Sin from this sinner's perspective.

[2ndRateMind]

Now, what is the difference between sin and virtue?

 

Do they lie on a greyscale, with hideous atrocities at one end, and sublime merit at the other? Is a sin a wrong action, and how should we know what wrong actions are? Is a virtue a right action, and how should we know it is right? There is a clue there, I think. We are normally quite clear that virtues are not actions, but character attributes, and this is the intended theme of this thread.

 

So, the early church fathers, after some considerable deliberation, came to the view that there are seven deadly sins. They are, in alphabetical order, avarice, envy, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth and wrath.

 

To my mind, none of these are actions, but all 'ways of being'. They are all selfish ways of being, all loveless ways of being. They may lead to actions, but none of them actually are actions. Rather, they are the state of mind that causes an immoral action. Rape, say, in the case of lust, or the useless accumulation of wealth in the case of avarice. So, it seems to me, that it is the state of mind that is thing that is wrong about sin; Godless, because loveless, loveless, because selfish. And that, I find, is the real definition of sin - a Godless way of being.

 

This view has consequences. I will describe two of them.

 

Firstly, one does not need to be a believer, to live a Godly life. It helps, but the important thing is to love. To love is to make God, who is love, manifest in the world, by the material expression of all those love motivated activities. And this is true whether one realises that this is the result of one's love, because one has an explicit faith, or does not realise it, because one doubts and disbelieves.

 

Secondly, the idea that the sexual expression of a loving relationship is the thing that is wrong about homosexuality, while the same-sex-attraction that leads to it is acceptable, is entirely the wrong way around. Either the state of same-sex-attraction is necessarily selfish, loveless and Godless, and therefore sinful, or it is not. If it is, then so necessarily is the sexual expression of it. If it isn't, then neither necessarily is the sexual expression of it.

 

Now, I didn't start this thread to debate homosexuality. I just wanted to cite this as an example of a conventional wisdom that looks different when viewed from the perspective I have described. I could have chosen other activities that are alleged sins, but this one will do for now.

 

As always, I am interested in the LDS perspective. Do you have a nutshell definition of sin? Is your conception of sin different to the view I have described, and if so, in what ways?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 3, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Just a simple thing that makes LDS different from the teachings of the early church fathers:

 

Sin is the FAILURE to ACT righteously despite KNOWLEDGE of righteousness.

 

LDS is a people of covenants.  Therefore, for LDS, we act on our virtues by making covenants to follow what we know to be God's commandments.  We make our first covenants at age 8.  We don't make covenants until then because the Church considers the age of independent reason may possibly not be developed before then.  We expect people to make covenants when they have a knowledge of God's commandments.  Therefore, sin before that first covenant is paid for by Christ's Atonement.

 

So yeah... one can't sin without knowledge.

Edited December 3, 2014 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

Now, what is the difference between sin and virtue?

 

Do they lie on a greyscale, with hideous atrocities at one end, and sublime merit at the other? Is a sin a wrong action, and how should we know what wrong actions are? Is a virtue a right action, and how should we know it is right? There is a clue there, I think. We are normally quite clear that virtues are not actions, but character attributes, and this is the intended theme of this thread.

 

So, the early church fathers, after some considerable deliberation, came to the view that there are seven deadly sins. They are, in alphabetical order, avarice, envy, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth and wrath.

 

To my mind, none of these are actions, but all 'ways of being'. They are all selfish ways of being, all loveless ways of being. They may lead to actions, but none of them actually are actions. Rather, they are the state of mind that causes an immoral action. Rape, say, in the case of lust, or the useless accumulation of wealth in the case of avarice. So, it seems to me, that it is the state of mind that is thing that is wrong about sin; Godless, because loveless, loveless, because selfish. And that, I find, is the real definition of sin - a Godless way of being.

 

This view has consequences. I will describe two of them.

 

Firstly, one does not need to be a believer, to live a Godly life. It helps, but the important thing is to love. To love is to make God, who is love, manifest in the world, by the material expression of all those love motivated activities. And this is true whether one realises that this is the result of one's love, because one has an explicit faith, or does not realise it, because one doubts and disbelieves.

 

Secondly, the idea that the sexual expression of a loving relationship is the thing that is wrong about homosexuality, while the same-sex-attraction that leads to it is acceptable, is entirely the wrong way around. Either the state of same-sex-attraction is necessarily selfish, loveless and Godless, and therefore sinful, or it is not. If it is, then so necessarily is the sexual expression of it. If it isn't, then neither necessarily is the sexual expression of it.

 

Now, I didn't start this thread to debate homosexuality. I just wanted to cite this as an example of a conventional wisdom that looks different when viewed from the perspective I have described. I could have chosen other activities that are alleged sins, but this one will do for now.

 

As always, I am interested in the LDS perspective. Do you have a nutshell definition of sin? Is your conception of sin different to the view I have described, and if so, in what ways?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

the simple definition of sin is choosing to go against what God commands.....

I think you are on the right track, behind sin seems to be the desire of the self, and/or the the removal of freedom. Whereas the commands of God seem to be based on the helping and the raising of the "other"- in the end the most ultimate way of helping another individual to achieve the greatest that could be possibly achieved.

The hobble that those who don't believe have is the understanding that part of the picture is the other world or the spirit world, or understanding what God is trying to accomplish for Man.

without understanding it's more difficult to understand what is Godly and what isn't. While it's not impossible to be in Godly ways without being a practicing believer, it becomes more difficult, and likely more painful.

 

Christ showed what real love is

whereas popular vote says that sexuality is love (and this is what is espoused both on the hetero, homo, or about any other self declared type of sexual individual in popular trends).

 

[2ndRateMind]

I think you are on the right track, behind sin seems to be the desire of the self, and/or the the removal of freedom... 

 

 

This is a perceptive comment. One can, indeed, be 'a slave to sin.' Whereas virtue involves freedom; the freedom to sin, if one chooses, or not sin, if one chooses. To be 'sunk in sin' implies the opposite of this freedom. One's options are limited, and those to sinning.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 3, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

This is a perceptive comment. One can, indeed, be 'a slave to sin.' Whereas virtue involves freedom; the freedom to sin, if one chooses, or not sin, if one chooses. To be 'sunk in sin' implies the opposite of this freedom. One's options are limited, and those to sinning.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Yes.

 

But virtue is a byproduct of a correct choice - basically, the choice, freely chosen, to not sin results in virtue... whereas the choice, freely chosen, to sin is not virtuous.  Make sense?

[Traveler]

Just a simple thing that makes LDS different from the teachings of the early church fathers:

 

Sin is the FAILURE to ACT righteously despite KNOWLEDGE of righteousness.

 

LDS is a people of covenants.  Therefore, for LDS, we act on our virtues by making covenants to follow what we know to be God's commandments.  We make our first covenants at age 8.  We don't make covenants until then because the Church considers the age of independent reason may possibly not be developed before then.  We expect people to make covenants when they have a knowledge of God's commandments.  Therefore, sin before that first covenant is paid for by Christ's Atonement.

 

So yeah... one can't sin without knowledge.

 

Wow anatess - it has been such a long time since I have found something you have posted to disagree with - but alas I have finely found one.

 

 

one can't sin without knowledge

 

Actually I think it is possible to sin without knowledge - for me the question is rather about accountability.   Seminary S and I have gone some rounds on this subject.   But I believe that small children can sin and do.  I have both seen it occur and experienced it in my youth - of which I still have recollection of before reaching the age of accountability, when it became necessary for me to repent of my sins.  It is my belief that children are not accountable for sin but are given special dispensation of being forgiven of sin through the atonement of Christ.

 

We are warned in scripture that under specific condition the sins of children can be rested on the heads of the parents.  Also that the sins of a society can rest on those that fail in their appointment of G-d to sound a warning.   As a holder of the priesthood - this is of particular concern to me.

[Vort]

2ndRateMind, you start out correctly, but hidden assumptions lead you astray.

 

The Bible teaches that sin is transgression of the law. Perhaps a more useful distinction or definition is that sin is conscious transgression of the law. The whole idea of certain actions being "sinful" leads to divisions such as the "seven deadly sins" you mention. I don't think this is very useful; few actions are sinful by their very nature (other than things that are sinful by definition, such as disobeying God). Even the taking of human life, which we normally consider to be the most heinous act one can do, is not intrinsically sinful. But -- and this is the important part -- that does not mean that a great many actions are not in fact anathema to the Spirit of God, even for those who don't know the actions are bad.

 

You appear to have (at least) two false hidden assumptions, however: (1) That one need not know God in order to do his will and act virtuously; and (2) that being unconscious of the sinful nature of an action (e.g. homosex, or for that matter fornication in general) means that the act, not being strictly "sinful" in the way we discussed, is therefore harmless.

 

Proposition 1 must be allowed to be true, to some extent, else no non-Christian (and probably few Christians) would be capable of being a decent person who does good works. But it seems to me that at some point in spiritual progression, the Spirit of God must be present in a more immediate capacity. Spiritual inspiration is available to all, and can result in marvelous things, such as our present society. But we are capable of much greater if we become covenant people and live by those covenants. This is the great promise of "Zion".

 

Proposition 2 is obvious false on its face. We may not know that it's wrong to kill the children of our enemies; what could be more natural? Yet few modern Westerners would allow that such actions are either moral or useful in their results. Fornication specifically is a powerful inhibitor of spiritual insight. This has been recognized for thousands of years, inside and outside of Christianity, such that many cults, Christian and pagan alike, have been founded around the desirability of celibacy as a guiding principle. Yet the gospel teaches that not only is the sexual act not an undesirable or unGodly act per se, but quite the opposite: When used as God has commanded, it is ennobling and Godly. But we cannot know that without revelation, because it is not easily derivable from non-divine principles or observations. (See Principle 1.)

[PolarVortex]

I don't know much about sin, but an article I just read illustrates virtue pretty well.  Pope Francis has just fired the head of his Swiss Guard for being too military.  The article I read contained this section, which made me cry:

 

In a dispassionate one-sentence notice, the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, announced on Wednesday that Daniel Anrig will no longer serve as the commandant of the 500-year-old corps after the end of next month.

No official explanation was given for the decision, but it was widely rumoured that the Argentinean Pope, who has established a warmer, more inclusive style of governance since being appointed pontiff in March last year, found the commander's manner overly strict and "Teutonic."

The 77-year-old pope is said to have been appalled recently to have emerged one morning from his private suite of rooms to find that a Swiss Guard had been standing guard all night.
 

"Sit down," he told the young guardsman, to which the soldier said: "I can't, it's against orders."

The Pope replied: "I give the orders around here," and promptly went off to buy a cappuccino for the exhausted soldier.

[2ndRateMind]

2ndRateMind, you start out correctly, but hidden assumptions lead you astray.

 

The Bible teaches that sin is transgression of the law. Perhaps a more useful distinction or definition is that sin is conscious transgression of the law. The whole idea of certain actions being "sinful" leads to divisions such as the "seven deadly sins" you mention. I don't think this is very useful; ...

 

 

As usual Vort, a thoughtful and pertinent response. I am not persuaded yet, however. You seem to have a rules based, deontological conception of sin; mine is an ontological, 'way of being' conception, consistent with a virtue ethics approach to morality. I do not think either of us is necessarily wrong in outcome; the question is more a matter of economy of approach, and fecundity of consequence.

 

Whereas I can look at an action, and decide it was selfishly motivated, and therefore loveless, and therefore Godless, and therefore sinful, you need a new rule for each new occasion and circumstance, with no real justification for that rule beyond some unaccountable 'revelation'. Sooner or later there are going to be so many rules, it will be impossible to keep up with them!

 

Or have I misconstrued you, in some way?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited December 4, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, PolarVortex, I do approve of the current Pope. He seems to me to be a thoroughly good man. If I was the praying type, I would be praying for him, as he confronts the byzantine politics, reactionary conservatism, vested interests and institutional sinfulness of the Vatican.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 4, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

Yes.

 

But virtue is a byproduct of a correct choice - basically, the choice, freely chosen, to not sin results in virtue... whereas the choice, freely chosen, to sin is not virtuous.  Make sense?

 

Sort of, Anatess. I think there are vicious spirals of decline, when one first decides to sin, and virtuous spirals of ascent, when one puts sin aside, and climbs a more righteous path. In other words, the more one sins, the more easy to sin. The more one avoids sin, the more easy not to sin. And these choices have consequence for the level of virtue of our characters,

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 4, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Sort of, Anatess. I think there are vicious spirals of decline, when one first decides to sin, and virtuous spirals of ascent, when one puts sin aside, and climbs a more righteous path. In other words, the more one sins, the more easy to sin. The more one avoids sin, the more easy not to sin. And these choices have consequence for the level of virtue of our characters,

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Yes.  I agree completely.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes.  I agree completely.

 

OK. Now I'm going to take a leap of supposition, which you are quite free to criticise. My supposition is that it is the level of virtue of our characters, and not our belief system, that is rewarded come Judgment Day. This idea seems to me to deal with two issues I find problematic about the conventional wisdom of salvation.

 

1. Heaven gets to be open to any good person, rather than just Christians, however sin-ridden they might be. There is an issue of ordinary, transparent justice, here.

2. The very idea that only Christians get to go to heaven is so obviously self-serving to an elite that preach Christianity, and so obviously dismissive of other cultures that may have much wisdom to offer, that I truly believe a multi-cultural world needs and deserves a less partisan message.

 

I realise this seems to contradict Biblical ideas about whether it be faith or works that get us past St Peter, but I am not talking salvation by works, but salvation by 'way of being', by quality of character. It may well be, and I believe it to be the case, that a Christian belief system is conducive to the required quality of character, but, in the end, I think it quality of character that will count, (and not the culture we are lucky enough to be born into, or unlucky enough not to be born into), and be decisive.

 

Your opinions, and an LDS perspective, are, as always, most welcome.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 5, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

The LDS idea is that Heaven is broken up into degrees.... and which degree you get into depends on what you have become (taken into account what you were given).  And that most of the Human family will find a place there.  Clearly some degrees are better then others and go to the more valiant/christ-like.

 

We also believe that ordinances like baptism are required, and require authorized ministers (LDS one) to perform.  But through our proxy work (aka baptism for the dead) were are working very hard to give that away to all who might want it.

[Vort]

 

OK. Now I'm going to take a leap of supposition, which you are quite free to criticise. My supposition is that it is the level of virtue of our characters, and not our belief system, that is rewarded come Judgment Day.

 

A wonderful philosophy, as far as it goes. But what motivates the actions and ideas that determine "the level of virtue of our characters" if not our underlying belief systems?

 

This is much like saying, "I don't care how this computer program is coded so long as it fulfills all of my requirements." Translation: "I care a very great deal how this computer program is coded."

 

This idea seems to me to deal with two issues I find problematic about the conventional wisdom of salvation.

 

1. Heaven gets to be open to any good person, rather than just Christians, however sin-ridden they might be. There is an issue of ordinary, transparent justice, here.

 

Not to focus too narrowly on wording, but this point #1 -- "Heaven gets to be opened" -- seems to betray a heavy underlying (and probably unconscious) bias on your part: Heavenly admission must be perceived as fair by you, based on your personal judgment.

 

But this is absurd. Whatever "heaven" may be, its entrance requirements are set by God. So unless you are God, your opinion is worth exactly squat. As a non-God being, your mission is not to set or determine heavenly entrance requirements, but to discover them from the actual Source.

 

Another way of saying this is: What constitutes a "good" person? Perhaps you would agree that a "good" person is one who seeks after truth and then lives by whatever truth he manages to find. I cannot speak for other religions, of which my knowledge is limited, but you may be relieved to know that LDS doctrine teaches that people will be judged by what they become, by the intent of their hearts, and not by what they achieve. If a person becomes someone who desires to know God and to dwell with Him, then that person will accept truth when it is presented to him in a form he can understand.

 

That means when a Mormon missionary knocks on his door or talks to him on the street, if he senses truth from this young man or women, he will humble himself enough to make time to see him or her. And for those who die without having this opportunity, they will have (and are having) that opportunity in the post-mortal sphere. In support of this effort, we living Mormons engage in temple work such as baptism for the dead.

 

2. The very idea that only Christians get to go to heaven is so obviously self-serving to an elite that preach Christianity, and so obviously dismissive of other cultures that may have much wisdom to offer, that I truly believe a multi-cultural world needs and deserves a less partisan message.

 

Again, remember that your opinion plus a dollar will buy you a dollar's worth of stuff. Jesus himself taught that a man "must be born of water and of the Spirit", or he will not enter heaven. If salvation is offered by Christ, and ONLY by Christ, then it is self-evident that all who will be saved must be Christians. This is so obvious that it almost does not need saying.

 

If you are in a room with 100 doors, one of which leads to freedom and the other 99 of which lead to ravenous wolves, will complaining about the unfairness of the situation help? There is only one door, and that door is Christ. Period. No exceptions.

 

How is this fair? It is fair because all have been or will be given the opportunity to accept or reject Christ, as they see fit. What appears to you as some sort of cultural imperialism is plain old reality. Christians are not "better" than other people, and not everyone who calls himself a "Christian" really is. But all those who desire truth and seek after it will eventually find it. If you don't perceive the fairness of this situation right now, that's because your viewpoint is not sufficient to allow the correct perception, not because the situation really is unfair (in an eternal sense).

 

I realise this seems to contradict Biblical ideas about whether it be faith or works that get us past St Peter, but I am not talking salvation by works, but salvation by 'way of being', by quality of character. It may well be, and I believe it to be the case, that a Christian belief system is conducive to the required quality of character, but, in the end, I think it quality of character that will count, (and not the culture we are lucky enough to be born into, or unlucky enough not to be born into), and be decisive.

 

In the end, it is only the true doctrine of Christ that leads to repentance and salvation. This is not a matter of being born to the right family or being a member of the right club; it's a matter of "Whence truth?"

[2ndRateMind]

 

Hi Vort

 

 

A wonderful philosophy, as far as it goes. But what motivates the actions and ideas that determine "the level of virtue of our characters" if not our underlying belief systems?

 

 

 

Just so. I am not sure our belief system determines our actions, just has a significant influence on them, and that is why I said that I believe a Christian world-view is conducive to salvation. But I am sure that Christians do not have a monopoly on virtue, so, by any measure, other religions must have something of God's goodness about them.

 

 

 

Not to focus too narrowly on wording, but this point #1 -- "Heaven gets to be opened" -- seems to betray a heavy underlying (and probably unconscious) bias on your part: Heavenly admission must be perceived as fair by you, based on your personal judgment.

 

But this is absurd. Whatever "heaven" may be, its entrance requirements are set by God. So unless you are God, your opinion is worth exactly squat. As a non-God being, your mission is not to set or determine heavenly entrance requirements, but to discover them from the actual Source.

 

 

Yes, I see the direction you are taking. Nevertheless, it seems to me that (to put in simplified terms) admission to heaven must either be a gift given to all, or a just reward. Or some combination of both. The gift must be universal, or else capricious, and unjust. Or the reward must be just, or else capricious. Either way, I reject the idea of a capricious disposal of our souls, because that would be inconsistent with any notion of God's goodness. Now, I admit (somewhat reluctantly  ) that I am not God. But I think our notions of justice, while necessarily incomplete and partially inaccurate, must nevertheless reflect, however imperfectly, God's idea of justice. Otherwise we are saying 'God is just, but His justice is not like our justice'. That is like saying 'God is red, but His redness is not like our redness', and carries just as much lack of meaning. If we are to assert that God is just, we must simultaneously assert that our own notions of justice have traction on the universe, or we are involved in the propagation of nonsense.

 

 

Another way of saying this is: What constitutes a "good" person? Perhaps you would agree that a "good" person is one who seeks after truth and then lives by whatever truth he manages to find. I cannot speak for other religions, of which my knowledge is limited, but you may be relieved to know that LDS doctrine teaches that people will be judged by what they become, by the intent of their hearts, and not by what they achieve. If a person becomes someone who desires to know God and to dwell with Him, then that person will accept truth when it is presented to him in a form he can understand.

 

 

I like the way you have put this. The idea of 'who someone might become' is entirely consistent with my idea of their 'way of being', in that we are not discussing their beliefs or works, just their nature.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 6, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

In the end, it is only the true doctrine of Christ that leads to repentance and salvation. This is not a matter of being born to the right family or being a member of the right club; it's a matter of "Whence truth?"

 

 

I know this is conventional wisdom; I am simply wondering if conventional wisdom necessarily reflects truth. It does seem to me to be the case that those born into a Christian family, in a Christian culture, tend to remain Christian. Ditto Jews, remaining true to their identity, and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs, not to mention Pagans and Druids and, for all I know, witches and satanists. It does seem to me to be the case that accident of birth is probably the most significant factor in our choice of religion, and, given that accident of birth is capricious, and outside our volition, then so most be the disposal of our eternal souls, if that is to be way they are to be deployed. And this capriciousness of disposal is not one I find I can countenance.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 6, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[kapikui]

 

It does seem to me to be the case that accident of birth is probably the most significant factor in our choice of religion, and, given that accident of birth is capricious, and outside our volition...

 

Are you sure about that?  Mormons believe in a "pre-existence" or pre-mortal life, during which time we made choices.  All  choices have consequences. As to whether or not any of those consequences have any effect whatsoever on how, where or when we are born, there is no revelation so far as I know, but we don't know for sure that your statement is correct.

 

I personally like to think that each of is placed into a situation that will result in our greatest chance (not 100% as God can not interfere with free agency) of obtaining Celestial Glory, but that is my own opinion.

 

Also as has been explained to you before, we do believe that those who have not had a reasonable opportunity to accept the gospel in this life will be given it in the Spirit World. This would seem to invalidate your capriciousness argument.

 

What we do know is that those unto whom much is given, much is required, and unto those to whom little is given, little is required. 

 

There is a great deal about what goes on before and after this life that we simply do not know.  Saying any particular part of it is unjust is a little like judging whether or not a particular movie is any good by viewing a small portion of a single frame. You simply don't have the information  you need to make that determination. 

[Vort]

It does seem to me to be the case that accident of birth is probably the most significant factor in our choice of religion, and, given that accident of birth is capricious, and outside our volition, then so most be the disposal of our eternal souls, if that is to be way they are to be deployed.

 

You take for granted the assumption that birth is a "capricious" "accident". Do you have any evidence to support this idea, or is it (as I suspect) a wholly unsubstantiated assumption?

[2ndRateMind]

You take for granted the assumption that birth is a "capricious" "accident". Do you have any evidence to support this idea, or is it (as I suspect) a wholly unsubstantiated assumption?

 

So, are you guys suggesting that the wealthy are born into wealth, of a wealthy family, in a wealthy country, because they deserve to be? That the poor are born into poverty, want, squalor and disease, because they deserve to be? That is a contention that requires far more evidence to support it than my assumption of capriciousness, which after all, is only the situation left facing us once Occam's razor is applied, and we assume the notion that there is no rule governing which soul is born where, and we are randomly disposed.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 7, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

So, are you guys suggesting that the wealthy are born into wealth, of a wealthy family, in a wealthy country, because they deserve to be? That the poor are born into poverty, want, squalor and disease, because they deserve to be?

 

"We guys" are suggesting nothing. Do you or do you not have any evidence of your claim that birth is a capricious accident?

 

That is a contention that requires far more evidence to support it than my assumption of capriciousness, which after all, is only the situation left facing us once Occam's razor is applied, and we assume the notion that there is no rule governing which soul is born where, and we are randomly disposed.

 

I disagree with your application of Occam's Razor. You take nothing into account but your own current biases. Occam's Razor is not a rule to be applied in ignorance of relevant facts.

 

But in any case, you say above that "we assume the notion" of birth as a capricious accident. This is my point. When you make the assumption that everything is unfair, it begs the question to conclude that everything is therefore unfair.

[2ndRateMind]

I am quite willing to admit that I have no evidence that there is no rule governing where which soul is born. Occam's Razor demands the simplest possible explanation for some phenomenon, and, to my mind, the simplest possible explanation for the deployment of our souls across time and space is that they are randomly disposed. Mere caprice of fate, I submit, is the simplest and most economic explanation for when and where a soul is born.

 

Now, if you want to suggest something different than this null hypothesis default position, that there is some rule, presumably a just one, that determines when and where we are born, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. I am arguing that there is nothing to provide evidence of; so it is not surprising if no evidence is forthcoming. But you seem to be suggesting something different than this, that some rule exists, and so it is down to you to provide evidence of that, either in the form of empirical observation, or rational argument.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 7, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[kapikui]

So, are you guys suggesting that the wealthy are born into wealth, of a wealthy family, in a wealthy country, because they deserve to be? That the poor are born into poverty, want, squalor and disease, because they deserve to be? That is a contention that requires far more evidence to support it than my assumption of capriciousness, which after all, is only the situation left facing us once Occam's razor is applied, and we assume the notion that there is no rule governing which soul is born where, and we are randomly disposed.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Are you so sure that being born into wealth is a reward?  After all it IS easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...

 

Again you're basing ALL of your idea of justice on what amounts to less than .02 seconds of a life that has lasted literally forever before we were born, and will last literally forever after we die. 

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I am basing my thinking solely on this life, rather than contentions about any previous life or after life, which we may or may not enjoy.

 

The reason for this is quite simple; this life is the only one we know, and can be utterly certain of. The rest is speculation, or extrapolation, or just simple hope.

 

Whatever, I think we do well to ground our philosophies (so far as we can) on things that are more certain, rather than less certain.

 

And yes, I do think wealth is good, and an advantage. As far as this life is concerned, which is also good, one has more of it, and it is more comfortable, the more wealth one has. And, if wealth poses us moral problems, like how much we should support charitable causes, that is nothing to the issues poor people have, like whether to eat or heat their houses, or whether to eat today or tomorrow.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 7, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

OK. Now I'm going to take a leap of supposition, which you are quite free to criticise. My supposition is that it is the level of virtue of our characters, and not our belief system, that is rewarded come Judgment Day. This idea seems to me to deal with two issues I find problematic about the conventional wisdom of salvation.

1. Heaven gets to be open to any good person, rather than just Christians, however sin-ridden they might be. There is an issue of ordinary, transparent justice, here.

2. The very idea that only Christians get to go to heaven is so obviously self-serving to an elite that preach Christianity, and so obviously dismissive of other cultures that may have much wisdom to offer, that I truly believe a multi-cultural world needs and deserves a less partisan message.

I realise this seems to contradict Biblical ideas about whether it be faith or works that get us past St Peter, but I am not talking salvation by works, but salvation by 'way of being', by quality of character. It may well be, and I believe it to be the case, that a Christian belief system is conducive to the required quality of character, but, in the end, I think it quality of character that will count, (and not the culture we are lucky enough to be born into, or unlucky enough not to be born into), and be decisive.

Your opinions, and an LDS perspective, are, as always, most welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You're more LDS than you realize... Lol.

"Salvation by way of being" is very LDS. We go so far as to say that our Pre-Mortal choice to follow Christ in the Plan of Salvation which led to our mortal birth is what qualified us for Salvation. The fact that you are here, on earth, means that you have made the choice to follow Christ and that you have accepted Christ's atonement to qualify for salvation. It is then aligned with LDS doctrine to say that we are saved by grace through our faith if our perspective is limited to mortality. Salvation, therefore, is not limited only to those who join a Christian Church, or got baptized in mortality, etc. It is available to EVERYBODY (yes, even Hitler!) with the principles of repentance.

At the same time, we do believe that Salvation requires the ordinance of baptism and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit under the proper priesthood authority as the sign of our acceptance of the contract to be saved. This is a mortal ordinance - that is, we need a mortal body to sign the contract... So, what about, say, Ghandi, who lived virtuously but never got baptized? Did he miss the boat of Salvation? No, he didn't... Because, the Plan of Salvation is rooted in service... That is, we take upon us the responsibility of propping each other up to achieve virtue... From the greatest example of Christ serving us by atoning for our sins, to the prophets who gave of their lives to teach and lead others to virtue, to parents sacrificing for their children to lead them to virtue, etc... Therefore, we can also serve those who have died who did not get the opportunity to be baptized by acting as their mortal proxy.... So a living person can get baptized and confirmed in place of Ghandi, and Ghandi can move forward with fulfilling the requirements for salvation if he so chooses to accept the ordinance in the life after death...

That's why, the LDS do not believe that "only Christians are saved".

So, what's the purpose of this Plan of Salvation? Very simple really,,, that our Spirits will change virtue upon virtue until we reach the fullness of Joy. We get to change our way of being, slowly but surely, to that being that can dwell with God.

Edited December 8, 2014 by anatess