[Katzpur]

DarkJedi wrote:

Katzpur wrote:

I know that most of the GA’s say that you can progress within a kingdom but that there is no movement from one kingdom to another. Personally, I don’t believe it would be eternal progression if that were the case. It will just take some people longer to get to where they really want to be than it will others. I’m pretty sure there is no official statement of doctrine on the subject.

Before the McConkie era (and through DOM’s tenure) it was commonly taught that we could progress through kingdoms. I’m not sure why the change except post DOM there was a time of retrenchment, correlation came into being, and the church became less open to different ideas and individualism. I think this was also a time when fear and guilt became weapons used by church authorities to keep people in line. Hence there remains some inconsistency in doctrine among those of us capable of critical and independent thought.

Thank you, DarkJedi. That’s very nice to know, and it’s new to me.

[Katzpur]

I know that most of the GA’s say that you can progress within a kingdom but that there is no movement from one kingdom to another. Personally, I don’t believe it would be eternal progression if that were the case. It will just take some people longer to get to where they really want to be than it will others. I’m pretty sure there is no official statement of doctrine on the subject. So many members just latch onto every statement a GA makes and treat it as if it came directly from God’s mouth. I suppose I do that, too, though. Several GA’s over the Church’s nearly 2000 years have said that if a couple was sealed, their “fallen away” children who were born in the covenant will ultimately repent (perhaps in the spirit world). I don’t think that’s official doctrine either, but I’m happy to go through life telling myself that it’s what’s going to happen in the case of my children.

[Katzpur]

Minyan Man wrote:

Katzpur, after your visit with the Stake President, please report back.

It will be interesting what he has to say.

Hi, Minyan Man. Please check my post to Roy to see what my stake president’s counselor said to me. If he gets back to me with some more information, I’ll be sure to pass it along. I’m thinking that he wasn’t more firm in his thinking than he was because the Church probably has never made a definitive statement on the subject. I guess it’s better that they don’t just make things up as they go along if that’s the case.

[Katzpur]

Roy wrote:

Wonderful to hear from you, friend.

There are LOTS of unanswered questions about the pre-mortal and post mortal realm and I think we don’t know as much as we think we know.

However, my understanding of LDS doctrine (what we think we know) is that those that inhabit paradise are those that are righteous AND have the necessary ordinances.

Some thoughts to consider. We tend to think of paradise and prison as two separate places. Maybe they are states of mind. The righteous that have their necessary ordinances have a sense of calm and assurance – kinda like the the peace of mind you get with a home insurance policy. Perhaps, spirit prison is not a prison at all – but just a sense of insecurity and anxiety that come from not having the assurances of the necessary ordinances being completed.

You could make the case that the world in which we now live is also divided. Those LDS members that have been taught the gospel live in a sense of comfort and peace from the holy spirit. Those that are not members could be described as living in various states of darkness/prison/limitation due to lack of the fulness of the spirit and lack of clarity of correct knowledge.

This could be one reason why there seems to be a sense of urgency around performing temple work for the dead, in that it metaphorically “releases” them from that “prison” of insecurity and anxiety and replaces it with the calming, comforting, peaceful assurance of the holy spirit.

As always, I do not hold myself out to be an authoritative source for true doctrine but I do enjoy playing with the puzzle pieces and marvel at the different possibilities. Your mileage may vary.

Hello, Roy. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I had hoped to come out of my meeting with the stake president’s counselor with a definitive response to my question. Unfortunately, he didn’t seem to be all that sure that what he was telling me was official Church policy. He kind of went back and forth between all righteous people being in Paradise and only those who had received the gospel. He told me he’d try to do a little bit of research and get back to me with an answer, which I thought was nice of him.

Your answer actually made more sense to me than anything he said. I’ve always assumed that both Paradise and the Spirit Prison are more states of mind than actual places and I asked him if he thought there might be some overlapping or merging of the two. He said he thought that was a reasonable assumption. He did point out that since Jesus Christ is the gate that leads us to our heavenly home, anyone who had not received the gospel (I’m assuming he meant the restored gospel), even if they were righteous, would feel held back or, as you say, limited in their progression. I think your second two paragraphs (the ones I’ve changed to boldface type) really say it all. I’m going to start to focus more on the idea of being held back from progressing as opposed to the suffering one might experience in the Spirit Prison, and I’m going to stress that both Paradise and the Spirit Prison are states of mind. A truly wicked person would undoubtedly suffer more mental anguish than a righteous person who just didn’t have all of the knowledge he needed to progress and was actively looking for it.

Again, your answer helped me a lot. Thanks a million for it!

Kathryn

[Katzpur]

I, for one, hope StayLDS doesn’t ever go away. I am a very infrequent poster, but I do occasionally stop by and lurk. This is a great forum for people like me to find that we’re not alone, and that’s important.

[Katzpur]

Hilarious! 😆

[Katzpur]

Old-Timer wrote:

I believe, within the framework of LDS theology, that the deciding factor was the choice in the premortal life to accept the Father’s plan – that the classic “Heaven vs. Hell” decision occurred at that time.

I believe in the concept of “time and all eternity” and that we have that essentially unending time period to progress toward and achieve the ultimate goal.

I believe that is what a loving Father-God would want – and I believe deeply in full grace and boundless atonement.

Brilliant! That is precisely what a truly loving Father would want for His children. It is not part of His character to be satisfied to see any of His children suffer. I have never even considered that the deciding factor was the choice made in the pre-mortal life. I love that! It makes all the sense in the world to me. :clap:

[Katzpur]

Minyan Man wrote:

DJ this is my point: individuals can & should make their own decisions regarding whether to take the vaccine or not. Along the same vein, shouldn’t we have the same right to define for our selves, the application & practice of the Word of Wisdom as we sit for a TR interview?

In balancing whether to take the covid vaccine or not has the potential for having a bigger impact then whether or not to drink coffee & tea.

For sure! :clap:

[Katzpur]

DarkJedi wrote:

Katzpur wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

But I’m with you Katzpur. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but it has an element of truth – I don”t really like most of the people there. It’s not that they’re not nice people or anything like that, but they’re not the type of people I would choose to socialize with. In all honesty they probably don’t like me, either, and I’m OK with that. And I don’t need the ward picnic or Christmas party where I have to play nice either – if I go to those it’s only to feel as though I’m getting some return on my tithing investment.

:thumbup: I would happily socialize with you, DarkJedi! Wish you lived in Utah.

I’m glad I don’t live in Utah! 😆 I do visit though. If I did live there I’d likely socialize with you also but the same way I do with the few I socialize with here – outside church.

Well, the next time you’re planning to be here for a few days, let me know and we can grab a bite for lunch. I’ll bring my husband as a chaperone.

[Katzpur]

DarkJedi wrote:

But I’m with you Katzpur. I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek but it has an element of truth – I don”t really like most of the people there. It’s not that they’re not nice people or anything like that, but they’re not the type of people I would choose to socialize with. In all honesty they probably don’t like me, either, and I’m OK with that. And I don’t need the ward picnic or Christmas party where I have to play nice either – if I go to those it’s only to feel as though I’m getting some return on my tithing investment.

:thumbup: I would happily socialize with you, DarkJedi! Wish you lived in Utah.

[Katzpur]

nibbler wrote:

Based on what has been said in this thread, I think it could be a synonym for cafeteria Mormon or cultural Mormon.

To me, a cafeteria Mormon and a cultural Mormon are not the same at all. To me, a cafeteria Mormon simply rejects whatever Church doctrines don’t sit right with him, while retaining a fairly strong belief in other aspects of the faith. Plus, he is able to live with his conscience just fine. He doesn’t feel the need to believe everything. (That kind of describes me.) I see a cultural Mormon as the person who really couldn’t care less whether “the Church is true” or not. He just goes along for the ride because he enjoys the company of other Mormons. And then there’s the Jack Mormon. A lot of people see the Jack Mormon as an ex-Mormon who is somewhat antagonistic to the Church, but mostly just lives and lets live. To me, it’s a totally inactive Mormon who is actually pretty neutral in his feelings about the Church.

It’s funny, but I’ve never really thought about the specifics of what these terms mean. I kind of assumed we were all pretty much on the same page with regards to our definitions, but I guess not.

[Katzpur]

DarkJedi wrote:

Katzpur wrote:

Re-reading this thread, I’m not even sure I understand what “chapel Mormonism” is. Could somebody help me out?

I think it’s a good question and I bet we each have at least slightly different definitions.

My definition is something like chapel Mormons are people who aren’t necessarily all in, may have doubts or outright unbeliefs, may or may not really participate, and/or might be there purely for social reasons. That said, a fair number of us here probably qualify. But that’s just my definition. And FWIW, if you asked me 25 years ago my definition would probably have been different. I think many years ago I heard a definition that would have described the more active as chapel Mormons – people who were there all the time. I don’t think that definition applies to this thread.

Thanks. That’s interesting to me because a “chapel Mormon” is probably the last term I’d use to describe myself, and the last place on earth I’d go for “social reasons” is church. I still believe much of the doctrine (at least the basic stuff), but my desire to hang out with people who look at the world from such a narrow perspective as I often see in LDS congregations is practically nil. It’s all I can do to try to have a simple dialogue with a lot of these folks. I’m just not where they are right now. I have no plans whatsoever to leave the Church, and I have plenty of reasons for staying. It’s just that none of them include “social reasons” and it’s honestly kind of hard for me to really understand what people like those of us who post on stayLDS find to connect them socially to the average member of the Church.

[Katzpur]

Re-reading this thread, I’m not even sure I understand what “chapel Mormonism” is. Could somebody help me out?

[Katzpur]

felixfabulous wrote:

Thank you for all of the replies and for sharing your experience. I have a relative who left the Church about three years ago and went to his bishop recently and said he would like to come back and participate as a non-believing member and purely on a social level. The bishop basically, said no.

That is one of the worst things (I mean aside from abuse, etc.) I’ve ever heard of a bishop doing. What a jerk! And hey, since when did anybody ever need a bishop’s permission to attend LDS church meetings? Now I’ve heard it all.

[Katzpur]

Minyan Man wrote:

The center of my faith is not the church. It’s Jesus Christ. The church is a vehicle I use to hopefully draw closer to JC & to

establish human contacts. I use the scriptures, (some) of the General Conference talks & personal revelation or inspiration.

In terms of church, I take what I can use & leave the rest. Overtime, I hope, my faith & beliefs grow.

I refuse to measure my conversion or beliefs by my activity or standard of conduct within the organization (church).

I love this, Minyan Man, and I totally relate to everything you’ve said. :thumbup:

[Author]

Posts