Is this a true statement according to Church Doctrine?

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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...

[AI's conclusion] Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

Very interesting, this shifts the picture a bit... I had failed to appreciate that the vast majority of people living well past the age of 8 is a relatively recent phenomenon. 

 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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/

Ha!  I have long thought that the higher infant & early childhood mortality rates of males would theoretically result in more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom, and somebody actually did the calculations!

Bad news fellas - polyandry looks like it's statistically more likely in heaven than polygyny!!

*  *  *  *

Seriously, imo any ideology which teaches that separation is, or will become, permanent, can only take a person so far; at some point such ideologies become inherently limiting. 

Likewise imo any ideology which leads to some people being treated unfairly has a mistake in it somewhere. 

Edited August 31, 2025 by manol

[CV75]

17 hours 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

Waxing tautological, temple ordinances are necessary for the half who need them. I think, for policy purposes in administering the keys of the kingdom (and there are many purposes for policy), age and other circumstances factor in for the time being. The Lord sets the scale for actual accountability and judgement.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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/

For those who do not get that this article is absurdist satire, it offers a good example of an oversimplification fallacy with a twist of appeal to probability.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For those who do not get that this article is absurdist satire, it offers a good example of an oversimplification fallacy with a twist of appeal to probability.

I’d say it’s a response to the absurd assumptions that members propagate as to why polygamy is necessary in the first place, namely that there are going to be way more righteous women than men in heaven. Which is ridiculous horse poop right?

Edited August 31, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I haven't yet remembered how to clip just a part of a post to respond to it. But I am responding to the: "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." I really like that. That'll preach! I believe we all agree on the first part; we probably have some disagreements on the second part. Methinks, regarding the second part (the way to follow Him) - your understanding of that way is a bit more exclusive for this life at this time. My understanding as an Evangelical is a bit more inclusive for this life at this time. Why do I say that? Because I include you, but you (spoken in the generalized "you") don't include me - hence I am sitting home reading this forum on a Sunday morning, content in my relationship to Christ but missing my relationships in the ward. I am brother Navidad, not Brother Navidad. You all are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like many (most?) of those sitting in some other denomination's church this morning. That is how we differ in "the way to follow Him." Thanks for your post. It is well said. 

Edited August 31, 2025 by Navidad

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Waxing tautological, temple ordinances are necessary for the half who need them. I think, for policy purposes in administering the keys of the kingdom (and there are many purposes for policy), age and other circumstances factor in for the time being. The Lord sets the scale for actual accountability and judgement.

I am not saying they aren’t necessary for only half of humanity.  I am saying if they are only necessary for half of humanity, we don’t really have a clue why because it’s inconsistent with other doctrine we teach…at least if we assume exaltation is also available for those who died before accountability.

 

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, manol said:

Very interesting, this shifts the picture a bit... I had failed to appreciate that the vast majority of people living well past the age of 8 is a relatively recent phenomenon. 

 

Ha!  I have long thought that the higher infant & early childhood mortality rates of males would theoretically result in more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom, and somebody actually did the calculations!

Bad news fellas - polyandry looks like it's statistically more likely in heaven than polygyny!!

*  *  *  *

Seriously, imo any ideology which teaches that separation is, or will become, permanent, can only take a person so far; at some point such ideologies become inherently limiting. 

Likewise imo any ideology which leads to some people being treated unfairly has a mistake in it somewhere. 

I think I like what you are saying, but I also think I am not sure what you are saying . .🙃 When you use the word "separation," to what are you referring? When you talk about "people being treated unfairly" to what are you referring? Thanks, my friend. 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Waxing tautological, temple ordinances are necessary for the half who need them. I think, for policy purposes in administering the keys of the kingdom (and there are many purposes for policy), age and other circumstances factor in for the time being. The Lord sets the scale for actual accountability and judgement.

I like the part I bolded and italicized. I agree completely. I do not, however, believe that we (any of us) have a thorough or complete understanding of the units to be used in measuring us for accountability and judgment on the divine bascula (scale).  

[ZealouslyStriving]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not saying they aren’t necessary for only half of humanity.  I am saying if they are only necessary for half of humanity, we don’t really have a clue why because it’s inconsistent with other doctrine we teach…at least if we assume exaltation is also available for those who died before accountability.

 

Could it be that in the pre-mortal life that some achieved such a level of glory (intelligence, righteousness) that all they really needed was to obtain a body for a short number of days or years, and, with the exception of choice spirits serving as prophets and apostles those who arrive at a accountability are those who still had things to learn- and for them the best classroom is mortality?

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Could it be that in the pre-mortal life that some achieved such a level of glory (intelligence, righteousness) that all they really needed was to obtain a body for a short number of days or years, and, with the exception of choice spirits serving as prophets and apostles those who arrive at a accountability are those who still had things to learn- and for them the best classroom is mortality?

At least we could get rid of that chosen generation and saving the best spirits for the last days thing. The best amongst us are the stillborn and those who die young. We are all the failures who barely qualified to come at all.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say it’s a response to the absurd assumptions that members propagate as to why polygamy is necessary in the first place, namely that there are going to be way more righteous women than men in heaven. Which is ridiculous horse poop right?

You do recognize the article is satirical, correct? You posted it, and not any other articulating the assumptions about polygamy to which it responds. The article itself generalizes what it responds to.

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

At least we could get rid of that chosen generation and saving the best spirits for the last days thing. The best amongst us are the stillborn and those who die young. We are all the failures who barely qualified to come at all.

I hope it is ok to post this link. Your post reminded me of one of my very favorite tidbits of a sermon by a wonderful preacher from Scotland. It speaks to your point about us being "all the failures who barely qualified to come at all." 
 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I haven't yet remembered how to clip just a part of a post to respond to it. But I am responding to the: "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." I really like that. That'll preach! I believe we all agree on the first part; we probably have some disagreements on the second part. Methinks, regarding the second part (the way to follow Him) - your understanding of that way is a bit more exclusive for this life at this time. My understanding as an Evangelical is a bit more inclusive for this life at this time. Why do I say that? Because I include you, but you (spoken in the generalized "you") don't include me - hence I am sitting home reading this forum on a Sunday morning, content in my relationship to Christ but missing my relationships in the ward. I am brother Navidad, not Brother Navidad. You all are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like many (most?) of those sitting in some other denomination's church this morning. That is how we differ in "the way to follow Him." Thanks for your post. It is well said. 

Thank you. It might help by removing terms like exclusivity and inclusivity from the comparison between the LDS and Evangelical ways to follow Him "for this life at this time," and by recognizing and reconciling any semantics that crop up; compare them side by side.

Whatever happened in your ward, I hope you still see your LDS friends and enjoy these relationships in other venues.

[ZealouslyStriving]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

At least we could get rid of that chosen generation and saving the best spirits for the last days thing. The best amongst us are the stillborn and those who die young. We are all the failures who barely qualified to come at all.

They're the best generation of those that barely qualified- it still works. 😄

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

At least we could get rid of that chosen generation and saving the best spirits for the last days thing. The best amongst us are the stillborn and those who die young. We are all the failures who barely qualified to come at all.

Like I said…inconsistency 

Just to be clear, this is not a bad thing to me.  I find it fascinating instead, hints of knowledge to come.

Edited August 31, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

They're the best generation of those that barely qualified- it still works. 😄

So I’m an honor student at St Brutus’s Secure Centre for Incurably Criminal Boys?

Yeah, the Primary and Youth lessons about being part of a chosen generation left that bit out for some reason. Yet more undeserved hype.

I am really hoping that the real purpose of life is to develop a deep sense of cynicism. If not, I’m in trouble.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not saying they aren’t necessary for only half of humanity.  I am saying if they are only necessary for half of humanity, we don’t really have a clue why because it’s inconsistent with other doctrine we teach…at least if we assume exaltation is also available for those who died before accountability.

 

Because the ordinances are ways by which the covenants are taught and conveyed in the flesh, I would err on the side that they are necessary for all. The exception is that little children do not need the baptism covenant to fulfill all righteousness in how they enter the way (Moroni and King Benjamin). It has not been revealed what other ordinances might also be excepted for children and the non-accountable, and this might be what D&C 137 refers to, but if any are, the covenants as they were taught in the first estate (Alma 13) that these ordinances carry would still be necessary.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I like the part I bolded and italicized. I agree completely. I do not, however, believe that we (any of us) have a thorough or complete understanding of the units to be used in measuring us for accountability and judgment on the divine bascula (scale).  

"The Way" and policies are about saving doctrines and practices, and do not include those rights and responsibilities the Lord reserves for Himself.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You do recognize the article is satirical, correct?

I find satire to be the best response to many poorly formed ideas. And the idea that there are more righteous women in heaven than men is so pervasive that it hardly needs calling out. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Could it be that in the pre-mortal life that some achieved such a level of glory (intelligence, righteousness) that all they really needed was to obtain a body for a short number of days or years, and, with the exception of choice spirits serving as prophets and apostles those who arrive at a accountability are those who still had things to learn- and for them the best classroom is mortality?

What an odd thing then, to create a method for exaltation that not only the living, but the dead need to partake of—yet only half of one’s children actually need it—and to expedite this other better half’s journey through mortality by most often (children dying quietly in their sleep, such as in SID are in a minority even as infants, getting even smaller as they get older) using suffering, sometimes extreme….mortality of children younger than 8 would have occurred because of malnourishment, mistreatment and other things lacking in their environment given we know why the rates of infant and child mortality dropped and finally after hundreds of thousands of years of humanity’s existence (if we count from the first appearance of Homo sapiens, possibly tens of thousands or thousands of years if we count ‘children of God’ from the first who made covenants with him and assume that is when his spirit children first started coming to earth or 6 thousandish years if you see Adam and Eve as the first humans and buy Archbishop Ussher and other scholars’ timelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology#:~:text=The Ussher chronology is a,disrepute in the 19th century….I am not adopting any of them here, just throwing out possibilities I am aware of).

Speculation:  I find it more reasonable to assume all are alike unto God, including those who died young.  God protects those unable to make choices for themselves whether through inability (lack of accountability) or inaccessibility (never had exposure to the teachings of Christ to make such a choice) by not judging them on “what ifs” or simple desire (if he did that, why would we need proxy ordinances), but provides all the same basic opportunity to learn of and participate in the Gospel and its ordinances, whether when alive (a small percentage of humanity) or dead (the vast majority) as well as providing all the “great while” that Joseph speaks of to truly comprehend all the principles of the Gospel which is needed to prepare for exaltation after death (if the majority of humanity were ‘walk-ins’ for exaltation as zealous’ quote seems to suggest, why does Joseph believe it will take so long for all, even himself it seems, to learn and truly comprehend them?)

Again, simply because I see a potentially significant gap in our knowledge of the purpose of life and what happens afterwards, I do not see problems here.  Such do not weaken my faith in the Gospel, I believe my faith has grown steadily over the years as the things I do understand make more sense/feel more right to me as I stop trying to reconcile the gaps….even if I have fun speculating about what might fill them (I actually think it’s more we have the wrong perspective and if shifted, the above inconsistency could make much more sense just as the perspective of knowing “eternal” is used as a description of godly attributes rather than timeline when linked with punishment dramatically shifts our view of hell….or should imo).

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because the ordinances are ways by which the covenants are taught and conveyed in the flesh, I would err on the side that they are necessary for all. The exception is that little children do not need the baptism covenant to fulfill all righteousness in how they enter the way (Moroni and King Benjamin). It has not been revealed what other ordinances might also be excepted for children and the non-accountable, and this might be what D&C 137 refers to, but if any are, the covenants as they were taught in the first estate (Alma 13) that these ordinances carry would still be necessary.

I think I agree with you here, depends on what you aren’t saying.   (not saying you are hiding stuff, just saying your assumptions may be different enough to mine we understand the above in different ways.)

Moroni 8 makes it clear those who are not accountable do not need the baptismal covenant in regards to the remission of sins.

Quote

Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

Speculation:  But we also nowadays use the one baptismal experience to establish membership in Christ’s Church*** (this appears to also happen in the past as in one experience of baptism was about joining the community and remission of sins, but it wasn’t seen as best to do only once). I wonder if we have combined two (or more) ordinances into one with this approach, remission of sins and taking the Lord’s name upon us.  Baptism occurred more than once and for many things in the early modern Church.  If the baptism ordinance covers a covenant we need to make with God in addition to symbolizing or even being a necessary part of the process of remission of sins, maybe a different ordinance will be necessary for those who do not need baptism for the remission of sins for the step of becoming part of the fold or community of God.

We tend to think of little children not needing an ordinance for the remission of sins because they are already covered by the Grace of God through Christ’s Atonement as meaning they skip Spirit Prison and go straight to Paradise.  Yet they still have to learn the principles of the Gospel, do they not, just as those who weren’t exposed to the Gospel as adults need to.  Which makes me think the boundary between Sprit Prison and Paradise is pretty nebulous for the righteous at heart, but unlearned in the Gospel.

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/15-baptism?lang=eng

Edited August 31, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I find satire to be the best response to many poorly formed ideas. And the idea that there are more righteous women in heaven than men is so pervasive that it hardly needs calling out. 

I certainly appreciate satire also and the logical fallacies it is given leeway to use -- given the mix of posters, I wanted to make the point that the article is not presenting factual arguments. Were you were using the representation of "fact" satirically in your post?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I certainly appreciate satire also and the logical fallacies it is given leeway to use -- given the mix of posters, I wanted to make the point that the article is not presenting factual arguments. Were you were using the representation of "fact" satirically in your post?

This fact that I quoted? Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

I wasn’t aware it was in dispute. Especially with the broad range and “likely” to boot thrown in there. But if you have data to bring to bear here be my guest. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think I agree with you here, depends on what you aren’t saying.   (not saying you are hiding stuff, just saying your assumptions may be different enough to mine we understand the above in different ways.)

Moroni 8 makes it clear those who are not accountable do not need the baptismal covenant in regards to the remission of sins.

Speculation:  But we also nowadays use the one baptismal experience to establish membership in Christ’s Church*** (this appears to also happen in the past as in one experience of baptism was about joining the community and remission of sins, but it wasn’t seen as best to do only once). I wonder if we have combined two (or more) ordinances into one with this approach, remission of sins and taking the Lord’s name upon us.  Baptism occurred more than once and for many things in the early modern Church.  If the baptism ordinance covers a covenant we need to make with God in addition to symbolizing or even being a necessary part of the process of remission of sins, maybe a different ordinance will be necessary for those who do not need baptism for the remission of sins for the step of becoming part of the fold or community of God.

We tend to think of little children not needing an ordinance for the remission of sins because they are already covered by the Grace of God through Christ’s Atonement as meaning they skip Spirit Prison and go straight to Paradise.  Yet they still have to learn the principles of the Gospel, do they not, just as those who weren’t exposed to the Gospel as adults need to.  Which makes me think the boundary between Sprit Prison and Paradise is pretty nebulous for the righteous at heart, but unlearned in the Gospel.

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/15-baptism?lang=eng

Little children are already in the way – not in the way (underfoot), but in “The Way” as King Benjamin described. In this regard, I think Moroni 8:11 speaks to their not needing the ordinance. The covenant to walk in the way, which we and all the children who die made premaritally, is acknowledged and kept by them in their various attributes (“as a child”, Mosiah 3:16-21).

As an aside, I find it interesting how “a child” and “little children” are alive in Christ unlike the “children of men.” They have no need for spiritual rebirth as represented and realized by the ordinance and covenant of baptism to enter the way. I like that entering the way begins with the remission of sin because to me it fits perfectly with Moroni 10: 32-33, “by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and …sanctified in Christ by the grace of God…” Though we sin again we can repent again and still receive perfection and sanctification by grace until the fulness is realized.

In Mosiah 18, the people used baptism for a two-fold purpose (verses 8 – 9 for entering the fold and verse 10, to make the covenant). Alma the younger later taught specifically about the remission of sins, but this was also taught by Abinadi to Alma in King Noah’s court (Mosiah 15:11) and of course by the holy prophets (18:19). That this too was part of baptism is evident in verses 10, 13, 14 and 16 where the baptism of fire follows the baptism of water.

Do children have to learn (or re-learn) the principles of the gospel in the spirit world, which they brought with them from the premortal world, or do they remember them fully and have no need for re-education, as opposed perhaps to the accountable who may have forgotten or compromised them through the stain of mortality and their actions while accountable? I think they may not, though they may need to learn more principles, but they have a wonderful head start (D&C 130:18, attained pre-mortality, retained through the veil and kept with them after death). They have no need for repentance, so they would have no need to be taught what they already know.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This fact that I quoted? Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

I wasn’t aware it was in dispute. Especially with the broad range and “likely” to boot thrown in there. But if you have data to bring to bear here be my guest. 

I would think it would take more than a satirical article to establish a fact (that is not its purpose), and that would be great if you would provide something. The way the post was written, it wasn't clear what you thought was a fact. For the sake of casual/satirical discussion I think that range of estimated probability is fine to use, but the stats are from 1966 and article is from 1984 -- which is part of the satire, I expect; I would think there are better sources of fact by now if anyone wanted to discuss this seriously from a demographic standpoint.