Matthew J. Tandy

As an aside, I find it amusing that Tapirrider signs up and within eight hours had 6 posts in exactly one thread, all appearing to be pre-written to some degree (at least in content and organization) and solely with the intent of attacking Dan Peterson and not even really touching on the original topic. Dan, you really know how to win people over who you've never even met or likely conversed with!

On that note: As an academic (turned property manager...) I have to say it's extremely ignorant of anyone to discount someone in academia because they turned out to be wrong on something. Especially in the field of biblical archeology, the feuds and debates on topics of forgeries, research, and theories run for decades between very accomplished and well respected professionals, gathering hoards of papers and like-minded academics on both sides. Forgeries are common, as are errors. When one person says something is a great new find, another is then introduced to this find they never looked in to (but the "find" was published in a journal they subscribe to), which causes them to look deeper and find an incongruity. This incongruity never would have been found without the work of the other person, and that person's work must be addressed point by point. This is the academic process. If you don't understand it and come out with those weak attacks on all scholars of LDS faith or even all of Dan Peterson's work, claiming they are all suspicious now, you will look as foolish and unfamiliar with relevant fields as Tapirrider just managed to do.

Regarding Meldrum, I do feel his efforts and often bitter spirit (on the issue of location) is making enemies among those who should be our good acquaintances. He does the Church no favors by his approach to those who disagree and his abuse of their research to twist it to fit his argument as if they support him. I hear, however, Meldrum outside of this topic is a great guy. Some people just get caught up in a specific area.

Calmoriah,

Thanks for clarifying my remarks. You are correct about which quotes were from which time frame. The Temple excursion one was tertiary and only meant as background to how I got to the quote of concern.

Look the real problem is this: Football, basketball, and baseball do not invite the right spirit, therefore, are not good for the Sabbath.

Soccer, Rugby, and Aussie Rules football however are godly sports played in heaven and are suitable for any occasion.

I happen to know first-hand that a certain President of the First Quorum of the Seventies routinely watches Sunday football when he gets a moment. Because he travels so much serving the members across the globe, Sunday is one of the few days he occasionally gets some extra time. He likes footballs, and so do his sons. It's a family activity for them.

I believe this possibility (to be as spirit or resurrected beings) to be likely and maybe even meant to be thought as a given by W.W. when speaking and B.Y. when confirming. It makes perfect sense to me. The amount of time the righteous will have post-resurrection alone is considerable.

INteresting view.

Okay, that is now possibility 5:

5) The youth being spoken too could be resurrected or spiritual beings at the point they are in the temple towers and remembering.

I suppose it is legitimate and reasonable.

Sadly, no way to know until after we pass on.:-)

Stargazer,

Cumbre Vieja's is actually prominent in a thriller I am nearing completion on writing. While I use it and it plays a central role. the entire theory has been discounted every which way to Sunday. I have I think every paper written about it. My version uses a nuclear blast to speed things along, but it's still highly improbable. I'm glad someone else knows about it though.:-) Be careful looking up the combination via google though... I have a feeling I am on the CIA watchlist! :-D

My personal feeling is that he was generalizing widespread destruction and not actually prophesying of those specific problems at those specific cities. Even then, I hearken back to whichever apostle or prophet it was (maybe someone can find the quote...) wherein they say that in the early days during blessings and meetings, people so wanted to hasten the coming of the Lord that they got a little loose on their timeframes. I feel that is the case. I see no other way around it (other than false prophecy or false announcement of prophecy). Will destruction come? Yes, that's everywhere in the scriptures. But the timing is the part that seems off and poses the problem.

Sevenbak,

Thanks for finding that. I went to the section for that in the manual and for some reason didn't see it. My search abilities seem to be regressing lately... ;-)

However, this still brings up the original problem: It didn't happen within the time frame mentioned. It was pretty specific.

On a side note, Wilford Woodruff is one awesome looking fellow!

This prophesy has long been published in the institute manual.

I don't believe it has been published in the institute manual. The one I mentioned at the beginning (but did not in extent) is in the manual:

Sixty-one years after the revelation in section 86 of the Doctrine and Covenants was given, President Wilford Woodruff declared that the Lord had released those destroying angels and they were then upon the earth separating the tares from the wheat in preparation for the burning that would soon take place: “God has held the angels of destruction for many years, lest they should reap down the wheat with the tares. But I want to tell you now, that those angels have left the portals of heaven, and they stand over this people and this nation now, and are hovering over the earth waiting to pour out the judgments. And from this very day they shall be poured out. Calamities and troubles are increasing in the earth, and there is a meaning to these things. Remember this, and reflect upon these matters. If you do your duty, and I do my duty, we’ll have protection, and shall pass through the afflictions in peace and in safety.” (“The Temple Workers’ Excursion,” Young Woman’s Journal, Aug. 1894, pp. 512–13; emphasis added.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

“Now I want to make some comments in regard to the statement by President Woodruff and this parable [the parable of the wheat and tares in D&C 86 ].

“The Lord said that the sending forth of these angels was to be at the end of the harvest, and the harvest is the end of the world. Now, that ought to cause us some very serious reflections. And the angels have been pleading, as I have read it to you, before the Lord to be sent on their mission. Until 1893 the Lord said to them no, and then He set them loose. According to the revelation of President Woodruff, the Lord sent them out on that mission.

“What do we gather out of that? That we are at the time of the end. This is the time of the harvest. This is the time spoken of which is called the end of the world.” ( The Signs of the Times, pp. 11–21.)

The one addressing the destruction of Boston, New York, and Albany do not seem to be mentioned, though I admit I could have missed it. I did an electronic search however, so could be wrong.

I agree it's not accepted as doctrine of the church.

I have no reason to think WW was wrong about this, anymore than the prophecies of others will be fulfilled, every jot and tittle

That doesn't work considering a specific time frame was given. The kids alive at that time would look over the Logan valley from the temple and remember the events. That's a part of the prophecy and/or commentary.

I was reminded of a quote in the past wherein Wilford Woodruff at a Temple Worker's Excursion in 1894 said that the angels of destruction, held in reserve for so long, had finally been released. He mentioned that within 20 years, mighty changes will be seen among the nations of the earth (World War 1 started roughly 19 years and 11 months from that time).

I have much respect for President Woodruff. He was a great man of faith, love, and actually an overall cheery message of peace and comfort in hard times. He made many prophecies, and from what I've seen, they all came true (or are spiritual in nature so cannot be determined by objective analysis). Today however, while looking for a specific and obscure bit a few months after the aforementioned Temple Worker's Excursion wherein he says essentially "see, it's already happening", I found a possible prophecy of his that obviously did not occur:

"Now, my young friends, I wish you to remember these scenes you are witnessing during the visit of President Young and his brethren. Yea, my young friends, treasure up the teachings and sayings of these prophets and apostles as precious treasure while they are living men, and do not wait until they are dead. A few days and President Young and his brethren, the prophets and apostles and Brothers Benson and Maughn, will be in the spirit world. You should never forget this visitation. You are to become men and women, fathers and mothers; yea, the day will come, after your fathers, and these prophets and apostles are dead, you will have the privilege of going into the towers of a glorious Temple built unto the name of the Most High (pointing in the direction of the bench), east of us upon the Logan bench; and while you stand in the towers of the Temple and your eyes survey this glorious valley filled with cities and villages, occupied by tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints, you will then call to mind this visitation of President Young and his company. You will say: That was in the days when Presidents Benson and Maughn presided over us; that was before New York was destroyed by an earthquake; it was before Boston was swept into the sea, by the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds; it was before Albany was destroyed by fire; yea, at that time you will remember the scenes of this day. Treasure them up and forget them not."

President Young followed and said: "What Brother Woodruff has said is revelation and will be fulfilled." (In Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, pp. 97-98.)

Now here's the deal: Elder Woodruff was making a commentary based on D&C 88:114:

Nevertheless, let the bishop go unto the city of New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things.

The specific mention of the exact disasters can be either prophetic or symbolic, myself leaning towards generalization of destruction. The time frame is not. Regardless, those cities are obviously quite well and thriving (in their own special filthy ways.;-) ). None were destroyed in the time frame mentioned, especially Boston being swept in to the sea, which would certainly be the most noticeable of them.

Now, I am prone to simply say that, based on multiple other references I won't track down right now but am aware of, that he was simply repeating and adding to the original narrative, and not prophetically, from D&C 88:114 and some subsequent conversations that were had in regards to it and at least two of the named cities (Boston and New York). But then Brigham comes in and complicates it. He gets up and says it was a revelation and will be fulfilled. *sigh*

So there are four options:

1) Wilford was commenting non-prophetically and generally, and Brigham was wrong when he said it was revelation (which Wilford did not claim nor ever again refer to).

2) Wilford believed he was speaking prophetically, and Brigham was right to assert so. Disaster never happened.

3) Wilford spoke prophetically or with some foreknowledge, but failed to take into account that most prophecies of destruction depend on repentance, as evidenced in the original scripture reference when it concludes "... which await them if they do reject these things." The people repented. I have reservations in saying those three cities repented... no offense to residents there.;-) I suppose a few righteous could spare the place, but it was certainly not a Nineveh based aversion.

4) They were all wrong and deluded. Had to throw that one in for the non-believers. ;-)

So what are your thoughts? I haven't been able to find much serious commentary on this anywhere. Anyone else ever seen this referenced?

I was on lds.org today preparing for a lesson and saw the following:

Today, youth.lds.org launched a newly updated version of For the Strength of Youth that addresses issues and challenges youth face today that were not specifically addressed in the previous version of the booklet.

“The standards have not changed, but times have changed,” said Young Women general president Elaine S. Dalton, explaining the update. “For the Strength of Youth has been revised to address the issues youth face today—to teach them the doctrine behind the standards and the promised blessings of obedience.”

For the Strength of Youth was last updated in 2001. The revised pamphlet will contain the addition of current prophetic counsel in areas such as the wise use of technology, virtuous thoughts, dating, the importance of gender roles, and preparation for the future.

It goes on from there, mentioned that other areas have been modified and enhanced, including mentioneing mental health in addition to physical. I took some time to peruse it and found the changes to be quite good.

Important: When reviewing the categories, you think you read to the end. Think again. There is a tiny "show more" button. Be sure to click to get the rest of the topic.

Link: http://lds.org/church/news/for-the-strength-of-youth-updated-and-refreshed?lang=eng

those who died without law

This references those who died as lawless individuals. One of the other verses differentiates them from people who were not taught the law/didn't have the opportunity to accept the gospel. Telestial people may have known the law, but they died "without it".

Criminies Mak, I clicked to read it and it's 36 pages! Want to provide a short summary for the time impaired? Also, your thoughts would be good on the issue. It sounds like you think there is some wiggle room? Or by provocative, do you simply mean it as thought provoking but you don't agree?

This is a lack of love of others more than yourself. Schizophrenia is lack of trust in others which is usually a lack of trust in the Lord.

TrueBlue, I understand the concept behind what youar e saying about turning to the Lord. It's true, it helps. But Schizophrenia is not about a lack of trust. Someone who is clinically schizophrenic can certainly improve by looking outwards, but there is much that can only be done through medication, counseling, and even in extreme cases... detention. My previous ward had within it's boundaries the state mental hospital, which had a voluntary housing area where people who knew they needed help would go and live. This was in Utah, so many were members. While some were also bad people, the vast majority were extremely loving, often neglecting their own basic needs to help others. They were extremely empathetic. And some saw non-existant things. Others would be your best friend one moment and then literally snap and pull a knife out the next to kill themselves or you. Some heard voices in their heads. For some, it was more subtle, but they were still a little down the path that leads to the more extreme.

It is erroneous to simply separate people into the sane and the insane. There is rarely a magic light switch that if off, makes people that way. It's more like the dimmer switch for a light. Based on various chemical and genetic factors, you may be only a little way or all the way down the road to a particular insanity. It does not matter if you are functioning fine in other ways, or if you help others and devote yourself to the Lord. That can help, but the very real beast within themselves is still there, one that can consume them entirely, sometimes with nothing they can do about it.

I do agree lots of people with depression are not helped by meds because it is their mindset, not their mind, that is wrong. Often it's a result of their upbringing or other methods of being taught or not taught about people and the world around them. Unrealistic expectations can lead to constant depression. But please do not matter of factually diagnose people with depression (which, for the record, can also be from a lack of love for yourself, not of others) or schizophrenia as simply lacking trust or love that can be fixed by turning to others. The church has repeatedly said this is not the case.

Interesting quotes livy. I will have to compare them to the notes I have buried somewhere on this. I believe other prophets and apostles have stated contra-wise.

I would say that Joseph Fielding is merely repeating what he found in History of the Church that's extracted into Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Further, it is possible that Doctrines of Salvation is filled with even more pseudo-doctrine than his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie included in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. Finally, most everything he wrote in Doctrines of Salvation were actually written when he was a seventy (and in some cases not even that) and collected and compiled.

As such, there is only one quote I feel is of interest, being the first one.

My thoughts in general are that this was I am assuming before the endowment was revealed, as well as work for the dead. Hence, we taught one thing back then: be baptized now, or forever hold your peace. If baptism for the dead had not been revealed, it seems to leave the question of what is it important to teach? It would be that you need baptism, you need now, in this life, or you're out of luck. Further, being pre-baptism for the dead, what he said technically does not gel with D&C 76, which states that men who would have accepted the Gospel in this life and were good could enter the Celestial kingdom. I suppose it could be argued that Joseph knew about baptism for the dead at this time, even if not revealed? I'm just thinking out loud right now. It's late.;-)

Either way, maybe some time this weekend I'll gather my notes. I could feel validated, or I could change my tune. We shall see.;-)

All must eventual be cleanse from their sins before they can be resurrected and brought before the judgment bar of Christ, this is one of the purposes of the spirit prison.

Those in the Telestial kingdom must suffer for there sins in Spirit Prison. I don't think this is the same as being cleansed, which only Christ can do. Anyone can suffer in a prison for life, but they may still be unrepentant, and it does not absolve them of the crime they committed.

my understanding is baptism is only required to be in the celestial kingdom.

This is the understanding of many people. I challenge people to try to understand where this comes from. We of course know that baptism is required to get to the Celestial Kingdom, so on that part we can agree. The question of course is one of can we substantiate it not being needed to get into heaven in general?

I am just not certain of the role of baptism for a telestial person.

Fair enough. I was a fish out of water when I was first taught it many years ago. I came to accept it. Ultimately though, I don't see it a matter that affects my personal salvation as I intend to not be in the Telestial Kingdom under any condition.;-)

It's all about the heart. If you are in truth striving to follow God's counsel, even if you fail, if you keep striving, then you have the right heart. God has eternity to work on the rest with us. If you are not as driven, then perhaps you will learn slower. It's not the pace you get to perfection, it's how you get there.

Mary Jane Woodger of BYU wrote a lengthy article about this! I used it in a talk I gave about this very subject and got a quite a positive response

Duncan, do you have a copy of that?!?! All I have are notes from a lecture or two (with no names attached as to who gave them) that I attended while at BYU. I would love to get an actual article for reference! It is truly an inspirational story.

Redemption and salvation are often used interchangeably so it is not unreasonable to conclude that those in the lowest kingdom will be saved, but will not received the fullness of salvation available to those in the celstial kingdom. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree with that part. That means that in the end, they are saved, but they do not receive the same as one who is in the Celestial Kingdom. Why? Because in action and/or thought they rejected it.

The point I am making is that there is no easy way to get around the fact that the Telestial Kingdom is a degree of glory within the Kingdom of God, and Christ said no man can enter into God's kingdom except by baptism by water and the Spirit. Unless there is a scripture that excludes the Telestial and Terrestrial degrees of glory from being part of the Kingdom of God, I think it's pretty clear. Also, I do not believe there is a scripture that would ever allow anyone in to God's kingdom simply for saying who Christ is rather than accepting him as the Savior in the end. If they refuse his atonement, then they can have no part in the kingdom of heaven. Without the atonement, they simply cannot be justified.

George Albert Smith, Prophet, suffered from serious depression most of his life. I believe at some point cocaine or pot or some such common medicine of the time was even used in his treatment, along with some multi-month excursions to various locations for rest (I want to say sea-side cottages, but it's been a while since I attended the presentation on it all). And yet he was a powerfully faithful individual. He also suffered from lupus in his later life (the depression erroneously being attributed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as starting because of it). I take comfort from George Albert Smith whenever I struggle or those around me do. He was a man of God, a prophet, and he could not escape the trials that the Lord had set before him. Instead he found strength of experience in them and was better able to relate to the poor and downtrodden.

For the record, if I had the physical ability to grow a beard, I would. Blasted American Indian blood instead leads to the most ridiculous splotches across my face of baby smooth skin and hairy spots. Probably wouldn't grow my hair out long except on vacation.

Fascinating theory. However, even if it is true, the problem from a Mormon perspective is that (1) long hair and beards is associated with polygamy, and (2) since the early 20th century, the LDS Church has worked hard to portray itself as being composed of clean-cut, conservative, patriotic Americans. Until we get over our current being-embarrassed-about-polygamy phase, and until as a result of this embarrassment phase we stop thinking we have to prove by our grooming that we are more patriotic and conservative than other Americans, then this argument is not going to fly within the LDS Church.

Nice theory. However, until the Hippie free-love and drug movement of the 60's and 70's, long hair and beards were allowed on BYU campus and were not prohibited in any level of the church (other than it needed to be tidy). The policy was instituted (originally for "just a season") to help LDS memebrs, especially BYU grads, adhere to modern business standards, making them more accepted in the world (versus a scruffy looking already strange Mormon...). So sure, the back history of polygamy during the hippie-movement may have had some part in the decision, but it wasn't made until the last half of the 20th century. All LDS Prophets (with the exception of Joseph Smith) up until David O. McKay, had beards (and McKay had some crazy hair in my opinion...). Not a single one consistently had long hair. None. George Albert Smith, who had a sweet looking beard, died in 1951.

But as you know, there are degrees of salvation, even in the celestial kingdom. One can be saved from one degree of condemnation and yet still be subject to another level. I don't know why I am arguing the point. The D&C disagrees with you and you will not be able to find a single authority that supports your perspective.

I must have missed where the scriptures disagree that all must be baptized to enter Heaven, but that the Telestial and Terrestrial degrees of glory in heaven aren't actually part of the Kingdom of God or Heaven. I must have also missed the part where it says that you can completely reject the Savior and his salvation, other than saying "yup, you're Jesus, Son of God, and Savior of Mankind... but I reject you as my Savior."

In order to reject the belief that baptism is essential to enter any part of God's Kingdom, including the part overseen by the Holy Ghost (also eventually a Celestial being), you have to constantly say things like "as you know, there are degrees of salvation", and then say that being saved in the Telestial kingdom is not salvation. I really don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Certainly it's not the BEST salvation, and you certainly are still under condemnation for your actions that got you there, but you were saved from being cast off forever for one simple reason: you finally accepted the Savior as your Savior.

I would also add that they still have agency. It is not like they can't reject the baptism They can. But should they have a place in God's kingdoms when they 100% reject everything about Christ and the plan of salvation? No. They had their agency to qualify for the Celestial. They had it for the Terrestrial, and no one says they lost agency because they didn't get a free ticket into the Celestial despite not accepting and living the fullness of the Gospel. In like manner, no agency is lost in presenting a person a final choice: Recognize that Christ is the only one who can save them from eternal damnation, or reject him and his salvation completely.