Meaning Of D&C 132:26

[Stone holm]

Until you recognize that is what it is about, you will be confused.

Possibly, but if that is the case, I suspect the majority of Mormons are completely clueless when it comes to this scripture -- not that such isn't a possibility.

[cinepro]

Possibly, but if that is the case, I suspect the majority of Mormons are completely clueless when it comes to this scripture -- not that such isn't a possibility.

I suspect most Mormons are clueless when it comes to section 132 in general.

[Stone holm]

I suspect most Mormons are clueless when it comes to section 132 in general.

Gave you a rep bump on that one...lol...it is not an easy Section as is kind of evident from this thread. CA Steinman has suggested an interpretation that I had not heard before, so will have to research that. The problem is it tends to get you into a real doctrinal swamp where Brethren are saying all kinds of inconsistent things in order to encourage upright behavior on the one hand, and trying to extend the hand of the forgiveness on the other. And then once in awhile, you have a GA really go off the rails like McConkie going where very few are willing to go and probably for very good reasons.

[CV75]

The Brethren have been very clear that this section only applies as far as exaltation is concerned to the repentant sinner. The unrepentant has no promise. What is unclear at this point is what is the status of the repentant transgressors . Say a person transgresses and is excommunicated, is rebaptised and has his/her blessings restored. What then is the persons status under this verse?

I’ve understood the terms “destroyed in the flesh” and “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption” to refer to people dealing with mortality and the afterlife without the full benefits of the Holy Spirit (since they broke the conditions for having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, or receiving their calling and election). At some point they have their turn to come forth in the first resurrection, as delayed as that turn otherwise might not have been.

I see no reason why a person who transgresses and is excommunicated and then is re-baptized and has his/her blessings restored cannot continue to progress to the point of being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise and then suffer backsliding so as to be destroyed in the flesh and delivered unto the buffetings of Satan.

The only ones that don’t commit some kind of sin after being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise are those that are not translated. That would be by far most people. And so they are destroyed in the flesh (in other words, they suffer through mortality until they die, without any other potential benefit they might have had if they had continued faithful) and are delivered to the buffetings of Satan (according to the degree of sin they commit) until they are redeemed, which I take to mean their entry into paradise, which can happen either sooner or later after death, as well as to mean their actual resurrection and advancement into exaltation.

The buffetings of Satan need not be ongoing, as there may be ongoing and residual effects that need to be healed, recovered and rehabilitated from long after the actual buffeting is administered.

The various interpretations and uses of this verse are all equally valid to me, as they can be understood at different levels.

[CASteinman]

The various interpretations and uses of this verse are all equally valid to me, as they can be understood at different levels.

It has a very specific application.

[Stone holm]

It has a very specific application.

Yeah, to that extent we agree this not a general scriptural verse this is aimed at specific circumstances what it means or whether it continues to have any meaning is the question. I tend to shy away from interpretations which do violence to the plain meaning of the words and phrases used or which render something devoid of meaning. The accepted interpretation by the brethren is that the literal wording must be adjusted to include the necessity of repentance. But if you use repentance to eliminate the buffetings of Satan until the resurrection, it continues to seem to me that the verse has no meaning whatsoever because repentance negates everything in the verse.

[CASteinman]

But if you use repentance to eliminate the buffetings of Satan until the resurrection, it continues to seem to me that the verse has no meaning whatsoever because repentance negates everything in the verse.

Only if you do not have the right context.

[CV75]

It has a very specific application.

That also!

[CV75]

Yeah, to that extent we agree this not a general scriptural verse this is aimed at specific circumstances what it means or whether it continues to have any meaning is the question. I tend to shy away from interpretations which do violence to the plain meaning of the words and phrases used or which render something devoid of meaning. The accepted interpretation by the brethren is that the literal wording must be adjusted to include the necessity of repentance. But if you use repentance to eliminate the buffetings of Satan until the resurrection, it continues to seem to me that the verse has no meaning whatsoever because repentance negates everything in the verse.

Repentance does not immediately result in the elimination of the effects of sin or the buffetings of Satan. For example, a repentant smoker's yellow teeth could take quite awhile to regain their natural color. And what goes on superficialy with the teeth is similar what goes on spiritually with his soul.

[Stone holm]

Repentance does not immediately result in the elimination of the effects of sin or the buffetings of Satan. For example, a repentant smoker's yellow teeth could take quite awhile to regain their natural color. And what goes on superficialy with the teeth is similar what goes on spiritually with his soul.

Yeah I don't think you and I are on the same page on that verse. However, I do understand what CASteinman is saying as he is arguing that there is a more profound ordinance involved to which the verse specifically applies. If that is true then the verse would still carry meaning and not be just pointless words, however, I doubt that is accurate since the verses language does not in my estimation allow for such a reference. We are talking specifically about Temple marriage covenants and exactly what does or does not flow from a transgression thereof. And we are talking about a verse which those involved in both conducting disciplinary councils and those being subjected to the same need to have a clear understanding and yet the verse is something of an interpretive nightmare and train wreck.

[K-2]

I posted the link to show that the ordinances mentioned in D&C 132:26 are temple marriage PLUS the second anointing ordinance, and so the "destroyed in the flesh" part would only pertain to those who had received both. They would have to repent and be destroyed in the flesh as part of their repentance process. Not repenting, once a person has a full knowledge of God (assuming they had received the Second Comforter as well), would be to commit the unpardonable sin, the way I understand it, by rejecting the atonement of Jesus Christ and thus assenting unto his death and the shedding of his innocent blood.

Here's another relevant scripture:

1 Cor. 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This scripture seems to imply that a person could be destroyed in the flesh by a priesthood leader delivering them to Satan, in order that they may still be saved or exalted. I think one of the broken covenants that this would also apply to is unrepentantly breaking the covenant pertaining to the United Order.

[Stone holm]

I posted the link to show that the ordinances mentioned in D&C 132:26 are temple marriage PLUS the second anointing ordinance, and so the "destroyed in the flesh" part would only pertain to those who had received both. They would have to repent and be destroyed in the flesh as part of their repentance process. Not repenting, once a person has a full knowledge of God (assuming they had received the Second Comforter as well), would be to commit the unpardonable sin, the way I understand it, by rejecting the atonement of Jesus Christ and thus assenting unto his death and the shedding of his innocent blood.

Here's another relevant scripture:

1 Cor. 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This scripture seems to imply that a person could be destroyed in the flesh by a priesthood leader delivering them to Satan, in order that they may still be saved or exalted. I think one of the broken covenants that this would also apply to is unrepentantly breaking the covenant pertaining to the United Order.

Interesting argument, except the Brethren have been consistent in saying this verse does not apply to the unrepentant. This anointing that you are referring to, is that this additional ordinance that CASteinam is referring to?

[CASteinman]

the verse is something of an interpretive nightmare and train wreck.

Lots of D&C 132 has issues like that. I believe the reason is that we have a less than perfect version of this revelation.

I should point out that the passage you have referred to probably means that there are some people who have obtained certain promises which if they turn their back on these -- they must be "destroyed in the flesh" and turned over to the "buffetings of satan" even after repentance. I don't think it means that you can get into the celestial kingdom without being clean.

[CV75]

Yeah I don't think you and I are on the same page on that verse. However, I do understand what CASteinman is saying as he is arguing that there is a more profound ordinance involved to which the verse specifically applies. If that is true then the verse would still carry meaning and not be just pointless words, however, I doubt that is accurate since the verses language does not in my estimation allow for such a reference. We are talking specifically about Temple marriage covenants and exactly what does or does not flow from a transgression thereof. And we are talking about a verse which those involved in both conducting disciplinary councils and those being subjected to the same need to have a clear understanding and yet the verse is something of an interpretive nightmare and train wreck.

Yes, the verse pertains to the specific ordinance. But it also refers to and teaches many other things, and people can rightly take many other things from it. In either case, there is much meaning.

There are a lot of scriptures about baptism too, from which many other truths might be taken. And even those who are actually baptized might take various levels of meaning and understanding away from the actual experience as well as from the scripture verses.

When talking about temple covenants, there are layers of preparatory sealing prior to the final sealing up unto exaltation so that even those who are “sealed up” by any temple ordinance are not quite “there” yet. The same with baptism—after the physical ordinance, there are layers of progress, assisted by baptism by fire and by the Holy Ghost and by partaking of the sacrament, before all the sins we could or will ever commit are remitted.

Have you ever felt completely forgiven, and then in a few days feel guilty for some new sin or transgression that you were not aware of before? Your sanctification makes you more sensitive to what sin is as you become more holy. It’s like that.

Generally, disciplinary councils are conducted by the Spirit, regardless of what is said. Understanding about the verse itself is not necessary, because the Spirit will teach the verse according to one’s capacity to understand, but direction from the Spirit and grace from God are certainly necessary in disciplinary councils.

[CV75]

I posted the link to show that the ordinances mentioned in D&C 132:26 are temple marriage PLUS the second anointing ordinance, and so the "destroyed in the flesh" part would only pertain to those who had received both. They would have to repent and be destroyed in the flesh as part of their repentance process. Not repenting, once a person has a full knowledge of God (assuming they had received the Second Comforter as well), would be to commit the unpardonable sin, the way I understand it, by rejecting the atonement of Jesus Christ and thus assenting unto his death and the shedding of his innocent blood.

Here's another relevant scripture:

1 Cor. 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This scripture seems to imply that a person could be destroyed in the flesh by a priesthood leader delivering them to Satan, in order that they may still be saved or exalted. I think one of the broken covenants that this would also apply to is unrepentantly breaking the covenant pertaining to the United Order.

What is your understanding of what it means to be "destroyed in the flesh," and of who in this world is not destroyed in the flesh regardless of having made any covenant?

[Tacenda]

Yes, the verse pertains to the specific ordinance. But it also refers to and teaches many other things, and people can rightly take many other things from it. In either case, there is much meaning.

There are a lot of scriptures about baptism too, from which many other truths might be taken. And even those who are actually baptized might take various levels of meaning and understanding away from the actual experience as well as from the scripture verses.

When talking about temple covenants, there are layers of preparatory sealing prior to the final sealing up unto exaltation so that even those who are “sealed up” by any temple ordinance are not quite “there” yet. The same with baptism—after the physical ordinance, there are layers of progress, assisted by baptism by fire and by the Holy Ghost and by partaking of the sacrament, before all the sins we could or will ever commit are remitted.

Have you ever felt completely forgiven, and then in a few days feel guilty for some new sin or transgression that you were not aware of before? Your sanctification makes you more sensitive to what sin is as you become more holy. It’s like that.

Generally, disciplinary councils are conducted by the Spirit, regardless of what is said. Understanding about the verse itself is not necessary, because the Spirit will teach the verse according to one’s capacity to understand, but direction from the Spirit and grace from God are certainly necessary in disciplinary councils.

Sounds like we're not really accepting the gift of grace if there are that many layers to salvation or to live with God.

[Stone holm]

Sounds like we're not really accepting the gift of grace if there are that many layers to salvation or to live with God.

Technically, we may not be talking about those extra layers if we are just talking about living with God because we are talking, I think, about Exaltation which is a more restricted group of beings tan everyone who achieves the Celestial Kingdom.

[Tacenda]

Technically, we may not be talking about those extra layers if we are just talking about living with God because we are talking, I think, about Exaltation which is a more restricted group of beings tan everyone who achieves the Celestial Kingdom.

And I always thought that the Exaltation was the only way to live with God. I guess I truly don't understand the desire to be a God if it takes the place of living with Him. If we are to be Gods and Goddesses, it's a whole different thing I guess. In my mind Jesus and God are together. But in BY's mind they have different worlds? Oh, the tangled web and difficult gospel it is. The non Mormon Christian out there doesn't have it so complicated.

[Stone holm]

And I always thought that the Exaltation was the only way to live with God. I guess I truly don't understand the desire to be a God if it takes the place of living with Him. If we are to be Gods and Goddesses, it's a whole different thing I guess. In my mind Jesus and God are together. But in BY's mind they have different worlds? Oh, the tangled web and difficult gospel it is. The non Mormon Christian out there doesn't have it so complicated.

True on all counts, but would you really want to spend eternity in a heaven the conception of which is basically floating around on a cloud strumming a harp?

[Tacenda]

True on all counts, but would you really want to spend eternity in a heaven the conception of which is basically floating around on a cloud strumming a harp?

Nope, I don't believe I will be doing that exactly. I'd hope my family would be there. Of course we'll all be like 36! I would like to be angels serving those on the ground. Hopefully live in a wonderful neighborhood, and if there's time, play a harp!

[CASteinman]

Sounds like we're not really accepting the gift of grace if there are that many layers to salvation or to live with God.

I don't think that actually follows.

For example, there are so many layers to salvation that there are a wide variety of "mansions". And Salvation is not a Door where you just cross it -- and everything is now just fine. It is more of a Path and there are a lot of things along that path.

[CASteinman]

True on all counts, but would you really want to spend eternity in a heaven the conception of which is basically floating around on a cloud strumming a harp?

There would be one benefit: Mark Twain would not be there scowling.

[CASteinman]

And I always thought that the Exaltation was the only way to live with God. I guess I truly don't understand the desire to be a God if it takes the place of living with Him. If we are to be Gods and Goddesses, it's a whole different thing I guess. In my mind Jesus and God are together. But in BY's mind they have different worlds? Oh, the tangled web and difficult gospel it is. The non Mormon Christian out there doesn't have it so complicated.

To a degree, I think that everyone gets to "live with God". These are all Children of God who kept their first estate. At the least they obtain a degree of Glory in the Kingdom where the Holy Ghost presides.

There is a great deal to be grateful for.

[Stone holm]

Lots of D&C 132 has issues like that. I believe the reason is that we have a less than perfect version of this revelation.

I should point out that the passage you have referred to probably means that there are some people who have obtained certain promises which if they turn their back on these -- they must be "destroyed in the flesh" and turned over to the "buffetings of satan" even after repentance. I don't think it means that you can get into the celestial kingdom without being clean.

I ran your argument, which the more I have thought about it does make more and more sense and preserves some meaning to the text, by my ultimate earthly authority last night, and my wife kind of agrees. So I think that someone has finally come up with a plausible explanation not based on platitudes. I have seen this issue swirl around disciplinary councils, seen it go up the chain of command with Stake Presidents displaying ignorance or bafflement, lower level GAs confessing they have no idea and passing it up the chain resulting in non-responsive platitude ridden responses from Secretary to a Secretary without anyone apparently being able to puzzle out a good response. Will keep this thread in mind the next time I see the issue crop up -- though, I think my days of being involved with Bishop or High Council proceedings of this type are in the distant past, but it may help me give personal counsel to someone someday.

[CASteinman]

I ran your argument, which the more I have thought about it does make more and more sense and preserves some meaning to the text,.... by my ultimate earthly authority last night, and my wife kind of agrees.

At first I thought you were going to wikipedia. But I see you have your priorities properly aligned with the planets and destiny... :-)