Is King David Limited to the Telestial Kingdom?

[Anijen]

On 7/9/2018 at 4:35 PM, ksfisher said:

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 am with USU78 and Calm here. The text does not have to mention anything about what Bathsheba was thinking, it in fact is irrelevant to the issue.

• David was king
• David commanded messengers to take her
• Messengers took bathsheba
• David said I will lay with her
• Bathsheba never mentioned her willingness to go of her own accord
• Bathsheba was an obedient to the commandments of the Lord (i.e. purification ritual) and obedient to the King [David], and David made her an unwilling adulteress
• David then commanded Uriah back home, then to go to his home, and be with his wife. Uriah refused, but remained with the King. David's intent was to hide Bathsheba's pregnancy and thus his adultery.
• David then has Uriah killed to hide his failure to hide his adultery. IOW, David, compounds his sin of adultery with a worse sin. It is impossible to see any indication that Bathsheba had any similar intent.

Take away all the actions of David and ask yourself: are there any actions by Bathsheba that indicate her willingness? Would have Bathsheba gone on her own to David's bedside in an attempt to lay with him? I do not see any actions by Bathsheba showing any indication of her willingness.

[Unaffiliated]

D&C 132 never said David was in the Telestial Kingdom. All it says is that he has fallen from his exaltation. He can still be in the Celestial Kingdom, just not exalted or sealed to a spouse. He could still be a Ministering Angel. God loves David still.

[mbh26]

If a person can really change, what harm does it cause to grant David exaltation at some point?  How can there be a limit on the redeeming power of Christ's atonement?  

[Unaffiliated]

28 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

If a person can really change, what harm does it cause to grant David exaltation at some point?  How can there be a limit on the redeeming power of Christ's atonement?  

It doesn't. It's just D&C 132 hinted that he had fallen from his exaltation.

[HappyJackWagon]

We had this lesson Sunday. As I was sitting in GD class I had the thought that maybe there is massive misunderstanding about the whole issue of David, Bathsheba, Uriah etc.

The narrative is that David saw Bathsheba, called for her, committed adultery with her, tried to hide it, failed, then had Uriah killed.

But how many wives and concubines did David have? Lots. Right? So his understanding of law of chastity was likely quite different than ours. It may not have seemed like such a big deal for him at the time. On the other hand, I view his sin as being less about adultery and more about rape as Bathsheba didn't really have any choice in the matter. King David was simply calling for one of his subjects, just like he would one of his many wives or concubines so I'm guessing rape as we think of it today probably wouldn't have even crossed his mind as being problematic for him. But he did at least recognize there was a problem for her. Punishment of law would have called for her to be stoned so perhaps David ordered Uriah home to be with his wife as a way of protecting Bathsheba from possible stoning. But Uriah didn't obey the order to return.

I can imagine a king being a bit perturbed about a soldier refusing an order. I imagine there would be consequences. David sends a letter to Uriah's commander telling him to send Uriah to the battle front where he will be killed. He was quite explicit in the order. He was open about what he wanted to happen. I wonder if David would have been so open if he was really wanting Uriah dead as a way of hiding the relationship with Bathsheba. But it makes perfect sense to be that explicit if the order was more of a sentence for Uriah's disobedience to King David's command. IF David was punishing Uriah for disobedience, then it strikes me as more reasonable and not necessarily as murder. Again, for an all powerful king, I doubt that David would have much problem dealing with disobedient subjects.

IOW- by our standards David was a rapist and had Uriah murdered. By kingly standards and even his own experiences leading to this, he probably wouldn't have thought much of demanding the woman he wanted or punishing her husband for his disobedience. Surely that doesn't make David a saint, but "murder" seems like it may be an overreach. Maybe it wasn't murder like we would think about it, or any more than any king or world leader commits in the course of their jobs.

[longview]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IOW- by our standards David was a rapist and had Uriah murdered. By kingly standards and even his own experiences leading to this, he probably wouldn't have thought much of demanding the woman he wanted or punishing her husband for his disobedience. Surely that doesn't make David a saint, but "murder" seems like it may be an overreach. Maybe it wasn't murder like we would think about it, or any more than any king or world leader commits in the course of their jobs.

Not so.  The prophet Nathan makes it very clear with the parable he told to David (2 Sam 12:1-5) that the "rich and powerful" ought not to commit a crime against the humble and meek.  Nathan further drives home the point that David despised the commandment of the Lord (verse 9) and personally despised God (verse 10).

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We had this lesson Sunday. As I was sitting in GD class I had the thought that maybe there is massive misunderstanding about the whole issue of David, Bathsheba, Uriah etc.

The narrative is that David saw Bathsheba, called for her, committed adultery with her, tried to hide it, failed, then had Uriah killed.

But how many wives and concubines did David have? Lots. Right? So his understanding of law of chastity was likely quite different than ours. It may not have seemed like such a big deal for him at the time. On the other hand, I view his sin as being less about adultery and more about rape as Bathsheba didn't really have any choice in the matter. King David was simply calling for one of his subjects, just like he would one of his many wives or concubines so I'm guessing rape as we think of it today probably wouldn't have even crossed his mind as being problematic for him. But he did at least recognize there was a problem for her. Punishment of law would have called for her to be stoned so perhaps David ordered Uriah home to be with his wife as a way of protecting Bathsheba from possible stoning. But Uriah didn't obey the order to return.

I can imagine a king being a bit perturbed about a soldier refusing an order. I imagine there would be consequences. David sends a letter to Uriah's commander telling him to send Uriah to the battle front where he will be killed. He was quite explicit in the order. He was open about what he wanted to happen. I wonder if David would have been so open if he was really wanting Uriah dead as a way of hiding the relationship with Bathsheba. But it makes perfect sense to be that explicit if the order was more of a sentence for Uriah's disobedience to King David's command. IF David was punishing Uriah for disobedience, then it strikes me as more reasonable and not necessarily as murder. Again, for an all powerful king, I doubt that David would have much problem dealing with disobedient subjects.

IOW- by our standards David was a rapist and had Uriah murdered. By kingly standards and even his own experiences leading to this, he probably wouldn't have thought much of demanding the woman he wanted or punishing her husband for his disobedience. Surely that doesn't make David a saint, but "murder" seems like it may be an overreach. Maybe it wasn't murder like we would think about it, or any more than any king or world leader commits in the course of their jobs.

Uriah did obey the order of the King to return home -- and the command was under color of giving the King a report on the war, which Uriah came and did.  Which David didn't need, because he only commanded it to get Uriah to be with his wife. Interesting that you think that David might have done so to remove the possibility of Bathsheba being punished for adultery.  Thus making his subsequent acts less egregious?  Except that under the law, a woman who is subjected to sexual assault where her cries cannot be heard is not subject to that penalty.  All she needed to do was to accuse the King of forcing her where she had no recourse to rescue (the palace) -- and she'd be off the hook.  Again, David was looking out for his own self, and not for her.  

David had opportunities to kill King Saul, who was unrighteously seeking his life, and declined to do so because Saul was the Lord's anointed.  Thus I do not think David was stupid enough to fail to understand that he could not lawfully bed another man's wife.  It was clear that David understood the law, and it was a law that even he, a King, had to obey.  Being royalty, especially being royalty under the rule of the Law of Moses, does not confer upon the King immunity from the demands of the law.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Uriah did obey the order of the King to return home -- and the command was under color of giving the King a report on the war, which Uriah came and did.  Which David didn't need, because he only commanded it to get Uriah to be with his wife. Interesting that you think that David might have done so to remove the possibility of Bathsheba being punished for adultery.  Thus making his subsequent acts less egregious?  Except that under the law, a woman who is subjected to sexual assault where her cries cannot be heard is not subject to that penalty.  All she needed to do was to accuse the King of forcing her where she had no recourse to rescue (the palace) -- and she'd be off the hook.  Again, David was looking out for his own self, and not for her.  

David had opportunities to kill King Saul, who was unrighteously seeking his life, and declined to do so because Saul was the Lord's anointed.  Thus I do not think David was stupid enough to fail to understand that he could not lawfully bed another man's wife.  It was clear that David understood the law, and it was a law that even he, a King, had to obey.  Being royalty, especially being royalty under the rule of the Law of Moses, does not confer upon the King immunity from the demands of the law.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm just considering options. However, I don't think it would be very easy for a woman to accuse the king., but very good points.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, mbh26 said:

If a person can really change, what harm does it cause to grant David exaltation at some point?  How can there be a limit on the redeeming power of Christ's atonement?  

Some will say that there can be no limit to the redeeming power of Christ's atonement.  But as nice as that sounds, of course there is a limit.

I'm not addressing resurrection, because that IS a free gift, with no contingencies.  Everyone who has entered mortality gets it. But forgiveness of sins does have a contingency.

To start with, Christ's atonement cannot reach those who sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29). There is no forgiveness for them, and the scriptures admit of no exceptions. Next, as stated in the Lord's Prayer, we can only be forgiven if we forgive those who trespass against us (Matthew 6:12 and 18:21-35; Luke 6:37).  Finally, only those who have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, and are baptized by both water and spirit can be forgiven (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 26:20).  Attaining redemption, which is to be forgiven of our sins and to not be required to suffer for them -- because we can take advantage of Christ's suffering instead, in our place -- is contingent upon faith, repentance, water and fire.  Those who refuse Christ will not be forgiven, because the Atonement cannot reach them.  Do you not see that limit?  The limit comes about because God will force no-one into Heaven against their will.  God wants no one to suffer for their own sins -- but some will insist upon it.

David has surely repented.  He has or will have received baptism.  If it is possible that Christ's Atonement can cover those who willfully murder (that is, those who know that it is a grave sin and nevertheless do it anyway), then David will not have to suffer for his own sins.  I expect that it is even possible that he may be worthy of entering into the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom.

But as for exaltation, that is a different kettle of fish.  God's entire purpose in putting us here on earth, to go through this mortality, is that he is looking for beings who can continue his work. He has said that only those who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage may enter into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It is from among those who are glorified to that degree that he will choose to go on go do what he does.  Can he raise someone to that degree who has so egregiously disregarded the covenants of marriage?  Apparently not, for the Lord spoke specifically of him in DC 132:39:

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm just considering options. However, I don't think it would be very easy for a woman to accuse the king., but very good points.

Well, yeah.  Actually, it would be very easy for her to accuse the king, just consider the options:  being stoned to death as an adulteress; or accuse the king of rape.  It would be quite clear that doing the latter had much to recommend it.  The trick would be in getting yourself believed, which is what you're actually suggesting.  

Edited July 18, 2018 by Stargazer

[Rivers]

I’m in the universalist camp on this one.  Eternal progression is truly eternal.  Even for David.