Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom


prisonchaplain
 Share

Will there be many evangelicals in the Celestial Kingdom?  

  1. 1. Will there be many evangelicals in the Celestial Kingdom?



Recommended Posts

<div class='quotemain'>

Now, i don't think there are many evangelicals walking around America that have never heard of the Book of Mormon, never heard of Joseph Smith, never heard of modern revelation, never heard of the organization of the LDS church etc.

Obviously, I'm biased here, in favor of the more welcoming interpretation. However, how many evangelicals indeed have actually had the LDS plan of salvation explained to them by LDS representatives who had authority to do so? :dontknow:

I think it’s good that you’re asking this question, but perhaps you should be more concerned with whether or not YOU have had that opportunity, and how YOU would ever know if you had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[i think it’s good that you’re asking this question[How many American evangelicals have actually had an authorized presentation of the LDS plan of salvation?], but perhaps you should be more concerned with whether or not YOU have had that opportunity, and how YOU would ever know if you had.

Here's what I've had: 1. Numerous postings from here, including many from returned missionaries, whom I assume are authorized to present the gospel. 2. Professor's Robinson's presentation in "How Wide the Divide?" 3. An hour-long presentation in the chatroom by DisRuptive1. Granted, I'm not sure how authorized he is, but it seemed to be an accurate explanation, offered in a down to earth manner. So, I suppose I have.

On the other hand, I've not had a testimony as to the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims. My sense was, Prof. Robinson might even argue that anyone who has not had such a testimony, since s/he DID NOT RESIST the truth, but never really had a sense of it (head yes, but no wrestling in the heart), would still be eligible for conversion in the life to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still be “eligible”? Perhaps. But if God never “makes you” accept the gospel, as “LDS” accept it, and I believe He never will because that would violate your agency, how will or would you know it?

And btw, if you’re banking on the idea that some people in the “life to come” will be able to somehow make you believe it, any more than we can here, perhaps you should consider the idea that God will always allow people to believe whatever they want to believe, without imposing His will on anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still be “eligible”? Perhaps. But if God never “makes you” accept the gospel, as “LDS” accept it, and I believe He never will because that would violate your agency, how will or would you know it?

And btw, if you’re banking on the idea that some people in the “life to come” will be able to somehow make you believe it, any more than we can here, perhaps you should consider the idea that God will always allow people to believe whatever they want to believe, without imposing His will on anyone.

I suppose what we are really getting at here, is related to "Pascal's Wager." I have not looked this up, but am offering my rough memory of it. The original proposal was:

1. If Christianity is right, and you refuse to embrace it, you will die and spend an eternity in the flames of hell. 2. If Christianity is false, and you embrace it, you still live a life of morality, have enjoyed some healthy social relationships, and perhaps lost some time you might have spent doing other things. 3. So, Pascal argued, the logical betting person should embrace Christianity, because s/he has much more to lose than could possibly be gained by rejecting it.

Blomberg's revision went something like this:

1. If, as a Christian, I embrace Mormonism, and I'm right, I spend eternity with God the Father, and Jesus, the Son. I get to live in the Celestial Kingdom. 2. However, if I am wrong, and Mormonism is deemed unacceptable in God's eyes, I lose my place in eternal heaven, and will instead be doomed to hellfire. 3. If Mormonism is correct, and I reject it, I will still be assigned to the Terrestial kingdom, which is very much like the heaven I believe in anyway. Plus, I may yet have an opportunity to convert in the life to come. 4. So, Blomberg's revised Pascal conclusion goes, far better to stay with evangelicalism, since I have much more to lose than gain. BTW, Robinson's response was that a Terrestial Kingdom type person would indeed go that route, whereas a Celestial Kingdom would rather risk all for the sake of ultimate truth and renewed eternal fellowship with the Heavenly Father.

Bottom-line: I don't like Pascal's wager. Truth is truth, and I am certain God would have us wrestle until we found it, rather than settling for something close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, nice answer. It brought to mind something Joseph Smith once said to someone who asked if he was a prophet. Something like: Yes. You want to wrestle?

And btw, the Prophet Joseph also enjoyed making a point of the fact that a prophet is simply someone who receives revelation from Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Ghost, so if YOU have knowledge from God, and not merely from someone who wrote something down in a book, YOU are a prophet yourself, and not even Satan can stop you from receiving and coming to know all the truth God can and will give you, if you really want to know all the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. However, if I am wrong, and Mormonism is deemed unacceptable in God's eyes, I lose my place in eternal heaven, and will instead be doomed to hellfire.

For me I rather like the LDS version. I get to go to the TK. That works. I sure as heck don't want to spend an eternity in the CK..... that would be ahell. With your faith I am doomed either way. On the one hand I get hellfire. On the other hand I'd have to spend an eternity with a psychopathic god who would allow the eternal torture of the vast majority of humanity AND evangelicals, baptists, and the religious right. I think the fire would be preferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. However, if I am wrong, and Mormonism is deemed unacceptable in God's eyes, I lose my place in eternal heaven, and will instead be doomed to hellfire.

For me I rather like the LDS version. I get to go to the TK. That works. I sure as heck don't want to spend an eternity in the CK..... that would be ahell. With your faith I am doomed either way. On the one hand I get hellfire. On the other hand I'd have to spend an eternity with a psychopathic god who would allow the eternal torture of the vast majority of humanity AND evangelicals, baptists, and the religious right. I think the fire would be preferable.

I start with two basic assumptions about God: That He's all-powerful, and that He's good. I interpret the Bible stories, the commands, etc. from this core anchor. You haven't reached that place of faith, yet. You question God's character, and thus wonder if He even is.

Ultimately, though, like most here, you seem the type that will grab hold of what is true. Until then, we all just keep shining our little lights. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I start with two basic assumptions about God: That He's all-powerful, and that He's good. I interpret the Bible stories, the commands, etc. from this core anchor. You haven't reached that place of faith, yet. You question God's character, and thus wonder if He even is.

Dude... no matter how big the font.... if you can rationalize a being that makes Hitler and Stalin look like slackers.... just because he is God... well knock yourself out. But there is no way you can spin it to meet the standards of the skeptic. That is what is called "spin" at it's greatest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude... no matter how big the font.... if you can rationalize a being that makes Hitler and Stalin look like slackers.... just because he is God... well knock yourself out. But there is no way you can spin it to meet the standards of the skeptic. That is what is called "spin" at it's greatest.

What I gave you are answers I've come to. The key to a good test is getting the questions right.

You've raised an issue that is so interesting to me that I'm starting a new string: Is there a God, and if so, what is He like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor Stephen E. Robinson (BYU, Ancient Scriptures) makes the following statement in the book How Wide the Divide:

The LDS believe there will be millions, even billions of good souls who will come from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the celestial kingdom of heaven (Mt. 8:11)--including, in my opinion, a very large percentage of Evangelicals. (bold emphasis mine)

Do you agree? Comments?

Well. It depends on if they choose to be baptized by someone in the LDS church, since the rules of Celestial glory require LDS baptism. If that is the case, then my answer is NO. If we go by the evangelical belief that heaven is open to all born again believers, then my answer is YES.

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 9 2006, 04:59 PM

I answered “Yes”, with the following understanding. ...

:backtotopic: But Ray, me thinks Prof. Robinson was speaking of Assemblies of God, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical Free, Salvation Army, Christian Missionary Alliance, Nazarene, Church of God, Church of Christ, Community of Christ, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.

Do you think these kinds of evangelicals will be numerous in the Celestial Kingdom?

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity.

Hi Jenda, you've been gone awhile, welcome back!

Could you define for me "mainstream Christianity" and "liberal protestantism", cause I'm guessing you see them differently.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity.

Hi Jenda, you've been gone awhile, welcome back!

Could you define for me "mainstream Christianity" and "liberal protestantism", cause I'm guessing you see them differently.

M.

Thanks!

Mainstream Christianity still sees sin as sin, and while we can accept the sinner, we don't accept the sin. Homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc., are still sins, and should not be tolerated. We are to encourage the sinner to repent.

Liberal Protestantism, OTOH, takes an I'm Okay, You're Okay approach to everything, and not just tolerates, but encourages sinful lifestyles. That is where you see homosexual unions being performed, active homosexuals allowed into the priesthood, etc. (Both of which take place in the CoC.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity. :(

I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I. :tinfoil: So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity. :(

I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I. :tinfoil: So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind.

It might be a little too painful for her to do that right now, but she has spoken about it before and you can find those comments by Searching.

And btw, Welcome back, Jenda. :bighug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity. :(

I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I. :tinfoil: So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind.

That's because I'm a member/used to be a member (however one chooses to look at it).

I gave a brief description in the post above, the difference between how I view mainstream Christianity and liberal Christianity, and how the RLDS/CoC fits in.

In a bit more detail, back in the early 60's, in response to the church feeling an identity crunch, and a new prophet that was fairly weak with strong counsellors giving him counsel, the church started down the road toward liberalism. At first, that looked like mainstream Christianity, with the church backing off on stating belief in the restoration story, a backing off on stating a belief in the BoM, and an embracing of beliefs that were not common to the restoration. This kinda backfired for the church because a good many of the saints did not want to become mainstream Christians. They were perfectly happy being RLDS, and so spoke out against the direction the church was going. It came to a head in the mid 1980's when they started ordaining women. A huge group broke off and started meeting separately. The church silenced all the priesthood who went with the group that split off, and at that time, IMO, the church started dying while the "restorationists" (the group that broke off) are fairly thriving.

I noticed a big change, though, around the year 2000. It started with seeing the church refusing to take a stand on many issues. Everything was OK. It was a sin, but OK, to get an abortion. It was a sin, but OK to be homosexual. It was a sin, but OK to have an affair. Now, the church is even stepping back on the "sin" part of some of those issues. It is obviously OK to be homosexual and be an active one because they are ordaining homosexuals into the priesthood AND marrying them.

I, being (at the time) a restorationist, spoke out against the stand of the church on the church's discussion board, and was banned from it. Now, since last June, I no longer believe in the restoration, and so have no issue with them foregoing the restoration principles, but still have issue with them rejecting the plain word of God. So I have broken completely with them.

It was good to see that many conservative members who did not break with the church in the mid 80's put up a fuss regarding leaving behind the restoration distinctives, so the church moved slightly back in their direction to at least claim that for some, the BoM is considered the word of God (how big of them. :angry: ) It was good because they were forced to take a stand on some issues, which they are not keen on doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because I'm a member/used to be a member (however one chooses to look at it).

I gave a brief description in the post above, the difference between how I view mainstream Christianity and liberal Christianity, and how the RLDS/CoC fits in.

In a bit more detail, back in the early 60's, in response to the church feeling an identity crunch, and a new prophet that was fairly weak with strong counsellors giving him counsel, the church started down the road toward liberalism. At first, that looked like mainstream Christianity, with the church backing off on stating belief in the restoration story, a backing off on stating a belief in the BoM, and an embracing of beliefs that were not common to the restoration. This kinda backfired for the church because a good many of the saints did not want to become mainstream Christians. They were perfectly happy being RLDS, and so spoke out against the direction the church was going. It came to a head in the mid 1980's when they started ordaining women. A huge group broke off and started meeting separately. The church silenced all the priesthood who went with the group that split off, and at that time, IMO, the church started dying while the "restorationists" (the group that broke off) are fairly thriving.

I noticed a big change, though, around the year 2000. It started with seeing the church refusing to take a stand on many issues. Everything was OK. It was a sin, but OK, to get an abortion. It was a sin, but OK to be homosexual. It was a sin, but OK to have an affair. Now, the church is even stepping back on the "sin" part of some of those issues. It is obviously OK to be homosexual and be an active one because they are ordaining homosexuals into the priesthood AND marrying them.

I, being (at the time) a restorationist, spoke out against the stand of the church on the church's discussion board, and was banned from it. Now, since last June, I no longer believe in the restoration, and so have no issue with them foregoing the restoration principles, but still have issue with them rejecting the plain word of God. So I have broken completely with them.

It was good to see that many conservative members who did not break with the church in the mid 80's put up a fuss regarding leaving behind the restoration distinctives, so the church moved slightly back in their direction to at least claim that for some, the BoM is considered the word of God (how big of them. :angry: ) It was good because they were forced to take a stand on some issues, which they are not keen on doing.

To summarize this whole church dilemma: When we start believing we have to compete with the golf course, we start downplaying sin, up-playing fellowship, downplaying holiness, up-playing prosperity, down-playing sin and conviction and right and wrong, and up-playing the "fun" that is Christianity...well, the golf course will always have easier fellowship, it will give you the sense of wealth, and it will be more fun. So, maybe it's time to forgo competing with the golf course, and start conducting our church worship, teachings, and practice the way Jesus originally intended. Did I capture the spirit of your disappointment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To summarize this whole church dilemma: When we start believing we have to compete with the golf course, we start downplaying sin, up-playing fellowship, downplaying holiness, up-playing prosperity, down-playing sin and conviction and right and wrong, and up-playing the "fun" that is Christianity...well, the golf course will always have easier fellowship, it will give you the sense of wealth, and it will be more fun. So, maybe it's time to forgo competing with the golf course, and start conducting our church worship, teachings, and practice the way Jesus originally intended. Did I capture the spirit of your disappointment?

Yeah, that about captures it. At least it would have until June. In June, God showed me that the restoration was wrong, and that is the main reason I broke with the church. Had I just felt it was intolerable believing in it and worshipping in that environment, I would have just stopped attending and found a place to worship that taught basic Bible principles and taught restoration beliefs at home. The net outcome would have been similar to what happened in June (when I left and found a church that teaches basic Bible principles), but the added belief that God let me know that the restoration was wrong solidified the understanding that I can never go back, no matter how much they might re-embrace the beliefs of the restoration.

Why do you accept the Bible?

Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

Why do you accept the Bible?

Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true.

Interesting, because the same spirit that brought me to Christ still dwells within me too, adding testimony that the Book of Mormon and others writings written by men who were ALSO inspired by Christ.

Which I suppose pretty much means that unless you come to know like I do, or I come to know like you, we'll just have to wait until final judgment to hear the verdict from Jesus Christ.

And btw, I thought about saying I already know, because I have already received revelation from Christ, but then I thought that would sound kinda tacky, since you would say that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Why do you accept the Bible?

Because the same spirit that brought me to Christ dwells within me adding testimony that the Bible is true.

Interesting, because the same spirit that brought me to Christ still dwells within me too, adding testimony that the Book of Mormon and others writings written by men who were ALSO inspired by Christ.

Which I suppose pretty much means that unless you come to know like I do, or I come to know like you, we'll just have to wait until final judgment to hear the verdict from Jesus Christ.

And btw, I thought about saying I already know, because I have already received revelation from Christ, but then I thought that would sound kinda tacky, since you would say that too.

I appreciate you being my brother in Christ, Ray. :bighug:

As I have read through the BoM in the past, I felt that there were some passages that were inspired. I haven't had the opportunity to go back and read through it to see if they strike me the same now, but I have no problem believing that God inspired whoever wrote the BoM in places. I find inspiration in many places, though, and do not consider them all to be scripture. So I see no problem with accepting those passages in the BoM that give spiritual inspiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest Yediyd

I voted yes, with the majority.

In the next life, I look forward to telling many of the evangelicals who [falsely] claimed that Mormons aren't Christians, "I told ya so!" ;-)

I voted, "yes" as well, and I am looking forward to seeing a VERY special Jewish friend of mine who does not even axcept Christ for who he is. I'm going to give her a BIG hug and a wry, " I dun tol' ya so!" ^_^
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share