Is this a true statement according to Church Doctrine?

[Navidad]

Just now I received a Facebook post from a group that appears to be created by faithful Saints. In its discussion of "What is a Living Prophet," it states, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What do you all think about that statement?  Do you agree with it? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean? Elevation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? I know "salvation" has a different connotation to the faithful Saint than it does to me.  Does this have something to do with exaltation? Something else? Thanks so much. Sorry, I closed the thread and can't find the exact origin again. I am trying to find you all the exact source. Take care, Navidad. Edit: The source I read this in was not an official church source, but it apparently copied this statement from an official church website - "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets. Many people do. For some mysterious reason there is an aura of credibility about them. It is not so with the prophet who lives among us, who must meet life’s everyday challenges. But it is a great thing to believe in the living prophets. Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What Is a Living Prophet?       So I guess that answers the first question - it does seem to be official church doctrine. So, now back to my second question. . . . what does that statement mean? Thanks. 

Edited August 29, 2025 by Navidad

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Just now I received a Facebook post from a group that appears to be created by faithful Saints. In its discussion of "What is a Living Prophet," it states, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What do you all think about that statement?  Do you agree with it? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean? Elevation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? I know "salvation" has a different connotation to the faithful Saint than it does to me.  Does this have something to do with exaltation? Something else? Thanks so much. Sorry, I closed the thread and can't find the exact origin again. I am trying to find you all the exact source. Take care, Navidad.

It looks like this idea comes at least partly from his understanding of D&C 68:4.  Pres. Tuttle quotes it further into the talk.

“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

The power of God unto salvation is the power Christ, so if the speaker meant that we need living prophets to to communicate the will of the Lord to God's children as a group, and that our acceptance of such communication plays a role in our salvation, then I can agree.

If he meant something else, I might not completely agree.  It's not a statement that I remember hearing before and it doesn't make a lot of sense on the surface to me so I'm not exactly sure how to take it.

[teddyaware]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just now I received a Facebook post from a group that appears to be created by faithful Saints. In its discussion of "What is a Living Prophet," it states, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What do you all think about that statement?  Do you agree with it? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean? Elevation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? I know "salvation" has a different connotation to the faithful Saint than it does to me.  Does this have something to do with exaltation? Something else? Thanks so much. Sorry, I closed the thread and can't find the exact origin again. I am trying to find you all the exact source. Take care, Navidad. Edit: The source I read this in was not an official church source, but it apparently copied this statement from an official church website - "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets. Many people do. For some mysterious reason there is an aura of credibility about them. It is not so with the prophet who lives among us, who must meet life’s everyday challenges. But it is a great thing to believe in the living prophets. Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What Is a Living Prophet?       So I guess that answers the first question - it does seem to be official church doctrine. So, now back to my second question. . . . what does that statement mean? Thanks. 

I suppose the easiest way to help non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to understand the principle of the necessity of having to follow the living prophets in order to be saved is to ask them the following simple question: Would you consider a man who professed himself to be a Christian during the Apostolic Period to be a true follower of Christ if he rejected the Apostle Peter as the resurrected Christ’s chosen leader of his church on earth? Simple as that.

As to the other part of your question: from a Latter-Day Saint perspective, Doctrine and Covenants 138 makes it clear that entry into the lower kingdoms of heavenly glory is only made possible by obeying the gospel message declared by God’s duly authorized prophets who are assigned to teach and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the spirits of the dead who are sojourning in the spirit world. It will come as a surprise to many Latter-Day Saints to hear that entry into the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of glory is made possible only if the spirits of the dead accept and follow the counsel of the Lord’s prophets in the spirit world, but Doctrine and Covenants 138 leaves no room for doubt on this matter. I don’t know how you’ll feel about this, but I personally take great solace in the fact that by the time of the final judgement there won’t be a single individual who will not know and understand the power and blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that it’s only the sons of perdition who will reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior! I can’t for the life of me imagine how a God of true love, justice and mercy could possibly do it any other way!

28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty  to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression having rejected the prophets. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

Further…

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

and finally…

57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

How absolutely wonderful!!

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just now I received a Facebook post from a group that appears to be created by faithful Saints. In its discussion of "What is a Living Prophet," it states, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What do you all think about that statement?  Do you agree with it? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean? Elevation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? I know "salvation" has a different connotation to the faithful Saint than it does to me.  Does this have something to do with exaltation? Something else? Thanks so much. Sorry, I closed the thread and can't find the exact origin again. I am trying to find you all the exact source. Take care, Navidad. Edit: The source I read this in was not an official church source, but it apparently copied this statement from an official church website - "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets. Many people do. For some mysterious reason there is an aura of credibility about them. It is not so with the prophet who lives among us, who must meet life’s everyday challenges. But it is a great thing to believe in the living prophets. Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What Is a Living Prophet?       So I guess that answers the first question - it does seem to be official church doctrine. So, now back to my second question. . . . what does that statement mean? Thanks. 

In context of this 1973 source, it means, doctrinally, that Christ restored His Church and gave the keys of the kingdom to Joseph Smith and his successors and that these keys give them, the living prophets, authority to administer the saving ordinances and attendant covenants, beginning with baptism and the laying of of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost (both essential for salvation) and culminating in the temple ordinances essential for exaltation.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I suppose the easiest way to help non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to understand the principle of the necessity of having to follow the living prophets in order to be saved is to ask them the following simple question: Would you consider a man who professed himself to be a Christian during the Apostolic Period to be a true follower of Christ if he rejected the Apostle Peter as the resurrected Christ’s chosen leader of his church on earth? Simple as that.

As to the other part of your question: from a Latter-Day Saint perspective, Doctrine and Covenants 138 makes it clear that entry into the lower kingdoms of heavenly glory is only made possible by obeying the gospel message declared by God’s duly authorized prophets who are assigned to teach and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the spirits of the dead who are sojourning in the spirit world. It will come as a surprise to many Latter-Day Saints to hear that entry into the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of glory is made possible only if the spirits of the dead accept and follow the counsel of the Lord’s prophets in the spirit world, but Doctrine and Covenants 138 leaves no room for doubt on this matter. I don’t know how you’ll feel about this, but I personally take great solace in the fact that by the time of the final judgement there won’t be a single individual who will not know and understand the power and blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that it’s only the sons of perdition who will reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior! I can’t for the life of me imagine how a God of true love, justice and mercy could possibly do it any other way!

 

28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty  to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression having rejected the prophets. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

Further…

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

and finally…

57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

How absolutely wonderful!!

Quickly to answer your premise question - I see no correlation to Peter being a leader in the church (or even thee leader) and my or anyone else's salvation. I am not sure I reject him as having been the leader? It simply is of no importance to me whether he was or not. Peter didn't redeem me, nor did he die for my sins. Without any malintent, I hope that answers your premise question. Thanks for responding. It is good to hear from you again. 

[Navidad]

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances?

Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand. 

Edited August 29, 2025 by Navidad
another thought

[JVW]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just now I received a Facebook post from a group that appears to be created by faithful Saints. In its discussion of "What is a Living Prophet," it states, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What do you all think about that statement?  Do you agree with it? Perhaps more importantly, what does it mean? Elevation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom? I know "salvation" has a different connotation to the faithful Saint than it does to me.  Does this have something to do with exaltation? Something else? Thanks so much. Sorry, I closed the thread and can't find the exact origin again. I am trying to find you all the exact source. Take care, Navidad. Edit: The source I read this in was not an official church source, but it apparently copied this statement from an official church website - "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets. Many people do. For some mysterious reason there is an aura of credibility about them. It is not so with the prophet who lives among us, who must meet life’s everyday challenges. But it is a great thing to believe in the living prophets. Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word." What Is a Living Prophet?       So I guess that answers the first question - it does seem to be official church doctrine. So, now back to my second question. . . . what does that statement mean? Thanks. 

I agree with this statement with a slight asterisk. This is how I view it.

The Bible is a collection of texts written by ancient prophets who had authority from God to speak on His behalf. Those texts were compiled (as the Holy Bible) and preserved by the Catholic church. Without the Bible (and the authority preserved in it) nobody would know who Jesus Christ is. Without knowing who Jesus Christ is there is no salvation. So for the modern Christian it is safe to say that "our salvation is contingent upon our belief in the dead prophets and adherence to their words." To reiterate, without even one "true" prophet (authorized representative of God), there would be no knowledge of Christ, how to accept Him, how to follow Him, or the Good News of salvation.

Now there are some Christians who believe that salvation comes only through a belief in the dead prophets, but not in adherence to their words. But they are foolish. They can talk a lot but any Christian who has been down on their luck, or been desperate through a trial, or been through a 12 step program, etc. will naturally go down on their knees in humble prayer, open their Bible to read God's word, and/or go to church seeking relief. These are all actions encouraged by the dead prophets, and when a believer does any of these things they are "adhering to their (the dead prophet's) words".

Now comes the slight asterisk part... How does this translate to salvation being contingent on a belief in the living prophets when salvation can come from belief in the dead prophets? I don't know. My current best guess is somewhat cynical. It's that I personally believe that many Christians are fooling themselves into believing they have been saved when they are not. If I take Christ at His word and "by their fruits ye shall know them" and a third of the world is Christian, then where is the fruit of peace in this world?

I haven't done the research, but I'd imagine that Latter-day Saints as a population (granted it's a relatively small population) tend to exhibit more fruits of salvation than those populations who only follow dead prophets. Again, I don't know. But in a twist of irony it may be that many of my Christian brothers and sisters are the ones who have been deceived and follow a false Christ (i.e. prosperity gospel). Again, to be clear, I view Christians in a highly favorable light, and have many Christian friends who I actively encourage to walk in their faith. I don't care if people convert to my church or not, and I don't judge them any more negatively any more than I do people in my own church.

[Calm]

We believe the president of God’s Church has been chosen by Christ to be his spokes prophet here on earth to not only the Church, but the world (obviously more limited in fulfillment in days past).  If Christ wants people in general to know something as opposed to individual revelation, Christ sends this revelation through his prophet.

I think of it as along the lines of mail from the USPS back when there was no email.  There may have been alternatives, but anything from the government generally came to you through USPS.   You could miss out on a lot of opportunities and get penalized on occasion if you operated on the assumption nothing of value was delivered by USPS, if it was important enough it would be delivered by FedEx to your door, so you never bothered to go to your mailbox.  There may have been a lot of mail you could ignore without much or any consequences, but substantial loss if you ignored the government stuff. (My husband often doesn’t open up envelopes if he thinks it’s just statements from doctors’ offices and such where he waits to pay after insurance has done their thing or he pays online, we have missed out on a couple a hundred dollars worth of refund checks over the years because of this choice).

Edited August 29, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances?

Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand. 

Yes, that is our basic belief. Salvation through our covenants with God.

We do not consider them to be Latter-day Saint ordinances though. They are God’s ordinances.

Everyone’s only hope is to follow Christ. That is the guy in the woods only hope, and my only hope, and your only hope.  It is not about being convinced in heaven which church was right. It’s about people deciding if they want to live the kind of life Christ lives (as a joint-heir with Him), or not.

[JVW]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances?

Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand. 

From what I understand baptism is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom (exaltation) and be in the presence of the Father forever. Baptism is not required in order to be in the presence of the Son forever, only repentance and faith in the Lord. I'm not sure what the official doctrine is for the meaning of the word "salvation". If it means being in the presence of Jesus eternally in the afterlife, then there are requirements or faith and repentance. If it means receive any degree of God's glory than it is as free of a gift as the resurrection is, because one can reject Christ and live wickedly and still receive a degree of glory after suffering in Hell before final judgment.

[cujo22]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances?

Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand. 

This is kind of a difficult question that can put us in a bit of a corner in that it tends towards a member of our church saying something that we don't quite mean. Specifically, answering yes and no. I guess one might say we have to hedge a bit.

Here's how I look at this. Within the LDS church we have a set of beliefs that is internally consistent (it pretty much makes sense) and that when taken in totality leads a human in a good direction as far as being a better human and making the world a better place. That set of beliefs includes that yes, Christ restored His church in the latter-days including the authority to perform ordinances such that they are recognized by God. So getting cornered, a member of our church might clarify that your baptism is not valid and you must join our church and so on, listen to our prophet, etc. On the other hand, the total set of beliefs that the church espouses is quite liberal overall with respect to the destination of souls (salvation or exaltation or whatever, I'm not a theologian). We belief all will have an opportunity to learn and grow into the afterlife. We belief with Paul in an afterlife sort of tailored to the individual, with somehow there being many different destination sort of like the stars differ in glory. So it's a general picture of an "judgment" that is merciful and just and leaves each of us as ourselves, not put in a box that doesn't make much sense (two boxes - heaven and hell, or four boxes - celestial, terrestrial, and telestial and outer darkeness or whatever). Furthermore, I treat all of our teaching about life before and after earthlife as temple teachings, they're designed to teach us some important principles, they're not designed to give us a rubric to help me know which box specific individuals will be in. In my opinion, that's the exact type of judgment that Jesus doesn't want me to do. But answering your question puts me in a corner where I'm being called on to hand out that kind of judgment and to reject the large portions of our teachings.

Things like salvation being a family affair, that the temple ordinances are somehow going to help unite the entire human family and we can all go home together. The teachings keep me wanting the whole world to better off, to work together as brothers and sisters, to reduce suffering, all that. Deciding that you won't be going to heaven feel antithetical to all of that, to me. It's not something I think about, it's not something I think I need to worry about, cuz God's plan as we try to teach it is pretty expansive, and includes both me and you.

So I think you're going to heaven, I mean what do I know? but I certainly have no reason to say you're not going to heaven. But I also believe my church is "true" as we like to say. Maybe some think that's a contradiction. But the "church is true" part probably helps keeps me committed to serving in the church and paying tithing so the church as a whole can continue to do a lot of good in the world, it probably helps me have confidence to do what I think is right as best I know when it's difficult to do so. For me at least, it doesn't keep me from basically assuming John Stockton and Whitney Houston are going to be in heaven. They aren't/weren't members or our church, but somehow I have faith in God and Jesus's power to save and I just think heaven is going to need John Stockton and Whitney Houston, cuz what a voice! and what a bounce pass! What? I'm going to be rewarded way more than them or something basically because of being raised in the church? Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I don't think the church's teaching are consistent with that idea.

The "true church" pushes against a bad idea that: eh, don't worry about it, we're all going to be saved anyway, and also what's the rush to change, etc. So that teaching has it's purpose, but looking at our beliefs as a whole we can't conclude that you're not going to heaven cuz you haven't accepted LDS baptism.

So the full set of beliefs leaves us in a somewhat difficult spot answering your questions. It's not perfect. But then again it also provides great answers to a lot of other hard questions. Like your question about someone who found a Book of Mormon on an island and decided to believe in Christ. What about the guy on an island who didn't find a bible or Book of Mormon or bible and didn't know about or believe in Christ? The totality of our teachings provides pretty decent answers for these questions. Also, does an afterlife that gets rewarded because somebody believed in Christ make much sense? I have lots of questions like that that I think the church, overall, provides pretty good answers to. 

Edited August 29, 2025 by cujo22

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We do not consider them to be Latter-day Saint ordinances though. They are God’s ordinances.

Ordinances that even if a member we don’t fully understand yet (my guess is we are barely beginning in our understanding) and therefore must continue our learning in the next life…for quite some time.  See quote below.

Also of note imo, based on this quote and other doctrine, the mortal version of God’s Church (the Restored Gospel) does not provide us with everything we will ever need to do or know for salvation, it gives us access to what the Lord wants us (speaking generally) to have now.

Quote

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel– you must begin with the first, and 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 will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:306-307

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, cujo22 said:

Within the LDS church we have a set of beliefs that is internally consistent

Mostly consistent, I would say.  There are a few things that are inconsistent imo, at least with our current knowledge, such as the principle of plural marriage where men are given the opportunity of multiple marriages, but women are not and yet we are also taught all are alike before God, so why would someone have access to what appears to be seen as greater blessings solely based on biological sex?  Also, those who die before the age of 8 being admitted to the Celestial Kingdom apparently without needing to go through the ‘usual’ process of Spirit Prison (really dislike the term for when the purpose is learning and receiving ordinances, not punishment) or even apparently making a choice to accept Christ (do we just assume they will?; if so, that has some potentially interesting implications for the rest of us, imo) like everyone over the age of 8 who hasn’t had a chance to receive the Gospel and its ordinances.  

There are also a lot of gaps in our knowledge, we don’t have a systematic theology as revelation is received in nonsystematic ways, imo, and revelation is what our basic doctrine should be, though we have extended quite a bit of it though reasoning.  Joseph was fond of reasoning out the implications of revelation.  I don’t know if he meant his reasonings to become essentially set in stone doctrine.  Some did and some didn’t.  Same thing has happened with many of the prophets, imo, including those who were apostles (“cough” Bruce R McConkie “cough”).  Some reasoned out doctrine has been cleaned up and even out, other still hung around, maybe true principles, maybe not.

Love the rest of your post.  Very much agree with it.

Edited August 29, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances?

Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand. 

The Spirit World is much more complex than many realize. It won't be as clear as people have imagined. Remember, some of our brothers and sisters were deceived while existing in the presence of our Heavenly  Parents.

Edited August 29, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[manol]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

all are alike before God... those who die before the age of 8 being admitted to the Celestial Kingdom apparently without needing to go through the ‘usual’ process...

My recollection is that vicarious temple ordinances are not done for kids who die before age 8.  Is this correct?

If so, is there any official, or semi-official, reason given for why they don't need temple ordinances just as much as anyone else? 

 

Edited August 30, 2025 by manol

[Tony uk]

This is just my thought process working on this. Maybe God allows the various Christian Churches to exist in the world, as a way of guiding us to him in a initial point of contact. Then guide us through the (Holy) spirit to the preferred position that we are called to be in.

As an example. The LSD may have a centralised administration in Utah, USA. and from there, throughout the various countries and continents. Various Temples and Churches. This will represent the members in those various Countries/Continents. This is all to do with numbers, some places will have smaller numbers. So this is where evangelisation takes place to inform people. A similar position with the Roman Catholic Church. Centered in Rome, and then spreading out through the Countries/Continents. 

So the point that I am making, following on from my initial point. God allows, imo, Churches to exist in the various ways. So that people can become informed, and have access to his son. And the through the guidance of the (Holy) Spirit. The person can find the correct way of Christian living.

This is my first attempt at a larger post. Hopefully, I have got my thoughts across in one piece.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, manol said:

My recollection is that vicarious temple ordinances are not done for kids who die before age 8.  Is this correct?

Sealings to parents only, I believe.

”f so, is there any official, or semi-official, reason given for why they don't need temple ordinances just as much as anyone else?”

The reasoning I have heard is Moroni 8 states baptism isn’t needed for innocent children, it is a “mockery of God” in fact (because it implies he damns little children).

Obviously a marriage sealing isn’t appropriate.  For them to be given the endowment by proxy without a baptism seems possibly inappropriate.  As far as I know nothing has been revealed about what happens to them, though Joseph did say parents would have the children they had lost and perhaps he was the first to say they would be raised to adulthood in the Millenium.

speculation:  Since God has promised no one will be deprived of a blessing they deserved, seems like it’s reasonable to assume once children are raised to adulthood, they will receive baptism if not for remission of sins, at least for obedience to become part of the Church of the Firstborn and then their endowment and have an opportunity to be married if they so desired.

Edited August 30, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Tony uk said:

This is just my thought process working on this. Maybe God allows the various Christian Churches to exist in the world, as a way of guiding us to him in a initial point of contact. Then guide us through the (Holy) spirit to the preferred position that we are called to be in.

As an example. The LSD may have a centralised administration in Utah, USA. and from there, throughout the various countries and continents. Various Temples and Churches. This will represent the members in those various Countries/Continents. This is all to do with numbers, some places will have smaller numbers. So this is where evangelisation takes place to inform people. A similar position with the Roman Catholic Church. Centered in Rome, and then spreading out through the Countries/Continents. 

So the point that I am making, following on from my initial point. God allows, imo, Churches to exist in the various ways. So that people can become informed, and have access to his son. And the through the guidance of the (Holy) Spirit. The person can find the correct way of Christian living.

This is my first attempt at a larger post. Hopefully, I have got my thoughts across in one piece.

Hi Tony, thanks for your post. I liked your post. I have always (since I joined this esteemed board) thought that a post should be liked if I appreciate the time taken by the poster to share their thoughts with all of us. I also like a post when I think the poster has presented a cogent and interesting point, whether I agree with it or not. Some think a "like" means one agrees with the comment. I have never seen it that way. Of course there is not one right or wrong reason for liking; that is in the mind of the one giving the like.

I like the concept behind your post, with the difference, from my point of view, that I think God "allows the various Christian churches to exist in the world" (including the LDS church) "as a way of guiding us to him in an initial point of contact." After becoming aware of Christ, we then commit to him and grow in him through the Holy Spirit as an individual. We each individually manifest the fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit in different ways according to how he has blessed us (gifts) and how we respond to him and others (fruits). In your country, I had an Anglican pastor named John R. W. Stott manifest the gifts and fruits of the Spirit in a powerful way to me during my stay therein. Through his ministry, writings, and preaching, he did so for many other people as well. Through my interactions with a godly LDS bishop, I also grew in the fruits and gifts of the Spirit as I interacted with him over a number of years. Ditto for the ministry of a Mennonite bishop and a Presbyterian leader who had a profound individual impact on my life by the grace of God. My best wishes to you, Tony. Blessings, Navidad.  

[The Nehor]

On 8/29/2025 at 10:28 AM, teddyaware said:

I suppose the easiest way to help non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to understand the principle of the necessity of having to follow the living prophets in order to be saved is to ask them the following simple question: Would you consider a man who professed himself to be a Christian during the Apostolic Period to be a true follower of Christ if he rejected the Apostle Peter as the resurrected Christ’s chosen leader of his church on earth? Simple as that.

I don’t think you realize how many Christians both now and back then would answer “yes” to that question. Gnostics often (but not always) portray Peter as a bit of a simpleton who didn’t “get” Christianity. Scholars debate whether Peter was the sole leader of the church or whether it was a kind of collegial leadership. The Catholics portray Peter as the sole leader but that was mostly to bolster the position of the pope. Protestants would generally insist that Jesus is the only head of the Church.

On 8/29/2025 at 10:28 AM, teddyaware said:

As to the other part of your question: from a Latter-Day Saint perspective, Doctrine and Covenants 138 makes it clear that entry into the lower kingdoms of heavenly glory is only made possible by obeying the gospel message declared by God’s duly authorized prophets who are assigned to teach and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the spirits of the dead who are sojourning in the spirit world. It will come as a surprise to many Latter-Day Saints to hear that entry into the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of glory is made possible only if the spirits of the dead accept and follow the counsel of the Lord’s prophets in the spirit world, but Doctrine and Covenants 138 leaves no room for doubt on this matter. I don’t know how you’ll feel about this, but I personally take great solace in the fact that by the time of the final judgement there won’t be a single individual who will not know and understand the power and blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that it’s only the sons of perdition who will reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior! I can’t for the life of me imagine how a God of true love, justice and mercy could possibly do it any other way!

Yet despite your declaration that God couldn’t possibly do it any other way neither the early Church or the centuries of Christendom ever discovered this self-evident fact and imagined all kinds of other ways God could do it. In fact not even Joseph Smith saw this self-evident truth. It took decades into the Restoration to figure it out.

On 8/29/2025 at 10:28 AM, teddyaware said:

 

28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty  to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression having rejected the prophets. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

Further…

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

and finally…

57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

How absolutely wonderful!!

And the account says that Joseph F. Smith believed in a God of true love, justice, and mercy and only discovered this after he had a vision.

Why did it take God so long to reveal this?

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think you realize how many Christians both now and back then would answer “yes” to that question. Gnostics often (but not always) portray Peter as a bit of a simpleton who didn’t “get” Christianity. Scholars debate whether Peter was the sole leader of the church or whether it was a kind of collegial leadership. The Catholics portray Peter as the sole leader but that was mostly to bolster the position of the pope. Protestants would generally insist that Jesus is the only head of the Church.

Yet despite your declaration that God couldn’t possibly do it any other way neither the early Church or the centuries of Christendom ever discovered this self-evident fact and imagined all kinds of other ways God could do it. In fact not even Joseph Smith saw this self-evident truth. It took decades into the Restoration to figure it out.

And the account says that Joseph F. Smith believed in a God of true love, justice, and mercy and only discovered this after he had a vision.

Why did it take God so long to reveal this?

The vision only served to confirm ideas that had been around by previous leaders.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The vision only served to confirm ideas that had been around by previous leaders.

No. I mean the idea that Jesus’s ‘harrowing of hell’ was definitely around and was tied to baptism for the dead but this rewrote the whole thing. We find out that Jesus didn’t go to hell at all.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps a follow-up question. Let's suppose I am one who never heard of Christianity, but I found either an old, worn Bible or Book of Mormon in the woods one day. I read the book and was led to acknowledge Christ as my savior from my readings. I believe that is a possibility because I believe there is adequate material in either to lead a person to do that. Then I continued living in isolation, never having heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Mennonite Church. In your doctrine, is my only hope for salvation (including exaltation) through post-death ordinances?

Would the same be true for me, even though I know of all the earthly churches but rejecting LDS ordinances in this life? My only hope is in post-death ordinance acceptance from an LDS missionary in the spirit world. To be complete, it is my belief (with incertitude, of course), right now, that there will be no earthly denominations, churches, or Christian group affiliations in the afterlife. To be incomplete, it is my understanding of your faith that I will die, see LDS spirit missionaries, and be convinced that your faith is the only enduring one in the afterlife, because there won't be any competing Mennonite, Catholic, or Baptist missionaries there. Threfore it only makes sense I will accept the LDS ordinances at that point. That is the guy-in-the-woods' only hope and my only hope. Is that correct? As always in the past, I am simply trying to understand. 

The ordinances must be received, in this life or the next for salvation and exaltation. If immortality alone counts as salvation for someone (and Christ did die for this to happen for everyone), then who am I to deny that to them? 

Anyone can still decline the fulness of the gospel, no matter how loving and compelling the Lord may be to them. Multiple denominations in the afterlife, why not (D&C 76, terrestrial kingdom)?

Our only hope is in Christ and He has provided both the way to be The One to Follow and the way to follow Him. This is a case where we have to have it both ways. It is the same for all of us, the same for you.

Edited August 30, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

19 hours ago, manol said:

My recollection is that vicarious temple ordinances are not done for kids who die before age 8.  Is this correct?

Another thought occurred to me.  Let’s assume that baptism and the endowment are never given to anyone who died before the age of eight because proxy ordinances are not commanded to be performed for them (I typically add here “at this time”, but won’t for this argument).  I asked ChaptGPT to come up with an estimate of what percentage of humanity likely died before the age of eight since I could only find info for death before age 5 or adulthood.  This below was the final half of Chatty’s response (anyone else remember the Chatty Cathy dolls of my youth? I envision ChatGPT as what happened after they dumped all the discards and unsold product in a warehouse and ignored them for decades, resulting in them evolving into a sentient hive mind).  If we assume that around half of resurrected humanity won’t need temple ordinances because of early death, what does that suggest about their necessity?  Why would ordinances be necessary solely because one got past age eight in a very brief part of our eternal existence?  I can see it if ordinances were solely about fixing stuff that was broken and something doesn’t ‘break’ until one’s accountable, but only baptism’s remission of sins goes there in our doctrine.

Quote

Sources of This Estimate:

• Historical Demography: Pre-industrial life expectancy at birth was often 30–40 years, not because adults died young, but because many children died very young.

• Modern parallels: In some 18th- and 19th-century populations, death before age 5 was 40–50%. In some modern low-income regions with poor healthcare, similar numbers persist today.

• UN and WHO historical child mortality data help calibrate assumptions.

---

Final Answer:

🔢 Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatty_Cathy

Edited August 30, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Yeah, from what I have read it would be about 45-50%. It wasn’t until the 18th century that anything made a meaningful dent in those numbers and even then it was a lot longer before those practices were widespread.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Another thought occurred to me.  Let’s assume that baptism and the endowment are never given to anyone who died before the age of eight because proxy ordinances are not commanded to be performed for them (I typically add here “at this time”, but won’t for this argument).  I asked ChaptGPT to come up with an estimate of what percentage of humanity likely died before the age of eight since I could only find info for death before age 5 or adulthood.  This below was the final half of Chatty’s response (anyone else remember the Chatty Cathy dolls of my youth? I envision ChatGPT as what happened after they dumped all the discards and unsold product in a warehouse and ignored them for decades, resulting in them evolving into a sentient hive mind).  If we assume that around half of resurrected humanity won’t need temple ordinances because of early death, what does that suggest about their necessity?  Why would ordinances be necessary solely because one got past age eight in a very brief part of our eternal existence?  I can see it if ordinances were solely about fixing stuff that was broken and something doesn’t ‘break’ until one’s accountable, but only baptism’s remission of sins goes there in our doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatty_Cathy

Not to mention what this fact says about the sex ratio celestial demographics. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/in-the-heavens-are-parents-single-report-no-1/