Would the World be Better Off with Only the LDS Church?

[Vort]

22 hours ago, clbent04 said:

All good points, but considering your last point here, I think it would be a very small percentage of good-hearted people who would fall into the category of settling for an okay plan over God's perfect plan.

This appears to be a "no true Scotsman" argument, where "good-hearted people" is defined as those people who would not be found "settling for an okay plan over God's perfect plan."

[clbent04]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

The term for a world filled with faithful men and women who both make and keep sacred covenants with God is "Zion", or "the celestial kingdom", or "heaven", or something of the sort. Maybe you're right about it being a place you "would never want to enter", but I suspect you are mistaken.

Emphasis on "church culture"

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Emphasis on "church culture"

In my 58+ years of experience, Church culture is no worse than any other culture of the world, and often very significantly better. Whatever trite and even ignorant aspects of Church culture exist, you must surely recognize that it's not as depraved and vulgar as the larger American culture that surrounds us. Replacing that culture with "Mormon" culture, whatever its insipid or embarrassing points, would on the whole be a very large step up from where we're at today.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Emphasis on "church culture"

As a convert, the church culture is harder to adapt to and harder to understand than anything else. It really, really helps to have friends you can trust so they can help you through it. And, on the flip side, if you don’t have those friends, you won’t last very long in the church. Yes, there are exceptions, but I am convinced that the reason you see people get baptized once and never show up again are largely culture-people based rather than theological. 

[clbent04]

18 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I would love to have @The Folk Prophet at my dinner party, I appreciate his no bull view on many things. 

That dinner party would be like tip toeing through a field of land mines. No levity allowed! Like a sweated stick of old dynamite

[clbent04]

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would respectfully disagree.  My dad grew up out of the Church—he converted, but my aunts and uncles on that side are still non-members while also being some of the most decent, honorable, good-hearted, Christ-loving people I know. But they are also fiercely devoted to their own churches—they have no beef with Mormonism; but they’re content where they are, and our more unique doctrines don’t particularly resonate with them.  I would love to see them embrace the Church; but as it is D&C 76:75-77 describes them very well.

My point is, if your non-member family is already exerting all the effort they are to be the most decent, honorable, good-hearted, Christ-loving people who are fiercely devoted to their churches, why would they not redirect that same amount of effort to whatever religion God finally reveals to them as the true religion?  Your non-member family sounds like they probably exert just as much effort towards good as a Celestial LDS member would in their lifetime.

Do you think it's a matter of pride? Because I think it's a matter of opportunity they aren't yet members. It could be that from the surface it appears your Dad and these family members were extended the exact same opportunity to be members, and your Dad was the only one to accept, but that's something that only God can really discern. 

What constitutes as a fair chance to accept the gospel has to be God-given knowledge that can't be refuted (not specifically stated like that in the scriptures, but that is how I personally interpret the gospel in my own words), and I believe the vast majority of those who are non-members and also in the category of "the salt of Earth" have simply not been extended an adequate opportunity yet to accept the gospel into their lives.

[clbent04]

58 minutes ago, Vort said:

In my 58+ years of experience

58, @Vort? You're still a spring chicken in my books. At least one of the sharpest tacks whose comments I enjoy reading. 

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

My point is, if your non-member family is already exerting all the effort they are to be the most decent, honorable, good-hearted, Christ-loving people who are fiercely devoted to their churches, why would they not redirect that same amount of effort to whatever religion God finally reveals to them as the true religion?  Your non-member family sounds like they probably exert just as much effort towards good as a Celestial LDS member would in their lifetime.

Do you think it's a matter of pride? Because I think it's a matter of opportunity they aren't yet members. It could be that from the surface it appears your Dad and these family members were extended the exact same opportunity to be members, and your Dad was the only one to accept, but that's something that only God can really discern. 

What constitutes as a fair chance to accept the gospel has to be God-given knowledge that can't be refuted (not specifically stated like that in the scriptures, but that is how I personally interpret the gospel in my own words), and I believe the vast majority of those who are non-members and also in the category of "the salt of Earth" have simply not been extended an adequate opportunity yet to accept the gospel into their lives.

I appreciate what you’re saying and would like for you to be right.  

On the other hand, I sort of get the vibe from you that you’re proposing a paradigm where 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 of any decency will reject it.  I’m not sure that the reality is quite that black-and-white.  D&C 76:75, and the New Testament’s parable of the sower, seem to indicate that there is a caliber of person who gravitates towards truth but can be distracted by external influences, to their everlasting detriment.  Alma 32 talks about a faith-building process that is triggered by a desire to believe—but what happens when a person doesn’t want to believe in our brand of the Gospel because they are so caught up in what they already have?

[The Folk Prophet]

55 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

That dinner party would be like tip toeing through a field of land mines. No levity allowed! Like a sweated stick of old dynamite

Really? You do realize that what started our back and forth here was that I cracked a joke about you have a you problem. Who's the one who doesn't have a sense of levity here? I believe the one actually offended here is projecting.

[clbent04]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I appreciate what you’re saying and would like for you to be right.  

On the other hand, I sort of get the vibe from you that you’re proposing a paradigm where 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 of any decency will reject it.  I’m not sure that the reality is quite that black-and-white.  D&C 76:75, and the New Testament’s parable of the sower, seem to indicate that there is a caliber of person who gravitates towards truth but can be distracted by external influences, to their everlasting detriment.  Alma 32 talks about a faith-building process that is triggered by a desire to believe—but what happens when a person doesn’t want to believe in our brand of the Gospel because they are so caught up in what they already have?

I think an important part of this discussion is to frame it properly as to when we refer to the dividing line between the Telestial and Terrestrial glories and the dividing line between the Terrestrial and Celestial glories. 

My personal opinion is the greater percentage of mankind will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

But when referring to salt-of-the-Earth type people who are fiercely devoted to their faiths, that category I considered to be part of the Celestial minority.

I don't equate D&C 76's description of "honorable men of the Earth" to our category here of "salt-of-the-Earth type people who are fiercely devoted to their faiths".  I believe when D&C 76 talks about honorable men of the Earth, the scriptures specify "of the Earth" for a reason.  These aren't necessarily honorable men of God, whereas I would consider "salt-of-the-Earth type people who are fiercely devoted to their faiths" to be honorable men of God.

Edited August 9, 2021 by clbent04

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

My personal opinion is the greater percentage of mankind will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

I think more people will end up in the Celestial Kingdom. In fact, I’ll bet you that we’ll be shocked who we see there, and more importantly, who we don’t. 

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I think an important part of this discussion is to frame it properly as to when we refer to the dividing line between the Telestial and Terrestrial glories and the dividing line between the Terrestrial and Celestial glories. 

My personal opinion is the greater percentage of mankind will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

But when referring to salt-of-the-Earth type people who are fiercely devoted to their faiths, that category I considered to be part of the Celestial minority.

I don't equate D&C 76's description of "honorable men of the Earth" to our category here of "salt-of-the-Earth type people who are fiercely devoted to their faiths".  I believe when D&C 76 talks about honorable men of the Earth, the scriptures specify "of the Earth" for a reason.  These aren't necessarily honorable men of God, whereas I would consider "salt-of-the-Earth type people who are fiercely devoted to their faiths" to be honorable men of God.

Maybe.  And of course, this is all presuming that there is no progression between the kingdoms—a position I still hold, but not as strongly as I used to.

But it does seem to me that if it is possible for people to attain exaltation while staying out of the LDS Church and the “covenant path” for their entire lives—and even willfully rejecting the opportunity for membership and priesthood covenants when it comes—then what in Sam Hill is the point of there being an LDS Church at all?

Edited August 9, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[clbent04]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I think more people will end up in the Celestial Kingdom. In fact, I’ll bet you that we’ll be shocked who we see there, and more importantly, who we don’t. 

I would be happy to be wrong on my opinion of this, but human nature and my observations of the world around me including my own personal struggles have somewhat turned me into a skeptic of how many of us will be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom.  My honest opinion is I'm not a skeptic on this matter, but a realist, and my opinion is largely based on what I've interpreted from the gospel and applying that to the reality around me.

Edited August 9, 2021 by clbent04

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

then what in Sam Hill is the point of there being an LDS Church at all?

Fair question, and one that all religious people have asked since the reformation onward. 
 

In 2021 as more and more people interact with those who don’t share their views it gets harder and harder to say that your Catholic/Lutheran/LDS friend isn’t saved just because you don’t share beliefs. In 1966 when the world was much much smaller and you didn’t run into people who didn’t share your beliefs, it was easier to think others were condemned to Hell. 
 

The Southern Baptists are dealing with this now. A lot of their youth simply don’t believe in Hell because they don’t want to think of their gay friends being tormented just for being gay. It’s a major problem for all religions as the older generations die off. Not being grim, it’s how the world works. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, clbent04 said:

I would be happy to be wrong on my opinion of this, but human nature and my observations of the world around me including my own personal struggles have somewhat turned me into a skeptic of how many of us will be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom.  My honest opinion is I'm not a skeptic on this matter, but a realist, and my opinion is largely based on what I've interpreted from the gospel and applying that to the reality around me.

Understand fully my friend. 

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

A lot of their youth simply don’t believe in Hell because they don’t want to think of their gay friends being tormented just for being gay.

"I refuse to believe XXXXX because I don't like it." This particular stupidity is as old as mankind, but it does seem especially infectious to the current rising generation.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

"I refuse to believe XXXXX because I don't like it." This particular stupidity is as old as mankind, but it does seem especially infectious to the current rising generation.

As “stupid” as it might be (your words)it’s a legit issue that churches down here are dealing with. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

As “stupid” as it might be (your words)it’s a legit issue that churches down here are dealing with. 

Oh, I don't doubt it's actually an issue. I have no doubt it's an issue to some extent in the Restored Church. People have always been foolish and short-sighted, so that's not new to our rising generation. But to refuse to consider a belief merely because you don't like that belief is hardly an intellectually honest approach. "Stupid" may not win the award for political correctness, but I think it's a kinder assessment than "dishonest", which is the other descriptor that leaps to mind.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

But to refuse to consider a belief merely because you don't like that belief is hardly an intellectually honest approach

I actually agree with you, but I also understand how people get to that conclusion. After all, it’s heartbreaking to think people you like won’t share eternity with you. So while I might agree with you intellectually (see everyone? @Vort and I agree on something, at least in part) I also see their side as well. 

[dprh]

23 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

The Southern Baptists are dealing with this now. A lot of their youth simply don’t believe in Hell because they don’t want to think of their gay friends being tormented just for being gay. It’s a major problem for all religions as the older generations die off. Not being grim, it’s how the world works. 

I don't believe anyone will be tormented just for being gay either.

[dprh]

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I actually agree with you, but I also understand how people get to that conclusion. After all, it’s heartbreaking to think people you like won’t share eternity with you. So while I might agree with you intellectually (see everyone? @Vort and I agree on something, at least in part) I also see their side as well. 

Where's the "Astounded!" emoticon............

😲

[mirkwood]

51 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

In 1966 when the world was much much smaller and you didn’t run into people who didn’t share your beliefs, it was easier to think others were condemned to Hell. 
 

Except LDS don't think members of other churches are going to hell.

[LDSGator]

Just now, mirkwood said:

Except LDS don't think members of other churches are going to hell.

Right, no argument there. 

[clbent04]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Maybe.  And of course, this is all presuming that there is no progression between the kingdoms—a position I still hold, but not as strongly as I used to.

But it does seem to me that if it is possible for people to attain exaltation while staying out of the LDS Church and the “covenant path” for their entire lives—and even willfully rejecting the opportunity for membership and priesthood covenants when it comes—then what in Sam Hill is the point of there being an LDS Church at all?

The point of having the presence of the gospel here on Earth isn't to condemn those who don't discover it for what it is.  The point is to be a beacon of light, to inspire the building God's kingdom, to develop us, to promote unity and love, and to guide us by showing us the optimal path back to God.

Mankind is prone to self-sabotage. We've oftentimes chosen chaos over order, dissension over unity, and greed over fairness. Even with the gospel restored in these latter days with its 16 million members strong, in a world of 8 billion people the gospel is like the flame of a single candle in a stadium at night.  But are we to place blame on the 7+ billion non-members that the gospel isn't as readily available to them as it could be if this world was a better place?  We can't blame anything but the nature of mankind, the very nature we all share, member and non-member alike.

The divinity of the organization of the Church is obvious to me.  No other religious organization exists in the world that molds its members so effectively into learning how to love others.  Consider the participation the Church encourages of its members and how the sky is the limit in how much you want to grow in the service of others. I believe the purpose of life is to learn to love, and no other institution promotes learning how to love others more effectively than the LDS Church.

Being a member of the Church has the benefit of showing us the optimal path on how to develop love.  As members of a divinely inspired organization, we don't have to take as many detours to accomplish God's objectives for us.  LDS religious ceremonies have meaning beyond good intentions.  Ministering and missionary efforts, Family Home Evening, temple ordinances, redeeming the dead... all divinely inspired initiatives that promote love.

If we consider a non-member who lives a life worthy enough to be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom upon eventually accepting the gospel for what it is, the fact they made it to the highest Kingdom without living as an LDS member on Earth shouldn't discourage us into thinking the gospel isn't as important as it is.  It should further validate the truth that God is a merciful and just God who is mindful of all His children, and how we are unable to comprehend even a small fraction of the many moving pieces involved or the many beautiful reunions that await us.

[pam]

This thread is now closed.