Paradise = Heaven?

[KosherXMorg]

I started this discussion in a Facebook group and would like input from here. Here are the posts up to this point... (I am "you" in the posts)

You wrote2 hours ago

Reading the words of Alma I focused in on two words he used that got me to thinking... Paradise is the Heaven (dwelling with God) that Christians describe. Let me show you my thinking...

"11 Now, concerning the astate of the soul between bdeath and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are ctaken dhome to that God who gave them life.

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of ahappiness, which is called bparadise, a state of rest, a state of cpeace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the aspirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the bdevil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer cdarkness; there shall be dweeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil."

The words that got me are "received into paradise" and "cast out into outer darkness".

When we die everyone (good, bad, ugly, pretty, short, tall, skinny and fat) go home to God. At this meeting with God they are judge good or evil. the good are "received" into Paradise, which seems to indicate God himself is doing the receiving, and the evil are "cast out", seeming to indicate being sent away from where they are currently at.

Perhaps Paradise isn't some external spirit world, but the actual place where God dwells, and we will be there until the earth is cleansed and with Jesus we return to inherit the earth for eternity?

Reply to Your PostDelete Post

Post #2

1 reply

Brandon Richards (Silicon Valley, CA) replied to your post50 minutes ago

The LDS doctrine on this is a bit complicated... please forgive the length of this post.

1. We believe that as soon as a person dies, they go to the "spirit world". Prior to Christ's death, there was a division between "paradise" and "prison". After Christ's death, we believe he visited the spirit world and organized the missionary work to be performed there. From this point on, Brigham Young taught that paradise and prison were more figurative terms and represented more of a state of mind rather than a location (much like everyone on earth today is in a state of either spiritual paradise or prison). If a person A) had a full understanding of the gospel, and B) lived the life of a true disciple, they would be at peace and engage in the missionary effort. All others (those who did not have BOTH A & B), would have time to be taught and time to repent-- all subject to the rules of Christ's atonement.

2. It is noteworthy that this scripture (the one you quoted) was written prior to Christ's death, when there was more of a preliminary judgment and placing into one location or the other. For those in paradise, it would be a time of rest to await the resurrection. For the wicked, there was little hope. (That is, until Christ opened the door for missionary work among them.)

3. We believe that virtually all people will come to accept Christ (when all the facts are fully understood, the prejudices of this world are removed, etc.) Then, they will receive a kingdom of glory representing both their willingness and capacity. (If they are unwilling or unable to live the laws of the kingdom, they cannot go there...) It will be the place where they feel most comfortable. (And we know that for the wicked, they will not feel comfortable in the presence of God.) But if we, through the atonement of Christ, come to resemble Him (and this may take a great deal of time after we are dead...) then we will be able to live with Him.

4. The only ones who will not receive a kingdom of glory are those who were not willing to accept it. It will be offered, but they will reject. These are the ones who are "cast into outer darkness" forever.

5. Science has really added to my understanding of God's nature. For example, Einstein's Law of Relativity suggests that time and space are probably completely irrelevant to God. If He can move at infinite speeds, there is no such thing as time to Him. All things would be present. Further, location and distance also become irrelevant. He has the ability to be everywhere He wants to be at all times.

So to come back to your final question, the location of the spirit world to me is of lesser importance because of #5 above. "Received" is an interesting word, but I don't know that we could extrapolate that to mean that the spirit world is in the presence of God. But I agree that we will await the time for the earth to be cleansed by Christ and inherit the earth for eternity.

I hope that makes some sense.

Reply to BrandonReport

Post #3

1 reply

You replied to Brandon's post33 minutes ago

I really don't want to sound offensive and I appreciate the time you took to write your reply, but I understand LDS teachings about this. I was just offering one interpretation from a purely scriptural viewpoint.

Reply to Your PostDelete Post

Post #4

1 reply

You replied to your post31 minutes ago

Besides the words of your church leaders is there any indication from scripture that the scenario described by Alma, that was revealed to him by an angel, changed with Christ?

Reply to Your PostDelete Post

Post #5

1 reply

Brandon Richards (Silicon Valley, CA) replied to your post21 minutes ago

Not really. There are scriptures that we use to illustrate that Christ visited the spirits in prison, and that that visit was critical for the unrighteous to be judged. And there are scriptures that discuss terms of judgment being different for those without law. But aside from that, it pretty much all comes from modern revelation.

And I wouldn't say that these verses are outdated. Only that there was a significant event that added new light and a greater depth to those teachings.

Reply to BrandonReport

Post #6

You replied to Brandon's post11 minutes ago

It seems when comparing the Inspired Version (JST) account of the events surrounding the flood and the New Testament mention, that the place "Prison" was a special place reserved just for those who lived during the time immediately preceding the flood. Both times "Prison" is mentioned it is tied to those disobedient during Noah's time. Also, it says that ALL in prison would be set free at Jesus' resurrection, but that the remaining wicked would remain in a state of punishment. The fact that Alma mentions no such place as Prison also adds to my belief that Prison was peculiar to the pre-flood people.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I'm not really sure what you're looking for. "Brandon Richards (Silicon Valley, CA)" seems to have explained the doctrine pretty well. It seems to me you're just wallowing in semantics with the points you raise.

The term "Spirit Prison" is a modern appellation given through modern revelation. It is, to my knowledge, not related to the use of "Prison" as regards the flood. Scriptural references about Spirit Prison would most commonly use the word "Hell". The LDS Guide to the Scriptures entry for Spirit Prison says simply "See: Hell".

Hell is defined in two ways: pre final judgement (Spirit Prison) and post final judgement (Outer Darkness) ( Guide to the Scriptures: Hell ).

Paradise is the pre-judgement dwelling place for the righteous. Described in modern revelation as a seperate location than Spirit Prison and that Christ did not visit Spirit Prison personally after his crucifixion ( Doctrine and Covenants 138 ).

Heaven is a generic term referring to the three kingdoms or glories into which humanity is divided after the final judgement. Specifically Heaven refers to the Celestial kingdom and, in concert with the term "Exaltation", to the highest degree or glory within the Celestial kingdom ( Guide to the Scriptures: Celestial Glory ). "Heaven is clearly NOT Paradise" ( Guide to the Scriptures: Heaven ).

As LDS we believe that after death there is a "waiting room" for all spirits to reside before the resurrection and final judgement. This differs significantly from mainstream Christianity in that they do not believe in the "waiting room" - all spirits are judged and go to Heaven or Hell immediately upon death. Mainstream Christianity does not differentiate between Heaven and Paradise or between Spirit Prison and Outer Darkeness. ( Alma 40 , LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question )

Finally, the use of the term "Received" in Alma seems to be causing you confusion. You assume that it means "Received by God" or "Received unto God". However the verse clearly states that the spirits of the righteous are "Received into.... Paradise" not "unto God" ( Alma 40 ). However you are correct that there is a "first judgement" at the moment of death. To elaborate there are 3 judgements: the judgement at death where you are either sent to Paradise or Prison, the judgement at the Second Coming where the righteous are resurrected first (first resurrection), and the final judgement at the end of the millenium (second resurrection).

I hope that helps answer any questions you have and clears up any confusion.

Edited June 11, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[KosherXMorg]

What confusion? I'm not confused about anything. I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Would it be possible for you to include scriptures from the Bible and Book of Mormon to confirm your assertions?

[KuriChan]

Though the terms are obviously very confusable, paradise is not heaven. The quote in Alma that you mentioned terms that upon death there will be two groups, one of joy and one of pain/regret. Certainly sounds like heaven and hell to me too, but it is actually referring to Spirit paradise and Spirit prison. What evidence is there to show this?

One solid statement is that there is no reference in any of the standard works that says paradise is anything more than a place of rest and joy created by God. Anything more would be an assumption.

Also:

We, and most other Christians believe that the dwelling place of God is heaven. God lives in heaven; I think we can all agree with that. Here is an interesting scripture that many Christian churches have used to "prove" that baptism is not necessary to go to heaven - Luke 23:43 - speaking to the thief on the cross next to him, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Under the assumption that the thief was not baptized AND that paradise is heaven, they would be correct. However, the Bible shows that at least the second assumption is incorrect. In John 20, three days after Christ's death, Mary has come to Christ's tomb but discovered he was no longer there. After Mary was called by Jesus in the garden, verse 17 says, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Therefore we know two facts - "to day shalt thou be with me in paradise" on Friday (the day of His death) and three days later Christ says "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto my Father". Christ had not gone to the presence of God yet, so we know that God is not in paradise.

Hence we can determine that since God lives in heaven, and Christ entered paradise the day of his death but had not been in the presence of God until three days later, we can rightfully determine that paradise is simply spirit paradise, separate from heaven.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

A few more references added. Mostly official church sources such as LDS.org and the Guide to the Scriptures - which all cite numerous scriptural references that I'm sure you are capable of looking up on your own.

If you're not confused, then I obviously am. Therefore I will ask one simple question: What's your point?

[Jbs2763]

what facebook group?

[KosherXMorg]

Though the terms are obviously very confusable, paradise is not heaven. The quote in Alma that you mentioned terms that upon death there will be two groups, one of joy and one of pain/regret. Certainly sounds like heaven and hell to me too, but it is actually referring to Spirit paradise and Spirit prison. What evidence is there to show this?

One solid statement is that there is no reference in any of the standard works that says paradise is anything more than a place of rest and joy created by God. Anything more would be an assumption.

Also:

We, and most other Christians believe that the dwelling place of God is heaven. God lives in heaven; I think we can all agree with that. Here is an interesting scripture that many Christian churches have used to "prove" that baptism is not necessary to go to heaven - Luke 23:43 - speaking to the thief on the cross next to him, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Under the assumption that the thief was not baptized AND that paradise is heaven, they would be correct. However, the Bible shows that at least the second assumption is incorrect. In John 20, three days after Christ's death, Mary has come to Christ's tomb but discovered he was no longer there. After Mary was called by Jesus in the garden, verse 17 says, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Therefore we know two facts - "to day shalt thou be with me in paradise" on Friday (the day of His death) and three days later Christ says "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto my Father". Christ had not gone to the presence of God yet, so we know that God is not in paradise.

Hence we can determine that since God lives in heaven, and Christ entered paradise the day of his death but had not been in the presence of God until three days later, we can rightfully determine that paradise is simply spirit paradise, separate from heaven.

When speaking with Mary, Jesus was referring to his resurrected body. In his resurrected form he had not yet ascended to the Father, but that is not to say he hadn't seen him while yet a spirit, and ushered the young man in His presence. To say otherwise would deny Alma's Undeniable Fact of Death #1...

"11 Now, concerning the astate of the soul between bdeath and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are ctaken dhome to that God who gave them life."

You mean to tell me that good Christians, whom you believe go to spirit prison, have "no part nor portion of the spirit of God" as Alma describes those who are not in Paradise?

What's the use of having the "fullness of the gospel" in the Book of Mormon, if you are going to deny it's teachings at every turn with theories you admit have no Biblical and Book of Mormon support but are "modern revelations" of your church leaders?

[KosherXMorg]

what facebook group?

"Best Mormon Group Ever"

[KosherXMorg]

A few more references added. Mostly official church sources such as LDS.org and the Guide to the Scriptures - which all cite numerous scriptural references that I'm sure you are capable of looking up on your own.

If you're not confused, then I obviously am. Therefore I will ask one simple question: What's your point?

Why do you think everything is a fight? I was simply postulating a theory from the wording of the verses, I wasn't saying it was right or wrong or telling you what to believe. It has only turned into that because of the condescending and defensive replies to the original post.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

When speaking with Mary, Jesus was referring to his resurrected body. In his resurrected form he had not yet ascended to the Father, but that is not to say he hadn't seen him while yet a spirit, and ushered the young man in His presence. To say otherwise would deny Alma's Undeniable Fact of Death #1...

"11 Now, concerning the astate of the soul between bdeath and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are ctaken dhome to that God who gave them life."

You mean to tell me that good Christians, whom you believe go to spirit prison, have "no part nor portion of the spirit of God" as Alma describes those who are not in Paradise?

What's the use of having the "fullness of the gospel" in the Book of Mormon, if you are going to deny it's teachings at every turn with theories you admit have no Biblical and Book of Mormon support but are "modern revelations" of your church leaders?

So I looked up that reference (Thanks so much for telling me what scripture you were quoting!) in Alma 40: 11 and I followed the footnotes and crossreferences a couple times through ( Ecclesiastes 12: 5 , Job 17: 13 , Alma 40 ) and this is what I have discerned:

At the moment of death, when the spirit is seperated form the body we go to an initial judgement (as I said before regarding 3 different judgements). Alma 40: 11 would seem to indicate that this takes place in the presence of God. However Alma 40:12-13 tells us the consequences of this initial judgement - the righteous go to paradise and the wicked to go prison (I don't think righteous vs wicked has anything to do with religious affiliation in this case). Also Alma 11:43-44 tells us that the final judgement takes place AFTER the resurrection and Alma 40:15-18 tells us that the the initial judgement we have when we die is NOT the resurrection. Finally, 1 Nephi 10:21 tells us that no unclean thing can DWELL with God, and since we are not finally judged clean or unclean until the resurrection, God does not dwell in paradise and those who go to paradise are NOT with God. Therefore modern revelation is absolutely correct on this matter.

I had a nonmember friend who read the BOM and said that it agreed perfectly with the Bible, but that the D&C didn't agree with either. Your last post sounds almost like you're trying to suggest that the BOM is true but modern prophets and modern revelation are not true. Whether this is the case or not, in the end all scripture can be interpreted differently. That's the purpose of modern revelation and personal revelation - to guide us in how we interpret scripture.

:edit:

Sorry, I posted after your reply. I'm sorry if I come off rude or confrontational, that's not my intention. I'm just a person who doesn't like to sugar coat what he says. I'm blunt and to the point, and I realize this offends a lot of people. It's not my intention to offend or to contend. In this specific case, I didn't see the point you were trying to get across or the point you had for making your initial post, so I said so. Consider it as an opportunity to reword your ideas in a way that perhaps I might more easily understand - not as an attack.

Edited June 11, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[KosherXMorg]

So I looked up that reference (Thanks so much for telling me what scripture you were quoting!) in Alma 40: 11 and I followed the footnotes and crossreferences a couple times through ( Ecclesiastes 12: 5 , Job 17: 13 , Alma 40 ) and this is what I have discerned:

At the moment of death, when the spirit is seperated form the body we go to an initial judgement (as I said before regarding 3 different judgements). Alma 40: 11 would seem to indicate that this takes place in the presence of God. However Alma 40:12-13 tells us the consequences of this initial judgement - the righteous go to paradise and the wicked to go prison (I don't think righteous vs wicked has anything to do with religious affiliation in this case). Also Alma 11:43-44 tells us that the final judgement takes place AFTER the resurrection and Alma 40:15-18 tells us that the the initial judgement we have when we die is NOT the resurrection. Finally, 1 Nephi 10:21 tells us that no unclean thing can DWELL with God, and since we are not finally judged clean or unclean until the resurrection, God does not dwell in paradise and those who go to paradise are NOT with God. Therefore modern revelation is absolutely correct on this matter.

I had a nonmember friend who read the BOM and said that it agreed perfectly with the Bible, but that the D&C didn't agree with either. Your last post sounds almost like you're trying to suggest that the BOM is true but modern prophets and modern revelation are not true. Whether this is the case or not, in the end all scripture can be interpreted differently. That's the purpose of modern revelation and personal revelation - to guide us in how we interpret scripture.

:edit:

Sorry, I posted after your reply. I'm writing a response, be patient ! :)

Modern teachings by church leaders are just as subject to the standard of scripture as anything else. when their teachings agree with scripture great, when they are in conflict or unclear they should be rejected or set on the shelf until the additional scriptures promised us come forth.

BTW, the no unclean thing can dwell with God response, now THAT makes sense. Remember I'm not saying my intial hypothesis is right, I was just bantering an idea about.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Hey, I like a good theory just as well as the next man, and I've had some pretty unique ones of my own in my time. I just wasn't sure what you were getting at, and I blame the format of your first post for that, it made it difficult to distinguish who was saying what.

On a side note, in my search for answers I came across the footnotes for John 20: 17 which has an interesting JST... for those who like the Jesus <3 Mary Magdelene theory.....

"17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not...."

"17a JST John 20: 17 . . . Hold me not . . . "

[rameumptom]

Modern teachings by church leaders are just as subject to the standard of scripture as anything else. when their teachings agree with scripture great, when they are in conflict or unclear they should be rejected or set on the shelf until the additional scriptures promised us come forth.

BTW, the no unclean thing can dwell with God response, now THAT makes sense. Remember I'm not saying my intial hypothesis is right, I was just bantering an idea about.

So, according to your logic, the Jews should reject Jesus' introduction of new doctrinal concepts? Or they should have rejected Peter's opening the gospel to the Gentiles? How about circumcision? It was revealed to Abraham, and again to Moses as an "everlasting covenant." Why did the early Church say it was no longer necessary for Christians?

I know that Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic law, but where does it say that in the scripture? Where does it state that circumcision and animal sacrifice would end with Jesus' sacrifice? It doesn't as far as I can tell. Jesus introduced new teachings, and according to your requirement, dead prophets' statements are more important than those of living prophets.

I believe just the opposite. Living prophets rule! God can rescind anything at anytime through a prophet, as he did on the membership ban to Gentiles through a revelation with Peter.

Now, if a single statement is made by a General Authority that is not supported by scripture, such things should be set on the shelf for further enlightenment. But anything presented to us by the living prophet is what God expects us to follow for our day.

[KosherXMorg]

Hey, I like a good theory just as well as the next man, and I've had some pretty unique ones of my own in my time. I just wasn't sure what you were getting at, and I blame the format of your first post for that, it made it difficult to distinguish who was saying what.

On a side note, in my search for answers I came across the footnotes for John 20: 17 which has an interesting JST... for those who like the Jesus <3 Mary Magdelene theory.....

"17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not...."

"17a JST John 20: 17 . . . Hold me not . . . "

Yes, I think with the JST clarification is made that it wasn't a simple touch he was trying to avoid.

[KosherXMorg]

So, according to your logic, the Jews should reject Jesus' introduction of new doctrinal concepts? Or they should have rejected Peter's opening the gospel to the Gentiles? How about circumcision? It was revealed to Abraham, and again to Moses as an "everlasting covenant." Why did the early Church say it was no longer necessary for Christians?

I know that Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic law, but where does it say that in the scripture? Where does it state that circumcision and animal sacrifice would end with Jesus' sacrifice? It doesn't as far as I can tell. Jesus introduced new teachings, and according to your requirement, dead prophets' statements are more important than those of living prophets.

I believe just the opposite. Living prophets rule! God can rescind anything at anytime through a prophet, as he did on the membership ban to Gentiles through a revelation with Peter.

Now, if a single statement is made by a General Authority that is not supported by scripture, such things should be set on the shelf for further enlightenment. But anything presented to us by the living prophet is what God expects us to follow for our day.

The Book of Mormon prophecies of the ending of "the Law of Moses" and the end of sacrifices. I'm sure we can find some Old Testament indications to, you'll have to give me time to look, I'm more knowledgeable of the Book of Mormon then the Bible.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Rameumptom you make a valid point, modern revelation DOES take priority over past precedent. We recently celebrated (well, some mormons did anyway) the 30th anniversary of a prime example of this.

And yes, Kosher, the BOM and the OT do testify of Christ's fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the doing away of many of the early practices. But the Jews misinterpreted those scriptures and look where it got them? 2000 years or more of apostasy. So like I said, the scriptures can be interpreted in many ways, and we need to pay constant attention to modern revelation to help us find the right way to interpret confusing scriptures.

[KosherXMorg]

Rameumptom you make a valid point, modern revelation DOES take priority over past precedent. We recently celebrated (well, some mormons did anyway) the 30th anniversary of a prime example of this.

And yes, Kosher, the BOM and the OT do testify of Christ's fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the doing away of many of the early practices. But the Jews misinterpreted those scriptures and look where it got them? 2000 years or more of apostasy. So like I said, the scriptures can be interpreted in many ways, and we need to pay constant attention to modern revelation to help us find the right way to interpret confusing scriptures.

So I guess we'll have to wait and see who is misinterpreting scriptures now. The LDS believe the Church of Christ is, The Church of Christ believes the Community of Christ is, they believe likewise of the Church of Christ, the Remnant Church thinks all the others are wrong, as does the LDS who believe they are all apostates and they are the original church, and so on and so forth. And around and around we go.

May the One Mighty and Strong come and put an end to this mess!

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I think the point me and Rameumptom have is that no, we DON'T have to wait to find out. Modern revelation tells us how to interpret scripture. And if you're unsure or confused about all the finger-pointing amongst religions, that's what PERSONAL revelation is for. The heavens are open and God speaks to us, all we have to do is listen.

[KosherXMorg]

I think the point me and Rameumptom have is that no, we DON'T have to wait to find out. Modern revelation tells us how to interpret scripture. And if you're unsure or confused about all the finger-pointing amongst religions, that's what PERSONAL revelation is for. The heavens are open and God speaks to us, all we have to do is listen.

All of them claim modern revelation. So if all of them are claiming modern revelation, where should I look to for clarification? The Bible and Book of Mormon which were given for the express purpose of "confounding false doctrine".

[rameumptom]

All of them claim modern revelation. So if all of them are claiming modern revelation, where should I look to for clarification? The Bible and Book of Mormon which were given for the express purpose of "confounding false doctrine".

If we are patient, study the various claims and the books attached to them, then turn to God and ask Him for verification in specific terms, we shall get an answer. You will find truth in all these books, as God does reveal his will to people, insofar as they are ready for it (Alma 29:8). The more we are ready for, the more God will reveal to us.

So, no, we do not have to trust a preacher's word for it. We simply must do the research, then go to God with our specific questions in order to get the answers.

[Justice]

I haven't read the entire thread, but if the OPer still has any questions, all you have to is read the Bible Dictionary under a few related topics.

[KosherXMorg]

The OPer never had any question to begin with. I was only offering food for thought from the vocabulary used in the verses in question.

I'll make sure and check out Mr. McConkie's opinion on the subject, but I am quite positive I understand LDS theory on the subject.