My Son Died Last Week. It raised a Question I had not Previously Contemplated or Pondered

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

But then logically you must allow for those who accept their proxy baptism and still don't go to the other side - to paradise. Or those with temple recommends who have done proxy baptisms but who go to spirit prison instead of paradise due to their own person unworthiness, regardless of their authority or church membership. Right? 

Right.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

But then logically you must allow for those who accept their proxy baptism and still don't go to the other side - to paradise.

I imagine it is much like here on Earth, and that a certain level of repentance and change is required before one is offered the opportunity to accept the baptism done in their behalf.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Or those with temple recommends who have done proxy baptisms but who go to spirit prison instead of paradise due to their own person unworthiness, regardless of their authority or church membership. Right? 

Yes. A Temple recommend is no guarantee of Paradise- you have to faithfully live up to your Covenants according to your abilities.

Edited December 19, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving
My first paragraph was completely muddled.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

But then logically you must allow for those who accept their proxy baptism and still don't go to the other side - to paradise. Or those with temple recommends who have done proxy baptisms but who go to spirit prison instead of paradise due to their own person unworthiness, regardless of their authority or church membership. Right? 

Definitely the second.  There will be those who end up in the Telestial Kingdom imo.  But I also believe there is progression between the kingdoms if anyone over time has a softening or opening of their heart and want to embrace Christ and his grace and God’s love more. (While it seems from the way some leaders talk they believe there is no progression, I am pretty sure the Church does not have a position on it; there have been leaders who said they believe there is.)
 

Not sure what you mean by the first unless you mean they accepted the baptism, but did not work further on accepting the Gospel and the Atonement.  Generally it’s talked about as accepting baptism as hand and hand with accepting enough of the Gospel and Christ’s atonement to join the community in paradise, so I am not sure there would be a case such as you describe where they accept baptism but have no desire to enter paradise.  Paradise is not viewed as the ultimate destination, but more of a waiting/learning and serving place till judgment and one’s resurrection.

Personally I have thought of accepting the proxy baptism as received after accepting the Gospel and therefore being worthy of paradise even if perhaps they don’t press on to fully accept Christ’s Atonement and all the blessings God offers them culminating in exaltation during the period where they are in paradise and learning more of the meaning of the endowment and other ordinances (as Joseph said it would be a long time before we comprehended such things, see quote in my signature).  

Edited December 19, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Definitely the second.  There will be those who end up in the Telestial Kingdom imo.  But I also believe there is progression between the kingdoms if anyone over time has a softening or opening of their heart and want to embrace Christ and his grace and God’s love more. (While it seems from the way some leaders talk they believe there is no progression, I am pretty sure the Church does not have a position on it; there have been leaders who said they believe there is.)
 

Not sure what you mean by the first unless you mean they accepted the baptism, but did not work further on accepting the Gospel and the Atonement.  Generally it’s talked about as accepting baptism as hand and hand with accepting enough of the Gospel and Christ’s atonement to join the community in paradise, so I am not sure there would be a case such as you describe where they accept baptism but have no desire to enter paradise.  Paradise is not viewed as the ultimate destination, but more of a waiting/learning and serving place till judgment and one’s resurrection.

Personally I have thought of accepting the proxy baptism as received after accepting the Gospel and therefore being worthy of paradise even if perhaps they don’t press on to fully accept Christ’s Atonement and all the blessings God offers them culminating in exaltation during the period where they are in paradise and learning more of the meaning of the endowment and other ordinances (as Joseph said it would be a long time before we comprehended such things, see quote in my signature).  

Hi Calm: I guess I am a bit uncertain what you mean by "accepting the Gospel and the Atonement." Although I think I like the idea of 1. accepting the proxy baptism; and 2. repenting from human life's unworthiness and accepting the redemption of Christ via His life, death, burial, and resurrection, or perhaps in a later judgment, by His mercy. The second (in my nomenclature) would be necessary to gain "eternal life with Christ" on top of acceptance of an LDS baptism. Of course, most non-LDS Christians don't believe in an opportunity for repentance after earthly death as a salvific option. It is not my point to debate that, just to clarify that perhaps some or most of you might agree that some level of repentance and acceptance of the atonement of Christ may be necessary in addition to acceptance of a proxy baptism in and of itself. I believe in thesimple gospel of Christ; not the LDS gospel, or the Pentecostal gospel, or the Lutheran or Catholic gospel - with all the concurrent distinctions and fences from each other. I believe in the "well" gospel; not the "fence" gospel. I have explained that here before, so I won't go into that concept again. 

It is interesting to me that just yesterday we had a fine young (everyone is young compared to me) Catholic parish priest in our home. Through an intermediary friend, he asked permission to come and minister to us in our grief. We had a wonderful talk in which he provided much comforting and helpful  counsel. Then he asked us if he could pray for us. We said, "Certainly." He kissed his stole and put it on (over his Ecuadorian manta or poncho) and jeans - (I liked him for that). He proceeded to read to himself from what seemed to be a book of rites, anointed (my term) us with olive oil, and laid hands on each of us. According to my friend, who is some kind of elder in the parish, the priest was allowed by the Catholic Church to perform a formal ordinance for us in our grief because 1. he took the time in our chat to deem we were spiritually worthy of such, and 2. Our baptism was acceptable to the Catholic Church. We were blessed by his ministration (very similar to what our stake president and a retired mission president had done for us several weeks earlier). The way it was explained to me, he was able to perform a formal ordinance of the Church (Catholic) instead of a simple blessing or prayer because he deemed both us and our baptisms acceptable to allow him to do so. I believe I am interpreting his Spanish explanation of it all correctly. So there was both the idea of baptism and spirituality involved in that process. That is very Lutheran and in some ways consistent with other non-LDS churches for ordinances. For example, I was only ordained in the Baptist church after a time of examination of both my baptism and spiritual worthiness by a group of elders when I was 23 or so.

Perhaps I have erred in thinking that in the numerous LDS baptisms I have observed, it seems like the person is of age, is baptized, is confirmed, and then is a member with all the rights, privileges, and authority of being a member. I was unaware of there being a time of spiritual examination of the baptismal "candidate" (to use our term), beyond the baptismal questions.

Ok, I have written too much. Thanks. 

Edited December 19, 2025 by Navidad
clarification

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is interesting to me that just yesterday we had a fine young (everyone is young compared to me) Catholic parish priest in our home. Through an intermediary friend, he asked permission to come and minister to us in our grief. We had a wonderful talk in which he provided much comforting and helpful  counsel. Then he asked us if he could pray for us. We said, "Certainly." He kissed his stole and put it on (over his Ecuadorian manta or poncho) and jeans - (I liked him for that). He proceeded to read to himself from what seemed to be a book of rites, anointed (my term) us with olive oil, and laid hands on each of us. According to my friend, who is some kind of elder in the parish, the priest was allowed by the Catholic Church to perform a formal ordinance for us in our grief because 1. he took the time in our chat to deem we were spiritually worthy of such, and 2. Our baptism was acceptable to the Catholic Church. We were blessed by his ministration (very similar to what our stake president and a retired mission president had done for us several weeks earlier). The way it was explained to me, he was able to perform a formal ordinance of the Church (Catholic) instead of a simple blessing or prayer because he deemed both us and our baptisms acceptable to allow him to do so. I believe I am interpreting his Spanish explanation of it all correctly. So there was both the idea of baptism and spirituality involved in that process. That is very Lutheran and in some ways consistent with other non-LDS churches for ordinances. For example, I was only ordained in the Baptist church after a time of examination of both my baptism and spiritual worthiness by a group of elders when I was 23 or so.

Hi Navidad,

Please accept my condolences for the loss of your son. May God grant you grace and peace.

As far as I can tell from your description, the explanation of your friend is correct but incomplete. It appears the priest administered the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (previously known as Last Rites). This is a formal sacrament in the Catholic Church and thus there are rules that govern it.

The Code of Canon Law states in Canon 844 paragraph 4:

Quote

If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

As a non-Catholic, these conditions would have to be met for the sacrament to be licitly administered to you. The correct explanation of your friend is baptism and spiritual worthiness. That would cover you being a "Christian not having full communion with the Catholic Church" and being "properly disposed." What your friend left out were the other requirements: danger of death, inability to approach a minister of your own community, seeking it yourself, and a manifestation of Catholic faith towards the sacraments. Obviously I do not know if you can go to a minister of your own community and if you believe in the Catholic sacraments as a Catholic would. It is disappointing that the priest did not explain what he was doing, because how can one have faith in the sacrament and believe in it as a Catholic would if one does not know what the sacrament is?

I bring this up not to impugn you or detract from any good or grace you received from the experience, but to inform readers of how the sacraments in the Catholic Church are to be administered in situations such as these.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi Navidad,

Please accept my condolences for the loss of your son. May God grant you grace and peace.

As far as I can tell from your description, the explanation of your friend is correct but incomplete. It appears the priest administered the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (previously known as Last Rites). This is a formal sacrament in the Catholic Church and thus there are rules that govern it.

The Code of Canon Law states in Canon 844 paragraph 4:

As a non-Catholic, these conditions would have to be met for the sacrament to be licitly administered to you. The correct explanation of your friend is baptism and spiritual worthiness. That would cover you being a "Christian not having full communion with the Catholic Church" and being "properly disposed." What your friend left out were the other requirements: danger of death, inability to approach a minister of your own community, seeking it yourself, and a manifestation of Catholic faith towards the sacraments. Obviously I do not know if you can go to a minister of your own community and if you believe in the Catholic sacraments as a Catholic would. It is disappointing that the priest did not explain what he was doing, because how can one have faith in the sacrament and believe in it as a Catholic would if one does not know what the sacrament is?

I bring this up not to impugn you or detract from any good or grace you received from the experience, but to inform readers of how the sacraments in the Catholic Church are to be administered in situations such as these.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

Hi Jesse:
Thanks for your reply. I have several thoughts and comments on it. I read Canon 844, paragraph 4, after they left because I was referred to that. That is precisely the paragraph under which he did what he did. Danger of death is one, as you mentioned. You skipped the "grave necessity" that is also mentioned as a cause. There is no grave necessity for me, but I would suggest that there is for my wife, who is suffering terribly and very weak from her open-heart surgery, topped off with the loss of her only child, who lived with us for this entire life and who became sick when she went into the hospital, almost the same week. In some ways, she blames herself for his death.

The priest was someone who, in this small community we live in would know a lot about many people, especially with my dear friend (the cronista for this municipio) informing him. We are a smallish Catholic diocese. It would not surprise me if he discussed what he intended before the visit with the bishop. He knew we do not have access to a minister of our own faith here. The Mennonites here are very conservative Russian Mennonites of an older order. They do not consider my wife and me proper Mennonites because we don't live in the culture as they see it as coexistent with the faith. I could certainly access a US Mennonite pastor friend via a call or the internet, but not locally.

The Catholic community here knows that. Catholic leaders here know I write extensively on the history of Catholicism in Mexico. In that sense, my relationship with the Catholic church in our area is similar to that of my relationship with the LDS church here.

The priest who came to our home is a graduate of the Pontifical University in Salamanca, Spain, to my understanding a well-respected Catholic university in that country. Now we get to, do I manifest a Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, and am I properly disposed? That is above my pay grade. Do I regularly attend Catholic services and events in our area? Yes. Was I invited to the inauguration (my word) of the last two bishops of our diocese? Yes. Do I manifest a Catholic faith in respect to the sacraments? I guess that depends on the definition of the same by the one making that decision.

It seems important that the whole purpose of the section is to deal with  the administration of  "these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church." Well, that would be me! So it is expected that there are those who meet the requirements who do not have "full communion with the Catholic Church." Again, it is like me participating in an LDS ordinance in the sacrament service by taking part in it. As someone not in full communion with the LDS Church, I am allowed and yes, encouraged to do so. The question in our ward in that regard was whether we were allowed to open or close the service in prayer, give the sacrament "talk", sing a solo, or share a testimony. All of which we did under one bishop and were not allowed to do under another (except partake in the sacrament elements, as the LDS church clearly permits). 

I guess the whole thing could be settled by simply suggesting our local priest came by, chatted with us for an hour, and blessed us with his words. Then, he put on his stoll, an act that had some significance (probably about his authority to do so), and used olive oil to bless us, lay hands on us, and prayed for us while doing so, exactly as did our stake president and former temple president (I think I said mission president before). That was in error. Perhaps there was nothing sacramental meant by what the priest did.

Maybe he was simply being an effective pastor to a family who he knew to be hurting from the loss of their son and the illness of the wife. I am happy with either. I know we were blessed by both his and our LDS friend's ministrations. That is the key to all of this. We can learn from and be blessed by ministrations from faiths that are not our own. I have experienced that many times in my life. So many never have or never have taken the opportunity to experience that. Indeed, in some faiths there are cornerstone beliefs that such a thing is not possible from those outside their own faith. One branch of the Plymouth Brethren, a conservative, closed, and sometimes Fundamentalist group within Protestantism, believes that. 

Thanks for your reply. I have tried to fill in some of the blanks. Someday I will seek more information from him when I am with him again. My wife was not in the place to get into theological jots and tittles. She cried and was clearly blessed by what he did, something she testified to me about later on in the evening. That is good enough for me!

Edited December 19, 2025 by Navidad
clarification

[Clear]

Navidad said: “Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler. “

I am a religious literature historian who is a convert to Restorational (LDS) theology who remembers “life before” when I was a protestant. 

I simply wanted to comment that while your comments concern the ordinance of baptism, there are other principles at work (which may have been mentioned – I didn’t read all of the comments).

 

1) THE RESTORATION OF FAIRNESS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPLES OF FAITH AND SALVATION

 While it is correct that the LDS perform baptisms for those who are deceased, the ordinance is simply to allow them the chance to make the covenants of baptism with God IF THEY SO DESIRE.   There is no principle of compunction involved.

For example, If I was an Egyptian shepherd who lived in 1500 b.c., I may never have even heard of Jesus or the Christian God at all.   The billions who were in this condition since the beginning of the world did not have the chance to hear and accept God, nor his son Jesus Christ, nor have any ordinances performed nor be able to make covenants made with God. 

As a protestant, we knew this situation did not seem fair that individuals who were usable to accept Jesus as their savior and were thus denied heaven seemed unfair, but we had no tangible alternative doctrine to make that situation fair.

The restoration of the concept of proxy religious principles solved this tremendous moral dilemma and allows God to be a Just God rather than one who gives saving knowledge to some while withholding it from others.

 

2) ALL WHO ACCEPT PRINCIPLES OF SALVATION THEY ARE GIVEN, ARE ALSO GIVEN SALVATION REGARDLESS OF MORTAL KNOWLEDGE, RELIGION, CREEDS, BELIEFS DURING MORTALITY.

A second principle is explained in D&C 137:7-9. 

Joseph had a vision where he saw his own elder Brother Alvin, in heaven, and was surprised to see him there since Alvin was neither baptized, nor was he a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

This was revealed to Joseph that :

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;  For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desires of their hearts.

If your son was, as you described, good hearted and accepting of truth, then, according to LDS theology, he will be in Heaven regardless of his religion in this life and regardless of he was baptized or not in this life.  

This is part of Restorational theology and makes fair what seems to be so unfair regarding who is able to learn of God and Jesus and religious blessings during mortality.

In any case, I think that there is some merit to the concept that grief is a manifestation of love, without any place to go.   I am sorry, so sorry for your loss of your son and expect that, if I meet him in heaven, he may be among those who are honored above many who are now, LDS, but were not quite as honorable as he was.

[Tony uk]

Navidad, I am so very sorry for your loss. You certainly have had some difficult situations to deal with. 

You are in my thoughts and prayers.

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, Clear said:

Navidad said: “Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler. “

I am a religious literature historian who is a convert to Restorational (LDS) theology who remembers “life before” when I was a protestant. 

I simply wanted to comment that while your comments concern the ordinance of baptism, there are other principles at work (which may have been mentioned – I didn’t read all of the comments).

 

1) THE RESTORATION OF FAIRNESS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPLES OF FAITH AND SALVATION

 While it is correct that the LDS perform baptisms for those who are deceased, the ordinance is simply to allow them the chance to make the covenants of baptism with God IF THEY SO DESIRE.   There is no principle of compunction involved.

For example, If I was an Egyptian shepherd who lived in 1500 b.c., I may never have even heard of Jesus or the Christian God at all.   The billions who were in this condition since the beginning of the world did not have the chance to hear and accept God, nor his son Jesus Christ, nor have any ordinances performed nor be able to make covenants made with God. 

As a protestant, we knew this situation did not seem fair that individuals who were usable to accept Jesus as their savior and were thus denied heaven seemed unfair, but we had no tangible alternative doctrine to make that situation fair.

The restoration of the concept of proxy religious principles solved this tremendous moral dilemma and allows God to be a Just God rather than one who gives saving knowledge to some while withholding it from others.

 

2) ALL WHO ACCEPT PRINCIPLES OF SALVATION THEY ARE GIVEN, ARE ALSO GIVEN SALVATION REGARDLESS OF MORTAL KNOWLEDGE, RELIGION, CREEDS, BELIEFS DURING MORTALITY.

A second principle is explained in D&C 137:7-9. 

Joseph had a vision where he saw his own elder Brother Alvin, in heaven, and was surprised to see him there since Alvin was neither baptized, nor was he a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

This was revealed to Joseph that :

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;  For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desires of their hearts.

If your son was, as you described, good hearted and accepting of truth, then, according to LDS theology, he will be in Heaven regardless of his religion in this life and regardless of he was baptized or not in this life.  

This is part of Restorational theology and makes fair what seems to be so unfair regarding who is able to learn of God and Jesus and religious blessings during mortality.

In any case, I think that there is some merit to the concept that grief is a manifestation of love, without any place to go.   I am sorry, so sorry for your loss of your son and expect that, if I meet him in heaven, he may be among those who are honored above many who are now, LDS, but were not quite as honorable as he was.

Good morning @Clear Welcome to the forum. From your opening, it appears you belonged to a Restrictivist branch of Protestantism. Might I ask to which group of Protestant belief you belonged? I was raised, studied, and have lived another side of non-Catholic Christianity. I was raised with a wideness in God's mercy perspective and view of judgment day. We were never certain about very much, because much of theology was beyond our certainty. There was no "moral dilemma," just a quiet confidence in God's goodness and mercy.

You use the rarely used (In my experience) non-LDS term "Heaven." Where will he be if he is in heaven. You also state "regardless of his religion" - Would you include faith and faithfulness in your use of the word "religion?" Is it not fair that most LDS folks will tell you that while there is no pressure in the after life to accept the ordinance, there is an assumption that just about everyone will, because it will be obvious at that point that the LDS were/are correct. It has never seemed to me to be evident that there is much thought given to the destiny of those who do not accept. The assumption (perhaps not a good word) is that the vast majority will - perhaps not universalism, but close to it, especially for those who are not sons of perdition. I like your phrase that grief is a manifestation of love, without any place to go. As you might have heard when you were a Protestant, "That'll Preach!" Again, welcome and thanks for your comments. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

The assumption (perhaps not a good word) is that the vast majority will

Sincere, very curious question.

Assuming a vast amount of time (possibly longer than 1000 years, but at least over ten lifetimes) and access to God’s messengers and the Spirit (and likely Christ I believe if they are sincerely good people who have repented of any wickedness) to share and teach them the Gospel and answer any questions they might have with probably complete understanding and clarity (I assume the problems of inadequate and therefore confusing mortal communication are mostly if not totally absent),  for what reason do you believe these good people would have for choosing to reject what they are being taught and much of the evidence of their own experience?

They don’t have to decide at first exposure but have possibly at least 1000 years (till the end of the Millennium if we choose to think of it in concrete, literal terms).  They can see the experiences of those who do choose to accept baptism and the other ordinces.  They can communicate with the Spirit and possibly face to face with Christ (I assume they can since he would be present for them in the Terrestrial Kingdom, but perhaps that won’t happen until they are resurrected and until then they communicate with the Spirit and Christ’s messengers.  There are no stumbling blocks of misbehavior among those who are teachers to confuse or make others wonder if those teachers are honest or righteous.

At that point, why would someone in your view choose not to accept the ordinance knowing it could take them closer to Christ and the Father?

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Sincere, very curious question.

Assuming a vast amount of time (possibly longer than 1000 years or over the lifetimes) and access to God’s messengers, the Spirit, and likely Christ if they are sincerely good people who have repented of any wickedness to share and teach them the Gospel and answer any questions they might have,  for what reason do you believe these good people would have for choosing to reject what they are being taught and much of the evidence of their own experience.

They don’t have to decide over night, but have possibly at least 1000 years (till the end of the Millennium if we choose to think of it in concrete, literal terms).  They can see the experiences of those who do choose to accept baptism and the other ordinces.  They can communicate with the Spirit and possibly face to face with Christ (I assume they can since he would be present for them in the Terrestrial Kingdom, but perhaps that won’t happen until they are resurrected and until then they communicate with the Spirit and Christ’s messengers.  There are no stumbling blocks of misbehavior among those who are teachers to confuse or make others wonder if those teachers are honest or righteous.

At that point, why would someone in your view choose not to accept the ordinance knowing it could take them closer to Christ and the Father?

Hi @Calm: I can't answer your question because to do so, I would have to challenge the likelihood that things will happen as you outlined. I don't want to do that; in fact, I promised I wouldn't when I started the thread. It is not my position to answer your question. The very fact of the scenario that you outlined, simply in and of itself, does an outstanding job of confirming what I suggested. I thought that it was the assumption of most members of the LDS church that just about everyone would accept the ordinances, because it will be obvious at that point that the LDS were/are correct, especially since, as you suggest in your post, Christ will sustain (to use your faith's word) the truth of your scenario. 

You just confirmed what I said. It is not my place in this thread, at this time to debate that whole scenario. That is what I would have to do to answer your last question. Given your scenario, the assumption as I outlined it is true for all the reasons you included. Perhaps another day, on another thread, we can have a dialogue about the whole scenario as you outlined it. Not tonight. Not on this thread. My best wishes, Navidad. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi @Calm: I can't answer your question because to do so, I would have to challenge the likelihood that things will happen as you outlined

But since this is the likely (haven’t taken a poll, so just using “likely” but from my experience it seems to me to be the majority interpretation) perspective of most LDS, it shouldn’t be confusing to anyone why we assume most will accept baptism if we are right and so why should we give much thought to those who won’t?  

Those who won’t we are told will be in the Terrestrial if good people who have repented of sins and in the Telestial if wicked and who repented, but likely still didn’t love others enough to care to try and be good.  Some people believe in progressing through kingdoms if outlooks change in the eternities, so that likely means less and less over time in these kingdoms.  Not sure what you think we should consider outside of the teachings above.  I wouldn’t be the least surprised if many had thought about what living in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms would be like in the eternities, but since such would be speculation and not teaching, most would also not share it with others as not seen as helpful to understanding us.

Or perhaps you mean during the Millennium?  If so, I have heard quite a bit of discussion as most I have talked to seem to see it as an extension of of mortality without natural disasters, etc and also corruption because the wicked perished and Satan is restrained on one hand and on the other much less suffering without illness and living to a good age and more light and knowledge available to all because Christ and his messengers will be working openly.

—

The way you wrote your comment and other comments makes it appear you are critical in some way that we make this assumption of most accepting Christ’s way.  I am curious if this is true and if so, why.

Why wouldn’t we still assume this even if we put in lots of thought to what is going to happen?  I have put tons of thought into likely afterlife scenarios including where we are wrong a d other faiths are right as well as there is no God and each time when I use the assumptions of LDS doctrines and belief, I come out believing even more that most will choose baptism primarily because I do believe that once we remove the hangups of mortality, the majority of humanity will want to know what truth is out there when we understand it is available to us if only so we can trust that our choice is what we actually want for ourselves (others will love truth itself and still others love God and want to know more of him, there may be many other great reasons for desiring to know the truth and willingly embracing it)..  People with relatively healthy mentalities want to belong, to love and be loved, to be safe and to believe in themselves and that imo means they will want to seek God who can provide all that and more.

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

would have to challenge the likelihood that things will happen as you outlined. I don't want to do that; in fact, I promised I wouldn't when I started the thread. It is not my position to answer your question.

Btw, if you would be willing to, I will open a new thread for it if you will be comfortable enough to do so.

The biggest reason I visit and post on the board is I want to see new ways of looking at things and that can only happen when people do challenge old ways of my thinking, whether intentionally or not.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Btw, if you would be willing to, I will open a new thread for it if you will be comfortable enough to do so.

The biggest reason I visit and post on the board is I want to see new ways of looking at things and that can only happen when people do challenge old ways of my thinking, whether intentionally or not.

I would be happy for you to start another thread where I can respond as I normally might do. I will simply say now that I am sorry if I came across a few posts higher as confused or surprised that most of the LDS would hold that a vast majority of those in the spirit world who are approached by those who have evidence of proxy baptisms and confirmations, would agree to receive them. This is obviously even more true if, as my LDS friends seem to believe, the only Christian group represented in heaven is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I say "seem" because I don't know that I have ever been provided a consensus answer on that from the LDS perspective - whether there will be those with a Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Orthodox, or even perhaps Muslim or Buddhist identity in the spirit world, together with advocates for their positions. Perhaps Christ might enjoy that, even advocate for it. I don't know. The very day my son died, the senior LDS church leader came to our house with my wife. I wasn't even home yet from El Paso where he died. My wife says she asked the leader where he thought Chris was at that hour, some four hours after his death. My wife said the leader simply paused and then said, "In the spirit world." I might have said the same thing, perhaps using different terminology. 

I welcome you to a more in-depth conversation with all of us on the forum on the topic. I have no certainty on any of it. I don't want to have any certainty on any of it, because, as I have said before, I believe certainty closes the door to learning, and absolute certainty locks it. For me, uncertainty is a blessing. It reinforces my faith in a way that certainty cannot. Best, Navidad

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

This is obviously even more true if, as my LDS friends seem to believe, the only Christian group represented in heaven is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No, the only Christian group represented in Heaven in scripture is Christ’s perfect, exalted Church of the Firstborn.

Quote

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakersof the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng

Only on earth and only for the last days does Christ speak in scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints existing.

Quote

For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/115?lang=eng&id=p4#p4

The mortal organization The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the current vehicle for the currently available authorized ordinances that are part of the Church of the Firstborn.  Christ will take that which is good and godly in The Restored Gospel and sanctify and justify it just as he will the individual members who choose him.  I suspect there will be much that is familiar and more that is not to faithful LDS.

Since as Joseph taught it will take a great while after death for us to comprehend all the principles of Christ’s Gospel to prepare for exaltation even with the likely accelerated learning available to God’s people (any who are in paradise no matter what path they took in life to get there), we (members of The Restored Gospel since this was who Joseph was speaking to at the time, but also all others on the ladder to exaltation) must be missing a very great deal in mortality about what is the knowledge and are the principles of the Church of the Firstborn.  In no way is exaltation plug and play any more for LDS, even those with all ordinance work done who were faithful all their lives, than it is for nonLDS.

Quote

When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. 

And I don’t see any reason to reject the possibility—in fact, it’s a very high likelihood to me since it would follow the pattern of purification and ultimate exaltation that is used by God—that Christ will also take the other Christian faiths and take what is good and godly in them and sanctify and justify and exalt them and add their perfected forms to make the whole of his heavenly Church of the Firstborn as he will their individual members…and all else who turn to God. 

 There may be many features of the Church of the Firstborn that were reflected in many Christian faiths, perhaps some features that were relatively unique to a few or even one nonLDS faiths since God can turn all things to his good and why would he waste such opportunities?  Mortals have limited attention span and even more limited resources.  So much of LDS efforts are invested into the ordinances of God, including building and filling the temples (as it should be since we are so commanded).  Population percentage wise we are a small church.  How can we manage to cover all that God intends to occur on earth and cover it well?  

God has called many laborers it seems to me at different times according to the parable.  Some have been working a lot longer than just the last hours/days.  Makes sense therefore that he has given commissions to other groups.  We even speak of Christ visiting “other sheep” besides the Nephites and Lamanites after his death.  Could he not have organized them to do his work just as he had done in the Spirit World?  Just as he did with the Nephites and Lamanites?

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Clear]

Hi @Navidad

Navidad said: From your opening, it appears you belonged to a Restrictivist branch of Protestantism. Might I ask to which group of Protestant belief you belonged?

When I was young, my family was Methodist.  As I entered late teens, I attended a Baptist Church which characterized itself as "non-denominational" Christianity.  My sister became a pastor for that Church (before she adopted LDS restorational theology)

 

Navidad said: “We were never certain about very much, because much of theology was beyond our certainty. There was no "moral dilemma," just a quiet confidence in God's goodness and mercy.”

I also experienced “theology lite” in my churches.  I think this was partly because there was a mixture of beliefs in the congregation I attended.  Some believed baptism was necessary, others did not and some believed in a form of eucharist, and others did not.  We were a mix.  Our pastor would occasionally announce a weekend where “those who wanted to be baptized, could.  And those who didn’t want it, did not need to be baptized.”  I think it was difficult for our pastor to come up with sermons that didn’t offend the various groups having different beliefs (we were Baptists in the main, but “non-denominational” in theory.)

The ”Moral dilemma” was that all agreed that a person needed to accept Jesus in order to enter heaven.  The problem was that we also recognized there were and had been people who did not know anything about Jesus during their lives through no fault of their own.   We believed they couldn’t go to heaven since they had not accepted Jesus, but where then did they go?  Hell was the only other alternative in our theology. 

Yet, we felt uncomfortable with this view as well since it indicated God placed individuals into circumstances where they could not avoid punishment due to circumstances God placed them in.   It was not, for the most part, that we felt these individuals deserved hell.  The dilemma was that our theology had no other firm biblical options.

Navidad asked: “You use the rarely used (In my experience) non-LDS term "Heaven." Where will he be if he is in heaven.” 

I assume you are asking about your son?   Nothing more can be expected of an individual than to live according to the best moral knowledge they have.  Those all end up in heaven.   For example, the ancient Jewish text 2 Enoch describes a just judgment thusly : “…on the day of the great judgment. Every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market.  That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward.” (44:5)

Thus, in this ancient model (which the LDS claim to be a restoration of) Just as a scale has a varying measure, so also individuals have different levels of good and evil in them.

Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John) explained “As the elders say, then will those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy.  They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth an hundredfold, and those who bring forth sixtyfold, and those who bring forth thirtyfold : the first will be taken up into the heavens, and second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city.  For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, “In my Father’s house there are many rooms”; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling…” (Irenaeus,  Against Heresies #5)  

The Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS, 4Q255-264 Col 4) summarize the principle of moral diversity and justice in judgment, saying : “All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness.  As is a person’s endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth.  God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal.  He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages of eternity.  He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil, deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him, until the day of the appointed visitation.” 

In my protestant congregation, we simply did not have such ancient principles taught to us.   It was not our pastors fault that he was unable to teach what he did not know and thus, could not relieve us of the discomfort of the doctrine that all who did not accept christ in this life would go to a torturous hell.

 

Navidad said: “You also state "regardless of his religion" - Would you include faith and faithfulness in your use of the word "religion?"

Yes, of course.  I fully expect to meet the catholic mother Teresa, and the protestant John Tyndale, the Hindu Mahatma Ghandi, and other great and faithful individuals who were of other religions in this life, that will honored above many LDS when we enter heaven.  There are extraordinary and great and moral individuals in many religions.

 

Navidad said: “Is it not fair that most LDS folks will tell you that while there is no pressure in the after life to accept the ordinance, there is an assumption that just about everyone will, because it will be obvious at that point that the LDS were/are correct.”

I do not think the LDS have “all truth” (else the restoration would not be an on-going process that Joseph merely laid the foundation for…), and I think the LDS (myself included) have errors in our individual assumptions.  However, IF whatever the truth is, will become more clear in the world of spirits, I also think most will accept it and will continue the process of learning to live principles of Happiness and unity and joy that will prepare them to ultimately live in a social heaven in Joy and unity.  I suspect that we LDS will come to unexpected realizations, just like all other individuals.  This is partly why condemnation of others cannot be accurate and is to be avoided.  I honestly do NOT know how many will refuse truth once they recognize it.

 

Navidad said: It has never seemed to me to be evident that there is much thought given to the destiny of those who do not accept. The assumption (perhaps not a good word) is that the vast majority will - perhaps not universalism, but close to it, especially for those who are not sons of perdition.

As an LDS convert, I love the ancient Judeo-Christian literature and teachings since they parallel their modern Restorational version.    Given Origens’ description of “evil” as “the refusal to progress”, the ancient Judeo-Christian literature describes the spirits of who refused to progress.

For example, Jewish 4^th Ezra (1^st century) describes the self-realization of those spirits who refused moral progression thusly:  79 And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his Law, and who have hated those who fear God – 80 such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways.  81 The first way, because they have scorned the Law of the Most High.  The second way, because they cannot now make a good repentance that they may live.  The third way, they shall see the reward laid up for those who have trusted the covenants of the Most High.  The forth way, they shall consider the torment laid up for themselves in the last days.  The fifth way, they shall see how the habitations of the others are guarded by angels in profound quiet.  The sixth way, they shall see how some of them will pass over into torments.  The seventh way, which is worse than all the ways that have been mentioned, because they shall utterly waste away in confusion and be consumed with shame…” Fourth Book of Ezra 7; 75-87.

The ancient descriptions are not so much a physical torture as self-induced shame and loss of opportunity by what they could have learned and done, but refused.

On the other hand, Jewish Ezra describes similar measured rewards for those who learn to live moral principles God is trying to teach his children, saying:  ”Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when they shall be separated from their mortal body.....First of all, they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders.  The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought which was formed with them, that it might not lead them astray from life into death.  The second order, because they see the perplexity in which the souls of the ungodly wander, and the punishment that waits them.  The third order, they see the witness which he who formed them bears concerning them, that while they were alive they kept the Law which was given them in trust.  The fourth order, they understand the rest which they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels in profound quiet, and the glory which awaits them in the last days.  The fifth order, they rejoice that they have now escaped what is mortal, and shall inherit what is to come; and besides they see the straits  and toil from which they have been delivered, and the spacious liberty which they are to receive and enjoy in immortality.  The sixth order, when it is shown to them how their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on .  The seventh order, which is greater than all that have been mentioned, because they shall rejoice with boldness, and shall be confident without confusion, and shall be glad without fear, for they hasten to behold the face of him whom they served in life and from whom they are to receive their reward when glorified.. (Fourth Book of Ezra 7:88-99)  

 Other ancient Judeo-Christian texts written by Jews and Christians themselves, describing their own ancient beliefs in their own words provide many descriptions of the heavenly abode.

Another example from Jewish Haggadah describing those who are morally progressing, relates: “Several heavens were created, seven in fact, each to serve a purpose of it own. ...”...the fourth contains the celestial Jerusalem together with the Temple, in which Michael ministers as high priest, and offers the souls of the pious as sacrifices.   ....The seventh heaven, on the other hand, contains naught but what is good and beautiful: right, justice, and mercy, the storehouses of life, peace, and blessing, the souls of the pious, the souls and spirits of unborn generations, the dew with which God will revive the dead on the resurrection day”

 The point is that a return to the early Judeo-Christian doctrines, (or a restoration of those doctrines) solves many of the theological dilemmas and ambiguity created by the adoption of different theology in the many, many, later, Christian movements.  There are, obviously, other dilemmas that we faced, but this doctrine of a light-switch heaven for the "somewhat good" people  and a torturous hell for the "somewhat bad" as well as those who were never given the chance to even know about the gospel was the specific one I was referring to.

 

In any case Navidad,  I hope your own spiritual Journey is wonderful and full of reassuring insights and the knowledge that God is just and would never abandon a wonderful and good spirit that your son seemed to be.  I fully expect to see people like  him (and you) in heaven.   Good luck in your journey.

Edited December 22, 2025 by Clear

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

whether there will be those with a Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Orthodox, or even perhaps Muslim or Buddhist identity in the spirit world, together with advocates for their positions.

During what period?  Prior to judgment when we exist as spirits or post judgment and resurrection?

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Clear said:

I do not think the LDS have “all truth” (else the restoration would not be an on-going process that Joseph merely laid the foundation for…), and I think the LDS (myself included) have errors in our individual assumptions.  However, IF whatever the truth is, will become more clear in the world of spirits, I also think most will accept it and will continue the process of learning to live principles of Happiness and unity and joy that will prepare them to ultimately live in a social heaven in Joy and unity.  I suspect that we LDS will come to unexpected realizations, just like all other individuals.  This is partly why condemnation of others cannot be accurate and is to be avoided.  I honestly do NOT know how many will refuse truth once they recognize it.

 

Well stated.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

During what period?  Prior to judgment when we exist as spirits or post judgment and resurrection?

I am sorry, I just don't know. I don't know enough (hence I ask for books—in - in depth studies of the LDS eschatological doctrines). Likewise, I am not sure which judgment (if you believe in two) to which you are referring. It sounds like you believe at some point in the future some will cease to exist as spirits - I don't know if that is pre- or post-judgment or pre or post-which judgment. I don't understand what future resurrection is in LDS doctrine. So, if you want to start a thread that goes into all of this, I will certainly be a part. Thanks.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am sorry, I just don't know. I don't know enough (hence I ask for books—in - in depth studies of the LDS eschatological doctrines). Likewise, I am not sure which judgment (if you believe in two) to which you are referring. It sounds like you believe at some point in the future some will cease to exist as spirits - I don't know if that is pre- or post-judgment or pre or post-which judgment. I don't understand what future resurrection is in LDS doctrine. So, if you want to start a thread that goes into all of this, I will certainly be a part. Thanks.

Quite a few LDS believe there will still be different faith communities during the Millennium.  Whether this means only among the still mortal or in the Spirit world as well, I don’t remember them clarifying.

Post death we are only spirits, post resurrection we will once more have our physical bodies, now perfected and will have them eternally.

After the Millennium, which is when God holds his judgment and all of this earth are finally resurrected, even those who had been wicked, there will only be the Church of the Firstborn.  All will be in heaven, whatever that means, except for the few who choose to be sons of perdition and fully reject God for really odd reasons imo.  They will be in outer darkness.  Whether this is a location or a state of mind and they will actually be able to socialize with others in some limited fashion, I don’t know (I say limited meaning in comparison to those saved in God’s kingdoms of glory where our knowledge of each other and our ability to communicate will likely be determined by how much we accept being one with Christ).

It would really help you understand basic LDS theology and avoid confusion if you study the Gospel Principle manual, hopefully all of it, but at least a couple of the beginning and ending chapters that cover the preexistence and postdeath life.  It is where any serious study of our theology should begin, imo.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Quite a few LDS believe there will still be different faith communities during the Millennium.  Whether this means only among the still mortal or in the Spirit world as well, I don’t remember them clarifying.

Post death we are only spirits, post resurrection we will once more have our physical bodies, now perfected and will have them eternally.

After the Millennium, which is when God holds his judgment and all of this earth are finally resurrected, even those who had been wicked, there will only be the Church of the Firstborn.  All will be in heaven, whatever that means, except for the few who choose to be sons of perdition and fully reject God for really odd reasons imo.  They will be in outer darkness.  Whether this is a location or a state of mind and they will actually be able to socialize with others in some limited fashion, I don’t know (I say limited meaning in comparison to those saved in God’s kingdoms of glory where our knowledge of each other and our ability to communicate will likely be determined by how much we accept being one with Christ).

It would really help you understand basic LDS theology and avoid confusion if you study the Gospel Principle manual, hopefully all of it, but at least a couple of the beginning and ending chapters that cover the preexistence and postdeath life.  It is where any serious study of our theology should begin, imo.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng

I am sorry my friend, but I have always found chapter 41 of the Gospel Principles a cacophony of confusion, especially related to the spirit prison side of it. It is defined in different ways, inclusive of hell. It also quotes the Book of Mormon to describe Spirit prison (one of the two states of the spirit world) as the place of the wicked.  

“And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

“Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection” (Alma 40:12–14). It further states: "The spirits are classified according to the purity of their lives and their obedience to the will of the Lord while on earth. The righteous and the wicked are separated (see 1 Nephi 15:28–30), but the spirits may progress as they learn gospel principles and live in accordance with them." Again the division of the righteous and the wicked. This is not sound like a benevolent place for growth and learning. Ditto for chapter 46. I am looking for something more consistent and deeper that Gospel Principles. It seems to be both a declaration of beliefs (a kind of creed - yikes!) and a missionary device designed to appeal to investigators (friends). In trying to be both things, it ends up being neither. Just an observation of an informed inside-outsider! Thanks. 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am sorry my friend, but I have always found chapter 41 of the Gospel Principles a cacophony of confusion, especially related to the spirit prison side of it. It is defined in different ways, inclusive of hell. It also quotes the Book of Mormon to describe Spirit prison (one of the two states of the spirit world) as the place of the wicked.  

“And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

“Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection” (Alma 40:12–14). It further states: "The spirits are classified according to the purity of their lives and their obedience to the will of the Lord while on earth. The righteous and the wicked are separated (see 1 Nephi 15:28–30), but the spirits may progress as they learn gospel principles and live in accordance with them." Again the division of the righteous and the wicked. This is not sound like a benevolent place for growth and learning. Ditto for chapter 46. I am looking for something more consistent and deeper that Gospel Principles. It seems to be both a declaration of beliefs (a kind of creed - yikes!) and a missionary device designed to appeal to investigators (friends). In trying to be both things, it ends up being neither. Just an observation of an informed inside-outsider! Thanks. 

You are right - I just read chapter 41 does and it does not do a good job in explaining how I understood and understand the doctrine to be for anyone who is either not a "wicked" person or a "righteous" member. By using the Book of Mormon scripture first it gives the impression there are only those 2 groups not 1) people who have never heard of the gospel or 2) good people who don't accept the doctrine and 3) good people who may accept it at some time. So later when it teaches about Spirit Prison being basically split between wicked and those being taught it leaves the impression that while being taught they are still going through what the scripture above says. It just doesn't do a good job with explaining what happens to people who are good or learning and are not then currently believers of the doctrine.

Edited December 22, 2025 by Rain

[Navidad]

52 minutes ago, Rain said:

You are right - I just read chapter 41 does and it does not do a good job in explaining how I understood and understand the doctrine to be for anyone is either not a "wicked" person or a "righteous" member. By using the Book of Mormon scripture first it gives the impression there are only those 2 groups not 1) people who have never heard of th gospel or 2) good people who don't accept the doctrine and 3) good people who may accept it at some time. So later when it teaches about Spirit Prison being basically split between wicked and those being taught it leaves the impression that while being taught they are still going through what the scripture above says. It just doesn't do a good job with explaing what happens to people who are good or learning and are not then currently believers of the doctrine.

Yes, It is worse than some fiery Fundamentalist explanations! No part or portion of the Spirit of the Lord! Wow! Lots of evil in that description. Take care and very best wishes, Navidad

[JVW]

On 12/20/2025 at 12:52 PM, Navidad said:

 Is it not fair that most LDS folks will tell you that while there is no pressure in the after life to accept the ordinance, there is an assumption that just about everyone will, because it will be obvious at that point that the LDS were/are correct. It has never seemed to me to be evident that there is much thought given to the destiny of those who do not accept. The assumption (perhaps not a good word) is that the vast majority will - perhaps not universalism, but close to it, especially for those who are not sons of perdition. I like your phrase that grief is a manifestation of love, without any place to go. As you might have heard when you were a Protestant, "That'll Preach!" Again, welcome and thanks for your comments. 

I don't believe it will be that obvious in the afterlife but I'm rather cynical. I assume that most will not accept the ordinances. Also, a friend told me of a rare, powerful experience she had in the temple when she was doing sealings many years ago. She heard the woman she was being sealed for scream in her mind "NO! NO! NO! NO!" but she did it anyways trusting that God would work out the details, instead of stopping the ceremony.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

It just doesn't do a good job with explaining what happens to people who are good or learning and are not then currently believers of the doctrine.

I think most of us assume they stay in Spirit School (I prefer this term to Prison since the main purpose is learning) until they accept Christ’s Atonement (which includes accepting his gospel and commandments to receive his ordinances) sufficient for moving on to the next phrase of learning (comprehending all the principles of the Gospel in the way Joseph speaks of) or staying there in Spirit School likely in some sort of learning experience that contributes to Christ’s purifying them until Judgment Day at the end of the Millennium and then they will if they still haven’t accepted God’s All that he ants to give them, they become part of the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Quote

The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.

 

The above is one section of Spirit Prison, Hell is used only to describe the below group, not the one above.

 

This description below of those on the hell side of rejecting the gospel sounds to me like a full out, turn the back rejection of Christ as Redeemer, etc, not the type of partial rejection that a Christian (LDS included) or anyone else might choose if they only chose to accept those principles of the gospel they had learned in mortality for some reason.  Perhaps they can fully get behind loving one’s neighbour and helping the poor, but reject any sense of organization or authority.  I doubt God’s chosen teachers would easily give up on anyone, some likely have been at work for a couple of millennia.  We are not told of any holding area for those satisfied with where they are.

Quote

Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.

This is more than simple disbelief or Nonacceptance of parts of the Gospel that don’t sound right to them for some reason.  This is an active rejection of mercy, they don’t want it even though they know the consequences of accepting it and the consequences of rejection.  And they still choose hell.

God hasn’t taken the Spirit from them, they made their choice and removed themselves, they refused to repent of their sins.

Edited December 22, 2025 by Calm