InCognitus

That I point out the fact that Doctrine and Covenants 138 does not define the boundaries of “paradise” and “spirit prison” is no reason to assume that I don’t believe the church teachings on the spirit world. And earlier I pointed out that even the righteous individuals in the spirit world considered their state as a prison, to be in bondage (as in 138:50). So it doesn’t mean that all the people who inherit the telestial kingdom are in prison and those of the celestial kingdom are in paradise. And I believe that those in the terrestrial realm are considered to be in a state referred to as “prison”, but this is not the same as lumping them all together with those of the telestial realm. You keep trying to dish this out with a false dichotomy. It’s not an either/or situation with the judgement. I also provided church sources outside of sections 93 and 138 but maybe you don't believe those teachings are true. You provided sources that have an entirely different context. The context of section 138 is that those individuals were in a state where they could not progress and receive a fulness of joy since their spirits were separated from their bodies. The resurrection of Jesus changed that, and thus created the opportunity for them to progress that they ”might receive a fulness of joy”, it is stated as a future potential: “Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy” (section 138:17). The resurrection, in and of itself, is not “causing someone to have a fulness of joy” as you claimed. Those initially identified as being in paradise (D&C 138:12-15) do not reflect the attributes of the people identified in Doctrine and Covenants 76:74-75 and 138:20-22. Maybe you believe those in spirit prison can travel to paradise. We’ve already been through this. You are setting up a false dichotomy. Section 138 focuses on extremes (the righteous and the wicked). Not mentioning those in the intermediate state does not automatically lump them in with one or the other. Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-16. You are going in a circle, so I’ll just repeat myself too: There’s no indication in the text of Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-16 of what is paradise and what is not, nor does it define what is “prison” nor does it exclude Jesus from teaching the people in the terrestrial realm. So this doesn’t answer the question. Where does section 138 put limits on what is “paradise”? Where does section 138 exclude Jesus from teaching those in the terrestrial realm? (It doesn’t). From my understanding, only resurrected beings who attain to the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom will have a fulness of joy. One of the several church teachings I provided previously was Gospel Principles – "We can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy". I already addressed this above. The resurrection, in and of itself, is not “causing someone to have a fulness of joy” as you claimed. Resurrection is not equal to exaltation (a fulness of joy). But without the resurrection, a person cannot receive a fulness of joy. Based on the footnotes provided in Teachings of Joseph Smith, I thought I had it right. But if Joseph Smith is not the source, is the real source teaching the truth or deceiving people? Here's how it appears on page 224: The torment of the wicked is to know they have come short of the glory they might have enjoyed. Exactly, the part you bolded above is a topic heading in the manual, it’s not a quote from Joseph Smith as you made it appear in your prior post. You didn’t say you were quoting from the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith manual last time, you attributed the entire quote to Joseph Smith, including the manual’s topic heading. It’s the same thing you did with the Gospel Principles manual where you (or Vincent Poldrugovac in the book you were copying and pasting from) made the manual commentary appear to be a quote from what Joseph Smith said. Yes, that part applies only to the people in the telestial realm. I also noticed that you couldn't find anywhere that it says those who inherit in the terrestrial kingdom have "knowingly rejected the Atonement of Christ in mortality". "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Revelation 20:6). Yes. That is what we call the morning of the first resurrection. Those in the terrestrial realm are resurrected in the latter part of the first resurrection. Those who come forth in the morning of the first resurrection "are Christ's, the first fruits," and they will have celestial bodies and go to a celestial kingdom. Then, "those who are Christ's at his coming" will come forth in the first resurrection with terrestrial bodies and go to a terrestrial kingdom. And after the millennial reign of Christ on the earth those that come forth in the beginning of the second resurrection will have telestial bodies and go to a telestial kingdom, and then finally the sons of perdition will be resurrected. Doctrine and Covenants 88:96–102 explains that both the celestial and terrestrial individuals are resurrected as part of the first resurrection prior to the millennial reign of Christ. Celestial, verses 96-98: “And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him. And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven— They are Christ’s, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God.” Terrestrial, verse 99: “And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh.” Telestial, which comes after the millennial reign of Christ on the earth (which describes those in Doctrine and Covenants 138:20-22), verses 100-101: “And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation; And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.” Finally, the Sons of Perdition, verse 102: “And another trump shall sound, which is the fourth trump, saying: There are found among those who are to remain until that great and last day, even the end, who shall remain filthy still.” Notice that verse 99 describes those who come forth in the second part of the first resurrection as “those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh”. This correlates exactly with Doctrine and Covenants 76:73-77: “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; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.” And that’s exactly how Jesus visited those in the terrestrial realm, and those people are not excluded from Jesus teaching them in any of the verses in section 138 (section 76 says "they receive the presence of the Son"), and this is also why Peter taught that Jesus went to preach the gospel to "the spirits in prison". All these revelations go together.

There may also be other reasons that people wear masks in cars or outdoors where the likelihood of making contact with another person is slim. I sometimes wear a mask when I'm outdoors walking, especially the last couple of weeks when the pollen count was high and there were high wind gusts in Utah (40+ MPH - and you could literally see clouds of pollen poofing out of some of the trees). And I regretted not wearing a mask the one day when I thought the wind wasn't so bad (it was), because I had a rather significant allergy attack that day. So I know it helps on the days when I do wear a mask. ETA: Reducing my allergies also helps me find happiness in the church (just to keep things on topic)

Are these instructions (the 3 grand keys of D&C 129:4-9) true or false? I was talking about the context and purpose for the instructions that were given, which is always important when trying to interpret what is meant by any statement. They are true statements when interpreted in the context for which they were given (assuming we even have all the context since they were instructions that were recorded by different people later on, unlike the revelations).

Early Christian sources back this up (as I'm sure you know, but I'll document part of it here). St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 108 - 140 AD) Epistle to Philadelphians, Chapter. 4 CHAP. IV.--HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC. "Husbands, love your wives, as fellow-servants of God, as your own body, as the partners of your life, and your co-adjutors in the procreation of children. Virgins, have Christ alone before your eyes, and His Father in your prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit. May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the beloved disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in [perfect] chastity, Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind. Fathers, 'bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;' and teach them the holy Scriptures, and also trades, that they may not indulge in idleness. Now [the Scripture] says, 'A righteous father educates [his children] well; his heart shall rejoice in a wise son.'" Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book III, Chapter VI, 52-53 "Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.... Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. [Philippians 4:3] The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: 'Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?' [1 Corinthians 9:5] But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives."

As I said last time, the word "paradise" is not found within section 138 in a way to designate who is in paradise and who is not in paradise. The headings says "President Smith sees the righteous dead assembled in paradise and Christ's ministry among them". That's an editorial comment added by those who prepared the section for publication, not part of the revelation. President Smith saw some of those who are in "paradise" to be sure, but the revelation itself does not define those boundaries. Your claim is that Jesus didn't visit those in the terrestrial realm, but section 138 does not say anything that would exclude Jesus from teaching those in the terrestrial realm. Same answer as the last time you asked the same question: "Sorry, I’m not their judge, and I certainly won’t pass judgement on groups of people with a broad brush. That matter is in God’s hands." I'm familiar with 93:33-34. My references to achieving the fulness of joy were describing the exalted beings, those who met certain conditions I realize you are trying to equate the fulness of joy in section 138 with exalted beings, but section 138 is clearly using the phrase in the same sense as Doctrine and Covenants 93:33-34, since they were spirits separated from their bodies. A fulness of joy cannot be received without a physical body. This passage is for those in paradise, not spirit prison. Based on what, the section heading? And where does it say those in the terrestrial realm are not in paradise? Where does section 138 put limits on what is "paradise"? The section only excludes Jesus from teaching the wicked and ungodly and unrepentant individuals who are in "darkness", it doesn't exclude him from teaching those in the terrestrial realm, and Section 76 says Jesus taught those in the terrestrial realm. No, it says a fulness of joy cannot be received without the resurrection. Its not saying if you are resurrected you will have a fulness of joy, as you are trying to make it say. You have a horrible habit of quoting manual commentary as direct quotes from Joseph Smith. That's not a quote from Joseph Smith. Where does it say those who inherit in the terrestrial kingdom have rejected the atonement of Christ in mortality? Section 76 doesn't say that. It says they are: "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; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it." (76:73-74) It also says: "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." (76:79) There is no rejection of Jesus expressed in any of those verses. They either never received a testimony of Jesus in the flesh or they had received a testimony of Jesus but were not valiant in their testimony of Jesus. Doctrine and Covenants section 76 does not describe them as "wicked" or in "darkness". And certainly, whatever their state it is not enough to exclude them from being in the presence of Jesus in the terrestrial kingdom or during the millennial reign of Christ on the earth (which is paradise), nor are they excluded from Jesus visiting them in section 138. “These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.” (D&C 76:77) You mean they will be resurrected at the Second Coming? The dead of the terrestrial world are resurrected in the latter part of the first resurrection right after the Second Coming of Christ, and participate in the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the bolded portion above? The goal of such academic studies (in my opinion) should be to foster a greater understanding of history and culture, and at the same time acknowledge the limitations of the available evidence and the diverse interpretations of that evidence. There are always limitations in such studies due to the available evidence, and the same goes for our own interpretation of that evidence as it may or may not apply to "the foundational tenets of the church".

And... "LDS scripture", which of course includes the Bible. And the Bible never defines the "nature" of angels, never says they are in a particular ontological category, but in fact it uses the word in the same sense as you described above for LDS theology.

You're trying to make something out of Doctrine and Covenants Section 129 that it was never intended to depict. In the first place, the section heading makes it clear that this text was NOT given as a revelation, it was "Instructions given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, February 9, 1843, making known three grand keys by which the correct nature of ministering angels and spirits may be distinguished". I make this point not to downplay what was said in the section, but to emphasize that there is a big difference between how these things were recorded. Revelations were carefully dictated by the prophet, and during dictation a scribe carefully wrote down what Joseph Smith was saying, and often times the text was reviewed afterwards to make sure the revelation was recorded accurately. But the source of section 129 is much different. Joseph Smith was in a room with a few men and he gave "instructions" to them, and what was said in those instructions was written down later on in the journals of Willard Richards and William Clayton. So the text of what is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants Section 129 depends on those two sources (and not from a carefully dictated revelation), and it is incomplete. But what is important is the context. William Clayton recorded in his journal the following introduction in the notes he made later: "Joseph related some of his history and gave us a key whereby we might know whether any administration was from God." So, the whole point and context of section 129 is not to explain the full scope of every type of heavenly being that is now in heaven or has ever been in heaven, but to give instructions about the types of heavenly beings that administer to people on earth in our day. Obviously premortal spirits would be completely out of the scope of those "instructions", so it's silly to try to grind that idea into this set of instructions. The types of beings that administer on the earth now are different than the types of beings that administered on the earth prior to the resurrection of Jesus. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "Angels" has this to say about the various types of beings that may be angels: So the four types of beings that have been angels mentioned above are: Pre-mortal spirits (non corporeal beings) Translated beings (corporeal beings) The spirits of just men made perfect (non corporeal beings) Resurrected beings (corporeal beings) I would also add that mortal men have also been referred to as "angels" in scripture. For the purposes of Doctrine and Covenants 129, only #3 and #4 apply, because there is no longer a reason for pre-mortal beings to fulfill that calling and the fact that Jesus brought about the resurrection from the dead opens the way for resurrected beings to fulfill that calling when corporeal beings are required. So again, you are trying to apply a purpose to Doctrine and Covenants section 129 that it doesn't claim to be making. It's simply instructions given by Joseph Smith about the types of beings that administer to the earth in our day and time.

The word “paradise” is not found anywhere in section 138. So you are making up your own definition of paradise which has already been pointed out to you is in error. It doesn’t say what you claim. What these verses describe are the people that greeted Jesus when he arrived. But nowhere in section 138 does it exclude the people of the terrestrial realm from Jesus’ visit, and section 76 specifically says Jesus taught the people of the terrestrial realm as well. Again, you are completely misrepresenting the verse. Doctrine and Covenants 93:33–34 teaches: “For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.” This is referring to the resurrection. When spirit and body inseparably connected, the individual will “receive a fulness of joy”. Couple that with Doctrine and Covenants 138:14-17 which is also clearly talking about the resurrection: “All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand. They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death. Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:14-17) Furthermore, everyone will be resurrected from the dead (the wicked and the righteous – John 5:29). And those who are resurrected to eternal life will receive a greater “fulness of joy” having the kind of life that God has. Consequently, this verse does nothing to support your idea that the people of the terrestrial realm were not visited by Jesus in the spirit world. As I have already said several times, the main point of the revelation in section 138 is to answer the question stated in verse 28: “how it was possible for [Jesus] to preach to those spirits [in prison] and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time”? The answer to that question is given in the revelation, so its purpose is to explain that Jesus organized the righteous individuals to preach the gospel to those in “darkness” (those of the telestial realm), and there is no reason to describe anything that happened to the people of the terrestrial realm. Section 76 answer that question and explains that Jesus did teach those in the terrestrial realm. Nowhere in section 138 is the word “paradise” mentioned. Your entire argument rests on a faulty premise and circular reasoning. You are also limiting God's judgment to your binary view of heaven and hell, which clearly is not the case. The presence of the Son is included among the organization structure available to those in the terrestrial kingdom: “These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.” (D&C 76:77) They would have received the presence of the Son while also in the spirit world. Those of the terrestrial world will be among those who are on the earth during the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth. There is therefore absolutely no reason to assume that section 138 excludes from the teaching of Jesus to those in the spirit world. I'll add the second paragraph for context. You’re just saying the same thing you said before. This has already been addressed in my prior post. Nothing new here.

@3DOP As was mentioned above, one big reason that there should be a greater expectation of scholarship from a book from Francis J. Beckwith is because of his prior interaction with LDS scholars while he was an Evangelical Christian. I'm sure you've been around long enough to remember an article published by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen in the Trinity Journal, in 1998 (pp 179-205): "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" I bring this up because the article acknowledges Francis J. Beckwith in a footnote at the conclusion of the article: "Our thanks to Drs. Clinton E. Arnold, Francis J. Beckwith, and Craig L. Blomberg for their encouragement to publish this paper." (See page 21 of the linked PDF). So Beckwith was fully aware of that paper and even encouraged it to be published. The Trinity Journal article is partly what led to the publication of the book, The New Mormon Challenge a few years later in 2002. But the article begins by outlining five "myths" that are perpetuated about Mormons and Mormonism in Evangelical circles. I won't quote those five myths here (see pages 1 and 2 of the pdf), but it's what Mosser and Owen say in response to those five myths that are relevant to Ostler's reaction to the new book: Note what I highlighted in red above. As part of their conclusion, Mosser and Owen say: "The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will needlessly lose the battle without ever knowing it." (page 19). Francis Beckwith knows that there is a need to respond to contemporary "Mormon" scholarship, and he's even aware of that scholarship (he participated in the exchange in The New Mormon Challenge). But he doesn't even acknowledge contemporary Mormon scholarship in this current book (apparently). So I totally see why Blake Ostler says what he says about the new book.

That comment from Ostler is based on his prior association and exchanges with both Francis Beckwith and Richard Sherlock. Ostler knows that both of them are familiar with the Latter-day Saint scholarship on the topics covered in the book. So for the two of them to ignore those arguments and pretend they don't exist (for the sake of this new book) has to be intentional. What else could it be?

That is certainly true from the philosophical and theological standpoint, since the vast majority of LDS members don't do philosophy or theology (I'm not even sure the vast majority of Catholics do philosophy or theology, and that's also true of Evangelical Protestants). But Ostler backs up what he says with very good reasoning using the revelations and source texts, and his reasoning is logical and can be followed and documented from the sources (in my opinion).

Thank you for posting this and documenting Blake Ostler's prior experiences with Francis Beckwith. I was familiar with their prior experiences with The New Mormon Challenge. That's also why I looked forward to seeing Beckwith "engage" similar topics from a Catholic point of view in this new book, but it appears that I will be disappointed. There was a good engagement with Latter-day Saints on these (or similar) topics previously, so why not now? And Blake Ostler explains the same things that you posted in the video I linked above, which is why I said his comments (that I took out of the context of the video), seem quite harsh taken out of context. But what Blake said about the scholarship and charity of those men previously also explains his total disappointment and reaction to the current book.

I agree that Ostler's comments were quite harsh, and I am going to reserve my own judgement until I read the book. But I think the harshness of his comments in what I quoted is somewhat taken out of the context of what led him to make the comments. Ostler and other scholars have written about all of the topics that are covered in the book, but (according to Ostler) the book doesn't engage any of that scholarship or deal with anything that doesn't support a Catholic point of view. So from his point of view it is not a scholarly work. And the book portrays itself as an "engagement with Latter-day Saints", so in that sense (again, according to Ostler) the book doesn't do what the title says (which is why he used the word "sham"). I'm not quite to that point in my life yet (and based on how busy my work continues to be I'm not sure if that day will ever come), but family needs and the desire to spend more time studying the gospel and related topics makes me long for that day on a regular basis. So I envy you. I look forward to you having more time to participate here! I respect and always want to know your point of view. God bless you in your efforts!

I am going to order this book, and so I haven't read it yet. But I did find this discussion (below) about the book in this podcast by Robert Boylan and Blake Ostler: I listened to the entire podcast. The book sounds very disappointing. I expected it to be an actual "engagement with Latter-day Saints" as the title suggests, but from what Robert and Blake say about it, Beckwith and Sherlock don't engage Latter-day Saint arguments on any of the things discussed in the book at all. Blake Ostler doesn't hold back on his thoughts about it. To quote Blake (after discussing creation ex-nihilo) from the 51:42 mark: "Why don't they acknowledge what Latter-day Saints have said about it? Why don't they deal with the arguments? This is inexcusable. It not merely violates the principle of charity, this is, how do I say this, this is.... poor scholarship.... Now I like both of these men. I don't want to... offend them, but I want want them to know what they've delivered to us is not a fair assessment of Latter-day Saints and Latter-Day Saint thought. And their book is a sham, because it's written for a Catholic audience to convince them not to engage with us. That's the purpose. It's not an engagement, it's a disengagement. Don't pay attention [to Latter-day Saints]!"