Working your way to the CK

[_Sethbag]

Scottie, my understanding of LDS theology was that it was never like that parable. Not one bit.

How so? That is exactly how I understood LDS teachings.

Because there's nothing in that analogy that comes anywhere close to explaining the process of "becoming" that's inherent in LDS theology about the the Celestial Kingdom.

In LDS theology you don't become a God because God gives you Godhood. You become a God by becoming Godly, and inheriting a place in the Kingdom of the Gods (Celestial Kingdom).

Think of an analogy as with becoming a doctor. Let's say you're born the son of a doctor. Does that make you a doctor? No. Will you ever become a doctor by pleasing your dad enough that one day he waves his wand over you and voila! you're a doctor? No. You become a doctor by studying and preparing yourself in your early school years to succeed in college, where you are preparing yourself to be accepted to and succeed in medical school. Finally, after 16 years of formal education, you enter yet another four-year school to actually become a doctor. When you finally graduate from that school you become a doctor not just because some state board gives you a certificate. You become a doctor, and are entitled to that certificate, because through this whole process you've become a doctor. You are a doctor because you know what doctors know, you do what doctors do, and have enduring and succeeded at the process of transforming a non-doctor into a doctor.

How is this anything like a dad thinking how cute and responsible it was for a little girl to earn 100 pennies and then coughing up a hundred bucks so she could have her bike? Is "having this bike" anything like "being a doctor"? You're talking about "getting" something, and LDS theology is really about "becoming" something.

The reason your analogy fails the Mormon theology test is because it's focused on "getting" something as a reward.

Frankly I'm shocked that Charity thinks so highly of it. I'm disappointed, really. For such a hard-core TBM, I thought she "got it". Apparently not.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is from another thread, but I thought it deserved its own discussion. charity repeated a folk doctrine that I have heard many times but that does not square with the scriptures. Here it is and my response:

Our view, of course, is that the atonement provides for us what we can't provide for ourselves. But that we are required to do all we can. It is by grace we are saved AFTER all we can do. Proving ourselves worthy is that "all we can do."

That is most certainly not LDS doctrine. We are saved by grace, after all we can do. And what we can do is virtually nothing. In fact, the Book of Mormon reminds us of our "nothingness." The way you describe it, people work their butts off to prove themselves worthy, and then the Atonement makes up the difference, as if it's the cherry on top of a sundae we made with our own hands.

Imagine a situation where two people get baptized the same day. The one guy spends the rest of his life in the church, fulfilling his callings, serving in leadership positions, serving a mission, getting married in the temple, and doing everything to the best of his ability.

The other person is killed in a car accident on the way home from the baptism. No mission, no temple marriage, no callings. But that person has just as much a right to exaltation as the other guy. So it wasn't works with the Atonement making up the difference. It was the Atonement that saved them both.

For better or worse, I would still like to believe in God and Jesus, and this idea of proving one's self worthy of heaven has always been foreign to me.

While I agree with you, have been preaching this and grace for years in LDS circles, am a big fan of Robinson's books that highlight this truth, Charities view is predominant for the most part and preached quite often even from GAs. That said, the ride is turning and LDS are becoming more faith and grace focused. But yea, the keystone of our religion certainly teaches grace, being born of God or born again and so on.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have always been mystified at the disconnect between the "grace only" group and the scriptures.

Follow me.
Keep my commandments.
Love one anotrher.
Do good.
Serve your fellowman.
Be baptized.

Aren't these things "something?"

Edit to add this to runtu, who said, "Well, according to charity, you have to make the bowl and then painstakingly prepare the food, and then God will let you eat if you did it right."

That isn't what I said at all. I like Nehor's comment. It just takes a lot of work to keep your bowl right side up. Satan is always tipping your bowl over. And those who don't bother to try to get the bowl upright again, miss out.

You see Runtu
the problem is, and Charity is a fine example, is that LDS do not understand the difference between justification and sanctification

Justification is by faith and grace and immediate upon faith in Jesus and repentance. For LDS baptism would be the outward sign of this repentance.

There are no additional works for this. Once you have this you get the CK even if you die and have not done this that and the other thing.

Now LDS believe one cal fall from grace or justification, thus one does their best to not fall, and that is sanctification. That is an all life process and everyone will be at a different stage. But sanctification does not save you. It may mean someone is farther along and being perfect in Christ like attributes and discipleship. But Charity think sanctification is what exalts her and it does not.

Read D&C 20:1-38

[_Scottie]

Scottie, my understanding of LDS theology was that it was never like that parable. Not one bit.

How so? That is exactly how I understood LDS teachings.

Because there's nothing in that analogy that comes anywhere close to explaining the process of "becoming" that's inherent in LDS theology about the the Celestial Kingdom.

In LDS theology you don't become a God because God gives you Godhood. You become a God by becoming Godly, and inheriting a place in the Kingdom of the Gods (Celestial Kingdom).

Think of an analogy as with becoming a doctor. Let's say you're born the son of a doctor. Does that make you a doctor? No. Will you ever become a doctor by pleasing your dad enough that one day he waves his wand over you and voila! you're a doctor? No. You become a doctor by studying and preparing yourself in your early school years to succeed in college, where you are preparing yourself to be accepted to and succeed in medical school. Finally, after 16 years of formal education, you enter yet another four-year school to actually become a doctor. When you finally graduate from that school you become a doctor not just because some state board gives you a certificate. You become a doctor, and are entitled to that certificate, because through this whole process you've become a doctor. You are a doctor because you know what doctors know, you do what doctors do, and have enduring and succeeded at the process of transforming a non-doctor into a doctor.

How is this anything like a dad thinking how cute and responsible it was for a little girl to earn 100 pennies and then coughing up a hundred bucks so she could have her bike? Is "having this bike" anything like "being a doctor"? You're talking about "getting" something, and LDS theology is really about "becoming" something.

The reason your analogy fails the Mormon theology test is because it's focused on "getting" something as a reward.

Frankly I'm shocked that Charity thinks so highly of it. I'm disappointed, really. For such a hard-core TBM, I thought she "got it". Apparently not.

Your example is semantics. They both, for the most part, illustrate a similar point. That you have to work to become a God.

None of us are ever going to be perfect in this life. We will all die with some amount of sin. God's grace is an absolute requirement, after all that we can do. His grace is a gift to us.

So, I would argue that your example isn't 100% accurate either. To further your example, lets say the boy wanted to become a Dr, just like his father, but lacked the ability to pay and had no other way to get the money. So the father paid the tuition, but the son still had to learn and grow and progress through his schooling to become a Dr.

LDS teaches that there is no free ride. We HAVE to work for our salvation, and every one of us, by ourselves, will fall short of achieving it. That is where the atonement comes in. It is a gift, available to all who seek it and use it correctly.

[_Trinity]

Let's not forget that in Mormonism, once you become a God you will still have to work. There is just no peace and rest in this theology. Ever. It's just obnoxious why a group can think that making a goal of working forever is supposed to be palatable.

[_Trinity]

Why does "Temple Endowment" have a box around it?

Probably because it was taken from the Temple Endowment lesson. I'm guessing the diagram is repeated in lessons for all the steps.

Yup, Nehor's got it right.

[_Jason Bourne]

The whole notion that one's ETERNAL situation will be determined by a few short years on each--given the lack of understanding, personal weaknesses, culture, cultural values and mores, environment, up-bringing, inherited traits, etc.--is incredibly unreasonable.

There is just too much we don't know, too much we don't understand, too much beyond our control, too much influence of environment, culture, expectatioons, etc., too much personal weakness, and so forth.

So, for the next 1,000,000 years, my entire existence will be determined by what I did during 18-80 years of life in a sitution in which I operated under incredibly strong and diverse forces working on me at all times and with no clear signal what I should be doing?

How is that in the remotest sense fair?

Well the EV and/ or Calvinist may say God is not fair. he is just and holy and he does not have to be fair with you. You are his creation, his pottery and he can dash you to pieces if he wishes. If he is fair he will send you to Hell. But he is also merciful so he provides a savior for you if you will take it. Other wise you are toast!

[_Scottie]

Let's not forget that in Mormonism, once you become a God you will still have to work. There is just no peace and rest in this theology. Ever. It's just obnoxious why a group can think that making a goal of working forever is supposed to be palatable.

Yes, well, it's a Godly work, and therefore enjoyable.

I think it's somewhat akin to how a computer programmer "works". It's not going to be physical labor, but rather waving your hand and having universes come together.

I can move my fingers and create worlds!!!

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Runtu,

Can I tell you that I was just like Charity when I was a believer? Holy cow, I just loved the empowerment that came with believing that it was my energy, my skill that could propel me above all of the other yellow-bellied humans in the universe. I soaked it up. I have pictures in my journal from when I was in sixth grade that showed my world that I was going to get because I worked so hard in this life. I deliberately, DELIBERATELY, chose an academic path with maths and sciences because I felt this was the most practical knowledge I would need to create a world. I lived and breathed from my dayplanner, my to-do lists a mile long, and I always went to bed every night with the dastardly reminder (from those remaining, unchecked items) that I was lacking and ever so far from perfection.

Being a Mormon for me was exhausting beyond belief. I pushed and pushed myself, and got virtually no emotional or spiritual comfort from it. The goal was always just out of reach. And by any standard I was accomplishing far more than the average Mormon in my daily activities.

I will, to this day, tell you that putting a perfectionist-oriented person in a religion that teaches you that you can indeed become perfect (and your level of exaltation is dependent upon how close you get to perfection) is the most mentally and emotionally debilitating system with which to function. There is just no end to the self-flagellation because the perfectionist will always keep their eye on what needs to be done rather than to be comforted by what has already been done.

That's a shame, but for some reason, a whole lot of Mormons (apparently charity included) think this way. We "prove ourselves worthy" and then we get the grace to make up the difference. That is not the gospel as taught in the scriptures. A Gospel Doctrine teacher once passed out a chart showing what you had to do to be exalted. It was a pyramid, with faith, repentance, baptism, and the holy ghost on the bottom, then getting the priesthood, going to the temple, getting sealed, enduring the end, and at the very top was a tiny triangle labeled "Atonement." This is the religion charity is describing, and apparently the one you lived. I'm grateful I never bought that kind of belief.

Of course, saying that charity's theology is wrong does not make Mormonism true. :)

The problem most LDS fail to see is that if there is a checklist and all things must be checked before teh CK then what if you die too soon? It is nonesense. True or not it is not what LDS doctrine really is all about.

[_Trinity]

The whole notion that one's ETERNAL situation will be determined by a few short years on each--given the lack of understanding, personal weaknesses, culture, cultural values and mores, environment, up-bringing, inherited traits, etc.--is incredibly unreasonable.

There is just too much we don't know, too much we don't understand, too much beyond our control, too much influence of environment, culture, expectatioons, etc., too much personal weakness, and so forth.

So, for the next 1,000,000 years, my entire existence will be determined by what I did during 18-80 years of life in a sitution in which I operated under incredibly strong and diverse forces working on me at all times and with no clear signal what I should be doing?

How is that in the remotest sense fair?

Well the EV and/ or Calvinist may say God is not fair. he is just and holy and he does not have to be fair with you. You are his creation, his pottery and he can dash you to pieces if he wishes. If he is fair he will send you to Hell. But he is also merciful so he provides a savior for you if you will take it. Other wise you are toast!

Well obviously the EV's are even worse than Mormonism. I think that is why so many choose to leave religion altogether when they discover Mormonism is not true. The alternatives are much to do about scorching or eternal God-worship, whatever that entails. The EV God is much more monstrous than the Mormon one. I think Spong has got it right when he says the perception of the christian God must be changed in order for christianity to survive. If I were tasked with that job, the first thing I would is toss the entire Old Testament into the lake of fire and brimstone.