On Expecting Miracles to Occur Regularly

“The very purpose for which the world was created, and man introduced to live upon it, requires that the laws of nature operate in cold disregard for human feelings. We must work out our salvation without expecting the laws of nature to be exempted for us. Natural law is, on rare occasions, suspended in a miracle. But mostly…like the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, (we) wait endlessly for the moving of the water.” 

- Elder Boyd K. Packer, “The Moving of the Water”

Did We Choose Our Mortal Trials in the Pre-Existence?

I have a friend who said once:

"We are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome."  

I have thought about that idea off and on for a long time, and I both agree and disagree with it.  My main concern, however, isn't in the wording but rather in the extrapolations that are so common from it.  I hope the following makes sense as a summary of why I am conflicted about the quote above. 

Given our belief in a "veil of forgetfulness", the pre-existence is where Mormon theology gets a bit squishy, but within Mormon theology there are some things that point toward the wording above. Two of those things are:

1) In the case of a crack baby (or a child born into terrible abuse) who dies early, if we accept the idea that all children who die before being accountable inherit the Celestial Kingdom (which my heart loves, but by head has a hard time accepting due to my dislike of predestination), that baby gets the best possible reward for what s/he suffers in this life.

2) Our temple work does not require anyone to accept God or Jesus or Mormonism or the LDS Church or anything else in this life - and it leaves the final judgment completely in the hands of God. The standard really is what type of person each individual becomes, relative only to their personal effort and circumstances - and, again, that judgment is God's alone.

My problem with the quote above, as worded, also is with the phrase "in the right place" and how it can be interpreted. I have heard it used way too often in my life to justify a condescending attitude toward "the other" - that their specific situations in this life (and, by extension, our own situations) are a direct result of something about their former life, usually worthiness or valiance.  Thus, I believe the idea that every person is born into the best circumstance for that person can be viewed in such a way that it functions as a conceit of luxury. It's a way to justify one's own privileged position and rationalize others' horrible circumstances.

It's also one of the reasons I am open to the idea of multiple probationary experiences, even though I don't preach it or believe it passionately. Rather, I lean toward a structure of eternal progression that is WAY more expansive and extended than a limited focus on mortality allows. I do believe that this life is the most important stage in our eternal progression at this moment, but I also believe our previous stages were the most important at those times and that our future stages will be the most important at those times. I believe all is present unto God in the sense that the past is gone and the future will be whatever the present makes it be.

I think all we can see is the here and now, so we do the best we can to understand the stark differences all around us - and, because we see through a glass, darkly, we each end up with partial views that make sense to each of us. That's why I try to understand the best I can and allow others the same privilege, let them understand how and what they may.

I simply would say,

All who are born will receive the best possible outcome, according to the wisdom, grace and love of God. All who "keeps their first estate" will be rewarded for it to the greatest extent possible.

I Want to Be a Mormon Christian, Not a Christian Mormon

If you look closely at multiple General Conference talks and statements over the years, I think it's obvious that the top leadership of the Church believes there is a difference between church membership and Christian discipleship. In fact, at least twice in my memory during General Conference, it was said in crystal clear terms that activity in church doesn't guarantee Christian discipleship. The issue is that many talks appear to illustrate a belief that it's hard for most people to live a Christ-centered life without also having a church-centered life - and, frankly, they probably are correct in most cases.

Christianity and church affiliation are so intertwined now, as much outside the LDS Church as inside it, that it's really hard for people of pretty much any denomination (or even "non-denominational" congregations) to separate the two - and, given the communal nature of the New Testament focus, I'm not sure the two actually can be separated properly. In a very practical way, it really is difficult to divorce being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth from being part of a religious community - a group "following", if you will. In Jesus' ministry, it wasn't a formal "church", per se - but people absolutely left family and friends to follow him around as he preached. They formed a religious community, even if they didn't build and gather in meetinghouses of their own.


Furthermore, as I have said in other posts here, the Mormon conception of the next life is not focused on individual salvation but rather communal exaltation. 

The difficulty here, in my opinion, is not that we need to separate the two affiliations totally and make it Christian discipleship vs. church membership; rather, we need to balance the two and prioritize them so that we live Christ-centered lives within the LDS Church - not that we live church-centered lives that include Christ.

In other words, we should be Mormon Christians - not Christian Mormons.

Analyzing Scripture: Alma 56:47 - "God Would Deliver Them"

Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.

In Alma 56:47, all we are told is that the Anti-Nephi-Lehite mothers “taught” their sons that “if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.” From what, we are not told. We only assume it was from physical death in war because of the situation that caused them to relate it to Helaman (war and their preservation in it).

In other words, the immediate context surrounding the statement (war) influences the readers to assume this context fully defines what is said - by translating what they were taught into, “You won’t die in war.” However, given that we are not told from what God would deliver them, it is legitimate to look at the rest of the context and realize that there might be other, more comprehensive, legitimate meanings for “God would deliver them” – that their mothers’ words might have been valid even if some of them had died in battle. 

They had been “taught” – not “told”. This might be a one time occurrence as they were leaving home for war, as is the standard assumption. However, it seems like these young men had been “taught” dedication and obedience and exactness all their lives. Individuals might change in an instant, but it is unlikely that an entire group of 2,000+ young men would become ultra-obedient and diligent overnight. It is much more likely that they had been “taught” all their lives that God would deliver them (from anything that might threaten their spiritual, eternal well-being) than that their mothers simply pulled them aside on the way out the door and promised them they wouldn’t be killed in war.

Remember, those mothers had seen many of their friends (and perhaps some fathers and mothers and sons and daughters and husbands) slaughtered by other Lamanites – killed in the act of calling upon God even though they “did not doubt”. Those mothers knew full well that God didn’t always deliver His people from physical death, but they were convinced that He could deliver them from their natural and fallen and sinful and lost state – from spiritual death. (Alma 24:27 – “thus we see that the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people.”)

Alma 53: 20-21 makes it obvious that these young men had been taught all their lives the reward for perfect faithfulness and obedience and dedication – the same reward their own “pioneers” had received, even those who had been killed for their faith and dedication and lack of doubt. I think it’s fairly safe to say, as a parent myself, that their mothers reiterated what they had been taught all their lives as they were heading off to war – that if they did not doubt and obeyed every command with exactness that “God would deliver them”, no matter the physical outcome.

There is another clue that this was not a one-time, war-specific statement. Remember, this was Helaman who was reporting about these young men. He was as close to them as any Nephite – ever. Yet, apparently, he did not know the specifics about what their mothers had taught them until they told him about it in the field of battle. He had been there when the parents had decided to fight; he was the one who had talked them out of it by invoking their sacred promise; he had been chosen as their sons’ military leader because they trusted him as a religious leader. He was intimately involved in the decision of their sons to fight in place of their parents. Perhaps “taught” simply can mean “told” – but I tend to believe that Helaman would have been there for the great send off when all the mothers collectively told all the sons that they would not die in battle – that he would have known about it and not have had to be told after the fact.

Having said all that, I do not discount the idea that the Lord might have promised the parents that He would preserve their sons in battle like He had preserved the sons of Mosiah on their missions – that it was couched in terms of, “You’ve sacrificed enough lives to follow me. I won’t require that you sacrifice your sons.” Even if that really is all it was, that’s enough for me, since it makes it an incredibly powerful story of the rewards of deep and difficult sacrifice and dedication.

Am I saying that this is the correct view of the statement, “God would deliver them”? No; I don’t know that. It might simply have been, “Stay valiant and none of you will be killed.” All I’m saying is that when you parse the text then consider the overall context, there is more than one possible meaning for that phrase ("God would deliver them.") – and assuming it simply meant “they will not die in battle” actually cheapens what I believe is taught in this story.

Are there other legitimate interpretations of this statement? If we “do not doubt”, will God “deliver” us? If so, how – and from what? Are there parallels with this statement that can apply to modern Mormonism in some real and unique way – ways to liken this unto ourselves?

Sunday School Lesson Recap: We All Have Been Saved Already

Today, we talked about the traditional, Primary / Sunday School answer to the question:

"Why do we come to earth, and what are the consequences that need to be overcome?"

I asked the questions and asked for "the standard, Primary answers". They came up with: to be tried, to gain a physical body, to learn to repent, to progress, etc. - and, for the second part of the question, physical and spiritual death. We then focused on the concepts of physical and spiritual death - what they mean in practical terms and how the scriptures talk about them.

To discuss physical death (and to get to the heart of it within Mormon theology), we read 1 Corinthians 15:1-29, verse-by-verse. I started by explaining Paul's background (when he was Saul, the high-ranking agent of the Sanhedrin), in order to make sure they understood that Paul had been highly-educated in the law - that he was, in practical terms, like Elder Oaks now. Thus, like Elder Oaks, he often spoke in legalistic terms - since that was how he was trained and how he thought. I wanted them to understand the structure of the chapter we were going to read - how Paul's treatise about the resurrection basically was like a courtroom "defense" of the concept and precisely what he said about "salvation from physical death".

I'm going to quote almost the entire passage, with snippets of the conversation, just to present the general flow of the discussion:

(1-3) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul starts his discourse on the resurrection by reminding the members of the Church that he preached and scripture recorded, and they accepted, the idea that Jesus died for our sins. Thus, he started with the concept of redemption from spiritual death - but then he quickly shifted to the resurrection.

(4-8) And that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

He then cites witnesses to the resurrection - six appearances in all. He does this, again, in order to cover the classic legal requirement of having witnesses to a claim. (I didn't mention this in the class, simply because I didn't think of it at the time, but, for this forum, it is interesting that Paul included his own "vision" in the list that otherwise would be interpreted as visitations. He didn't distinguish in the epistle between those different types of "appearances".)

(9-11) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Paul then re-established that the people who were receiving his epistle had believed what he and the others had preached about the resurrection. It was, again, a legal argument saying, essentially, "This is not new to you. At one point, every one of you accepted and believed this."

(12) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This verse says quite clearly that Paul was writing this chapter as a direct response to member of the early Christian Church who had started to reject the resurrection (as "physical" in nature), re-igniting the previous division that had existed within Judaism between the Sadducees and Pharisees regarding resurrection. That is important to understand, since there are two capstone verses that only can be understood properly if the intended audience is understood properly.

(13-15) But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

Here, Paul places his own character and that of the other witnesses at the center of the question of whether or not a resurrection occurred - and he says, flat-out, that Christianity is useless / ineffectual ("vain") without the foundation of a resurrection that had been witnessed by lots of people.

(16-18) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

This is a repeat or extension of the previous verses, but it sets the stage for his first capstone statement:

(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

I asked the students what this verse means - how they would rephrase it in their own terminology. One of the students said, "If we stop believing in Christ, we will be miserable." I told him that I have heard that translation a lot, but that it wasn't quite what Paul was saying. (He's a great kid, so he didn't take offense at being told he was wrong - and I have done that in more than one lesson in the past, so they are used to it.) They read it again, and someone phrased it correctly as, "If our hope in Christ is confined to this life and has no real effect in the next life, we are more miserable than anyone else."

We then talked about why that would be - and they quickly understood that it is because of all the requirements involved in accepting Jesus and living as he told his disciples to live. We talked a little about what that entailed back then (which, in many ways, was a lot more than now, as much as we tend to feel restricted now), then we talked about what that entails now. After about ten things were listed as examples of things they do that they wouldn't do if they were believing Christian-Mormons, we all grinned and agreed that we could keep adding to the list for a long time. I repeated something the High Councilor had said in Sacrament Meeting - that we need to use common sense in how we dedicate time to our callings, since "the Church can take all of our time if we let it" - and that we can't neglect our family in performing our callings, since "the family is #1 in our lives, not the Church".

Verse 19 is the first "summation statement" in chapter 15. It is the end of Paul's first point - that the resurrection is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and warrants the sacrifices required of the early members at that time.

He then moved to the scope of the resurrection - the extent of salvation from physical death.

(20-22) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

I asked the students who, according to these verses, is resurrected. They saw immediately that every person who has been born is said to be resurrected. One of them asked an interesting question: "How do other denominations interpret verse 22? I don't see how they can read it any differently than that." I told him that most people tend to interpret scriptures based on what they believe, not based on what the scriptures actually say - especially when what they say is different than what they have been taught. I told them that trying to understand scriptures as they are, not as we want them to be, is an important effort - and I told them again that making that effort has led me to interpret some passages and verses differently even than many other members of the LDS Church.

I then rephrased the answer to: "Everyone who is born already has been saved - from physical death." Based on that idea, I told them that I hope they never argue with anyone who claims to have been saved. Based on what most of them believe about the next life, they are right; they have been saved, just like all of them and I already have been saved. I told them that it's important to understand where others are correct and not accuse them of being incorrect in those instances. I told them that if anyone ever asks them if they have been saved to answer confidently, "Yes, I have been saved, just like you have been saved - at the moment we chose to follow Jesus." If they want to hear more (if the answer shocks them enough to ask), more can be shared; if not, the potential confrontation has been avoided.

Verses 23-28 are simply more "detail" about the resurrection and don't add anything unique to the discussion that I wanted to address, so I said it that way and we moved to verse 29.

(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

This is Paul's second capstone argument - focusing on the "proof" that the early Christian leaders and members really did believe what they taught about the resurrection. If reworded to make it easier to understand, it might read:

Why are people being baptized for the dead if they aren't going to be resurrected? (If there is no post-mortal life, of if the next life is nothing more than a spiritual continuation, why would we be baptized for them?

This rhetorical question is worded in such a way, in context of the entire chapter, as the clinching argument that ALL who are born will be resurrected - since it places them ALL under the requirement of the law to be baptized. Again, performing baptisms for the dead proved that the people involved really believed what the leaders taught - that salvation from physical death really is universal.

I looked at the person who asked the question about how others view verse 22 and told him that I have heard verse 29 explained away as Paul condemning a practice of the time by an apostate group - but I told them that such an interpretation simply makes no sense as worded or in the context of the entire chapter. Conversely, as a summation of a legal argument about the centrality and universality of the resurrection, it makes perfect sense.

Since this already is a long summary, I will hit only two things about the rest of the lesson:

1) We talked about agency as the central aspect of salvation from spiritual death - and how, in traditional Mormon theology, all but very few people who are resurrected will inherit a degree of glory and live forever in the presence of "God" (or, to be more precise, to be able to exist in the presence of a member of the Godhead).

2) We talked again about how important it is for each of them to act according to the dictates of their own consciences and become unique individuals - not carbon copies of someone else. I told them about Steven Peck's book, "A Short Stay in Hell", in which a man goes to a place where everyone is exactly like him and thinks, for a short time, that he is in Heaven - only to realize exact sameness is Hell. (Steven is a Biology professor at BYU and a phenomenal writer. I recommend this book highly to everyone here.) I recommended that book to them, and told them that lack of progress, lack of action, lack of purpose other than praising God constantly, and never-ending sameness would be Hell for me.

One of the Central Paradoxes of Mormonism

I believe pure Mormonism teaches, at the most fundamental level, that salvation and exaltation have nothing to do with religious or denominational affiliation in this life, despite how much we stress the importance of missionary work and earthly conversion.  We teach that this life is the most important part of our eternal existence (and I agree with that concept, since "now" is all over which we have any control) and that missionary work is of paramount importance (and I love and am involved actively in that work), but, in the end, all will be held accountable only for how they lived what they believed - meaning good, sincere people of all ages will be blessed equally regardless of whether or not they hear and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this life.  Thus, we have an emphasis on the primacy of preaching the Gospel coupled with a theology that says all will be blessed fully and graciously even if we do not do so. 

This represents one of the most fundamental paradoxes of Mormonism - the need for specific conversion work now coupled with no eternal consequences on others for not doing that work. 

In case anyone disagrees with the universal nature of the grace we teach in the LDS Church, I will try to explain what I mean:

1) "As in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Corinthians 5:22) 

The Atonement pays for physical death for ALL who ever have lived - no matter what religion they believed in this life and what denomination they attended, if any. This covers atheists and agnostics, as well. "All" means all. Period. Therefore, all are saved from physical death, and all except the Sons of Perdition are redeemed from spiritual death ("Hell" - endless life in the kingdom of Lucifer). This means that all who ever have lived obtain a reward for having lived here on Earth, even those who end up as Sons of Perdition. Everyone except the Sons of Perdition inherit a degree of God's glory in a divine kingdom.

2) Those who die without having had a chance to hear and, more importantly, understand the Gospel will have that opportunity at some point in their eternal existence.

Therefore, even if someone dies without having accepted the Gospel in any obvious way, they can be exalted - if they lived the best they could according to the dictates of their own conscience. Furthermore, there simply is no way to look inside a person's heart and know if that person truly had an opportunity to understand the Gospel fully - which is highlighted by the next point.

3) There will be LDS and non-LDS in all kingdoms of glory.

All modern prophets have said that there will be those who are not LDS in this life who will end up in all the kingdoms of glory, and all modern prophets also have said that there are those who are baptized, active members of the LDS Church in this life who also will end up in all the kingdoms of glory - since where we end up essentially is a result of who we become (what glory we can abide when all is said and done), not who we appear to be to others. It is possible for a baptized, confirmed member to jump off the deep end into wickedness and depravity.  In other words, all modern prophets have said that baptism and confirmation alone are no guarantee of exaltation - and, they also have said that even active attendance won't cut it if it's not accompanied by a spiritual conversion. 

4) Ultimately, God is the judge of all, since we just don't understand anyone well enough to make final judgments of them.

This means that we really don't know who has had an opportunity to understand the Gospel fully and who hasn't. We often think we do, but we just don't know so many things about others that we can't be their judge. Only God can see into each soul and know the right reward for them. That is important to understand if we really do accept the idea that God is the Judge and that we simply can't make that determination fully and with perfect clarity.  I take, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" much more literally than many people do - especially when it comes to assumptions about where others will be when all is said and done. 

5) There is no obvious, objective, outwardly-visible criteria (at least to us) that defines who will be where - at least, not on a large scale that can be applied to all. 
 
This is hardest to accept and internalize when it comes to those of whom we have high expectations - especially our own family members (both physically and at church).  We generally are hardest on those we think we understand - and we generally are most judgmental toward "our own".  However, when it comes right down to it, we simply don't understand anyone well enough to make a perfect judgment about their ultimate, eternal fate. 
 
So, Buddhists, evangelicals, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Baptists, wiccans, and just about any other type of person, including inactive LDS and those who have left the LDS Church, can be exalted - as long as they lived the best they could according to the dictates of their own conscience (including doing the best they could to repent to the best of their understanding and ability). That's God's call as the Eternal Judge, not ours as fallen (wo)man - since he can see performance compared to potential, while all we can see is performance (and, really, only public performance, in many cases). We might make value judgments based on our limited understanding of the full picture, but we are commanded not to do so (in too many scriptural passages to begin to list here) - because we are flat-out wrong in too many cases. 
 
I understand fully the issues such a view brings with it, but I believe it passionately.

We Tend to Be Too Hard on Our Own

Within Christianity, Mormon theology is one of the most expansive, "universalist" in existence. Our entire structure of temple ordinances is based on the idea that absolutely anyone can "pass the test" regardless of the religion they believe during this life - or even if they are hard-core atheists.

It's also not correct to say that such universalism applies only to some degree of glory but not the Celestial Kingdom. Absolutely everyone (minus a few Sons of Perdition who are the exception that proves the rule) will receive salvation within Mormonism simply through the Atonement of Jesus, so temple work can't be about people qualifying for the Telestial Kingdom - or even the Terrestrial Kingdom, since that essentially is the same place just with nicer people. (Seriously, that's the best description of the difference I've ever heard.) It has to be about opening the possibility of the Celestial Kingdom to ALL - making sure ALL have a chance to pass the test, if you will.

The difficulty is that we tend to be harder on our own than we are on those we don't know. The standard is the same, but we tend to think those who have been in the Church have had their chance while those outside the Church haven't. We forget that we aren't judges of final rewards. It's one of the most deeply ingrained "natural (wo)man" tendencies that exists, and, as a result, it exists in many members and, thus, within the LDS Church - but it's not part of pure Mormonism. I believe it's REALLY important to understand that. 

Sure, too many members don't get that fully, but it's there in great big font and blinking neon colors within the theology itself.

A Discussion of Suffering and Desire - and Salvation and Redemption

The following is a short conversation among some friends of mine about suffering.  I hope it makes sense and helps someone in some way: 

Friend 1) I posit that we suffer because we want suffering more than not suffering. We will suffer and cause suffering until we decide (collectively) to stop. This doesn't require a central authority (God) directing and orchestrating the suffering. In my own view, we can decide to no longer suffer. We can still experience physical pain, but spiritual suffering is a choice we make. We experience and cause suffering by wanting something else (anger, violence, revenge, theft, etc.) more than peace, especially more than giving up our mortal life.

Friend 2) This sounds like a Buddhist idea. I haven't studied a lot of the ideas, but a friend of mine was a Buddhist. He said that much suffering comes from wanting things. Fix your "wanter" and then you replace suffering with happiness. Not happy you don't have a nice house to live in? Then stop wanting it. Unhappiness gone.

 
 

Friend 3) To me suffering just is.  I know little about Buddhism but agree that all life is suffering, that it has a cause, and there is a way out of it.

 
 

Me) Rather than "fixing my wanter", I have worked on being at peace with the gap between what I want to be and what I am. Notice, I did not say "between what I want and what I have." There's an important difference. I also beleive there are plenty of people who simply are wired genetically to emotional suffering and others who aren't.  It's easy to overlook that.  It can be addressed and overcome, but it's not easy or natural.

 
That's where the idea of grace and mercy amid "failure" resonates so strongly with me. I live a life full of paradoxes, and it isn't easy to recognize them and strike an appropriate balance between competing extremes. It's the idea that there is "salvation / redemption" IN AND DURING what I call the "muddle in the middle" (the suffering) that inspires me to strive to become perfect ("complete, whole, fuly developed") while not letting my inability to do so in the here and now keep me from trying, regardless. (Personally, I like "redemption" more than "salvation".)
It's finding peace in the journey and letting go of the need to fight or struggle or suffer - and that isn't a natural thing, especially for those who are less inclined to let go than I am.

Communal Salvation and "Restoration" of What Never Has Been

I believe passionately in the concept of communal salvation - that they without us and we without them cannot be made perfect (whole, complete, fully developed). I really dislike the idea that our eternal end is purely a personal pursuit. It justifies WAY too much arrogance and condescension and neglect - and even blatant abuse and disregard.



I believe in organized religion, since I believe in interpersonal sociality and cooperative progression. I believe ALL organizations must be open to modification and reformation and periodic restoration - but I also believe "restoration" is just as much about forward-looking growth and building as it is about backward-looking re-institutionalization. I believe in "restoring" wholeness and harmony - even if that wholeness and harmony never really existed in acutal mortal history.


I like the use of "restored" in Alma when referring to the resurrection, since, if you think about it, that "restoration" is to a state in which we've never lived previously. It really is a paradigm shift, but I think it's an important one.

That Actually is Protestant, not Mormon, Theology

There are a number of common assertions about Mormons and our beliefs that actually fit orthodox Protestant theology much better. For example, the following is one of those assertions:

Many Christians claim that Mormons believe in a God who creates this mortal experience for the purpose of sifting through his children to find the “best” ones with whom he can live eternally, shutting the rest of humanity out because they aren't good enough. They believe that is the Mormon viewpoint - that only Mormons are saved. They claim that God’s work and glory then becomes “immortality and eternal life for only the cream of the crop”.

This actually is much closer to orthodox Protestant theology than to Mormon doctrine.

Mormonism allows for VERY few true "losers" (the Sons of Perdition), because everyone else "wins" in the sense that they are rewarded with higher glory than they had prior to mortality and everlasting life in the presence of a God. Orthodox Protestantism, on the other hand, condemns billions to everlasting separation from God.

Also, Mormonism claims that everything possible will be done to provide salvation and exaltation to all of God's children, regardless of their religious or denominational affiliation in this life - that eternal rewards will be based individually on sincerity of heart and effort to follow what we know and believe personally. Many Protestants claim that salvation is available only to those who hear of and accept Jesus in this life - and many others take the Calvinist extreme position of pre-destination that posits God has chosen who will be saved and who will be damned, and that the ultimate end of our souls has nothing to do with our agency or choice at all.

Which of these theologies posits "eternal life for only the cream of the crop"?

Mormon Reincarnation and Universalism

I am a universalist in the Biblical sense of "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I don't see how any believing Christian can address that verse (or the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 15, actually) without being "universalist" in that way - since "all who die in Adam" means "all who ever have lived". In Mormon terms, that means I believe all who ever have lived (minus very few Sons of Perdition, who are the exception that proves the rule) will be "saved" and receive a degree of glory.

I also am universalist in that I believe exaltation is "available" for all - and I am "more universalist" than many other Mormons in that I believe we will be shocked in the end at the percentages that make up the various kingdoms. Frankly, I don't preach reincarnation, since it's not part of the Christian paradigm, but I see a "reincarnative process" in our theology that is missing completely from the rest of Christianity - that informs how we are universalist at heart.

At the very least, we teach of 5-6 distinct states of being - and one more if I am allowed to define creatively.

1) Intelligence (no idea, really, what that means);

2) pre-mortal spirit (no idea, really, what that means other than "created" by exalted parents - or what process was used in that creation);

3) Mortal human (a combination of "immortal" spirit and mortal body);

4) post-mortal spirit (a pre-mortal spirit with more memories); [*grin*]

5) post-resurrection being (which might or might not be "separated" [sorry for the pun] from);

6) post-judgment, "glorified" being (assigned to a kingdom overseen by a God [Father, Son or Holy Ghost].

7) The 7th stage would be Heavenly Parent.

It is noteworthy that the first SIX stages are universal in our theology. The only one that is not universalist in every way is #7 - Heavenly Parent. It also is instructive to note that those who accuse Mormons of being arrogant exclusionists almost "universally" are less universalist than we are. That is one of the most ironic aspects of religious debate I can imagine - and it influences my frustration with conversations with others about temple ordinances. Those discussions generally are couched in terms of the exclusionary arrogance such ordinances illuminate, when, in fact, they are the practical core of our universalism.

Salvation is Communal, Not Individual

Salvation as a group is as central to Mormonism as any concept I can imagine. The central concept of the temple is that the power of godliness binds people in a way that would make the very creation of the earth “wasted” without “communal salvation”. Although we use the term "exaltation" to refer to the Celestial Kingdom, I have no problem using "salvation" when talking about the greatest gift God bestows, especially in the context of how other Christians use that term and not "exaltation."

Also, Joseph was a Zion builder, not simply an individual saver. Our great mortal target is to replicate the City of Enoch, not the scholar in the tower or the monk in the monastery.

I'm not arguing that salvation is not individual, in a very real and important way. What I am saying is that it isn't completely individual - that you can't gain the fullest blessings of salvation (exaltation, in our terminology) by sitting in a monastery and getting to know Jesus on an individual level. (I actually have heard it called "chillin' with Christ" and extolled as the ultimate form of worship.) According to everything Jesus is credited with saying and doing, that isn't compatible with what he wants.

What I believe he wants is for us to lose our individual lives in the service of others - specifically those who are down-trodden and victimized and shunned and marginalized - socially and economically and politically and in any other way. If they have no voice, we are to be their voice; if they have no food, we are to provide it; if they are naked, we are to clothe them. Otherwise, He will say to us, "Depart from me."

It seems painfully clear to me that there is a "work of salvation" that includes the temporal condition of humanity. Seriously, go through the Gospels and tally up the instances of Jesus "preaching" and "ministering". I think it is an enlightening exercise, and it leads me to believe that salvation in fact is NOT an individual thing, but rather a communal thing spread by individuals. I can't be exalted by myself, as an individual. According to everything we teach, that simply isn't possible - assuming I have enough accountability to understand my responsibility to others. Even in the most limited cases, exaltation comes at the very least as a couple.

They Knew Not Jesus in This Life

I have heard various people of other denominations and religions say they have a problem with the belief that Jesus is the “only way” to achieve happiness in this life and exaltation in the life to come. I believe this is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what the verses that teach this mean.

I always have interpreted that teaching to mean that the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ is the only way - which I take to mean the principles He taught and the end result of those principles, spelled out in the Sermon on the Mount and encapsulated in Matthew 5:48, Romans 8:17 and other passages in the Bible. That's the only interpretation that makes sense to me in light of perhaps the most fundamental reason for the Restoration - the need to re-establish the universal power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that Paul taught so clearly in 1 Corinthians 15 - especially verses 21-22.

I believe that is why we can say that those of other religions who live according to those principles can be saved and exalted just as Christians in this life can be - that they lived according to the principles of the Gospel and the light of Christ they brought with them to this earth, even though they "knew not Christ in this life".

Agency and Coercion: Either Extreme is Not God's Will

The battle between agency (which, in my mind, is the truest form of individuality) and coerced conformity (ultimately tied to power) is the oldest we have recorded. Unfortunately, all of us are mortal, natural (wo)men, so this battle still plays out even in the Church - with many members leaning to both extremes (agency void of consequence and blind obedience). Ironically, each extreme is just a different way to express Lucifer’s plan. (”I’ll save you regardless of what you do,” and “I’ll guarantee everyone does exactly what they are told to do.”)

I prefer the muddle in the middle. "Work out your own salvation/exaltation." That sums it up really well to me.

Celestial Surprise

I do not equate practicing a religion other than Mormonism - or, more broadly, Christianity - as being punishable sin. At its very worst, I see it perhaps as a Fall-induced transgression (since it will lead people to "break God's spiritual law" in some way or another) - but our Articles of Faith say that we will not be punished for those.

Years ago, I heard Elder Michelson say that he believes many members will be surprised in the end how many people receive a higher reward (including exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom) than those members imagine. He said that we tend to over-estimate our own worthiness and under-estimate the worthiness of others (but for some, especially women, it is the opposite) - and, in so doing, create divisions that simply won’t exist when our natural minds see more fully the glory of God. He said that when we try to figure out which kingdom will be the most populous in the eternities, we are exhibiting our fallen tendency to judge others without knowing them well enough to do so.

Due to my experience, that statement resonated with me when he said it - and it resonates still. I agree with what he said, but I will add the explicit caveat that I believe what he said applies every bit as much to any Mormon as it does to any Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, Jew, atheist or any other individual child of God. I believe all of these groups of people will be represented much more widely than many people believe in higher kingdoms than that to which we naturally would assign them.

The Unexamined Foundation of Salvation

In our eternal view, nearly all who have been born into mortality have “confessed the name of Christ and been saved” (into *some* degree of glory in the presence of a member of the Godhead) by the grace of God - based on their acceptance of the Father’s Plan in the pre-existence. The only exception to that rule is the Sons of Perdition - an incredibly small percentage of God’s children, according to every statement we have. Therefore, in a very real way, we view this life very differently than other denominations. Essentially, the mainstream Christian “goal” (progress-less existence in the presence of God) is what we claim has been rewarded already in either the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdom. Iow, grace gets us a degree of glory in a kingdom of God, but our acceptance of what God asks us to do (our “fruits” - which I prefer over “works”) qualifies us for a higher degree of glory in a different kingdom of God.

Given that position, when we talk of “salvation” we generally mean “exaltation” - since within Mormon theology “salvation” as the rest of Christianity defines it essentially is a given. We have "been saved" - but we want the other blessings offered by Jesus in His great biblical vision. Our “problem” in articulating how we view grace is that the very concept of “going beyond grace” is anathema to other Christians, even though it is a central tenet of the Gospels, especially.

Jesus' Gospel and Grace are FAR More Powerful than That

I wrote the following quoted statement as a comment / response to someone in the thread earlier this week about the Mormon view of salvation and its reach beyond this mortal life, but I want to post it today as a separate topic - since I think it is something that simply MUST be considered when discussing salvation / exaltation / eternal reward.

I will say one thing, and I don't mean this to be confrontational, but I do
believe it strongly:

The idea that this life ONLY is the time to accept or reject is a great
cop-out for many people to practice hating and judging their neighbor - since
anyone can scream hellfire and damnation at others then blame them for rejecting
the message. Also, I just can't accept that God would damn someone who
attends Sunday School weekly and hears the Gospel preached but rejects
Christianity in this life because her pious father took her to church then went
home and raped her repeatedly, for example.

For justice to be just, it simply MUST account for mortal circumstances
that cloud judgment and push people away from truth. That, according to
the Bible as I read it, is the most powerful application of grace - and
rejecting a chance in the post-mortal existence, imo, is rejecting the heart of
grace.

Summary:

I don't believe God will punish someone for rejecting the Gospel if believers, especially, do a lousy or even abominable job of modeling it - and especially if people see evil done in the name of Christianity and reject the Christianity they see rather then pure Gospel Jesus preached. The idea that He is limited in His ability to save and exalt by our understanding and implementation of His Gospel is ludicrous to me. Jesus' Gospel and grace, in my opinion, are FAR more powerful than that.

Possible Salvation: A Mormon Take

We believe salvation is independent of denomination, which very few people realize is a tenet of Mormonism. In fact, given our belief in the universal potential of the Atonement of Christ, we believe it is independent of religious affiliation in totality - IF someone truly did not have a chance to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior in mortality. We believe those judgments will be made by our Eternal Judge, Jesus, the Christ - not by we who see through a glass, darkly. Allowing for salvation outside our own limited understanding is an aspect of humility and gratitude that is central to our theology. (Since there is not one of us that "deserves" salvation, we need to avoid the natural tendency to say that others "don't deserve it". We are commanded to love ALL and not judge ANY - in that regard, at least.)

Ironically, we get told all the time that we believe only Mormons will be saved, while our actual theology allows for the salvation of MANY more of God's children than the majority of Christian denominations allow. We leave salvation open to the reaches of grace beyond the opportunities of this life, while many other Christian theologies deny salvation to all but those blessed to hear of Jesus and the Gospel and accept them in this life. Thus, the number of those who have a shot at salvation within Mormonism's view is exponentially higher than that within almost any other segment of Christianity. It really is one of the misconceptions that bothers me the most, since it is a HUGE moat and beam issue, in my mind.

As succinctly as I can put it, we believe the Bible on this one. We accept Paul's statement in I Corin. 15:22 that "as in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." ALL of God's children are saved from physical death and will be resurrected. ALL will be saved from the effects of the Fall - from those things that are out of their control as a result of being born into a sinful world. ALL will have the opportunity (somehow, at some time) to hear the Gospel of Christ and accept it or reject it. We don't know many details of how that will happen, but we extrapolate from the words of Paul and Peter that it will happen either in this life or in the post-mortal life (whatever title we might give it).