Celestial Kingdom Questions

[CASteinman]

There is no support for these concepts in any of the Standard Works, because they're not true.

Well, actually some of them have support and some do not. You have to put them into two piles. The true ideas and the false ones. MOST of the stuff asked about in the post was asking whether false things were true. Every once in a while, a true element was touched upon.

[SamIam]

1. Does the LDS church teach that women cannot get into the Celestial Kingdom without their husband's approval, and that if the husband approves the wife becomes a Goddess, but if the husband does not approve she becomes a servant?

First all of your question pertain to a very sacred element of LDS theology. My answers will pertain to what I am comfortable referencing.

NO. There will be a multitude of single men and women in the celestial Kingdom. Entrance to the Kingdom is only limited by baptism. The limitation is not husband and wives in the celestial kingdom, it is husbands and wives in the highest level of the celestial Kingdom. According Bruce R. McConkie from his book “A New Witness of the Articles of Faith the Telestial, terrestrial and bottom 2 levels of the Celestial Kingdom are all kingdoms of damnation (Chapter 17 second page of chapter top of page, I can’t remember the page number) meaning that they have no “continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” (D & C 132:19)

The Covenant of Marriage is an agreement between God -Husband -Wife. I feel silly even writing this down at the extreme improbability but if a worthy women was not called forth by her husband, her covenant with the Lord remains and she would be given to another. The greater burden would be on the man to justify why he was willing to jeopardize his agreement with the Lord willingly when his agreement is predicated upon him having a worthy wife. Having one, but being unwilling to call her forth would call into question his worthiness to be there and not hers. The problem here is trying to evaluate beings that should have become like Christ and yet would not be able to forgive for some supposed issue in mortality. Therefore, his inability to forgive would forfeit his claim. The improbability in my mind is that if someone possessed such a grievous inability as unable to forgive, he forfeited his claim on more than just not willing to call forward his wife.

Also, the perspective of the question is really not adequate. The terminology and tone in the question implies a second class citizen status for a woman, when this couldn’t be further from the truth. Again this is one of those mortal mentalities that fails to see two halves of a whole and only perceives hierarchy. I could go into much more on the remarkable nature of the daughters of God but will refrain only to reiterate, it is my expressed opinion that any man who cannot perceive of his wife’s greatness is most likely nowhere near the celestial kingdom.

A side tangent that does not speak directly to this response but embraces the principle is found in Doctrines of Salvation V3 where President Smith indicates that a worthy unmarried woman is not automatically excluded from Celestial exaltation. He states that it is the burden of the man to find a wife and the women is not held accountable if she was never asked to marry by a worthy, or potentially such, male. In such an instance the criteria is not an in force sealing but having had here endowments via self or by proxy.

2. Does the church teach that unmarried men and women will go to a different Kingdom or otherwise lead a lower existence in Heaven?

By unmarried I am going to qualify that as not sealed, as it is essentially not married in the next life if one has not been sealed.

Yes / No

Yes - The Celestial Kingdom is available to an unmarried man or women.

No – they have no exaltation and are only servants to those of a higher weight of glory. This principle is embraced within these verses here:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:16

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

3. Does the church teach that unmarried men will be provided the opportunity to take a wife after they die in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, however, unmarried women will not similarly be offered a husband?

I am giving black and white answers, however, as judgment is the Lords and there are surely issues that may fall outside of the cut and dry of my answers. As well time and space do not allow for all of the nuances. If you have quesitons feel free to ask.

If a man has had a full opportunity to select a wife in this existence and choose not to exercise that choice and did so with knowledge he has chosen to remain single in the eternities. Nonetheless, should physical deformity or other issue prevent him from being accepted as a spouse these issues would be resolved in the millennium. The general rule is that after the millennial period there is no giving in marriage. However, there is at least one potential exception that I am aware of in the scriptures but you will have to find it. I wouldn’t bring it up in this forum.

4. Many past leaders of the LDS church have said that Joseph Smith will stand at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom and one can only gain entry with his approval. I understand that some LDS faithful consider this to be strictly the opinion of past leaders, and not doctrine, but weren't these opinions based in LDS scripture?

This is so much, much more than a petty little “approval” issue. There are some early practices in the church that few understand but again are not suitable for this forum. The closest I can get you is to this image found at this link:

http://www.heavenlya...hy-of-the-gods/

Study the text 30 to 40 times and seek guidance and there are several answers of great significance. The point I would make if appropriate is doctrine but not in implementation at this time. Malachi 4 and a couple of other verses allude to

5. Is there any support for these concepts in the Bible, or are they strictly D&C, WoW, or PoGP?

As far as concepts that deal with plural marriage, there are a couple of ways to go at this. If your skills at grasping the principles of scripture verses are well developed then you can glean from a couple of sources:

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

15 ¶If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

The underlying intent that you might glean from this is the man is bound by the rules of the covenant. Hating his first wife does not remove his obligation to be obedient to the conditions of the covenant.

This relates to your very first question of if he doesn’t call forth his wife. It is not a willy nilly husband gets away with everything mentality. If he decides he hates his first wife and in the resurrection decides to not call her forth the burden is on him for not keeping the requirements of the convenant.

There are a couple of other references that you might want to develop. D & C 132:65 mentions the law of Sarah. So the Biblical story line of Abraham and Sarah and Hagar is the story upon which the D & C verse is referencing. If you study out the story and keep in mind the D & C idea that this is a law, once again you can see additional responsibilities that apply to the sealing covenant.

Perhaps one of the best is found in concepts of Levirate Marriage or Yibbum in the Hebrew.

Scriptures that reference the requirement are:

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 - These verse define the conditions of the law.

Genesis 38:8 , Genesis 38:24:26 – This section is fascinating and if properly understood removes the taint of Tamar and condemns Judah for failing to perform his duty to his son who had died. In a way this also illuminates your first question. Judah was honor bound to rear up a child unto his son Er because Onan (also Judah’s son) failed in his covenant to rear up a son to his brother Er and was slain by the Lord. Since Onan was killed the lot fell to the next brother but the law can only be entered into by a brother that has reached 13 years of age. In the meantime Judah’s wife dies and he fails to have the next son fulfill the law of Yibbum and Tamar tricks Judah into having a baby. This looks like shady doings if you do not understand the laws of the Old Testament and the manner of things amongst the Jews. However, Tamar was not being a harlot but exercising her claim for a son for her first husband who died childless.

The point to understand here is again back to the principle of your first question. Men, as in Judah’s case, may try to get away by treating a woman as a second class citizen – If you found these questions on the net reading some anti-mormon material as someone implied then those who originated your questions they are illustrating the same mindset. They think like uninformed mortals and so view things they do not know about with a judgmental perspective. However, when all is said and done men are judged harshly and justly by God for their failure to honor and sustain a women according to the laws that God has established. In this case Tamar, had to go to extremes to get what was her right. When Judah is caught he recognizes full well that she is right and he is wrong. She is exonerated of guilt and Judah is shamed. On this principle I believe is the burden of your first question. If man thinks to be so unforgiving he has done himself a great, great disservice.

Genesis 38:24-26

24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying: 'Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry.' And Judah said: 'Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.'

25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: 'By the man, whose these are, am I with child'; and she said: 'Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff.'

26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said: 'She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son.' And he knew her again no more.

One note: One has to wonder what is the significance of a childless man’s brother raising up seed unto his deceased brother? On the surface it was so his name could be preserved in Israel but to expand that according to eternal perspectives it was so he could have progeny in the eternities and thus have a sealing tie that was unbroken from generation to generation.

Also the Laws of the Levirate marriage are what make the Solomon, two mothers, cut the baby in half story all make sense. It is more profound when you grasp how Solomon knew how to discern who the true mother was that is far more impressive than the idea that it was a little headgame to trick the mothers into revealing themselves. Because Solomon knew the law he knew the motivations that were prompting the argument. He knew who the mother was well before he drew the sword because he knew the law.

We still practice this principle after a fashion in sealing’s today but that is for a different day.

This is already too long so I am going to leave it up to you to ask questions if you need more detail.

6. Is this too many questions for one thread?

For some no, for me yes.

In my mind, these kinds of questions and the fact that you are asking them begs for an informed response that explains the perspectives clearly. There is far too much abuse on the net and even in Sunday School classes sometimes for how to treat principles in the scripture and most people will not take the time to become fully informed. Therefore they speak in condemnation of principles beyond the scope of their understanding and you are left without an informed understanding to enable you to make the most prudent choices with an informed perspective. However, I can only encourage you that understanding will seldom be achieved by the normal little “text message” responses as is the norm. Do your homework, study and seek guidance and the real answers will be made yours and you will depend on no one else to answers the hard questions – you’ll find them yourself. Solomon’s wisdom that he was so extolled for was not without foundation – he knew the law better than any before him. Therefore he could be wise. We all should do the same.

Edited May 22, 2012 by SamIam

[theplains]

3. Does the church teach that unmarried men will be provided the opportunity to take a wife after they die in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, however, unmarried women will not similarly be offered a husband?

According to Doctrines of Salvation, volume 2 (page 65), yes - both the men and women will be married again when

they die if one of their spouses proved unfaithful.

See enclosed image.

Thanks,

Jim

[Law22]

It is LDS doctrine that the noble and great ones participated in the creation of this earth; Jesus is the creator, under the direction of the Father, but he engaged the worthy spirits to assist. To me, it demonstrates Gods great love for and trust in his children.

When you say that the noble and great ones participated in the creation of the earth, are you referring to those previously referenced, Moses, Smith, etc.? And, where in LDS scripture that I can find this doctrine?

[Law22]

I agree with what these verses say. What I meant was that there is no scriptural support for what Law22 seemed (to me) to be implying: that we believe Joseph Smith, and not Jesus Christ, will be the judge.

Sorry for the confusion.

Actually, as is hopefully at least somewhat obvious, I don't mean to imply anything because I am not familiar with the LDS understanding of these concepts. Thank you for helping me understand better.

Having said that, my understanding was not that Joseph Smith somehow replaced Christ in this effort, but that he somehow joined Him in it. But, it would seem that getting into the Celestial Kingdom would require the approval of both Christ and Joseph Smith.

[selek1]

But, it would seem that getting into the Celestial Kingdom would require the approval of both Christ and Joseph Smith.

Only if one insists on clinging to the most myopic and tendentious interpretations of the arguments made and the Scriptures cited.

You claim to wish to understand what we believe, but have never yet failed to jump to the most inflammatory and uncharitable conclusion possible.

Let me spell this out for you clearly:

Christ is the Master. Joseph is his servant.

It is not a partnership.

It is not a Quorum.

It is not a poll, a vote, a plebescite, or a commitee.

Christ is the ultimate judge and arbitor.

It is HIS decision which is final.

Joseph has NO AUTHORITY save that which is DELEGATED to him by Christ.

The underlying principle which answers all of the questions you cut-and-pasted in the OP is this:

NO ONE can or will be denied a blessing for which they are worthy and which Christ desires to bestow save that they themselves reject it.

A faithless husband cannot deny his wife entry into the Celesital Kingdom, nor can Joseph cannot deny anyone who is worthy all that Christ would bestow.

Even had he wanted to, Joseph CANNOT and COULD NOT thwart the Lord's word or will.

There are two eternal principles which cannot be avoided, obviated, or skirted.

1) All Priesthood authority is predicated on righteousness.

2) All Priesthood authority (save God's own) is delegated- and therefore subordinate.

A husband cannot deny his wife a blessing to which she is entitled without acting unjustly and therefore obviating his own authority. It would be contrary to the laws of Heaven. Nor can he abrogate the covenants he has made on a whim, for the very same reasons.

All Priesthood authority- whether yours, mine, or Joseph's is delegated- and therefore borrowed. Like a Lieutenant Colonel acting as Executive Officer of a battaltion of infantry, his orders cannot supercede those of the Colonel or General to whom he answers.

Even if Christ has delegated that Joseph will act as judge in this dispensation (as he did with his original Twelve Apostles), Joseph's will and judgement cannot supercede that of Christ. Nor, in his capacity as judge, can he judge unrighteously, without betraying his own authority.

Edited May 22, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

1. Does the LDS church teach that women cannot get into the Celestial Kingdom without their husband's approval, and that if the husband approves the wife becomes a Goddess, but if the husband does not approve she becomes a servant?

2. Does the church teach that unmarried men and women will go to a different Kingdom or otherwise lead a lower existence in Heaven?

3. Does the church teach that unmarried men will be provided the opportunity to take a wife after they die in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, however, unmarried women will not similarly be offered a husband?

4. Many past leaders of the LDS church have said that Joseph Smith will stand at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom and one can only gain entry with his approval. I understand that some LDS faithful consider this to be strictly the opinion of past leaders, and not doctrine, but weren't these opinions based in LDS scripture?

5. Is there any support for these concepts in the Bible, or are they strictly D&C, WoW, or PoGP?

6. Is this too many questions for one thread?

1. No

2. No

3. No.

4. No

5. Maybe and no

6. Yes if they are all straight from the handbook of anti-mormonism.

Edited May 22, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

LOL

If that is equality then why does it sound weird to say that Adam is a help meet. That is, he is equal to Eve.

Don't know why it affects you that way, probably because you haven't considered it before. I am sue there are some who would not consider it weird.

[Law22]

^{In my mind, these kinds of questions and the fact that you are asking them begs for an informed response that explains the perspectives clearly.}

Agreed! And thank you for such an informative and detailed response. As you might have guessed, I'll need to take some time to study your post awhile.

[Law22]

You claim to wish to understand what we believe, but have never yet failed to jump to the most inflammatory and uncharitable conclusion possible.

Even if Christ has delegated that Joseph will act as judge in this dispensation (as he did with his original Twelve Apostles), Joseph's will and judgement cannot supercede that of Christ. Nor, in his capacity as judge, can he judge unrighteously, without betraying his own authority.

I've been on this board for all of about a month I think and for the most part find the people here perfectly willing and able to explain, and at times, defend the LDS faith. Isn't that what this is for? Apologetics? Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, some decide that I have ulterior and nasty motives if I ask about some of the more controversial stuff, or come to controversial conclusions based on my limited understanding of the LDS faith. I don't. That said, why on earth would you characterize my conclusion here as inflammatory and uncharitable? Honestly, if you tell me that you believe Joseph Smith stands at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom with Christ passing judgement I am perfectly happy to accept that.That I might not agree should mean nothing to you and certainly should not upset you. But, if it has, I do apologize.

[Law22]

6. Yes if they are all straight from the handbook of anti-mormonism.

Am I to understand that questions such as these are necessarily anti-Mormon? How might I ask questions in the future, even if from "anti-Mormon" sources, that will not offend people just by asking? Are there any non-Mormon sources that are not "anti-Mormon?"

[Log]

Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, some decide that I have ulterior and nasty motives if I ask about some of the more controversial stuff, or come to controversial conclusions based on my limited understanding of the LDS faith. I don't. That said, why on earth would you characterize my conclusion here as inflammatory and uncharitable?

To be fair to my coreligionists, they are used to antagonists antagonizing them antagonistically. These kinds of questions are what are used to cause dissension and strife. I personally try to follow this pattern.

[Freedom]

When you say that the noble and great ones participated in the creation of the earth, are you referring to those previously referenced, Moses, Smith, etc.? And, where in LDS scripture that I can find this doctrine?

Abraham 3:22-25.

[CASteinman]

Am I to understand that questions such as these are necessarily anti-Mormon? How might I ask questions in the future, even if from "anti-Mormon" sources, that will not offend people just by asking? Are there any non-Mormon sources that are not "anti-Mormon?"

I can't speak for others but for myself, I do not get offended, but if I think the person is not serious, I am less likely to answer helpfully. For me, simply saying something like "I am not Mormon, but I read something strange on the Internet and I figure I ought to find out from Mormons what they believe instead of from others" and that would be enough.

I should point out though, that stringing long bunches of questions together -- sort of Spamming the Objections in a blurring whirl of "Obvious Truths" -- is one of two "gotcha" variants that can sorta put people's teeth on edge. The other is the "Leading Question" approach -- sort of an imitation of Socrates where someone will "lead" the Mormon out of his darkness by a series of questions that one by one, strip away the veneer of reasonableness of our beliefs and exposing the raw pulsating darkness of lies unto which we are enslaved.

I apologize to you for being not quite kind.

[Log]

I can't believe nobody laughed at my zombie crack. I thought it was hilarious.

[selek1]

Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, some decide that I have ulterior and nasty motives if I ask about some of the more controversial stuff, or come to controversial conclusions based on my limited understanding of the LDS faith.

This is partially correct. We suspect that you have ulterior motives when you reach "conclusions" in spite of the evidence presented and the answers you are given.

We are not offended by your self-professed ignorance, but by your willful determination to maintain it.

Your statement that "getting into the Celestial Kingdom would require the approval of both Christ and Joseph Smith" is supported in nowhere this thread nor anywhere in LDS scriptures. It falsely implies (deliberately, in my opinion) that Joseph Smith and Christ are co-equal in the final judgement.

That notion is patently offensive to both Latter-day Saints and non-Mormon Christians, and is a common tactic to incite and evoke outrage and "poison the well" against the Latter-day Saints.

It is a falsehood and a damnable lie used to excite the bigotry of the ignorant and to prevent others from hearing the truth of what we have to offer.

That said, why on earth would you characterize my conclusion here as inflammatory and uncharitable? Honestly, if you tell me that you believe Joseph Smith stands at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom with Christ passing judgement I am perfectly happy to accept that.

Again, this implies an equivalency between Christ and Joseph that is absolutely alien to Christian thought- whether those Christians are Mormon or not.

That I might not agree should mean nothing to you and certainly should not upset you.

Quite frankly, I could not possibly care less what you choose to believe.

But when you leap to false conclusions and attempt to promulgate the same as though it were what we actually believe or teach, then I have every right and duty to correct you.

Edited May 22, 2012 by selek1

[cdowis]

Am I to understand that questions such as these are necessarily anti-Mormon? How might I ask questions in the future, even if from "anti-Mormon" sources, that will not offend people just by asking? Are there any non-Mormon sources that are not "anti-Mormon?"

These are designed to be a mockery of my faith, insulting, and insincere. The issue is the nature of the question, and the source is self-evident.

Edited May 22, 2012 by cdowis

[selek1]

I can't believe nobody laughed at my zombie crack. I thought it was hilarious.

What's the old saw? Self-pity is better than none?

[cdowis]

The other is the "Leading Question" approach -- sort of an imitation of Socrates where someone will "lead" the Mormon out of his darkness by a series of questions that one by one, strip away the veneer of reasonableness of our beliefs and exposing the raw pulsating darkness of lies unto which we are enslaved.

The Leading Question begins with an assumption -- "Do you believe that beating your wife will make her humble?"

It is not designed to "lead Mormons to the light" but to insult and denigrate.

Edited May 22, 2012 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

The Leading Question begins with an assumption -- "Do you believe that beating your wife will make her humble?"

It is not designed to "lead Mormons to the light" but to insult and denigrate.

I was thinking something along these lines but with more finesse:

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/50_questions.htm

[CASteinman]

I can't believe nobody laughed at my zombie crack. I thought it was hilarious.

I didn't want to get into the deeper doctrines on a public board........

[selek1]

Okay. It's definitely time for more medication.

I jumbled the following quotes in my mind.

I can't believe nobody laughed at my zombie crack. I thought it was hilarious.

"Do you believe that beating your wife will make her humble?"

And my first thought was, "Not humble, no- but it does make the meat more tender and succulent."

No more zombie movies for me for at least a month.

[cdowis]

I was thinking something along these lines but with more finesse:

http://www.towertotr...0_questions.htm

I have no particular issue with the tone of the questions, but I noted that there is no place to give a response. I guess he is afraid that someone would point out his ignorance of the scriptures. He is asking a bunch of "gotcha" questions, but not interested in the answers.

He also could have written "50 questions for Bible believers". According to his "100% rule", for example, we could have excluded several Bible prophets.

[SamIam]

4. Many past leaders of the LDS church have said that Joseph Smith will stand at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom and one can only gain entry with his approval. I understand that some LDS faithful consider this to be strictly the opinion of past leaders, and not doctrine, but weren't these opinions based in LDS scripture?

Since this line here seems to be the most divisive in this discussion, let’s examine it in context to give it a full treatment. Amongst LDS this concept of what is or is not doctrinal is always debated. Is it part of the official outline of what the church teaches in public – no. However, what some fail to realize is that the church perfectly comprehends the concepts in Hebrews and Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 3:2

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Hebrews 5:12

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

For many LDS, I think we are sometimes lacking in boldness and loyalty to our leaders, looking more often for excuses to avoid the personal conflicts of philosophies of men verses the “hard” doctrine of our leaders. However, some like Paul understand there is a hierarchy of learning. Paul’s big concern is precisely what ours is. This is also why I consider it a deceitful practice by those that attack the church. If Paul cautions about teaching deeper doctrines because people have to be prepared to receive it first, then how disingenuous is it to take deeper doctrines and use them to sway people to your brand of religion.

For the most part you will find that the preponderance of non-sanctioned personal LDS sites do not take this approach, although a few misguided might, but I would hope that you will certainly find it a stark contrast between the LDS and all others in that there is no Church sanctioned effort to discredit any religion out there. We do have some strong doctrine that speaks to the spiritual issues of being affiliated with a group poorly chosen but for all of the attacks leveled against us, the Church proper only nods their head in gratitude for the free publicity. If the other religions ever could overcome their vehemence to realize how many genuine seekers of truth they have turned our way because the seeker wanted to observe why so many were united against the LDS church, they would shut down all of their efforts immediately. While we have individuals in our midst that are at different levels of spiritual maturity and may respond tersely, the church as a body and organization in no way approves of such discordant dealings. That said, I sometimes break with LDS members who haven’t the good sense to realize the damage they do by being less than charitable. Still that is part of the filtering process for an investigator who seeks entrance into the church just as our responses are part of the test for our own personal advancement in the gospel. The church is genuinely comprised of all of us that seek Christ’s healing influence and that is the test for such as yourself, are you capable of extending a forgiving, healing hand as you seek to focus on personal needs for Christ’s healing for your own short comings. Those that can pass through that filter show the very promise that is so important so that they can receive of Christ what they extend to others –forgiveness and healing.

Back to the Joseph Smith approval quote, from my perspective It is as doctrinal as anything else in LDS theology. It is however a meat principle, hard to explain without the hearer having a foundation in earlier principles that lead one to comprehension. It is part of a genre of understandings that one may come to understand as one develops a relationship with the personal tutor in the Holy Ghost. There is no need to teach it as a fundamental doctrinal consideration as that education comes to those that seek personal enlightenment in due course. This statement, by Brigham Young, is the one most quoted and to my knowledge the primary origin of the mistaken perceptions around the Joseph Smith question. I am going to edit out some parts just to cut down on the space, but you can find the complete talk online at several links: This one is from a site that is on the net.

http://en.fairmormon...Discourses/7/45 .

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints… who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them.—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—

namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation

—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh…I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.

Should not this thought comfort all people? They will, by-and-by, be a thousand times more thankful for such a man as Joseph Smith, junior, than it is possible for them to be for any earthly good whatever. It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption. You will be thankful, every one of you, that Joseph Smith, junior, was ordained to this great calling before the worlds were. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

Now perhaps I should be as Paul and not try to explain the meatier things but these are different times and the efforts of those to discredit the Church are 10,000 times more accessible and thus may require a gentle approach to at least addressing the concerns of those unwittingly exposed to things ahead of their understanding. I would also like to add, I am not so interested in defending the LDS church strictly to defend the organization, but I am very interested in defending the church as the vehicle that can teach you more about the life, mission, and joy it is to know Jesus Christ. All other doctrines, suggestions, statements etc etc that one may encounter are secondary to the testimony we bring that Jesus is the Christ and the healer of the afflicted and the path of salvation.

A couple of points on the quote:

1.) Brigham lumps himself and all of us LDS into the mix so we claim no exclusion.

2.) He also states that Joseph is working tirelessly to give everyone a chance, even those that murdered him to hear the truth of the gospel message.

This statement totally lacks the arrogant tone that the detractors want to give it. One can choose to see it as they portray it or one can choose to see that Brigham is describing a man that is so Christ like that he is willing to assist the Savior implement some of his last words: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.” Joseph holds no anger, and works tirelessly to bring others to Christ.

How to make this make sense.

I am going to be more brief to cut down on this response but Exodus 18:13-24 talks about where Jethro teaches Moses about how to deal with so many people as come to him and he teaches him to create a hierarchy of judges to intervene first. If the judgment exceeds their judgment then they can send it on up the line to Moses.

What we are talking about is simply organization. God is a God of order and there is an organization that sustains his work. That is why we have multiple quorum's of the seventy, twelve apostles and a first presidency. Christ set the pattern for how to organize the leadership to address the needs of the flock. Perhaps you have noticed that no organization out there even comes close to addressing the needs of its members and the needy as does the LDS church. There is only one reason we follow Christ and his organizational expectations in order to create that level of efficiency. Even if you were to look at it purely from effectiveness the model is obviously superb.

There is an organization to everything in God’s kingdom.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie observed: “You start out with the Lord Jesus, and then you have Adam and Noah. Thereafter come the dispensation heads. Then you step down, appreciably, and come to prophets and apostles, to the elders of Israel, and to wise and good and sagacious men who have the spirit of light and understanding” (“This Generation Shall Have My Word through You,” in Hearken O Ye People: Discourses on the Doctrine and Covenants, Sperry Symposium 1984, Sandy, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1984, p. 4).

Joseph is one of the dispensational heads and as such is one of several that have authority over his dispensation. To my understanding Joseph will judge, receive and consider the fate of only those within the boundaries of the dispensation that he is the head of and all of his efforts are subject to Jesus Christ. It is simply an organizational chart with Christ at the head and then a layer under him of Adam, Moses, Enoch, Abraham…and Joseph Smith. Under each of them is another layer of the prophets of their day. So under Joseph would be Brigham Young , John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Albert Smith etc etc etc to Thomas S. Monson. Under that layer would be another row of persons so that under Thomas S. Monson would be apostles that served in their apostolic roles etc. While I don’t have it exactly perfect here but you can see the point that order is always a hallmark of God’s kingdom and those that lack his order lack understanding of his organization. A good article that explains some of what I have mentioned is found here:

http://www.lds.org/e...ng-the-prophets

The point is the Candor and challenge that was common in the days of the wild west and manifests in the methods of communication of the early church should be simply understood in the context of their delivery. Brigham was perfect for his time, and I have to admit I am personally very fond of his direct way of putting things but the greater point is what Brigham is saying is correct and consistent and the fruits of the churches correct application is manifest in its unparalleled success in seeing to the needs of the body of Christ.

Edited May 23, 2012 by SamIam

[treehugger]

as for Joseph Smith and the Celestial Kingdom, the BY statement has been published in the Ensign - some would claim that makes it Doctrine. Other wise I do not find such quotes in Official publications of the Church. And I do not find "many leaders" making the statement, so it was said, that much is true.

Edited May 22, 2012 by treehugger