Neo-Fence-Sitter Theory: Resurrecting a Radioactive Relic

[Pyreaux]

In the other Topic on the War in Heaven I had thought up a reply that likely needed its own topic. When some members interpret the "third part" of heaven (Revelation 12:4) not as a precise ratio, but a symbolic division of unequal thirds: Those who followed Lucifer. Those who chose Christ.

It triggered the thought of three portions and the potential of a third group who also chose Christ by default or minimal loyalty. That sounds a lot like the fence-sitter theory.

The old Fence-Sitter Theory and its problems

The so-called "fence-sitter" theory claimed at the heart that some premortal spirits were less valiant and therefore born into disadvantaged or marginalized groups (often applied to race) where it is then used to explain and justify why they are born under those conditions, as they have no control over their birth. So, this idea was widely circulated unofficially in the 20th century, because it had a logic to it. “We know that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” - Article of Faith 2. As Latter-day Saints believed in a just and loving God who respects all people. Latter-days Saints knew the priesthood ban didn't seem right and seems unfair, at least without this theory to ease their conscience. 

Officially disavowed by the Church: “There were no fence-sitters in the War in Heaven.” (Elder M. Russell Ballard, The Blessings of the Gospel Are for All (2005)). It was an important stance to take, as the theory was historically used to justify racial policies in the church, particularly with Black Africans, claiming they were “less valiant” as the only way to understand why anyone might deserve differential treatment from birth. It fed spiritual elitism, the idea that people born into privilege (race, nation, Church) were inherently “better” or more righteous in the premortal life.

It's obviously true many righteous souls are born into poverty, oppression, or non-LDS households, such circumstances are not indicators of a premortal failure. It's not right to hold speculative theories about people's pre-mortality. The worth of all souls is great in the sight of God (D&C 18:10). Jesus Himself was born poor and marginalized (Isaiah 53:2–3). If station reflected premortal valor, He would’ve been born the emperor. We cannot see the heart from the outside. Only God knows each soul’s path and divine potential (1 Samuel 16:7).

But Generational Curses are Real

Yet scriptural history shows examples of generational exclusion or curses:

Moabites were excluded for ten generations (Deuteronomy 23:3).

Israelites, except Levites, were banned from the priesthood they were intended to have due to the sins of their forefathers.

This raises sincere unanswered theological questions: If there are no less valiant spirits, are “generational curses” ever just? If the fence-sitter theory is completely false; Does it conflict with the principle that we are punished only for our own sins?

But Foreordination is Real

Abraham 3:22–23 teaches that some spirits were “noble and great” and were foreordained to lead.

D&C 138:55–56 speaks of righteous spirits being reserved to be “rulers in the Church of God.”

That implies variation in premortal spiritual roles and preparation, not necessarily worth. It's not a ladder of value. Being foreordained to be a prophet or parent are all equally sacred roles in the Plan of Salvation.

The Degrees of Valiance seems Possible

Just like people in mortality vary in courage, intelligence, or worthiness, it’s conceivable that premortal spirits did too. Some may have been more valiant, others more hesitant - all given the opportunity to be tested in mortality.

Modern LDS interpret the war as a simplified binary choice: One-third followed Lucifer. Two-thirds followed Christ.

Did all of the two-thirds actively support Christ? Perhaps there was ultimately no fence, but surely some could have chosen Christ passively by not supporting Lucifer, not out of valiant conviction. The phrase “the noble and great ones” in Abraham 3:22–23 implies some spirits were particularly valiant and foreordained for high callings in life. This seems should create categories within the righteous two-thirds:

“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was... and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones.” (Abraham 3:22) This implies not all who chose Christ were “noble and great.” Even if all were not rebellious.

Is Neutrality Impossible?

Do differences in premortal character not affect mortal opportunity?

Do the inequalities in life reflect our Pre-Earth choices? Are we elected to inequality or did we earn inequality?

Abraham 3:22–23 does state some spirits were “chosen before they were born.” If “noble and great” spirits were foreordained for leadership, does that imply some were less noble? Or is being born into poverty, illness, or wealth not a curse or a blessing, but a test or a stewardship.

Is there danger of entertaining premortal merit theories, as they'll only result in justifying earthly inequality, and that drives its rejection?

Does nothing happen if spirits chose Christ for different reasons - loyalty, love, fear, passivity?

Does God allow diversity of roles in mortality for instances other than righteousness?

My thoughts

I think The War in Heaven may have involved a spectrum of loyalty. While the Church rightly disavows using spiritual theories to justify racism. I think it's fair to explore how agency, valiance, foreordination, and God's justice work together in the Plan of Salvation.

The merits of the theory today should not be spoiled by what It was used for in the past. I can't say there were no fence sitters, because there is no way to determine that. Only there is no way to tell why we are born how, where and when we are born. A blind man is chosen to be born blind for the glory of God. A man was born a pharaoh and set up to oppose to Moses, for the glory of God.

Maybe it can hurt us to know if we were “more valiant” than others. How exactly would Christ want us to treat someone if we knew them to be born “less valiant”? I think, the theory of the fence-sitters failed not because it was a pure doctrinal error but because of the spiritual danger it posed to the proud. The possibility of knowing too much about our premortal lives could defeat the purpose of the Veil of Forgetfulness.

Edited June 29, 2025 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

In the other Topic on the War in Heaven I had thought up a reply that likely needed its own topic. When some members interpret the "third part" of heaven (Revelation 12:4) not as a precise ratio, but a symbolic division of unequal thirds: Those who followed Lucifer. Those who chose Christ.

It triggered the thought of three portions and the potential of a third group who also chose Christ by default or minimal loyalty. That sounds a lot like the fence-sitter theory.

The old Fence-Sitter Theory and its problems

The so-called "fence-sitter" theory claimed at the heart that some premortal spirits were less valiant and therefore born into disadvantaged or marginalized groups (often applied to race) where it is then used to explain and justify why they are born under those conditions, as they have no control over their birth. So, this idea was widely circulated unofficially in the 20th century, because it had a logic to it. “We know that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” - Article of Faith 2. As Latter-day Saints believed in a just and loving God who respects all people. Latter-days Saints knew the priesthood ban didn't seem right and seems unfair, at least without this theory to ease their conscience. 

Officially disavowed by the Church: “There were no fence-sitters in the War in Heaven.” (Elder M. Russell Ballard, The Blessings of the Gospel Are for All (2005)). It was an important stance to take, as the theory was historically used to justify racial policies in the church, particularly with Black Africans, claiming they were “less valiant” as the only way to understand why anyone might deserve differential treatment from birth. It fed spiritual elitism, the idea that people born into privilege (race, nation, Church) were inherently “better” or more righteous in the premortal life.

It's obviously true many righteous souls are born into poverty, oppression, or non-LDS households, such circumstances are not indicators of a premortal failure. It's not right to hold speculative theories about people's pre-mortality. The worth of all souls is great in the sight of God (D&C 18:10). Jesus Himself was born poor and marginalized (Isaiah 53:2–3). If station reflected premortal valor, He would’ve been born the emperor. We cannot see the heart from the outside. Only God knows each soul’s path and divine potential (1 Samuel 16:7).

But Generational Curses are Real

Yet scriptural history shows examples of generational exclusion or curses:

Moabites were excluded for ten generations (Deuteronomy 23:3).

Israelites, except Levites, were banned from the priesthood they were intended to have due to the sins of their forefathers.

This raises sincere unanswered theological questions: If there are no less valiant spirits, are “generational curses” ever just? If the fence-sitter theory is completely false; Does it conflict with the principle that we are punished only for our own sins?

But Foreordination is Real

Abraham 3:22–23 teaches that some spirits were “noble and great” and were foreordained to lead.

D&C 138:55–56 speaks of righteous spirits being reserved to be “rulers in the Church of God.”

That implies variation in premortal spiritual roles and preparation, not necessarily worth. It's not a ladder of value. Being foreordained to be a prophet or parent are all equally sacred roles in the Plan of Salvation.

The Degrees of Valiance seems Possible

Just like people in mortality vary in courage, intelligence, or worthiness, it’s conceivable that premortal spirits did too. Some may have been more valiant, others more hesitant - all given the opportunity to be tested in mortality.

Modern LDS interpret the war as a simplified binary choice: One-third followed Lucifer. Two-thirds followed Christ.

Did all of the two-thirds actively support Christ? Perhaps there was ultimately no fence, but surely some could have chosen Christ passively by not supporting Lucifer, not out of valiant conviction. The phrase “the noble and great ones” in Abraham 3:22–23 implies some spirits were particularly valiant and foreordained for high callings in life. This seems should create categories within the righteous two-thirds:

“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was... and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones.” (Abraham 3:22) This implies not all who chose Christ were “noble and great.” Even if all were not rebellious.

Is Neutrality Impossible?

Do differences in premortal character not affect mortal opportunity?

Do the inequalities in life reflect our Pre-Earth choices? Are we elected to inequality or did we earn inequality?

Abraham 3:22–23 does state some spirits were “chosen before they were born.” If “noble and great” spirits were foreordained for leadership, does that imply some were less noble? Or is being born into poverty, illness, or wealth not a curse or a blessing, but a test or a stewardship.

Is there danger of entertaining premortal merit theories, as they'll only result in justifying earthly inequality, and that drives its rejection?

Does nothing happen if spirits chose Christ for different reasons - loyalty, love, fear, passivity?

Does God allow diversity of roles in mortality for instances other than righteousness?

My thoughts

I think The War in Heaven may have involved a spectrum of loyalty. While the Church rightly disavows using spiritual theories to justify racism. I think it's fair to explore how agency, valiance, foreordination, and God's justice work together in the Plan of Salvation.

The merits of the theory today should not be spoiled by what It was used for in the past. I can't say there were no fence sitters, because there is no way to determine that. Only there is no way to tell why we are born how, where and when we are born. A blind man is chosen to be born blind for the glory of God. A man was born a pharaoh and set up to oppose to Moses, for the glory of God.

Maybe it can hurt us to know if we were “more valiant” than others. How exactly would Christ want us to treat someone if we knew them to be born “less valiant”? I think, the theory of the fence-sitters failed not because it was a pure doctrinal error but because of the spiritual danger it posed to the proud. The possibility of knowing too much about our premortal lives could defeat the purpose of the Veil of Forgetfulness.

You’ve got me wondering if it could be said that anything less than 100% belief, 100% commitment, and 100% diligence in performing the will of the Lord co could rightly be described as a state of spiritual reticence or “fence sitting?” But to respond your question directly, it seems unlikely that any human being could be born in holy innocence in this world, through the cleansing power of the atonement of Christ, if an informed choice wasn’t made to accept Christ as Lord, Savior and Deliverer during the war in heaven.

38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state innocent before God. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)

[The Nehor]

The third part bit is referring to a fraction. That is an accurate read of the Greek. You can argue that the fractions are metaphorical and symbolic (this is Revelation after all) but the strict wording isn’t about a group divided into three unequal parts.

If I were to divide humanity that were originally to be born on this earth into three parts I would go with one group that forfeited the right to come here voluntarily by allegiance to Satan and possibly other dissident groups, those who were loyal to God to an extent but faltered (this is all of us), and those who never faltered at all and thus are not to be born under the effects of the Fall and will born in the Millenium under better conditions.

If there are some “neutrals” I would argue we are the neutrals.

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

In the other Topic on the War in Heaven I had thought up a reply that likely needed its own topic. When some members interpret the "third part" of heaven (Revelation 12:4) not as a precise ratio, but a symbolic division of unequal thirds: Those who followed Lucifer. Those who chose Christ.

It triggered the thought of three portions and the potential of a third group who also chose Christ by default or minimal loyalty. That sounds a lot like the fence-sitter theory.

The old Fence-Sitter Theory and its problems

The so-called "fence-sitter" theory claimed at the heart that some premortal spirits were less valiant and therefore born into disadvantaged or marginalized groups (often applied to race) where it is then used to explain and justify why they are born under those conditions, as they have no control over their birth. So, this idea was widely circulated unofficially in the 20th century, because it had a logic to it. “We know that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” - Article of Faith 2. As Latter-day Saints believed in a just and loving God who respects all people. Latter-days Saints knew the priesthood ban didn't seem right and seems unfair, at least without this theory to ease their conscience. 

Officially disavowed by the Church: “There were no fence-sitters in the War in Heaven.” (Elder M. Russell Ballard, The Blessings of the Gospel Are for All (2005)). It was an important stance to take, as the theory was historically used to justify racial policies in the church, particularly with Black Africans, claiming they were “less valiant” as the only way to understand why anyone might deserve differential treatment from birth. It fed spiritual elitism, the idea that people born into privilege (race, nation, Church) were inherently “better” or more righteous in the premortal life.

It's obviously true many righteous souls are born into poverty, oppression, or non-LDS households, such circumstances are not indicators of a premortal failure. It's not right to hold speculative theories about people's pre-mortality. The worth of all souls is great in the sight of God (D&C 18:10). Jesus Himself was born poor and marginalized (Isaiah 53:2–3). If station reflected premortal valor, He would’ve been born the emperor. We cannot see the heart from the outside. Only God knows each soul’s path and divine potential (1 Samuel 16:7).

But Generational Curses are Real

Yet scriptural history shows examples of generational exclusion or curses:

Moabites were excluded for ten generations (Deuteronomy 23:3).

Israelites, except Levites, were banned from the priesthood they were intended to have due to the sins of their forefathers.

This raises sincere unanswered theological questions: If there are no less valiant spirits, are “generational curses” ever just? If the fence-sitter theory is completely false; Does it conflict with the principle that we are punished only for our own sins?

But Foreordination is Real

Abraham 3:22–23 teaches that some spirits were “noble and great” and were foreordained to lead.

D&C 138:55–56 speaks of righteous spirits being reserved to be “rulers in the Church of God.”

That implies variation in premortal spiritual roles and preparation, not necessarily worth. It's not a ladder of value. Being foreordained to be a prophet or parent are all equally sacred roles in the Plan of Salvation.

The Degrees of Valiance seems Possible

Just like people in mortality vary in courage, intelligence, or worthiness, it’s conceivable that premortal spirits did too. Some may have been more valiant, others more hesitant - all given the opportunity to be tested in mortality.

Modern LDS interpret the war as a simplified binary choice: One-third followed Lucifer. Two-thirds followed Christ.

Did all of the two-thirds actively support Christ? Perhaps there was ultimately no fence, but surely some could have chosen Christ passively by not supporting Lucifer, not out of valiant conviction. The phrase “the noble and great ones” in Abraham 3:22–23 implies some spirits were particularly valiant and foreordained for high callings in life. This seems should create categories within the righteous two-thirds:

“Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was... and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones.” (Abraham 3:22) This implies not all who chose Christ were “noble and great.” Even if all were not rebellious.

Is Neutrality Impossible?

Do differences in premortal character not affect mortal opportunity?

Do the inequalities in life reflect our Pre-Earth choices? Are we elected to inequality or did we earn inequality?

Abraham 3:22–23 does state some spirits were “chosen before they were born.” If “noble and great” spirits were foreordained for leadership, does that imply some were less noble? Or is being born into poverty, illness, or wealth not a curse or a blessing, but a test or a stewardship.

Is there danger of entertaining premortal merit theories, as they'll only result in justifying earthly inequality, and that drives its rejection?

Does nothing happen if spirits chose Christ for different reasons - loyalty, love, fear, passivity?

Does God allow diversity of roles in mortality for instances other than righteousness?

My thoughts

I think The War in Heaven may have involved a spectrum of loyalty. While the Church rightly disavows using spiritual theories to justify racism. I think it's fair to explore how agency, valiance, foreordination, and God's justice work together in the Plan of Salvation.

The merits of the theory today should not be spoiled by what It was used for in the past. I can't say there were no fence sitters, because there is no way to determine that. Only there is no way to tell why we are born how, where and when we are born. A blind man is chosen to be born blind for the glory of God. A man was born a pharaoh and set up to oppose to Moses, for the glory of God.

Maybe it can hurt us to know if we were “more valiant” than others. How exactly would Christ want us to treat someone if we knew them to be born “less valiant”? I think, the theory of the fence-sitters failed not because it was a pure doctrinal error but because of the spiritual danger it posed to the proud. The possibility of knowing too much about our premortal lives could defeat the purpose of the Veil of Forgetfulness.

I would call the parts a qualitative division, and accepting (“second part”) or rejecting (“third part”) the plan of happiness represents only two parts. Neither accepting nor rejecting the plan might constitute the “first part”, but this would prevent their capacity to engage in the war and its consequences. For me, this “first part” is not informed neutrality but a condition of nascency. Presumably their day of decision will eventually develop; they may also choose another course to fulfill the measure of organization they have chosen for themselves as their time of emergence and potential is realized.

As far as degrees of valiancy, as you point out, this is not the same as the worth of souls. As we become one in Christ, which even the most valiant are incapable of doing without His grace, we all become valiant. The same with talents. Perhaps the problem with “neutrality” is that Christ never suggested it in His parables. To hide the talent is to reject the promise.

[longview]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Does God allow diversity of roles in mortality for instances other than righteousness?

The full Shakespearean quote is: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages." 

 

 

This quote is from William Shakespeare's play, As You Like It, specifically a monologue delivered by the character Jaques in Act II, Scene VII. The quote uses the metaphor of a stage to describe human life, suggesting that people are like actors playing different roles throughout their lives. 

[Stargazer]

I think that it could be argued that those born into far worse conditions than we unusually privileged people have been born into might be among the more valiant spirits in the Pre-existence. They could be being tested under far less advantaged conditions simply because they were seen by Father to be more loyal, more resilient, and worthy of greater testing. Father's purpose is to create true celestial beings, after all, and should not the best be tested more rigorously? Meanwhile we get the less difficult test, the one that reflects the lower expectations that Father had for us. And so we skate through life, having been born with a virtual silver spoon in our mouths. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I think that it could be argued that those born into far worse conditions than we unusually privileged people have been born into might be among the more valiant spirits in the Pre-existence. They could be being tested under far less advantaged conditions simply because they were seen by Father to be more loyal, more resilient, and worthy of greater testing. Father's purpose is to create true celestial beings, after all, and should not the best be tested more rigorously? Meanwhile we get the less difficult test, the one that reflects the lower expectations that Father had for us. And so we skate through life, having been born with a virtual silver spoon in our mouths. 

A few thoughts -

First, I think this is wrong. I think that the Book of Mormon teaches that we are judged only on the choices we make when we are able to exercise real agency. The Book of Mormon also teaches that our agency in mortality is fairly limited. And so, I think, the argument can be made that those of us who have more freedom - who experience more agency - we are judged on a much broader set of criteria involving the choices we make than those who experience far less freedom. Some, who enter mortality, never have any real agency at all - and so have no space for judgment against them (those who die before an age of accountability or those who die without the law). In the end, this whole idea of fence-sitters was an appeal to the popular idea (it remains popular) of meritocracy - that is, we all get what we deserve - it came about as a way of justifying the horrible conditions that some were in (and going even further, to justify not advocating for the improvement of their conditions). This idea of meritocracy was a fairly huge deal in the early 19th century. After all, this was one of the most significant talking points of the aristocracy (both current and former) as they were being displaced by democracy. Read Tocqueville for example (1805-1859). Of course, this really only comes from the mouths of those who are born with some higher status - who got it by chance. And even today, since some of us get much more than others, we like to think that we deserved it for some reason - and rather than chance, it is easy to argue that we must have done something right in the pre-existence unlike our neighbor down the road from us. For those of us with privilege, we are confronted with what Jesus said to those who had received a great deal: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. ... Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." When I was younger, so much was said about the camel and the eye of the needle - it wasn't until later that I learned that this should only be read literally. Why the camel? It was the largest animal in the known world for the Jews. Why they eye of the needle? Because it was the smallest definable opening. Those that are born into privilege are condemned if they do not do everything in their power to help those that are marginalized. That's the judgement that comes against those who are "born with a virtual silver spoon in our mouths" - a judgment that doesn't apply to those who aren't.

The Book of Mormon makes the argument that everyone in the pre-existence was on equal footing. The differences that occur for some in mortality occur because God had foreknowledge about their actions in mortality, and could then place some people in certain roles. We tend to have a range of differences of opinion in the LDS Church about the nature of God's foreknowledge - but in any case, such a view as the one presented in the Book of Mormon is opposed to the idea of fence sitters.

There was, at least historically, quite a bit of discussion about what being in outer darkness amounts to - including Brigham Young's speculation that those in Outer Darkness would return to a raw-materials state from whence they could be re-organized into spirit children and get another go at salvation. I think that we have developed (speaking of the entire LDS Church) in a way that has moved away from the earliest roots of the Church which were much more universalist. We want grades and degrees - but there were many (including many of our highest leaders) who believed that eternal progression applied to everyone. And just as some of us had more time than others in the pre-existence (assuming that time is the right word), so to it may take some of us longer to reach celestial glory - but I expect that eventually everyone who doesn't re-experience outer darkness will eventually be exalted. This is God's purpose for His spirit children. The idea of fence-sitters isn't particularly helpful when placed against that sort of context of eternal progression. There is just a recognition that some may have been better prepared for others to enter mortality - and that that difference in preparation, in the end, has no real impact on the eternities.

Finally, it's worth noting that the first mention of fence-sitting in LDS records comes from Orson Hyde, who, in 1845, suggested that the reason for the slavery of the black people was because they had been fence-sitters. The idea of the fence-sitter is inseparably connected to racial theology in LDS history. It is the repudiation of that racial theology that also required the repudiation of the idea of fence-sitters.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

A few thoughts -

Awww... you took me seriously! I'm flattered. My tongue was actually firmly in cheek on this.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

First, I think this is wrong.

I'm pretty sure it's wrong.

It was just an errant thought that popped into what passes for my mind as I read the OP. I've sometimes wondered if we are being tested adequately at all in just one earth life, and have had other thoughts pop up, such as "multiple mortal probations" or MMP. Perhaps we are being tested here and in other places simultaneously or serially (Father has plenty more worlds that could be used for this, as He states in Moses chapter 1).

But that's just idle speculation, and I certainly don't hold to it. More than one mortal probation would be quite exhausting for me.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that the Book of Mormon teaches that we are judged only on the choices we make when we are able to exercise real agency. The Book of Mormon also teaches that our agency in mortality is fairly limited. And so, I think, the argument can be made that those of us who have more freedom - who experience more agency - we are judged on a much broader set of criteria involving the choices we make than those who experience far less freedom. Some, who enter mortality, never have any real agency at all - and so have no space for judgment against them (those who die before an age of accountability or those who die without the law). In the end, this whole idea of fence-sitters was an appeal to the popular idea (it remains popular) of meritocracy - that is, we all get what we deserve - it came about as a way of justifying the horrible conditions that some were in (and going even further, to justify not advocating for the improvement of their conditions). This idea of meritocracy was a fairly huge deal in the early 19th century. After all, this was one of the most significant talking points of the aristocracy (both current and former) as they were being displaced by democracy. Read Tocqueville for example (1805-1859). Of course, this really only comes from the mouths of those who are born with some higher status - who got it by chance. And even today, since some of us get much more than others, we like to think that we deserved it for some reason - and rather than chance, it is easy to argue that we must have done something right in the pre-existence unlike our neighbor down the road from us. For those of us with privilege, we are confronted with what Jesus said to those who had received a great deal: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. ... Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." When I was younger, so much was said about the camel and the eye of the needle - it wasn't until later that I learned that this should only be read literally. Why the camel? It was the largest animal in the known world for the Jews. Why they eye of the needle? Because it was the smallest definable opening. Those that are born into privilege are condemned if they do not do everything in their power to help those that are marginalized. That's the judgement that comes against those who are "born with a virtual silver spoon in our mouths" - a judgment that doesn't apply to those who aren't.

I wasn't using the silver spoon analogy in the same way it is normally used. Which I didn't make clear. What I meant by "silver spoon" was someone born into mortality in, say, the US during a fairly peaceful time, managed to skate through life with few upsets, and then slid out easily at the end. Not much testing at all.

In actuality, I am pretty sure that Father judges us based on what decisions we did make when we had the choices. Much as you said. 

A man of my ward has a daughter who is severely disabled. She cannot walk, cannot talk, and requires constant care. She will grow old and die without the ability to make any choices. Her disability is a result of medical error (ironically, her father is a medical doctor). Her parents will have to deal with the pressures of caring of her for a long time, including emergency hospital visits, knowing that the end of the road will find her not changed at all. Another man in my ward (my nephew) has two very healthy rambunctious kids who appear to be slated to grow into adults with no problems at all. One is being tested in a number of different ways that the other doesn't seem to have to worry about. Much. Whose test is the hardest? Whose choices are the most difficult? Is this fair?

My answer is: of course it's fair. Because the Father is fair, despite all appearances. Isaiah 55:8,9.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Book of Mormon makes the argument that everyone in the pre-existence was on equal footing. The differences that occur for some in mortality occur because God had foreknowledge about their actions in mortality, and could then place some people in certain roles. We tend to have a range of differences of opinion in the LDS Church about the nature of God's foreknowledge - but in any case, such a view as the one presented in the Book of Mormon is opposed to the idea of fence sitters.

There was, at least historically, quite a bit of discussion about what being in outer darkness amounts to - including Brigham Young's speculation that those in Outer Darkness would return to a raw-materials state from whence they could be re-organized into spirit children and get another go at salvation. I think that we have developed (speaking of the entire LDS Church) in a way that has moved away from the earliest roots of the Church which were much more universalist. We want grades and degrees - but there were many (including many of our highest leaders) who believed that eternal progression applied to everyone. And just as some of us had more time than others in the pre-existence (assuming that time is the right word), so to it may take some of us longer to reach celestial glory - but I expect that eventually everyone who doesn't re-experience outer darkness will eventually be exalted. This is God's purpose for His spirit children. The idea of fence-sitters isn't particularly helpful when placed against that sort of context of eternal progression. There is just a recognition that some may have been better prepared for others to enter mortality - and that that difference in preparation, in the end, has no real impact on the eternities.

It is my feeling that reaching celestial glory will not require extra "time" after resurrection. It is my opinion that  those of us who are found worthy of exaltation will be resurrected directly into it. I say this because I feel that we were selected for mortal testing as the final step of our eternal progression, not some intermediate one. As eternal beings in mortality we are held temporarily so severely limited that we could be said to mere viruses in comparison to what we were in the pre-existence. And only a shadow of ourselves is manifested here in this universe. The vast majority of our self is elsewhere, asleep.

As for "time" we don't even know what it is. It may only exist in this universe, while outside this universe there is no "time," but something else we are even more completely unable to imagine. When I try to imagine such things I start to feel as if I had just jumped out of an aircraft without a parachute.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Finally, it's worth noting that the first mention of fence-sitting in LDS records comes from Orson Hyde, who, in 1845, suggested that the reason for the slavery of the black people was because they had been fence-sitters. The idea of the fence-sitter is inseparably connected to racial theology in LDS history. It is the repudiation of that racial theology that also required the repudiation of the idea of fence-sitters.

Well, none of us is perfect. I mean, I've argued with you about things that you were insistent upon that were completely wrong, so clearly you're not perfect.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, Stargazer said:

My answer is: of course it's fair. Because the Father is fair, despite all appearances. Isaiah 55:8,9.

And yet, I take the opposite position. None of it is fair. There is no need for us to make it fair. The Father doesn't have to make it fair at all. Part of my point is that we want to make it fair - we want to believe that everything is somehow fair - and yet, this is almost always the belief of those who are in a better place than others. It is our way of telling those that are less well-off than ourselves that they can be grateful that everything is fair - and they should simply accept their place as part of that fairness.

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

so clearly you're not perfect.

Only to my puppy ...

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, I take the opposite position. None of it is fair. There is no need for us to make it fair. The Father doesn't have to make it fair at all. Part of my point is that we want to make it fair - we want to believe that everything is somehow fair - and yet, this is almost always the belief of those who are in a better place than others. It is our way of telling those that are less well-off than ourselves that they can be grateful that everything is fair - and they should simply accept their place as part of that fairness.

It's almost always the belief of those who are in a better place than others? I call baloney sausage on that. There are plenty of people who say life isn't fair when they have all the advantages. 

My place sucks, quite frankly. At least in comparison to some others. One of those who served with me in my mission was a brilliant and spiritual man. He was quite tall. He was given great gifts of intellect, and he used that gift to great advantage. He had a full-ride scholarship to BYU. He was an exemplary missionary, and spiritual giant even then. He learned to speak two other languages fluently. He wrote books. He married very well to a spiritual giantess. They had four children who were equally brilliant. He was called to be a General Authority. And then he died in harness. I don't know if he thought life was fair or not. Was it fair that I was given some intellectual capabilities, but was hamstrung with attention deficit syndrome that made it very difficult for me to rise to whatever that level of intellect was capable of? I'm closing in on 74 years old, am getting more decrepit week by week. Is that fair? 

But Father is fair, despite what you say. He gives to each of us what we need for our test, and that is fairness at its very root.

But in another sense, there is no fairness. It is a meaningless concept. 

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Only to my puppy ...

Awwww... 

I have two cats. You can imagine the disdain in which I am held.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Whose test is the hardest? Whose choices are the most difficult? Is this fair?

My answer is: of course it's fair. Because the Father is fair, despite all appearances. Isaiah 55:8,9.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I see it as not fair now.  It will be made so by God in the next life (which to me means we all end up prior to the final judgement—whatever that is—sharing all the pain, processing it together and then being healed together or perhaps God somehow individually removes the negative effects of mortality on us while keeping the positive effects and adding to them as we each take our time fully accepting the Atonement and turning ourselves over to him.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

It is my opinion that  those of us who are found worthy of exaltation will be resurrected directly into it.

And when will resurrection take place for those who will be exalted in your view?

What are your thoughts about Joseph’s comment that “the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world”?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's almost always the belief of those who are in a better place than others? I call baloney sausage on that. There are plenty of people who say life isn't fair when they have all the advantages. 

He isn’t saying most people who are in a better place have this belief, he is saying those who hold it are typically better off (it might be a large or small percentage of those better off who believe this).

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's almost always the belief of those who are in a better place than others? I call baloney sausage on that. There are plenty of people who say life isn't fair when they have all the advantages. 

Again - spoken of from that perspective. How many of the starving poor think that life is fair and that they shouldn't envy or complain about those who have enough to eat? You miss the point. That people complain about it not being fair - even from a position of privilege - only do so because there are those who are in better place than they are. And your comments kind of illustrate this. If, instead of comparing yourselves to those above you, you only compared your life to those in much worse circumstances (the remaining Palestinians in Gaza for example), you wouldn't feel the need to question fairness.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I see it as not fair now.  It will be made so by God in the next life (which to me means we all end up prior to the final judgement—whatever that is—sharing all the pain, processing it together and then being healed together or perhaps God somehow individually removes the negative effects of mortality on us while keeping the positive effects and adding to them as we each take our time fully accepting the Atonement and turning ourselves over to him.

And I would suggest that unfairness would continue, as would inequality by many metrics - and yet, I think that part of our becoming something more through the resurrection and exaltation - will result in our losing any need to see or understand the world through this lens of fairness. An eternal perspective (which we certainly don't have now) will make such distinctions trivialities that have no meaning. Do we envy because, as the Book of Abraham puts it: "if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, ... These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." The focus isn't on these difference. For the Book of Mormon, the purpose of God in the end of man isn't to make them equal - isn't to give them some sort of fairness - it is to make them: "free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon." There is nothing fair about the atonement. The whole point of mercy is to make the situation unfair (fairness is the path of judgment). We are told not to envy, we are told to forgive everyone, we are told that our own preoccupation with fairness will be our undoing: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." While I do not think it bad or wrong to think that we can forgive others because God will make it right (or will provide justice), the reality, I think, is that God will provide mercy - He will never really make it right or fair, and our job is to turn away from that part of our human nature that wants to demand justice and fairness - so that we too can learn to be merciful and to act with a true love for all mankind that transcends that need for justice or fairness. Those concepts are necessary, perhaps, for our mortal condition - for society to stand. But even as a society we need to learn these other traits. Justice and fairness are only the minimum needs for society - and they will never get us to the point of building the kingdom on earth.

Edit: I wanted to add one thing - I think also that we shouldn't be satisfied with where we are - and this is especially true with those who lives are miserable through no fault of their own. We as a society should not be satisfied when there are those in our society who lives are miserable through no fault of their own. And finally, we should not be quick to suggest that their lives are in fact miserable because they choose to be miserable.

Edited June 30, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Again - spoken of from that perspective. How many of the starving poor think that life is fair and that they shouldn't envy or complain about those who have enough to eat? You miss the point. That people complain about it not being fair - even from a position of privilege - only do so because there are those who are in better place than they are. And your comments kind of illustrate this. If, instead of comparing yourselves to those above you, you only compared your life to those in much worse circumstances (the remaining Palestinians in Gaza for example), you wouldn't feel the need to question fairness.

And I would suggest that unfairness would continue, as would inequality by many metrics - and yet, I think that part of our becoming something more through the resurrection and exaltation - will result in our losing any need to see or understand the world through this lens of fairness. An eternal perspective (which we certainly don't have now) will make such distinctions trivialities that have no meaning. Do we envy because, as the Book of Abraham puts it: "if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, ... These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." The focus isn't on these difference. For the Book of Mormon, the purpose of God in the end of man isn't to make them equal - isn't to give them some sort of fairness - it is to make them: "free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon." There is nothing fair about the atonement. The whole point of mercy is to make the situation unfair (fairness is the path of judgment). We are told not to envy, we are told to forgive everyone, we are told that our own preoccupation with fairness will be our undoing: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." While I do not think it bad or wrong to think that we can forgive others because God will make it right (or will provide justice), the reality, I think, is that God will provide mercy - He will never really make it right or fair, and our job is to turn away from that part of our human nature that wants to demand justice and fairness - so that we too can learn to be merciful and to act with a true love for all mankind that transcends that need for justice or fairness. Those concepts are necessary, perhaps, for our mortal condition - for society to stand. But even as a society we need to learn these other traits. Justice and fairness are only the minimum needs for society - and they will never get us to the point of building the kingdom on earth.

Edit: I wanted to add one thing - I think also that we shouldn't be satisfied with where we are - and this is especially true with those who lives are miserable through no fault of their own. We as a society should not be satisfied when there are those in our society who lives are miserable through no fault of their own. And finally, we should not be quick to suggest that their lives are in fact miserable because they choose to be miserable.

So, in Christianity, is it better to be 'born' poor, or is it equal or balanced, because privilege has its own challenges. Privilege can distort proportion, when someone’s whole identity is built around status, success, or lifestyle, even small losses can feel devastating; losing your job, losing your girlfriend. They say self-deletion seems mostly found among the privileged. It seems in Christianity, the greatest threat to people is despair without hope. And wealth can mask that despair longer, making its crash harder when it comes.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Again - spoken of from that perspective. How many of the starving poor think that life is fair and that they shouldn't envy or complain about those who have enough to eat? You miss the point. That people complain about it not being fair - even from a position of privilege - only do so because there are those who are in better place than they are. And your comments kind of illustrate this. If, instead of comparing yourselves to those above you, you only compared your life to those in much worse circumstances (the remaining Palestinians in Gaza for example), you wouldn't feel the need to question fairness.

Either I'm too stupid to understand, you haven't understood what I'm trying to say, or you haven't properly explained yourself, but this entire paragraph makes no sense to me. To start with what you ended with, "If ... you only compared your life to those in much worse circumstances, ... you wouldn't feel the need to question fairness." Since I wasn't questioning fairness, this sentence makes no sense. I've been trying to say that I feel that "fairness" is subjective and illusory, at least from our point of view. But from an eternal perspective, God is perfectly fair.

We're here to be tested. We're given situations to react to. Those situations may resemble those that others are given, but since we are all individuals, our tests are individualized. Hence, fairness is either an illusion or immaterial.

 

[california boy]

On 6/29/2025 at 6:18 AM, teddyaware said:

You’ve got me wondering if it could be said that anything less than 100% belief, 100% commitment, and 100% diligence in performing the will of the Lord co could rightly be described as a state of spiritual reticence or “fence sitting?” But to respond your question directly, it seems unlikely that any human being could be born in holy innocence in this world, through the cleansing power of the atonement of Christ, if an informed choice wasn’t made to accept Christ as Lord, Savior and Deliverer during the war in heaven.

38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state innocent before God. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Finally, it's worth noting that the first mention of fence-sitting in LDS records comes from Orson Hyde, who, in 1845, suggested that the reason for the slavery of the black people was because they had been fence-sitters. The idea of the fence-sitter is inseparably connected to racial theology in LDS history. It is the repudiation of that racial theology that also required the repudiation of the idea of fence-sitters.

I always find your answers to be very thoughtful and well expressed.  I wonder how you feel about those that are born LGBT?  Are they the new fence sitters, not allowed temple blessings and priesthood simply because they exist on this earthly trial began with being born gay?  How does one dismiss outright the very key part of what is required of exaltation of entering into eternal marriage.  Does counseling LGBT members to stay single and celebrate provide a solution by ignoring the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and ignore the commandment to not find an eternal spouse??  

Or does marrying in the temple become just a suggestion and not a requirement for exaltation?  If so, does that apply to all of God's children or just the LGBT ones?  

Part of the problem is NONE of the solutions the Church currently teach are based on revelation, but rather the feelings of men who are, as we have found out so often, men of their time and fallible.

 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I would suggest that unfairness would continue, as would inequality by many metrics -

How so?  The levels of intelligence you point out is one (assuming God could make everyone of the same level of intelligence), what others might we see now as unfair?

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and yet, I think that part of our becoming something more through the resurrection and exaltation - will result in our losing any need to see or understand the world through this lens of fairness.

I definitely agree with this.  It’s not that what we will get will be so much better than what we deserve so there is nothing to complain about (eventually it seems we actually need to be able to actually ‘deserve’ it if God is just even if how we get to that point of capability is all about God’s mercy).  I believe if we finally understand the why of what God does, the question of fairness will become irrelevant.  Plus if we fill the measure of our creation, to me that means we will get to be all that we want to be, so why would we care about what others have or compare ourselves to them.

Edited June 30, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 6/30/2025 at 12:27 PM, california boy said:

I always find your answers to be very thoughtful and well expressed.  I wonder how you feel about those that are born LGBT?  Are they the new fence sitters, not allowed temple blessings and priesthood simply because they exist on this earthly trial began with being born gay?  How does one dismiss outright the very key part of what is required of exaltation of entering into eternal marriage.  Does counseling LGBT members to stay single and celebrate provide a solution by ignoring the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and ignore the commandment to not find an eternal spouse??  

Or does marrying in the temple become just a suggestion and not a requirement for exaltation?  If so, does that apply to all of God's children or just the LGBT ones?  

Part of the problem is NONE of the solutions the Church currently teach are based on revelation, but rather the feelings of men who are, as we have found out so often, men of their time and fallible.

This. These are reasoned responses to new information but it is definitely philosophies of men. Just like President Kimball’s declarations that no one is every born gay because God wouldn’t do such a thing.

You are not gonna squeeze much divine reassurance from a reasoned response. The response always seems to be:

“We don’t know, trust God.”

”Well, can you, you know, find out? This is important to a lot of people.”

”Trust God and trust He has a plan.”

”Yet God has categorically stated that you have to do certain things to enter exaltation and now you are trying to tell us not to worry about doing them and all will be well? Is that you hoping it is true or God clarifying or expanding? Is this revelation or just people trying to plug gaps with their own reasoned explanations and reassurances?”

 

Seriously if all the Church can offer is vague possibilities and hypotheticals we don’t need Priesthood or revelation for that. I can make stuff up that sounds nice and workable.

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/29/2025 at 9:41 AM, The Nehor said:

 

The third part bit is referring to a fraction. That is an accurate read of the Greek. You can argue that the fractions are metaphorical and symbolic (this is Revelation after all) but the strict wording isn’t about a group divided into three unequal parts.

If I were to divide humanity that were originally to be born on this earth into three parts I would go with one group that forfeited the right to come here voluntarily by allegiance to Satan and possibly other dissident groups, those who were loyal to God to an extent but faltered (this is all of us), and those who never faltered at all and thus are not to be born under the effects of the Fall and will born in the Millenium under better conditions.

If there are some “neutrals” I would argue we are the neutrals.

 

There is also this (among many other similar statements) regarding the Saints of our time…

“Your Heavenly Father has known you for a very long time. You, as His son or daughter, were chosen by Him to come to earth at this precise time, to be a leader in His great work on earth.^⁠ You were chosen not for your bodily characteristics but for your spiritual attributes, such as bravery, courage, integrity of heart, a thirst for truth, a hunger for wisdom, and a desire to serve others.You developed some of these attributes premortally. Others you can develop here on earth^⁠ as you persistently seek them.” Russell M. Nelson, Oct 2013

Edited July 4, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There is also this (among many other similar statements) regarding the Saints of our time…

“Your Heavenly Father has known you for a very long time. You, as His son or daughter, were chosen by Him to come to earth at this precise time, to be a leader in His great work on earth.^⁠ You were chosen not for your bodily characteristics but for your spiritual attributes, such as bravery, courage, integrity of heart, a thirst for truth, a hunger for wisdom, and a desire to serve others.You developed some of these attributes premortally. Others you can develop here on earth^⁠ as you persistently seek them.” Russell M. Nelson, Oct 2013

Were people born in other dispensations not meant to be leaders in God’s great work? Also, how can everyone be a leader?

Edited July 4, 2025 by The Nehor

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Were people born in other dispensations not meant to be leaders in God’s great work? Also, how can everyone be a leader?

The demand for good leaders is ubiquitous, but I reckon that the Great Winding Up Scene might need a few with pretty good credentials to buck up all us mediocre falterers. 

Edited July 4, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Pyreaux]

On 7/2/2025 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

This. These are reasoned responses to new information but it is definitely philosophies of men. Just like President Kimball’s declarations that no one is every born gay because God wouldn’t do such a thing.

You are not gonna squeeze much divine reassurance from a reasoned response. The response always seems to be:

“We don’t know, trust God.”

”Well, can you, you know, find out? This is important to a lot of people.”

”Trust God and trust He has a plan.”

”Yet God has categorically stated that you have to do certain things to enter exaltation and now you are trying to tell us not to worry about doing them and all will be well? Is that you hoping it is true or God clarifying or expanding? Is this revelation or just people trying to plug gaps with their own reasoned explanations and reassurances?”

 

Seriously if all the Church can offer is vague possibilities and hypotheticals we don’t need Priesthood or revelation for that. I can make stuff up that sounds nice and workable.

You're right to expect more than just vague reassurances, we all crave clarity on weighty issues. But I’d argue that the historical and scriptural pattern of revelation doesn’t support the idea that only timely, crystal-clear, top-down answers count. In fact, the pattern shows that God reveals slowly, and often in response to faithful struggle or cultural friction - not in anticipation of it.

It happens after years of discomfort, often following righteous agitation and sincere questions that pushed the institution and the people to their limits. So, when the leaders say, “We don’t fully understand same-sex attraction,” or “We don’t know all the reasons behind the policies,” that’s not evasion. It might be the pressure point where new revelation is gestating. The Restoration continues. It always will. And so do the questions.

Is it not a valid observation, the scriptural pattern that revelation comes 40 years since the last paradigm-shifting revelation, it often waits until we’re asking hard enough, hurting deep enough, or grown enough to hear it?

[blackstrap]

If it is true, as some NDE experiencers report , that we got to choose our own life situation before coming here to mortality , then that would definitely impact the idea of " FAIRNESS " . Even the Church has said that we chose who would be our family. Maybe that idea is one of those " cats getting out of the bag " that Brigham Young spoke about . 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, blackstrap said:

If it is true, as some NDE experiencers report , that we got to choose our own life situation before coming here to mortality , then that would definitely impact the idea of " FAIRNESS " . Even the Church has said that we chose who would be our family. Maybe that idea is one of those " cats getting out of the bag " that Brigham Young spoke about . 

I find these ideas very hard to believe.

”Yeah, I have decided to go for being a Spartan helot slave. I think that is the life I want to lead.”

”Really, I am looking into being a Dalit/untouchable in the Hindu caste system.”

”I have decided to go for living a life of ongoing and perpetual physical pain.”

”Oh, oh, are there any slots left for people wanting to be psychopaths? I think that is my best bet for achieving exaltation.”