Questions Asked By Evangelicals

[kassie]

Being relatively new on the board I wanted to pose a question I got from an Evangelical that I need some help with. I couldn't find another thread to ask this on so if there is one I missed it!

 

I had been talking with this woman for sometime. She was raised LDS but left the Church about 10 years ago because she felt there were many discrepancies between the BOM and later teachings of the prophets. She posed this question. The BOM says that "when you're dead you're dead and no labors can be performed after death that would change that. Everything will be based on what happened to you in this life. The verse she referred to in the BOM was this:

 

 

 Alma 34:33b-4; “…behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.  Ye cannot say when ye are brought to that awful crisis that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” 

 

Conversely, she points out this teaching Joseph Fielding Smith that appears to be the opposite of this. 

 

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 330; “But how are they [LDS] to become saviors on Mount Zion? By building their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, washings, anointings, ordinations and sealing powers upon their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection and be exalted to thrones of glory with them.”

 

She is well versed in the Scriptures and I wasn't sure how to give her the LDS perspective on the apparent conflict between the two. Any help would be appreciated!

[David T]

We believe in continuing (additive and corrective) revelation, and it's highly likely the Nephites had no concept of vicarious temple work. Joseph certainly didn't at the beginning of his prophetic career. You teach true principles in the context of what you do know and understand.

Edited August 23, 2013 by David T

[LordUther]

Ok let's change the emphasis there a bit..

 

 

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many^awitnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not^bprocrastinate the day of your ^crepentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the^dnight of ^edarkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

 34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth ^bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

 

And let's include the context...Alma is preaching to a group of nonbelievers, with the intent of converting them to God. The point he is making is that you cannot say "I will eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow I die and then I'll repent and someone can do my work for me" You cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

Also the purpose of temple work is to save those who did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel in this life, not to assist those who wanted to live a life of Babylon while in mortality in their procrastination. There is no conflict, 2 completely different scenarios are being discussed.

Edited August 23, 2013 by LordUther

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok let's change the emphasis there a bit..

 

 

And let's include the context...Alma is preaching to a group of nonbelievers, with the intent of converting them to God. The point he is making is that you cannot say "I will eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow I die and then I'll repent and someone can do my work for me" You cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

Also the purpose of temple work is to save those who did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel in this life, not to assist those who wanted to live a life of Babylon while in mortality in their procrastination. There is no conflict, 2 completely different scenarios are being discussed.

This is exactly what I was going to say. What Alma is teaching is not some blanket statement for all of humanity. Context suggest that those with knoweldge about the truth cannot sit and stand by and think they get a 2nd chance to repent after this life and that all will be merry.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

Yeah, LordUther said was I was going to say as well.

 

Clearly, when Alma mentions that someone can't say "I will repent, that I will return to my God" when they die and expect to gain eternal life, he is talking about someone who knows they are sinning and refuses to repent while in mortality, and also knows they have left their God and is not willing to 'return' during mortal life.  People who thought they were in fine standing before God would not have plans after they die like Alma describes.

 

Baptism for the dead is not meant to give a second chance to people who willfully remain in their sins until death.  It is meant to serve those who did not have a chance to understand the gospel while they were alive, who would have accepted it if they had understood it.

 

There is no real contradiction between when JFS said and what the BOM teaches in that verse.

[David T]

Baptism for the dead is not meant to give a second chance to people who willfully remain in their sins until death.

 

I tend to believe that even the angry and rebellious at death will still be welcomed by God if they choose to return by him, and that most Temple work will be completely validated and accepted. Even by many of those we would least expect. I think the Parable of the Prodigal Son has much to teach about the extent of God's mercy, and willingness to accept back his children.

 

Would the return journey be a bit harder having left this state of existence in that way? Sure. But difficulty is not impossible. I tend to think God is more merciful than many like to think. And that he is a God of second, third, and 70 times 7 chances.

Edited August 23, 2013 by David T

[bluebell]

I tend to believe that even the angry and rebellious at death will still be welcomed by God if they choose to return by him, and that most Temple work will be completely validated and accepted. Even by many of those we would least expect. I think the Parable of the Prodigal Son has much to teach about the extent of God's mercy, and willingness to accept back his children.

 

Would the return journey be a bit harder having left this state of existence in that way? Sure. But difficulty is not impossible. I tend to think God is more merciful than many like to think. And that he is a God of second, third, and 70 times 7 chances.

I tend to believe that as well, but I don't think it's a position that is necessarily supported by scripture.

[David T]

I tend to believe that as well, but I don't think it's a position that is necessarily supported by scripture.

 

I do believe the Temple experience supports the idea, but I definitely acknowledge there are other ways to understand it.

Edited August 23, 2013 by David T

[LordUther]

I tend to believe that even the angry and rebellious at death will still be welcomed by God if they choose to return by him, and that most Temple work will be completely validated and accepted. Even by many of those we would least expect. I think the Parable of the Prodigal Son has much to teach about the extent of God's mercy, and willingness to accept back his children.

 

Would the return journey be a bit harder having left this state of existence in that way? Sure. But difficulty is not impossible. I tend to think God is more merciful than many like to think. And that he is a God of second, third, and 70 times 7 chances.

 

I don't think it's impossible either, and I definitely believe God is merciful enough, but I think the answer is in the same verse...

 

 

 

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth ^bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

 

So basically if you're a procrastinator in this life, you're going to be a procrastinator in the next. "Oh I've got all of eternity to repent...I'll do it tomorrow". I don't think it's a case of Him not being able to, but of the individual not allowing him too. They'll procrastinate their way to hell as a companion of mine used to say.

[David T]

So basically if you're a procrastinator in this life, you're going to be a procrastinator in the next. "Oh I've got all of eternity to repent...I'll do it tomorrow". I don't think it's a case of Him not being able to, but of the individual not allowing him too. They'll procrastinate their way to hell as a companion of mine used to say.

 

I think I mostly agree with this. I view C.S. Lewis' tale The Great Divorce as an inspired vision of the afterlife as a journey, that greatly compliments key elements of modern LDS revelation. We either decide to walk towards charity, letting it draw us forward, or refuse to accept it, and walk away through Pride. The road is ever there, the arms of God always open. Some just are unwilling to go forward - or take much, much, much longer to get there, often turning around and running backwards before eventually, slowly turning back. I think there is profound truth in this illustration. Highly recommend the book.

Edited August 23, 2013 by David T

[cdowis]

The Book of Mormon has the answer:

2 Ne 9 [16] they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still

 

The righteous will accept the temple ordinances made in their behalf, and the filthy (evil) will not.

[CV75]

Being relatively new on the board I wanted to pose a question I got from an Evangelical that I need some help with. I couldn't find another thread to ask this on so if there is one I missed it!

I think the difference is that Alma 34 speaks to what we can (or rather, cannot) do after the resurrection (when or spirit possess our immortal body), but Jospeh Smith speaks to what we can do before the resurrection, in the spirit world. We can still progress after death while in the spirit world.

[Kenngo1969]

Brad Wilcox (in either The Continuous Conversion or The Continuous Atonement, can't remember which) says we think God will lay down the law to us at the judgment and will tell us that we can't stay in His presence, when in reality, He will be the one begging us to stay and we'll be the ones saying, "Get me outta here" because we don't feel worthy.  Just food for thought.   

[DJBrown]

Don't forget what Moroni 8:22 says, "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing -"

 

Those that are "without law" are not condemned.  And I would consider those who have never had the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel to be "without law."  

Edited August 23, 2013 by DJBrown

[cinepro]

Here's how it's explained in the Institute Manual:

 

 

Alma 34:32–34. “Do Not Procrastinate the Day of Your Repentance” 

 

• Procrastination and indecision can impact our efforts to return to our Heavenly Father. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “Procrastination, as it may be applied to Gospel principles, is the thief of eternal life— which is life in the presence of the Father and the Son” (The Way to Perfection [1970], 202).

 

 

Alma 34:34–35. That Same Spirit Will Possess Us

 

• Amulek made it clear that we are, by our daily choices, ultimately giving ourselves over to the control or influence of either the Spirit of the Lord or the spirit of the devil. President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) gave the following explanation of Alma 34:35: “To those who die in their wicked state, not having repented, the scriptures say the devil shall seal them as his own (see Alma 34:35), which means that until they have paid the uttermost farthing for what they have done, they shall not be redeemed from his grasp. When they shall have been subjected to the buffetings of Satan sufficient to have satisfied justice, then they shall be brought forth out of the grasp of Satan and shall be assigned to that place in our Father’s celestial, terrestrial, or telestial world merited by their life here upon this earth” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 59).

 

• Elder Melvin J. Ballard (1873–1939) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles emphasized the importance of repenting during mortality:

 

“This life is the time in which men are to repent. Do not let any of us imagine that we can go down to the grave not having overcome the corruptions of the flesh and then lose in the grave all our sins and evil tendencies. They will be with us. They will be with the spirit when separated from the body.

Edited August 23, 2013 by cinepro

[kassie]

What great answers everyone! Thank you so very much. Gave me a good perspective to explain our teachings! You guys are awesome. 

[Ahab]

She posed this question. The BOM says that "when you're dead you're dead and no labors can be performed after death that would change that. Everything will be based on what happened to you in this life. The verse she referred to in the BOM was this:

 

Alma 34:33b-4; “…behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.  Ye cannot say when ye are brought to that awful crisis that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” 

 

Conversely, she points out this teaching Joseph Fielding Smith that appears to be the opposite of this. 

 

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 330; “But how are they [LDS] to become saviors on Mount Zion? By building their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, washings, anointings, ordinations and sealing powers upon their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection and be exalted to thrones of glory with them.”

 

She is well versed in the Scriptures and I wasn't sure how to give her the LDS perspective on the apparent conflict between the two. Any help would be appreciated!

To "give her the LDS perspective" you'll need to do more than just tell her what we think.  You'll need to help her to think like we think, and I would break it down into small bites so she can digest it.

 

I'd start out by suggesting that she think some more about the scriptures she is using as the basis for those thoughts that she has.  With some careful analysis it shouldn't take her very long to realize there is more than one way to understand those scriptures, and then at that point she can just ask God to help her understand which understanding is in agreement with God's understanding.

 

For example, in Alma 34:33b-34 it says:; “…behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

[Storm Rider]

Once a person is dead they can no longer perform any labor; all their work is done. However, that does not indicate that no one else can perform work on their behalf. Such is the case that Paul teaches in Corinthians. There is no conflict here, but a misunderstanding of who and when "labor" is being performed. The dead can do nothing on their behalf; ordinances can only be done by the living.

[CV75]

Brad Wilcox (in either The Continuous Conversion or The Continuous Atonement, can't remember which) says we think God will lay down the law to us at the judgment and will tell us that we can't stay in His presence, when in reality, He will be the one begging us to stay and we'll be the ones saying, "Get me outta here" because we don't feel worthy.  Just food for thought.   

Yes, it is a bit of both, it seems. Justice allows one reaction, and mercy the other, without violating the agency of anyone.

[Alvino]

And let's include the context...Alma is preaching to a group of nonbelievers, with the intent of converting them to God. The point he is making is that you cannot say "I will eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow I die and then I'll repent and someone can do my work for me" You cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

That doesn't make much sense to me. If they are non-believers, how come they can be thinking "I'll do whatever I want and then I'll repent later when I die"?

 

Plus, verse 33 points to a crisis, when you are dead, and 34 follows it saying that at that point you can't say you will repent. Both verses point to the time of that crisis and saying you'll repent there, not when you are here on Earth and such crisis hasn't come. It's rather clear that today you can indeed sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, be cleansed of that sin (bar specific 'mortal' sins).

 

[Alvino]

Once a person is dead they can no longer perform any labor; all their work is done. However, that does not indicate that no one else can perform work on their behalf. Such is the case that Paul teaches in Corinthians. There is no conflict here, but a misunderstanding of who and when "labor" is being performed. The dead can do nothing on their behalf; ordinances can only be done by the living.

 

That doesn't work, either.

 

If you die a heathen, you died unrepentant. If someone does the temple work for you, you still have to repent of the sins you committed while being alive and that repentance is something you can do, supposedly. Otherwise people on the other side of mortal life would have no choice but to become holy through Christ just because  someone did temple work on their behalf.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

 stupid computer - double post deleted.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

It's rather clear that today you can indeed sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, be cleansed of that sin (bar specific 'mortal' sins).

That "if you actually do repent later" is what Alma was talking about.  He's saying you won't repent later if you don't repent now because later you'll just continue to think you can repent later.  You'll still be thinking the same way you think now by thinking then that you'll repent later.  You may still think you could, later, but later you still actually wouldn't be repenting then, just as you are not repenting right now while you just think that you can just repent later.

 

To repent you actually have to do it, and then even if you mess up, again, you still need to repent, then.  Not wait until later, but then.  If you continue to put it off until later you will be continuing to put it off until later and not actually repenting when you need to repent.

 

It's the idea of thinking you should repent vs. actually repenting.  Thinking you should is not enough.  You actually need to repent.

[Alvino]

The Book of Mormon has the answer:

2 Ne 9 [16] they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still

 

The righteous will accept the temple ordinances made in their behalf, and the filthy (evil) will not.

 

Which begs the question: Can someone who died 'filthy' repent and accept the ordinances performed on their behalf after they die?

[Alvino]

That "if you actually do repent later" is what Alma was talking about.  He's saying you won't repent later if you don't repent now because later you'll just continue to think you can repent later.  You'll still be thinking the same way you think now by thinking then that you'll repent later.  You may still think you could, later, but later you still actually wouldn't be repenting then, just as you are not repenting right now while you just think that you can just repent later.

 

 

This also seems very problematic because, if what you say here is correct, that means Alma's own words are uttered in vain to those who actually did ever think that they'll repent later; if someone ever thought they'll sin now and repent later (and those seem to be Alma is directing his words towards) then, by what you said, they'll never repent. So, Alma telling someone to stop doing it is in vain.

 

To repent you actually have to do it, and then even if you mess up, again, you still need to repent, then.  Not wait until later, but then.  If you continue to put it off until later you will be continuing to put it off until later and not actually repenting when you need to repent.

 

It's the idea of thinking you should repent vs. actually repenting.  Thinking you should is not enough.  You actually need to repent.

 

 

You do agree thinking "I'll sin and repent later" AND actually sinning is not an unpardonable offense, right? All I was saying in what you quoted is that we can sin and think we'll repent later, and actually repenting later, and actually be forgiven for that sin and for thinking we'll repent later.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Alvino