The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Roy]

I suspect God is nothing like we imagine. And if God should present himself to us in a vision, he'll doubtless appear in a familiar format to avoid terrifying us. A god who cries is probably not dissimilar to a bedtime story in which a princess kisses the frog, which then turns into prince. And they all lived happily ever after.
[snip]
As for me, I see little point in projecting my foolish shortsightedness onto a realm of which none can speak with authority until they get there. We may as well share our opinions on whether we will wear clothes in the afterlife; and, if so, who will make them — and out of what?

I believe the point is to make our lives meaningful. Life can be hard. That hardness is compounded by a sense of futility and pointlessness. I am ok with the possibility that my ideas about the afterlife never materialize because, for me, trying to predict an unknown future was never my goal. I only want to make THIS life more palatable and joyful and to build relationships that make me happy. This has been tied up in my quest to StayLDS from the beginning.
I am not convinced that LDS doctrine is more correct about the afterlife than other ideas. However, I try to use LDS doctrine whenever possible. LDS are my people, my tribe, and my heritage. I see myself as trying to build conceptual bridges between the belief system and assumptive world that resonates with me personally and the belief system and assumptive world of those LDS people that I wish to connect with and include in my support network.
TL:DR
Is it all make believe? Perhaps.
Does that mean that it is meaningless? An emphatic no! Meaning making is what make believe and storytelling is all about and arguably a big part of what makes us human.

[Carburettor]

Life can be hard.

Thanks for the reminder. Let's not forget my thread in which I asserted that it is impossible for certain individuals even to find peace as members of the Church let alone all the other garbage that spills onto our various individual paths.

Does that mean that it is meaningless? An emphatic no! Meaning making is what make believe and storytelling is all about and arguably a big part of what makes us human.

I believe you are human, Roy. You are decidedly un-botlike.

[PazamaManX]

I believe that God and, hopefully, progression await us, and I suspect neither will look remotely like anything we can conceive with our childlike, mortal perspective. Some are convinced they will spend eternity lounging on clouds, playing harps. Others imagine they will be rewarded with eternal misogyny in which they gratify their insatiable sexual appetites with an unlimited supply of comely virgins.

As for me, I see little point in projecting my foolish shortsightedness onto a realm of which none can speak with authority until they get there. We may as well share our opinions on whether we will wear clothes in the afterlife; and, if so, who will make them — and out of what?

A 'Who knows, we'll see' approach is fair enough. We have hints as to what await us in scripture. More if you're willing to look elsewhere. But as the scripture you began this thread was says, "we see through a glass, darkly." No doubt it is going to be far more than can be imagined.

I know you were emphasizing a point with the question, but I'll have some fun and answer it. If JS's description of Moroni is accurate, then yes clothes would be included in our heavenly experience. Made out of what? My guess - silk worms in their next phase of existence tended by angels. Whether I'm right or wrong, who knows, we'll see.

Ultimately, it's not important knowing what comes next. But, it's fun to speculate. And in some cases, it can provide some meaning and hope.

Is it all make believe? Perhaps.
Does that mean that it is meaningless? An emphatic no! Meaning making is what make believe and storytelling is all about and arguably a big part of what makes us human.

Amen.

[AmyJ]

I like to picture God embracing me and we cry together.

This will come across as harsh and cynical, but please rest assured that I'm smiling while writing it.

In my opinion, a crying god is the epitome of anthropomorphism. It is the attribution of Earth-based, human biological functions to a "supernatural" being and is simply a fantasy. Does God really have functioning lacrimal glands to produce tears? Loss of any such substance requires replenishment from somewhere. Does he have nails and hair that grow — and bowels that must be emptied every few hours? It is so far into absurd territory as to be utterly pointless to consider — let alone have strong opinions about.

But what is really intriguing is the "functions/actions" that get the "divine stamp of approval" for the next life - hugging, crying, feasting, using a uterus to produce offspring (eternally), leading, teaching, fighting a battle...

Everything about humans and all life on Earth is a product of our physical environment and ultimately an expression of our planet's geology and primary energy source (i.e., the sunlight that powers the food chain, the gravity that determines the size and structure of all life, and the minerals and chemistry that compose our flesh and bone) — yet we make God look and behave just like us. Why? It's because doing so makes God relatable, which we find comforting.

I suspect God is nothing like we imagine. And if God should present himself to us in a vision, he'll doubtless appear in a familiar format to avoid terrifying us. A god who cries is probably not dissimilar to a bedtime story in which a princess kisses the frog, which then turns into prince. And they all lived happily ever after.

That's one of the reasons "Star Trek" is interesting to me. A feature of the show is learning about divinity in the different forms it is encountered throughout the universe.

[Carburettor]

That's one of the reasons "Star Trek" is interesting to me. A feature of the show is learning about divinity in the different forms it is encountered throughout the universe.

Wait, what? Really? I think I stopped watching Star Trek in the 1970s. Perhaps it's time I gave it another go.

[AmyJ]

Is it all make believe? Perhaps.
Does that mean that it is meaningless? An emphatic no! Meaning making is what make believe and storytelling is all about and arguably a big part of what makes us human.

We watched "Free Guy" last night that has a scene between 2 AI characters analyzing their impending doom and courses of action. The best friend character (faced with the truth that he is AI or "not real") makes this observation:

So what if I’m not real? Even if I’m not real, this moment is. What’s more real than a person trying to help someone they love?

[AmyJ]

That's one of the reasons "Star Trek" is interesting to me. A feature of the show is learning about divinity in the different forms it is encountered throughout the universe.

Wait, what? Really? I think I stopped watching Star Trek in the 1970s. Perhaps it's time I gave it another go.

I was thinking mostly of "The Next Generation", "Voyager", and "Deep Space 9" series arcs

[SilentDawning]

The Good.
1. Mormons are generally very good people. They want to do good, care about relationships (most of them, anyway), and are committed to service.
2. The commandments kept me free of sexual sin and problems such as children out of wedlock, which would have been problematic for me without the law of chastity for example.

The Bad
1. Egocentricity in the church. The church often seems to be more about the church than about the individuals it is supposed to serve. The leaders are loyal to the organization first and individual members last. Tell a priesthood leader your doubts or problems with the church and if your experience is like mine and you get this: You start hearing over the pulpit from a SP member that anyone who believes what you believe, in the same language you shared it with your Bishop, isn't going to the celestial kingdom. That happened to me once. There is no confidentiality in the church if you share contrarion ideas with the official hierarchy. Go off the beaten path and then you're in the out-group and not accepted.

2. Tithing. They really do try to force you to pay tithing by saying you can't go to the temple without paying it. I like Dave Ramsay's (financial guru) approach to charitable giving. He said you do it generously AFTER you are completely out of debt and your house is paid off. I have seen the church be very strict with its attitude toward debt -- it keeps its own house clean, but seems to have no compunction about requiring 10% of gross income for people who don't have any assets at all...

The Ugly
1. Our history -- JS's sexual proclivities, the priesthood ban, plural marriage, Mountain Meadows, early superstitions.

[Carburettor]

The Good.
1. Mormons are generally very good people. They want to do good, care about relationships (most of them, anyway), and are committed to service.
2. The commandments kept me free of sexual sin and problems such as children out of wedlock, which would have been problematic for me without the law of chastity for example.

Thank you, SilentDawning. I very much enjoyed reading your points.

In respect of your good point #2, I have felt the same way for many years — at least for a couple of decades. I figured I would have died in the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, but I'm slowly beginning to wonder if it may actually be the Church that conditions us to catastrophise about how our lives might have turned out without it. There are plenty of people out there who don't have the Church in their lives yet who aren't rampaging sex fiends. Could there be some type of subliminal messaging going on that convinces us that we would be trashy, unprincipled lowlifes if it weren't for the Church? Perhaps we all allow those thoughts to "reassure" us that we have been protected, yet I wonder how much truth there is in that. Certainly many ex-members seem to go wild when they turn their backs on the Church, but is that simply a deliberate overreaction to previous feelings of repression? Perhaps some make deliberately poor choices simply to demonstrate their self-determination — despite being aware of the negative outcomes.

Have you ever wondered what type of driver you'd be if there were no rules of the road? It's tempting to think that you'd be like Mad Max, tearing up the streets — but would you really? I suspect most people would be careful and sensible to avoid collisions, yet it's tempting to think that if you had no restrictions you'd descend to the lowest, Neanderthal-driver version of yourself. I'm not so sure.

[Old-Timer]

I am in favor of each person developing and following their own faith (hope in the unseen) regarding the next life - including if there is one.

My only issue with that is any faith view that demands compulsion of and compliance from others who don’t share that same faith view. I understand and appreciate the concepts of commandments and obedience and unity, in their healthy application among common believers, but I also understand the need for balance and allowance of differences that are not unhealthy and dangerous - and the tendency to overestimate those things.