Different Degrees of Glory.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Thank you.  I had wondered what happened to the Law of Adoption. 

https://lodeplus.com/the-dreams-of-brigham-young/

I suspect that there is nothing wrong with the Law of Adoption, just as there is nothing wrong with having only one talent.  I think what will come will be a combination of our one talent, two talents, five, ten, fifty, hundred, infinite talents...and that is why the ultimate pattern Brigham saw was indescribable and he didn't even try.

There is another quote someone used somewhere that had Brigham Young, iirc, saying that there would be additional covenants or ordinances performed after death.  Can't find it.  Will look in the link you gave that I just reposted as well as other likely spots.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Not the quote I wanted, but some collected by a friend that are semirelated to the topic.  Someone was talking about this either in this thread or earlier, pardon if they all have been posted...my memory is really ineffective right now and too lazy to reread the thread.

Quote

Lorenzo Snow, October 6, 1893;  in, Deseret Weekly 47 (4 November 1893): 609; Millennial Star, Jan. 22, 1894, p. 49; Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.98; Collected Discourses 3.363; also reported Burton, ed., We Believe, Death)  A wonderful work is being accomplished in our temples in favor of the spirits in prison. I believe, strongly too, that when the gospel is preached to the spirits in prison, the success attending that preaching will be far greater than that attending the preaching of our elders in this life. 

 

Lorenzo Snow, April 5, 1894, meeting of Quorum and First Presidency:  “President Snow said, and Pres. Woodruff coincided with the view, that very, very few of those who die without the Gospel will reject it on the other side of the veil” [Abraham H. Cannon diary, under date [Lyman, 491; Horne, 313; Collected Discourses 4. 68, note from previous page which refers to this diary entry]

 

Wilford Woodruff;  Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday, April 18, 1894. Millennial Star 56 (May 28, 1894): 339-341; James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. 3, p.257 - p.258; Collected Discourses 4.74; The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p.157-158—. So it will be with your fathers. There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel. Jesus while His body lay in the tomb, went and preached to the spirits in prison

 

Abraham H. Cannon, January 5, 1895, Millennial Star 57 (1895): 467’ = Collected Discourses 4. 208.  “I think the cases will be very few of those who in the spirit world reject the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was thinking about how words sometimes get in the way of someone accepting the gospel, or learning more about it.  My Dad and his second wife do not accept some parts of the truth relative to the gospel, as our Church teaches it, for example, and I think a lot of that is because they tune out when particular words are mentioned.  Like Joseph Smith, or Mormon, or temple sealing ordinances.  But I think they will accept these truths later when they are taught by people who don't claim to be "Mormons".  They do want to be with each other, as man and wife, forever, but at the moment they do not believe that is possible.  LDS telling them it is possible, notwithstanding.

I've had visions of them talking with people on the other side about baptism, too, for example. At some point they're going to hear something like "we don't have you on our records as being baptized".  They both believe baptism is necessary for salvation, and they both believe they have already been baptized.  He is a preacher of the church they accept as the true church of Christ, believing that one to be it, and he understands from the Bible that baptism is necessary for salvation.  But they're going to hear from someone beyond the veil that they (our Church reps) don't have any record of them being baptized, and they're going to hear from them, then, that they (who we would call "our" missionaries) are members of the church of Christ . And they (our missionaries) are going to ask them if would like to be baptized, to have it on record. And I don't think our missionaries there are wearing or going to be wearing name tags saying "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", or calling themselves "Mormons" or "latter-day saints".  And it would be better if they didn't, to avoid bringing up negative connotations my parents have when they hear those words.

So my point is that I'm sure our Father and his servants, including his missionaries on the other side of the veil, have ways to reach people who have negative and false connotations associated with particular words, such that they can teach the truth without using those particular words.  They can teach the correct principles and the correct ideas while using other words without those negative and false connotations.  No need to even mention Joseph Smith, because they won't need to have a history lesson about how the true gospel and true priesthood of God was at one time restored to us by that man.   For some people it's just extra baggage that prevents them from hearing and accepting the truth.  All they really need to know is what our Savior wants to teach them, whatever the name of our true Savior is.

And they shall be saved in ignorance. Good plan.

“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” -D&C 131:6

Oh....maybe not.  

[Calm]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure the policy or doctrine (or guess) on this is that the child will be sealed to the first husband.  The second husband is "raising up seed" unto the first, as it should be.

Truly, the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

Probably from the eternal viewpoint it is.  And imo, it all really boils down to "trust and love God" which is about as simple as one can get (though it can be very hard to do if you don't have a lot of chance to practice trust with those who deserve it the vast majority of time in your families and with friends, no one lives up to trust all the time imo as we don't fully understand what the others expect of us in their hearts, so we make mistakes).

Imo, our current polices with sealings are quite inconsistent (which is part of what tells me they are incomplete).  For example, they will not seal children to single parents but only married, but if a couple is divorced and their sealing canceled, it is taught the children remained sealed to each individual parent...so it could possibly be sealing to single parents, though two of them, not one.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-happens-when-a-couple-gets-a-temple-divorce?lang=eng

Edited June 12, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quotes showing there is more to the gospel (or God's teachings that bring salvation) and the endowment that we will learn in the next life and additional ordinances we will receive (so sealings as we know them are therefore incomplete):

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng

The quote Eek found for me earlier in the thread...implication is we don't know what sealings will eventually look like because we currently could not describe them...we can of course describe how the sealings are now and Brigham could have easily done so as well...and yet he couldn't even after he saw the sealing pattern:

While we may not understand how commandments and ordinances get us there, the path they create is joy:

https://scottwoodward.org/happiness_godslawscalculatedtomakeushappy.html

sealing knowledge came over time:

http://scottwoodward.org/sealingpower_whytheyusedtosealpeopletoprophets.html

 

Does this  come from the manual?

What  quote did eek find you?

What does "what sealings would look like" mean?

Quote

Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity. Joseph again said, “Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right.”

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not the quote I wanted, but some collected by a friend that are semirelated to the topic.  Someone was talking about this either in this thread or earlier, pardon if they all have been posted...my memory is really ineffective right now and too lazy to reread the thread.

Those quotes are great.  I have to say there seems to have been a change in emphasis among members.  As a child I was taught that work for the dead was specfically for those who never had the opportunity to choose.  Now it seems to be looked at as a second chance - be taught the gospel here, reject it, but accept it in the next life.   That is not how I was taught of vicarious works originally.

6 hours ago, Eek! said:

Given that a fairly large percentage of marriages that are "sealed for time and all eternity" in the temple end in divorce, obviously "sealed for time and all eternity" doesn't mean "forced to remain together against your will".      

Brigham and Heber both made some statements that make me question this a bit.

[Calm]

For me I believe it is important to do our best at accepting the gospel here, but that may not be going so far as to actually accept it, but rather we are preparing to accept it in full when we become fully one with God.  

I guess I believe that continual learning goes hand in hand with continual revelation and that means for me that I won't be in a position where I can truly make a choice to accept or reject the Gospel until long after death because I really can't understand what it is, what it means, and what it can mean for me because it has eternal implications that I am incapable of imagining due to my mortal POV.

However, just because acceptance of the whole comes later in my view doesn't imply that it is no big deal to reject the blessings we can have now.

Would anyone ask why they should bother to accept a million dollars now if they know they will have a chance to accept it in fifty years?

[Eek!]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham and Heber both made some statements that make me question this a bit.

Can you elaborate? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Does this  come from the manual?

What  quote did eek find you?

What does "what sealings would look like" mean?

 

The ladder and learning bit by bit quotes by .Joseph are all over LDS manuals.

The pattern one by Brigham is not and was the quote that eek found for me as .I had known of it, but thought it was "indescribable" and not "cannot describe" and so it wasn't coming up in searches.  I will have to check if it is referred to at all on LDS.org.  The "pattern" refers to organization of families in eternity as demonstrated by the sentences immediately preceding the shortened quote (love the full quote, but it was not relevant to my point):  

Quote

Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Father in Heaven before they came into the world. Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion.”

https://lodeplus.com/the-dreams-of-brigham-young/

Last question...how we will understand sealings in the eternities.

add-on:  looks like the pattern quote is in a devotional by Elder Jay Jensen:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2012/01/the-unspeakable-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

Quote

“Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity. Joseph again said, ‘Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right.’

Not only does this account emphasize the importance of the Holy Ghost and seeking His influence, it also brought to my mind these principles and truths:

The Spirit of the Lord seeks to bring order—specifically, to organize an eternal family through the ordinance of a temple sealing.

The adversary seeks to disorganize and to destroy (see D&C 10:6–7, 22–27), especially families, as evidenced today by abortion, divorce, and same-gender marriage. I asked myself if the growing practice in your age group of postponing marriage contributes to disorganizing families.

Revelation and knowledge through the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost came in answer to a question, as revelation often does.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The ladder and learning bit by bit quotes by .Joseph are all over LDS manuals.

The pattern one by Brigham is not and was the quote that eek found for me as .I had known of it, but thought it was "indescribable" and not "cannot describe" and so it wasn't coming up in searches.  I will have to check if it is referred to at all on LDS.org.  The "pattern" refers to organization of families in eternity as demonstrated by the sentences immediately preceding the shortened quote (love the full quote, but it was not relevant to my point):  

https://lodeplus.com/the-dreams-of-brigham-young/

Last question...how we will understand sealings in the eternities.

add-on:  looks like the pattern quote is in a devotional by Elder Jay Jensen:

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2012/01/the-unspeakable-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

 

Thanks

I went back a few pages looking for "the link EEK sent you" to no avail

Would it be possible for you to link to the correct post?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 

The pattern one by Brigham is not and was the quote that eek found for me as

Sorry- wrong quote.

This is the sentence I am having trouble with

[Calm]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks

I went back a few pages looking for "the link EEK sent you" to no avail

Would it be possible for you to link to the correct post?

It is the lodeplus link I posted. 

Full quote:

Quote

[Brigham Young Sermon] I met with the brethren of the Twelve in the Historian’s office. Conversation ensued relative to emigration westward. I related the following dream:

While sick and asleep about noonday of the 17th inst., I dreamed that I went to see Joseph. He looked perfectly natural, sitting with his feet on the lower round of his chair. I took hold of his right hand and kissed him many times, and said to him: “Why is it that we cannot be together as we used to be? You have been from us a long time, and we want your society and I do not like to be separated from you.”

Joseph rising from his chair and looking at me with his usual, earnest, expressive and pleasing countenance replied, “It is all right.” I said, “I do not like to be away from you.”

Joseph said, “It is all right; we cannot be together yet; we shall be by and by; but you will have to do without me a while, and then we shall be together again.”

I then discovered there was a hand rail between us, Joseph stood by a window and to the southwest of him it was very light. I was in the twilight and to the north of me it was very dark. I said, “Brother Joseph, the brethren you know well, better than I do; you raised them up, and brought the Priesthood to us. The brethren have a great anxiety to understand the law of adoption or sealing principles; and if you have a word of counsel for me I should be glad to receive it.”

Joseph stepped toward me, and looking very earnestly, yet pleasantly said, “Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it. They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts; and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build up the kingdom of God. Tell the brethren if they will follow the spirit of the lord they will go right. Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Father in Heaven before they came into the world. Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion.”

Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity. Joseph again said, “Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right.” [Winter Quarters] (5)

This is the post it was in:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70613-different-degrees-of-glory/?do=findComment&comment=1209822198

 

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the lodeplus link I posted. 

Full quote:

This is the post it was in:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70613-different-degrees-of-glory/?do=findComment&comment=1209822198

 

Thanks!!

 

[Tacenda]

All these quotes etc.😣 I'm so glad I'm not of the mindset that I even have to worry what these dead leaders have said. I know in my heart what is right or wrong. I'm glad I'm not all in and a fence sitter, I'm glad that I don't feel bound to these quotes and I don't give them credit any longer. I've found that in this church, there are too many wrongs and that adds up to it being a church that is man made, and we should go straight to the source. When the leaders continually get it wrong, it's time to rethink listening to every thing they say. In fact it's dangerous. 

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Those quotes are great.  I have to say there seems to have been a change in emphasis among members.  As a child I was taught that work for the dead was specfically for those who never had the opportunity to choose.  Now it seems to be looked at as a second chance - be taught the gospel here, reject it, but accept it in the next life.   That is not how I was taught of vicarious works originally.

D & C 76:

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 [Also]These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 [Also]These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

80 And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. The terrestrial kingdom includes those who were not valiant in the testimony of Yeshua in life, but accepted the gospel fully in the spirit world. ie second chance.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

D & C 76:

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 [Also]These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 [Also]These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

80 And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. The terrestrial kingdom includes those who were not valiant in the testimony of Yeshua in life, but accepted the gospel fully in the spirit world. ie second chance.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76 Joseph Smith borrowed a lot of things. Now I wonder if Swedenborg is the truer prophet. Or we have a lot of prophets that have ideas and put them into action which Joseph did. But who knows how true they are according to God's will. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so glad I'm not of the mindset that I even have to worry what these dead leaders have said. I know in my heart what is right or wrong. I'm glad I'm not all in and a fence sitter, I'm glad that I don't feel bound to these quotes and I don't give them credit any longer. I've found that in this church, there are too many wrongs and that adds up to it being a church that is man made, and we should go straight to the source. When the leaders continually get it wrong, it's time to rethink listening to every thing they say. In fact it's dangerous. 

The Church is all about "going straight to the source."  Indeed, we are enjoined to do just that on every issue, every day.

How did you miss that?

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76 Joseph Smith borrowed a lot of things. Now I wonder if Swedenborg is the truer prophet. Or we have a lot of prophets that have ideas and put them into action which Joseph did. But who knows how true they are according to God's will. 

The idea that Joseph Smith borrowed from Swedenborg is pretty much a stretch. The names celestial and terrestrial come from the NT(see 1 Cor 15:40) so "celestial" is common to both Swedenborg and JS because of NT scripture. Telestial is not a name used by Swedenborg. The three degrees of glory are referred to in scripture. Paul referred to the third heaven. 2 Corinthians 12:2  The parable of the sower, I believe refers to the three heavens and even apparently three degrees inside the celestial. Looking at a totality of the scriptures as a whole the degrees of glory are the only things which cause it to make sense. For instance although God said He is no respecter of persons, Hebrews are referred to as the chosen people, and even called elohim by Psalms 82, and by Yeshua Himself in John. Why, if God is no respecter of persons? Is it because they were valiant in "the preexistence" or prior world where they earned that title? Would Yeshua say that of Gentiles whom He called "dogs" and "heathen?" There are a good number of things like this. Once one accepts MMPs, the scriptures as a whole just make sense. There is not one great big room in heaven, but Yeshua said in my Father's house are many rooms. Multiple places the scriptures say we each receive according to our works. They say God's house has an order, etc. 

Suffice it to say that despite that article, Joseph Smith did not borrow anything from Swedenborg. He is expounding upon scripture as part of the restoration. It is of the Lord and not Joseph Smith nor Swedenborg. The world will soon learn that Joseph Smith did not write nor make up D&C of himself. Some of the phrasing might be "Joseph Smithian" but D&C is of the Lord. The three degrees of glory can be derived from scripture, see 1 Corinthians 15:40–42. I am not saying Swedenborg was not inspired, but a "truer prophet" than Joseph Smith? No way. The fact that Swedenborg did see three degrees of glory in heaven is a credit to him though. Joseph Smith is the head of the dispensation of the sixth seal. Through him the Lord introduced His covenant He promised to the Gentiles in their land, where He promised to give them the double. Isaiah 61. Man may as well start accepting that now, because it will only become more evident what the world owes to his efforts to restore the gospel despite his human foibles critics like to pick on. He was a bringer of truth. The Church just didn't follow it so well imho.  

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

For me I believe it is important to do our best at accepting the gospel here, but that may not be going so far as to actually accept it, but rather we are preparing to accept it in full when we become fully one with God.  

I guess I believe that continual learning goes hand in hand with continual revelation and that means for me that I won't be in a position where I can truly make a choice to accept or reject the Gospel until long after death because I really can't understand what it is, what it means, and what it can mean for me because it has eternal implications that I am incapable of imagining due to my mortal POV.

However, just because acceptance of the whole comes later in my view doesn't imply that it is no big deal to reject the blessings we can have now.

Would anyone ask why they should bother to accept a million dollars now if they know they will have a chance to accept it in fifty years?

Seems to me that you consider the gospel to be a very complicated issue, whereas I see it as simple but with complications in the appendages to it.   And yes I'm sure there are appendages we're not even aware of yet, like exactly how families will live together, but that doesn't mean, to me, that we cant fully accept the gospel.  Or is that what you mean, that we can't fully accept the gospel without accepting every appendage there ever will be to it?  And if that's what you mean, I don't know that we will ever be able to fully accept the gospel, in that way, without knowing everything there is to know about everything, because I see the gospel as what makes all of that possible for us.

So to follow your analogy I think that would be like waiting to accept the million dollars until you know everything you're going to do with it when you get it, whenever you get it.  I'd rather take it immediately when it is offered to me and then start figuring out what to do with it.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

D & C 76:

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 [Also]These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 [Also]These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

80 And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. The terrestrial kingdom includes those who were not valiant in the testimony of Yeshua in life, but accepted the gospel fully in the spirit world. ie second chance.

Not the same issue.
We are speaking work for the dead here.  Baptism as the entrance ordinance for the Celestial.

Baptism for the dead was always taught as an ordinance for who never heard the gospel in this life.  Now it seems that we teach that those who are taught the gospel and choose to reject it can still have their work done and accept of the work.  I have no problem with this, but it is a change of belief that I have not seen the explanation for.  At some point it went from "providing a missed opportunity" to adding "second chance for those who rejected".

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not the same issue.
We are speaking work for the dead here.  Baptism as the entrance ordinance for the Celestial.

Baptism for the dead was always taught as an ordinance for who never heard the gospel in this life.  Now it seems that we teach that those who are taught the gospel and choose to reject it can still have their work done and accept of the work.  I have no problem with this, but it is a change of belief that I have not seen the explanation for.  At some point it went from "providing a missed opportunity" to adding "second chance for those who rejected".

Yeah I think I once saw it the way you do now, but then I thought about how much time we have to repent, until the day of judgment at least, and I saw how people could choose to be baptized who later earlier had rejected that opportunity.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahab

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, Eek! said:

Quote

Given that a fairly large percentage of marriages that are "sealed for time and all eternity" in the temple end in divorce, obviously "sealed for time and all eternity" doesn't mean "forced to remain together against your will".

Quote

Brigham and Heber both made some statements that make me question this a bit.

Can you elaborate? 

 

I am not convinced that marriage covenants are so easily dissolved if neither participant breaks the covenant.
If neither have violated their temple covenants (chastity for instance) I am not so sure that any divorces received are valid.  I think some divorced people may find themselves still married in the next life.
I agree that they may not be "forced to remain together against your will" but that doesn't necessarily mean free from the covenant and free to move on.  Separation and divorce are two different issues.

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"There is no ecclesiastical law that you know anything about, to free a wife from a man to whom she has been sealed, if he honors his Priesthood"  DBY 8:345

" I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, "We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here"—there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and prove yourself page unworthy of celestial glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them.  I have said a number of times, and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him. If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you. When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me. I tell the brethren and sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something. I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce. For what? My services? No, for his foolishness. If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership. Do you think you have done so when you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood—it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying—"We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other," &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this. There is a law for you to be obedient, and humble and faithful."   JofD 17:118-119

"President Young said that when a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce. He had told the brethren that if they would break the law, they should pay for it; but he did not want them to come to him for a divorce as it was not right...."

HEBER C. KIMBALL
"“What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time.  And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfill His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so.”

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah I think I once saw it the way you do now, but then I thought about how much time we have to repent, until the day of judgment at least, and I saw how people could choose to be baptized who later earlier had rejected that opportunity.

 

As I said, it's not "the way I see it now", but it represents a doctrinal shift that I haven't seen the justification for.
It may be valid, but what has brought this change of idea about?

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not the same issue.
We are speaking work for the dead here.  Baptism as the entrance ordinance for the Celestial.

Baptism for the dead was always taught as an ordinance for who never heard the gospel in this life.  Now it seems that we teach that those who are taught the gospel and choose to reject it can still have their work done and accept of the work.  I have no problem with this, but it is a change of belief that I have not seen the explanation for.  At some point it went from "providing a missed opportunity" to adding "second chance for those who rejected".

i am not sure I follow you. Take for example some close relatives of mine who joined the Church and were baptized but who became inactive. They die. Are you saying they need to get baptized again to gain admittance to the celestial kingdom? If they never got baptized in the first place where is the "second chance?" Are you speaking merely of those who were taught the missionary lessons, but didn't get baptized? 

I would say that according to D&C 76 my relatives have a good chance of going to the terrestrial kingdom because they were not valiant. They embraced the gospel, but became persuaded of men, but maybe they led others to Christ. In the end I am not their judge, but I think they do get a second chance at embracing the gospel in the spirit world as I believe do those who rejected the missionary lessons without getting baptized. I believe they can receive baptism still. Are you saying it is now taught they can go to the celestial kingdom? That I don't know. I am not their judge. Does it matter if they die without the restored gospel? Is there some reason we should withhold vicarious baptism from them? I don't think that vicarious baptism is some kind of guarantee into the celestial kingdom in life. Why should it be in our third estate? I think trying to decide who it should be extended to is a precarious place for the Church to be unless it is a source of social unrest or trouble for the Church, I think it should be offered to all deceased. Let the Lord decide their worthiness.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said, it's not "the way I see it now", but it represents a doctrinal shift that I haven't seen the justification for.
It may be valid, but what has brought this change of idea about?

Seeing the light?  I think it's an example of people understanding something incorrectly and then later finding out through further study, prayer, and inspiration that they were previously incorrect about that idea.

In this case, being incorrect in the idea that people who taught that baptism for the dead was always an ordinance only for those who never heard the gospel in this life were teaching the truth.

I'm sure there have been many people who have taught that incorrect teaching, but that doesn't mean they were right.  Baptism for the dead is and always has been an ordinance for any dead who need and choose to be baptized.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahab