Weak Spots in Mormon Theology

[bluebell]

Why do shows like Ghost Hunters never find any evidence at all or supernatural beings in the houses they visit?

They do! It's fascinating.

[volgadon]

Only if you're being deliberately obtuse. I think you understood my points just fine, which is why you felt compelled to answer them.

Oh, I understood the words, just not your reasoning.

[LeSellers]

I can't figure out how to do the "multiquote" thing, so you'll have to bear with me.

I believe you mean that you do not know how to break a message up into discrete segments so you can respond to individual elements in it. Multiquoting is a different thing. You do this by clicking the "Multiquote" button at the end of each message to which you want to respond. Then, at the bottom or top of the page, click "Add Reply". A new message window open with all the messages you selected, each bracketed by "quote tags".

To "nest" these messages, remove the tag that looks like this (mispelled to avoid triggering an error):[/quoote], then add another one at the end of the second block of text, so it looks like this:[/quoote][/quoote].

Breaking up text to respond to separate points is simple, once you know the trick.

If you quote the entire message to which you're replying, you will see this:

[quote name='FuturetwItblog_17075' timestamp='1294565562' post='1208962264']This is text,

This is more text

Here's some more text. 

And this is the last text.[/quote]

Here's what you see on the screen:

This is text,

This is more text

Here's some more text.

And this is the last text.

Now, if you want to break it up so you can respond to separate issues, you do this. "Bracket" each segment with quote tags in this manner:

[quote name='FuturetwItblog_17075' timestamp='1294565562' post='1208962264']This is text,[/quote]
This is your response.

[quote name='FuturetwItblog_17075' post='1208962264']This is more text[/quote]
More answers.

[quote name='FuturetwItblog_17075' post='1208962264']Here's some more text. [/quote]
And here's another response.

[quote name='FuturetwItblog_17075' post='1208962264']And this is the last text.[/quote]
And this is the last response.

Notice I removed the "timestamp='1294565562'" string in the second and subsequent opening quote tag. I do this to reduce the clutter in a message. You can leave it in if you prefer. I leave the "name='Xxxxxx'" to be clear about who is writing what. Others leave it out, but I often find this confusing. I also leave in the "post='12345678'" string so a reader can go back to the original message if there is a question about what I am responding to.

You can edit any part of the original text, too. But be careful not to misrepresent what the writer said. That's just bad form in any environment.

This all shows up like this.

This is text,

This is your response.

This is more text

More answers.

Here's some more text.

And here's another response.

And this is the last text.

And this is the last response.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[Skylla]

FutureTwitBlog:

You were banned for spamming the board with your status updates. They contained questionable and inappropriate links that I spent time deleting to protect board members from possible malware. This is not the place to post links to "hottest Mexican girls".

Skylla

[Brenda]

I can think of only one and it just about drives me crazy when I start thinking about it. I'm willing to admit that maybe the "weak spot" is just in my own brain and that if I understood the doctrine better, I wouldn't see it as a weak spot at all. Nobody I've ever talked to, though, has ever been able to explain why it's not a weak spot, though, so to me, it continues to be one.

It's the belief that children under the age of accountability and people with dimished mental capacity will automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom. I understand that they would not have been capable of willfully sinning and should therefore not be punished, but don't these people continue to learn and make choices in the Spirit World after death, too? Let's take a seven-year-old child who dies. Had that child been allowed to live to adulthood, he might very well have taken a path that would have led him to commit some horrendous acts against his fellow men. But instead of living, he dies at an early age, and is said to be without sin. Why isn't he required to mature spiritually, hear and accept the gospel and receive the saving ordinances by proxy? Instead, he just gets to spend eternity in the Celestial Kingdom. What happened to free agency?

I've heard it said that the only reason he needed to come to earth in the first place was to receive a body. Now that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The trials and temptations we're subjected to here on earth are beyond the ability of a pre-mortal spirit to imagine. He couldn't have been sufficiently tested in the pre-existance without having a mortal body. If he was "so valiant in his pre-mortal life" that God allowed his life to end before the age of accountability, he would arguably have maintained that degree of commitment and faithfulness had he lived to a ripe old age. Instead, he didn't need to take the test at all! Doesn't this sound just a little bit like pre-destination to you?

I don't have an answer to your question, and I don't think we have any doctrine that answers it, though there are some lovely theories out there. I just wanted to share an experience.

I have two autistic grandchildren who will never be baptized. Recently our local zoo offered a free day for handicapped children and their families, so I went with my grandkids and their mother (my daughter). We were not lucky to be able to see many of the animals that day because they all seemed to be hiding. However, it was a wonderful day. I gradually began to notice the spirit that was there, unlike anything I can recall even in the temple. The thought occurred to me that if we were to lose track of one of our kids, they would have been completely safe among these strangers. I had the strong feeling that we were among celestial spirits. Not just the handicapped, but their gentle caretakers also.

None of us know the whole answer to your quesiton, but nevertheless, the comfort of the promise is a huge blessing to us. I can't explain it, but I am profoundly grateful for it.

[Calm]

They will then progress to the celestial kingdom because we will all go to the celestial kingdom - a kingdom with three degrees of glory (celestial, terrestrial, and telestial).

Reading the celestial kingdom in the relevant scriptures as referring to all three kingdoms does resolve the issue, but is not really consistent with current interpretations (not that it really bothers me that it isn't as long as it's consistent with the scriptures and doctrinal statements as opposed to interpretations).

[Calm]

Unless I'm mistaken, children who die before the age of accountability will be raised at the first resurrection and inhabit the earth during the Millennium. I think it's a little too easy to gloss over that period of time, thinking of it as some sort of idyllic garden of Eden, with simple technology and a simple, uncomplicated life without trials or sorrow. I tend to think that, despite marvellous blessings being poured out on the earth, existence will continue to be fairly "normal", with its share of difficulties, challenges and tough choices to make, even though Satan will be bound (whatever effects this will have on the mortal condition). So this opens up the possibility that these choice spirits will still receive a type of mortal probation.

And this is generally how I understand the situation, the issue though is if this is a 'true' probation in that they could fail in the sense of rejecting the fulness of the Gospel and not achieve the highest kingdom, let along exaltation (which does not appear to be guaranteed by the interpretations of the scriptures I've seen).

[nicolasconnault]

And this is generally how I understand the situation, the issue though is if this is a 'true' probation in that they could fail in the sense of rejecting the fulness of the Gospel and not achieve the highest kingdom, let along exaltation (which does not appear to be guaranteed by the interpretations of the scriptures I've seen).

Unless the final struggle is similar in nature to the pre-mortal "war in heaven". I wonder if it will possible for resurrected beings to still follow Satan after all...

[mercyngrace]

Reading the celestial kingdom in the relevant scriptures as referring to all three kingdoms does resolve the issue, but is not really consistent with current interpretations (not that it really bothers me that it isn't as long as it's consistent with the scriptures and doctrinal statements as opposed to interpretations).

"Currently" is the key word.

It is consistent with the temple ceremony, however, and while not explicitly stated, it's also consistent with many prophetic statements.

I tell you when the prophets and apostles go to preach to those who are shut up in prison, and who have not received the Gospel, thousands of them will there embrace the Gospel. They know more in that world than they do here" (As cited in Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, pp. 203, 206).

Why do they know more in the spirit world? The lights are brighter.

President Kimball, "May I repeat, the time will come when there will be a surrender of every person who has ever lived on this earth, who is now living, or who ever will live on this earth; and it will be an unforced surrender, an unconditional surrender. When will it be for you? Today? In twenty years? Two hundred years? Two thousand or a million? When? Again, to you, John, I say, it is not if you will capitulate to the great truth; it is when, for I know that you cannot indefinitely resist the power and pressure of truth. Why not now? Much time has been lost. The years ahead can be far more glorious for you than any years in the past.

(Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 63.)

Our progression coincides with the rate at which we acquire knowledge, abide laws, and repent.

Elder Charles W. Penrose: "Thus the inhabitants of Earth with the few exceptions that are beyond the power of redemption will eventually be saved. And the globe on which they passed their probation, having kept the law of its being, will come into remembrance before its Maker. It will die like its products. But it will be quickened again and resurrected in the celestial glory. It has been born of the water, it will also be born of the Spirit. Purified by fire from all the corruptions that once defiled it, developed into its perfections as one of the family of worlds fitted for the Creator's presence, all its latent light awakened into scintillating action, it will move up into its place among the orbs governed by celestial time, and shining "like a sea of glass mingled with fire," every tint and color of the heavenly bow radiating from its surface, the ransomed of the Lord will dwell upon it; the highest beings of the ancient orbs will visit it; the garden of God will again adorn it; the heavenly government will prevail in every part; Jesus will reign as its King; the river of life will flow out from the regal throne; the tree of life, whose leaves were for the healing of the nations, will flourish upon the banks of the heavenly stream, and its golden fruit will be free for the white-robed throng, that they may eat and live forever. This perfected Earth and its saved inhabitants will then be presented to the Eternal Father as the finished work of Christ, and all things will be subject unto the Great Patriarch, Architect, Creator, Ruler, the Almighty, to whom be obedience and reverence and praise in all the countless worlds that shine as jewels in His universal crown (Charles W. Penrose. "Leaves from the Tree of Life," Contributor, Sept. 1881, pp. 364-65)

A single celestial, perfected Earth. With all its saved inhabitants.

[Hughes]

Two points here that always arise. The first point is that they will be made to pay the price for their own sins. There is no paying the price for ones sins and gaining salvation without gospel obedience.. Paying the price through a penalty of suffering does no good without the atonement of Christ. Christ is the one who paid the price for our sins. No suffering we do on our part pays the penalty, that is why we need Christ.

The second point here is that it never actually says they repent. Repentance requires faith in Christ, repenting and then baptism. The terrestrial are said to gain this forgiveness but for the telestial it never says such. The telestial are thus categorized as the unrepentant.

These two points alone beg for a good case in the weakness of the doctrine. How are they thus saved if they never accept Christ?

it would be nice if you stopped posted against what the Church teaches.

from Gospel Principles Chapter 46

Telestial

These people did not receive the gospel or the testimony of Jesus either on earth or in the spirit world. They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millennium, when they will be resurrected.

[frankenstein]

What we know of the telestail kingdom is not a weak point, it is only a weak point to one who would the D&C and Book of Mormon contradict each other. It is only a weak point to one who does not consider the totality of the Official Church publications on the subject.

If weak points in doctrine are known unknowns, then all of religion is weak.

[Vance]

If not, then can someone explain how we pay for our own sins by suffering.

Interesting question and also a bit of a thread jack.

I realize that this suffering for sins is a GIANT hole in the Evangelical theology, but it is much less so for LDS.

How did Christ pay for our sins if the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God? The Evangelical concept of God makes this impossible.

And then again, how did Christ pay for our sins by suffering?

He has said,

D&C 19:15 Therefore I command you to repent

[44Foxtrot]

I believe you mean that you do not know how to break a message up into discrete segments so you can respond to individual elements in it. Multiquoting is a different thing. You do this by clicking the "Multiquote" button at the end of each message to which you want to respond. Then, at the bottom or top of the page, click "Add Reply". A new message window open with all the messages you selected, each bracketed by "quote tags".

To "nest" these messages, remove the tag that looks like this (mispelled to avoid triggering an error):[/quoote], then add another one at the end of the second block of text, so it looks like this:[/quoote][/quoote].

Breaking up text to respond to separate points is simple, once you know the trick.

If you quote the entire message to which you're replying, you will see this:

Here's what you see on the screen:
Now, if you want to break it up so you can respond to separate issues, you do this. "Bracket" each segment with quote tags in this manner:

This is your response.


More answers.


And here's another response.


And this is the last response.

Notice I removed the "timestamp='1294565562'" string in the second and subsequent opening quote tag. I do this to reduce the clutter in a message. You can leave it in if you prefer. I leave the "name='Xxxxxx'" to be clear about who is writing what. Others leave it out, but I often find this confusing. I also leave in the "post='12345678'" string so a reader can go back to the original message if there is a question about what I am responding to.

You can edit any part of the original text, too. But be careful not to misrepresent what the writer said. That's just bad form in any environment.

This all shows up like this.

This is your response.

More answers.

And here's another response.

And this is the last response.

Enjoy,

Lehi

Lehi,

Thank you very much for this informative post

Was trying to figure out how to do "quote attribution" earlier this evening by looking at tags on the editor, but after guessing wrong a few times and screwing up my posts, I gave up.

I appreciate your taking the time to put together a great tutorial.

[Hughes]

Interesting question and also a bit of a thread jack.

I realize that this suffering for sins is a GIANT hole in the Evangelical theology, but it is much less so for LDS.

How did Christ pay for our sins if the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God? The Evangelical concept of God makes this impossible.

And then again, how did Christ pay for our sins by suffering?

He has said,

D&C 19:15 Therefore I command you to repent

[Rob Osborn]

it would be nice if you stopped posted against what the Church teaches.

from Gospel Principles Chapter 46

Telestial

These people did not receive the gospel or the testimony of Jesus either on earth or in the spirit world. They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millennium, when they will be resurrected.

[Rob Osborn]

The quotes from section 19 regarding the unrepentant needs some clarification. What is least understood about this section is that it is speaking of the state of the wicked who after the millennium remain unrepentant. It is speaking of the future sons of perdition because they remain unrepentant. here-

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:3 - 4)

It says that surely "every man must repent". What suffering is reserved for the unrepentant after the millennium? Here-

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:5 - 6)

11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:11 - 12)

But is this type of punishment spoken of the telestial? No, it is reserved for the sons of perdition because they repent not. Here-

43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

44 Wherefore, he saves all except them

[Jon63]

What these scriptures show is that section 19 specifically refers to the punishment of the unrepentant after resurrection at judgment which comes after the millennium.

So, here we have a paradox- scriptures specifically stating that one must repent to be saved from hell and on the other hand we have doctrine stating that the telestial are unrepentant and are saved from hell in the end.

This to me creates a myriad of problems- which is it?

This is why I believe it to be a weak doctrine. Personally I believe that the unrepentant do not gain salvation no matter how long they spend suffering for sins in hell. Christ only saves the repentant who believe on his name and repent and are cleansed through the atonement, not cleansed from their own suffering.

I think this inconsistency shows that rather than being a weak doctrine it is a man-made doctrine.

[Vance]

And no it's not GIANT hole in the Evangelical theology, but thanks for your opinion.

Just keep telling yourself that. And keep being critical about the theology of others, BUT under NO CIRCUMSTANCES look at your own theology critically.

Don't consider that Evangelical theology dictates that the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God. Since you believe that Jesus is your one God, he is incapable of being eternally separated from himself. He therefore not only did NOT suffer the punishment for your sins, He is INCAPABLE of doing so.

I see this as a GIANT hole in your theology. So you be sure to keep your mind closed regarding it. You wouldn't want to honestly consider the implications of it, that might cause some discomfort for you.

[Vance]

I think this inconsistency shows that rather than being a weak doctrine it is a man-made doctrine.

Humm, that is an interesting statement. Especially considering the inconsistency of the Evangelical doctrine regarding the Evangelical Jesus' INABILITY of suffering the punishment for your sins.

Interesting indeed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

They do! It's fascinating.

I will 2nd this. I think the way the go about it providers some of the best evidence on the matter of ghosts more than any other team on TV.

The only thing that would be better is if I could do a show with them. I don't believe them to be dishonest and that they are trying to pull an okey dokey on the viewers.

[TAO]

Rob, one of the sections of the D&C talks about it being called endless punishment because endless is God's name. Therefore, 'godly punishment'. But not punishment without end.

[mercyngrace]

Rob, one of the sections of the D&C talks about it being called endless punishment because endless is God's name. Therefore, 'godly punishment'. But not punishment without end.

Section 19

[frankenstein]

I am just bringing it up that it is a weak doctrine. If you were to poll fellow mormons on if Christ saves the unrepentant it would be a split. Members are not sure if the telestial repent or not or how that salvation is even possible. Telestial salvation is a weak spot in our doctrine. Taking the BoM as our standard, it states nowhere between it's covers that Christ saves the unrepentant.

The Book of Mormon states Christ will not save people in their sins.

But as for the Telestail world being a weak point, it is not. If people would read the Church publications (True to the Faith, Gospel Principles manual, *Bible dictionary; they would understand what is going to take place.

I agree with your analysis, that in reference to the Telestail world the term "repentant" is not used.

From section 76, it appears that first those who are bound to the Telestail world will suffer for their sins, then after said suffering and at some point all will bow the knee and confess Christ.

[Hughes]

Just keep telling yourself that. And keep being critical about the theology of others, BUT under NO CIRCUMSTANCES look at your own theology critically.

Don't consider that Evangelical theology dictates that the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God. Since you believe that Jesus is your one God, he is incapable of being eternally separated from himself. He therefore not only did NOT suffer the punishment for your sins, He is INCAPABLE of doing so.

I see this as a GIANT hole in your theology. So you be sure to keep your mind closed regarding it. You wouldn't want to honestly consider the implications of it, that might cause some discomfort for you.

So, are you saying that you don't believe that Christ is our savior?

[Vance]

So, are you saying that you don't believe that Christ is our savior?

You need to read what I actually wrote.

I don't see how you could possibly get that idea from my post.