clbent04

"I know this Church is true."

I sometimes get lasered focused on what I'm specifically trying to discuss in a topic, and when someone misreads what I write either for my lack of ability to accurately convey my thoughts or the reader's lack of ability to understand, I sometimes have trouble figuring out how to get back on the same page when it seems like they're interested in responding to me about anything but the original point I was trying to discuss. I'm primarily addressing the good that nonmembers develop within themselves outside of the Church whether or not their righteous development was influenced by religion. My main argument I'm interested in discussing is I believe most of God's children who are fortunate enough to enter into the Celestial Kingdom will be doing so via accepting the invitation by baptism of the dead, whereas I think you and @Vort might disagree (something I'd really like to vet further with you guys). When I talk about love as a metric to get an idea of where everyone stands in their development on this Earth both inside and outside the Church, I'm using it in the sense of how much love we have for our fellow man. Well said. Nicely worded and more comprehensive than my simplistic term of "love" as the defining characteristic for the elect among us. It's my belief that a very high correlation exists between the judging criteria you described here and how much love someone has developed for their fellow man. Obviously not a perfect correlation, but a high correlation. I've written everything I have in this thread with this as my understanding. Agreed. I'm not using the term "celestial caliber" in the sense of one's calling and election made sure, but rather one who is on the right path towards eternal life and who is noticeably developed in their ability to love others.

I've been baffled by the fervency so many in the US have for the Republican and Democratic parties when neither party gives an iota about the national debt. Both parties are irresponsible, reckless stewards over the finances of this country. The national debt hasn't been taken seriously for quite some time. We're fine throwing money at America's problems as the go-to solution we think works for everything. Who's interested in balancing America's budget and restoring fiscal conservative values? No one. We need another party to emerge soon that embraces fiscal conservatism, but I'm afraid even if it did, the popularity of writing blank checks seems like it will prevail until a rude awakening comes. The country at large either willfully or ignorantly embraces anarchy with its irresponsible spending.

Hoping both @Just_A_Guy and @Vort can weigh in here on these two perspectives because this is ultimately what I was trying to address in this tread.

Do you think most members within the Church believe similarly? I really don't know where the general consensus would fall. What I do know, and setting aside the truthfulness of the gospel, is it's human nature to think the organizations you belong to are superior to the organizations of others. This is just as much true with religion as it is with sports, politics, schools and citizenship. Do you think your statement could be subject to this type of human nature where it unintentionally leads you to make an overstatement? You could fully stand by your statement, and that's fine if you do, but the reason why I think it's an overstatement is because it discredits the righteous progress achieved by nonmembers in this life. Just because these nonmembers aren't on the optimal, gospel path, doesn't mean God is going to discredit the love they've developed. Will nonmembers eventually have to accept the gospel for what it is once it's extended to them to accept? Of course. But how hard is that going to be for the elect among us who have proven to live their lives primarily by love? Considering the very small percentage that LDS members represent of this world's population (1 out of 500 people), I believe most of God's children who are fortunate enough to enter into the Celestial Kingdom will be doing so via accepting the invitation by baptism of the dead. To suggest that the elect among us aren't spread out in every corner of this world strikes me as blatantly false considering my own experiences and observations in this world.

I’ve questioned pretty much everything I can think of related to religion. Just because I’m questioning what I am within this topic, doesn’t mean I haven’t previously questioned something I might currently be stating more confidently. I try to understand the topics I address so they resonate with me on a logical and spiritual level. Some topics can only be understood spiritually. Some topics I have very little to no understanding and am just left with faith to accept as true. Accepting something in faith alone might sometimes be necessary as an LDS member, but if you’re able to develop understanding beyond that, why not try?

I'm not goal post shifting. I'm trying to help you understand my initial point you responded to.

I'm not rejecting anything. Only questioning.

Thanks for the clarification. Quoting myself for context to your quote --- My personal interpretation of the gospel: Before God reveals us the Truth, we are not penalized for rejecting it; and once He does reveal it, He always does it in such an unambiguous and even overpowering way virtually no one who lived a life of Celestial caliber will reject it. I don't think it's misleading. I stated it's my personal interpretation. And since you admitted that no one knows where the dividing line is on who is to be extended a chance to accept the gospel in the life hereafter versus those of us who have already received our chance to accept it, I think personal interpretation is all we have at this point. My studies of the gospel have led me to have the interpretation that I do, and I haven't found anything contrary that God will not be as merciful and lenient as possible in extending all our brothers and sisters the chance to accept the gospel in the clearest way possible. Contemplate in your mind right now the 10 most loving, charitable, and caring people you have met in your life. I can do the same and tell you that some of them are members and some non-members. If the non-members are just as advanced in the amount of love they've developed in their lives, do you really think accepting the gospel will be difficult for them once they are extended the opportunity to accept it? The difficult part is developing love. If they already have that down, accepting the gospel will be natural for most people in my category of those I consider to have Celestial caliber regardless of which religion they claimed on Earth.

I'm addressing the misconception that LDS families experience happiness on elevated levels unfathomable to non-member families. If we compare a positive, wholesome member family to a positive, wholesome non-member family, and if we had some magical instrument to measure the units of happiness each family experiences in this life, do you think the results would be much different? I'm not arguing the indescribable joy that the gospel brings. But a non-member family can have just as much contentment in this life when they don't know any better. They are content with what they have. It's a human tendency to be content with what we have, at least among those of us who are positive and optimistic. A man can be happier in a Nazi concentration camp than a billionaire celebrity. It's all about perspective and appreciating what you have.

2 Corinthians 13:1 Not only does it resonate with me, but it's been established many times over in the scriptures clearly and definitively. Loving God and loving each other are the greatest commandments given to us by God.

Where did I get the idea that charity is a defining characteristic to those who inherit eternal glory? I'm not even saying something novel or questionable there. I don't get why you act surprised with a statement like that.

I'm not understanding what you wrote here: "Being born in the covenant of your parents' marriage, or its equivalent, is absolutely necessary to inherit eternal life." I read this as your opinion that everyone must be born in the LDS Church to LDS parents to have the chance to inherit eternal life? Also, "Accepting and living by the covenants of the gospel as found in the Restored Church, or its equivalent, is absolutely necessary to inherit eternal life." When you say "...living by the covenants of the gospel as found in the Restored Church, or its equivalent, is absolutely necessary to inherit eternal life", to me that sounds like you are saying everyone must live their mortal lives as faithful LDS members otherwise they can't inherit eternal life. It appears I'm misinterpreting what your saying per your subsequent posts. Could you help me see what I may be missing with your statements here? My confusion stems from you saying these kind of statements I quoted above, but then saying that you understand that baptisms for the dead extend the opportunity for those who didn't live as faithful, LDS members to have eternal life, which, if you do believe that, seems to conflict with your other statements.

Case in point: Are you happy care bear or grumpy care bear? nuff said

I think the misunderstanding is yours and it appears neither of us care to further elaborate to enlighten the other at this point.

I understand what you wrote, I just don't agree with it.

Wickedness never bringing happiness does not equal righteousness in one particular religion brings elevated happiness above all other non-members

I didn't say charity is the key to exaltation. I said it is a defining characteristic

Nowhere have a stated something like this. I think you might be incorrectly inferring this assumption of yours with what I have written, but I don't have an angle here questioning the importance of active membership in the Church. I'm stating active membership in the Church in this life is important for the salvation of those of us who have received God-given knowledge that the Church is true. I don't agree that those who haven't discovered the Church in this life are automatically cut off from their chance at entering into the Celestial Kingdom; ergo, I don't believe it's necessary to live your life as an LDS member to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. Why else would we be doing baptisms for the dead if not to extend our fellow brothers and sisters the same chance we had to accept the gospel and enter into the Celestial Kingdom?

If this were the case, what's the point in doing baptisms for the dead? Do you suppose that these proxy baptisms don't allow individuals the chance to enter into the Celestial Kingdom?

With what you wrote here, if you replaced "happiness" with "fulfillment", I could subscribe to that. I don't think the equally wholesome, positive, non-member family is experiencing happiness in a different way that the member family experiences happiness. Where is your extra happiness coming from? Those moments you sat in the Celestial room whereas your non-member counterparts weren't? If you look back at your life and reflect on your happiest moments, do you think you're happy moments trump non-members' happy moments?

Questioning where the dividing line is on who will be receiving a chance in the life hereafter to accept the gospel is hardly related to embracing the carefree attitude of "eat, drink, ang be merry, for tomorrow we die"

I've questioned how much of the gospel can we truly rely on as unchanging and immovable since the history of the Church proves that the Church is not immune to change, and, in fact, is designed to embrace change in some cases; but in this case I just don't see how "recording on earth" equals all Church ordinances must be performed on Earth by mortals.

This is a large factor to my own questioning on what God will ultimately decide is the dividing line between those who are to be extended a chance to accept the gospel via baptism of the dead versus those who have already had a sufficient chance in this life to accept it. Many of us, myself included, don't know what it's like to grow up in a Baptist, Muslim, Buddhist household. To read it on paper is one thing. But to live it is another. People tend to dedicate their lives to religion not because of what's on paper, but because of what they feel and experience within that religion. It's the intangible that keeps members committed to their faiths. I have no idea how I would have taken to another religion had I grown up in a different household. And none of us can say for sure what kind of impact that would have on allowing us to see the LDS gospel for what it is if we had of grown up as non-members.

Which brings me to my point that I don't think we as members of the Church can say that the Church and its ordinances have no reason to exist if living a faithful, covenant keeping LDS life isn't requisite to enter into the Celestial Kingdom.