Pamatridis

What do we make of D&C 76:72-75? Is God truly no respector of persons and how does this the concept that individuals who are born into Heathen nations, or without the law, and also honorable men who were blinded by the devil and his sophistry are relegated to the Terrestrial kingdom when they do accept the gospel in the Spirit. I have trouble accepting D&C 76:72-75 in light of D&C 138 received nearly 100 years later. It speaks of ordinances being completed for these same people....Terrestrial kingdom material? Does this lend authority to those who believe in advancement from kingdom to kingdom in the eternities? All comments and insights welcomed. Thanks in advance.

This might be of interest: Most people think of the Holy Ghost as a separate and distinct power from that of the Father and Christ. While we know it to be true that he is a distinct personage or personality, his power is not distinct from the Father and the Sons. And it is through this power that they are one. It might correctly be said that without the authority to manifest The Spirit of God to man, the Holy Ghost would be no different than any other spirit personage. However, he has been given a specific calling, he is a gatekeeper if you will, to the sanctifying and redeeming powers of the Spirit of God. The Light of Christ (another name for the Spirit of God), as described in D&C 88, is the glory of God manifested to us through Jesus Christ. It is characterized as light which proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. It is in all things, round about all things, it is the law by which all things are governed. It is the POWER OF GOD who sitteth upon his throne. Christ said to his Apostles concerning the Holy Ghost: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:260 The wording here is very similar to D&C 88 regarding the Light of Christ - they proceed from the Father. The reason is: The Holy Ghost unlocks the greater power of the Light of Christ to man. There are not separate powers operating on man, but the same power in varying degrees. The Light of Christ originates with God the Father and is given to all men through Christ, he is the light of the WORLD, but to the believing comes the higher manifestations of this spirit through the Holy Ghost. Christ then says: "He [the Holy Ghost] shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (John 16:14). All the Holy Ghost is doing is revealing to man 'more abundantly' the Spirit of God (or light of Christ) which is emanating from the Father through Christ. As he says, the Holy Ghost would receive of what Christ had and shew it unto us. Therefore, as long as Christ was with the Apostles they were in the presence of the same Spirit or influence that the Comforter would later manifest to them. It would be a redundant witness and take away from the significance of the first person testimony of the Light of the world, Himself. Obviously the Spirit of God was operating through Christ to the Apostles directly as is witnessed by Peter's testimony. (see Matthew 16:17). Hope this is helpful.

Justice, What do we assume would have been the impact of partaking of the fruit on Adam and Eve. It wouldn't be termed a resurrection, because they hadn't died (and Christ had not yet opened the way to this gift). It simply says, "there would have been no death" (verse 23). Does that mean that they still would have procreated, but their posterity would have lived on forever without death? Does it mean that Adam and Eve would have lived forever without posterity? That the legions of spirits designed to come through them would have been trapped in the spirit world eternally? unable to progress? or would they have come to the fallen earth through Adam and Eve and inherited the same immortality -- cast out forever without redemption?

Justice, Fantastic insight. You nailed something that I have been trying to put my finger on for quite sometime.... Thank you.

Oh, I do believe there were trees in the garden of Eden.

So what more of a curse or punshiment could Satan have received in the garden than he had already received in Heaven? He was already Perdition...

Justice I appreciate your thoughts, very interesting. Of course, this all assumes a fairly literal reading of the text. As I mentioned above, I think that the story is mostly allegorical and so many of the assumptions we have made are probably way off mark. We are trying to fit the allegory to history. It seems that some modern prophets and apostles have had a different take on Adam and Eve -- referring to the garden story as more allegorical and the real story as not having been told in scripture. Adam and Eve were sealed in the Garden and probably received a portion of the endowment (This is not spoken of in the Biblical/and other accounts). This would indicate that their understanding was greater than the story gives them credit for. If they took upon themselves these covenants then surely they had greater understanding than little children. They walked and talked with God and basked in his light. Surely their intelligence was immense as they immersed themselves in the Celestial light. They named the animals and certainly were taught the gospel of Christ from the Father himself. This would include reviewing the importance that they played in the plan of our Father. I do not believe that the veil had yet been placed over their eyes when they were brought from some other sphere to the paradisaical earth...that would come later. They came as Lords of the earth -- to exercise dominion over her and reign in paradisaical glory from the garden of Eden. They boldly stepped into mortality with full knowledge of what they were doing. This is of course my opinion, but it jives more fully with our understanding of the premortal world (again, not discussed in the Biblical and other accounts), Adam's place in the premortal council and our understanding of the purpose and reasons for the fall. "Adam fell that men might be" I might add, "He purposefully fell that men might be!" The true beauty of the Adam and Eve story is how it applies to us! For each of us must assume that we are respectively Adam and Eve. It is a teaching method, an act if you will! I might be so bold as to say it is a part of the ancient temple ceremony! (Check out the Manti and SLC temples if you doubt it!). It only has meaning when applied to our lives. Then it becomes not so much history as allegory and full of meaning. Did the serpent beguile Eve? I think that he probably did not trick out Mother Eve. I imagine she was far more advanced than that -- she came from the Celestial realms where she had been tutored by the Father and Savior. Does Lucifer beguile you and I? On a regular basis I am afraid. Would noble Mother Eve's response to the Father, after having been caught in her transgression, be to blame the serpent? And better yet, would Father Adam's response been to blame Eve? Hardly. But what about you and I? Don't we like to place blame on others for our own mistakes? We might even say that 'Old Scratch' made me do it! Adam, who walked with God and Christ and knew their love for him intimately....would he have hidden himself in the garden -- or even pretended to hide himself -- knowing as he did the omniscience of God? I don't think so. But what do we do when we sin? Do we endeavor to hide our faces and turn away from God? Yip, we do. In a metaphorical sense, the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents that which is ‘forbidden’ or sin. Adam and Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit is our story of individual sin. The consequences are the same: spiritual death. The comparisons go on and on. I don't think the authors of the creation story are trying to tell us the history of Adam and Eve. Rather, they are using elements from Adam and Eve's experience to teach us about our own plight in the great plan. At some point, Adam and Eve, chose to transgress a law which allowed mortality to take hold on them and all creation. This was not in opposition to God's will, but according to it. Our great and noble parents stepped into mortality and brought us with them. I don't know...just my way of looking at it.

Better said.

All events? No I do not believe that all events in the scriptures are shared from a historical perspective. Many are metaphorical or allegorical. Do I believe that Adam and Eve were very real? Yes. Lived in the garden? Yes. Fell from their paradisaical state? Yes. Left the garden for the world we now know? Yes. Do I believe that all of the details associated with the story are meant to be taken literally? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Some thoughts.... Agency has at least two parts: First, the general ability “to act” is an attribute of all intelligence to a greater or lesser degree. Second, to the sons and daughters of God is given an enhancement to their agency, to them is given moral agency, the ability to choose between righteousness and wickedness. (And receive the attendant condemnation or blessing). Accountability is required to exercise moral agency but not agency in general. And for man to be accountable requires a knowledge of good and evil. Opposition is also necessary that man might exercise moral agency, or how else would he choose? This being the case, Adam and Eve were not accountable in the garden of Eden, for they had not yet been given the ability to discern good from evil. They were as children before the age of eight, innocent. (This is the sense in which ‘innocent' is applied to children, unaccountable.) Adam and Eve were gifted with agency in the general sense, but not accountability. Accountability did not come until after they transgressed the law. This being the case. How must things have looked from Adam and Eve's perspective? We don't believe that they acted in defiance of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses do) nor in a combination with Lucifer. After receiving 'instructions' from the LORD -- (We are so quick to see them as commandments, because that is our frame of reference, such a reference infers a knowledge of good and evil, breaking or keeping) -- Lucifer enters the garden and comes as a friend, a brother! He gives 'further instruction' and makes it seem obvious to Eve why partaking of the fruit is a good thing. In very fact, he teaches her that partaking of the fruit will make her more like their Father. Again, her reference is not one of good versus bad, but simple choices with simple results. (If we are to literally read the allegory, because of their lack of experience, they had NO IDEA WHAT TRULY AWAITED THEM IN MORTALITY -- they had never experienced it). After partaking, she goes to Adam and simply says, "Here Adam, partake". He suggests that this is not in keeping with the instructions they received; however, Eve quickly points out that if they are going to follow the remaining instructions, he had better eat or they wouldn't be following any of them! Again, their is no malice or choosing to DISOBEY God. How could there be? In there innocence, such would be outside their experience. Lucifer took advantage of the innocence of Adam and Eve, beguiling her, only because he thought it would serve HIS purpose. Alas, all things were done according to the foreknowledge of God. I think perspective is everything...oh, and remember that the writers of the Adam and Eve experience are writing from our perspective -- because the lessons to be learned from the story are not historical but allegorical as they apply to each one of us.

Very good! Can you imagine what BRM would do with the technology we have now? Imagine, he wrote Mormon Doctrine from binders of notes he took over the years studying the standard works! Instead of looking ahead, we spend so much time looking back. Instead of listening to the living spirit, we look to men long dead. This is the true and LIVING church. Living because it is quickened by God's Holy Spirit. When we lean on commentaries, we run the risk of ignoring the true Teacher. Revelation can and should be more than Yes/No. It should open vistas of understanding. Thanks for the comment.

I hate to bring the forum back to the main focus. BUT. The point I was making in asking the original question is, "how do we interpret the teachings of a living church?" For example, has anyone considered what the doctrine of the church was on February 15, 1832 regarding Salvation? This concept was based on Biblical and Book of Mormon teachings. Then, do we appreciate the change that occurred on February 16, 1832? How do we interpret the older teachings in light of the new? The same could be said for each of the great doctrinal sections in the D&C which deal with the next life, judgement, resurrection, SALVATION, DAMNATION, ETC. Lastly comes D&C 138, probably of greater significance than we give it credit for. Again, what impact do such revelations have on our understanding of prior revelation, the Book of Mormon being one of them. I think this is a great discussion.

I believe commentaries have a place. However; they rarely will expand on doctrine beyond something already said by someone else. We have so many commentaries in the church that one commentator rehashes another who in turn rehashes them, etc. More often than not, the commentaries are nothing more than a restating of the obvious and then they ignore the more difficult passages and ideas. What is even more frustrating is when a widely disseminated commentary completely ignores what the scripture actually says and instead interprets it in the light of 'current understanding'! One interesting example of this is D&C 107. For how many years did we try to 'organize' the church according to 'business principles' of management and structure. Now, I don't know if that was the goal; but, when President Hinckley announced that we would be returning to the structure already laid out in revelation! What an awesome day. The brother actually commissioned a committee, headed by Elder Packard, to study the efficiency of the hierarchy and his recommendation was that we do what the revelation says! Thus, the 70 have been organized in their proper place as the Lord revealed to Joseph and all the extra non-canonical callings and organizations were dropped. At any rate, as it applies to this topic, I believe that D&C 138 is key to understanding this topic -- our latest sectional addition to the D&C. Yet, it is rarely quoted or discussed in forums such as this on this topic. So what do you think?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying? Very little commentary was ever given on this section. I am just reading it for what it says...it is fulfillment of the 9th article of faith. We started with the Bible, we added the Book of Mormon and then we added the sections of the D&C one at a time until 138. Each builds on the other and gives further light and knowledge.

I am curious as to why some has such a difficult time considering progression between kingdoms? I remember when I first gave place for this concept in my heart...my honest first impressions was, "well, that's not fair...they don't deserve that...that can't be right." Wow! I think my response revealed as much about me as an individual as it did about my lack of understanding of gospel principles. I immediately latched on to what BRM said in deadly heresies and I fought it tooth and nail. Then, like I said, my life changed...I got married, had kids and began to discover for myself what the title "Father" really means. At that point, I took a serious step back and approached the topic from a scriptural perspective (versus a commentary perspective)....I was surprised what I found.

I am enthralled by Section 138 of the D&C....consider the following: Christ did not visit the following personally: "But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised; Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, not look upon his face. Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace;" (D&C 138:20-22). Rather he chose messengers who "went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel." (D&C 138:31). Who did they preach to? "Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets." (D&C 138:32). That is pretty much everyone. Both those who died knowing they had sinned and those who died ignorant of their sins. What where they taught? "These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (D&C 138:33-34). It further states, "the message of redemption [was carried] unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, because of their rebellion and transgression." (D&C 138:37). Again, it is clear that the gospel is being preached without prejudice among the wicked, both those who rebelled against the prophets and those who never knew them. Now, the most interesting part... "The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation." (D&C 138:58-59) Consider the principles that are connected in those two verses. 1. Those who repent in the spirit world (regardless of what they did in mortality, since previously it made clear that all were given this opportunity) will be redeemed through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God. 2. What are the ordinances of the house of God? TEMPLE ORDINANCES. 3. Those who accept the gospel and receive their ordinances may have been suffering in hell and will have paid a portion at least of the penalty associated with their mortal experience. 4. They will be washed clean -- through the blood of Christ -- a gift of baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost. -- Remember who this is being applied to...even the rebellious who rejected the prophets in life. 5. Then they receive a reward according to their works -- This opens up numerous possibilities. ---what possibilities does it foreshadow?

This is interesting. I have never considered that some might not finally choose to repent -- other than those we traditionally call Sons of Perdition because of their activities in the flesh. Consider D&C 76:31-39 It gives a very succinct definition of those who will end up in Perdition: 31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power— 32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; 33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; 34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come— 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels— 37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; 38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. 39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made. I was not aware that a 'sinner' having never been brought fully into the light could ever become a Son of Perdition...not even through hell. At one point, Joseph commented: "No man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, not in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world." I believe this 100%. Difficult as it might be to assimilate, but something we might have to come to grips with. I think it is a mistaken notion that all prophets have had the same light and knowledge that we do today in the light of the restoration. (see D&C 124:41). Without a doubt, some have had more, but is seems as obvious that others did not -- or they were put under the command that Alma discusses in Alma 12:9-11. If anyone has additional information on a person becoming a Son of Perdition by not repenting in Hell, I would like to see it.

That was the Lord Jesus Christ. I agree, we underestimate the importance and function of Hell in the plan. I lean to a more universalist approach in the end; however, getting there is a thorny path for many, many, even the majority of people. Nobody understood the purpose and place of Hell more than Alma. However, once the justice of God has been satisfied and the individual soul brought to repentance -- the atoning blood of Christ can then be applied to the individual in the process of sanctification/glorification. Hell is an important state for many, many people.

Yes, in the particular case mentioned above, the couple was not married. The man died of cancer. The woman requested the sealing after he had been dead nearly 8 years. It was approved and completed.

Great insights, sorry if my abruptness offends -- this is not a bait question. This is an interesting insight that I really like. I will have to process that for a while -- I am annoyed by the idea that every prophet in every dispensation has thought the the english equivalent "salvation" has had the exact same meaning. I think this is a misunderstanding perpetuated by BRM. He went so far as to say that he knew of only three places in scripture where Salavation didn't mean Exaltation.Apparently the Nephites did see Eternal Life as a greater form of Salvation, much like we see it today? We know that the second death occurs after the resurrection. So what do we make of Alma 12:16 "And now behold, I say unto you then [after resurrection] cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness."Has Alma just left out the concept of post mortal repentance...because he makes this statement directly about people who "die in [their] sins, as to a temporal death." This statement surely applies to the Sons of Perdition, but it also applies to a great number of people who will not end up in Perdition, but rather in varying degrees of glory. I know it is impossible for any prophet to express the complexities of the plan within just a few versus. What I am looking at are specific instances in the Book of Mormon where, in context, parts of the plan are left out or not communicated. I, like most on the forum, believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God -- this is a given. What is strange is the way we read the word of God and then say, "Well, he doesn't mean what he says...what he really means is..."

Well...this is pretty clear. A chronological series of events is given in Alma 12 -- death, resurrection, judgment, Hell (perdition). Hell in this chronological sequence is described as a place where those go who died as to a temporal death "in their sins". I understand what you are trying to say -- but truthfully put, that is not what the scripture says. I know what modern day revelation says, but I am talking about what Alma is saying. Is Alma wrong? Is Alma mistaken? Was Alma working under less than a complete understanding of the plan as we know it today? Modern revelation makes it clear that at the end of the 1000 years, Hell will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and those receiving a telestial inheritance will come out of Hell. Those still in Hell after the resurrection are only Sons of Perdition. I am not sure what to make of this? In other words, don't believe what they say...but what you think they should say as compared to something else that you think you understand? Sounds like truth hasn't been REVEALED. Thanks for your insight.

I would appreciate any and all input on this subject. I am looking for insights on reconciling the teachings of salvation in the book of Mormon with other restoration scriptures (specifically, the D&C). Alma 12:12-18 teaches that all those who die in their sins will suffer the second death with Satan and his dominion AFTER the resurrection. This is a recurring theme in the book of Mormon (especially the Book of Alma). D&C 76 teaches that only the Sons of Perdition will suffer this fate, being assigned to the Telestial or even Terrestrial kingdom does not match with what is taught by Alma. I would love to hear what you think. Thanks.

This has actually happened and the brethren have approved a second sealing. I believe there attitude is to leave it to God to decide in the end. Having the sealing of the father and mother with the children brings a great deal of comfort to them in mortality.

I would like to become a part of this discussion. I have studied this question for years and I feel at peace with what I have found. First I want to say that I find reading anything but the scriptures has brought more confusion and difficulty to my study than just focusing on what is in the Standard Works. Commentaries swing both directions. I am bolstered by comment of others in favor of what I believe, I guess because it gives me confidence that I am not alone in my thoughts -- but that is about it. I believe in the doctrine of eternal progression within and between kingdoms. Why do I believe it? 1. The testimony of the scriptures, in particular modern day revelation. 2. My own personal experience as a father and husband. (It is relevant to note that before becoming a husband and father 10 years ago, I was a staunch supporter of the no progression between kingdoms doctrine -- granted, I also relied much heavier on commentary than on the scriptures.) 3. Personal spiritual witness. I hope that the insights I have to share will help those in this post on both sides of the argument. I firmly believe that God supports our freedom to believe what we sincerely desire to believe (correct or incorrect). Not everyone is looking at eternity through the same frame of reference (infact, nobdoy is) and I am thankful that God is merciful in bringing us all along at our own pace. The first scripture I would put forth is Moses 1:39: "For behold, this is my work and my glory -- to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." I suggest it is time that we begin to take this scripture at face value for exactly what it says. God's entire focus centers around 'bringing to pass the immortality AND eternal life of man'. I believe we should see the cannon of scripture as fulfilling this mission statement rather than defeating it. I have read so many commentaries where long explanations are given regarding this scripture that eventually explain its 'face value' meaning completely away. I don't believe that God is an unsuccessful parent, or a successful parent only by luck. He is working a plan that will eventually 'bring to pass the immortality and eternal life' of the vast, vast, vast majority of his children. more to come....please keep the commentary going. I have added a number of insights to my own thinking because of this forum. Thanks everyone.

Ok, so I am going to make everyone crazy by saying this, but: I have a friend that lives in Centerville. Her fiance died of cancer before they were married. It has been about 8 years since he died. She recently received permission from the First Presidency and was sealed to her fiance. I thought it was all very bizarre, she took bridal photos, everything. Her brother stood as proxy. Just goes to show that you can't underestimate the power of Keys in the Priesthood and the far reaching effect of the Atonement.