can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?

[james12]

I would disagree. In Luke 15:12 we are told that both sons were given their inheritance on the younger's demand that the estate be partitioned. Father's assurance in verse 31 confirms this arrangement--whatever the Father has left, is actually part of the "faithful" son's inheritance. (That's what makes the son's outburst so repugnant--he acts as though he has been serving (Greek: "slaving for") the Father all this time; when in fact, he had no problem taking his own portion of the living when it was offered. He has been at least an equal with his father from a materialistic standpoint and, like his brother, has basically been buttering his own bread. See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/05/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-lesson-18-luke-15/ for more on this). In the father's conversation with the older son he does not justify giving the younger son another inheritance; rather, he justifies a one-time celebration for the return of the lost soul (the same sort of rejoicing we see in the preceding parables of the lost money and sheep).

I think we will probably end up disagreeing on this parable but let me explain a little further. The prodigal has a plan. After his depravity he decides he will be a servant of his Father's. He get's his speech all prepared, he is going to go to his father and say, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants". And so he begins to execute the plan. He returns to his Father and after the beautiful welcome he starts the speech, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son". But the prodigal get's no further. In fact, Jesus specifically contrasts the sons words with the Father's actions by interjecting the words, "But the Father said" in verse 22. The Father does not even listen to the whole speech about the son becoming a servant. Because he is already asking the servants to bring the robe, the ring, and the shoes, and kill the fatted calf! Do you see that the son does not even get the words out! He is not received as one of the servants but is welcomed as son.  

 

I dunno. Would Hitler's exaltation cheapen that of Anne Frank?

Even assuming, arguendo, that it wouldn't: All analogies have their limits, of course; but to argue that the parable of the prodigal son doesn't support the idea of the prodigal's being denied a second inheritance, is essentially to make a collateral argument that the parable doesn't support the idea of his having been granted one. Strictly speaking, of course, the parable is primarily about the rejoicing that happens on the recovery of a lost son, coin, or sheep; not about whether those items' absences caused any irreversible consequences.

Hitler will only be exalted when he becomes a different person. Until that point he will remain outside. So your contrast of Hitler to Anne Frank is not valid.

 

The older son in this parable likewise remains outside of the Father's home. In fact, the older son does not go into the house but instead asks a servant what all the merry making is about. The Father must come out to meet this older son. The parable ends with the older son still outside the Father's house.  

 

The younger son came to himself and returned to the Father, who because of his change of heart, could accept him as son. But the older son still acts as servant. Where is he when the Father is feasting? Working in the field as a servant. He does not recognize what is offered and even though he has remained near the Father he has yet to come to himself and accept the feast that has always been right in front of him.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think we will probably end up disagreeing on this parable but let me explain a little further. The prodigal has a plan. After his depravity he decides he will be a servant of his Father's. He get's his speech all prepared, he is going to go to his father and say, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants". And so he begins to execute the plan. He returns to his Father and after the beautiful welcome he starts the speech, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son". But the prodigal get's no further. In fact, Jesus specifically contrasts the sons words with the Father's actions by interjecting the words, "But the Father said" in verse 22. The Father does not even listen to the whole speech about the son becoming a servant. Because he is already asking the servants to bring the robe, the ring, and the shoes, and kill the fatted calf! Do you see that the son does not even get the words out! He is not received as one of the servants but is welcomed as son.

There's nothing in here that I disagree with. However, "son" and "heir" are not synonymous. The son may abide in the Father's household; but as for an independent living of his own--there's no guarantee of that. So far as we have any textual reason to believe, he already got his inheritance, he squandered it, it's gone, and the only son who still has an inheritance of his own at the end of the story is the elder son. This ending will still be on the minds of Jesus' hearers (disciples and Pharisees) when, later in the same sermon, He pointedly asks them "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?" (Luke 16:12).

The older son in this parable likewise remains outside of the Father's home. In fact, the older son does not go into the house but instead asks a servant what all the merry making is about. The Father must come out to meet this older son. The parable ends with the older son still outside the Father's house.

Yes, the older son needed an attitude adjustment; but let's not make too much of this--the parable also ends with *the father* still outside the father's house. What indictment of the father's ongoing spiritual state are we to read into that?

We simply don't know how the elder son reacted to the father's counsel--it's not part of the parable.

The younger son came to himself and returned to the Father, who because of his change of heart, could accept him as son. But the older son still acts as servant. Where is he when the Father is feasting? Working in the field as a servant. He does not recognize what is offered and even though he has remained near the Father he has yet to come to himself and accept the feast that has always been right in front of him.

I'm not sure I'm with you on this particular facet. Sons don't have to work? Killing the fatted calf, feasting, and general merrymaking was an everyday occurrence (or could have been, but for the older son's needless martyr's complex)? I think the father himself acknowledges that what they were doing to honor the younger son was indeed extraordinary. Edited June 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[rameumptom]

Ram, though I agree with much of what you wrote, I vehemently disagree with the above statement. I think it's plain false, and I am very glad we have no such "rule". (I'm even more glad that the Church membership seems no longer to be getting much of its doctrinal understandings from books written by GAs, but that's another matter entirely.) The idea that we are so much more enlightened than our ancestral Saints of past generations is untrue and potentially very dangerous....

 

But the larger idea that we should ignore prophetic teachings from a generation ago or more, as suggested by your words quoted above, goes way too far. I am very confident that the overall understanding of the plan of salvation and of God's work in our lives as held by the apostles and prophets throughout the restoration greatly exceeds my own (and your own), regardless of individual items that, in retrospect, we might recognize that they got wrong.

I was saying this somewhat tongue in cheek. I had a stake president and Institute director years ago, who when someone would quote a GA, ask if he had been dead sufficiently long enough.  My concern isn't with what the GAs have said in the past. It is that some members do not update their libraries, and so ONLY quote from those in the past. This is true even of some BYU professors, such as Randy Bott, who a couple years ago was quoted in a newspaper article talking about the priesthood curse on blacks. The Church came out openly and stated it does not teach nor believe the old theories.  It also added the header to OD2, giving historical background that denounces racist theories.  Yet, many members still are not aware of such updates, happy to quote dead prophets' theories on why the blacks were cursed.  I still have copies of Miracle of Forgiveness and MD, although I read portions of them with a grain of salt and with newer prophetic teachings at the ready.

 

You'll note that in PH/RS, we are studying the teachings of the prophets. What we're really doing is reading the selected quotes of dead prophets, which go well with our current understanding of the gospel. The Brigham Young manual did not discuss polygamy, Adam-God, or a few other discarded theories he had. Joseph Fielding Smith's manual did not discuss the reasons for the priesthood ban.  So, inasmuch as we use their writings to support modern prophetic understanding of scripture and the Lord's will, we gain much value out of it.  And this is how Brigham Young would have us do it too, as he was quick to say that the living prophet's words trump the dead prophets.

 

A case in point is Pres Uchtdorf's lesson on grace. While some say that we've always taught what he said, only with a different emphasis, I would disagree. Elder McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others clearly spoke about earning one's own exaltation. I think Pres Benson's warning to study the Book of Mormon made for a big change our views of grace and salvation. For me, I began realizing that what some prophets taught and what the BoM taught on these items, did not agree. So, do we continue quoting the old stuff, or do we embrace the new stuff and toss the old views in regards to grace and salvation?

 

Ignore their teachings? No. Ensure that we know when old teachings have been supplanted, and no longer use them? Yes.

[rameumptom]

In regards to the Prodigal Son, let's remember that parables are imperfect depictions of a teaching. Can one totally squander away the inheritance the Father offers us?  Except for rejecting salvation or exaltation, can we not repent and still be eligible for these?

[james12]

There's nothing in here that I disagree with. However, "son" and "heir" are not synonymous. The son may abide in the Father's household; but as for an independent living of his own--there's no guarantee of that. So far as we have any textual reason to believe, he already got his inheritance, he squandered it, it's gone, and the only son who still has an inheritance of his own at the end of the story is the elder son. This ending will still be on the minds of Jesus' hearers (disciples and Pharisees) when, later in the same sermon, He pointedly asks them "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?" (Luke 16:12).

Yes, the older son needed an attitude adjustment; but let's not make too much of this--the parable also ends with *the father* still outside the father's house. What indictment of the father's ongoing spiritual state are we to read into that?

No, the older son staying out of the house is not reading too much into the parable. The fact that he remains outside is significant as Jesus himself points out, "And he was angry, and would not go in". The older sons anger about what the younger son has received is keeping him out of the house just as the pharisees anger over Jesus feasting with publicans and sinners is keeping them from receiving what their Heavenly Father has offered them.  

We simply don't know how the elder son reacted to the father's counsel--it's not part of the parable.

I'm not sure I'm with you on this particular facet. Sons don't have to work? Killing the fatted calf, feasting, and general merrymaking was an everyday occurrence (or could have been, but for the older son's needless martyr's complex)? I think the father himself acknowledges that what they were doing to honor the younger son was indeed extraordinary.

Indeed we do not know how the older son reacted to the counsel of the Father. This is probably the main point of the parable. Jesus is leaving the question wide open for the pharisees to ponder and it likewise applies to us. Here then is the question: Will our continued anger and hatred of people the Father has accepted keep us out of the kingdom?

The older sons issues revolve around attitude. Of course there is no inherent problem working in the field. The problem is that this is all the son can see for he says, "Lo, these many years do I serve thee...and yet thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends". He sees his time with the Father as work. Just as the pharisees who are so concerned with the law only see their time as work. The joy and feasting at every returning prodigal should also be theirs but they will not accept it. Let us not find ourselves in the same circumstance by refusing to accept those the Father has received with open arms.

[The Folk Prophet]

A case in point is Pres Uchtdorf's lesson on grace. While some say that we've always taught what he said, only with a different emphasis, I would disagree. Elder McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others clearly spoke about earning one's own exaltation. I think Pres Benson's warning to study the Book of Mormon made for a big change our views of grace and salvation. For me, I began realizing that what some prophets taught and what the BoM taught on these items, did not agree. So, do we continue quoting the old stuff, or do we embrace the new stuff and toss the old views in regards to grace and salvation?

 

Ignore their teachings? No. Ensure that we know when old teachings have been supplanted, and no longer use them? Yes.

 

The whole do we earn salvation or is it only by grace is nothing more than a semantic point and has no bearing on updated teachings or understanding. The fact of the matter is that we do have a set list of requirements for salvation. And the fact is that accomplishing the set list is also insufficient in and of itself. Neither of these points take away from the other. Both remain absolute truths. Whether we term the need to accomplish the set list of requirements or not "earning" isn't really important. The fact that some earlier prophets and apostles may have termed it this way does not make them wrong. It is simply a different way of describing the facts of the gospel.

 

It is simply inaccurate, in this case, to state that teachings have been supplanted. But it is appropriate to discontinue terming things the old way for the sake of understanding and proper communication. What is not appropriate is to shut our brains down and misunderstand the reality of eternal truths that have always been taught in the gospel based on semantic changes.

 

To state that we used to teach that we only earned salvation and now we teach that salvation is only by grace is wrong. And you will, very easily, find right alongside any teachings about "earning" salvation the plain need for the atonement, and that without the atonement we would be lost even with all we could do.

[Guest]

I'd like to interrupt this very exhilarating discussion to say...

I'm very glad that rameumptom is back.

Ok, carry on.

[NightSG]

Of course I'm not particularly interested in the theological debate as to whether murderers can be forgiven or not. The take away, for me, is simple. Don't murder. Any alternative -- go ahead and murder 'cause you can repent -- philosophy I reject. I'm going with don't murder.

 

I think that about sums it up.  We'd all do well to apply that to a lot more sins than murder, too.

[Blackmarch]

My sister has been reading a book about those who killed in Rwanda and are in prison. I happen to struggle with a major mental block: how can one consciously make the decision and follow through on the action to commit murder and then feel remorse? Now I try to understand the frenzy that occurred in Rwanda but in the end murderers still commit murder.

Even if true remorse for a murder is felt, is one simply fated for a lower kingdom? And I speak of murderers in general, not just Rwanda.

that would depend a lot on what one knew. In many places in africa and other places where strife and poverty has been seemingly endless, often people are taught to kill others from a young age, or to see others as less than themselves which could lead to that end.

I would use the example of the lamanites that Ammon and his brethren taught.

King david is an example of going from a place of glory into sin, while it seems the context of the op is asking if it is possible to go from a very dark place to a place of light and glory.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Just_A_Guy]

No, the older son staying out of the house is not reading too much into the parable. The fact that he remains outside is significant as Jesus himself points out, "And he was angry, and would not go in". The older sons anger about what the younger son has received is keeping him out of the house just as the pharisees anger over Jesus feasting with publicans and sinners is keeping them from receiving what their Heavenly Father has offered them. 

 

Oi vey, I must not be explaining myself very well.  My apologies.

 

Yes, the fact that the elder son initially wouldn't go in, illustrates his need for an attitude adjustment.

 

However, once the Father has offered his correction, we simply don't know how the elder son received that counsel.  Thus, I think it's misleading to suggest that the parable's ending with the elder son still out of the house, has any deep meaning with regard to the older son's ultimate fate--because, as I pointed out earlier, at the end of the parable the Father is also out of the house.  What are we supposed to read from that--that God will at some point abandon His own throne?  Or can we agree that when it comes to exegisis of scriptural parables, at some point we reach the level where a cigar is just a cigar?

 

 

Indeed we do not know how the older son reacted to the counsel of the Father. This is probably the main point of the parable. Jesus is leaving the question wide open for the pharisees to ponder and it likewise applies to us. Here then is the question: Will our continued anger and hatred of people the Father has accepted keep us out of the kingdom?

 

The older sons issues revolve around attitude. Of course there is no inherent problem working in the field. The problem is that this is all the son can see for he says, "Lo, these many years do I serve thee...and yet thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends". He sees his time with the Father as work. Just as the pharisees who are so concerned with the law only see their time as work. The joy and feasting at every returning prodigal should also be theirs but they will not accept it. Let us not find ourselves in the same circumstance by refusing to accept those the Father has received with open arms.

 

James, I wish you wouldn't use such loaded terms as "reject" or "anger" or "hatred".  No one is saying the Father rejects anyone.  What is being suggested is that a person's having ever been willing to commit certain extraordinary sins, is an indicator that that person cannot justly be entrusted with certain responsibilities; and therefore, said person--while remaining in the home, and part of the family--may never be entrusted with the specific role of supreme family leader.  Frankly, there's pretty decent scriptural and prophetic evidence to this effect--including, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father's affirming the elder son's status as sole remaining heir.  That doesn't make God "angry" or "hateful", any more than I am angry or hateful when I deny my daughters' continued entreaties that I buy them each a pony after they let the family dog starve to death.

 

No one's refusing to accept anyone--except insofar as the Church leadership continues to maintain a policy of denying baptism to confessed or convicted murderers without First Presidency approval. 

 

When an Apostle issues a conference talk specifically stating that murder's not such a big deal, or when the Church allows baptism for murderers with only Mission President approval, I will be only too happy to dismiss Messrs Smith, Young, McConkie, et. al., and join those who would excise D&C 42 and D&C 132 from the canon of scripture.  But until then--frankly, I think we're pretty well stuck.

 

And, I repeat my question from earlier:  If exaltation for all is inevitable, why would God implement Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms in lieu of simply instituting a system of reincarnation where we come to earth repeatedly until we "get it right"?  And if one can proceed from the Telestial to the Terrestrial and on to exaltation without multiple mortal probations, then why do we need even one mortal probation--why not just give us a body and send us straight to the Telestial Kingdom?  And why are the scriptures so insistent that everything hinges on this life?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

Gotta say this-Once again, I love reading all the responses here. Even when I disagree I learn so much. 

[rameumptom]

In regards to the Prodigal Son, let's remember that parables are imperfect depictions of a teaching. Can one totally squander away the inheritance the Father offers us?  Except for rejecting salvation or exaltation, can we not repent and still be eligible for these?

 

God's inheritance is one that once given is not suddenly no longer available. It seems to be more like knowledge, it can be shared time and again without any loss.  Otherwise, Christ would be the only one to inherit anything. Instead, we find that we are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans). 

 

We assume the prodigal son receives no inheritance. Yet, if he is brought back into the Father's house, given a party, and is not a servant, has he not received a form of inheritance (whether complete/full or not is beside the question).  All we know is the Father is giving all he has to the older son - yet it seems he has enough and to spare in handing out inheritances.

 

If a person spends his life in riotous living, and does not murder, then rejoins the Church a couple months before his death (or becomes active), has he lost his inheritance? Why come back to Church? If one "squanders away" the entire inheritance and then repents, how does one obtain the telestial kingdom? Is that not an inheritance, or at least a portion of one?

Edited June 22, 2015 by rameumptom

[Just_A_Guy]

In regards to the Prodigal Son, let's remember that parables are imperfect depictions of a teaching.

 

Totally agree; but then that begs the question of why we would bother raising this parable at all, if we both concede that it doesn't really speak to the ultimate point of this discussion--to wit, the prospect of exaltation for murderers. 

 

 

Can one totally squander away the inheritance the Father offers us?  Except for rejecting salvation or exaltation, can we not repent and still be eligible for these?  We assume the prodigal son receives no inheritance. Yet, if he is brought back into the Father's house, given a party, and is not a servant, has he not received a form of inheritance (whether complete/full or not is beside the question).

 

Frankly, given the OP, the question of whether a penitent murderer's inheritance would a partial or a full portion is precisely the question.  Not a single person here has said that murderers will be utterly cast off.  The question is whether the degree of acceptance in the family (which you choose to call a form of "inheritance") will be equal with the inheritances of all the others.

 

If one "squanders away" the entire inheritance and then repents, how does one obtain the telestial kingdom? Is that not an inheritance, or at least a portion of one?

 

It's not exaltation, which I thought was what we were all talking about.  Have you been agreeing, this whole time, that murderers in fact will not be eligible for exaltation?  If so, I have terribly misread you; and I owe you an apology.

[rameumptom]

There were some dates and or other incidental things that were "very wrong" I suppose. I question the idea that any of the headers had doctrinal ideas that were "very wrong". Please illustrate.

 

 

I find the implication that the new headers revealed some new information that was previously unknown a bit far-fetched. What, specifically, in these introductions was so revolutionary?

 

 

Of course I'm not particularly interested in the theological debate as to whether murderers can be forgiven or not. The take away, for me, is simple. Don't murder. Any alternative -- go ahead and murder 'cause you can repent -- philosophy I reject. I'm going with don't murder.

 

The casting off of any older prophets and apostles we don't like thing, on the other hand...well, Vort's addressed that fairly well. But I challenge you to find a contemporary prophet or apostle who has explicitly stated that any and all forms of murder are forgivable. As has been said, accountability plays into it, and past prophets allow for this as well. The focus may have changed somewhat, but the principles haven't.

 

I don't really understand how people can, realistically, see the past and present prophets and apostles at odds with one another. There are a few fringe issues where the clarity is a bit obscure, but for the most part, the gospel is the gospel, has been the gospel, and will be the gospel moving forward.in any way.

 

The Joseph Smith Papers Project (JSPP) which has led to many of the changes, shows us several things. One big item is D&C 20:1, which Elder Talmage and many others since have insisted says Christ was born on 6 April, 1 BC.  The JSPP shows that verse 1 was actually a header put in place by the scribe, John Whitmer (which he did on several of the revelations), but was accidentally added later as part of the revelation and misinterpreted as a revelation on Christ's birth.

 

OD2 now has a header, which it did not have before. Although the ban was lifted in 1978, members and some GAs have continued to insist on Brigham Young's and Joseph Fielding Smith's reasons for the ban (curse on Cain/Canaan). The header now dismisses all the past racist inventions given by member and apostle alike.

 

This does not mean our prophets are not called of God. They are. However, many attempted to establish a Mormon theology, when they were not trained theologians. This is why theology is often best left to the scholars. And this is why the Church leadership changed drastically on this in the early 1980s - apostles were no longer allowed to speak from the hip, but were to witness of Christ, and teach the standard doctrines of the Church. You will not see an Elder McConkie write another Mormon Doctrine, or Alvin R Dyer write about the curse of Ham/Canaan. However you will see BYU scholars writing an Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  Yes, apostles do write books, but compared to those pre-1978 revelation, you will see that they are very different. They only write on the doctrines now, they do not speculate.

 

If you are not interested in the debate on whether murderers can repent and be saved by the atonement, why are you so involved in this debate?  I agree that the better thing is to not sin.  Yet, for many members who have family members that have killed others (and I know some), or to the Jews who believe David was a great ruler and follower of Yahweh, these are important issues to consider.

 

95 percent of the things the latter-day prophets have said and written is in accordance with one another. But there is that 5 percent.  Spencer W. Kimball condemned Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory.  Recently, the Church condemned the theories of past prophets and apostles on the priesthood ban. Brigham Young taught that plural marriage was required for exaltation, but we no longer believe that.  We also do not agree with blood atonement today.  Joseph Fielding Smith insisted that men would not go to the moon, and when they did, he insisted they should not be going there - other apostles disagreed with this concept.  Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie insisted that evolution was of the devil, a heresy, and members believing it were on the road to apostasy. Yet, we have apostles today who believe in it (note Elder Holland's talk in April Conference, where he insisted that Adam existed, but did not know/care how old the earth is).  

 

This all falls back to the concept of Theology.  The Mormon Church does not have a Theology.  While Catholics and Protestants have well defined theologies that do not change much over centuries, ours is a moving target.  We have Articles of Faith that are not required to believe in in order to be a member.  We have some basic tenets: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, commandments are important, etc. However, the details are almost all up in the air. We are more into orthopraxy (the doing) than the orthodoxy (the teaching).

 

For this reason, Elders Talmage, Widtsoe, and BH Roberts could believe in evolution and the possibility of progression between kingdoms, while Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and others could be strongly against them.  Elders Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B. Brown struggled with each other's politics.

 

That said, our current leaders are very united, even in light of some of the big changes that have occurred over the past few years (missionary age change, more power for women, LGBT considerations, etc).

 

We believe in continuing revelation. That means there will always be a continuous tension between past and present. With the exception of key/core doctrines, what is "true" today can change tomorrow.  Grace is one of them. 

 

For those of us who remember the Church 40 years or more ago, we know that grace was rarely taught, and then when it was, it was different from now. Grace meant a free resurrection, but you still had to earn your spiritual salvation. I recall speaking in Sacrament in the 1980s, and asking for a show of hands of how many believed they were saved. Only a couple hands went up.  That is a sad indictment.  As a knee jerk reaction against "cheap grace", we went the Catholic way and insisted that "saved by grace after all you can do" meant you had to do all you could and Jesus made up the difference.  This concept changed little by little over the years, especially as members followed Pres Benson's call to study the Book of Mormon. Stephen Robinson wrote "Believing Christ", which he begins by talking about coming home and finding his wife in shambles, because she cannot be the perfect Molly Mormon (she couldn't do it all, and so felt she couldn't be saved). He taught the parable of the bicycle, which brought us somewhat closer to what grace is about.  LDS scholars (including me) have been waiting (sometimes impatiently) for a clear teaching by the Brethren. Better and clearer talks were given in the past 15 years, but it culminated with Pres Uchtdorf's talk on Grace, where he had to explain to the members what "saved by grace after all you can do" really means, that we cannot save ourselves, that we cannot earn salvation, and that obedience and righteous works are an external evidence of the internal "mighty change" within us.

 

These concepts are critical to knowing Christ and the atonement.  There was a point many years ago where I wondered why we focused so much on Christ's atonement, when we were pretty much having to do the work all by ourselves. Studying the Book of Mormon helped me to see what it really is all about. Comparing King Benjamin's sermon with some teachings on grace by GAs showed a lot of cognitive dissonance.  Yes, obedience is important, but only as an after effect of being changed by the Spirit, not as a list of things to do to earn salvation (as with the Pharisees). 

 

We do know and understand the gospel better than we did 30 years ago and more. And I expect many more correct concepts will be revealed in the future that will change our aspect on various teachings.  This is one of the reasons I joined the Church when I was 16: revelation from God.

[rameumptom]

 

 

 

It's not exaltation, which I thought was what we were all talking about.  Have you been agreeing, this whole time, that murderers in fact will not be eligible for exaltation?  If so, I have terribly misread you; and I owe you an apology.

 

I am not certain about exaltation, per se.  I think it is possible. But then, I do believe in progression between kingdoms (as did Elder Talmage), and so do not have a problem with a murderer spending a few thousand years repenting and changing until he is ready for a full inheritance as an exalted being.  

 

However, some have insisted that David would not and could not rise above the Telestial Kingdom, and in that I disagree.

[The Folk Prophet]

The Joseph Smith Papers Project (JSPP) which has led to many of the changes, shows us several things. One big item is D&C 20:1, which Elder Talmage and many others since have insisted says Christ was born on 6 April, 1 BC.  The JSPP shows that verse 1 was actually a header put in place by the scribe, John Whitmer (which he did on several of the revelations), but was accidentally added later as part of the revelation and misinterpreted as a revelation on Christ's birth.

 

This is entirely doctrinally unimportant.

 

OD2 now has a header, which it did not have before. Although the ban was lifted in 1978, members and some GAs have continued to insist on Brigham Young's and Joseph Fielding Smith's reasons for the ban (curse on Cain/Canaan). The header now dismisses all the past racist inventions given by member and apostle alike.

 

Wait. Didn't you just make the point that headers are not revelation? But now, when if favors your view, the added header is suddenly inspired?

 

The only "dismissal" of racist views in the header is a scriptural quote, which has always been a scriptural quote, which is hardly new, revolutionary revelation.

 

This does not mean our prophets are not called of God. They are. However, many attempted to establish a Mormon theology, when they were not trained theologians. This is why theology is often best left to the scholars.

 

Without getting into it too much, I'll simply say that I could not disagree more.

 

If you are not interested in the debate on whether murderers can repent and be saved by the atonement, why are you so involved in this debate?

 

When you or anyone starts claiming Spencer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie and the like were full of it I'm going to step up. As to the "debate" over murder...the scriptures are plain. Any debating against that is so much spit in the wind, and there is, frankly, nothing to debate.

 

Yet, for many members who have family members that have killed others (and I know some), or to the Jews who believe David was a great ruler and follower of Yahweh, these are important issues to consider.

 

No more so than considering whether one's adulterous parent, or con-man brother, or thief child, or rapist sister has a chance at salvation. We leave the judgement to God.

 

But there is that 5 percent. 

 

As near as I can tell, not a single bit of that 5 percent (if that's even accurate -- I'd suggest .5 percent...but....) has any bearing on anything important at all. Pre-adamites? Who really cares?

 

Spencer W. Kimball condemned Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. 

 

We don't understand Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. And what was condemned was the interpretation of it, and primarily in response to the polygamous groups who accept the modern interpretation of it as important doctrine. The interpretation of it -- what we think Brigham meant -- has been rejected. What Brigham actually meant and believed is unknown.

 

Recently, the Church condemned the theories of past prophets and apostles on the priesthood ban. 

 

This isn't quite accurate. It's an oversimplification of what is a complex issue. The church disavowed those theories and condemned racism. Two different things. What was presented by the church essay on the matter ultimately boiled down do "we don't know", which ought to be the only party-line on the matter.

 

Brigham Young taught that plural marriage was required for exaltation, but we no longer believe that.  

 

What Brigham actually taught we still very much believe. Anyone unwilling to accept polygamy if commanded by God, cannot be exalted.

 

We also do not agree with blood atonement today.

 

Another thing we really don't understand. But for the sake of my lack of understanding on the matter, I'll acquiesce the point here.

Edited June 23, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

 

Joseph Fielding Smith insisted that men would not go to the moon, and when they did, he insisted they should not be going there - other apostles disagreed with this concept.  

 

Um...who really cares what Joseph Fielding Smith's personal view on going to the moon or not was? And how, exactly, does that matter to the doctrines of the church?

 

Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie insisted that evolution was of the devil, a heresy, and members believing it were on the road to apostasy. Yet, we have apostles today who believe in it (note Elder Holland's talk in April Conference, where he insisted that Adam existed, but did not know/care how old the earth is).

 

I think understanding Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie on the matter and in context is quite important. The clear division comes between trusting in man or trusting in God. It's not a difficult thing to see where and why the took this stand from a doctrinal and "what's really important" point of view. Elder Holland's talk is hardly proof positive that apostles today believe in it.... But, once again, that's not really, contextually, what's important about the issue. Also, there were apostles in JFS and BRM's day who believed in it. And I'd bet you dollars to donuts that there are apostles today who have the exact same stand as JFS and BRM did. I don't see this as an advancement or enlightenment issue in any way at all.

 

This all falls back to the concept of Theology.  The Mormon Church does not have a Theology.  While Catholics and Protestants have well defined theologies that do not change much over centuries, ours is a moving target.  We have Articles of Faith that are not required to believe in in order to be a member.  We have some basic tenets: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, commandments are important, etc. However, the details are almost all up in the air. We are more into orthopraxy (the doing) than the orthodoxy (the teaching).

 

The teachings about the doings are, realistically speaking, the important part. Yes. But the teachings also motivate the doing. As in, understanding what exaltation is, the nature of God, and the order of the afterlife divided into kingdoms, etc., have little to do with the doing. And yet they seem quite important to understand, as directly related to what we actually do (which church we join, etc.) and how we are motivated. So I don't entirely disagree with you on what's important. But where I do disagree is in who gets to teach and define the standards of things, whether they are important or not, and that, for the most part, any of the "old" teachings have been disavowed, with the clear and obvious exception of the reasons behind the priesthood ban.

 

Therefore, until such teachings are official disavowed, it strikes me that an individual choosing to disavow them simply because they are not emphasized any longer is an unsupportable position.

 

We believe in continuing revelation. That means there will always be a continuous tension between past and present. With the exception of key/core doctrines, what is "true" today can change tomorrow.  Grace is one of them. 

 

How is the Atonement and the Savior's grace provided thereby not a key/core doctrine? I'm, frankly, astounded at this thinking. Are you really under the impression that our early leaders felt they did not need the Savior to be saved?

 

As I've explained, the words may have changed on this. The message is the same. There is NO conflict. The fact that current leaders may be helping us to understand the principle better, and even that they may emphasize such things more often, does not mean changed doctrine or that earlier prophets and apostles were wrong.

 

I recall speaking in Sacrament in the 1980s, and asking for a show of hands of how many believed they were saved. Only a couple hands went up.  That is a sad indictment.

 

Do you really believe that if that same question were asked today that the result would be any different?

 

As a knee jerk reaction against "cheap grace", we went the Catholic way and insisted that "saved by grace after all you can do" meant you had to do all you could and Jesus made up the difference.  This concept changed little by little over the years, especially as members followed Pres Benson's call to study the Book of Mormon. Stephen Robinson wrote "Believing Christ", which he begins by talking about coming home and finding his wife in shambles, because she cannot be the perfect Molly Mormon (she couldn't do it all, and so felt she couldn't be saved). He taught the parable of the bicycle, which brought us somewhat closer to what grace is about.  LDS scholars (including me) have been waiting (sometimes impatiently) for a clear teaching by the Brethren. Better and clearer talks were given in the past 15 years, but it culminated with Pres Uchtdorf's talk on Grace, where he had to explain to the members what "saved by grace after all you can do" really means, that we cannot save ourselves, that we cannot earn salvation, and that obedience and righteous works are an external evidence of the internal "mighty change" within us.

 

I was alive in the 70s, remember well the teachings, and read and study the talks from then now. I believe that this point of view is in your mind and is nothing more than an emotional reaction to something that you did not understand back then, struggled with accordingly, and now that the approach has settled more in line with the way you think about things, it resounds with you. But the facts do not support the idea that our leaders have ever taught us that we did not need the Savior's Atonement for salvation no matter what our works were.

 

These concepts are critical to knowing Christ and the atonement.  There was a point many years ago where I wondered why we focused so much on Christ's atonement, when we were pretty much having to do the work all by ourselves. Studying the Book of Mormon helped me to see what it really is all about. Comparing King Benjamin's sermon with some teachings on grace by GAs showed a lot of cognitive dissonance. 

 

I read through the Book of Mormon 2 to 3 times a year. I have never felt that it teaches anything different than what Joseph F. Smith, Spencer W. Kimball and all the proceeding prophets, have said and taught, so I'm not really sure where this "things changed when we began reading the Book of Mormon more" comes from. I have seen no dissonance between King Benjamin and our modern day apostles, ever.

 

Yes, obedience is important, but only as an after effect of being changed by the Spirit

 

I disagree with this. Obedience is HOW we are changed by the Spirit.

 

We do know and understand the gospel better than we did 30 years ago and more.

 

Sadly, I also disagree with this. For the most part it strikes me that the lay church member seems to understand the gospel less than 30 years ago.

[NightSG]

That doesn't make God "angry" or "hateful", any more than I am angry or hateful when I deny my daughters' continued entreaties that I buy them each a pony after they let the family dog starve to death.

 

Well, as long as the next dog likes horsemeat...

 

[rameumptom]

Folk Prophet,

 

Many people care about these things, which is why they are being discussed.  The headers being changed is a big thing, because they clarify things that were viewed differently before. Many people were ardently insistent that April 6, 1 BC was Christ's birth, regardless of the archaeological evidence against it (such as Herod dying in 4 BC). It matters when such is taught as doctrine in the Institute D&C manual for decades.  I've seen many youth leave the Church over issues like evolution, etc., because leaders taught theories as doctrine.

 

Do not get me wrong. I support and sustain the Brethren. But they are not infallible, and where they went to the edge and tried to establish their theories as doctrine, they were in error.  It does matter.  If my BYU scholar friends make a remark, anyone can accept or dismiss it. If a leading GA makes a statement, then it is considered doctrine by many, and can hamper spiritual growth.  You should read Edward Kimball's story about what Pres Kimball had to do to prepare the GAs and the membership to receive the revelation on the priesthood.  It didn't happen over a weekend, but took years of preparation, because it was going against tradition.

 

There are many who agree with me on the changes in view on grace over the years, although a few say it is mostly a change in emphasis.  I'm on several private email boards with LDS scholars, where we've discussed just this issue on a few occasions.  I'm on my high council, and have been in discussions on Pres Uchtdorf's talk on grace, where others have said it is a key doctrinal change that will affect the church for years to come.  If there was no change, why would Pres Uchtdorf have to explain what Nephi meant on "after all we can do"?  If you have not noticed, you must be living in a shoe box.

 

The Savior's grace and atonement are core doctrines.  How they work may or may not be.  Various GAs have used different atonement theories to explain it over the years in General Conference. President Packer usually uses the substitution theory.  We do not have a set theory on exactly how the atonement works, we just know there is an atonement.  Again, we do not have a theology, per se.

 

The lay membership better understands the true gospel today than ever before.  There was a big focus on the Restoration, Joseph Smith, and the Signs of the Times in the 60s and 70s.  This is not necessarily bad.  However, we have a bigger focus on Christ, the Atonement, and other issues more important than who the Beast in Revelation is.  As a Church, we study the Book of Mormon more and have a better testimony of Christ.  Our teaching methods are better, especially with the new youth teaching program (coming to an adult Sunday School class nearby, soon).  Our methods for missionary teaching are better than the Mr Brown/Senor Garcia manuals we used in my day.  The temple endowment change in 1991 improved the overall understanding of the endowment, making it work better for international members and removing the old Masonic points that distracted from the pure gospel teachings in it.  

 

These changes all come through modern revelation, which makes the Church and its members better and holier.  If not, then why have continuing revelation.

 

Folk Prophet, I am getting bored from your non-responses. You are not really engaging the evidences I have given. You are just denying them, or saying they are unimportant. They are important to me and others in the Church, including several following this post.  Unless you can actually contribute to this conversation, I'm going to spend my time doing something more fruitful to me (like wash my hair).

[NightSG]

Many people were ardently insistent that April 6, 1 BC was Christ's birth, regardless of the archaeological evidence against it (such as Herod dying in 4 BC).

 

It's very important; how embarrassed would you be to put the wrong number of candles on His cake?

 

And you just know He's going to have one of those savants who can count them all at a glance show up at the party.

[The Folk Prophet]

Folk Prophet, I am getting bored from your non-responses. You are not really engaging the evidences I have given. You are just denying them, or saying they are unimportant. They are important to me and others in the Church, including several following this post.  Unless you can actually contribute to this conversation, I'm going to spend my time doing something more fruitful to me (like wash my hair).

 

Well now if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black? Indeed. This has become nothing more than a "nu-uh", "uh-huh", discussion. And if it isn't about the most useless argument ever to debate whether the members know the gospel better or worse than before. I say prove it. And you can say the same to me.

 

But I'm not particularly bothered that you don't consider my contributions any more useful than I consider yours. I will say what I feel should be said you can respond or not. I will not be cowed by accusations of not engaging the evidence (which, I actually took a fair amount of time on and did the best I could in the limited time I had...if you really want to get into things, perhaps an individual thread on each topic...). I'm afraid that whether intentionally or not, your arguments suffer from "proof by verbosity" and I simply can't address each point in detail without a very great deal of time.

 

So I'll stick to one point. Grace.

 

You speak of my not addressing your points, and yet you have managed to completely ignore my responses to this, and instead talk about our understanding of how grace works, which you yourself point out, we don't really understand, and is expressed by different general authorities differently.

 

I claim, factually, that the wording balance of grace and works is irrelevant. That what is important to understand, which you yourself have alluded to, is what we do. Which means works. Works = what we do.

 

You are trying to convince me, and those alike, that there's some great new meaning in Uchtdorf's talk, and yet all you're really talking about is how people feel about grace -- which really doesn't much matter unless we actually get up and do.

 

Yes, grace helps us do. and it has ALWAYS helped us do, whether we so understood it to or not. But it does not, nor will it ever, do for us. To imply such is equivalent to proclaiming the removal of agency. We must choose and we must act. And when we do choose and we do act, then grace assists. This is, and always has been, the truth of grace. No one can be saved, ever, without choosing and acting. No one can be changed without choosing so. Stepping up and doing is key. Obedience is key. It is the means whereby we apply the Savior's grace. The grace does not, nor will it ever, force obedience against our free will.

 

Understanding the balance of works and grace, however, is only important, as I've said, in how we feel about it. That doesn't mean it is unimportant. But whether we feel like we have grace or not doesn't define our well being, spiritual standing, or salvation. Knowing that we're saved isn't requisite. It is not the key given, anywhere. We are saved by exercising our agency to follow Christ, and keep His commandments, whether we understand how or why that works. And if we don't exercise our agency to that end, understanding and feeling good about our state won't have any bearing either.

 

An implication that our current understanding is somehow important implies that those of yesteryear have less potential for salvation. They do not. Theological understandings on matters like this are nice. They are not key.

 

People caring about things does not make them important or not. So please understand my flippant, "who cares" as I meant it. I mean, simply, that it's not important and we should care less about it, not that, literally, no one actually cares. I fully understand that people care about a great deal of things. Some of them are important. Some are not.

 

I care, for example, that our prophets and apostles are not stomped all over. I care that we do not conclude that anything they have said that we disagree with may be casually tossed aside. I care that there is a trend that could be very damaging to testimonies that derides and slanders our past leaders (even if inadvertently). It actually matters, to me, that the prophets and apostles taught truth, and I believe that we need to be very, very careful about injurious statements concerning them.

 

I admit, I'm a bit bothered at the hostile turn your tone has taken. So I expect it's a good thing you're going to go wash your hair moving forward. If you expect me to walk away from the engagement however, you will be disappointed. I will defend against onslaughts that I feel are damaging and false, whether you are bored with it or not.

Edited June 23, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

Theologians? We don't need no stinkin' theologians. We've already got more lawyers than you can shake a stick at--and that's practically the same thing.

As for grace/works: I have read enough McConkie, JFS, etc. to be perfectly satisfied that not one of them seriously thought they could earn their way into heaven independently of Christ's Atonement. Their public discourse did talk about works a lot--IMHO, as a reaction against notions of "cheap grace" that were prevalent in some strains of American Protestantism and to keep the Saints from complacency when we were, as a people, at a crucial formative stage. But I don't think Christ's prime role as the One who makes up for our numerous shortcomings, or as the One whose enabling power is ultimately at the root of whatever paltry good we manage to accomplish, has ever been in serious doubt amongst reasonably informed Mormons.

In my own life, so much of what I initially thought was a novel "revelation" ultimately just turned out to be a restatement of something I'd actually heard years ago, but presented in such a way that it finally resonated with me personally. I think our collective experience is similar. With a few notable exceptions, I don't think "the Church" is really getting much new collective knowledge for the time being; rather, for the most part we are finally coming to understand for ourselves as individuals what our grandparents already knew. But in our pride, we assume our grandparents didn't know; the better to blame them and justify ourselves for our own prior ignorance.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

I have never read such a statement from any of our prophets, seers, revelatory -- here are some quotes

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained the limits of David’s eternal inheritance:

“Murderers are forgiven eventually but only in the sense that all sins are forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; they are not forgiven in the sense that celestial salvation is made available to them. (Matt. 12:31–32; Teachings, pp. 356–357.) After they have paid the full penalty for their crime, they shall go on to a telestial inheritance. (Rev. 22:15.)” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 520.)

“As to crimes for which no adequate restoration is possible, I have suggested … that perhaps the reason murder is an unforgivable sin is that, once having taken a life—whether that life be innocent or reprobate—the life-taker cannot restore it. He may give his own life as payment, but this does not wholly undo the injury done by his crime. He might support the widow and children; he might do many other noble things; but a life is gone and the restitution of it in full is impossible. Repentance in the ordinary sense seems futile.

“Murder is so treacherous and so far-reaching! Those who lose their possessions may be able to recover their wealth. Those defamed may still be able to prove themselves above reproach. Even the loss of chastity leaves the soul in mortality with opportunity to recover and repent and to make amends to some degree. But to take a life, whether someone else’s or one’s own, cuts off the victim’s experiences of mortality and thus his opportunity to repent, to keep God’s commandments in this earth life. It interferes with his potential of having ‘glory added upon [his head] for ever and ever.’ (Abraham 3:26.)” (Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 195–96.)

Link: Eventually, David received the assurance that his soul would be “delivered … from the lowest hell” (Psalm 86:12–13). But this assurance could not restore the blessings he had lost. They were gone forever (see D&C 132:39).

I am sure there are others; although all I have read have specified he shall not receive all the Father hath.

 

Jesus, Son of David.  Jerusalem, the City of David, Jews looking for their Messiah to be David-like, and then for me to hear that David, may well be limited to the lowest heavenly kingdom--along with those who were generally not people of good will, but who did not so offend God that they were damned to the outer darkness--well, it's truly surprising to me.

 

My calling is to offer redemption--salvation--to some folks who've done some really bad things.  I'd struggle to think I could only offer them a limited heavenly hope.

Edited June 23, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

Oh, sure; from the LDS perspective there is certainly a significant difference. But the intriguing thing to me, as I suggested earlier in this thread, is that the Telestial Kingdom seems to be pretty much exactly what mainline Christianity envisions "heaven" to be. The only difference between those two concepts seems to be that inhabitants of traditional "heaven" are secure in the knowledge that they have everything that Christ initially offered them whereas inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom are aware that they could have had something even better.

 

I believe it was Prof. Millet who made this point with Rev. Greg Johnson, in one of their "Convicted Conversations."  However, even Bro. Millet referred to the TERRESTIAL kingdom, not the Telestial one.  Again, I'm told that third level is reserved for those who were not generally of good will, who made little or know effort to connect with God or spirituality, and who simply were not ungodly enough to warrant actual punishment.  That such a kingdom exists, and is blessed, rather than cursed, would demonstrate God's mercy, but would hardly be comparable with a traditional understanding of Heaven.  Our Heaven includes the presence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--so much so that illuminations comes from them (no need for sun or moon).  Believers will "rule and reign" with Jesus.  There will be on-going praise and worship.  The fellowship is always precious, and martyrs will be particularly esteemed.  So, there might be some argument that the Terrestial Kingdom, where, at least Jesus, is present, bares similarities to the traditional understandings--but the Telestial?    

[james12]

Oi vey, I must not be explaining myself very well.  My apologies.

 

Yes, the fact that the elder son initially wouldn't go in, illustrates his need for an attitude adjustment.

 

However, once the Father has offered his correction, we simply don't know how the elder son received that counsel.  Thus, I think it's misleading to suggest that the parable's ending with the elder son still out of the house, has any deep meaning with regard to the older son's ultimate fate--because, as I pointed out earlier, at the end of the parable the Father is also out of the house.  What are we supposed to read from that--that God will at some point abandon His own throne?  Or can we agree that when it comes to exegisis of scriptural parables, at some point we reach the level where a cigar is just a cigar?

Again, it is not simply that the elder son is out of the house. It is that he refuses to come in. That refusal can and will determine his fate. Of course from the parable we don't know the older sons fate. I am not suggesting that we do. I am simply saying that Jesus has purposely left his fate unanswered so that the reader might consider their own feelings.

 

The Father obviously has no such issue. So the comparison of the Father out of the house with the son is clearly invalid.

James, I wish you wouldn't use such loaded terms as "reject" or "anger" or "hatred".  No one is saying the Father rejects anyone.  What is being suggested is that a person's having ever been willing to commit certain extraordinary sins, is an indicator that that person cannot justly be entrusted with certain responsibilities; and therefore, said person--while remaining in the home, and part of the family--may never be entrusted with the specific role of supreme family leader.  Frankly, there's pretty decent scriptural and prophetic evidence to this effect--including, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father's affirming the elder son's status as sole remaining heir.  That doesn't make God "angry" or "hateful", any more than I am angry or hateful when I deny my daughters' continued entreaties that I buy them each a pony after they let the family dog starve to death.

 

No one's refusing to accept anyone--except insofar as the Church leadership continues to maintain a policy of denying baptism to confessed or convicted murderers without First Presidency approval. 

 

When an Apostle issues a conference talk specifically stating that murder's not such a big deal, or when the Church allows baptism for murderers with only Mission President approval, I will be only too happy to dismiss Messrs Smith, Young, McConkie, et. al., and join those who would excise D&C 42 and D&C 132 from the canon of scripture.  But until then--frankly, I think we're pretty well stuck.

You have taken my simple explanation of the parable beyond it's bounds. All I am saying is that a wrong attitude towards one whom the Father has accepted may keep us from the kingdom. I have not made a judgement call on murderers and their ultimate fate.

And, I repeat my question from earlier:  If exaltation for all is inevitable, why would God implement Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms in lieu of simply instituting a system of reincarnation where we come to earth repeatedly until we "get it right"?  And if one can proceed from the Telestial to the Terrestrial and on to exaltation without multiple mortal probations, then why do we need even one mortal probation--why not just give us a body and send us straight to the Telestial Kingdom?  And why are the scriptures so insistent that everything hinges on this life?

This is such an interesting question. I started to write a response but I think it needs much more than a few lines. However, I do think there are reasonable answers to your questions.