After Life

[Maytoday]

This all seems very complicated.  Like most afterlife ideologies, I of course have my beliefs, but I've always found it to be non-salvation, or not such a big deal it could prevent you from Heaven.  However, I am confused on this.  In John it says:

"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

And in Romans it says:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So if all have sinned and are condemned, how do the "good" nonbelievers get a kingdom?

[zil2]

I think this thread might really be the same answers as your Salvation through Atonement thread:

 

This is just me posting a short reply to let other forum posters know I'm working on an answer.  It won't exactly be fast.

[Maytoday]

14 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I think this thread might really be the same answers as your Salvation through Atonement thread:

Oh sorry about that.

[zil2]

1 minute ago, Maytoday said:

Oh sorry about that.

No worries.  We'll figure it out - the two might take different paths, or one might die while the other gets lots of posts.  It's all good.

[zil2]

Please note that this is a pretty advanced topic and may not be the best place to start.   It might be better to learn more about the basics of what we believe before exploring this.  That said, you asked, so here's my answer.  I may not have presented it in the best way - I don't know - so don't hesitate to ask questions.

Also note that while the below may sound like our works save us, we do not believe that!  But we do believe that our works demonstrate the kind of life we are willing to live, both now and in eternity - and we believe eternity will consist of living lives and doing work - namely, the work of God (which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man).

Now the answer...

In Matthew 7, the Lord tells a parable about good trees bringing forth good fruit and corrupt trees producing evil fruit, ending with "by their fruit you will recognize them".  He then says this in verses 21-23 (NIV):

Quote

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This clearly suggests that the lord will judge people not based on calling him their Lord, but on doing what God wants (good works).

Matthew 12:36 says:

Quote

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.

What's the point of giving an account if your words don't matter - if you're saved by grace alone without regard for what you do?

Finally, Matthew 16:24-27 (but especially 27):

Quote

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

I don't know how it could be more clear that our reward will be for our works ("what they have done").  If this is the case, then one has to ask, where's the line?  If there's exactly one sin of which I haven't repented, am I doomed to hell?  If I performed exactly one good deed, is that enough to qualify me for heaven?  If one isn't enough, how many are?

I'm going to switch gears now while all that simmers on a back burner.

The Book of Mormon is a work of scripture written by many prophets who lived in the Americas (before they were called that) from about 600BC to about 400AD (plus one group that lived long before then).  This is similar to the Bible, especially the Old Testament, where different prophets wrote of their lives, history, and prophecies, each in a book named after him: Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah; and in the NT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, etc.  And the books were then compiled (into the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon).

The Lord revealed things to the Book of Mormon prophets just as he did to Biblical prophets.  Among the things revealed to Book of Mormon prophets, was the future of the land in which they lived, including the days of Christopher Columbus and the settling of America by Christians who would bring with them the Bible. (Before you declare that absurd, consider that God is all-knowing and has always known these things.  Therefore, it is God's choice whether, when, and to whom He reveals them.)

When Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, he discovered that the text thereof said that "plain and precious parts" of the Bible would be lost.  After finishing the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith began a new "translation" of the Bible (to restore some of what had been lost).  This wasn't a linguistic translation, but receiving revelation about the parts that had been lost.

My understanding (and I've looked for the documentation and haven't found it, but I know it's somewhere - perhaps someone else will be able to find it), is that during this process, Joseph had questions similar to those I raised above.  If God is just, and rewards men according to their works, then a simple "heaven and hell" division doesn't seem to fit.  Joseph inquired of God and received the revelation we know as Doctrine & Covenants 76, which explains that the state of people after the final judgement will be more nuanced than the simple division between heaven and hell.  Rather, there are basically 4 divisions:

• Celestial - enjoy the presence of God the Father. For those who accept all of God's will and covenants - those here are said to be not just saved, but exalted.
• Terrestrial - enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ - these are those who were good people, but not valiant in the testimony of Christ, but accept his offer of salvation
• Telestial - enjoy the presence of the Holy Ghost - these are wicked people who suffer for their sins until the end of Christ's millennial reign, and then ultimately accept his salvation
• Hell (by the common terminology; also Outer Darkness, also Perdition) - this is reserved for those who reject Jesus Christ's offer of salvation with full knowledge of what they are doing - they absolutely refused to be saved.

Depending on who you talk to, or the context, some people will tell you that all but the Celestial kingdom is a form of damnation.  Others will say all but Hell is a type of salvation.  In the end, it just depends on how you want to look at it.  It's important to note that the Church spends almost no time talking about anything other than the Celestial kingdom.  The purpose of the Church is to help people prepare themselves for life in said kingdom - for exaltation.  Therefore, there isn't much point in focusing on the rest.

HTH.

[zil2]

This essay on the Plan of Salvation might be a better thing to start with - it has links at the end that go down the various rabbit holes you might explore.

ETA: That link is the overview, this link is the "Study Guide" which goes into more detail.

Edited January 15 by zil2

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Maytoday said:

"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

And in Romans it says:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So if all have sinned and are condemned, how do the "good" nonbelievers get a kingdom?

Those that do not believe in Jesus Christ are in a state of condemnation. There they will remain until and unless they believe in their Savior. Not sure what part of this is confusing to you. Perhaps you're under the impression that the word "condemnation" always means eternal and irrevocable destruction?

[Maytoday]

Just now, Vort said:

"condemnation" always means eternal and irrevocable destruction?

Well, yes, I was under that impression. Lake of Fire? I'd have to look back at the original manuscript language for that one.

19 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I don't know how it could be more clear that our reward will be for our works ("what they have done")

I always have believed that the those who follow God's word will be rewarded in Heaven. But more of a Heaven's just a bit better for them than for others.  Like a front row seat versus the top seats at athletic events.

33 minutes ago, zil2 said:

If there's exactly one sin of which I haven't repented, am I doomed to hell?

Oh, this is a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, for us, you don't have to go to confession for everything.  We're sinners, we're never able to be perfect, never be able to repent from all sin. It's human nature. That's what Jesus paid for.  So if there's exactly one sin, well its a sin which means hell, but if you believe in Jesus you are forgiven:)  If one isn't enough, how many are? None. Nothing. Works get you rewards in Heaven but not to Heaven. You can be an almost perfect person yet you'd still sin.

42 minutes ago, zil2 said:

My understanding (and I've looked for the documentation and haven't found it, but I know it's somewhere - perhaps someone else will be able to find it),

It's alright I know it's got to be written somewhere I'm not going to say it's not just because you can't find it.

44 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Joseph Smith began a new "translation" of the Bible (to restore some of what had been lost).

Out of 20,000 manuscripts none of them had any of this? Wouldn't Paul have at least written about it once? Even like, casually while talking about something else?

In conclusion..

27 minutes ago, zil2 said:

It's important to note that the Church spends almost no time talking about anything other than the Celestial kingdom.  The purpose of the Church is to help people prepare themselves for life in said kingdom - for exaltation.  Therefore, there isn't much point in focusing on the rest.

I'm still not sure about the whole Spirit world thing, but like I said before, non-salvation. It's not going to make or break salvation so is it really important?

It seems like the main basis of this is similar to my faith, just with a lot more details. (And obviously an different afterlife.)

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Maytoday said:

This all seems very complicated.  Like most afterlife ideologies, I of course have my beliefs, but I've always found it to be non-salvation, or not such a big deal it could prevent you from Heaven.  However, I am confused on this.  In John it says:

"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

And in Romans it says:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

So if all have sinned and are condemned, how do the "good" nonbelievers get a kingdom?

It is my personal observation that if one attempts to reconcile anything in religion (or of moral understanding) on the basis of what is observed in life, uniquely constrained between what happens between birth and death – that the only possibility is that there is no possible conclusion for justice, mercy or in reality anything of sustainable value that can be consistently demonstrated to even exist.

It is obvious to me that even the vast spectrum of one’s birth circumstance is unjust and immoral unless there was some circumstance that existed before birth into which each individual had input. 

Symbolically we have the Eden epoch where innocence is challenged with the possibility of knowing good from evil and the result is that to have such knowledge, we must experience a fallen state of mortality where the only possibility is death – which is the knowledge of evil.  But there is also the Atonement of Christ, taken from the Hebrew word Kippur – which implies not only the payment of a debt but a cleansing to make pure.   Thus, through an atonement of Christ we experience good.

The problem I see with most religion and especially what is now known as traditional Christianity is a proclivity to make G-d the decider of our destiny, rather than realizing that through Christ we all are provided with the knowledge and means to decide our own destiny.   Our mortal experience is but a part of a whole.  Knowing only a part is by no means sufficient to resolve a trueful conclusion.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 15 by Traveler

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Maytoday said:

Oh, this is a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, for us, you don't have to go to confession for everything.  We're sinners, we're never able to be perfect, never be able to repent from all sin. It's human nature. That's what Jesus paid for.  So if there's exactly one sin, well its a sin which means hell, but if you believe in Jesus you are forgiven

Then why did Jesus say to repent? (Check it out - go read the Gospels - the call to repentance is all over them.)  (Note that for LDS, repentance is between the sinner and God - we don't have anything like Catholic confession.)  But Jesus taught us to repent - I think that suggests either (a) believing in him isn't enough or (b) those who believe in him will repent.

1 hour ago, Maytoday said:

If one isn't enough, how many are? None. Nothing. Works get you rewards in Heaven but not to Heaven. You can be an almost perfect person yet you'd still sin.

Your "rewards in Heaven" would parallel our idea of different degrees or kingdoms of heaven.  (And we agree, all are sinners.)

1 hour ago, Maytoday said:

Out of 20,000 manuscripts none of them had any of this? Wouldn't Paul have at least written about it once? Even like, casually while talking about something else?

I recommend reading the Book of Mormon.  I also recommend reading the LDS version of the KJV which has Joseph Smith Translation (JST) bits referenced in the footnotes (either the correction is there, or it tells you to go to an appendix).  I suspect you'd find that the changes are logical.

One thing that Paul mentioned, but no other Christians believe as we do is those three degrees of glory (Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial) compared to the sun, moon, and stars.  See 1 Corinthians 15, especially 40-44 - speaking of the resurrection (footnote a of verse 40 has an example of the JST to bring verses 40 and 41 into correlation).

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Maytoday said:

I'm still not sure about the whole Spirit world thing, but like I said before, non-salvation. It's not going to make or break salvation so is it really important?

It seems like the main basis of this is similar to my faith, just with a lot more details. (And obviously an different afterlife.)

There's an essay and study guide on this too.  The short answer is that the spirit world is where the spirits of deceased mortals go to await resurrection.

[Maytoday]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

is my personal observation that if one attempts to reconcile anything in religion (or of moral understanding) on the basis of what is observed in life, uniquely constrained between what happens between birth and death – that the only possibility is that there is no possible conclusion for justice, mercy or in reality anything of sustainable value that can be consistently demonstrated to even exist.

...I don't really understand what this means.  

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Then why did Jesus say to repent? (Check it out - go read the Gospels - the call to repentance is all over them.)  (Note that for LDS, repentance is between the sinner and God - we don't have anything like Catholic confession.)  But Jesus taught us to repent - I think that suggests either (a) believing in him isn't enough or (b) those who believe in him will repent.

He does, yes...It's always been crazy for me to think that there are people who believe in Jesus and yet don't turn their lives to him. And yet then I get caught up in my own sin and make excuses for it. So yes, those who believe in him would repent...if we weren't such awful sinners and had temptation.  But wait...what do you believe about this? I feel like your point is that we need to repent to be saved but you said you don't so I must be misunderstanding something.

17 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Your "rewards in Heaven" would parallel our idea of different degrees or kingdoms of heaven.  (And we agree, all are sinners.)

Indeed.

17 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I recommend reading the Book of Mormon.  I also recommend reading the LDS version of the KJV which has Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

I have so many links and resources and such now. This one is probably the most helpful.

[zil2]

45 minutes ago, Maytoday said:

But wait...what do you believe about this? I feel like your point is that we need to repent to be saved but you said you don't so I must be misunderstanding something.

It's always tricky answering these questions because it makes it sound like we believe works save us, but we don't.  We do believe that Jesus Christ requires us to do things - to come, follow him.  Part of that is repentance.  So yes, we believe that if one wants salvation, one must repent.  But it's not our repentance that saves us, it's just one of the things Christ requires - in a sense, it's like accepting salvation.  Christ says, "here's salvation, if you'll accept it" and repentance in like saying, "yes, I'll accept it".  (That's not literally what repentance is.  I'm just making an analogy.)

[Maytoday]

Oh, so like our Baptism...it's not required to be saved, but we do it because Jesus tells us too?

[zil2]

6 minutes ago, Maytoday said:

Oh, so like our Baptism...it's not required to be saved, but we do it because Jesus tells us too?

Well, for Latter-day Saints, if you hope to go to the Celestial kingdom, yes, baptism and temple ordinances are required - they're just not the thing that gets you there.  They are the things that show the Lord you are willing to do his will.  They're the things that change us into the sort of people who want to live with God.

This quote from a devotional entitled "His Grace Is Sufficient" by Brad Wilcox might help:

Quote

I have born-again Christian friends who say to me, “You Mormons are trying to earn your way to heaven.”

I say, “No, we are not earning heaven. We are learning heaven. We are preparing for it (see D&C 78:7). We are practicing for it.”

They ask me, “Have you been saved by grace?”

I answer, “Yes. Absolutely, totally, completely, thankfully—yes!”

Then I ask them a question that perhaps they have not fully considered: “Have you been changed by grace?” They are so excited about being saved that maybe they are not thinking enough about what comes next. They are so happy the debt is paid that they may not have considered why the debt existed in the first place. Latter-day Saints know not only what Jesus has saved us from but also what He has saved us for. As my friend Brett Sanders puts it, “A life impacted by grace eventually begins to look like Christ’s life.” As my friend Omar Canals puts it, “While many Christians view Christ’s suffering as only a huge favor He did for us, Latter-day Saints also recognize it as a huge investment He made in us.” As Moroni puts it, grace isn’t just about being saved. It is also about becoming like the Savior (see Moroni 7:48).

HTH

[Maytoday]

Well yeah essentially.

[Carborendum]

19 hours ago, Maytoday said:

Out of 20,000 manuscripts none of them had any of this? Wouldn't Paul have at least written about it once? Even like, casually while talking about something else?

Remember that there were very few manuscripts that could have a credible claim to be "the original."  Virtually all we have are copies of copies.  Almost none are complete.  They pieced them together from several different sources of what appeared to be the same document.  And who put them all together?  Fallible men.  It doesn't seem reasonable that they actually saved every single page of every single work from every single prophetic author.  In fact, we know for a fact that the authors were not the individuals who ostensibly wrote it.  The five books of Moses that we currently have were clearly not penned by Moses, himself.  It was another man's words.

And to believe that through copy after copy no one ever made a transcription error?  No one ever wanted to simply summarize certain points?  No one ever made a mistake in translating an older version of the language to a newer vernacular?  If that's true, then why didn't we just stick with the KJV or the Tyndale or the Coverdale edition of the Bible?

No, the words are not the same.  And I'd daresay that some of the modern translations convey some personal opinions in the translation rather than a literal translation.  For some, we simply have things lost in translation.

Then, of course, we have the Aramaic originalist theology that insists that the Aramaic version of the New Testament is the original, and the Greek was the translation (which was prone to errors).  I used to entertain that idea.  But I've favored the Greek lately.  But some disagree.

Of course, the older the document, the more prone to errors and issues with translation -- even if those errors are with semantic shift rather than actual language-to-language translation.

20,000 manuscripts are no confirmation of perfect preservation.  What if 50 years earlier than the earliest known copy, there was an erroneous copy, then all the later copies were based on the erroneous copy, how would we know?

This is a topic that I could go on a great deal about.

Edited January 16 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Maytoday said:

...I don't really understand what this means.  

.....

Let us assume that the Protestant interpretation of Christianity is the correct understanding of Christ.  Over the entire history of mankind how many humans can justly and morally be judged having been borne to circumstance that by time of their death – never had any opportunity to hear of Christ and his atonement under that Protestant umbrella? 

Even as you post on the internet – how is it just and moral that your circumstance, starting with your birth and continuing with all the events of your life (especially those events that you did not have control over) provided a significant head start to arrive at your current condition to believe in Protestantism?

In short why do you have an advantage considering that you have heard and been taught great things concerning Christ and the atonement – and yet you still sin.  Not in ignorance but with full knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.  But because you believe in Christ – you are forgiven.  And yet another that lives just as kind and considerate life of love towards others as you, but never knew of the Bible or Christ is unforgiven because they do not believe.  How is that just?

How is it just that those that know Christ sin knowing better are forgiven, while those that do not know Christ can perhaps sin less, yet seek the more for forgiveness, be cast forever unforgiven down to hell?

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Maytoday said:

Oh, so like our Baptism...it's not required to be saved, but we do it because Jesus tells us too?

What you say above makes little sense in an LDS context. What is required to be saved? Well, if one accepts Christ as his Redeemer, that person will be saved by Christ. Simple enough.

But what is meant by "accepting Christ as your Redeemer"? Some will say that simply stating the words, "Christ, you're my Savior!" is enough. This is what I call a Christian Shahada, a sort of Christian version of a Muslim saying, "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His prophet", which if you say it is supposed to save you. Yet Christ himself debunked this pernicious heresy:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus also told us what it means to love him (which is obviously part of what it means to accept him as your Savior and Redeemer—doing the will of the Father in heaven, as stated above):

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Is baptism required to be saved? Of course it is. Jesus commanded it. Baptism is the initial covenant we make with God. In being baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), which enables all other gifts from God.

[zil2]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

And the first and great commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.  Ergo, we are commanded to keep the commandments with all our heart, soul, and mind.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, zil2 said:

And the first and great commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.  Ergo, we are commanded to keep the commandments with all our heart, soul, and mind.

I never metacommandment I didn't like.

[zil2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I never metacommandment I didn't like.

Quote

D&C 59:4 And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time—they that are faithful and diligent before me.

Crowned with commandments.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Maytoday said:

Oh, so like our Baptism...it's not required to be saved, but we do it because Jesus tells us too?

 

8 hours ago, Vort said:

What you say above makes little sense in an LDS context. What is required to be saved? Well, if one accepts Christ as his Redeemer, that person will be saved by Christ. Simple enough.

But what is meant by "accepting Christ as your Redeemer"? Some will say that simply stating the words, "Christ, you're my Savior!" is enough. This is what I call a Christian Shahada, a sort of Christian version of a Muslim saying, "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His prophet", which if you say it is supposed to save you. Yet Christ himself debunked this pernicious heresy:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Jesus also told us what it means to love him (which is obviously part of what it means to accept him as your Savior and Redeemer—doing the will of the Father in heaven, as stated above):

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Is baptism required to be saved? Of course it is. Jesus commanded it. Baptism is the initial covenant we make with God. In being baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), which enables all other gifts from God.

Certain versions of the Bible will indicate in italics the English words that are somewhat in question for translation.  In the phrase “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you.”   The word “knew” is in italics – and alternate interpretation would be: “And then will I profess unto them, I never authorized you.”  This alternating reading make much more sense to me – If Christ does not “know” certain individuals – he is not qualified to judge them.

Is baptism necessary?  Obviously, it is not for someone intent on not following Christ.  But to claim to follow Christ – it is an obvious necessity because Christ was baptized and in scripture Christ tells us why.  It is also interesting that Jesus was not baptized by the traditional authority that performed the ordinances necessary for the Jews at the temple (where ordinances necessary for Jesus, as a Jew, was performed shortly following his birth).   The obvious logic is that John was authorized to baptize Christ.  Unfortunately, the scriptures are not sufficient nor complete concerning the authorization of John.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In the phrase “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you.”   The word “knew” is in italics – and alternate interpretation would be: “And then will I profess unto them, I never authorized you.”  This alternating reading make much more sense to me – If Christ does not “know” certain individuals – he is not qualified to judge them.

I like it.  Of course, Joseph Smith changed this to "ye never knew me" - which of course means they couldn't have been authorized, either.

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Unfortunately, the scriptures are not sufficient nor complete concerning the authorization of John.

Not much, but for reference, an article on AskGramps.org.

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Maytoday said:

Oh, so like our Baptism...it's not required to be saved, but we do it because Jesus tells us too?

The wording you used doesn't quite convey the meaning in our faith.  The way I phrase it requires that we separate the meaning of "what is required?" vs. "what is the mechanism?"

The mechanism of salvation is the Atonement of Christ.  The requirements for us to apply His Atonement on our souls are many.  Baptism is one of those requirements.

As a metaphor:

I'm a professional engineer (PE) by trade.  So, people might ask either of two questions.

• What makes you a professional engineer?
• What do you have to do to be an engineer?

To be a PE, I need to get licensed by the state.  That's all.

To get the license, you usually have to

• Get accepted to engineering school.
• Get a diploma
• Pass the initial engineering exam
• Apprentice for several years
• Pass the final PE exam.
• Wait for the paperwork from the state.

I hope you can appreciate the analogy.

Edited January 16 by Carborendum