LDS General Conference - Apr 2015

[framer]

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 think this would make sense if everyone just had an epiphany after death, "Hey, it looks like the Mormons were right, I'm signing up!" It doesn't work that way. You will be pretty much the same person in the afterlife that you are now. Of you die before you have the opportunity to develop harmful habits and characteristics, then you won't be burdened with them in the hereafter. Most of us, however, WILL develop some bad habits. A lifetime compared to eternity would seem like a short time to set those habits in stone, but so is young adulthood, and that generally carries you through the rest of your life.

If you are hard hearted and ungenerous, you will still be that way in the spirit world and in many cases will segregate yourself to where you feel comfortable, especially considering that even the lowest layer of heaven is probably a better place than the standard Christian definition of Heaven. Most people like that would probably be as uninterested in improving in the afterlife as they are currently. By now, everybody knows that smoking is harmful, but a lot of people do it and even start doing it AFTER they know this. Even if someone realizes that the opportunity for improvement is there, most will say, "Nahhhh, I'm good." How many people today seek to better themselves daily?

 

[LogGrad98]

I think this would make sense if everyone just had an epiphany after death, "Hey, it looks like the Mormons were right, I'm signing up!" It doesn't work that way. You will be pretty much the same person in the afterlife that you are now. Of you die before you have the opportunity to develop harmful habits and characteristics, then you won't be burdened with them in the hereafter. Most of us, however, WILL develop some bad habits. A lifetime compared to eternity would seem like a short time to set those habits in stone, but so is young adulthood, and that generally carries you through the rest of your life.

If you are hard hearted and ungenerous, you will still be that way in the spirit world and in many cases will segregate yourself to where you feel comfortable, especially considering that even the lowest layer of heaven is probably a better place than the standard Christian definition of Heaven. Most people like that would probably be as uninterested in improving in the afterlife as they are currently. By now, everybody knows that smoking is harmful, but a lot of people do it and even start doing it AFTER they know this. Even if someone realizes that the opportunity for improvement is there, most will say, "Nahhhh, I'm good." How many people today seek to better themselves daily?

This is kind of how I view the afterlife. I don't view it as punishment v glory, but rather stratified levels for people to settle in where they feel comfortable. Some will have lived lives that make them fully comfortable directly in the presence of God, others will feel comfortable there some of the time, but not all the time, and on and on down to folks that turn away from His visage, whether it be in shame or just simply discomfort. I think along with that will come a general sense of where one could have been and where one "ended up" that will come across as shame or regret or even anger and resentment. Either way we go where we can find the most happiness possible for us individually, since it is after all the plan of happiness as well as salvation, and God wants us to be happy, even knowing that many of us will not be able to find our optimal happiness in His direct presence.

So, figuratively, we will settle into nice neighborhoods with nice neighbors, and we will make friends and generally be able to be happy, and progress as prescribed by H.F. in our sphere, whatever that looks like.

I also generally believe in spirit the much-uttered saying that if you could glimpse the lowest degree of the layers of heaven you would be so overwhelmed by the glory that you would want to kill yourself just to get there as soon as you can, figuratively speaking of course.

 

[framer]

This is kind of how I view the afterlife. I don't view it as punishment v glory, but rather stratified levels for people to settle in where they feel comfortable. Some will have lived lives that make them fully comfortable directly in the presence of God, others will feel comfortable there some of the time, but not all the time, and on and on down to folks that turn away from His visage, whether it be in shame or just simply discomfort. I think along with that will come a general sense of where one could have been and where one "ended up" that will come across as shame or regret or even anger and resentment. Either way we go where we can find the most happiness possible for us individually, since it is after all the plan of happiness as well as salvation, and God wants us to be happy, even knowing that many of us will not be able to find our optimal happiness in His direct presence.

So, figuratively, we will settle into nice neighborhoods with nice neighbors, and we will make friends and generally be able to be happy, and progress as prescribed by H.F. in our sphere, whatever that looks like.

I also generally believe in spirit the much-uttered saying that if you could glimpse the lowest degree of the layers of heaven you would be so overwhelmed by the glory that you would want to kill yourself just to get there as soon as you can, figuratively speaking of course.

That just intuitively seems like how God, if he is a father who loves us, would handle things and makes much more sense than the flames and pitchfork thing. Of course the entire reality of the situation would probably be impossible to explain with limited, finite minds.

 

[framer]

Also, this would make the different versions of "Heaven" as prescribed by most religions generally "true." If you think that going to Heaven is sitting on a cloud and playing a harp, you will probably be pleasantly surprised. . .

 

[VINYLONE]

I don't think it will be as simple as that. This is just all my opinion, so keep that in mind.

I think when we die we will essentially be the same people we are now, yet we will be alive as spirits but without a body.
There will still be spirits that are LDS, that are Catholic, that are no religion, etc. Everyone will still have their ideas about what to believe and what to not believe as to what stage you are or what comes next.
There will still be a faith aspect of what to believe and what to not believe there too. It won't be cut and dried immediately many of us imagine it to be.

So basically I'm saying I don't think it will be "in front of me and I can see it".

After the very end of all of this where we are finally "judged" and all that... that is when it will all be "in front of me and I can see it" so to speak.

Does that make sense?

No, it does not at all, especially coming from the viewpoint of an Atheist. In the following quote, JB gets it or, rather, gets what I am trying to say.

No it does not make sense. If I don't believe in an afterlife and then I suddenly find myself living one that particular belief is going to change pronto.

Exactly. I know that when we die, we die. If by some off chance, all of you religious folk are right and there is an afterlife, well, ****, all bets are off. At that point I would start believing in anything. It would be a paradigm shift as they say.

You'd presumably believe in an afterlife, then, but I think my previous statement is still valid: "I can totally see responses like this occurring as people there are being taught the gospel: "Yes, apparently I didn't cease to exist when I died, but that doesn't mean that accepting Jesus is the path to salvation. Why should I believe that?"" Why would you convert to Christianity/Mormonism just because you continue to exist? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't.

And, for what it's worth, the way I see it is that to some extent religions are verifiable. You can live the tenets of the religion and see the impact on your life. In the LDS case, you can read the Book of Mormon & Bible, pray, refrain from smoking/drinking/etc., attend church services, and so forth. That's basically how the LDS missionary program is set up--the missionaries teach people these principles and invite them to live accordingly to see how it impacts their lives. My anecdotal experience has been that of the people who do attempt to verify the religion in this manner, a very large percentage (more than 90%) become believers. Granted that's not 100% like you would have in a true scientific experiment, but it's not to be scoffed at.

I don't think I said religion is unverifiable. If I did, I misspoke.

How about a woman? Of any ethnicity.

Yeah, how about one? I mean, like most organized religions 50% of their constituents have no say in the matters of the church. The Mormon religion is no different.

Theoretically, I'm not opposed to it, but first they'd have to give women the priesthood. I don't see that happening.

Theoretically? Please explain.

 

[bigb]

By "theoretically", I mean that I think it wouldn't be a problem. But until it happens, it's just a theory that it would work. But like I said, I don't see that happening.

 

[VINYLONE]

By "theoretically", I mean that I think it wouldn't be a problem. But until it happens, it's just a theory that it would work. But like I said, I don't see that happening.

****, man. I originally read your post as you saying you WOULD be opposed to it. My mistake.

 

[bigb]

This seemed like as good of a place as any to post that Elder Scott died today. That makes three new apostles needing to be called at this next conference. Wow.

 

[Stoked]

This seemed like as good of a place as any to post that Elder Scott died today. That makes three new apostles needing to be called at this next conference. Wow.

Will be very interesting to see if it remains full of white American men or if they continue to select apostles from other continents/races.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Will be very interesting to see if it remains full of white American men or if they continue to select apostles from other continents/races.

Well, they did call Dieter.
I predict one of the new apostles will either be Japanese or Brazilian.

 

[bigb]

Well, they did call Dieter.
I predict one of the new apostles will either be Japanese or Brazilian.

I'll be very surprised if there's not a little variety.

 

[Stoked]

I'll be very surprised if there's not a little variety.

It just makes to much sense for there not to be.