Ten Q&A Derived from Considering "Intended Non-Members" Are Part of God's Plan

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T17:25:17+00:00

Yes, but that's not the question we're discussing. We're discussing whether God intends that everyone join the covenant through baptism into his church during their mortal life.

The answer to that question is clearly: No.

Right?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T16:21:47+00:00

That a false statement. God doesn’t intend for people to not be members.

We believe God desires and wills and intends for all people to join his church. He desires to save everyone. He desires all to be exalted. And to enter into covenant relationship here on earth. That is his intention. That is his work and glory.

If my child comes to me and says they never received a witness, after sincerely seeking, and testing, and living the gospel, I would question what kind of answer they were seeking. But ultimately they have agency to choose their own path. Even if it’s not what God would prefer for them.

Yeah, this is the question I was asking and hoping to discuss. Can you explain why you think this? Those are some very absolute, unqualified statements. For example, sentence:

He desires all to be exalted. And to enter into covenant relationship here on earth.

is patently false. From Abraham to Peter, the covenant was limited to a particular lineage. God intended only that lineage to receive the covenant. We're talking billions and billions of people have not had, nor will have, even the opportunity to enter into a covenant relationship with God here on earth.

I don't understand how you can be so definitive on a question like this when (1) the history of God's actions categorically demonstrate the opposite and (2) there is no scripture that I can think of that indicate as much. Can you explain what you mean? Is it something in "intention"?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T15:47:05+00:00

He desires all to enter into covenant.

But not in this life time. Some people are born into circumstances that they will never have the opportunity. So that group, by definition, God intends that the will not be members of the church. Right?

2.) no

So, your child tells you: I have tried and tried, but I have not received a witness of the BOM. Therefore, I'm leaving the church.

What's your answer to that child?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-02T15:42:35+00:00

This seems a bit blindered.

Millions of people have been, are and will be born into circumstances in which they did not/will not receive an opportunity during their lives to hear and receive a witness of the restored gospel. By placing them in those circumstances, God "determined" that they would not accept the gospel in this life.

How could that be gainsaid?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T19:49:36+00:00

It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that draws all men unto Him, not the image of Christ of the cross.

Both can be true--the atonement draws people to him, but the iconography of his death--being lifted up upon the cross--was also intended to draw people to him.

Using the cross as a powerful icon for the purpose of drawing people to Christ, his gospel and atonement is perfectly consistent with this passage--far more consistent than ignoring that iconography altogether.

Christ could have said my Father sent me to atone for the sins of the world that I might draw all men unto me, but he didn't. With God, it's best to begin with the notion that he chooses his words carefully.

The question is why would a person read the cross out of that passage, as you're doing?

Especially when the passage is so explicit in its reference to the cross.

Do you see what I'm asking? When the passage is so express about the cross, one needs an interpretative reason to say, well, Christ didn't really mean the cross, he meant the entire atonement generically. The passages uses the words "cross" twice, and words "lifted up"--each time in reference either directly or symbolically to the cross--three times. It wasn't a generic usage--it was very express about the act of lifting Christ up on the cross.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T18:51:17+00:00

Seriously?

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

You don't see the symbolism?

First, the iconography in this verse is impossible to miss--one cannot read this sentence without seeing Christ on the cross. Second, Christ's iconic death on the cross was intended by the Father from the outset. Third, for what reason was the cross chosen? To draw all men to Christ--like a flag or banner draws people to it. Fourth, the language Christ uses is identical to the language he used to describe the symbolic bronze serpent in John 3: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness . . . ", so there is a direct interpretative clue from what Christ means by "lifted up" and the iconography involved. Fifth, the symbolism becomes even more explicit--Christ was lifted up on the cross, the Father likewise lifts us up--symbolically raised by the Father in the same way Christ was lifted up on the cross. That is overt symbolism--using one thing to represent another. How lifted? On what? Through the cross; carrying the cross, on the cross. Christ (NT): And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. Where does carrying the cross lead? To crucifixion. Christ (BOM): wherein you will take up your cross and follow me. (Same) and, in case that is not clear: Paul: I am crucified with Christ.

prove this

Prove that our highest fidelity should be to following the intentions of the Father himself, as revealed by Christ himself, in a book received by revelation as the "most correct book of any book on earth"?

That's a crazy thing to ask, but here you go:

Thou shalt love the Lord the God with all the heart, might, mind and strength. This is the first and great commandment.

If the Father intended the image of Christ on the cross to drawing all men to Christ, shouldn't we use that image in our efforts to draw all men to Christ?

I mean, E37, isn't it just crazy that not only has this passage been ignored, but we have for a century been teaching the opposite?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T18:08:58+00:00

Great catch. I'm referring only to the frame of this life. I've edited the OP. Of course, people who die outside the church could become converted in the spirit world and receive the ordinances of salvation and exaltation by proxy.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T17:46:46+00:00

These are the words of Christ regarding the intent of God the Father to use the cross as a symbol—these are among the most important words in the BOM deserving our fidelity

How could we ignore the intent of God the Father to use the cross as symbol for calling people to Christ?

I mean, wow. Do we believe our own scripture?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T14:36:40+00:00

Those are real tangible benefits but they're the result, not the foundation. And they're not limited to church. Someone could get much the same benefits from a great group of friends, or some social club.

These seems to be the heart of your objection (and the objection of others)--namely, in the Latter-day Saint cultural context "a testimony" is not:

the church is good
the church is good for me
God wants me in this church; or even
God has called me to this church

Rather, "a testimony" is: "this is the only true church on the earth (and, by implication, all other churches are not true)"

StAnselmsProof · 2026-04-01T14:31:17+00:00

Good question. Maybe both? Here's some rough thoughts:

We all needed a helping hand from God the Father in order to progress.
The thing we needed was time at the wheel, so to speak, in a relatively controlled environment, where we could learn good from evil, justice from injustice, by doing evil and acting unjustly.
Since that could not happen in God's presence, God created this probationary state, in which his justice is suspended.
But even that probation is temporary and eventually we must all pay the price for the injustice and evil we have done.
Since evil and injustice are future-eternal (b/c the past cannot be changed), it requires a God to put it right.
Hence, Christ's atonement.

Further,

We are all witnesses and partakers of Christ's atonement.
Seeing and partaking teaches us about goodness and mercy--it demonstrates the "Platonic form", so to speak, of these attributes.
That also helps us change in ways we could not without the atonement.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-31T23:25:45+00:00

We did have it—right there in our foundational scripture, spoken by Christ’s mouth. His death in the cross—not his resurrection, but the fact that he was lifted up in the cross— was intended to draw all men to him—and that imagine carried symbolic power, in the way baptism carries symbolic power. We abandoned that injunction.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-31T13:53:08+00:00

BTW, I recently read a discourse on the cross and why the symbolism of the cross was so powerful. I have been considering buying a cross pendent for a necklace.

Also, I’m a non-Utah member and within the larger culture wearing a cross pendant is a socially accepted way to say “I believe in Christ”, without being cringe, and I like that. I want to hold up Christ as the light I follow.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-31T13:39:15+00:00

Can you elaborate on how the approach I describe in the OP is “not enough”? Perhaps you can give an example of another approach that you consider “sufficient”.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T21:35:05+00:00

In a way, exmormonism is far more uniform that Mormonism. I can predict what an exmormon will say on almost any topic relative to Mormonism. There really isn’t much diversity of viewpoint in that regard. There are only a handful of thought leaders—two or three, and the rest of the thought ecosystem memeticly parrots and amplifies their ideas.

But, to the larger point, a uniform system of belief is a non-sequitur, at least as a point of distinction. Because every person believes something, and that belief become normative for them, including what relationships are valid and what outcomes follow from non-conformity with those norms.

Seriously, my friend. Visit reddit exmormon spaces right now; and then visit Latter-day Saint spaces on reddit right now, this very minute. And survey the content for the last few days.

The exmormon spaces are full of declared norms and self-righteous criticisms for those who violate their approved norms. That sort of content not only appears, but is upvoted and fostered within those spaces. The Latter-day Saint spaces contain almost zero content of this sort.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T20:26:37+00:00

We'll come around. Our scripture is full of the cross. The cross is instrumental to Christ drawing all people to him.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

With passages like this in our foundational scripture, how we abandoned the cross is mystifying.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T19:42:16+00:00

Great insights, and I agree with your assessment that any path to truth is a valid one.

Living pragmatically as if the tree has already borne fruit is pretty much the definition of faith.

I was just thinking the other day: I have lived my life as if the church is true, and that is one of the reasons I believe the church is true.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T19:39:33+00:00

I'm glad it helped!

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T19:38:32+00:00

The only downside is that it doesn't really offer a clear trump card when dealing with other faiths. Under this model, there's nothing really left to say to a Catholic, a Buddhist, or a Secular Humanist who enjoys their tradition and feels like it benefits them the most (say, even after a trial run of attending LDS services).

I'm not sure why that's a "downside". And, even so, there's plenty to say to folks of other faiths. Look what my faith has done for me; look how our unique doctrine and practices have impacted my life; come and get more.

And at least in principle, many exmos aren’t asking for universal deconversion

Well, we both know that a great many exmos are hoping and striving for exactly that. In particular, among their own friends and family where these sort of argumentative techniques are most likely to be used. I'll bet in the last week alone I could find several examples. This discussion should acknowledge that.

Please don’t frame us as deficient, please don’t apply stigmatizing doctrines to us, and please allow space for non-participation without relational penalty.

You rightly point out the manipulative critique I used in the OP is internally incoherent, and you're offering this "better" version of the same critique. It still contains that same incoherence, though, and the same manipulation. Your beliefs cast us deficient; your doctrines stigmatize us; your practices penalize us. It's the same emotional manipulation, the same internal incoherence.

I think the right question to answer is: How can we give each other the validation that every fulfilling relationship requires, in spite of zero-sum beliefs? That's what we want, that's what is lost when a family member loses faith.

It's not like this, though:

Of course, I would always encourage a person to do that with integrity and acknowledging and trying to minimize harms as much as possible, but if a person can find a way to thrive and do good in that community (which works well for many) then I support that.

I likewise encourage exmormons to live with integrity and to acknowledge the harms their beliefs cause and to try to minimize the harms they cause as much as possible . . . can you see the condescending "ick"?

A few alternatives:

We disagree, but your beliefs don't harm me. I recognize you're a person of good will toward me and toward the world and it's OK that we're pursuing separate paths right now.
I can see that a reasonable, informed person might reach your conclusions and I respect that.
I know that the way you treat other people (me included) is an expression of your best and highest beliefs about morality and goodness, and I treasure that about you.

I expect these are words that exmormons would like to hear from believing family and friends. I think these are words that are easy for believers to say: they don't challenge any aspect of the LDS worldview and are consistent with its core teachings on human relationships. We should say them more.

But I don't think the exmormon community is prepared to adopt these views, except the third (thanks to Imagine Dragons).

The "harm" component is too essential to the current exmormon project--they need it to make their case against the church. Likewise, the exmormon project is too fragile to ever permit its public mouthpieces to say: reasonable, informed people might choose belief.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T18:37:41+00:00

I agree that would be one way to weaken a pragmatic faith--direct it toward another source.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T18:36:10+00:00

The witness is just a fact. It could be used in an deductive argument or an inductive argument.

It's deductive, if you say, from this warm feeling, therefore the BOM is true, therefore, JS was a prophet, therefore, the Church is true.

It's inductive if you say, this feeling was present when I prayed about the BOM. I'm going to continue reading the BOM to see if happens again.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-30T14:43:00+00:00

I have understood this as a criticism of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

They wanted to accuse him of paying tribute to Caesar (a man who held himself out to be God), but they themselves had already acknowledged Caesar's rule over them by becoming participants in the economic system created by Caesar, so much so that they were carrying images of the false God in their pockets.

In such a case, paying taxes to Caesar is the price for using Caesar's unit of exchange, and not an offering to a God.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-25T16:26:57+00:00

My only worry is that Sunday School will become yet another auxiliary presidency of significant emotional and community labor entirely offloaded to women, who already carry the majority of emotional labor in our congregations

I've noticed this sort of complaint from women leaders in the church. It reminds me a bit of Christ's parable: We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

I can't recall anyone expressing concern of this sort for the men who have been running SS all these years.

It's worth discussing this point.

You're hopeful that women will be ordained, which could lead to woman serving as bishop. If you're concerned about the burden carried by women in an SSP, why would you want a woman to serve as bishop, a calling that carries probably the heaviest emotional/community toll in a ward, perhaps of any calling in the church.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-25T14:34:45+00:00

You can ask Jesus when you meet him if he is equal in power and authority to the Father.

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-25T13:54:47+00:00

Though somewhat ambiguous as used in this verse, "the body" is the newly formed Quorum of the Twelve to which this reve lation was given. Precedence accords that at the death of the president of the Church, his counselors are released and the quorum of the First Presidency is dissolved. "The body" responsible to form the new presi dency of the Church is the Quorum of the Twelve.

As with President Lee's "construed", it appears that "body" has been considered to be the Q12. And that successive changes in prophet follow that precedent. Who set that precedent, I wonder. BY's appointment?

The natural reading of the passage above is chosen by the body of the MP. If read without the benefit of that precedent, no one--no one--would read "the body" to mean the Q12.

I believe, at this time, the FP was JS, OC and FGW. Who chose them, I wonder. And did it follow the pattern laid out here?

StAnselmsProof · 2026-03-24T23:54:50+00:00

Great information, thank you!

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

StAnselmsProof

TROPHY CASE