clbent04

Deleted.

@Rob Osborn @Just_A_Guy @Fether @Mike @DoctorLemon @Carborendum Based on doctrine, what do we know about where everyone is going to end up? I still interpret Matthew 7:14 as saying few people will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Here is a breakdown of the different Kingdoms of Glory per Preach My Gospel and scripture https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng Celestial Kingdom "During our mortal lives we make choices regarding good and evil. God rewards us according to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deeds done in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assigned after the Judgment. Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances of the gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement of Christ. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestial kingdom. They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy. They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In the scriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun." My interpretation: As discussed with earlier posts in this thread, very few of us in the Church keep all our covenants faithfully. 5 percent of us will go here Terrestrial Kingdom "People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the moon." My interpretation: This is where most of us are going. Most of us here on Earth are good, decent people, but are unwilling to do home/visiting teaching every month, regular temple attendance, obeying all the ordinances and commandments.... Keep in mind this includes all the people of other faiths who were good men and women, but not as exceptional as those who qualify for the highest kingdom. 75 percent of us will go here Telestial Kingdom "Those who continued in their sins and did not repent in this life will receive their reward in the lowest kingdom, which is called the telestial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the stars." Doctrine and Covenants 76:103 further clarifies this to mean the "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie." My interpretation: I see a lot of dishonesty in the world today, but I still see the majority of the population to be good and decent. The Telestial Kingdom is more for the indecent. The ones who never felt sorry enough to repent of their wickedness, the ones who lived life carelessly, not just worldly, but mean, unforgiving, covetous, deceitful... basically the kind of person you don't interact with everyday. 15 percent of us will go here Outer Darkness 25 And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord; 26 Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery My interpretation: We learn in the Church that very few people will end up going to Outer Darkness. 5 percent of us will go here Breakdown Celestial Kingdom: 5 percent Terrestrial Kingdom: 75 percent Telestial Kingdom: 15 percent Outer Darkness: 5 percent

Honestly my head is still spinning from having to phrase and rephrase everything upon hearing from @Vort that I wasn't using the correct terminology. I'm not even sure if my last attempt of trying to describe what I was saying makes sense, or if it just turned out to be more convoluted from all the correction attempts

I only said you're wrong when you were trying to equate "the rifle shoots true" with "the Church is true", which is very obvious to me why one is more of a stand alone statement than the other, but apparently I'm not using the right terminology to describe why, and you're not able to infer what it is I'm describing, or maybe you are able to infer and it still doesn't make sense to you. Whatever the case my be, I think we've brain powered this particular point enough. Thanks at least for trying

And the tears start rolling...

Easy, breezy, lemon squeezy

I agree. This is where I take issue. Why does the #1, most popular phrase used by Mormons during talks and testimony meetings require a reference set to be understood when the statement could just as easily be said without being dependent on a reference set? Just seems like good policy that the most popularized statement would be able stand on its own, no reference set necessary. Say you're an investigator visiting for the first time during a fast & testimony meeting. You hear the statement "I know this Church is true" and are not quite sure what it means. And you continue to hear it throughout the meeting over and over again. Maybe you develop a reference set very quickly within that same first meeting and begin to understand what the statement means, but maybe you don't. It's your first time in an unfamiliar church and you're taken it in piece by piece. For the benefit of the first time investigator, can we not replace the high frequent usage of this statement with something like "I know this Church is of God, and the teachings within it are true." You could even simply say "The teachings within this Church are true." While the investigator is not yet familiar with the teachings, they understand that you believe the teachings to be true whatever they may be. When you say "I know this Church is true", the investigator is left wondering what about the Church do you find true? The Spirit speaks to the heart and also to one's intellect. While the investigator may still feel the Spirit upon hearing the phrase "I know this Church is true" without even knowing for sure what it means, they are more likely to feel it when no reference set is necessary so the pathway of the Spirit can be more fully open to satisfy both spiritual and intellectual sides. Arrrrrrrr. Thanks. Revising this one once more.... (please don't correct it again if I have another mistake, or I think I just might cry) To understand my use (or misuse) of the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that requires a reference set"

You can't believe you're reading this because you don't have enough imagination to understand members grow up in different households. My upbringing was very different from yours as was the upbringing of @LiterateParakeet. The notion that "the Patriarch of that house and has the moral AUTHORITY more so than the Bishop" and that minors should confess sins to their dads first is not practiced or even expected in every Mormon household. Honestly this is the first time I've heard that's even a thing practiced or adhered to by Mormon families

I could see that

Did Joseph Smith give up on the Saints even when some were too stubborn to see a better way? Nay, my brethren, I say nay. So too shall I press onward with you. Onward ever onward!

I think I understand that fine, but looks like we're saying two different things here. The Lord's DESIRE for all men to have eternal life is not the same as what is actually going to happen. Parents wish good fortune for all their kids. Doesn't mean their kids will always turn out to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom

To understand my use (or misuse) or the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that begs further questioning as to the complete understanding of that statement". Having said that, do you see how the statement "I know this Church is true" begs the question "What is true about it?"

Thanks @Vort

Okay but help me out here if you happen to know what I'm trying to say even if I'm not saying it perfectly. It's a lot of work otherwise. Some people on these forums may very well know what you're trying to say, but try to get you caught up in technicalities. Fair enough? If I'm simply not using the right terminology or phrasing something well enough for you to understand, I'll keep trying. Just don't make it unnecessarily difficult (if you are)

You're example of "I know this rifle shoots true" is a statement that makes sense in itself, correct? We both agree on that. No further information is needed to understand this as a complete thought. The statement "I know this Church is true" is not a statement that makes sense in itself. It's open ended. Do you see how it begs the question, "what is it about the Church that makes it true?" No matter how much you want to say this statement is not an open ended statement, it's still an open ended statement. Do you see that?

@DoctorLemon Thanks Doc!

If this is the case, I think it would be fair to minors to receive some kind of disclaimer before confession: "If you confess to a serious sin as a minor, you are supposed to confess to your parents as well as part of the repentance process". But to not put any kind of disclaimer out there when confessions are understood to be strictly confidential can be damaging. This could jeopardize one's trust in the Church when the promise of confidentiality ends up having an asterisk at the end of it leading to a footnote you never knew about

I'm still not seeing anything within these verses saying the majority will receive eternal life

@Vort You're going on a tangent here unrelated to the previous posts. It's not the same. You're wrong

Well if that's the case, I feel better about the situation. As long as it's applied as a general guideline for minors and I wasn't singled out. Anyone have the exact reference to this? Not sure I understand this part...

All I glean from this is "some...shall be cast out" meaning some will go to Outer Darkness, right? Just because some are to be cast out, doesn't mean the majority of everyone else is going to the Celestial Kingdom. There's still the Terrestrial and Telessital Kingdom to account for

@Vort Really? The gun shoots accurately. Great. Makes sense. Good job. Nothing is left open ended. Not the same when you say the Church is true

So you're saying he counseled me to relay my confession to my dad as a means for me to receive forgiveness? Now my dad, a third party completely unrelated to the sins that I confessed, is necessary to confess to for me to receive forgiveness? Do you know where that even falls within the guidelines of the Church for making restitution? I don't see how that makes sense or restitution for the sin. And I don't think that was the bishop's intention either to make it a qualifier for my forgiveness. I interpreted his advice to tell my dad as a good idea, not a recommendation that my forgiveness was dependent on. The repentance counsel he gave me that day was to read some scripture passages he wrote down for me and to meet with him on two other occasions. That was actually the counsel he gave me upfront specifying saying I needed to follow through with for the repentance process. After that, he brought up the suggestion to tell my dad. And it was just that, a suggestion

bahaha very similar to my experience when I told my Dad what happened in the car that day. I was terrified to tell him nonetheless because I thought he would have an equally strict response as the Church does to these kind of things. His response? He was happy to know that I was "working" or functioning at full capacity as a human being haha. He grew up Baptist and wasn't 100 percent Mormon even after marrying my Mom

I can appreciate that especially through the perspective of a parent. What parent wouldn't want an open line of communication with their kids? But through the eyes of a teenager? Oh no no no no. That's terrifying to a 16-17 year old to all of a sudden have to question the confidentiality agreement you thought you had with your bishop. Even though he didn't openly break confidentiality, he hinted at the very thing I thought was to be kept strictly confidential. Is hinting not a form of breaching confidentiality? Again, I get the whole desire that a parent would want to have an open line of communication with their kid, especially a teenager going through this phase. But confidentiality shouldn't be breached in any form at the expense of wanting to have that open communication. Are confessions received by a bishop therefore only subject to casual confidentiality, and not strict confidentiality?