accept MORMON PRIESTHOOD ORDINANCES will go to “heaven” (celestial Kingdom). Everybody else is getting a “lesser” reward in a “lower” kingdom. This is why they teach/believe it’s the mormon way or the highway, and that we are the one and only true church. Surely we are not arguing this point are we?

I’m not sure what it is we are disagreeing with really? Symantics?

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

doug wrote:

This is true by definition. Next.

Quote:

I guess I don’t understand what you meant by this because to me this statement is clearly false and I don’t believe it is quite so trivial if you really consider some of the implications of it.

I read it as a cynical statement that points to a paradox in the our belief system.

[Anonymous]

cwald, I think the issue with your comment and SD’s response is that you used the term “power to save” – and SD simply pointed out that Mormon theology actually does say that other churches have the power to save, and, actually, that those who aren’t “valiant” even within the LDS Church are “saved”. According to the most conservative, exclusive, “standard” view within Mormonism, they just won’t be “exalted” – but they wil be saved.

SD, please clarify if that’s not what you meant, but I think it boils down to different reactions to a word – “save”. Substitue “exalt” – and I think the comment changes.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Nope. Oh come on SD. Mormon’s teach and believe only those who accept MORMON PRIESTHOOD ORDINANCES will go to “heaven” (celestial Kingdom). Everybody else is getting a “lesser” reward in a “lower” kingdom. This is why they teach/believe it’s the mormon way or the highway, and that we are the one and only true church. Surely we are not arguing this point are we?

I’m not sure what it is we are disagreeing with really? Symantics?

No, I don’t think my analogy is clear.

I’m NOT saying you can live your eternal life as a non-priesthood holding, non-temple-recommend-holding, single person and still go to the CK. I AM saying that you can avoid the priesthood, stay single for eternity, and not obey half the commandments and end up in the same kind of heaven the rest of the Christian world belives in. This is because traditional Christianty’s heaven has the same features as the Mormon Terrestrial kingdom — life with Jesus, single, no eternal progression, a better place than here, etcetera.

So, if you accept the definition of heaven as the terrestrial kingdom, as most of the rest of the Christian world does, then you don’t need all the ordinances, priesthood, and Mormon hoop-jumping. But if you stay,. and choose to jump through the hoops, then you might even get a supposedly better reward — the CK. So, for me, the LDS church gives me all the eternal rewards promised by mainstream Christianity, with additional Godhood benefits — if I want them and am willing to jump through all their hoops. I’ve been in and out of the hoops a couple times now.

So, if the traditional version of heaven is what you think heaven might be, you don’t even need to clean the chapel and can still feel REAL GOOD about yourself! 😆

[note, I just saw Ray’s comment a second ago…will respond.]

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

SD, please clarify if that’s not what you meant, but I think it boils down to different reactions to a word – “save”. Substitue “exalt” – and I think the comment changes.

Yes, what you said is a good clarification. Perhaps its a moot point for cWald who is thinking only about exhaltation and not simply being saved with Jesus, as I am.

[Anonymous]

Sure SD. Yeah – it’s just semantics. We believe it and understand it. But most members in our faith do not IMO. In fact, we teach that when LDS members end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom – that they will be in “hell” because they will realize what they could have had, and are stuck in eternity in a “lesser” kingdom.

My point, is perhaps mormons will be in a “different” place they call heaven. But I don’t think it will be a “higher” place like the CK vs the TK. Mormons do think this, and that only they have the priesthood power to exalt those people to the top level. That is why I don’t think Orson’s theory can work both ways. Either the church is the one and only true church on the earth, and perfect, and the prophet speaks for god and will never lead us astray, OR it is like all the other divine pathways (church/religions), with “detours” that god wanted and “planned,” and allows, which help us grow and gain wisdom and exaltation. It can’t be BOTH!

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

…I AM saying that you can avoid the priesthood, stay single for eternity, and not obey half the commandments and end up in the same kind of heaven the rest of the Christian world belives in. This is because traditional Christianty’s heaven has the same features as the Mormon Terrestrial kingdom — life with Jesus, single, no eternal progression, a better place than here, etcetera…then you don’t need all the ordinances, priesthood, and Mormon hoop-jumping. But if you stay,. and choose to jump through the hoops, then you might even get a supposedly better reward…

To me that sounds almost like another way of saying we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others and for many Mormons this implies that they are better and more “worthy” than others over things like coffee. That’s why it really is like cwald said either the Mormon way or the highway when it comes to supposedly making the most of this life with eternal consequences supposedly at stake if we don’t do exactly what the Church says. What’s worse is that many members basically expect you to leave if you aren’t really committed to this cause because half-way is not acceptable and should not exist in the Church as far as they’re concerned.

Suppose we try our best to do everything the Church asks and expects; in that case how do we know that the Church will really deliver with some of the extravagant promises they like to make? Basically we are expected to believe all this mostly because the prophets said so, which leads us back to the original question of just how much we can really count on these prophets being right. What happens if the prophets are wrong and there really is no exclusive eternal reward for being Mormon? In that case, we have jumped through all these hoops mostly for the sake of an imaginary reason because we were led astray by these LDS prophets (well-intentioned or not).

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

…I AM saying that you can avoid the priesthood, stay single for eternity, and not obey half the commandments and end up in the same kind of heaven the rest of the Christian world belives in. This is because traditional Christianty’s heaven has the same features as the Mormon Terrestrial kingdom — life with Jesus, single, no eternal progression, a better place than here, etcetera…then you don’t need all the ordinances, priesthood, and Mormon hoop-jumping. But if you stay,. and choose to jump through the hoops, then you might even get a supposedly better reward…

To me that sounds almost like another way of saying we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others and for many Mormons this implies that they are better and more “worthy” than others over things like coffee. That’s why it really is like cwald said either the Mormon way or the highway when it comes to supposedly making the most of this life with eternal consequences supposedly at stake if we don’t do exactly what the Church says. What’s worse is that many members basically expect you to leave if you aren’t really committed to this cause because half-way is not acceptable and should not exist in the Church as far as they’re concerned.

Suppose we try our best to do everything the Church asks and expects; in that case how do we know that the Church will really deliver with some of the extravagant promises they like to make? Basically we are expected to believe all this mostly because the prophets said so, which leads us back to the original question of just how much we can really count on these prophets being right. What happens if the prophets are wrong and there really is no exclusive eternal reward for being Mormon? In that case, we have jumped through all these hoops mostly for the sake of an imaginary reason because we were led astray by these LDS prophets (well-intentioned or not).

I agree with everything you said.

However, I like to think that if I’m wrong after all the tithing, moving, chapel cleaning, inconvenient service, and conformity, I’m at least going to rub shoulders with the good members of the Unitarian Church down the street in the “actual” heaven since I lived the standards of traditional Christianity my whole life. I might be a bit ticked I did it when I didn’t have to, but at least the rewards will be there if heaven is really just what the Christian world says it is, and not the Mormon version.

And yes, it does come down to whether the prophets are always right. Many of us here are not sure if they are — so I pose this as nice consolation prize if we are wrong in believing the prophet and jumping through all the Mormon hoops.

In a way, I look at the Church as the Transcender corporation’s practice exams for industry certifications. They get hold of the real test, and then create a practice test that is harder than than the actual test. Test-takers prepare against the higher set of standards found in the practice tests. And then, when they take the certification exam, it seems easy.

The idea is that if you make the learners prepare against a higher standard, more of them will pass the test eventually. In our case, the final test is the judgment.

I’m probably ticking everyone off by calling judgment the test, but who cares. The analogy holds….I passed all my Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer exams on the first take because of the Transcender approach to test preparation.

Wow, I just had a thought — perhaps the people at Transcender corporations are Mormons — now wouldn’t that be a great rumour to start, along with Lionel Richie, Ronald Reagan, Gladys Night and all the other supposed mormons out there!! You can tell everyone you heard it here on the truth channel from Silentdawning…out. 😆

(P.S. Gladys really is a Mormon, I’m just pulling your chain).

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

…In a way, I look at the Church as the Transcender corporation’s practice exams for industry certifications. They get hold of the real test, and then create a practice test that is harder than than the actual test. Test-takers prepare against the higher set of standards found in the practice tests. And then, when they take the certification exam, it seems easy.

The idea is that if you make the learners prepare against a higher standard, more of them will pass the test eventually. In our case, the final test is the judgment.

I’m probably ticking everyone off by calling judgment the test.

I get your analogy. If it works for you – run with it.

There is nothing wrong with hedging against your investments.

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind I don’t know what the real test will be. I use the Transcender analogy when my family gets on my about being a Mormon. They are passive anti-Mormons and evangelicals.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

doug wrote:

This is true by definition. Next.

Quote:

I guess I don’t understand what you meant by this because to me this statement is clearly false and I don’t believe it is quite so trivial if you really consider some of the implications of it.

I read it as a cynical statement that points to a paradox in the our belief system.

Yes, it was dripping with cynicism. Warning: there’s more on the way. We can argue the finer points of this all we want, but in the end there is only one leader of the church, one person appointed to speak for God. If he says were not going astray, then we’re not going astray. Period. End of discussion. What external authority is there to say whether or not the church has been led astray? Let’s say, just for argument’s sake that the president of the church does lead the church astray. How does one quantify the astray-ness of the church? Against what would this supposed astray-ness be measured? Who will point this out, and on what authority? What will the church’s view of this person or group of people be? (We all know the answer to that one.) The church, by it’s very nature, cannot be led astray, so to say that the leader of the church will never lead the church astray is a vacuous statement.

This view is pragmatic as well as cynical. The church is what it is, and will be whatever it will be. The question then becomes how do we avoid being led astray as individuals. Thankfully, we of course have our own consciences to guide us in these matters.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Quote:

This is true by definition. Next.

Yes, it was dripping with cynicism. Warning: there’s more on the way. We can argue the finer points of this all we want, but in the end there is only one leader of the church, one person appointed to speak for God. If he says were not going astray, then we’re not going astray. Period. End of discussion. What external authority is there to say whether or not the church has been led astray? Let’s say, just for argument’s sake that the president of the church does lead the church astray. How does one quantify the astray-ness of the church? Against what would this supposed astray-ness be measured? Who will point this out, and on what authority? What will the church’s view of this person or group of people be? The church, by it’s very nature, cannot be led astray, so to say that the leader of the church will never lead the church astray is a vacuous statement. This view is pragmatic as well as cynical. The church is what it is, and will be whatever it will be.

I guess I don’t believe that people really need to quantify the astray-ness in an absolute way that everyone can agree with to have an understandable opinion about it based on value judgments, observations, examples, etc. Like I said before, the relative level of astray-ness can be measured approximately by comparing the Church to other competing religious sects. It looks to me like the cost of membership and level of authoritarianism is at the far extreme if you were to rank various options. So if you don’t believe this is really justified based on their overall track record as “prophets” so far then the LDS Church is absolutely astray compared to other possibilities.

I agree that the Church probably isn’t going to agree with me and see the error of their ways any time soon but I still think it’s a perfectly valid criticism that some members might want to consider and deal with on an individual basis even if that only means not being afraid to ignore them sometimes, turn down callings, pay less tithing, etc. That’s why I don’t see the pragmatic value of refusing to talk about these issues at all just because top Church leaders aren’t likely to listen to some of these complaints because it is still therapeutic to some members like me to talk about these questions and try to sort out what some of this means.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

lots of good stuff …

I think I agree with everything you said. All I am saying is that when ETB (or whoever) says that the leader of the church will never lead the church astray, he is absolutely correct, at least in the sense that he means it.

[Author]

Posts