June Ensign - Life After Death

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Even leaving my Adam-God leanings aside, that still isn't a scriptural understanding of spiritual death.

I don't know about scriptural, but that's what the church is teaching.

Scriptural is in the eye of the beholder. 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead

Current LDS source:

"

God the Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost is also a God and is called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, and the Spirit of God, among other similar names and titles. With the aid of the Holy Ghost, man can know the will of God the Father and know that Jesus is the Christ (1 Cor. 12:3)."

We are reborn spiritually when we are baptized.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-new-spiritually-reborn?lang=eng

Thanks for proving me wrong on that! But apparently the presence of the Holy Ghost is not enough to mean that one has not suffered spiritual death. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead

Current LDS source:

"God the Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost is also a God and is called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, and the Spirit of God, among other similar names and titles. With the aid of the Holy Ghost, man can know the will of God the Father and know that Jesus is the Christ (1 Cor. 12:3)."

We are reborn spiritually when we are baptized.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-new-spiritually-reborn?lang=eng

Thanks for proving me wrong on that! But apparently the presence of the Holy Ghost is not enough to mean that one has not suffered spiritual death. 

I wonder if perhaps you have an overly rigid perception of "spiritual death."

"Physical death" is often thought of as binary: a person is either alive or dead.  But perhaps not.  We have concepts like "brain death" and "persistent vegetative state" and other states that make "death" a bit less binary than have previously perceived.

Similarly, I think "spiritual death" is not quite as binary as you seem to construe it.  I have thought of baptism as a symbolic rebirth from "spiritual death" (or rather a part of the process of spiritual rebirth - which will complete at the Final Judgment).  Consider the following:

Quote

Baptism by immersion suggests a burial and resurrection with Christ, a death to the life of sin and a rebirth, through Christ’s atoning sacrifice, to a life of spiritual vitality, as Paul explains:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

“For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” (Rom. 6:3–5.)

Conversion to Christ and baptism by immersion free us from the shadow of spiritual death, leaving us, like Naaman, clean as a little child.

And this:

Quote

It is the ideal thing to say that when one is baptized of the water and receives the blessings of the Spirit by the laying on of hands, that this is a new birth. It is a new birth because he has been brought from that spiritual death into the presence of one of the Godhead, even the Holy Ghost. That is why we say unto you “Receive the Holy Ghost” when you are confirmed. That gift is given to the believer who is faithful and lives to claim that blessing, the right to the communion with one of the Godhead to overcome that spiritual death.

And this:

Quote

“To atone is to ransom, reconcile, expiate, redeem, reclaim, absolve, propitiate, make amends, pay the penalty. Thus the atonement of Christ is designed to ransom men from the effects of the fall of Adam in that both spiritual and temporal death are conquered; their lasting effect is nullified. The spiritual death of the fall is replaced by the spiritual life of the atonement, in that all who believe and obey the gospel law gain spiritual or eternal life—life in the presence of God where those who enjoy it are alive to things of righteousness or things of the Spirit. The temporal death of the fall is replaced by the state of immortality which comes because of the atonement and resurrection of our Lord. The body and spirit which separated, incident to what men call the natural death, are reunited in immortality, in an inseparable connection that never again will permit the mortal body to see corruption” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 62).

...

“Before the fall Adam was in the presence of God and was not subject to death; he and Eve could have no children, and they knew not good and evil, for all their knowledge of the pre-existence had been taken away from them. After the fall, Adam and Eve became subject to the physical or temporal death and were banished from the presence of the Lord thus partaking of both the temporal and spiritual, or second death, which is banishment from God. Through baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost they were reclaimed from the spiritual death." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny, 376–77).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if perhaps you have an overly rigid perception of "spiritual death."

"Physical death" is often thought of as binary: a person is either alive or dead.  But perhaps not.  We have concepts like "brain death" and "persistent vegetative state" and other states that make "death" a bit less binary than have previously perceived.

Similarly, I think "spiritual death" is not quite as binary as you seem to construe it.  I have thought of baptism as a symbolic rebirth from "spiritual death" (or rather a part of the process of spiritual rebirth - which will complete at the Final Judgment).  Consider the following:

And this:

And this:

Thanks,

-Smac

The lesson manual I was quoting was presenting it in that "binary" way. That's also the way I learned in on my mission. Spiritual death = literal separation from God. 

It strikes me that your sources should probably be interpreted (in the light of other LDS doctrinal statements) as a promise of future redemption from spiritual death. Or perhaps there are simply two different ideas being taught using the same terminology. The doctrine grows organically, which means sometimes you get ingrown branches and odd offshoots. 

[Eek!]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

On this point I don't think there is tension between the Scriptures and the doctrines of the Church.  Moreover, we are told in scripture that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  You aren't the first person to think you have an understanding of what "the scriptures ... are actually saying" that is superior to the cumulative knowledge and wisdom of the prophets and apostles.  You won't be the last.  I wish you well in your study efforts.  For me, I have found that the cumulative counsel we have received from the Brethren, past and present, has done quite a good job at helping me understand what The Scriptures 'are actually saying."  For me, I give substantial deference to the Brethren and the role they play in the Restored Gospel and the church that houses it, which role is defined in The Scriptures.  This Encyclopedia of Mormonism article sums things up well:

I am not saying that the Brethren are infallible in terms of interpreting scripture, but I don't think we can glibly disregard the counsel from the Brethren, either.  As Elder Anderson recently put it: "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."  This is why I think it is a bit . . . untoward for an individual to juxtapose the teachings/doctrines of the Church as being distinct from "{what} the scriptures {and the Temple} are actually saying."  I suppose it's theoretically possible for this to happen, but I think it is far more likely that the Brethren are cumulatively correct in their teaching of the scriptures.

In any event, this particularly issue - the conflating of of the concepts of this world being in a "telestial" state with the "Telestial Kingdom" referenced in Scripture - does not even seem like a close call.  They are not the same thing.  None of us on this earth live in the "Telestial Kingdom."

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,

I wasn't trying to put down the church when I pointed out that mfbukowski and I were coming from very different places. Apparently my choice of words was offensive, for which I apologize, and I thank you for letting me know.

How should I have worded it so as not to come across as “untoward”, while still explaining my position?  I was making a conscious effort to not be disrespectful, and apparently failed. 

Just so you know, I believe that Joseph Smith was overall the real deal. He wins me over on content. In my opinion the LDS church has the richest body of scripture and thought of any religion I have examined.

As for searching the scriptures, I happen to believe that in them are found the words of eternal life. I believe he that seeketh diligently shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old. I also believe that if anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Just for the record, I've yet to see a convincing argument that explains to me why the Telestial world is NOT part of the Telestial kingdom. I know the church teaches that they are completely different, and I understand that “follow the Brethren” is sufficient for a faithful member of the LDS church.

You did point out the discrepancy between the glory of the Telestial kingdom, as described in Section 76, and this Earth, and that's a very good argument.  My reply is that this young Telestial world would be a relatively primitive corner of the Telestial kingdom; just look at how much technology has changed our lives since Joseph Smith's day.   

I might point out that, consistent with the description of the Telestial kingdom in Section 76, on this Earth we have the ministering of the Holy Spirit as well as the ministering of angels but not the fullness of Christ. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Eek!

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Eek! said:

 I might point out that, consistent with the description of the Telestial kingdom in Section 76, on this Earth we have the ministering of the Holy Spirit as well as the ministering of angels but not the fullness of Christ. 

And then during the Millennial reign, the earth will become Terrestrial again when Christ rules on earth and then be Celestialized when Christ receives his inheritance and becomes the Father of this new Kolob.

Amazing how the pattern fit consistently.

[Eek!]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And then during the Millennial reign, the earth will become Terrestrial again when Christ rules on earth and then be Celestialized when Christ receives his inheritance and becomes the Father of this new Kolob.

Amazing how the pattern fit consistently.

I hadn't realized how consistently the pattern fit - I had COMPLETELY overlooked the intermediate Millennial Terrestrial state!  THANK YOU!

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Eek!

[cinepro]

On 6/5/2016 at 4:39 PM, Broker said:

I'm not sure the Church currently teaches this as doctrine, so I was a bit surprised to see it in an Ensign article.

 

 

Good news.  The article was written by David Edwards. *  Who's he? 

 

Exactly. 

 

Consider it a simple expression of one man's musings and guesses about the after-life, based on his understanding of the best inspired-but-fallible opinions of selected quotes from our Church leaders and the scriptures, most likely giving heavier weight to the quotes and scriptures he agrees with.

If you don't like anything that he says, feel free to ignore it and continue believing whatever makes the most sense to you.  That's what most people do with stuff in the Ensign that they don't agree with. 

*Middle initial intentionally omitted because there is no other David Edwards for whom he might easily be confused.

Edited June 7, 2016 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Good news.  The article was written by David Edwards. *  Who's he? 

Hey, be nice. He is speaking in his official capacity as just some guy.

Show some respect.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

No, you're separated from God. This is LDS doctrine 101. Only those in the Celestial Kingdom get to be with the father. 

You are not separated from God if you have the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost as a member of the Godhead is God. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of spiritual death. It is not separation from God's physical presence. If that be the case, we are all spiritually dead. 

[consiglieri]

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:00 PM, Jeanne said:

i don't believe it.  To separate families even in their struggle to progress is cruel.

Have no worries.  LDS theology on this issue is inconsistent at best.

The slogan is that "families can be together forever."  This veneration of the nuclear family was adopted by the LDS Church in the mid-20th Century to try to purge the public associations with Mormons and polygamy.  No longer would Brigham Young and his many wives be the model, but Ward and June Cleaver.

But if the LDS doctrine of exaltation is true, families will not be together forever; the youngsters will grow up and be leaving home to create worlds in other galaxies.  Maybe there will be family reunions, or get-togethers on major holidays, but the idea that your family will be together forever the same way it was when your children were at home is inconsistent with the big picture.

On the other hand, what is to keep families from being together if they want to be together?  I know the LDS Church puts a lot of stress on sealings, but really, if a husband and wife don't get married in the temple, and both end up going to the Terrestrial Kingdom or somewhere, what exactly is to PREVENT them from being together there?

Much of this inconsistency is resolved when one realizes that the original meaning of the revelations was that only those who engaged in plural marriage would be exalted.  This is what the D&C means when it says "celestial marriage."  Celestial marriage was plural marriage.  This definition was firmly in place for the first 100 years of the Church's existence, until J. Reuben Clark cleverly decided to change the definition of "celestial marriage" to mean "temple marriage."

Whereas the Church once taught that plural marriage was essential to exaltation, now it teaches that temple marriage is essential to exaltation.  And due to this shift in the definition of "celestial marriage," it can do so from the exact same scriptures.

Note--it is because of this that Section 132, which deals exclusively with the subject of plural marriage, can be used to now to support the teaching of temple marriage.

At least if you don't go beyond verse 33 as dictated by the teacher's gospel doctrine manual.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed---for-time-and-for-all-eternity?lang=eng

 

 

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Have no worries.  LDS theology on this issue is inconsistent at best.

The slogan is that "families can be together forever."  This veneration of the nuclear family was adopted by the LDS Church in the mid-20th Century to try to purge the public associations with Mormons and polygamy.  No longer would Brigham Young and his many wives be the model, but Ward and June Cleaver.

But if the LDS doctrine of exaltation is true, families will not be together forever; the youngsters will grow up and be leaving home to create worlds in other galaxies.  Maybe there will be family reunions, or get-togethers on major holidays, but the idea that your family will be together forever the same way it was when your children were at home is inconsistent with the big picture.

On the other hand, what is to keep families from being together if they want to be together?  I know the LDS Church puts a lot of stress on sealings, but really, if a husband and wife don't get married in the temple, and both end up going to the Terrestrial Kingdom or somewhere, what exactly is to PREVENT them from being together there?

Much of this inconsistency is resolved when one realizes that the original meaning of the revelations was that only those who engaged in plural marriage would be exalted.  This is what the D&C means when it says "celestial marriage."  Celestial marriage was plural marriage.  This definition was firmly in place for the first 100 years of the Church's existence, until J. Reuben Clark cleverly decided to change the definition of "celestial marriage" to mean "temple marriage."

Whereas the Church once taught that plural marriage was essential to exaltation, now it teaches that temple marriage is essential to exaltation.  And due to this shift in the definition of "celestial marriage," it can do so from the exact same scriptures.

Note--it is because of this that Section 132, which deals exclusively with the subject of plural marriage, can be used to now to support the teaching of temple marriage.

At least if you don't go beyond verse 33 as dictated by the teacher's gospel doctrine manual.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed---for-time-and-for-all-eternity?lang=eng

Thank you so much for this.  It clarifies and puts into perspective the different concepts of the church and scripture that condemns the family unit to just the Celestial Kingdom.  A lot of loop holes in the theology here to match the times and cultures of history ad the present day.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Jeanne

[theplains]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And then during the Millennial reign, the earth will become Terrestrial again when Christ rules on earth and then be Celestialized when Christ receives his inheritance and becomes the Father of this new Kolob.

Amazing how the pattern fit consistently.

If the Mormon Heavenly Father lives on a planet near Kolob, won't it be similar for the Mormon Jesus?

Thanks

Jim

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

If the Mormon Heavenly Father lives on a planet near Kolob, won't it be similar for the Mormon Jesus?

Thanks

Jim

Ten Million years from now, do you think the people living on an another planet like earth will believe their prophets when they tell them their God was born as a helpless baby and then was murdered on a planet called Earth that existed on the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy?

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Much of this inconsistency is resolved when one realizes that the original meaning of the revelations was that only those who engaged in plural marriage would be exalted.  This is what the D&C means when it says "celestial marriage."  Celestial marriage was plural marriage.  This definition was firmly in place for the first 100 years of the Church's existence, until J. Reuben Clark cleverly decided to change the definition of "celestial marriage" to mean "temple marriage."

So you are saying that people like Reed Smoot expected to not be exalted since they didn't practice plural marriage?  Or that everybody around them (including follow apostles and seventy) expected them to never be exalted?

Edited June 8, 2016 by webbles

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And then during the Millennial reign, the earth will become Terrestrial again when Christ rules on earth and then be Celestialized when Christ receives his inheritance and becomes the Father of this new Kolob.

Amazing how the pattern fit consistently.

Wait, what?

44 minutes ago, webbles said:

So you are saying that people like Reed Smoot expected to not be exalted since they didn't practice plural marriage?  Or that everybody around them (including follow apostles and seventy) expected them to never be exalted?

No, it is pretty clear that accepting the practice was required but if it was mandatory for everyone to participate then many men and women were damned due to God not skewing the birth rate towards women by about 25% more.

56 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Ten Million years from now, do you think the people living on an another planet like earth will believe their prophets when they tell them their God was born as a helpless baby and then was murdered on a planet called Earth that existed on the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy?

I expect it will seem as likely as an angel delivering gold plates to teenagers detailing hidden religious history.

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, what?

No, it is pretty clear that accepting the practice was required but if it was mandatory for everyone to participate then many men and women were damned due to God not skewing the birth rate towards women by about 25% more.

I expect it will seem as likely as an angel delivering gold plates to teenagers detailing hidden religious history.

So true.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, what?

Oh you know what I meant.  It's scriptural, even if I played with the phrasing.

[smac97]

On 6/6/2016 at 2:43 PM, Gray said:

Are LDS parents taught to leave their children to raise themselves, or to impute eternal punishments for finite offenses, or even offenses of thought?

I don't understand your reasoning here.  All sins ("offenses") committed while we are on the earth are "finite," be it an unkind word, or theft, or rape, or murder.

How do you differentiate between "finite" and "infinite" offenses?  And what is the scriptural basis for such a differentiation?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh you know what I meant.  It's scriptural, even if I played with the phrasing.

I do not think so.

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not think so.

Really?  Which part do you disagree with?
1. During the Millennial reign, the earth will become Terrestrial again
2. Christ rules on earth
3. then be Celestialized
4. when Christ receives his inheritance
5. and becomes the Father
6. this new Kolob.

Is it number 6?  Because I can agree that that was a bit of a leap.
 

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?  Which part do you disagree with?
1. During the Millennial reign, the earth will become Terrestrial again
2. Christ rules on earth
3. then be Celestialized
4. when Christ receives his inheritance
5. and becomes the Father
6. this new Kolob.

Is it number 6?  Because I can agree that that was a bit of a leap.
 

Mostly 6 with a smidgen of 5.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Mostly 6 with a smidgen of 5.

5 is clearly laid out in the Book of Mormon (and alluded to less clearly other places).

[Gray]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your reasoning here.  All sins ("offenses") committed while we are on the earth are "finite," be it an unkind word, or theft, or rape, or murder.

How do you differentiate between "finite" and "infinite" offenses?  And what is the scriptural basis for such a differentiation?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, as a parent, when I punish my child, I try to make the punishment fit the crime. If my child was rude to me, it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown them forever and cut off all contact. But that's what seems to be going on with the plan of salvation. A finite offense is met with the infinite punishment of losing all contact forever with Heavenly Father. That doesn't sound like a father/child relationship that I would recognize. 

The plan of salvation seems more along the lines of natural selection than a recognizable family relationship. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, as a parent, when I punish my child, I try to make the punishment fit the crime. If my child was rude to me, it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown them forever and cut off all contact. But that's what seems to be going on with the plan of salvation. A finite offense is met with the infinite punishment of losing all contact forever with Heavenly Father. That doesn't sound like a father/child relationship that I would recognize. 

But I still don't understand.  Putting aside metaphor and analogy, how do you differentiate between "finite" and "infinite" offenses in the eternal sense?  By your reasoning, every transgression is a blink-of-an-eye kind of thing in the eternal scheme.  So a person who has committed a series of violent assaults against another person and refused to repent could argue at The Great Bar, as you have here, that his assaults were - in the eternal sense - extraordinarily  brief, such that "it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown {him} forever and cut off all contact."

A rapist could make the same argument.

A murderer could make the same argument.

The most horrible and evil people in the world could argue that their unrepented-of sins were all blink-of-an-eye transitory, and therefore "it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown them forever and cut off all contact."

We are told in scripture that "the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (D&C 1:31, Alma 45:16).  We are commanded to repent of every sin: "Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit."  In fact, repentance is one of the most powerful themes in the scriptures.  It is a beautiful concept, and one that - if accepted - utterly demolishes your complaint about disproportionality.

Thanks,

-Smac