The Concept of Death

[_Fence Sitter]

I actually agree with most of this and could have written it myself.

The one exception is how you assert that it is only a select group who "may be able to accept" saving ordinances. Mormonism is better than many/most denominations of Christianity in asserting that every soul can be saved, it's not their inability, it's their lack of desire to change. It really is, in Mormonism, an equal chance at exaltation, with every soul coming to that moment of decision with a clear understanding that they are making a final choice to either be celestial or something less. So it isn't as if temple work is done fecklessly for those not possessing the capacity to change for the best, they simply don't want to be that way for whatever complex of reasons.

You miss my point. I know Mormonism claims that everyone will eventually get a their chance. The problem I have is one of time frames. Someone born thousands of years ago, for whom no record exists, will not have his proxy temple work done before the millennium. The select group I am talking about are those people for whom we have records of their names. Everyone else gets to sit and wait until the 2nd coming for the benefit of proxy work. So either proxy work is of no real immediate benefit to those that are dead, or the ones who have to wait for it are not getting those benefits though no fault of their own.

Which is it?

You do know that today's concept of the purpose of temple work does not resemble the 19th century version.

Today it's families are forever while back then it was a Celestial fantasy kingdom building. Back then it was a pure power grab, with Elders trying to seal as many people to themselves as possible, without regard to bloodlines, to increase their power and dominion in the hereafter. Nowadays it is merely a exercise in seeing how many members of your own family that get to endure eternal family home evenings together.

I see that we're on the same page conceptually, but possibly not pathematically. It wasn't a big leap to emphasize biological family ties over "dynastic" sealings. If it had been, the church would have fragmented along temple sealing lines instead of losing tiny pieces-parts of itself to the FLDS sects....

I totally disagree. It was a huge change in focus. Before what was important was how many people you could collect in this life time who would become subservient to you through the sealing process. For this reason John Taylor didn't want to be sealed to his own father who was "merely an Elder".

Now it has to do with creating some unexplained bond which allows members of the same family to be together in the next life.

It used to be about amassing power and dominion in this life that would carry into the next, now it is about the feel good thought of living forever with your family. It simply isn't the same thing or even close.

None of it makes sense, and it makes less sense the closer one looks at it.

[_Uncle Ed]

...
The correct quote is found in the Gospel of Thomas discovered in Egypt in 1945. Jesus said look to the Living One while you live because when you die you will seek him and not find him. Jesus meant that the mind can only be healed in this life and not the "afterlife".

I find the so-called Gospel of Thomas to be almost entirely gibberish. That example you quote here is not capable of a single, clear statement of wisdom, but it can be classified as mystical nonsense. "Thomas" is crammed with such.

You write as if you are certain of yourself. To me that is dangerous. Nothing we learn in this life, while we remain in this life, is certain. The "afterlife" could just as well be a reunion with the full, immortal mind, like we experience when we awake from vivid dreams back into empirical "reality". The immortal mind could just as likely not feel any guilt at all for what it "dreamed" as a mortal, anymore than we feel guilt for the things we do in dreams: typically, we simply shrug off the dream world by saying "it was only a dream", and get on with "real life", i.e. waking life. So your assertion from certainty that we cannot get over our guilt and we flee from God's love, is a broad one that I am quite confident does not apply to everyone, or even most of us.

I have a maxim that I coined about myself: "I deserve every good thing, because I only do good with everything I get". It might look prideful, but it is really a kind of catechism of positive thinking to keep me aware of the responsibility to grow and accept who I am, what I have, and what it means to have things. We should never just mindlessly accept the gifts that life affords, we ought instead to be considering what advantage it gives to us in making the world a better place.

[_Uncle Ed]

You miss my point. I know Mormonism claims that everyone will eventually get a their chance. The problem I have is one of time frames. Someone born thousands of years ago, for whom no record exists, will not have his proxy temple work done before the millennium. The select group I am talking about are those people for whom we have records of their names. Everyone else gets to sit and wait until the 2nd coming for the benefit of proxy work. So either proxy work is of no real immediate benefit to those that are dead, or the ones who have to wait for it are not getting those benefits though no fault of their own.

Which is it?

Both, again. There is no mutual exclusion working here as you describe. We just don't know enough about how it "works" to make the kind of either-or choice that you insist upon. I see unrecorded deaths on earth as no different than any other deaths. Mortal information does not play a role in spirit world existence. Being disembodied is natural for spirits. There is no unendurable discomfort about the "sort of bondage" that being disembodied brings. So those who have no earthly records of their existence can wait easily enough, or not, depending on their state of mind about themselves, which is a constant no matter where they are. Thus Mormon temple work can be applied to each soul when it happens, with all being included before "the great winding up scene" at the end of the Millennium. (by the way, I am arguing here as a TBM might; I don't personally accept Mormonism's cosmology or theology as singularly exclusive, i.e. "true" to the exclusion of all other religious ideas. I think that "God" is not limited to one religious exegesis of the purpose of earth and the afterlife, but we do all the limiting of others according to our dogmatic judgments.)

I totally disagree. It was a huge change in focus. Before what was important was how many people you could collect in this life time who would become subservient to you through the sealing process. For this reason John Taylor didn't want to be sealed to his own father who was "merely an Elder".

Now it has to do with creating some unexplained bond which allows members of the same family to be together in the next life.

It used to be about amassing power and dominion in this life that would carry into the next, now it is about the feel good thought of living forever with your family. It simply isn't the same thing or even close.

None of it makes sense, and it makes less sense the closer one looks at it.

Religions change, and most do not survive the changes. Like life forms 99% of religions that have existed are now extinct or on their way to extinction. Mormonism arguably survived the change that you point out. I don't see any study into the differences of 19th century temple endowment/sealing ordinances with those that followed the end of "the practice" as being any threat to modern TBM testimonies. If Mormon history winds up making nonsense out of modern Mormonism then the religion can always experience a meltdown. But I don't expect it....

[_bcuzbcuz]

Most religions portray, even preach, a fear of death, at the same time they teach that death holds no terror. Their theories crash head-on to a doctrine that tries to convey going on to a better world.

The problem lies in that they have no defined consept of death.. They want to maintain a horror of death...otherwise, it's hard to preach the need for repentence, but also a picture of heaven where every saved soul lives in an environment of security. Fear and security within the same image. They let the rational issues suffer, in order to provide an unreasonable fear of death.

Mormons want to believe in an existence of spiritual development, in the next world, where Mormons teach, console, and convert the lost souls in paradise, but at the same time want to keep the believing in fear of the unknown. A sort of "come closer- go away" ideology.

Do you find comfort in half fear-half terror-half warmth kind of the ideas of the next existence?

[_Uncle Ed]

...

Do you find comfort in half fear-half terror-half warmth kind of the ideas of the next existence?

Who are you asking?

I have no fear of the "next life", considering this mortal life to be merely a subset of an immortal life, a kind of role-playing experience for learning purposes, as well as entertainment....

[_oneprfct]

I can understand most of the quotes in the gospel of Thomas so it is not gibberish to me. It's not gibberish once you understand what Jesus is trying to say and that this gospel is all about how to forgive by changing the way you think and look at the world. Unlike the gospels in the New Testament which were actually inspirational novels written about Jesus by people who did not know him, the gospel of Thomas was written by an actual close disciple of Jesus. It is a random sample of sayings of the kind of things Jesus. But I can understand why the gospel may be difficult to understand. First, 44 of the sayings are not original and Jesus never said them but were added to the gospel during the 300 year period before the copy we have was buried in Egypt (Disappearance of the Universe p.72). Second, Jesus was from the East and used metaphors familiar to his culture and time but is foreign to us today (DU p. 71). Third, Westerner spiritual philosophy focuses on behavior but Eastern philosophy tends to focus more on the mind. Westerners are likely to misinterpret these quotes from Jesus to refer to one's behavior rather than changing the way one thinks and looks at the world. The English translation of the original gospel of Thomas without the 44 erroneous sayings can be found in Your Immortal Reality pp. 162-171. Thomas mentioned that Jesus told him 3 sayings which he was afraid to repeat to others without being accused of blasphemy. Those 3 say were:

You dream of a desert, where mirages are your rulers and tormentors, yet these images come from you.

Father did not make the desert, and your home is still with Him.

To return, forgive your brother, for only then do you forgive yourself. (DU p.81)

I think you misunderstood my explanation about what happens after we die. I never said that we cannot get over our guilt. In fact Jesus was the first to completely forgive the world and heal the guilt in his mind. Mother Theresa is a modern day example of one whose mind was healed (YIR p. 81). Everyone will be healed eventually just not at the same time. Most will not do it in this lifetime. Individuals being healed one by one is symbolic of the one mind gradually awakening from the dream of time and space. Everything has already happened but a discussion of time and space would go well beyond our discussion here. Every spiritual path has the goal of healing the mind of guilt but the means differ. Most people use their spiritual path as a means to judge others rather than a means to forgive themselves. When the mind his healed of all guilt, the mind returns to the experience of heaven even while the person still appears to be here. During the final years of Jesus' life he did not experience being in the body, in the world, or in the universe. Even when he appeared to die he did not have the death experience that most people have because his mind had already returned to the experience of heaven. We will all shrug off this dream world once our mind is healed. In fact that has already happened.

[_Uncle Ed]

@oneprfct:

When I said that the Gospel of Thomas is mostly gibberish, I was comparing its style and content to the conical gospels, i.e. the scriptures upon which mainstream (orthodox) Christianity is based and understood. Thomas is, as you say, theoretically the earliest documentary of the kinds of things Jesus said/taught. There is no "christology" content to speak of, or no "I am the Son and have been sent to be slain as the sacrificial Lamb for all sins". None of that is in Thomas, only focus on (as you say) how we are to think about existence as it relates to this world. So most of what Jesus "said" in Thomas makes no sense at all when held up as an early reflection of later Christianity.

The "gibberish" is very alike with any "pothead" ruminations today, where people say things in a way to sound profound or even inscrutable, just because they like to appear in possession of "the great secret" and have people go around referring to them and even trying to quote them. All the while what is really going on is that the utterances are almost meaningless, and you, the receiver, must supply the meaning. I will state here that Thomas falls squarely into that mystical-speak literature which will never attract a dominant following or exegesis, because it is too vague to be a book of widely (much less universally) held wisdom literature.

What you begin to say about spacetime and "everything has already happened" is not to be found without insertion of the meaning by youself. I found none of that in Thomas, and I believe that "everything has already happened" from the pov of "God Is Existence". The "One Mind" we are all part of is also a concept I believe in but with differences: "God" is not sleeping, i.e. unaware of the so-called dream world that each part of "God's" mind is inhabiting as each one of us, ergo "God" is not "awakening" even though we individually are doing that through our experiences of what Joy Is and is not. We are sovereign free will souls seeking forever to reunite with "God In Total", a quest that we cannot actually achieve without becoming one with "God's" mind "In Total". That decision is always open, but requires full comprehension of what amounts to personal annihilation in order to "become God". Most of us, I believe right now, never opt to accept personal annihilation, because we come to the point where it is offered and "God" is before us as the perfect Soul Mate, manifesting as such for us alone. By accepting personal annihilation we would be rejecting that Soul Mate relationship that we have developed throughout eons of spacetime, effectively returning our "one talent" to the Creator of the world and removing ourselves from that world where "God's" glory and Joy is to be Soul Mate to endless souls, or in other words, not alone. I also believe that forgiveness is the only way to inner peace, beginning by forgiving others as a sign that you can forgive yourself. Inner peace is core to knowing Joy everlasting. This world is temporary because it isn't the real world of immortals. I don't recall reading any of that in Thomas either. I got my copy in the back of Jesus Outside the New Testament and read it less than two months ago....

[_bcuzbcuz]

@oneprfct:

When I said that the Gospel of Thomas is mostly gibberish, I was comparing its style and content to the conical gospels, i.e. the scriptures upon which mainstream (orthodox) Christianity is based and understood. Thomas is, as you say, theoretically the earliest documentary of the kinds of things Jesus said/taught. There is no "christology" content to speak of, or no "I am the Son and have been sent to be slain as the sacrificial Lamb for all sins". None of that is in Thomas, only focus on (as you say) how we are to think about existence as it relates to this world. So most of what Jesus "said" in Thomas makes no sense at all when held up as an early reflection of later Christianity.

Have you ever compared to the gospels of the Coptic Christians? The final edition of the gospels, selected by the council that decided which gospels they would accept and which they would throw out the window,, coincide poorly with the gospels used by the very earliest Christian group we still have, the Coptics. Have you read any of them?

[_Uncle Ed]

Have you ever compared to the gospels of the Coptic Christians? The final edition of the gospels, selected by the council that decided which gospels they would accept and which they would throw out the window,, coincide poorly with the gospels used by the very earliest Christian group we still have, the Coptics. Have you read any of them?

Mark is a "Coptic gospel" and Mark is their legendary founder.

Thomas is a "Coptic gospel", as is "Philip". I have only read Thomas but started looking over Philip because of your question.

Why do you ask?...

[_bcuzbcuz]

Have you ever compared to the gospels of the Coptic Christians? The final edition of the gospels, selected by the council that decided which gospels they would accept and which they would throw out the window,, coincide poorly with the gospels used by the very earliest Christian group we still have, the Coptics. Have you read any of them?

Mark is a "Coptic gospel" and Mark is their legendary founder.

Thomas is a "Coptic gospel", as is "Philip". I have only read Thomas but started looking over Philip because of your question.

Why do you ask?...

Why do I ask? (my wife asks that when she's trying to avoid answering) It's turning a question into another question. We have our basic gospels because of a council some 1700 years ago who wanted to put all discussion to an end. I think it was endlessly more adventuresome before the gospels were nailed down to include just a few texts.