The Real Hell of Mormonism

[_Yoda]

I cringe when I hear people say, "I love the gospel and its simplicity!"

I think to myself, "What in THE HELL are you talking about??? There is absolutely NOTHING simple about the gospel!!!"

Sins of commission
Sins of omission
If you doubt the leaders, you are sinning
A slothful servant needs to be told what to do (=sin)
If you turn down a calling, it's a sin
It's a sin to neglect your family

To be fair, though, ALL religions have messy tenets. Look at the Catholic Church.

I agree that ours(LDS) are among the worst, though. I think the reason the crazy tenets of our Church are so glaring is that LDS members tend to make a more concerted effort to actually embrace those tenets.

Most people I come across who practice other religions are more of the "cherry picking" variety. If they were LDS members, they would be referred to as cafeteria Mormons.

I think that is the biggest divide. Mormons tend to embrace the religion--all of it--as a lifestyle. The Jewish religion is also more encompassing this way. But with the Jewish religion, the tenets are more congruent because of the age of the religion, itself.

In terms of the history of religions, the LDS religion is still considered fairly "new".

[_harmony]

[quote="liz3564"]
I think either virtually everyone is going to the CK or virtually no one is. But as Roger says, it's all speculation; no one's ever returned from there to report to the rest of us. We don't even know for sure if there is life after we die. All this preparation to meet God could be a waste of time. For people who cannot deal with ambiguity, this question is a deal-breaker.

[_harmony]

I agree that ours(LDS) are among the worst, though. I think the reason the crazy tenets of our Church are so glaring is that LDS members tend to make a more concerted effort to actually embrace those tenets.

I don't think so. I think the reason our crazy tenets are so glaring is because our leaders want us to think they actually have the answers; that they know there's life after death, that there's 3 kingdoms, that there's a Judgment Day. Yet it's all speculation and they don't know any more than the rest of us do.

The inability to concentrate on living a good productive life here (which would mean concentrating on continually instructing the flock to love their neighbors, be kind to strangers, treat their family members well, forgive those who have harmed them, ask forgiveness of those they have harmed, etc), and the wrong emphasis on living in preparation for a speculative next life (the concentration on temple work for self and the dead, the idea of eternal progression etc) shows that church leaders do not now and never have had any kind of interest in the welfare of the Saints in the here and now. The welfare of the Saints in the here and now, which is the only time we actually really know anything about at all, is of so little concern, none of the temple recommend questions addresses it at all. So we all know where the emphasis is... on that which is speculative at best, rather than on that which is even marginally productive.

[_Yoda]

The inability to concentrate on living a good productive life here (which would mean concentrating on continually instructing the flock to love their neighbors, be kind to strangers, treat their family members well, forgive those who have harmed them, ask forgiveness of those they have harmed, etc), and the wrong emphasis on living in preparation for a speculative next life (the concentration on temple work for self and the dead, the idea of eternal progression etc) shows that church leaders do not now and never have had any kind of interest in the welfare of the Saints in the here and now.

Agreed. This has always been a huge frustration for me.

The welfare of the Saints in the here and now, which is the only time we actually really know anything about at all, is of so little concern, none of the temple recommend questions addresses it at all. So we all know where the emphasis is... on that which is speculative at best, rather than on that which is even marginally productive.

Well, there is a temple question on "Are you honest in all of your dealings?" But it's still pretty sad that this is the ONLY question that MINUTELY talks about the here and now.

[_Scottie]

To be fair, though, ALL religions have messy tenets. Look at the Catholic Church.

Sure, I agree, but do Catholics go around saying that Catholicism is "so simple"?

[_Yoda]

To be fair, though, ALL religions have messy tenets. Look at the Catholic Church.

Sure, I agree, but do Catholics go around saying that Catholicism is "so simple"?

No, they don't.

;)

The fact is...the basic gospel message of Jesus Christ IS simple. The beattitudes, the golden rule, the ten commandments, the golden rule, etc. All of these basic concepts ARE simple.

It's too bad that the intricacies of the individual churches that attempt to worship and celebrate Christ's life and mission consistently muddy the waters, so to speak. ;)

[_Chap]

To be fair, though, ALL religions have messy tenets. Look at the Catholic Church.

Sure, I agree, but do Catholics go around saying that Catholicism is "so simple"?

No, they don't.

;)

The fact is...the basic gospel message of Jesus Christ IS simple. The beattitudes, the golden rule, the ten commandments, the golden rule, etc. All of these basic concepts ARE simple.

It's too bad that the intricacies of the individual churches that attempt to worship and celebrate Christ's life and mission consistently muddy the waters, so to speak. ;)

I am not trying to be nasty in this post - but you seem to me to see Jesus' main role as primarily being that of a moral teacher - someone who delivers a high-quality ethical code, the value of which is not dependent on Jesus having any kind of special status above the merely human, or upon any miraculous events occurring. Do I have that right?

If so, you are in a long tradition, in which stood (for instance) such people as Thomas Jefferson: see his de-supernaturalised New Testament at

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

On the other hand, I should say that this view of Jesus as primarily an moral teacher does not seem to have been held by many early Christians, or indeed by the main sects of Christianity that later grew from them.

To speak in summary terms, do you not think that they mostly took a thoroughly supernatural view of Jesus - seeing him as (in a variety of senses, certainly) the Son of God, whose death had 'redeemed' sinful mankind, and who was soon to reappear to judge the living and the dead? As the endless disagreements amongst Christians indicate, any attempt to state such doctrines in clearly defined terms is by its nature an extremely complicated business. To that extent, saying what the gospel is has not proved a simple matter at all.

[_Yoda]

I am not trying to be nasty in this post - but you seem to me to see Jesus' main role as primarily being that of a moral teacher - someone who delivers a high-quality ethical code, the value of which is not dependent on Jesus having any kind of special status above the merely human, or upon any miraculous events occurring. Do I have that right?

First of all, I don't view your post as being nasty at all. You have brought up some interesting things to think about. :)

I do view Jesus as a moral teacher, but I also view him as the Son of God. What I was trying to say was that the core teachings of Jesus' gospel are rather simple.

To speak in summary terms, do you not think that they mostly took a thoroughly supernatural view of Jesus - seeing him as (in a variety of senses, certainly) the Son of God, whose death had 'redeemed' sinful mankind, and who was soon to reappear to judge the living and the dead? As the endless disagreements amongst Christians indicate, any attempt to state such doctrines in clearly defined terms is by its nature an extremely complicated business. To that extent, saying what the gospel is has not proved a simple matter at all.

I don't really see how this contradicts what I stated previously. Individual scholars/preachers who later formed churches were quite clearly in constant disagreement about what happened, why, and when. Thus, the various tenets and dogma of a variety of churches were born.

My point was that it's a shame that because of all of these tenets, the core teachings of Jesus, which are relatively simple, tend to get lost in the shuffle.

[_Scottie]

I do view Jesus as a moral teacher, but I also view him as the Son of God. What I was trying to say was that the core teachings of Jesus' gospel are rather simple.

I got into this debate with LoaP over at MAD a while ago.

His logic was that "the gospel"="Jesus Christ is the redeemer". Everything else was just, I believe his exact words were "an appendage", not core doctrine.

Interesting that so many "appendages" can keep you from exaltation.

[_Yoda]

Interesting that so many "appendages" can keep you from exaltation.

Yes, it certainly is.

"Appendage" is a term that the brethren have used throughout many General Conference talks when discussing the simplicity of the Gospel.

The "appendages" certainly tend to veer off the beaten path of the "Jesus is the Redeemer" message, don't they?

;)