Is King David Limited to the Telestial Kingdom?

[Stargazer]

While I don't think this sets a record for thread necromancy, it does go back a ways (2 years).

I didn't chime in on this previously, but I shall do so this time.

In my humble opinion, I'm sure that those who commit murder without knowing that it is forbidden by God may be able to repent, receive Christ's forgiveness and be glorified/exalted in the end.  But those who commit it knowing that it is forbidden by God may not be able to.  And this may depend upon the extent of their knowledge.  

I don't know why it would trouble anyone that a murderer might not be able to receive Christ's grace.  The only question is, would such a sentence be just?  I think that it would be, for God is by definition just, and there is a place reserved for those who cannot receive Christ's grace.

When David questions will God leave his soul in hell, the answer is ultimately "No."  Even for those who must suffer the pains of hell the suffering will have an end.  And afterwards, even they will be raised to state of glory, for that is what the Telestial Kingdom is.  It is not a place of suffering.  So even if David must suffer for his own sins, he will nevertheless be raised to glory.  Just not to the glory that he could have had, if he hadn't screwed up.

[USU78]

Well, we do know a couple of things:

Bathsheba was in the mikveh when he saw her, undergoing the post period cleansing ritual;

She was not bathing on the roof;

David sent for her; and

One does not simply say "No!" to a king.

So ... Bathsheba looks pretty good, and David looks an awful lot like an abductor and rapist.

And so ... there's that.

[Josh Khinder]

On 1/24/2016 at 6:44 AM, MDalby said:

 

 

 5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? 
 6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.
(Alma 39:6)

Although David was a King he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage.
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 253)

There is no exaltation in the kingdom of God without the fulness of the priesthood…Every man who is faithful and will receive these [temple] ordinances and blessings obtains a fulness of the priesthood, and the Lord has said that “he makes then equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.
(Joseph F. Smith, 1956, Doctrines of Salvation 3:132)

Even David must wait for those times of refreshing, before he can come forth and his sins be blotted out.  For Peter, speaking of him says, "David hath not yet ascended into heaven, for his sepulechre is with us to this day."  His remains were then in the tomb.  Nw, we read that many bodies of the Saints arose at Christ's resurrection, probably all the Saints, but it seems that David did not.  Why?  Because he had been a murderer.  If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country, by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing.  The prayers of all the ministers in the world can never close the gates of hell against a murderer.
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 360)
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 189)

Further, murderers place themselves in a position where it is impossible to ask forgiveness of the one sinned against or to make restitution—at least in this life. So grievous is the act that the Prophet Joseph Smith said murderers “cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing.
(Ensign, August 1994, 27)

However in acts 2:

25 “King David quoted Jesus as saying:
‘I know the Lord is always with me. He is helping me. God’s mighty power supports me.
26 ’No wonder my heart is filled with joy and my tongue shouts his praises! For I know all will be well with me in death—
27 ’You will not leave my soul in hell or let the body of your Holy Son decay.
28 ’You will give me back my life and give me wonderful joy in your presence.’
29 “Dear brothers, think! David wasn’t referring to himself when he spoke these words I have quoted, for he died and was buried, and his tomb is still here among us. 30 But he was a prophet, and knew God had promised with an unbreakable oath that one of David’s own descendants would be the Messiah and£ sit on David’s throne. 31 David was looking far into the future and predicting the Messiah’s resurrection, and saying that the Messiah’s soul would not be left in hell and his body would not decay. 32 He was speaking of Jesus, and we all are witnesses that Jesus rose from the dead.
33 “And now he sits on the throne of highest honor in heaven, next to God. And just as promised, the Father gave him the authority to send the Holy Spirit—with the results you are seeing and hearing today.
34 “No, David was not speaking of himself in these words of his I have quoted, for he never ascended into the skies. Moreover, he further stated, ‘God spoke to my Lord, the Messiah, and said to him, Sit here in honor beside me 35until I bring your enemies into complete subjection.’

Acts 13:34 “For God had promised to bring him back to life again, no more to die. This is stated in the Scripture that says, ‘I will do for you the wonderful thing I promised David.’ 35 In another Psalm he explained more fully, saying, ‘God will not let his Holy One decay.’ 36 This was not a reference to David, for after David had served his generation according to the will of God, he died and was buried, and his body decayed. 37 No, it was a reference to another—someone God brought back to life, whose body was not touched at all by the ravages of death.

 

 

In Mormon Doctrine we have the answer that it wasn't David in Psa 16:10 under Corruption

 Corruption is also used to signify the decay and change that will take place after death. Thus David recorded the Lord's promise that he would not suffer his Holy One to see corruption (Ps. 16:10), a promise amply fulfilled in Christ as both Peter (Acts 2:27) and Paul (Acts 13:30-37) testified.

 

 

3. The term is further used with reference to the wicked, depraved, and dissolute acts of those who are steeped in iniquity. "He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting," Paul says (Gal. 6:8); and it is by thus sowing to the Spirit that the saints have "escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Pet. 1:4.)

 

 

 

 

Acts 13:
³⁴“For God had promised to bring him back to life again, no more to die. This is stated in the Scripture that says, ‘I will do for you the wonderful thing I promised David.’ ³⁵In another Psalm he explained more fully, saying, ‘God will not let his Holy One decay.’ ³⁶This was not a reference to David, for after David had served his generation according to the will of God, he died and was buried, and his body decayed. ³⁷No, it was a reference to another—someone God brought back to life, whose body was not touched at all by the ravages of death.^£

 

·         Acts 13:22

22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

·         2 Timothy 2:8

8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Edited July 9, 2018 by Josh Khinder

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So ... Bathsheba looks pretty good, and David looks an awful lot like an abductor and rapist.

That's assuming that she didn't go willingly. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Prof said:

Something that was brought up yesterday in class was the story of Saul. Saul persecuted early Christians. He may not have killed any directly, but his actions probably lead to the deaths of many. Yet he was made an apostle. What kingdom will he inherit? 

You say "probably" led to the deaths of many, but we don't know that. But we do know that the work he did after that definitely led to the eternal life of many others. Chances are that he repented of what he did and therefore is just as eligible as the rest of us for exaltation in the Celestial kingdom.

[Prof]

43 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You say "probably" led to the deaths of many, but we don't know that. But we do know that the work he did after that definitely led to the eternal life of many others. Chances are that he repented of what he did and therefore is just as eligible as the rest of us for exaltation in the Celestial kingdom.

And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. Acts 22:4

I agree with you about his repentance!

[HappyJackWagon]

It seems to me that LDS theology is focused on becoming something, not about what a person has or has not done earlier in their lives. "Becoming" is a process, often a painful one full of roadblocks and stumbles, which is why we have the atonement. In the eternal scheme of things David's awful behavior was such a miniscule time in his process of becoming. It's hard for me to imagine a God which would be more concerned with that moment, than with the being he may have become (continues to become).

IMO- an infinite atonement has the power to cleanse any person from any sin.

[longview]

Yesterday in Gospel Doctrine, I was pondering verse 10 and became disturbed at the word "despised" used by God in describing David's crimes:

2 Samuel 12:10  "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."

Was this because King David was not truly converted in his inner core?  When the test came, was David unwilling to suppress his covetous feelings for the exquisite beauty of Bathsheba?  Even though he already had a large harem of women legally bound to him?  Did he rationalize his sin (and glossed over his accountability to God) as he was working out his plan for acquiring this beautiful woman?  Then he compounded the sin by looking for ways to account for the pregnancy and ended up with murder.

I am inclined to believe that David will remain in the Telestial Kingdom where all the murderers and liars are.  This truly is tragic considering David's heroic lifetime achievements.

[JAHS]

43 minutes ago, Prof said:

And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. Acts 22:4

I agree with you about his repentance!

Yes. He didn't kill them outright but he did send them to prison where they were left to eventually die.

[daz2]

I have often heard that murder is unforgivable, that Jesus' atonement does not "cover" it, and that to obtain any measure of pardon (or to reach the Telestial Kingdom), the murderer must pay for his/her own sin in part and even have his/her blood shed.  (Blood atonement). 

Here is an official statement by the Church in the context of debates about the death penalty, blood atonement, and the extent of the Atonement.

"In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

"However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people."

 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041267/Mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement.html

 

I realize that one may argue that this statement leaves room for one to argue (1) that murder or David's sin is not covered by Jesus' atonement, and (2)  that there is no hope for exalting forgiveness for certain sins, no matter hard one tries nor how penitent or humble one is.  For example, the statement is that "forgiveness of sin and salvation" are possible for all people, not that "exaltation" is possible for all people.

 

As a further example, President Packer made this breathtaking description of the breadth of the Atonement:

 

"I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ."  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

 

But in an endnote, President Packer qualified this promise as follows: "Forgiveness will come eventually to all repentant souls who have not committed the unpardonable sin (see Matt. 12:31). Forgiveness does not, however, necessarily assure exaltation, as is the case with David (see D&C 132:38–39; see also Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:25–27; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 339)."

 

I am not sure whether by this President Packers meant that it was impossible for David to be exalted because of the nature of his sins, or whether that in the facts and circumstances of David's case, and what he did or did not do subsequently to repent, he would not be exalted. 

 

Of course, I am not in a place to judge David or anyone else, but my hope and faith is the Atonement is truly infinite--that there are no limits on God's power or God's willingness to forgive, save or exalt, that there is always hope, no matter who a person is or what he or she has done.  I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

That's assuming that she didn't go willingly. 

This is being discussed elsewhere, so I am borrowing it.  I think Nathan's use of a little ewe lamb is crucial to interpretation of Bathsheba's actions.

https://ldsmag.com/bathsheba-was-not-on-the-roof-and-heres-why-that-is-important/

Quote

If we are to truly honor the law of chastity we cannot do it without honoring the agency of our partner, or would-be partner. We must respect their body, their wishes, and their desires; while simultaneously respecting the laws of God. When David took Bathsheba (the word used in the Biblical passage) his actions were selfish and capitalized on his position of power.

But did Bathsheba consent?

In her book All the Women of the Bible (1983), Edith Deen explains, “According to the laws, Bathsheba could not have resisted had she desired, for woman in these ancient times was completely subject to a king’s will. If he desired her, he could have her. Consequently her part in the story is neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy.”

Exonerated by Prophets
Although Nathan, the prophet at the time, soundly condemned David for his actions, he did no such thing to Bathsheba. In fact, he likened her to a “little ewe lamb” that was stolen from her poor master and slaughtered. Could this ancient prophet have chosen an image that would have evoked more innocence than that of a lamb?

Modern-day prophets likewise speak of David’s culpability without mentioning Bathsheba’s. In fact, there has never been a modern-day prophet, apostle, or seventy who has placed Bathsheba on the roof (scriptures.byu.edu). Which might not matter so much if her location weren’t used elsewhere to indicate that she was complicit in her rape.

Given the laws of the land in terms of both rape and answering to the king as well as cultural and legal traditions that left women as possessions of fathers or husbands, it is possible it never occurred to Bathsheba she could choose how she felt about what was happening to her when they "took" her from her home.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

That's assuming that she didn't go willingly. 

Where do you find intentionality here?  I see messengers who come "and [take] her."  Does the willing need to be taken?  If she were so all-fired eager, wouldn't the writer have said something to the effect of "And David sent messengers, and she went with them, and she came in unto him," wouldn't he?

Here's the KJV:

 

Quote

 

4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.

 

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Where do you find intentionality here?  I see messengers who come "and [take] her."  Does the willing need to be taken?  If she were so all-fired eager, wouldn't the writer have said something to the effect of "And David sent messengers, and she went with them, and she came in unto him," wouldn't he?

Here's the KJV:

 

 

Your making assumptions.  Her thoughts and motivations are not explained at all by the text.

[MorningStar]

Not murdering is pretty much the easiest thing ever. I have that one down. Some other stuff not so much. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes. He didn't kill them outright but he did send them to prison where they were left to eventually die.

I believe that whereas David knew exactly what he was doing and that it was wrong and unlawful, Saul sincerely believed what he was doing was right -- and that because the people he was tasked with searching out were lawfully subject to the Sanhedrin, he was acting on the orders of a recognized quasi-government.  

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Your making assumptions.  Her thoughts and motivations are not explained at all by the text.

Don't think so.  The Hebrew has David saying 'I shall send messengers [and she] shall be taken and come in unto me and [I ] shall lie down with [her].'

That's the language of command.

Now, I'm no Hebrew expert, but I know a little.  Do you have a more reliable translation that confirms Bathsheba's complicity such that the assumption that Bathsheba was the innocent ewe lamb mentioned by Nathan would be invalidated?

Edited July 9, 2018 by USU78

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Don't think so.  The Hebrew has David saying 'I shall send messengers [and she] shall be taken and come in unto me and shall lie down with [her].'

That's the language of command.

Now, I'm no Hebrew expert, but I know a little.  Do you have a more reliable translation that confirms Bathsheba's complicity such that the assumption that Bathsheba was the innocent ewe lamb mentioned by Nathan would be invalidated?

I still don't see the text saying anything about what Bathsheba thinks.  The text doesn't even give her name, it just calls her daughter (Bath) of Sheba, much less tell us about what she thought and felt about the situation.  Bathsheba the person is not present in the text that we have.

I don't feel that Nathan's allegory with the lamb can be used as a reliable indicator of what she thought either.  It's an allegory.

I

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, daz2 said:

Of course, I am not in a place to judge David or anyone else, but my hope and faith is the Atonement is truly infinite--that there are no limits on God's power or God's willingness to forgive, save or exalt, that there is always hope, no matter who a person is or what he or she has done.  I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.

I too would like to believe that there is hope for all, including David, to receive forgiveness upon true repentance.

However, the fact that there is a Telestial Kingdom suggests that not all will repent, or, that there might be some who, although they do not commit the unpardonable sin, nevertheless do not qualify for Christ's Atonement and must suffer for their own sins.  The reason I mention the Telestial Kingdom in connection with this, is because according to my reading of DC 19 and 76, some must suffer for themselves (see DC 19:15-17), and this is the kingdom they inherit -- where they do not enjoy the fullness of the Son's presence (see DC 76:86).  It says that they are thrust down to hell (that would be the suffering), but are heirs of salvation. However, the salvation they enjoy is the resurrection from death, not that of avoiding retribution for their sins, and the presence of the Father and Son (Celestial) or the Son (Terrestrial).

It is clear from the scriptures that even the Telestial is a kingdom of glory. Those assigned to it are not suffering, and I would presume that they have meaningful work to do in the eternities.  If David were to find himself there, he would clearly be given great responsibility in that kingdom, seeing that he was man of great ability.  Or so I take it, anyway.

In my early years in the Church, I was once told that the glory of the Telestial is so great that many of those shown it in mortality would kill themselves (commit self-murder) in order to get there -- don't know where this notion comes from, actually.

[Calm]

It is not like Bathsheba was meant to get any honor from the encounter originally given David was intent on hiding his actions so much he had Uriah killed.  It was a very dishonorable position the king put her in, being an adulteress according to their law with the penalty of death if anyone found out.  No intelligent woman would have risked it, imo.  Much too likely that she would be exposed and even if the king saved her from death, her husband likely would have divorced her, leading to disgrace.

Only an immoral woman would have wanted to put herself in that position and given how she was engaging in the purification ritual even when her husband wasn't at home and therefore no one else may have been aware of whether or not she needed or did it, the text presents her as moral.  There was really no reason to include the info about the purification ritual save to contrast it with the immorality of David's own actions.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Calm

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not like Bathsheba was meant to get any honor from the encounter originally given David was intent on hiding his actions so much he had Uriah killed.  It was a very dishonorable position the king put her in, being an adulteress according to their law with the penalty of death if anyone found out.  No intelligent woman would have risked it, imo.  Much too likely that she would be exposed and even if the king saved her from death, her husband likely would have divorced her, leading to disgrace.

Only an immoral woman would have wanted to put herself in that position and given how she was engaging in the purification ritual even when her husband wasn't at home and therefore no one else may have been aware of whether or not she needed or did it, the text presents her as moral.  There was really no reason to include the info about the purification ritual save to contrast it with the immorality of David's own actions.

Only an immoral woman would have wanted to put herself in that position and given how... what you said, but I would say the fact that she was a married woman, married to another man, would be first clue that it would have been immoral for her to consent in any way to that encounter.  If she consented then she would be complicit in adultery, and it would  be adultery, otherwise it would be classified as rape since she would not haven given her consent to the encounter.  King or not, she could have refused to lay with David, if she had any power to choose her fate.

So although not explicitly stated as well as I would like to have it laid out, David actually raped another man's wife and then sent her husband to a position where it was certain that he would be killed, having someone else kill him for him, and then when her husband was dead David took that man's wife as his own.  And that is what God put a stop to, taking her away from David and giving her to another man, presumably Uriah, who she had already been married to, presumably by the sealing power of a prophet, and presumably Nathan.  The seal never having been broken.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Ahab

[Prof]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I believe that whereas David knew exactly what he was doing and that it was wrong and unlawful, Saul sincerely believed what he was doing was right -- and that because the people he was tasked with searching out were lawfully subject to the Sanhedrin, he was acting on the orders of a recognized quasi-government.  

Good point. I hadn't considered that.

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, daz2 said:

I have often heard that murder is unforgivable, that Jesus' atonement does not "cover" it

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." 

This condition applies to members of the Church and I would assume would have applied to David as well. 

[strappinglad]

Remember that David had a serious blood lust . He was never shy about going to kill any and all who dared oppose him. One exception being King Saul. David's hands were well covered in blood both before and after Uriah. One could make the point that there were a lot of wars, but David was not well known for diplomacy and negotiation , at least at the beginning of his reign .

[BCSpace]

On 1/23/2016 at 10:17 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Since King David had his general set up to be murdered, is he limited in is eternal destiny to the Telestial Kingdom?  I've heard this suggested, based on the LDS teaching that murderers can only receive grace sufficient for entry into the lowest heavenly kingdom.  I find the idea troubling. 

Visible evidence for this would be that David missed the first resurrection.

Matthew 27:52-53 first resurrection begun.

Acts 2:34 David missed it.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 12:12 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." 

This condition applies to members of the Church and I would assume would have applied to David as well. 

King David was a Mormon? Who knew?