Is the final judgment permanent?

[pam]

One needs to understand really what spirit prison is. According to lds.org

A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (D&C 138:32). The spirits in prison are “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 that [are] necessary for them to know” (D&C 138:33-34). If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins, and accept ordinances performed in their behalf in temples, they will be welcomed into paradise.

So for those such as Mother Teresa and others, they are given a chance to learn of the gospel and accept baptism. This is where we as members come in. We need to do temple work for all that have passed on before so that when they are ready, their work is done so they can accept it.

[Backroads]

One needs to understand really what spirit prison is. According to lds.org

A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (D&C 138:32). The spirits in prison are “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 that [are] necessary for them to know” (D&C 138:33-34). I

I want to pick at knowledge of the truth for a minute. It seems to me it's saying that anyone who lived betwixt the apostasy and the restoration would have gone to spirit prison. Which is perfectly plausible.

And yet... how much truth is necessary to NOT enter spirit prison? All religions contain some truth, do they not?

[pam]

I want to pick at knowledge of the truth for a minute. It seems to me it's saying that anyone who lived betwixt the apostasy and the restoration would have gone to spirit prison. Which is perfectly plausible.

And yet... how much truth is necessary to NOT enter spirit prison? All religions contain some truth, do they not?

My understanding is, if they have been taught the gospel and reject it, they had a knowledge of the truth. This would be for those that never had an opportunity to learn of it or of Jesus Christ.

[Traveler]

Is the final judgment permanent? Meaning, if someone is consigned to the terrestrial kingdom (for example) is that person stuck in that kingdom for eternity? Or can they jump to the celestial kingdom after meeting certain conditions?

I am not sure why this is even thought of as a possibility. I would present an idea. That is the idea of choice. If we make a choice - did we really make a choice if later we “change” our choice? Many try to imply that we change our choices all the time. This is not really so. The only time we actually think we change a choice is when we better understand what the choice involves. Usually we want to change a choice when we realize that the outcome was not quite what we had in mind.

So here is my problem - if the choice to live in the Terrestial Kingdom was ever to change in an individual - How would that come about? Where is the engine for such a change in choice? To argue such a point degrades the intelligence and agency of man and says in essence that man in reality does not have the ability to make an actual choice that there really is no agency but man in reality subject the “changing winds”. But such a being could never reside or survive in a Celestial Kingdom.

No - I do not believe such things.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I want to pick at knowledge of the truth for a minute. It seems to me it's saying that anyone who lived betwixt the apostasy and the restoration would have gone to spirit prison. Which is perfectly plausible.

And yet... how much truth is necessary to NOT enter spirit prison? All religions contain some truth, do they not?

It is the covenant of Baptism the delivers someone from spirit prison.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

It is the covenant of Baptism the delivers someone from spirit prison.

The Traveler

My understanding is, if they have been taught the gospel and reject it, they had a knowledge of the truth. This would be for those that never had an opportunity to learn of it or of Jesus Christ.

So even if they had learned of Jesus Christ and whatever portions of the gospel were available to them in pre-Restoration Christianity, they would still wind up in spirit prison because of the lack of baptism and other ordinances?

I'm not talking about those who never had the opportunity to learn the Mormon gospel as we know it. I'm talking about those who simply weren't alive at the time.

[rameumptom]

The current Church leadership teach that there is no progression between kingdoms. However, previous church leaders have considered it a possibility (such as James Talmage). I keep an open mind on it, as I personally think there probably is progression between kingdoms. However, I do not teach it.

As for an end to hell, as Bini mentioned, there is an end to hell for those who are not Sons of Perdition. Those who are major sinners that go to Spirit Prison will experience hell there (similar to Alma's experience). Only when they've truly repented of their sins are they rescued by Christ's atonement out of hell, and into paradise. This does not mean they are worthy of celestial glory, but only that they are no longer bound by the powers of Outer Darkness.

[rameumptom]

It is the Atonement that delivers us from Spirit Prison. Baptism is the door to the Celestial Kingdom, not to paradise.

The thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he would be with Jesus that day in paradise. No baptism necessary. Alma, in his Near Death Experience, suffered spirit prison hell until he repented, and then was rescued. No baptism necessary.

[pam]

So even if they had learned of Jesus Christ and whatever portions of the gospel were available to them in pre-Restoration Christianity, they would still wind up in spirit prison because of the lack of baptism and other ordinances?

I'm not talking about those who never had the opportunity to learn the Mormon gospel as we know it. I'm talking about those who simply weren't alive at the time.

Would not those that simply weren't alive at the time fall into the category as those that never had the opportunity?

[Backroads]

Would not those that simply weren't alive at the time fall into the category as those that never had the opportunity?

And that's what I assume.

Which also makes me wonder about the nature of spirit prison? Is it really that bad? For good people who never had the opportunity, is it really a pit of hellfire? I think we make it sound like such a horrible place, but if spirit prison is simply about ordinances, I just can't imagine it as a place of pure punishment. At least for everyone.

It is the Atonement that delivers us from Spirit Prison. Baptism is the door to the Celestial Kingdom, not to paradise.

The thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he would be with Jesus that day in paradise. No baptism necessary. Alma, in his Near Death Experience, suffered spirit prison hell until he repented, and then was rescued. No baptism necessary.

An interesting point.

Though was Alma technically dead? Or was he just getting a taste of spirit prison, not actually being put there?

[pam]

Spirit Prison - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki

[Guest mormonmusic]

So here is my problem - if the choice to live in the Terrestial Kingdom was ever to change in an individual - How would that come about? Where is the engine for such a change in choice?

First, I don't really have a position on this -- it was something that someone else "corrected" me on in Gospel Essentials class when I said assignment to kingdoms was permanent. He quoted the scripture I gave a page one or two into this discussion, indicating that punishment for wrong choices is not endless, but is decribed as endless to "stir up the hearts of men". And he got me thinking and questioning.

Now, his argument is this -- That people, once consigned to a kingdom they have not fully experienced due to bad choices prior to assignment to kingdoms, may well have sincere desire to change and repent. Taken with the fact that they will be in that lower kingdom for a long, long time -- there may well be opportunities to change and then move to a higher plane after sufficient character change and suffering. So the engine of change is the remorse and change in character of the individual.

To argue such a point ........says in essence that man in reality does not have the ability to make an actual choice that there really is no agency but man in reality subject the “changing winds”. But such a being could never reside or survive in a Celestial Kingdom

Hmmm...I think the intrepration I've suggested (but am not necessarily committed to at this point) actually furthers choice significantly, as it allows man to choose to change his character at any point in eternity, and reap the rewards. The scripture I quoted on the second page implies that such character change AND possible movement upwards will only come after a much longer period of suffering and effort than simply making the right choices prior to final judgment, however.

Edited January 22, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am not sure why this is even thought of as a possibility. I would present an idea. That is the idea of choice. If we make a choice - did we really make a choice if later we “change” our choice? Many try to imply that we change our choices all the time. This is not really so. The only time we actually think we change a choice is when we better understand what the choice involves. Usually we want to change a choice when we realize that the outcome was not quite what we had in mind.

So here is my problem - if the choice to live in the Terrestial Kingdom was ever to change in an individual - How would that come about? Where is the engine for such a change in choice? To argue such a point degrades the intelligence and agency of man and says in essence that man in reality does not have the ability to make an actual choice that there really is no agency but man in reality subject the “changing winds”. But such a being could never reside or survive in a Celestial Kingdom.

No - I do not believe such things.

The Traveler

Our assignment to a Kingdom is not based on an informed choice. It is based on choices made when we are mostly uninformed, so God can see the true desires of our heart. If the assignment could be made based on informed choices then we would never need the veil. The purpose of the veil is to put us in a situation where we reveal our true natures. This situation exposes our true nature and it is that information as well as what we come into the situation with (i.e. - where much is given, much is expected) and our previous pre-mortal valiant or not valiant nature that God makes that decision.

If you say the assignment of Kingdoms should only be based in full knowledge and appreciation of the consequences then what is the purpose of the veil?

Once the veil is removed, I don't think you could make that determination any longer.

Like trying to change the grade of a test after the test is over, I can only see that as a possibility if one was retested. But, that doesn't happen, we don't separate from our body again after the assignment to our Kingdom.

I think a lot of people are saying here that our assignment to a Kingdom is based on our choices but it is more than that. It is based on God's view of the desire of our heart as we are making choices and only His full understanding of all the variables surrounding that specific choice for that individual. And, by nature of our current existence, it has to based in mostly uninformed choices.

[Guest mormonmusic]

...Like trying to change the grade of a test after the test is over, I can only see that as a possibility if one was retested. But, that doesn't happen, we don't separate from our body again after the assignment to our Kingdom.

I have a question though -- why this assumption that it has to be a test where we make decisions without complete information? And that we have to do so in a mortal state? Why can't we make the decision to change our character at any point in our existence, provided we eventually get to the point we have the character God is looking for? Would he not want us to progress, to change, and get better eventually, and get the rewards even if we did so after the "final" judgment? And doesn't this seem fair given the fact that so many of our choices are uninformed (without being able to see or clearly experience our eternal kingdoms)?

By the way, I'm not disagreeing in a violent way, or challenging you in an adversarial way -- these are just questions that cross my mind as we explore this issue.

[Guest mormonmusic]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36829-final-judgment-permanent-4.html#post559739

[pam]

I have a question though -- why this assumption that it has to be a test where we make decisions without complete information? And that we have to do so in a mortal state? Why can't we make the decision to change our character at any point in our existence, provided we eventually get to the point we have the character God is looking for? Would he not want us to progress, to change, and get better eventually, and get the rewards even if we did so after the "final" judgment? And doesn't this seem fair given the fact that so many of our choices are uninformed (without being able to see or clearly experience our eternal kingdoms)?

By the way, I'm not disagreeing in a violent way, or challenging you in an adversarial way -- these are just questions that cross my mind as we explore this issue.

Those that have been taught the fullness of the gospel have enough info to attain exaltation. Those that haven't have that opportunity after they die. Why have the plan of salvation if we can mess up on earth because of attitude and have it all better after we die? Just seems like there would be no reason to come to earth then and gain a body and go through the trials and lessons of life.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Those that have been taught the fullness of the gospel have enough info to attain exaltation. Those that haven't have that opportunity after they die. Why have the plan of salvation if we can mess up on earth because of attitude and have it all better after we die? Just seems like there would be no reason to come to earth then and gain a body and go through the trials and lessons of life.

Well, this person in my Gospel Essentials class argued that the scripture says we are encouraged to believe the "make it or break-it on earth" philosophy to "stir up our hearts" to repent now while the atonement is still operative.

After judgment, it isn't so -- changing our character entails personal suffering for our sins so it's a lot harder to gain forgiveness. Also, the subsequent chance provides yet another opportunity for God to be merciful. That was his argument. It's nothing I've heard over the pulpit and isn't widely believed, but I thought I'd discuss it here to get some additional perspectives.

Edited January 22, 2011 by mormonmusic

[slamjet]

This thread dangerously sounds like:

2nd Nephi 28: 7-9

7) Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8) And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9) Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

I submit that this speculation of whether we will be able to progress from kingdom to kingdom is a foolish waste of time. God is a God of order, not chaos. To say that this scripture does not talk about this thread is foolish. To dispute this is to justify actions that are contrary to God's word. To speculate on some subjects can be fun (I've delved into it myself). But to speculate as to dangerous, false doctrine is useless.

[Guest mormonmusic]

This thread dangerously sounds like:

I submit that this speculation of whether we will be able to progress from kingdom to kingdom is a foolish waste of time. God is a God of order, not chaos. To say that this scripture does not talk about this thread is foolish. To dispute this is to justify actions that are contrary to God's word. To speculate on some subjects can be fun (I've delved into it myself). But to speculate as to dangerous, false doctrine is useless.

How would you handle this, then, if this came up in Gospel Doctrine or Essentials class? And, throw in the fact that the person making the claim is coming out of less-activity.

[slamjet]

How would you handle this, then, if this came up in Gospel Doctrine or Essentials class? And, throw in the fact that the person making the claim is coming out of less-activity.

There was a person in my Gospel Doctrine class who adamantly claimed that the ancient Pharaohs had the power to teleport themselves. As a student, I left it, as I would leave this. I'm not the one leading the class. The teacher is.

If I was teaching, then I would be duty-bound to kindly and softly make the correction as I've heard my Gospel Doctrine teacher do many times. The same holds true in Gospel Essentials.

But, I have a bad habit of opening my big mouth. There is just some speculation that is way off the mark. This is one of them.

[pam]

Do we sugarcoat or allow speculation in a Gospel Principles class just because the person is returning from inactivity? Or do we teach correct principles as we know them based on scripture and revelation from our Church leaders? Those that attend Gospel Principles are usually investigators or those that are returning that need some of the basic gospel subjects taught to them. This is where we are helping those gain a firm hold on knowledge of the gospel. Allowing speculation in this kind of a class can cause damage.

Just my opinion of course.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Yes, Pam, but it should be done with sensitivity to the person who is speculating. This was an important question for him, apparently. He approached me afterwards about it when I didn't answer it specifically in class. Personally, I think one has to balance the needs of individuals who are returning to Church with other classroom interests; and it can be a tough act. The way it sounds above, correcting doctrine is more important than making the classroom safe for all kinds of participation. Personally, I think both objectives -- affirming the person and keeping the discussion within the bounds of basic doctrine are equally important -- and not only in classroom contexts.

Edited January 22, 2011 by mormonmusic

[pam]

I think it would be more appropriate in a Gospel Doctrine class where you have members that are more versed in actual doctrine. I just think it's a bit dangerous in a class where you have those that are trying to develop a testimony. Or those that are returning to activity that might already be struggling with a testimony.

Again just my opinion and may not be the thoughts of others.

Edited January 22, 2011 by pam

[slamjet]

Personally, I think both objectives -- affirming the person and keeping the discussion within the bounds of basic doctrine are equally important -- and not only in classroom contexts.

And this is why I don't teach. And maybe because I told a guy he's nuts (Hey, at least I exercised a bit of control, I didn't call him what I really wanted to).

[Backroads]

Yes, Pam, but it should be done with sensitivity to the person who is speculating. This was an important question for him, apparently. He approached me afterwards about it when I didn't answer it specifically in class. Personally, I think one has to balance the needs of individuals who are returning to Church with other classroom interests; and it can be a tough act. The way it sounds above, correcting doctrine is more important than making the classroom safe for all kinds of participation. Personally, I think both objectives -- affirming the person and keeping the discussion within the bounds of basic doctrine are equally important -- and not only in classroom contexts.

It's a tricky balance. Yes, we want to stick to doctrine and not just affirm someone's ideas simply to make this person feel better. But you don't want to shut this person down.

In my view, this comes down to "whatever" doctrine that isn't that pertinent as obviously assuming one can always repent later isn't the best course of action.

In my view, if a person is nitpicking about stuff like this, there isn't much I can say or not say to really affect his testimony one way or the other and therefore I would refuse to accept responsibility for this person's future interaction with the gospel.

I guess... ward leadership allowing... I would make it clear we are all just speculating short of someone providing actual quotes of doctrine.