Temple Recommend Questions

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nobody is in the Celestial kingdom yet.  We still have to wait for final judgment after the millennium. Joseph's vision was futuristic.  In his vision he also saw his mother and father in the Celestial kingdom...they were still alive at the time of the vision.  

Yes, good point, but I don't think that changes my point that Joseph's vision for the future in 1836 did not include the ideas of vicarious temple rituals that developed during Nauvoo and later in Mormonism.  They weren't conceived of yet, and therefore weren't necessary for entrance into the celestial kingdom.  

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that present leaders can re-envision the past through a contemporary lens,

That's not what I was meaning.

 

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just pointing out that specifically Joseph's vision of the kingdoms did not require temple rituals at that time.

Joseph was unaware of the necessary ordinances as they had not yet been revealed to him.

 

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

later innovations

Later revelation.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Just a small point of order, but I believe the resurrected are in the  CK. How else are they going to "live and reign with Christ for a thousand years?" I have strong doubts the resurrected remain in the spirit world with the unresurrected.

The resurrected cannot be in the CK because the CK has not yet been created.  This Earth will become the celestial kingdom for those who lived on it (D&C 88:17–20; 130:8–11; 77:1; 29:23–25; 43:32).

Also, final judgment will not happen until after the millenium, so how could they receive celestial glory without final judgment? 

I don't know where the resurrected beings are, it hasn't been revealed, perhaps somewhere near Kolob? 
 

Edited October 17, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's not what I was meaning.

 

Joseph was unaware of the necessary ordinances as they had not yet been revealed to him.

 

Later revelation.

One of our articles of faith is that the restoration is a continuous process, so who's to say what is "necessary" in a technical sense.  History shows us that these ideas are developing/evolving over time and in response to environmental factors.  While some people may have a strong sense of certainty about things, the more I learn about life, the less certainly I personally feel comfortable espousing.  

Edited October 17, 2018 by hope_for_things

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, this vision was specifically about the celestial kingdom, and it doesn't say that if Alvin could have been baptized he would have.  Rather it says that if he would have "received it" meaning the gospel, then he would be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  Also it says that children who haven't arrived at the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom.  The whole concept of baptism for the dead doesn't come around until later in the historical timeline.  

You will note that the revelation says that JS marveled that Alvin had not been baptized, and yet was in the CK. I said: " The dream had the effect of allowing Joseph to know that if Alvin could have been baptized in the Church, he would have." I said nothing about baptism for dead in connection with that vision. However, it may have formed the impetus for JS praying about baptism for the dead later.

Quote

I was thinking specifically about attending a temple sealing ceremony for a family member.  In that context, every sealing I've ever attended in my life has been precisely for the purpose of supporting the people I care about.  I think its a different focus for the couple being sealed since they are the ones making the covenant, but I'm talking about attending for the explicit purpose of participating in a community building ritual, and I think all rituals have a communal component to them, and it can be a powerful and moving experience for everyone involved.  

Ok, I was thinking you were talking about the other ordinances. I'm cool with that, if you are cool with answering the Temple Interview questions with integrity like you suggest, and would indeed encourage you in that event.  

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, good point, but I don't think that changes my point that Joseph's vision for the future in 1836 did not include the ideas of vicarious temple rituals that developed during Nauvoo and later in Mormonism.  They weren't conceived of yet, and therefore weren't necessary for entrance into the celestial kingdom.  

Because Joseph's vision did not include the ideas of vicarious temple rituals doesn't diminish their necessity.  Because he didn't have a vision of all requirements, doesn't negate their necessity and later revelation. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

You will note that the revelation says that JS marveled that Alvin had not been baptized, and yet was in the CK. I said: " The dream had the effect of allowing Joseph to know that if Alvin could have been baptized in the Church, he would have." I said nothing about baptism for dead in connection with that vision. However, it may have formed the impetus for JS praying about baptism for the dead later.

Ok, that helps.  But specifically with respect to what the verses say, I think you're reading something into it that wasn't there when you say if Alvin could have been baptized, he would have.  That is not what the actual language says, it just says "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it", will be saved.  So it doesn't say that Alvin would have been baptized, rather that he would have been saved without baptism.  This is reinforced with the verse about children who die prior to being accountable.  It doesn't say anything about them needing baptism.  They are saved, without baptism.  So, that is a interesting difference.  

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Ok, I was thinking you were talking about the other ordinances. I'm cool with that, if you are cool with answering the Temple Interview questions with integrity like you suggest, and would indeed encourage you in that event.  

Yeah, I was thinking the easier parts of the temple that I might be able to handle would definitely be the sealing and the baptisms.  I'm not sure I ever want to attend another endowment.  Emotionally for me that is the one I would have the hardest time going to.  

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

The resurrected cannot be in the CK because the CK has not yet been created.  This Earth will become the celestial kingdom for those who lived on it (D&C 88:17–20; 130:8–11; 77:1; 29:23–25; 43:32).

Also, final judgment will not happen until after the millenium, so how could they receive celestial glory without final judgment? 

I don't know where the resurrected beings are, it hasn't been revealed, perhaps somewhere near Kolob? 
 

Well, we disagree. Why do those who die in Christ need judgment? They are free from punishment, and hell. That is why they go to paradise rather than spirit prison/hell. And who said there can't be preliminary judgments? If this earth is going to be the CK during the millennium, it is going to be short lived, because at the end of the millennium, Satan is loosed again - into the CK? Apparently at some point after this world is "burnt up" it will be the CK until a new world is created.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because Joseph's vision did not include the ideas of vicarious temple rituals doesn't diminish their necessity.  Because he didn't have a vision of all requirements, doesn't negate their necessity and later revelation. 

It also doesn't negate that a future prophet may change the conception of what is "necessary".  From my perspective, what is necessary is personal, subjective and relative.  I feel more aligned to the idea that "no man knoweth" and that includes church leaders.  They don't know who will be saved, or how salvation works, or what is necessary.  That's God's domain, as God will be our judge thankfully and not fallable humans. 

The D&C 137 revelation section I quoted earlier has some pretty strong ideas about this.  They definitely stand on their own, and I would say contradict later innovations about the need for temple ordinances.  At the end of the day I would say that each individual has to decide what they find is necessary for them personally, and leave the rest up to God.  According to D&C 137, what matters most is our works and our intentions and God will judge people based on those things, which really fits well into a universal message.  I find that inspirational and an important part of Mormonism that I would like to see emphasized more.  

Edited October 17, 2018 by hope_for_things

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, we disagree. Why do those who die in Christ need judgment? They are free from punishment, and hell. That is why they go to paradise rather than spirit prison/hell. And who said there can't be preliminary judgments? If this earth is going to be the CK during the millennium, it is going to be short lived, because at the end of the millennium, Satan is loosed again - into the CK? Apparently at some point after this world is "burnt up" it will be the CK until a new world is created.

There are preliminary judgments, but inheritance of a kingdom does not happen until after final judgment.  According to orthodox teachings in the Church, there is a preliminary judgment at death (paradise vs. spirit prison), there is a second preliminary judgment at resurrection (1st vs. second vs. third), only then will there be a final judgment -

Quote

At the Final Judgment we will inherit a place in the kingdom for which we are prepared. 
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

If we inherit a kingdom before final judgment, then what would the point and purpose of a final judgment be?

Also, this earth will not become the Celestial kingdom until after the millennium.  The earth will be purified and receive a paradisaical glory at the time of the millennium, but it is not until after the millenium that it will receive its Celestial glory -

Quote

 

“In that great change, or resurrection, which shall come to this earth, it shall be sanctified, celestialized and made a fit abode even for God the Father, who shall grace it with his presence. (D.C. 88:19.) Then shall the righteous, those who have become sanctified through the law of God, possess it for ever as their abode. This earth is destined to become the everlasting residence of its inhabitants who gain the glory of the celestial kingdom. It shall become in that day like the throne of God and shall shine forth with all the splendor and brightness of celestial glory in its eternal, sanctified and glorious state” (Smith, Way to Perfection, 351).

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/37-millennium-and-glorification-of-the-earth?lang=eng

 

 

 

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It also doesn't negate that a future prophet may change the conception of what is "necessary".  From my perspective, what is necessary is personal, subjective and relative.  I feel more aligned to the idea that "no man knoweth" and that includes church leaders.  They don't know who will be saved, or how salvation works, or what is necessary.  That's God's domain, as God will be our judge thankfully and not fallable humans. 

The D&C 137 revelation section I quoted earlier has some pretty strong ideas about this.  They definitely stand on their own, and I would say contradict later innovations about the need for temple ordinances.  At the end of the day I would say that each individual has to decide what they find is necessary for them personally, and leave the rest up to God.  According to D&C 137, what matters most is our works and our intentions and God will judge people based on those things, which really fits well into a universal message.  I find that inspirational and an important part of Mormonism that I would like to see emphasized more.  

Our conception of what is necessary may be personal, subjective, and relative, but I would submit that God may not agree with your personal opinions.  He has his own.  The point is to try and align our conceptions with God's.  That process evolves in the church as more is revealed line upon line...  

D&C 137 absolutely does not contradict "later innovations about the need for temple ordinances".  

Quote

 

D&C 137

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

 

None of this contradicts the need for ordinances.  The ordinances of baptism for the dead were revealed shortly after this revelation.  Line upon line.  Baptism falls under the "works" mentioned in vs. 9.  No contradiction.

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are preliminary judgments, but inheritance of a kingdom does not happen until after final judgment.  According to orthodox teachings in the Church, there is a preliminary judgment at death (paradise vs. spirit prison), there is a second preliminary judgment at resurrection (1st vs. second vs. third), only then will there be a final judgment -

If we inherit a kingdom before final judgment, then what would the point and purpose of a final judgment be?

It would be the last of the judgments needed to judge the wicked who had not gotten resurrected, and had not accepted Christ. It seems to me at this point they can be saved but are precluded from the celestial kingdom anyway by their denial of Christ until the bitter end. None such can inherit the CK. The last resurrection will operate as a filter in this regard.

Quote

Also, this earth will not become the Celestial kingdom until after the millennium.  The earth will be purified and receive a paradisaical glory at the time of the millennium, but it is not until after the millenium that it will receive its Celestial glory -

Ok well we agree here. That doesn't mean there is not a CK before that point - is there some point in denying entry to the resurrected?

(And just JYI, I tend to be a stickler for scriptural evidence. I realize GAs have made certain interpretations, but have found them to be wrong before - no offense to them). If there is none, I appreciate your efforts.  

(P.S. It would be terrible if the wicked get Saturn - I really like that planet... It does need a bit of terraforming though)

Edited October 17, 2018 by RevTestament

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Our conception of what is necessary may be personal, subjective, and relative, but I would submit that God may not agree with your personal opinions.  He has his own.  The point is to try and align our conceptions with God's.  That process evolves in the church as more is revealed line upon line...  

D&C 137 absolutely does not contradict "later innovations about the need for temple ordinances".  

None of this contradicts the need for ordinances.  The ordinances of baptism for the dead were revealed shortly after this revelation.  Line upon line.  Baptism falls under the "works" mentioned in vs. 9.  No contradiction.

And there's this....one of the few scriptural quotes of God the Father:

Quote

2 Nephi 31: 

4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

(And just JYI, I tend to be a stickler for scriptural evidence. I realize GAs have made certain interpretations, but have found them to be wrong before - no offense to them). If there is none, I appreciate your efforts.  

Quote

We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, (Rom. 14:10)

Quote

All must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One, (2 Ne. 9:15).

Quote

even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged” (Mosiah 27:31).

Quote

the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works (Matt. 16:27).

In other words, after the second coming.

Quote

 

The Book of Mormon teaches that the final judgment will occur only after we have conquered the first or physical death through the resurrection: “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God” (2 Ne. 9:15)

 

It is clear in the BOM that resurrection comes before final judgment, so there is that...

Great article from Terry Ball, who was an associate professor of ancient scripture, about final judgment.  He references all of the scriptures and more:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-and-message-four-gospels/1-final-judgment

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Our conception of what is necessary may be personal, subjective, and relative, but I would submit that God may not agree with your personal opinions.  He has his own.  The point is to try and align our conceptions with God's.  That process evolves in the church as more is revealed line upon line...  

If what is necessary is relative, then it can vary by person and context.  I agree with you that attempting to align our will with the divine will is a worthy endeavor.  The church can also play a part, but I think too many people outsource their agency to the church.  Ultimately we ought to be more accountable for what we believe and be agents for ourselves not just acted upon by external forces like institutional authority.  That’s Satan’s plan in my view of Mormon cosmology, and unfortunately the correlated marching orders feed this ideal.  I would point out that the BoM warns about the all is well in Zion mentality that we’re seeing promoted today in the church.  

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

None of this contradicts the need for ordinances.  The ordinances of baptism for the dead were revealed shortly after this revelation.  Line upon line.  Baptism falls under the "works" mentioned in vs. 9.  No contradiction.

I disagree as I don’t see baptism as a “work” and can’t recall any scriptural support for that interpretation.  Also the verses in 137 are pretty clearly emphasizing that baptism isn’t required as a saving ordinance for those who don’t have the gospel or arent at an understanding of accountability.  It says nothing about them needing baptism, and explicitly states they are celestial heirs without it.  In that sense it directly contradicts the later theology of vicarious baptism.  

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm sure it's not -- I was just teasing him  

 

I am so glad and happy when I put foot in mouth!!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, good point, but I don't think that changes my point that Joseph's vision for the future in 1836 did not include the ideas of vicarious temple rituals that developed during Nauvoo and later in Mormonism.  They weren't conceived of yet, and therefore weren't necessary for entrance into the celestial kingdom.  

That kind of reasoning strikes me as similar to saying because JS, Senior and his wife weren't dead yet, death wasn't necessary for entrance into the CK.  The vision being a vision of the future allows for pretty much anything to be learned later if God knows Alvin and others will accept the proxy work that will be done for them.

I suspect there will be many things we are currently unaware of that we will need to learn about, do/accept prior to judgment day and resurrection.  There would be no need to teach anyone anything in the Spirit Prison that they had not a chance to reject if your position was accurate.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[strappinglad]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph's vision places Alvin in a saved condition in the Celestial Kingdom, prior to vicarious rituals that were innovated later.  So essentially Alvin didn't need the temple work to get there, he was already there.  

You keep viewing time as linear.

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

That kind of reasoning strikes me as similar to saying because JS, Senior and his wife weren't dead yet, death wasn't necessary for entrance into the CK.  The vision being a vision of the future allows for pretty much anything to be learned later if God knows Alvin and others will accept the proxy work that will be done for them.

I suspect there will be many things we are currently unaware of that we will need to learn about, do/accept prior to judgment day and resurrection.  There would be no need to teach anyone anything in the Spirit Prison that they had not a chance to reject if your position was accurate.

This concept that anything can change or be learned at any point in the future, when taken to its logical conclusion, essentially supports my earlier points about relativity and universality.  Theology has changed throughout the short history of Mormonism and the longer history of all organized religions.  It will change again in the future, that is a sure bet.  So which conceptions throughout time are the best ones, most true, most closely aligned with the divine will?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I would say it depends on context and also that there is more than one right answer. 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

You keep viewing time as linear.

I’m making a historical observation about what the thinking was at that point in time.   Read my reply to Calm if you think I’m stuck in a linear view of things, precisely the opposite, hence my preference for relative thinking.  

[Calm]

Quote

Your guess is as good as mine.

Assuming our connection/spiritual insight with the Spirit is equivalent on a issue, you are likely right.  However that is a big assumption.  

This does not the least bit imply though, imo, that all possibilities are equal or that we should look on the eternities as random or that this removes responsibility for acting on the inspiration we have at this moment now rather than dismissing some principle because we think it may change in expression in the future.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Awww, so you wouldn't give me a glass of water and a shoulder to cry on?  

I don't think of you as an apostate, Brother. -- just one of the "separated brethren."  I consider you a friend, along with a number of other Roman Catholic friends I have met along the way.  I used to attend mass regularly, and enjoyed it tremendously.  The homilies and the music were right on point.  Very satisfying.

Roman Catholics have been very kind to me over the years, and I remember them with great warmth.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking of the vision/dream Joseph had of his brother Alvin, being in heaven, even though he died before he was baptized.  How does that ideal square with later theological conceptions?  This dream happened before baptisms for the dead and temple rituals were innovated.  There is a strain within Mormonism of a more universal salvation, the BoM has some of this as well.  The way I look at it, you can't dismiss these elements within the tradition.  Some people might interpret them differently by saying certain ideas supersede others, but I don't think its that simple to dismiss certain concepts.  

As for going to the temple, there may be many reasons a person wants to go to the temple.  Right now, if I wanted to go, it would not be because I believe the temple is literally necessary from a saving ordinance perspective.  It would be because I want to participate with people that I care about, in symbolic rituals that have meaning for various participants.  And just to be clear, this represents an evolution for me personally.  If you had asked me even one year ago if I would want to attend the temple again, I would have told you no.  Emotionally I think I've been maturing in how I view my church membership and its opening a door in my life for possibly participating again.  And I'm starting to think about how I might approach a recommend interview with personal authenticity and integrity.  

The vision you refer to was a vision of the future. This must be so when you consider that Joseph’s own father was among those he saw, and his father had not yet died. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't think of you as an apostate, Brother. -- just one of the "separated brethren."  I consider you a friend, along with a number of other Roman Catholic friends I have met along the way.  I used to attend mass regularly, and enjoyed it tremendously.  The homilies and the music were right on point.  Very satisfying.

Roman Catholics have been very kind to me over the years, and I remember them with great warmth.

I too have become fond of MiserereNobis to the extent one can with an anonymous person on an Internet forum. 

[CV75]

On 10/16/2018 at 7:56 PM, SouthernMo said:

Church leadership has laid out clear questions to determine one’s temple worthiness.

If someone answers “no” (or incorrectly) to any of the questions, does that put the bishop or stake president in a position in which they MUST not issue or renew the recommend?  Or, is there discretion given to local leaders to give leeway as they follow the spirit in instances in which a member does not affirm the questions correctly?

Asking for a friend...

The person who thinks so won't seek a recommend (but if he wants one will talk to the bishop anyway); the person that doesn't think so will seek a recommend.