Those who died without law

[Rob Osborn]

In Moroni chapter 8 we read-

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing

This scripture details the condition of all those who have died without the law. They are under no condemnation, they cannot repent, and baptism availeth nothing. In fact, they are all spiritually alive in Christ.

The spirit prison on the other hand is set up for all those who are found condemned within the law and are always "sinners" who need repentance and baptism and all other ordinances of the house of the Lord in order to be released from prison into paradise. These all include both those who sinned in ignorance or in transgression having rejected the prophets. These include the wicked, ungodly, rebellious, etc. 

Of importance distinction though is that all of those in spirit prison (temporary hell) have all died within the law and are found condemned of which repentance is required whereas those who died without the law cannot be in spirit prison as they are not found condemned. They are under no penalty of sin and as such are delivered to paradise at death. 

Now, as to section 76:72-73 where it states- 

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

 

These two scriptures speak of two different groups- those who died without law who were delivered into paradise (verse 72), and those who died within the law who were delivered into spirit prison (verse 73).

Many have misunderstood these two verses thinking they are tge same group. But, according to Moroni, this cannot be as a person who dies outside of the law cannot be condemned by the law. Those who died in ignorance to the law, such as many of the wicked Lamanites, were still under the penalty of sin and need repentance. For this cause the Nephites such as Alma and the sons of Mosiah went among them to teach them the gospel of repentance and baptism. The "law" in this context has to do with our conscious state (the light of Christ) within us.

Too many have tried to wrangle verse 72 of section 76 into meaning they still need repentance and acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ as if they are already condemned. They simply are not condemned, repentance and baptism availeth nothing. In light of this being part of the terrestrial heirs is perhaps a subtopic for debate but at the forefront here is that they are not condemned and cannot be judged or found guilty of any sin and are thus not delivered to spirit prison.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Too many have tried to wrangle verse 72 of section 76 into meaning they still need repentance and acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ as if they are already condemned. They simply are not condemned, repentance and baptism availeth nothing. In light of this being part of the terrestrial heirs is perhaps a subtopic for debate but at the forefront here is that they are not condemned and cannot be judged or found guilty of any sin and are thus not delivered to spirit prison.

Verse 72 says they died without law. Not without the law, not outside the law. These are not the innocent. To die without law means they rejected the law they were offered while in the flesh, as described in the verses that follow. In these verses, erstwhile inhabitants of spirit prison who are assigned to the resurrected terrestrial condition meet several criteria, each of which must be met: depart the flesh without law (in other words, having rejected the law or the light they were offered in the flesh, the most fundamental being that light which is the law described in D&C 88:13); and received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh but afterwards received it; and  honorable yet blinded; and not valiant in the testimony of Jesus even after receiving it.

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Verse 72 says they died without law. Not without the law, not outside the law. These are not the innocent. To die without law means they rejected the law they were offered while in the flesh, as described in the verses that follow. In these verses, erstwhile inhabitants of spirit prison who are assigned to the resurrected terrestrial condition meet several criteria, each of which must be met: depart the flesh without law (in other words, having rejected the law or the light they were offered in the flesh, the most fundamental being that light which is the law described in D&C 88:13); and received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh but afterwards received it; and  honorable yet blinded; and not valiant in the testimony of Jesus even after receiving it.

 

They died without law. Moroni 8:22 describes those who do not have law as being redeemed by God and are not condemned. Only the condemned go to spirit prison.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

They died without law. Moroni 8:22 describes those who do not have law as being redeemed by God and are not condemned. Only the condemned go to spirit prison.

Let’s look at it more thoroughly than that:

From Moroni 8, little children and those without the law, or have no law, are covered by the redemption and need no baptism. Of course Moroni was speaking of the unaccountable living, since the salvation of the dead is not addressed in Mormon's epistle.

D&C 76 addresses the post-living, and does not address children and other unaccountable people. It only addresses those who die willfully outside of the law (including baptism and the other ordinances), meeting the other conditions listed for a terrestrial or telestial resurrection. The salvation of the dead is not addressed here, either.

“Without” can refer to being on the outside of something, or in this case, on the outside of the law. You can’t be outside of something you don’t have in the first place (as in the case of the unaccountable), and you can only be outside of the law you have been given by choice (as are the accountable). The former go to spirit paradise; the latter to spirit prison.  In the same way, “condemnation” in Moroni 8 is based on the need for the accountable who are living to repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and endure, and D&C 76 refers to “this condemnation” in a different sense, referring to the end, place and torment known only by the sons of perdition.

Tying this to salvation of and for the dead as you suggested in the OP, the welding link of baptism offers something to both the unaccountable in paradise and the rebellious in spirit prison. Those who are not valiant in the fulness of what is offered head for the terrestrial kingdom; those who refuse it more than that head for the telestial kingdom; and, those who refuse it completely are sons of perdition.

And an integration of D&C 76 and Alma 40 would suggest that even in paradise and prison, there are degrees of happiness and anticipated orders of resurrection, both in timing and glory.

[zil]

@CV75, I admire your patience, and appreciate your well thought-out replies in these threads - they are most helpful.

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Let’s look at it more thoroughly than that:

 

From Moroni 8, little children and those without the law, or have no law, are covered by the redemption and need no baptism. Of course Moroni was speaking of the unaccountable living, since the salvation of the dead is not addressed in Mormon's epistle.

 

D&C 76 addresses the post-living, and does not address children and other unaccountable people. It only addresses those who die willfully outside of the law (including baptism and the other ordinances), meeting the other conditions listed for a terrestrial or telestial resurrection. The salvation of the dead is not addressed here, either.

 

“Without” can refer to being on the outside of something, or in this case, on the outside of the law. You can’t be outside of something you don’t have in the first place (as in the case of the unaccountable), and you can only be outside of the law you have been given by choice (as are the accountable). The former go to spirit paradise; the latter to spirit prison.  In the same way, “condemnation” in Moroni 8 is based on the need for the accountable who are living to repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and endure, and D&C 76 refers to “this condemnation” in a different sense, referring to the end, place and torment known only by the sons of perdition.

 

Tying this to salvation of and for the dead as you suggested in the OP, the welding link of baptism offers something to both the unaccountable in paradise and the rebellious in spirit prison. Those who are not valiant in the fulness of what is offered head for the terrestrial kingdom; those who refuse it more than that head for the telestial kingdom; and, those who refuse it completely are sons of perdition.

And an integration of D&C 76 and Alma 40 would suggest that even in paradise and prison, there are degrees of happiness and anticipated orders of resurrection, both in timing and glory.

 

Moroni chapter 8 covers those who are dead. Read the chapter again. 

Section 76:72 and verse 73 are two different classifications of people. One is classified as those who died without law, the next group is classified as those who went to spirit prison who, in order to even be there, were judged and found under condemnation of the law.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Moroni chapter 8 covers those who are dead. Read the chapter again. 

Section 76:72 and verse 73 are two different classifications of people. One is classified as those who died without law, the next group is classified as those who went to spirit prison who, in order to even be there, were judged and found under condemnation of the law.

I don’t think that is an appropriate, adequate or clear response (too brief and imprecise); and certainly not respectful of the topic. But I will attempt to guess what you are referring to.

Moroni 8 only refers to children having died in connection with the gall and wickedness in supposing they need baptism, but not to their post-mortal disposition in the spirit world or their resurrection. Of course from other sources we know they go to paradise and are raised to a celestial glory. It only speaks to the false belief in and practice of infant baptism.

The “also” in 76:73 is not used to distinguish a separate class of people from verse 72, but to add to the criteria of the one class (terrestrial). That is why there is a semi-colon and not a comma after “law” in verse 72, and a semi-colon after “flesh” in verse 73, before leading into verse 74. Otherwise, verses 75-79 would refer only to verse 72 and not verses 73 and 74. In addition, this class of people does not meet just one criterion without meeting the others. The criteria are not structured that way.

Edited May 21, 2017 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think that is an appropriate, adequate or clear response (too brief and imprecise); and certainly not respectful of the topic. But I will attempt to guess what you are referring to.

Moroni 8 only refers to children having died in connection with the gall and wickedness in supposing they need baptism, but not to their post-mortal disposition in the spirit world or their resurrection. Of course from other sources we know they go to paradise and are raised to a celestial glory. It only speaks to the false belief in and practice of infant baptism.

The “also” in 76:73 is not used to distinguish a separate class of people from verse 72, but to add to the criteria of the one class (terrestrial). That is why there is a semi-colon and not a comma after “law” in verse 72, and a semi-colon after “flesh” in verse 73, before leading into verse 74. Otherwise, verses 75-79 would refer only to verse 72 and not verses 73 and 74. In addition, this class of people does not meet just one criterion without meeting the others. The criteria are not structured that way.

I disagree. The use of the semicolon here is to distinguish two separate groups that are still otherwise related or connected. Semicolons are like a super comma, stronger in emphasis. In the context here in verse 72 they are shown a group called "these are they". Then, in verse 73, it says "and also they who". The word "also" in context is used to distinguish and add another grouping here. Otherwise it would of started with the text "who" instead of "and also they". It is the same as saying a sentence such as "Recognized plaques were given to all of those who came in first place in the race; and also they who sponsored the event"

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. The use of the semicolon here is to distinguish two separate groups that are still otherwise related or connected. Semicolons are like a super comma, stronger in emphasis. In the context here in verse 72 they are shown a group called "these are they". Then, in verse 73, it says "and also they who". The word "also" in context is used to distinguish and add another grouping here. Otherwise it would of started with the text "who" instead of "and also they". It is the same as saying a sentence such as "Recognized plaques were given to all of those who came in first place in the race; and also they who sponsored the event"

Absolutely not. CFR that a semicolon is used to separate groups.

“A semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses, provided they are not already joined by a coordinating conjunction. Semicolons can also be used in place of commas to separate items in a list, particularly when the elements of that list contain commas.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

Verses 72 and 73 are closely related independent clauses; they are separate sentences that are closely related in theme and they are items in the same list of criteria, and the elements on the list that are linked by semicolons contain commas. This is why verses 75, 76, 77 and 79 are punctuated with periods. Note also that all the criteria are essentially the same, just different ways of saying the same thing.

On the other hand, when the independent clauses are not related, as you say these verses 72 and 73 are, a period is to be used and not a semicolon (see Rule 1). http://writersrelief.com/blog/2008/03/three-essential-semicolon-rules/

Are you basing this grammatical insight on the belief that Joseph Smith and the editors of these revelations were not using proper punctuation in addition to not understanding the vision or its contents?

Edited May 22, 2017 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely not. CFR that a semicolon is used to separate groups.

“A semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses, provided they are not already joined by a coordinating conjunction. Semicolons can also be used in place of commas to separate items in a list, particularly when the elements of that list contain commas.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

Verses 72 and 73 are closely related independent clauses; they are separate sentences that are closely related in theme and they are items in the same list of criteria, and the elements on the list that are linked by semicolons contain commas. This is why verses 75, 76, 77 and 79 are punctuated with periods. Note also that all the criteria are essentially the same, just different ways of saying the same thing.

On the other hand, when the independent clauses are not related, as you say these verses 72 and 73 are, a period is to be used and not a semicolon (see Rule 1). http://writersrelief.com/blog/2008/03/three-essential-semicolon-rules/

Are you basing this grammatical insight on the belief that Joseph Smith and the editors of these revelations were not using proper punctuation in addition to not understanding the vision or its contents?

If you want to get to the nitty gritty details of it, verse 73 shouldn't begin with "And" as it is bad grammer to use the word immediately following a semicolon. The bigger issue here is the meaning. Verse 72 and 73 are related in that they are both terrestrial. That is why the semicolin is used here. The thing about semicolons are they are used more according to ones own style and to add variety to the structure. Semicolons are certainly not even needed in grammer to make adequate sentences, paragraphs, books, etc.

 

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you want to get to the nitty gritty details of it, verse 73 shouldn't begin with "And" as it is bad grammer to use the word immediately following a semicolon. The bigger issue here is the meaning. Verse 72 and 73 are related in that they are both terrestrial. That is why the semicolin is used here. The thing about semicolons are they are used more according to ones own style and to add variety to the structure. Semicolons are certainly not even needed in grammer to make adequate sentences, paragraphs, books, etc.

Your deflection is very disappointing and certainly does not address my CFR.

[zil]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your deflection is very disappointing and certainly does not address my CFR.

The only "CFR" I know is the Code of Federal Regulations.  When I googled, there were like 465 acronyms, and the top ones didn't fit your use.  Can you spell it out for those of us lurking in the background?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Your deflection is very disappointing and certainly does not address my CFR.

You keep saying that but its just not true. We went off on a sidtrack talking about grammer that needed clarification.

I am of the firm belief here that verses 72 and 73 are speaking of two different groups. The one are those who died without law and are not condemned thus by the law. The other group are those who died within or with the law and as such are condemned and are thus in the spirit prison (hell). Verse 74 explains that this second group in spirit prison are those who accept Christ and his gospel in the spirit world.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, zil said:

The only "CFR" I know is the Code of Federal Regulations.  When I googled, there were like 465 acronyms, and the top ones didn't fit your use.  Can you spell it out for those of us lurking in the background?

Hi -- sorry, I thought it was a common term. I only post here and another LDS board where i've seen it used.

It means "call (or cite) for reference." It is a request that appropriate references be provided to support the statements (other than opinions) someone has made. Typically satisfying the CFR involves quotes and links/sources (as I did proactively a few posts above). If someone refuses to answer the CFR without retracting the statement or clarifying that it was only an opinion, it renders the statements invalid, having been made in bad faith or ignorance, etc., and ruins the conversation.