The Vision of the Redemption of the Dead

[telnetd]

Come Follow Me is discussing Doctrine and Covenants 137-138 this week.

Doctrine and Covenants 138:36-37 says "Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent 
his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the 
faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh. That they might 
carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, 
because of their rebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his 
servants might also hear his words".

Out of all the faithful men and women in the spirit world where Jesus went after he 
died, why were only prophets commissioned to preach to those in darkness?

Why couldn't Jesus personally go and preach to them when he already preached to the 
living who were in rebellion and transgression during his three-year ministry? 

Joseph F. Smith says in verse 45 it was Elias who appeared with Moses on the Mount of 
Transfiguration but mentions Elijah in verse 46.

"Elias, who was with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration; And Malachi, the prophet 
who testified of the coming of Elijah—of whom also Moroni spake to the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, declaring that he should come before the ushering in of the great and dreadful 
day of the Lord—were also there".

The church's Bible Dictionary is quite extensive in its attempt to identify "Elias" 
in verse 45 with possible explanations.

Elias is

(1) the New Testament (Greek) form of Elijah (Hebrew),
(2) a title for one who is a forerunner,
(3) a title applied to others for special missions,
(4) a man who apparently lived in mortality in the days of Abraham.

Why didn't Smith just use the same name—either "Elijah" or "Elias"—if he meant the 
same person? Or was he actually talking about two different people? 

With the church going beyond the text to assign titles to "Elias", it appears to be 
introducing ambiguity to the real identity of the person who appeared with Moses.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Doctrine and Covenants 138:36-37 says "Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent 
his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the 
faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh. That they might 
carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, 
because of their rebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his 
servants might also hear his words".

Out of all the faithful men and women in the spirit world where Jesus went after he 
died, why were only prophets commissioned to preach to those in darkness?

The prophets were the leaders that are named in the verses that follow (verses 38-56:  Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elias [aka Elijah], Malachi, "and many more", and Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young etc.). 

But they weren't the only ones sent, because verse 57 (which continues this line of thought) says:  "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."

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Why couldn't Jesus personally go and preach to them when he already preached to the 
living who were in rebellion and transgression during his three-year ministry? 

Jesus didn't go to everyone personally during his mortal ministry, that's why he sent out his apostles and the seventy.  Jesus organized the leaders that he sent out, and they represented him.  And he did the same thing for teaching the gospel to the dead.

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Joseph F. Smith says in verse 45 it was Elias who appeared with Moses on the Mount of 
Transfiguration but mentions Elijah in verse 46.

"Elias, who was with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration; And Malachi, the prophet 
who testified of the coming of Elijah—of whom also Moroni spake to the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, declaring that he should come before the ushering in of the great and dreadful 
day of the Lord—were also there".

The church's Bible Dictionary is quite extensive in its attempt to identify "Elias" 
in verse 45 with possible explanations.

Elias is

(1) the New Testament (Greek) form of Elijah (Hebrew),
(2) a title for one who is a forerunner,
(3) a title applied to others for special missions,
(4) a man who apparently lived in mortality in the days of Abraham.

Why didn't Smith just use the same name—either "Elijah" or "Elias"—if he meant the 
same person? Or was he actually talking about two different people? 

With the church going beyond the text to assign titles to "Elias", it appears to be 
introducing ambiguity to the real identity of the person who appeared with Moses.

It seems obvious to me that Joseph F. Smith was quoting the New Testament scripture usage of "Elias" on the mount of transfiguration in verse 45 (as in Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30), and the reference to "Elijah" in verses 46-47 is in the context of him talking about Malachi from Malachi 4:5-6.  He's just using the same names as are in those verses of scripture. 

Edited December 2, 2025 by InCognitus

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

Come Follow Me is discussing Doctrine and Covenants 137-138 this week.

Doctrine and Covenants 138:36-37 says "Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent 
his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the 
faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh. That they might 
carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, 
because of their rebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his 
servants might also hear his words".

Out of all the faithful men and women in the spirit world where Jesus went after he 
died, why were only prophets commissioned to preach to those in darkness?

Why couldn't Jesus personally go and preach to them when he already preached to the 
living who were in rebellion and transgression during his three-year ministry? 

Joseph F. Smith says in verse 45 it was Elias who appeared with Moses on the Mount of 
Transfiguration but mentions Elijah in verse 46.

"Elias, who was with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration; And Malachi, the prophet 
who testified of the coming of Elijah—of whom also Moroni spake to the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, declaring that he should come before the ushering in of the great and dreadful 
day of the Lord—were also there".

The church's Bible Dictionary is quite extensive in its attempt to identify "Elias" 
in verse 45 with possible explanations.

Elias is

(1) the New Testament (Greek) form of Elijah (Hebrew),
(2) a title for one who is a forerunner,
(3) a title applied to others for special missions,
(4) a man who apparently lived in mortality in the days of Abraham.

Why didn't Smith just use the same name—either "Elijah" or "Elias"—if he meant the 
same person? Or was he actually talking about two different people? 

With the church going beyond the text to assign titles to "Elias", it appears to be 
introducing ambiguity to the real identity of the person who appeared with Moses.

Just as the unrepentant and rebellious will be destroyed in the flesh at the time of the Second Coming, thereby forfeiting the opportunity they might have had to joyfully greet the Lord at his coming and be personally instructed at his hand, so too the unrepentant spirits who were confined to the spirit prison at the time of Christ’s mInistry to the spirit world were similarly unprepared to be ministered to by the Lord due to the spiritual blindness and rebellious attitudes that had rendered them unworthy and unfit to be able to enjoy the Lord’s personal presence and teaching. Just as it is here on earth where converts to the Lord are taught by authorized servants to help prepare them for the blessed day when they will be more fully worthy to meet the Lord in person, the inhabitants of the spirit prison who repent and are converted to the Lord are also in a preparatory state to help them get ready for the blessed day when they will be worthy to meet the Lord in person and receive further instruction on how to grow spiritually that they might know the way to enjoy even greater spiritual communion with the Father. Pure common sense. 

Edited December 2, 2025 by teddyaware

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Pure common sense

Ahhh.  Of course. 

[longview]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

. . . so too the unrepentant spirits who were confined to the spirit prison at the time of Christ’s mInistry to the spirit world were similarly unprepared to be ministered to by the Lord due to the spiritual blindness and rebellious attitudes that had rendered them unworthy and unfit to be able to enjoy the Lord’s personal presence and teaching.

I think I read somewhere that those who had opportunity to hear the Gospel but chose to live the pleasures of the world, will in the next world have the ability to repent BUT be unable to apply ALL of the powers of the Atonement. So their sufferings will be greater and their addictions will be more difficult to overcome. It would have been better to repent during mortality. Are you familiar with any of that?

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, longview said:

I think I read somewhere that those who had opportunity to hear the Gospel but chose to live the pleasures of the world, will in the next world have the ability to repent BUT be unable to apply ALL of the powers of the Atonement. So their sufferings will be greater and their addictions will be more difficult to overcome. It would have been better to repent during mortality. Are you familiar with any of that?

that would be about 12 people in the history of the world though, for some reason God didn't see fit to have 99% of the world to have the true Gospel

[The Nehor]

Okay, but did Jesus preach to the Watchers or not?

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

that would be about 12 people in the history of the world though, for some reason God didn't see fit to have 99% of the world to have the true Gospel

No.

Again, you show your ignorance at what the Church teaches.

Edited December 3, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

No.

Again, you show your ignorance at what the Church teaches.

oh the drama, so you're telling me they had LDS missionaries in England in the year 206 and Thailand in 12,000 BC? What leader teaches that?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

oh the drama, so you're telling me they had LDS missionaries in England in the year 206 and Thailand in 12,000 BC? What leader teaches that?

It's only those who had the true opportunity to hear and accept and choose not to that will not have the opportunity to advance- not everyone that didn't hear. God mercy extends to all others and they will have the opportunity to learn, accept, and advance- if they so choose.

[teddyaware]

58 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh the drama, so you're telling me they had LDS missionaries in England in the year 206 and Thailand in 12,000 BC? What leader teaches that?

The all important divine principle that’s missing from your sour, limited and pessimistic outlook is a clear understanding that God is a perfectly loving, just and merciful being. The God of heaven is morally bound by eternal law to ultimately bring justice and mercy into perfect alignment in the lives of each one of his spirit children. No one is cheated or left behind. God’s omniscient mind and omnipotent power are fully able to assure that each individual will have an equal chance to obtain salvation and exaltation in the end. Even though for now things may seem unfair and chaotic, in the long run there won’t be a single individual at the time of the final judgement who will be able to rightly say that they were treated unfairly.

In fact, God’s plan of salvation is so perfect that in the end the spirit sons and daughters of God will only have themselves to blame if they are ultimately relegated to inherit a heavenly kingdom of glory that’s lower than the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. And while I understand that there’s a certain kind of emotional satisfaction that comes to those who ignorantly cry out that it’s all so unfair, in the end these bellyachers will be constrained by their own convicted consciences to confess that there’s nothing arbitrary nor unfair in God’s perfectly just, comprehensive and all encompassing plan of salvation!

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)

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The all important divine principle that’s missing from your sour, limited and pessimistic outlook is a clear understanding that God is a perfectly loving, just and merciful being. The God of heaven is morally bound by eternal law to ultimately bring justice and mercy into perfect alignment in the lives of each one of his spirit children. No one is cheated or left behind. God’s omniscient mind and omnipotent power are fully able to assure that each individual will have an equal chance to obtain salvation and exaltation in the end. Even though for now things may seem unfair and chaotic, in the long run there won’t be a single individual at the time of the final judgement who will be able to rightly say that they were treated unfairly.

In fact, God’s plan of salvation is so perfect that in the end the spirit sons and daughters of God will only have themselves to blame if they are ultimately relegated to inherit a heavenly kingdom of glory that’s lower than the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. And while I understand that there’s a certain kind of emotional satisfaction that comes to those who ignorantly cry out that it’s all so unfair, in the end these bellyachers will be constrained by their own convicted consciences to confess that there’s nothing arbitrary nor unfair in God’s perfectly just, comprehensive and all encompassing plan of salvation!

 

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)

I know all of this...the discussion was about those who were rebellious here in this life, which would account for hardly anyone, numerically speaking

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know all of this...the discussion was about those who were rebellious here in this life, which would account for hardly anyone, numerically speaking

Does that make you upset for some reason?

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's only those who had the true opportunity to hear and accept and choose not to that will not have the opportunity to advance- not everyone that didn't hear. God mercy extends to all others and they will have the opportunity to learn, accept, and advance- if they so choose.

so no leader teaches that then, who ignorant now? as I say God set up life so that almost no one will hear the truth here, for whatever reason(s)

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Does that make you upset for some reason?

hardly, it's God system not mine

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

hardly, it's God system not mine

Then why are you talking about it like it's an issue? What's your beef?

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Then why are you talking about it like it's an issue? What's your beef?

go back and read through the discussion, clue, it all started with Long view's post and my response

[ZealouslyStriving]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

go back and read through the discussion, clue, it all started with Long view's post and my response

Nah.

I think it is one of the most beautiful doctrines of the Restoration that God prepared a plan where everyone will have equal opportunity to learn and accept the Gospel and that His plan saves the overwhelming majority from "hell".

I don't get why people prefer a god that created a scenario were the vast majority is sentenced to eternal torment for simply not having the opportunity to hear their gospel.

Edited December 3, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[teddyaware]

44 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Nah.

I think it is one of the most beautiful doctrines of the Restoration that God prepared a plan where everyone will have equal opportunity to learn and accept the Gospel and that His plan saves the overwhelming majority from "hell".

I don't get why people prefer a god that created a scenario were the vast majority is sentenced to eternal torment for simply not having the opportunity to hear their gospel.

The best explanation I’ve heard as to why so many Christians would rather embrace the God who unjustly consigns the vast majority of humanity to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering is because they’re unwittingly suffering from a cosmic form of Stockholm Syndrome. Better to obsequiously cower before and praise the almighty monster who’s somehow able to turn his back his own “beloved” creatures and abandon them to endless sorrow than to end up another one of the billions of his victims.

Edited December 3, 2025 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

57 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Nah.

I think it is one of the most beautiful doctrines of the Restoration that God prepared a plan where everyone will have equal opportunity to learn and accept the Gospel and that His plan saves the overwhelming majority from "hell".

I don't get why people prefer a god that created a scenario were the vast majority is sentenced to eternal torment for simply not having the opportunity to hear their gospel.

Oaky? it would take you a shorter amount of time to read back a few posts then to type out all this most of which I never said

[ZealouslyStriving]

31 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The best explanation I’ve heard as to why so many Christians would rather embrace the God who unjustly consigns the vast majority of humanity to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering is because they’re unwittingly suffering from a cosmic form of Stockholm Syndrome. Better to obsequiously cower before and praise the almighty monster who’s somehow able to turn his back his own “beloved” creatures and abandon them to endless sorrow than to end up another one of the billions of his victims.

So like trying not to look your alcoholic, abusive Dad in the eye when he gets home from the bar, hoping he won't notice you.

Edited December 3, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

On 12/3/2025 at 5:30 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

t's only those who had the true opportunity to hear and accept

And how many people even in this day and age have a true opportunity to accept?  As in they aren’t too biased so they can judge the faith accurately.  How many more are perhaps too biased towards the faith because they were brought up in the Church and got baptized and thought that was all that was necessary because they supposedly choose the Gospel when baptized…but did they ever think of any other option and if not, was it a choice or instead inertia?

From the other side, there are those who hear all sorts of things about how cultish the Church is, how politically in one step (which of course it isn’t, but that doesn’t stop people being told the falsehood along with many other misconceptions and even lies).  Maybe they hear that we see Satan as Jesus’ brother and misunderstand that to mean we treat Satan as a god, etc etc.  Missionaries who come to their door aren’t the best communicators and enjoy Bible bashing and end up trashing the person’s simple testimony of Christ because he also believes in sola scriptura.  Or their parents were just killed in an awful accident and the family believes they are in Christ’s arms in peace and the missionaries tell them the parents are still in hell until they repent and accept baptism by proxy and deny the eternal value of the (very meaningful to the family) baptisms both parents went through as signs of their acceptance of Christ’s gift of salvation, but the missionaries clumsily label those sacred sacraments as just pretending to play Church (heard it from the pulpit one time and thought it sounded smart and would make the Church look better than other faith) or maybe more diplomatically as preparation for the real experience and that hurts the mourning family so much, thinking of their loving parents getting stuck in hell rather than in God’s bliss.  Understandably the family can’t listen any more, so the door is closed forever.

I can think of endless variations where someone’s life sets a person up to hear something quite different, something unacceptable when the gospel is taught them, even if they are lucky enough to be taught by great missionaries.

I can think of endless variations where someone is so primed to accept the gospel for reasonings that have nothing to do with the truth of the doctrine so that they don’t think about the actual implications of baptism or other covenants.  They haven’t accepted the gospel yet even with baptism and may never do so.

My personal view is most, maybe even all of us are so limited in experiences even in these days and we are so shaped by our world views created by our very fallible minds and what few experiences we have been able to have, especially the traumatic ones in our childhood we had no control over, that there is no such thing as a true choice in mortality.  That can only come once we are released from the massive walls our environment, minds, and bodies have raised around us and we have free and total access to the spiritual side of our nature as well and are therefore able to receive the knowledge, the awareness of God and what he is truly offering us 

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm Syndrome is most likely a myth, an excuse made by a psychiatrist who never even corresponded with the hostages for why the hostages weren’t willing to identify their captors and were angry with the police when it sounds like there were quite rational reasons for such reactions (police errors).

The hostages and the captors suffered together, hardly surprising that the hostages became sympathetic towards th captors.  Doesn’t require equally nonexistent brainwashing.

Quote

Nils Bejerot, a Swedish criminologist and psychiatrist, invented the term after the Stockholm police asked him for assistance with analyzing the victims' reactions to the robbery and their status as hostages. Bejerot never met, spoke to, or corresponded with the hostages, during or after the incident, yet diagnosed them with a condition he invented. Bejerot, speaking on "a news cast after the captives' release", described the hostages' reactions as a result of being brainwashed by their captors.[3] He called it Norrmalmstorgssyndromet (after Norrmalmstorg Square where the attempted robbery took place), meaning "The Norrmalm Square syndrome"; it later became known outside Sweden as Stockholm syndrome.[4]…

According to accounts by Kristin Enmark, one of the hostages, the authorities were careless, and their initial approach to the robbers nearly compromised the hostages' safety.[6] Enmark criticized Sweden's prime minister, Olof Palme, for endangering their lives. Palme believed that if Olsson saw one of his close relatives, he might be willing to surrender the hostages; however, the police made a careless mistake. They misidentified Olsson, and sent a 16-year old boy who was unrelated into the bank. This caused confusion and resulted in Olsson firing rounds at the boy who barely escaped. Olsson became much more agitated in general. After that, Enmark and the other three hostages were fearful that they were just as likely to be killed by police incompetence as by the robbers.[7][8][9] Ultimately, Enmark explained she was more afraid of the police, whose attitude seemed to be a much larger, direct threat to her life than the robbers.[10] Enmark spent decades maintaining that she had no affinity for her captors; she only did what it took to stay alive during the ordeal.[7]

Olsson later said in an interview that he could have easily killed the hostages in the beginning, but over time it became more difficult, as he developed an emotional bond with them:[10]

“They made it hard to kill. They made us go on living together day after day, like goats, in that filth. There was nothing to do but get to know each other.”…

 "Stockholm syndrome" can be seen as one of many concepts used to silence individuals who, as victims, speak publicly about negative social (i.e., institutional) responses.[15][16][17]…

In her 2019 treatise on domestic violence See What You Made Me Do, Australian journalist Jess Hill described the syndrome as a "dubious pathology with no diagnostic criteria", and stated that it is "riddled with misogyny and founded on a lie"; she also noted that a 2008 literature review revealed "most diagnoses [of Stockholm syndrome] are made by the media, not by psychologists or psychiatrists." In particular, Hill's analysis revealed that Stockholm authorities, responded to the robbery in a way that put the hostages at greater risk from the police than from their captors (hostage Kristin Enmark, who during the siege was granted a telephone call with Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, reported that Palme told her that the government would not negotiate with criminals); as well, she observed that Bejerot's diagnosis of Enmark was made without ever having spoken to her.[6]

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

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-23/is-stockholm-syndrome-a-myth/102738084

Quote

Stockholm syndrome is a proposed condition claiming that during a hostage situation, victims can become hopelessly attached to their captors.

It was coined by Nils Bejerot, a psychiatric adviser engaged by police during the stand-off at the Sveriges Kreditbank.

He publicly claimed that one of the young female hostages had forged an emotional bond with the bank robber, implying that their connection was sexual. 

Kristin Enmark, who was 23 when her workplace became the site of a dramatic siege, is the first person in the world diagnosed with Stockholm syndrome.

The trouble is, the condition might not exist.

She has spent her life maintaining that she felt no affinity for her captor and only did what it took to stay alive.

Now, 50 years later, experts are questioning whether Stockholm syndrome is a genuine phenomenon or simply a term foisted on a woman who did not respond the way society expected her to during the most frightening experience of her life. 

"She was a courageous young woman who worked hard to preserve her own safety and the safety of others," said Dr Allan Wade, a Canadian therapist who has spoken at length with Kristin about her experiences. 

If a nonexistent pathological condition is your best explanation for explaining why people might want to cower eternally in front of a monstrous God, then maybe you should consider your perception of how people view God could be wrong for most of them.

Edited December 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The best explanation I’ve heard as to why so many Christians would rather embrace the God who unjustly consigns the vast majority of humanity to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering is because they’re unwittingly suffering from a cosmic form of Stockholm Syndrome. Better to obsequiously cower before and praise the almighty monster who’s somehow able to turn his back his own “beloved” creatures and abandon them to endless sorrow than to end up another one of the billions of his victims.

A beautiful example of why someone might close the door on the missionaries after hearing a devout Saint degrade their own faith in this manner, thus never getting the chance to hear the actual gospel taught.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

your sour, limited and pessimistic outlook

What is sour and limited or pessimistic about believing that overwhelmingly people have not yet had their true chance to accept or reject the Gospel, so we don’t need to view the small size of the Church over the eons and even now (.2% of the world’s population) as indicative of the reverse situation in Hell?

Edited December 3, 2025 by Calm