InCognitus

This is precisely the point.

I didn't really address the bolded part of your comment above. I have considered the same thing, but the problem is the same if he was dripping great drops of sweat or dripping great drops of blood: someone would have definitely noticed. But the gospels don't give us all the details (unfortunately). Matthew and Mark portrays Jesus praying in Gethsemane and going back to his disciples three different times and finding them asleep (Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42), and when Jesus went back to the disciples the third time he tells them "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (Matthew 26:45, Mark 14:41). But Luke only mentions Jesus returning one time (Luke 22:39-46), and when he returns to them he tells them to "rise and pray", and immediately the multitude comes with Judas to betray him (Luke 22:46-47). And the gospel of John barely mentions Gethsemane as an aside between the intercessory prayer of John 17 and him being betrayed by Judas in John 18: "1 When Jesus had spoken these words [the words in the intercessory prayer of John 17], he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. 2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?" (John 18:1-4). A LOT of details are left out of all four of these accounts and there are enough gaps in the timeline for Jesus to either change his clothing or for someone to have said something about his clothing which was not mentioned in the text.

The Matthew Henry commentary I quoted earlier (on Luke 22:44) made a similar observation: "Some reckon this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his blood stained all his raiment." But if it was sweat mixed with blood (as seems to be the case) then it would be diluted somewhat. However, the blood stained raiment also fits the imagery of the second coming of Jesus: "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Revelation 19:13)

That would definitely bother me. In a similar fashion one could argue that it was accomplished after Gethsemane and before the cross: "[W]hen he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified" (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1), and "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5) The truth is that it was a series of events that was "finished" on the cross: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost" (John 19:30). ETA: We had good talks and good music in our sacrament meeting today.

I agree, but some people don't seem to think that what the scripture says is even possible.

You edited your post and added this, so I'll respond to it separately.... Yes. He is bleeding and sweating, as the scripture says.

We've already discussed this. He was bleeding and it does say blood, or else why would anyone describe sweat as being like blood unless it contained blood? There's a known condition called Hematidrosis, which "is a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood, occurring under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress." Also, "Hematidrosis can look like blood, bloody sweat, or sweat with droplets of blood in it." Christians have recognized that Christ was bleeding in Gethsemane since the beginning. Here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 26:38, and below that is his commentary on Luke 22:44. And here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 22:44: And here's the Matthew Henry commentary on Luke 22:44, who wrote this earlier than Adam Clarke: "That, in this agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse, Gen. 3:19. And therefore, when Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat bread, and that he might sanctify and sweeten all our trials to us. There is some dispute among the critics whether this sweat is only compared to drops of blood, being much thicker than drops of sweat commonly are, the pores of the body being more than ordinarily opened, or whether real blood out of the capillary veins mingled with it, so that it was in colour like blood, and might truly be called a bloody sweat; the matter is not great. Some reckon this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his blood stained all his raiment. This showed the travail of his soul. He was now abroad in the open air, in a cool season, upon the cold ground, far in the night, which, one would think, had been enough to strike in a sweat; yet now he breaks out into a sweat, which bespeaks the extremity of the agony he was in." Peter wrote to the "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:1–3) So let's not forget the blood that Jesus the Christ shed for our sins. And why try to diminish what scripture teaches on this point? In Christ "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

Nor does the Old Testament specifically mention Jesus by name, but it still talks about him. Likewise with the Book of Mormon and what happened in Gethsemane: "And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people." (Mosiah 3:7) It is his "blood" that atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:11, 15-18, 4:2, Moroni 10:33). The Bible's emphasis is not on the cross "instead", but it refers to the cross in addition to his atoning blood (see below). This verse, of course, doesn't mention a "cross", but it is in reference to the Old Testament law regarding how to handle a man that has committed a sin worthy of death: "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 21:22–23) The death of Jesus on the "tree" symbolized him taking upon himself our sins and fulfilling the law on our behalf. His death on the cross was the final step in Jesus fulfilling the work of the atonement, so of course the cross is important. Jesus died for our sins. But the shedding of his blood is equally important. Even in your reference to Hebrews 9:26-28, the context of that chapter emphasizes the shedding of blood and the sprinkling of the blood: "16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:16-26) So when was the blood of Jesus shed for us? The events I came up with start in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44) and then again when Jesus was flogged (Matthew 27:26, Isaiah 53:5), then the crown of thorns being placed upon his head (Matthew 27:29), and then when he was nailed to the cross. And finally, when they pierced his side to make sure he was dead (John 19:33-35). So the shedding of his blood for our sins started in Gethsemane and was finished on the cross. The cross is the final event. At the Passover meal when Jesus instituted the sacrament, he taught us: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28). And the New Testament refers to the importance of the shedding of his blood probably as often as it references the cross (i.e. Romans 3:25, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:25-27, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:13, Colossians 1:14, Colossians 1:20, all of Hebrews chapter 9, Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:12, 20, 1 Peter 1:2, 19-20, 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:14, and Revelation 12:11). So yes, we should emphasize the cross as the final event, but let us not forget the blood he shed for our sins.

I go for an hour long walk every day, and in the last ten days or so I've been listening to the chapters of Matthew 26-28, Mark 14-16, Luke 22-24, and John 17-21, over and over again during my walk. Hearing those chapters over and over again and in comparison to each of the other gospels has been very enlightening. Let me just say that John 17 (which is Jesus offering the intercessory prayer) is probably one of the most beautiful chapters in all of scripture. And I really hope that in the hereafter (or sooner?) we can get a lesson manual or a recounting of everything Jesus taught to the two men on the road to Emmaus: "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) I would love to have been there with them at that moment.

It was a joke. But if someone would have asked him why he wanted the Mormons (as you suggested) then maybe he would have said he was interested in learning more about the church, in which case landing in Salt Lake City wouldn't have agitated him more.

The flight should have diverted to Salt Lake City instead of Denver, and announce to everyone in the terminal what he had done upon his arrival. That would show him.

Thank you for bringing this book to our attention, I wasn't aware of it. I was also intrigued by Francis Beckwith's involvement in the book, because my familiarity with him was in Evangelical circles and with the book, New Mormon Challenge, published in 2002. I had to look him up in Wikipedia to find this: "In November 2006, Beckwith became the 58th president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), only to resign both his presidency and membership in May 2007, a week after he returned to the Catholic Church. Over a decade later, he became the 90th president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association (ACPA)." And: "In May 2007, Beckwith returned to the Catholicism of his youth, after decades as an Evangelical Protestant." Good for him!

Specifically I had in mind the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing), which was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and was developed further by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. The development of that doctrine completely changed man's relationship to God and made God "wholly other", since (by that teaching) humans were created out of nothing, and only God existed eternally. (For references, see my prior posts here and here). This doctrine was also later adopted in Judaism as well. Prior to that time the earliest Christians (Clement of Rome in the first century AD) taught that the matter from which the earth was created is "eternal" (Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians 60:1) and around 150 AD Justin Martyr taught that God created all things from unformed matter (Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin, Chap. X), which was said to be a teaching that came down to them from Moses and was later borrowed by Plato and Greek Poets (Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin, Chap. LIX). Protestantism, like Catholicism, holds to the later tradition that God created all things from nothing.

That's always the question that people ask, why would God allow.... X, Y, Z, whatever? Why did God allow the fall of Adam? Why did God allow men to become so wicked that he had to destroy them in the flood of Noah? Why did God allow the northern tribes of Israel to apostatize and be scattered? Why did God allow the temple at Jerusalem to be destroyed? Why did God allow Jesus to be killed and the remaining tribes of Israel to be scattered? The great apostasy within Christianity is one of those questions. But it was one that was foretold in several places in scripture (as was the restoration). Here are the big differences as I see them: Islam: Muslims have various schools and branches today, so their modern beliefs may vary depending on who you are talking to. But Muslims consider the Quran (which was completed around 632 AD) to be the final revelation from God and Muhammad was the final Islamic prophet, so all the various interpretations of the faith revolve around each group's interpretations of the Quran. Islam has gone through various phases of reform, similar to the Protestant reformers in Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Charles Taze Russell developed a theology that tried to reevaluate many of the assumed Christian traditions in his day and therefore he departed from many of those traditions in various ways. Jehovah’s Witnesses view the Bible as a complete guide for day-to-day living, and therefore they are not all that different from other Protestant sects in their view of scripture as the "final authority" (which is in itself a Christian tradition that Jehovah's Witnesses did not reject). Their justification for their existence is that they believe they have the correct interpretation of scripture. Protestantism: Protestant reformers like Martin Luther saw differences between what they read in the scriptures in comparison to what they were taught in Catholicism, and they used scripture to justify their separation from Catholicism resulting in the establishment of new denominations of Christianity. But Protestantism continues many of the traditions of Catholicism, including the insistence on a closed canon of scripture and adherence to the doctrines professed in the early creeds (resulting in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in and after the fourth century AD) and doctrines about creation that developed at the end of the second century AD. The justification for the existence of each of the denominations is that each denomination believes they have the correct interpretation of scripture. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Joseph Smith was not looking to start a new branch of Christianity, nor was he trying to reform anything to do with Christianity: He merely wanted to know which church he should join. He prayed to God and in answer to his prayer he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in vision, and was told not to join any of the existing churches, but that the church of Jesus Christ would soon be restored. Through further visions and revelations from God and through the ministering of angels, Joseph Smith brought about additional scripture (the Book of Mormon), and God restored priesthood authority to the earth through him and others and reestablished the Church of Jesus Christ and its original intended organization of apostles and prophets, again upon the earth. The restored church was built upon direct revelation from God for doctrines and teachings, and the understanding that there will be continuing revelation from God and therefore it has an open canon of scripture. Comparison: Islam: Latter-day Saints are similar to Islam only in the sense that the Islamic faith initially began by revelation to a prophet. But it differs drastically in the sense that Islam believes in a closed canon of scripture and that Muhammad was the last prophet, while Latter-day Saints believe in continuing revelation and ongoing apostles and prophets and an open canon of scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses: The main similarity I can see here is our common belief that there was an apostasy from the original teachings of Christianity that occurred in the early centuries following the departure of the apostles. Other than that, Latter-day Saints have nothing in common with the idea that seems to be the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, which is that everything that we need to know is contained in the Bible and that it must be interpreted by men in exactly the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses interpret it. Protestantism: Joseph Smith didn't seek to reform Christianity like the Protestant reformers, nor does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rely on the declarations of the early creeds of Christianity as the basis for our faith. Protestantism relies on individual interpretation of the Bible as the sole authority, and teaches that the canon of scripture is closed (like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Islamic faith), while Latter-day Saints believe in an open canon of scripture. But both Latter-day Saints and Protestants recognize that there was some degree of slippage from true teachings (or otherwise we'd all be Catholic) The most important difference is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the heavens are open and that God is the same as he was in Bible times and continues to give revelation to direct his church like he did in Bible times and continues to give more scripture, and that was the basis for the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, while other groups have primarily tried to reconstruct what they see as the original teachings using the Bible alone. I don't agree with your premise that the Catholic or Orthodox Church "seem to stand as unchanged". I think that would be the assumption given that they both started out a long time ago and are still around today, but it's easy to see trends of changing doctrines through the passage of time in the early Christian writings (from the second century AD through the forth century AD), and it wasn't really until the late fourth century AD that provisions were set in place to try to solidify the doctrines and theology.

Don't confuse misinterpretation with "off bounds". There's a huge difference.

I think there is one other thing to consider regarding gambling that would haunt me (personally) if I ever won the lottery or was a jackpot winner or whatever. That thing is this: My winnings would be at the loss of so many others. And some of those people would be the habitual gamblers or poor people trying to get a lucky break, and I would be benefiting from their loss. I realize that the same people would be losing their money even if someone else won the lottery or the jackpot, but I couldn't handle taking their money myself. It would weigh on my conscience.

There are always other reasons in addition to faith in Christ. Just ask yourself the question, why was Jesus killed? It's complicated. Same for Joseph Smith. It's a complex issue, but it hinges upon his faith and teachings. A good source to review the causes can be found here: Why was Joseph Smith Murdered?

You seem to have a misconception of what the phrase "like a lamb to the slaughter" means. Here's how Jeremiah used the phrase in connection with his description of the judgments and destruction that would come upon Babylon in retribution for what they did to Israel: "Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee; and I will dry up her sea, and make her springs dry. And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant. They shall roar together like lions: they shall yell as lion's whelps. In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD. I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he goats. (Jeremiah 51:36-40). Now would you think that this means that Babylon did not put up a fight in connection with this destruction? The context says not: "A sound of a cry cometh from Babylon, and great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans: Because the LORD hath spoiled Babylon, and destroyed out of her the great voice; when her waves do roar like great waters, a noise of their voice is uttered: Because the spoiler is come upon her, even upon Babylon, and her mighty men are taken, every one of their bows is broken: for the LORD God of recompences shall surely requite." (Jeremiah 51:54-56) Here, a whole army of "mighty men", using bows and arrows to defend themselves, are said to have been brought "down like lambs to the slaughter". Now will you dispute the LORD's use of this phrase in scripture, since these "lambs" apparently picked up bows and arrows to shoot at and wound (or kill) their attackers? This same phrase, "brought as a lamb to the slaughter" is used to describe the Savior by Isaiah in Isaiah 53:7: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." Clearly there is a greater contextual description to this verse that explains the Savior's situation beyond the phrase "as a lamb to the slaughter" itself. At least from a biblical standpoint, "like a lamb to the slaughter" does not mean that the "lamb" or "lambs" will not resist, or that there will not be any weapons used by the "lambs". The phrase indicates a determined course of destiny, not a peaceable and willing surrender as you are wanting to imply. Surely the same phrase can be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith and his one borrowed pistol. And, his martyrdom can definitely be described as a "slaughter".

I agree, it was a great headquarters for a worldwide church - as long as you agreed with the doctrine that was established by that church and the state. But how would that have worked out for someone in that area who publicly held the beliefs of Latter-day Saints during that period of time? (Honest question). Maybe it was the right place but the wrong time. As for the timing, there are several reasons that I can think of, but the most important is the entire reason for the Incarnation: For the Savior Jesus Christ to accomplish the atonement for our sins, die on the cross, and the resurrection from the dead. Without that there is no hope, no salvation, no Church. In fact, everything else is insignificant in comparison. This seems to be good evidence/precedent for those restorationist branches who claim that the Brighamites are in apostasy because polygamy was abandoned due to pressure by the State. You're going to need to explain to me the comparison you are making between a religious faith that was implemented by the state for hundreds of years, and the schisms that occurred in the restored church that went off on their own way. How is that a valid comparison? Circular reasoning perhaps? The restored gospel required the apostasy (the continuation of Christianity). The apostasy (the continuation of Christianity) requires the restoration. St. Thomas Aquinas: "But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, ad 3; see also the Catechism, 412.) Circular reasoning? No. As Aquinas aptly put it, "there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater" after the apostasy. "For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom".

But not before he, "as a lamb going to the slaughter", engaged in a gun battle at the Carthage Jail. The "he died in a gun battle" twist just shows the lengths that people go to try to defame Joseph Smith. And for this to be called the "untold" story is another part of the twist. The guns that were in possession of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail are on display in the Church History Museum for everyone to see. That's an essential part of the story and the way they were used was discussed in my high school seminary manual on church history. Bill McKeever even has photos from the church history museum on his website, so he fully knows this isn't an "untold" part of the story. A mob of around 200 armed men stormed the Carthage Jail, and many members of the mob rushed up the stairs to the jailor's bedroom where the group was staying and fired several shots into the room hitting Hyrum in the face and killing him instantly, and it was only at that point that Joseph Smith fired three shots back in defense, and then he dropped the gun and went to the window where he was shot twice in the back and once in the front through the outside window, and he fell to his death. Describing this slaughter as "dying in a gun battle" is a propaganda move to defame Joseph Smith, and is far from the truth. And Bill McKeever knows better. I've talked to him about this before. He does this on purpose because it's literally his job to make the church look as bad as possible. And I know you know better as well. So you are jumping on that bandwagon too?

The original post you responded to said: They were expelled for apostasy. See? You were wrong. Since when is transgression the same as apostasy? (It's not). The revelation you quoted above is one group of saints in a specific place, for which the Lord also said, "Verily I say unto you, notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion towards them. I will not utterly cast them off; and in the day of wrath I will remember mercy" (verse 9). But that is only one place and time. The prophet Joseph Smith was later killed by a mob and the saints were driven out of the state of Illinois and other areas, and none of that was for any transgression. "Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:23)

Since you, telnetd, and GoCeltics are one in the same and playing off each other’s posts, you knew that you had already posted this question in the other topic thread and I already answered it. I said: First of all, Section 138:50 tells us that “the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage”, so both the righteous and the wicked were considered to be in spirit “prison”. And in Luke 4:18, Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1 in application to himself, where it tells us that he is “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound”. That is for the righteous. Second, Section 138:20 says that Jesus did not go to the wicked or the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and warnings of the ancient prophets. On the other hand, Section 76 tells us that Jesus went to those who “died without law” and to the “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men” (verses 72 and 75), and Section 76 defines the wicked and rebellious (the “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie”, verse 103) as those of the Telestial kingdom and Jesus did not preach to them. So there is nothing incompatible between these teachings. You are not reading the context. The purpose of the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 138 was to primarily answer the following question: How was it possible for the Son of God to preach to all the spirits in the spirit world and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time? Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-14 introduces the answer to the question by describing those who had gathered to wait for Jesus to come to the spirit world, they were those who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality, “they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand”. Verses 18-19 say, “While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful; And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.” Clearly these verses above describe those who would inherit the celestial kingdom. They are the focus of this revelation because they are those whom Jesus called to preach the gospel to the wicked. The revelation also describes the group of people that Jesus did not go to teach. This is explained in verses 20-22 where it says, “unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised; Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.” Verse 29 also describes those to whom he did not go to teach, “the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them”. The people that Jesus did not go to teach are obviously those who would inherit the telestial kingdom. But what about those of the terrestrial kingdom? They are not included among those that Jesus did not teach as described in verses 20-22 and 29 of section 138. The individuals of the terrestrial world would be those who died without law, those who didn’t receive a testimony of Jesus in the flesh (they may not have been taught the gospel while in mortality) but afterward would receive it, the honorable men of the earth who were blinded by the craftiness of men (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:71-77). While Doctrine and Covenants section 138 doesn’t specifically say that Jesus taught those people, Doctrine and Covenants 76:73-74 says he did: “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.” So Jesus began the work of teaching the gospel to all who have died, some of them he taught personally in the short time he had between his death and the resurrection, but others were taught by those who Jesus sent to teach them. There is nothing in what was revealed in section 138 that denies Jesus the privilege of speaking to all those who were repentant. Jesus went first to the righteous but then taught the repentant, "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6). The context of Romans 2:12 is important: 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” (Romans 2:12–16) Those verses explain that everyone is judged according to the knowledge they are given while in mortality. Those who have no law are not as accountable as those who know God’s commandments. This is also explained in a parable by Jesus in Luke 12:43-48: 43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. 45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:43–48) This is a strange objection. Everyone should be thanking Jesus for their redemption from the chains of hell, don’t you think? For without Jesus and his atonement, where would we all be? Doctrine and Covenants 138:23 describes this deliverance: “And the saints rejoiced in their redemption, and bowed the knee and acknowledged the Son of God as their Redeemer and Deliverer from death and the chains of hell”. Hell in this context is the hades “hell”, which is death or the grave. As the same section explains later, “For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:50) And this is what Jesus also proclaimed of himself: “Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:17–18) Do you believe everyone who lived at the time of Noah heard his warning and rejected his message? I don’t see how that is possible, do you? The disobedient at the time of Noah could include a vast number of people who simply didn’t know any better. And as explained above, there isn’t anything in section 138 that denies that Jesus didn’t teach the repentant spirits in prison.

I agree completely. Also, even though Christ's church didn't continue in its original organization, authority, covenants, or all of its original teachings, the continuation of Christianity (in some form) was crucial to planting the seeds of Christ's teachings all around the world to facilitate the preaching of the restored gospel in the last days and for the preservation of the biblical texts. Where would we be today without that?

I envy the marquee signs that some churches have out in front displaying messages about this week's sermon. We should have those for each week's sacrament program: Sister Jones on Elder Oak's Talk, "Following Christ". Brother Brown on Patrick Kearon's talk, "Welcome to the Church of Joy" On second thought that's not such a good idea. We'd need a very large sign to accommodate all three wards meeting in the building. But having something like that might attract (or detract?) outsiders to (from?) the meeting. But seriously, what I really envy is anyone from any other *legitimate faith that is devoted to their faith and lives and emulates its principles in their daily life. * ETA: Added "legitimate" to exclude terrorist groups and extremist groups.

Each temple is different, of course. But in Arizona we had similar problems at the Gilbert and Mesa temples during high-volume periods (like Saturday mornings). But we were able to at least do monthly temple trips with the youth. For the temple I am working in now the high volume period is on Wednesday evenings because that's when a lot of the youth do their activities. I hear that on other times of the week it is a lot easier to schedule, and with more families coming in rather than big youth groups.