Meaning Of D&C 132:26

[CV75]

Sounds like we're not really accepting the gift of grace if there are that many layers to salvation or to live with God.

"LIne upon line, precept upon precept," "commandmnets not a few" and "revelations in their time" are all examples of grace along our advancment to exaltation.

[CV75]

I ran your argument, which the more I have thought about it does make more and more sense and preserves some meaning to the text, by my ultimate earthly authority last night, and my wife kind of agrees. So I think that someone has finally come up with a plausible explanation not based on platitudes. I have seen this issue swirl around disciplinary councils, seen it go up the chain of command with Stake Presidents displaying ignorance or bafflement, lower level GAs confessing they have no idea and passing it up the chain resulting in non-responsive platitude ridden responses from Secretary to a Secretary without anyone apparently being able to puzzle out a good response. Will keep this thread in mind the next time I see the issue crop up -- though, I think my days of being involved with Bishop or High Council proceedings of this type are in the distant past, but it may help me give personal counsel to someone someday.

I missed it--what is the connection between the verse and negative experiences with disciplinary councils (would their outcome have changed)?

[Stone holm]

I missed it--what is the connection between the verse and negative experiences with disciplinary councils (would their outcome have changed)?

No, I don't think they would have...well, I take that back, yes I think one might have had a different outcome. A brother came in very repentant and the High Council room was just overflowing with the Spirit and he laid out his interpretation of this Section and a majority of the High Council advised the Stake Presidency that they didn't feel that the brother really believed in the forgiveness and grace of God because he gave the interpretation we have discussed. I felt very uncomfortable with the Stake Presidency's decision not to allow rebaptism at the time. About six months later he came back in, kept his mouth shut and responded in yes and no answers, the Spirit was about as dead as I have ever witnessed it in such proceedings. Everybody efused what a change they had seen and he was authorized to be rebaptised. I don't begrudge the brother his rebaptism, but it has certainly made me wonder over the years what on earth was everybody thinking. Have been involved in many disciplinary councils at both the Bishopric level, and as clerk of the proceedings at the High Council level and normally I felt that everyone got it right as to the outcomes and understanding the Spirit -- except that one rebaptism proceeding. I think those who have been involved in such proceedings know how difficult they are for most people to have to be involved in. Sometimes the Church does a very good job of training the local brethren so they know what to do and how to proceed, that is especially important after someone has been disciplined, and sometimes the local brethren are completely left to their own devices in particular as to what they should be doing after someone has been disciplined. There is an incredibly complex maze of actions and paperwork that is involved in getting someone back into full fellowship and frequently there are bureaucratic rules of thumb that the local brethren are not made aware of until they are faced with the issue and possibly not until after they have violated the unpublished rule of thumb which is a shame and can cause needless unwarranted optimism, etc.

[Stone holm]

At first I thought you were going to wikipedia. But I see you have your priorities properly aligned with the planets and destiny... :-)

Absolutely, why would we need wikipedia on such matters when we have a wife to straighten us out.

[K-2]

Interesting argument, except the Brethren have been consistent in saying this verse does not apply to the unrepentant.

“But suppose such persons become disaffected and the spirit of repentance leaves them—which is a seldom and an almost unheard of eventuality—still, what then? The answer is—and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith so recite!—they must then pay the penalty of their own sins, for the blood of Christ will not cleanse them. Or if they commit murder or adultery, they lose their promised inheritance because these sins are exempt from the sealing promises. Or if they commit the unpardonable sin, they become sons of perdition.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:342–43.)

It's interesting that Bruce R. McConkie seems to be saying in the above quote that it's just those who are unrepentant after being sealed up to eternal life who must pay for their own sins, when I understand the reverse to be true - that such people [edit: that is, those who are sealed up to eternal life] must pay for their own sins (and the sins of those who are sealed to them) but that if they are unrepentant then they are lost. In the case of unrepentantly leaving the United Order, I don't know if it would be to save them. Judas Iscariot was lost and was still apparently blood atoned by Peter and the others (according to Heber C. Kimball and also an account by Reed Peck of an address by Joseph Smith) having been as salt that had lost its savor and was thenceforth good for nothing but to be trodden down.

In the parable of the fig tree in Matthew 24, the Lord, when He comes again, makes the faithful servant a ruler over his household, but it says of the evil servant who says in his heart, "my lord delayeth his coming" and who smites his fellow servants and eats and drinks with the drunken, that the Lord "shall cut him asunder."

This anointing that you are referring to, is that this additional ordinance that CASteinam is referring to?

Yeah.

Edited March 30, 2013 by K-2

[CV75]

No, I don't think they would have...well, I take that back, yes I think one might have had a different outcome. A brother came in very repentant and the High Council room was just overflowing with the Spirit and he laid out his interpretation of this Section and a majority of the High Council advised the Stake Presidency that they didn't feel that the brother really believed in the forgiveness and grace of God because he gave the interpretation we have discussed. I felt very uncomfortable with the Stake Presidency's decision not to allow rebaptism at the time. About six months later he came back in, kept his mouth shut and responded in yes and no answers, the Spirit was about as dead as I have ever witnessed it in such proceedings. Everybody efused what a change they had seen and he was authorized to be rebaptised. I don't begrudge the brother his rebaptism, but it has certainly made me wonder over the years what on earth was everybody thinking. Have been involved in many disciplinary councils at both the Bishopric level, and as clerk of the proceedings at the High Council level and normally I felt that everyone got it right as to the outcomes and understanding the Spirit -- except that one rebaptism proceeding. I think those who have been involved in such proceedings know how difficult they are for most people to have to be involved in. Sometimes the Church does a very good job of training the local brethren so they know what to do and how to proceed, that is especially important after someone has been disciplined, and sometimes the local brethren are completely left to their own devices in particular as to what they should be doing after someone has been disciplined. There is an incredibly complex maze of actions and paperwork that is involved in getting someone back into full fellowship and frequently there are bureaucratic rules of thumb that the local brethren are not made aware of until they are faced with the issue and possibly not until after they have violated the unpublished rule of thumb which is a shame and can cause needless unwarranted optimism, etc.

Sorry, I still don’t get it. What interpretation of this Section denies the forgiveness and grace of God?

Often one's pre-existing attitude about the forgiveness and grace of God colors his interpretation of scripture (in this case, Section 132) than the scriptures actually informing one's belief.

I too have been involved in disciplinary councils at ward and stake levels, including several as Bishop, and I can’t relate to you remark about unpublished “bureaucratic rules of thumb” – would you clarify?

Regarding 132:26 not applying to the unrepentant: as long as such persons, having received “mine appointment” are not sons of perdition, it has already been ratified by the Holy Spirit of promise that they will do whatever it takes to “arrive unto the day of redemption." This verse doesn’t apply to the unrepentant simply because it can't be about the unrepentant--they have already proven that they were, and that they will be again under the conditions of suffering described. For all intents and purposes, they are repentant.

Being “destroyed in the flesh” and “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan” are merely the loss of protection under broken covenants, which if otherwise fully kept would result in translation. There are other similar expressions, such as “Amen to the priesthood,” “eternal punishment,” "gall of bitterness," "everlasting chains of hell," "bonds of iniquity," and a couple of others that don’t come to mind right now. Sometimes these conditions follow formal priesthood decisions or ordinances, but very often they occur simply as a consequence of eternal law (they generally come in the form the person will most likely be taught, so sometimes a disciplinary council and exercise of keys are warranted). And relatively righteous people suffer these things—even prophets get old, sick and die; they are tempted and challenged by the adversary. Ever notice how, the more righteous you become, the more opposition you face, and the more regretful you are for your fallen nature, and the easier it is to recognize your sins and imperfections to a finer and finer degree?

What would constitute “any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies” to a person that has been sanctified to the degree of one described as being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise?

[Stone holm]

Sorry, I still don’t get it. What interpretation of this Section denies the forgiveness and grace of God?

Often one's pre-existing attitude about the forgiveness and grace of God colors his interpretation of scripture (in this case, Section 132) than the scriptures actually informing one's belief.

I too have been involved in disciplinary councils at ward and stake levels, including several as Bishop, and I can’t relate to you remark about unpublished “bureaucratic rules of thumb” – would you clarify?

Regarding 132:26 not applying to the unrepentant: as long as such persons, having received “mine appointment” are not sons of perdition, it has already been ratified by the Holy Spirit of promise that they will do whatever it takes to “arrive unto the day of redemption." This verse doesn’t apply to the unrepentant simply because it can't be about the unrepentant--they have already proven that they were, and that they will be again under the conditions of suffering described. For all intents and purposes, they are repentant.

Being “destroyed in the flesh” and “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan” are merely the loss of protection under broken covenants, which if otherwise fully kept would result in translation. There are other similar expressions, such as “Amen to the priesthood,” “eternal punishment,” "gall of bitterness," "everlasting chains of hell," "bonds of iniquity," and a couple of others that don’t come to mind right now. Sometimes these conditions follow formal priesthood decisions or ordinances, but very often they occur simply as a consequence of eternal law (they generally come in the form the person will most likely be taught, so sometimes a disciplinary council and exercise of keys are warranted). And relatively righteous people suffer these things—even prophets get old, sick and die; they are tempted and challenged by the adversary. Ever notice how, the more righteous you become, the more opposition you face, and the more regretful you are for your fallen nature, and the easier it is to recognize your sins and imperfections to a finer and finer degree?

What would constitute “any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies” to a person that has been sanctified to the degree of one described as being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise?

Sure there are bureaucratic rules as to how soon someone can apply for restoration of blessings, there is even a general where there is some flexibility as to rebaptism. There are specific time rules as to when a person can be cleared for Temple sealings. There is a waiting period which must elapse before a divorced brother can be called as a Bishop, etc. Much of the time the Bishops and Stake Presidents are not aware and they work with individuals on the repentance getting the paperwork submitted and it all bounces back, don't submit until X number of months have passed, or X number of years. That can be a terrible blow to a person who is focused and the Priesthood leader has been working with them, etc.

[K-2]

Being “destroyed in the flesh” and “delivered unto the buffetings of Satan” are merely the loss of protection under broken covenants, which if otherwise fully kept would result in translation. There are other similar expressions, such as “Amen to the priesthood,” “eternal punishment,” "gall of bitterness," "everlasting chains of hell," "bonds of iniquity," and a couple of others that don’t come to mind right now.

Why would Paul tell the church at Corinth to deliver the incestuous man to the buffetings of Satan if he were there already?

At the first meeting of the School of the Prophets at Newell K. Whitney's store in Kirtland, OH the washing of feet was performed by the Prophet Joseph Smith and he said "As I have done so do ye; wash ye, therefore, one another's feet; and by the power of the Holy Ghost I pronounced them all clean from the blood of this generation; but if any of them should sin wilfully after they were thus cleansed, and sealed up unto eternal life, they should be given over unto the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption." ( History of the Church 1: 323-324) This seems to me to be a little different than just losing the Spirit, and applies only to a certain group of people.

[Stone holm]

Why would Paul tell the church at Corinth to deliver the incestuous man to the buffetings of Satan if he were there already?

At the first meeting of the School of the Prophets at Newell K. Whitney's store in Kirtland, OH the washing of feet was performed by the Prophet Joseph Smith and he said "As I have done so do ye; wash ye, therefore, one another's feet; and by the power of the Holy Ghost I pronounced them all clean from the blood of this generation; but if any of them should sin wilfully after they were thus cleansed, and sealed up unto eternal life, they should be given over unto the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption." ( History of the Church 1: 323-324) This seems to me to be a little different than just losing the Spirit, and applies only to a certain group of people.

Well, except in this case once you remove the unrepentant from the verse, then we are only talking about the verse applying to the repentant so the sojourn in hell, which is what is clearly referenced because of the textual context, only applies to the repentant sinner who has gone through everything they could in this life like, rebaptism, restoration of blessings, etc. But I am beginning to accept the argument made in this thread by CASteinman that we are not talking about just the Temple marriage covenant, but an ordinance above and beyond that.

[CV75]

Sure there are bureaucratic rules as to how soon someone can apply for restoration of blessings, there is even a general where there is some flexibility as to rebaptism. There are specific time rules as to when a person can be cleared for Temple sealings. There is a waiting period which must elapse before a divorced brother can be called as a Bishop, etc. Much of the time the Bishops and Stake Presidents are not aware and they work with individuals on the repentance getting the paperwork submitted and it all bounces back, don't submit until X number of months have passed, or X number of years. That can be a terrible blow to a person who is focused and the Priesthood leader has been working with them, etc.

I don't see how any of these are "bureaucratic rules of thumb" -- sems like some trianing is in order (according to this); this hasn't been my experience at all.

But more pertinent to the discussion, or at least the OP, I don't see how this relates to 132:26 or the specific disciplinary situation you described above--that is what I am most interested in discussing, if you are.

[CV75]

Why would Paul tell the church at Corinth to deliver the incestuous man to the buffetings of Satan if he were there already?

At the first meeting of the School of the Prophets at Newell K. Whitney's store in Kirtland, OH the washing of feet was performed by the Prophet Joseph Smith and he said "As I have done so do ye; wash ye, therefore, one another's feet; and by the power of the Holy Ghost I pronounced them all clean from the blood of this generation; but if any of them should sin wilfully after they were thus cleansed, and sealed up unto eternal life, they should be given over unto the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption." ( History of the Church 1: 323-324) This seems to me to be a little different than just losing the Spirit, and applies only to a certain group of people.

Why would you not consider my statement, in the same post, "Sometimes these conditions follow formal priesthood decisions or ordinances..."? It is not always simply one way or the other. Have you never experienced the buffetings of Satan, and have you never suffered some form of destruction in the flesh as a consequence of your sins?

[Stone holm]

Why would you not consider my statement, in the same post, "Sometimes these conditions follow formal priesthood decisions or ordinances..."? It is not always simply one way or the other. Have you never experienced the buffetings of Satan, and have you never suffered some form of destruction in the flesh as a consequence of your sins?

I think you have to read the phrase in it textual context not in the abstract.

[CV75]

I think you have to read the phrase in it textual context not in the abstract.

It is my phrase! How can I clarify it for you?

[Stone holm]

It is my phrase! How can I clarify it for you?

I am talking about the specific textual context of the verse we are discussing.

[Maidservant]

I think one has to begin by asking what 'buffetings of Satan", "destroyed in the flesh", and "day of redemption" mean? Which I can see there have already been a few rounds on that in this thread. I personally would be very cautious of substituting or equating the word/concept of 'hell' in a straight correspondence with the phrase 'buffetings of Satan'. (I'm very cautious about using the term 'hell' at all in any instance; at least as is traditionally conceived of.)

Also, I wonder what about this verse indicates that the experience of being buffeted, or the experience of being destroyed in the flesh, or even the experience of the day of redemption has anything to do with post-death, or at least necessarily? I think the verse does not indicate that necessity (i.e. to discuss these experiences as being conditions of our 'spirit world' experiences, I think is a mistake; the grammar of the verse itself does not ask for that).

I also would ask when is a human being NOT being buffeted by Satan, more or less? And certainly by less to the degree we keep our covenants (until of course where we get to the part of being persecuted for Christ's sake and fun stuff like that ). So, then, is this verse saying much? OR is 'buffetings of Satan' a term of art that has not been explicitly explained to us (at least in this verse); and that represents a specific experience (I tend to think not; I think the struggle is more organice, natural and ongoing until we individually heal at whatever point we do)?

I also think a question like this hinges a little on the structure of the spirit world itself which we do not have just one Mormon idea of how that will go (I personally think it will be similar to how we live here--all mixed together as human beings; the paradise and 'hell' is a condition of who we are). I find it outside of reason to think that a person would be sent to a 'hell room' or 'section' of the spirit world where Old Scratch is personally sitting on the throne watching the goings on for the purpose of cleaning up all those people he's going be sending on to exaltation when he's done with them (per verse 26!). Or what is the image that we are imagining if we accept this format as arising from this verse?

[Stone holm]

I think one has to begin by asking what 'buffetings of Satan", "destroyed in the flesh", and "day of redemption" mean? Which I can see there have already been a few rounds on that in this thread. I personally would be very cautious of substituting or equating the word/concept of 'hell' in a straight correspondence with the phrase 'buffetings of Satan'. (I'm very cautious about using the term 'hell' at all in any instance; at least as is traditionally conceived of.)

Also, I wonder what about this verse indicates that the experience of being buffeted, or the experience of being destroyed in the flesh, or even the experience of the day of redemption has anything to do with post-death, or at least necessarily? I think the verse does not indicate that necessity (i.e. to discuss these experiences as being conditions of our 'spirit world' experiences, I think is a mistake; the grammar of the verse itself does not ask for that).

I also would ask when is a human being NOT being buffeted by Satan, more or less? And certainly by less to the degree we keep our covenants (until of course where we get to the part of being persecuted for Christ's sake and fun stuff like that ). So, then, is this verse saying much? OR is 'buffetings of Satan' a term of art that has not been explicitly explained to us (at least in this verse); and that represents a specific experience (I tend to think not; I think the struggle is more organice, natural and ongoing until we individually heal at whatever point we do)?

I also think a question like this hinges a little on the structure of the spirit world itself which we do not have just one Mormon idea of how that will go (I personally think it will be similar to how we live here--all mixed together as human beings; the paradise and 'hell' is a condition of who we are). I find it outside of reason to think that a person would be sent to a 'hell room' or 'section' of the spirit world where Old Scratch is personally sitting on the throne watching the goings on for the purpose of cleaning up all those people he's going be sending on to exaltation when he's done with them (per verse 26!). Or what is the image that we are imagining if we accept this format as arising from this verse?

Interesting. But if we take "buffetings of Satan" in this sense that you mean, then we again convert the verse into merely a string of words with no substance. It seems to me that we are talking about a specific and limited class of people who have received some type of special ordinance either being the totality of the Temple Covenants including Temple Marriage or as CA Steinman has argued that plus an additional rite of some type, and then have transgressed. Plus since the actual wording has been supplemented by several Prophets and other authorities to exclude the unrepentant, then we are left with the same class of people, but restricted to the repentant. If we say then, but yeah everyone is subjected to the buffetings of Satan -- then we truly render this verse into a meaningless morass. From this I suspect for the literally thousands of members who fall into the category that I have described, there are only two logical ways to look at this verse and they are either the bleak, but not hopeless view of a sojourn in hell (whatever that may mean, and I tend to agree that it is a mental state rather than a location) or that there is an additional ordinance involved here which relatively few have experienced and the verse simply doesn't apply to these repentant sinners at all.

[CASteinman]

Interesting. But if we take "buffetings of Satan" in this sense that you mean, then we again convert the verse into merely a string of words with no substance. It seems to me that we are talking about a specific and limited class of people who have received some type of special ordinance either being the totality of the Temple Covenants including Temple Marriage or as CA Steinman has argued that plus an additional rite of some type, and then have transgressed. Plus since the actual wording has been supplemented by several Prophets and other authorities to exclude the unrepentant, then we are left with the same class of people, but restricted to the repentant. If we say then, but yeah everyone is subjected to the buffetings of Satan -- then we truly render this verse into a meaningless morass. From this I suspect for the literally thousands of members who fall into the category that I have described, there are only two logical ways to look at this verse and they are either the bleak, but not hopeless view of a sojourn in hell (whatever that may mean, and I tend to agree that it is a mental state rather than a location) or that there is an additional ordinance involved here which relatively few have experienced and the verse simply doesn't apply to these repentant sinners at all.

"Destroyed in the Flesh" means just that. So do "Buffetings of Satan". They are not nonsense words. They are related to some people with certain important responsibilities relative to the covenants they make. Not everyone.

[Maidservant]

Interesting. But if we take "buffetings of Satan" in this sense that you mean, then we again convert the verse into merely a string of words with no substance. It seems to me that we are talking about a specific and limited class of people who have received some type of special ordinance either being the totality of the Temple Covenants including Temple Marriage or as CA Steinman has argued that plus an additional rite of some type, and then have transgressed. Plus since the actual wording has been supplemented by several Prophets and other authorities to exclude the unrepentant, then we are left with the same class of people, but restricted to the repentant. If we say then, but yeah everyone is subjected to the buffetings of Satan -- then we truly render this verse into a meaningless morass. From this I suspect for the literally thousands of members who fall into the category that I have described, there are only two logical ways to look at this verse and they are either the bleak, but not hopeless view of a sojourn in hell (whatever that may mean, and I tend to agree that it is a mental state rather than a location) or that there is an additional ordinance involved here which relatively few have experienced and the verse simply doesn't apply to these repentant sinners at all.

Well, I see what you mean, and I shall have to think on it more. But I really don't know how in any shape, way, form, place or time, that the struggle we have with the adversary and our struggle to repent fully to the point of exaltation can be said to be meaningless. And I have a hard time thinking that by virtue of the token of any ordinance that there are some special benefits. It is by actually living the covenant that the ordinances represent that we receive the blessings. I.e. a wedding ceremony does not a marriage make; and that can apply to any ordinance v. actually living the covenant. So maybe that's exactly what this passage is teaching, that there are no free passes. Everyone still has to do the work to become--just doing a ceremony can't do something for you that you aren't willing to live until you are willing and repentant enough to live it. Hmmmm. I don't know. Will continue to ponder.

"Destroyed in the Flesh" means just that. So do "Buffetings of Satan". They are not nonsense words. They are related to some people with certain important responsibilities relative to the covenants they make. Not everyone.

So then it seems that this knowledge is beyond me and most everyone to discuss, if the phrases correspond to wording/keys elsewhere. We simply don't have all the puzzle pieces.

[Stone holm]

Well, I see what you mean, and I shall have to think on it more. But I really don't know how in any shape, way, form, place or time, that the struggle we have with the adversary and our struggle to repent fully to the point of exaltation can be said to be meaningless. And I have a hard time thinking that by virtue of the token of any ordinance that there are some special benefits. It is by actually living the covenant that the ordinances represent that we receive the blessings. I.e. a wedding ceremony does not a marriage make; and that can apply to any ordinance v. actually living the covenant. So maybe that's exactly what this passage is teaching, that there are no free passes. Everyone still has to do the work to become--just doing a ceremony can't do something for you that you aren't willing to live until you are willing and repentant enough to live it. Hmmmm. I don't know. Will continue to ponder.

So then it seems that this knowledge is beyond me and most everyone to discuss, if the phrases correspond to wording/keys elsewhere. We simply don't have all the puzzle pieces.

I didn't mean to suggest that the continual struggle with the buffetings of Satan was meaningless, what I meant was using that meaning of the phrase in the context of this verse strips the specifics of this verse of any meaning.

[CV75]

I am talking about the specific textual context of the verse we are discussing.

As I said a few times, the verse (including the text and the context) can be taken on several levels. I can relate to the interpretations I described, and also others as well. Scriptures need to be applied to situations and likened unto ourselves as well as taken literally.

In what ways is D&C 19:20 the same as 132:26, and in what ways it is different? D&C 95:1 as well? Where do withdrawing the Spirit, chastening, buffeting by Satan, and being destroyed in the flesh overlap, and where are they distinct? And isn’t everything the Lord does with us through the action of His priesthood power (when directly, we might call it eternal law; and when through His servants, we might call it ordinance)?

At any rate, you haven’t answered my questions about the relationship between 132:26 and the disciplinary council, which I think is an example of either taking the verse beyond its text or way too literally for the situation at hand.

[Lightbearer]

I have never really been bothered by this verse and have always looked at it in the following context:

"Nevertheless, there are those among you who have sinned exceedingly; yea, even all of you have sinned; but verily I say unto you, beware from henceforth, and refrain from sin, lest sore judgments fall upon your heads. For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 82:2-3)

That is why a Bishop or a General Authority may have more penalties for certain sins than say a 16 year old Priest. I do know one thing that the grace of Christ is not a "get out of jail free" card! We are accountable for our sins and we must repent in order for the atonement to be applied to us. We cannot harbor the idea that we have a license to sin just because we may receive great blessings from the Lord. Some levels of knowledge bring with it more accountability and thus sometimes we must do certain things to obtain the promised blessings.

[Stone holm]

I have never really been bothered by this verse and have always looked at it in the following context:

That is why a Bishop or a General Authority may have more penalties for certain sins than say a 16 year old Priest. I do know one thing that the grace of Christ is not a "get out of jail free" card! We are accountable for our sins and we must repent in order for the atonement to be applied to us. We cannot harbor the idea that we have a license to sin just because we may receive great blessings from the Lord. Some levels of knowledge bring with it more accountability and thus sometimes we must do certain things to obtain the promised blessings.

I agree completely. And that strikes at the heart of this topic. The question is are there specific thresholds established in this verse when crossed trigger a situation where although a person is rebaptized, had his/her blessings restored, and remains obedient for the remainder of their life, nevertheless does a sojourn in "hell". And if so, what exactly was the threshold. Some in this thread have argued that the threshold was higher than Temple Marriage, others have argued for general meanings that strip the specifics of the verse of any meaning, and I initially suggested that Temple Marriage was in and of itself the threshold -- but I am increasingly beginning to suspect that the argument for a higher rite which created a higher threshold as suggested by CA Steinman may be something that I overlooked.

[CASteinman]

So then it seems that this knowledge is beyond me and most everyone to discuss, if the phrases correspond to wording/keys elsewhere. We simply don't have all the puzzle pieces.

Pertains to this, which I admit is not clear: "and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment".

[Stone holm]

Pertains to this, which I admit is not clear: "and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment".

Yep, that is the part, my lingering doubt is exactly what that refers to, I had previously thought that simply referred to the sealings associated with the Temple Marriage rite...but if there is another rite, well that would change the whole context. Unfortunately I don't think many Mormons understand that, but then I also don't think many Mormons actually stop to think about what this verse actually say.

[CASteinman]

Yep, that is the part, my lingering doubt is exactly what that refers to, I had previously thought that simply referred to the sealings associated with the Temple Marriage rite...but if there is another rite, well that would change the whole context. Unfortunately I don't think many Mormons understand that, but then I also don't think many Mormons actually stop to think about what this verse actually say.

I keep trying to find a source that I feel comfortable with on this. So far, no good results.

I understand that there used to be up to 14,000 people to whom this pertained. I also understand that in some years during President Kimball's tenure, the annual number of people to obtain this blessing was well below 100. I say "understand" rather than "know" because I did not personally know or count these people.

Edited April 1, 2013 by CASteinman