- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
That is one of the beautiful doctrines of Salvation
that no other religion on earth has answers for. Except all universalists, of course.
Fig-bearing Thistle, I said I appreciate your participation here. I meant it sincerely. What I said in no way intended to limit your commenting in any way. I mean that sincerely. Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:Help me understand where you are coming from. The LDS Church clearly teaches that EVERY person who ever lived will be given his/her full opportunity to freely receive the Gospel fulness, and the Gospel ordinances. If not in this life, then in the Spirit World before the resurrection, or during the Millennium. No one will be left w/o this full opportunity. And this test extends into spirit world until the time of resurrection.
I think the LDS view of universal salvation is beautiful. The idea is very satisfying to the soul. Ray knows my point on this subject from other discussions. We teach that mortality is a vital experience on the path to exaltation. It is often presented as a grand test of obedience. Will we obey the commandments? Ritual saving ordinances are also stressed. Yet 99.99% of all the spirits that pass through this life get no benefit from it (so it would logically seem) since they never hear the “one true gospel,” receive the ordinances, the priesthood or even hear of the man named Jesus Christ.
The whole mess has to be fixed on the backend with temple work while they are taught missonary lessons in spirit prison. So what was the point of a mortal life?
The problem begs the question. Why? Life must other values instead of (or in additiona to) a Mormon obedience test. How necessary is a church that almost nobody who ever lived attended? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody saw it, does it matter?
I posing this as a very challenging question.
That really is THE central paradox, imo, valoel – and there is NO easy answer. My own “answer” currently to the question of the importance of mortality rests almost solely on what I see as the symbolic nature of ordinances. I have no doubt there are myriad ways that God could save his children without requiring physical ordinances. However, I’m not sure there is a way to “turn the hearts of the children to their fathers” without physical ordinances – and I believe strongly in the idea/doctrine/concept that we are all brothers and sisters, children of God. With that foundation, I really like the idea/doctrine/concept of vicarious work – and personal Buddhist shrines, and supplication of faithful ancestors for help, and anything else that blunts human arrogance and pride and ties humanity together as literal family.
I believe mortality really IS important – for those fortunate enough to experience its grandeur. I don’t believe it carries all of that import for those who don’t – and I’m not opposed at all to the idea of multiple opportunities for mortality for those spirits whose opportunity here is not sufficient. (I’m open to the idea of limited reincarnation, confined strictly to the “human” sphere. I don’t think the Church can teach it, and I’m not married to it, but I am open to it.) I also believe the Restored Church and Gospel of Christ are important to ME – and that the “big picture” theology is what is important globally in this life. Finally, I believe that versions of that theology have been and are taught in multiple religious constructs, without the ordinal base. When that theology is lost, I believe mortals suffer greatly; when that theology is taught, I believe mortals suffer less than they would without it. When that theology is fused with physical ordinances that make it “tangible” – that is wonderful to me.
Valoel wrote:
The problem begs the question. Why? Life must other values instead of (or in additiona to) a Mormon obedience test. How necessary is a church that almost nobody who ever lived attended? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody saw it, does it matter?I posing this as a very challenging question.
I agree completely that life has other value in it than just membership in the LDS Church.
I think it goes back to the purpose of life. Though a person may not be LDS, that person still fulfills many purposes of life.
1. Learn to distinguish good from evil / light from darkness through personal experience.
2. Obtain a body, and learn to let the spirit rule over the body, and the appetites of the flesh.
3. Learn obedience the whatever degree of light we ‘
have‘ been given. 4. Learn courage, and prove ourselves courageous in defense of what is right and good.
5. Obtain stewardship (marriage and family) and prove to be faithful, wise, loving stewards over that which we have been give charge of.
6. Learn and show love to our fellowman.
All of these and more, I think, are purposes and value in life. And whatever knowledge, expience, and wisdom and truth that we obtain in this life, will rise with us in the resurrection.
That’s my view, anyway
Thanks.
Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:I think Joseph pondered the same question and he says he was ‘surprised’ to learn that none were correct.
I know this is a tangent but I agree with Valoel about Joseph going to seek forgiveness. In his earlier 1832 account Joseph says that by studying the scriptures he came to realize that the world was in apostasy and he felt to pray for the forgiveness of his sins and the sins of the world. This is one of my little ‘hot-buttons’ that I wish the church as a whole was more familiar with the 1832 account. I hear people saying Joseph went to the grove looking for a one word answer – “Methodists” or “Baptists” would have suited him just fine – but I think that is an over-simplification of what was actually going on in Joseph’s head (and it would be nice to be able to discuss the potential reality in more depth in church).
Orson wrote:Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:I think Joseph pondered the same question and he says he was ‘surprised’ to learn that none were correct.
I know this is a tangent but I agree with Valoel about Joseph going to seek forgiveness. In his earlier 1832 account Joseph says that by studying the scriptures he came to realize that the world was in apostasy and he felt to pray for the forgiveness of his sins and the sins of the world. This is one of my little ‘hot-buttons’ that I wish the church as a whole was more familiar with the 1832 account. I hear people saying Joseph went to the grove looking for a one word answer – “Methodists” or “Baptists” would have suited him just fine – but I think that is an over-simplification of what was actually going on in Joseph’s head (and it would be nice to be able to discuss the potential reality in more depth in church).
I don’t think that is inconsistent with Joseph to seek forgiveness for his sins. Joseph’s history was taken from a letter, and I don’t think he detailed every thought that crossed his mind. So I would agree with you.
I really look forward to teaching this lesson in Gospel Doctrine in a few weeks. Of course, that presumes that I will still BE teaching, after this coming Sunday, when I will be teaching how to discern REVELATION in front of a slew of Stake leaders, including the Presidency (Both Priesthood and Relief Society). I’m not going to hide my light under a bushel, and there’s the rub. Well, I trust that the Spirit will help me through it without any obvious heresy being taught…
My view on this topic, though, is that the Church is NOT claiming any exclusivity on truth— and to help me see that picture, I notice two qualifiers. ONE, the use of the word ‘living’; TWO, the use of the phrase, “with which I am well pleased, speaking collectively and not individually”.
There’s just NO WAY I accept the Church as the “one and only true Church” without those qualifiers. And as I said in my intro, I accept the church being ‘true’ in the sense of it being straight – like a 2×4 is true when it isn’t warped. Even then, sometimes I wonder… Nevertheless, I LOVE the Church.
HiJolly
HiJolly, I’m not sure if you read one of the links in my very first comment on this thread, but the following might interest you: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/12/common-scriptures-in-review-the-weapons-of-their-rebellion/ Old-Timer wrote:HiJolly, I’m not sure if you read one of the links in my very first comment on this thread, but the following might interest you:
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/12/common-scriptures-in-review-the-weapons-of-their-rebellion/
Yeah, that’s an excellent post. I should just read it to the class.HiJolly
/bump Feel free to continue the discussion and bring in new views. This is one of the most common issues we have to deal with in our faith transition.
I’m too lazy to read all the previous posts but I’ll throw in my 2 cents on the “true” Church thing… Satan will tell 99 truths to slip in one lie…IOW he will try to exploit any/every weakness to keep us from reaching our potential…because IMHO our potential is unimaginable.
If he can get the most noble and rightous beings to expend their energies in a setting that won’t allow them the chance at exaltation…then that’s what he’ll do.
The restored gospel in it’s pure form is the only avenue to exaltation ever offered. Any other path offers a less-than-perfect reward.
I would challenge the true “church” thing and go more with something like “true gospel” since, as a fundamentalist, I view the Church as having some temporary issues right now. But that’s just my view….
Mileage may vary.
Bruce in Montana wrote:a setting that won’t allow them the chance at exaltation
Can you tell me more about this?
Well, it’s only my opinion but I’ll try. If the adversary knows that a person will not willfully fall into an intentional sinful lifestyle, then it would never work to tempt him/her with such. However, if he can use our weaknesses to fool us into a less-than-perfect path, then that just might work.
As far as I know, the only path offered to our greatest potential (exaltation) is the restored gospel. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If that is true, than it seems to stand to reason that any deviation from that is cheating ourselves.
My opinion only….
Mileage will certainly vary.
So can you give me some examples of what you picture as a setting (that would not allow me the chance at exaltation)?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.