The Vision of the Redemption of the Dead

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And how many people even in this day and age have a true opportunity to accept?  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…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 

I can't tell if you are arguing with me or see the things you are pointing out as a check against the Restored Gospel, like apparently Duncan sees it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

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

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

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.

How do you explain the preference of people for a god that creates the nations just to condemn a vast majority of them to hell over a God that created a plan to save or exalt almost all of His children- to the  point that they will vocally, and sometimes physically, oppose the Church, calling us a demonic cult?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

see the things you are pointing out as a check against the Restored Gospel

Why would it be a check against the restored Gospel?  

We have been promised a true choice. We have not been told when the true choice takes place imo. I don’t believe it occurs when we encounter the Gospel in its mortal form in the here and now, but when we encounter its eternal form when we come before Christ.   In the here and now we are given lots of opportunities to practice in eternally safe ways…we can’t damn ourselves eternally by mistaken ideas or foolish choices, God is protecting us until we are ready for moving out if the sandbox into his university and then universe. 

It doesn’t diminish the Gospel that we can’t comprehend its reality in this life and therefore are incapable of making a true and informed choice. 

I think you are misunderstanding Duncan’s intent in posting his comments as much as you seem to misunderstand mine here if you think I see this as a negative feature of the Church  and not a positive one. 
 

For me the only negative on this topic is how eager and earnest some members appear to be to push the choice to an earlier time when people are not as spiritually developed and almost seem to delight that some would fully reject the Gospel rather than find that the ultimate tragedy of a life.  That’s not an issue with the Restored Gospel, that imo is someone not paying enough attention to what God has said is the purpose of his Gospel.

I not saying this is you, but it may be Longview or teddy, I need more detail on their views to be sure though, would like to hear what he sees as an example of a true choice to accept or reject the Gospel).

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would it be a check against the restored Gospel?  

We have been promised a true choice. We have not been told when the true choice takes place imo. I don’t believe it occurs when we encounter the Gospel in its mortal form in the here and now, but when we encounter its eternal form when we come before Christ.   In the here and now we are given lots of opportunities to practice in eternally safe ways…we can’t damn ourselves eternally by mistaken ideas or foolish choices, God is protecting us until we are ready for moving out if the sandbox into his university and then universe. 

It doesn’t diminish the Gospel that we can’t comprehend its reality in this life and therefore are incapable of making a true and informed choice. 

  I just wasn't sure, as you seemed to be explaining it as a defense for Duncan, who by appearances sees this as a  bad thing- though he won't explain why.

[MrShorty]

I find that this gets to be one of those thorny issues that we struggle to really have a good answer for. Yes we are excited to have what we think is a definitive answer for the "what happens to those who never here of Christ or the gospel?" question, but, no matter how hard we try, we still end up with gray areas.

IMO, the hard part isn't about the ancients or those in far flung locations where the name of Christ rarely or never is spoken. The hard scenarios for us to grapple with are those that are a lot closer. With all due caution about judging individuals, consider hypothetical cases like:

1) A person who was very active in the church who one day encounters a bit of troubling history, this discovery triggers a "faith crisis." After much study and prayer, they determine that the church was never everything it claimed, and they withdraw from participation in the church. They may find a different Christian/religious home or they may choose no religious participation.

2) A person who lived in close proximity to a loved one who is a member of the church. They would have many conversations with their loved one about the church, maybe some missionary lessons, but ultimately they never feel sufficiently convinced of the church's truth claims to fully embrace the restored church.

Pres. Nelson in his Apr. 2019 Conference address ("Come Follow Me") described a scenario like #2 and seemed rather skeptical. He "question[ed] the efficacy of proxy temple work for a man" like that.

I'm sure we could come up with other "hypotheticals" if we wanted to. Ultimately, what I see in our beliefs and practices around the redemption of the dead is a slippery slope that leads down to near universalism, and that makes us uncomfortable. So we spend some of our effort trying to find footholds and handholds on that slippery slope to avoid the bogeyman of universalism. Every attempt at drawing lines around who can and cannot be redeemed in the next life ultimately includes a scenario that someone thinks should be excluded and excludes a scenario that someone thinks should be included. We eventually end up with the less than satisfying answer that it will ultimately be up to God and we are incapable of making such determinations. Ultimately leaving latter-day saints who know and love people in those gray areas uncertain about their future, contemplating "sad heaven" scenarios, and trying to figure out how to really trust that God knows how to untangle these knots.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Pres. Nelson in his Apr. 2019 Conference address ("Come Follow Me") described a scenario like #2 and seemed rather skeptical. He "question[ed] the efficacy of proxy temple work for a man" like that.

No.

The man in question was convinced of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, but didn't want to make the changes necessary to follow the commandments:

 

One such dear friend of mine had limited experiences with God. But he longed to be with his departed wife. So he asked me to help him. I encouraged him to meet with our missionaries in order to understand the doctrine of Christ and learn of gospel covenants, ordinances, and blessings.

 

That he did. But he felt the course they advised would require him to make too many changes in his life. He said, “Those commandments and covenants are just too difficult for me. Also, I can’t possibly pay tithing, and I don’t have time to serve in the Church.” Then he asked me, “Once I die, please do the necessary temple work for my wife and me so that we can be together again.”

 

Thankfully, I am not this man’s judge. But I do question the efficacy of proxy temple work for a man who had the opportunity to be baptized in this life—to be ordained to the priesthood and receive temple blessings while here in mortality—but who made the conscious decision to reject that course.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

  I just wasn't sure, as you seemed to be explaining it as a defense for Duncan, who by appearances sees this as a  bad thing- though he won't explain why.

I think he thinks certain portrayals of the Gospel,  and not the Gospel itself, are a bad thing…like excluding people forever from the Celestial Kingdoms when they haven’t had a valid chance to receive and comprehend the gospel as was being portrayed by Longview iirc.

Longview was claiming there were those who had a true chance to hear the Gospel and rejected it for pleasure.  My reading of Duncan was there would very, very few who qualified for Longview’s description (maybe the few who had visions of God or who like Cain had apparently walked and talked with God himself to hear the Gospel from him directly…or perhaps he meant Jesus and the 12 apostles, but they come across as pretty clueless for much of the NT).

If I am wrong and he’s still interested, he can correct me.   

[Duncan]

48 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

  I just wasn't sure, as you seemed to be explaining it as a defense for Duncan, who by appearances sees this as a  bad thing- though he won't explain why.

you won't read my explanation so you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

like excluding people forever from the Celestial Kingdoms when they haven’t had a valid chance to receive and comprehend the gospel as was being portrayed by Longview

  I read his response to Longview's comment which is why I even responded in the first place because he misrepresented what Longview said. Which is precisely what is being done in the above quote.

Let's settle the matter:

@longview do you believe that anyone will be excluded forever from the Celestial Kingdoms if they haven't had a valid chance to receive and comprehend the Gospel?

  

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you won't read my explanation so you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance

🙄

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

@longview do you believe that anyone will be excluded forever from the Celestial Kingdoms if they haven't had a valid chance to receive and comprehend the Gospel?

  

Also, what does a valid chance look like up close in mortality?  And please be pretty specific as vague descriptions just create more questions for me and we might be here for the next week with me trying to figure out what Longview means. 

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

slippery slope that leads down to near universalism, and that makes us uncomfortable.

Not everyone, I danced happily all the way down.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The man in question was convinced of the truthfulness of the

Where does it say he was convinced?  It just said he was taught and understood it as taught.

He could have been in the position of thinking it might be right, that thr Gospel has a beautiful promise, but that he didn’t know and couldn’t know  and it’s a lot to do without having stronger assurances of some type.  
 

However, getting proxy baptized and seal is a no risk, no loss situation, so it makes logical sense to keep that option open in case it was true.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also, what does a valid chance look like up close in mortality?  And please be pretty specific as vague descriptions just create more questions for me and we might be here for the next week with me trying to figure out what Longview means. 

That is the issue, people always trying to figure out how God is going to give everyone a valid chance, instead of having faith the He will. 

If I remember correctly @longview, as I am, is a Latter-day Saint, so why are you restricting it to mortality?

I honestly am not trying to be rude, but I really don't get you sometimes. 🙃

Edited December 4, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Where does it say he was convinced?  It just said he was taught and understood it as taught.

  ...and apparently believed in the efficacy of vicarious work for the dead.

  The quote doesn't say what Mr Shorty claims.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If I remember correctly @longview, as I am, is a Latter-day Saint, so why are you restricting it to mortality?

Because he did (choice wasn’t restricted only to mortality, but it seems to me he was talking about those who had the chance in mortality and rejected it):

Quote

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

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Because he did (choice wasn’t restricted only to mortality, but it seems to me he was talking about those who had the chance in mortality and rejected it😞

 

Bingo!

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Bingo!

Yeah?

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah?

And I am sure @longview would agree that only God can determine who had a valid opportunity in this life, and that His view may be way more merciful than we currently understand. Why would you assume that he thinks any different as a Latter-day Saint?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And I am sure @longview would agree that only God can determine who had a valid opportunity in this life, and that His view may be way more merciful than we currently understand. Why would you assume that he thinks any different as a Latter-day Saint?

I am not claiming Longview has a view shared by no true LDS.  It may be the dominant view of LDS for all I know.  I remember being taught when younger that even opening the door to missionaries and saying “no thanks” might be enough to cause a person to lose their one and only chance at entering the Celestial Kingdom as they would be judged less valiant, not enduring to the end (it was to encourage kids to develop excellent proselytizing skills so no one would give into temptation to shut the door in their faces as missionaries…people’s eternal destiny depended on them.

Is there an assumption in Longview’s comment or is there not an assumption that people can get a true chance in mortality to receive the Gospel and reject it knowingly for pleasure and therefore never be able to fully receive God’s atonement…which I assume means no chance at exaltation and possibly the Celestial Kingdom (perhaps he can clarify).

I am not claiming here I am teaching church doctrine, btw.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not claiming Longview has a view shared by no true LDS.  It may be the dominant view of LDS for all I know.  I remember being taught when younger that even opening the door to missionaries and saying “no thanks” might be enough to cause a person to lose their one and only chance at entering the Celestial Kingdom as they would be judged less valiant, not enduring to the end (it was to encourage kids to develop excellent proselytizing skills so no one would give into temptation to shut the door in their faces as missionaries…people’s eternal destiny depended on them.

Is there an assumption in Longview’s comment or is there not an assumption that people can get a true chance in mortality to receive the Gospel and reject it knowingly for pleasure and therefore never be able to fully receive God’s atonement…which I assume means no chance at exaltation and possibly the Celestial Kingdom (perhaps he can clarify).

I am not claiming here I am teaching church doctrine, btw.

I believe that to think that no one gets a valid chance in mortality is equally erroneous to the idea that all chances come in mortality.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe that to think that no one gets a valid chance in mortality is equally erroneous to the idea that all chances come in mortality.

Has anyone actually suggested that?  Even Duncan was open to there being about 12 who had made the choice of rejecting the Gospel for pleasure in his first post.  My position is standard operating procedure is at the end of the path or close to the end when we have the ability to be truly fully informed, but I believe if there can be sons of perdition such as Cain as described in the scripture, some must be able to make such a fully informed choice in this life.

What do you believe could give someone a valid chance to have a true choice in mortality would consist of?  I am truly curious, not challenging, at least not much.

No one has described what could be a valid chance yet, just claimed such existed and the reason the Gospel would be rejected by at least some in that position would be pleasure.  Unless someone has assumed the man in Pres. Nelson’s example was a valid chance?  If so, can you who believe that explain how you are sure it is or could be?

PS:  I am not denying it can happen, so please don’t assume that is my belief.  And you shouldn’t if you have been reading what I have written above on the subject.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

And you shouldn’t if you have been reading what I have written above on the subject.

Honestly, I don't know what you really believe about most subjects. You really don't take a firm stand in much of anything as far as I can see. That is why you are so perplexing to me.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How do you explain the preference of people for a god that creates the nations just to condemn a vast majority of them to hell over a God that created a plan to save or exalt almost all of His children- to the  point that they will vocally, and sometimes physically, oppose the Church, calling us a demonic cult?

That is easy. Universalism doesn’t give you anyone to hate, exclude, and other.

Also if people were choosing a faith based primarily on how nice God is and how everyone goes onto eternal joy there are other faiths that promise this to a much greater degree than the LDS Church does.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Honestly, I don't know what you really believe about most subjects. You really don't take a firm stand in much of anything as far as I can see. That is why you are so perplexing to me.

Well look at both your chosen names.