I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here goes.
IF after this life we are truly facing an eternity, then what incremental advantage we gain in this life by 'living the gospel' can easily be made up over over the eternities. I've not met THAT many Mormons whose understanding of things divine is so far advanced beyond all others that someone else could not, given reasonable time and reasonable intelligence and effort, catch up pretty quickly, with all of eternity to do so.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, IF we do take the knowledge we've done in this life to the hereafter, what about all the people who died in infancy or otherwise young, or who were mentally challenged etc.? I mean, how does someone with literally NO knowledge (e.g., died at birth) then ever catch up if we accept your reasoning?
So living one's life within a structure that places (IMO very narrow) parameters on what one can believe and learn in this life (at least with regards to 'soft' stuff like spiritual knowledge), who since birth or a young age believes as taught by parents and other authority figures and who has never seriously questioned his/her belief, because, by golly, he/she just KNOWS it's true, gives them an advantage in the hereafter over others because they are just so much more intellectually and spiritually advanced??
Really?
I just love slow pitch softball like this. . . .
Most games have rules, and the moves we make in "play" have consequences. Religions are about those rules, and consequences, for the "game" God is believed to have sent us here to play. People who somehow find out what the rules are have an advantage, theoretically, and if they make decisions appropriate to those rules, they "win" the game. We are, however, given the latitude to quibble about it all and do what we want, and see what happens, and maybe learn from it. Most organized religions, mostly "Christian" churches, have pretty clear "rules" they believe we're supposed to play by.
I consider it possible, if not likely, that we are all pretty much "in the dark" and don't really have a lot of basis for believing we know the rules of this game we call life in this world. But we do see consequences to our actions day by day, and we could learn something from observing and reflecting on them, especially with an eye to trying to make things better for ourselves and others.
I think that aspect alone would direct our thinking towards placing a value on the emotional or sentimental values of things like "love", and all the other putative virtues we have imagined or could imagine. It is my observation that there is a tendency to some small degree for people who believe God loves them to then love others. And if you just don't believe in anything but materialism and objective observation and rational systems of reason, it seems that "love" and a whole lot of other good human sentiment just gets neglected somehow. Believing in God might be essential to some people's systems of motivations because it focuses a sense of wonder about a God who cares about humanity or ones own self, and creates an emotional space for sentiments like love. If you haven't realized you are loved, maybe you haven't learned to love in a spiritual sort of sense different from carnal gratifications.
I would consider developing the capacity to love God and others as a sort of high aim for life here. If you achieve that, you "win" it all. And if you're one of the pedantic doubters who won't believe in "God" because you see no proof, you would do quite well if you still could learn to focus on the real people around you who are objectively and evidently real. Some religious folks have even gone so far as to say that if you love your fellow man, God will put you first on His list of who really loves Him.
Perhaps, when viewed in this perspective, it might be immaterial whether you claim to believe in "God" or not.
P.S. I looked through, and listened to Colton's link. I term this a high level intellectual approach to religion, consistent with Jesus' statements about how those who follow his precepts ultimately becoming persons of his own, and his Father's natures, and John's gospel about how "God is Love", and all that. Some might think love is one dimensional or something like that, something simple, but it is a capacity that requires full development of intellectual and physical abilities, and the coordinated comprehension of a very wide field of truths. We grow in our capacities by the exercise and the disciplined practice of them . . . . So all the other little themes of the "Gospel" could be viewed as aids or tools for that development.
So, no, please don't take it like I think "love" doesn't require any other virtues, or even knowledge, or obedience to any particular thematic aspect of religious beliefs. . . . I just meant to bring out the ultimate objective. . . . which even Dallin Oaks neglected to mention specifically in his little sermon.
People who live in this world are generally learning some things that will be helpful along the way. Most people have people they care about in their lives, and most people develop in that caring 'love" across time. Most people are learning a lot of other things, too. So JEJ's point is well-made, and well-taken, so far as I'm concerned. It's really just a question of whether a church can help you develop those characteristics or not. Whether belief in God helps that growth or not.
I like tools. I use all kinds of tools and machines to get stuff done. Maybe I even oughtta go to Church or something. . . .
