Families and the Plan of Salvation/Exaltation

Navidad · January 13, 2020

Yesterday in sacrament meeting, one of the speakers said, “The family is not a part of salvation; the family is the plan of salvation.” That sounded to me like a quote from some talk somewhere. It sounded nice but didn’t make sense to me. I have always thought that the correct LDS differential is that salvation is an individual thing and exaltation is a family thing. I came home and browsed around the LDS website, but didn’t find answers for my questions. There are almost never examples of negative situations in LDS teaching aides.

So, I find myself in the familiar State of Chihuahua, engaged in my familiar state of confusion! I am confused about this LDS biological family for eternity emphasis. I would like to ask some questions; perhaps someone here would help me with them:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever? Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope) they will end up with their families together. Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons? Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy? Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have little interest in living with my dad for eternity. If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites, in and of themselves change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity? Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out? If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did? Doesn't repentance play a key role in addition to the act of proxy sealings?

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow? Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased? Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that? I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma(who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine? Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection? If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

I don’t want to go on with my questions. I would value it if someone knows of a few real live sources that deal with real live no kidding issues in how this family-forever salvation/exaltation doctrine really no kidding in actuality plays out for the no kidding average church member.

No kidding, how does all this work in dysfunctional family situations? Someone in elders quorum yesterday mentioned that four of his six children have left the church. Is his hope for exaltation shattered? I have never heard a testimony in the ward where someone has said “I know I have no hope of exaltation because of my messed-up family situation going back four generations!” Or, “I am related to Ervil LeBaron (a reality in our ward) and I don’t want to live with him for eternity!” So, how does this all work?

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology? My wife and I sat up late into the night last night talking about all of this. Thanks so much

Edited January 14, 2020 by Navidad

Duncan · January 13, 2020

it's a take off of a quotation from Elder McConkie's 'the atonement is not part of the gospel, it is the gospel'-I think it's from Mormon Doctrine

Metis_LDS · January 13, 2020

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever?

A long time ago I remember reading one of the Presidents of the Church talk about this. I think it was one of the Smiths and he said If you are Celestial and your children are not then they could visit you at times. I would be hard pressed to find this quote maybe someone else knows it.

The Nehor · January 13, 2020

1. No idea of the statistics but while I agree that mercy cannot rob justice I suspect mercy to be more potent. I do not know how many will make it or if I will but that is the way of it until My election is made sure or I receive a lesser glory at the last day. Either way I doubt I will complain of the outcome and that is saying something because I complain a lot.

2. There is no magic in death that turns sinners into saints or saints into sinners. All except those in Perdition will repent to some extent before the end but we are not given statistics on how many.

3. The children will presumably go with whom they choose. Some may choose neither. Maybe there is some middle way to stay with both. No one who qualifies for an eternal family will look at that family in disgust and wish they had another.

4. Being together in the Spirit World is not proof of exaltation. Nor does not being an eternal family make you forget or not care about others. It is a prerequisite for some blessings.

Metis_LDS · January 13, 2020

23 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

A long time ago I remember reading one of the Presidents of the Church talk about this. I think it was one of the Smiths and he said If you are Celestial and your children are not then they could visit you at times. I would be hard pressed to find this quote maybe someone else knows it.

This Joseph Fielding Smith, Selections of Doctrines of Salvation, p. 180 I added the (sealed). “Parental claim on children born under covenant. All children (sealed) born under the covenant belong to their parents in eternity, but that does not mean that they, because of that birthright, will inherit celestial glory. The faith and faithfulness of fathers and mothers will not save disobedient children. Salvation is an individual matter, and if a person who has been born under the covenant rebels and denies the Lord, he will lose the blessings of exaltation. This not the quote I was talking about but it does explain some things.

JAHS · January 13, 2020

Here is what Joseph Fielding Smith said in The Doctrines of Salvation:
"Outside the Celestial kingdom there is no family unit. That organization is reserved for those willing to abide in every covenant and every obligation which we are called upon to receive while we sojourn here in this mortal life(p. 67)
...children left without one and maybe without both parents, to be taken perhaps through the mercy of the Almighty into some other faithful family, to be adopted in such a family to be theirs through all eternity...(p. 83) All children born in the covenant belong to their parents in eternity but that does not mean that they, because of that birthright, will inherit celestial glory. The faith and the faithfulness of fathers and mothers will not save disobedient children. Salvation is an individual matter, and if a person who has been born in the covenant rebels and denies the Lord, he will lose the blessings of exaltation.
But children born in the covenant, who drift away, are still the children of their parents; and the parents have a claim upon them; and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, the parents may be able to bring them through repentance, into the Celestial kingdom, but not to receive the exaltation.
When a man and a women are married in the temple for time and all eternity and then separate, the children will go with the parent who is justified and who has kept the commandments. If neither of them has kept his covenants, the children may be taken away from both of them and given to somebody else, and that would be by virtue of being born in the covenant." (p. 91-92)

Being born in the covenant or being sealed means that you are sealed into God's eternal patriarchal family, which includes all exalted beings being members of this family, regardless of whether they were biologically related in life. In the end a person will most likely be with his or her spouse forever and not necessarily with their children, although I am sure they will be able to see them and associate with them there. In reality the children will be with their own spouses forever, becoming gods and as a couple will have eternal increase by producing their own spirit children.

JAHS · January 13, 2020

39 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

A long time ago I remember reading one of the Presidents of the Church talk about this. I think it was one of the Smiths and he said If you are Celestial and your children are not then they could visit you at times. I would be hard pressed to find this quote maybe someone else knows it.

President Joseph Fielding Smith said:
"For we read also here in this vision, where the glories are spoken of, that those who dwell in the celestial kingdom shall minister unto those of the terrestrial kingdom; those in the terrestrial kingdom shall minister to those of the telestial kingdom.
The Son may go to the terrestrial, but they who enter into that kingdom shall not receive the fulness of the Father; they will not see the greatness of his glory. He withholds that from them. They never come back again into the fulness of his presence. Those who enter into the telestial kingdom will not receive the fulness of the Father or of the Son. They will not visit there but will send messengers to visit the inhabitants of that glory and instruct them.
Those in the terrestrial kingdom shall visit those in the telestial kingdom, and those of the celestial shall visit those in the terrestrial kingdom. Where the Father is these cannot come, for the Lord has said: "Where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end. (D&C 76:112)" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 2, p.5)

And Apostle Melvin J. Ballard said:
"I have several times been asked, how is it possible for those who attain celestial glory to ever feel happy and satisfied to know that their children are in the telestial world, and never would have the privilege of coming up with their parents in the celestial kingdom.
We must not overlook the fact that those who attain to the higher glories may minister unto and visit and associate with those of the lesser kingdoms. While the lesser may not come up, they may still enjoy the companionship of their loved ones who are in higher station. Also we must not forget that even the least degree of glory, as the Lord has expressed it, is beyond all our present understanding. So that they are in the presence of glorious conditions, even though they attain unto the least place," ("The Degrees of Glory" A Discourse by Melvin J. Ballard, Delivered in the Ogden Tabernacle, September 22, 1922)

So it's possible that the parents will visit their children in a lower kingdom as part of their ministry.

Edited January 13, 2020 by JAHS

longview · January 13, 2020

small percentage? are you thinking less than 5%? I am thinking when Jesus said FEW, it could mean as many as 1/3 of those that qualified for the Second Estate. Which is a LOT of people (billions upon billions). D&C 132: 22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me. 23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also. 24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. 25 Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.
I grew up in a dysfunctional family. My father had tremendous problems and was an abusive drinker. Some of his issues came from his father who suffered a serious skull fracture and consequent major changes in his personality (frequent epilepsy and fits of anger). But they were both good men (at least some of the time). I received spiritual witness of that. The Power of the Atonement is an AMAZING source of healing and reconciliation. It is overwhelming.
everybody makes choices that certainly are NOT optimal. Most divorces actually are not justified. All parties could have used more meekness, humility, self examination, etc, so that they can permit themselves opportunities for growth, learning conflict resolution skills, forgiveness, greater maturity, etc.
I don't think I have ever heard of a "neutral spirit world" where you would do nothing but wait for the final judgment. Jesus gave the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Beggar Named Lazarus (see Luke 16:19-31). He explained there is a great gulf dividing the Place of Rest (Abraham's Bosom) and the Place of Torment. Read also of Jesus' visit to the Spirit World contained in D&C 138. It is very illuminating! It explains there are still opportunities for missionary work among wicked spirits (disembodied), repentance, for accepting proxy temple work, etc.

CV75 · January 13, 2020

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology? My wife and I sat up late into the night last night talking about all of this. Thanks so much

1. The plan of redemption exalts all God’s children in families, and each individual must choose to receive it in order to realize it. Ultimately God is one big family.

2. In D&C 110 we have the keys of Moses (gathering the covenant families), Elias (adopting families into the covenant), and Elijah (sealing through the generations to Adam and Eve and then to Christ). In line with 1, each individual must choose to abide the conditions of the covenants entailed in the ordinances performed by those keys to realize exaltation in the Church of the Firstborn.

3. The sealing keys both loose and bind, so divorce is a non-issue concerning anything in 2.

4. No, they go to a prison or a paradise in the spirit world, and hopefully choose to progress from there consistent with 1 and 2.

There is no “average Church member” in the Lord’s eyes or in the plan, keys, covenants and choices. All situations are covered by the Lord’s Atonement (see comment below about “dysfunction”), and all are called to be perfect even as Christ and the Father.

Regarding “dysfunction”: See D&C 88:49, “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true blight that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.”

I would begin with seeking a witness of the Book of Mormon and seek answers to your questions from there.

Edited January 13, 2020 by CV75

Metis_LDS · January 13, 2020

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have no interest in living with my dad for eternity.

Did you know that Abraham's father plotted to kill him. No Joking, that made me feel better. No one will have any unrighteous power over us in the next life.

Maidservant · January 14, 2020

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever? Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope) they will end up with their families together. Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons? Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy? Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have no interest in living with my dad for eternity. If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity? Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out? If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did?

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow? Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased? Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that? I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma(who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine? Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection? If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

These are the kinds of questions that each individual wrestles with for a lifetime. There is not a chapter and verse that settles it once and for all, that we can just hand to you. That's not what church or gospel teaching on eternity is or could possibly be. We each have pondered and wrestled and cried and wondered and prayed and thought through a variety of scriptures and experiences (with our own unique/broken families) in order to come to our personal understandings. In other words, the process of personal revelation.

Many of us find deeper answers--or at least deeper questions--than the primary lessons we learned when young. That's how it is supposed to be. First there is milk then meat. First there is a dark glass and then it becomes clear.

You have to find out for yourself, Navidad. No one can tell you except God. And it's not going to look like a prophet's quote or a primary lesson or a 2-D myth/cosmos or a couple of "proof" scriptures. It will be paradoxical and nuanced and full of love and mercy and the challenge to be our best selves and the challenge to be in union with one another.

No one has THE answer yet. We just have clues.

If you want to hear the state of what each person's personal revelation is at this time and how or why they believe at this time, so that your own revelatory process can be inspired, then we can share. If you want a paragraph that is going to state authoritatively by "LDS" what is going to happen on a daily basis for millions and billions and trillions of years into the future as we continue to live, act, progress, love, enjoy, etc . . . fresh out.

mfbukowski · January 14, 2020

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yesterday in sacrament meeting, one of the speakers said, “The family is not a part of salvation; the family is the plan of salvation.” That sounded to me like a quote from some talk somewhere. It sounded nice but didn’t make sense to me. I have always thought that the correct LDS differential is that salvation is an individual thing and exaltation is a family thing. I came home and browsed around the LDS website, but didn’t find answers for my questions. There are almost never examples of negative situations in LDS teaching aides.

So, I find myself in the familiar State of Chihuahua, engaged in my familiar state of confusion! I am confused about this LDS biological family for eternity emphasis. I would like to ask some questions; perhaps someone here would help me with them:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever? Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope) they will end up with their families together. Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons? Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy? Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have no interest in living with my dad for eternity. If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity? Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out? If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did?

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow? Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased? Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that? I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma(who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine? Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection? If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

I don’t want to go on with my questions. I would value it if someone knows of a few real live sources that deal with real live no kidding issues in how this family-forever salvation/exaltation doctrine really no kidding in actuality plays out for the no kidding average church member.

No kidding, how does all this work in dysfunctional family situations? Someone in elders quorum yesterday mentioned that four of his six children have left the church. Is his hope for exaltation shattered? I have never heard a testimony in the ward where someone has said “I know I have no hope of exaltation because of my messed-up family situation going back four generations!” Or, “I am related to Ervil LeBaron (a reality in our ward) and I don’t want to live with him for eternity!” So, how does this all work?

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology? My wife and I sat up late into the night last night talking about all of this. Thanks so much

This is in no way a personal criticism of you, but of what you have been taught.

I cannot imagine in all the Sunday school classes you have attended, why all of these questions have not been covered.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-20?lang=eng

Does it make sense that if your marriage vows said "til death do we part" then God will give you marriage BEYOND death?

You already covenanted to leave each other at death! Unless you marry in a temple....

Who else offers that promise?

Now, one by one:

Quote

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever? Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope) they will end up with their families together. Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons? Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy? Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

As these articles point out, all those who receive the ordinance of temple sealing, and obey the commandments, are promised eternal marriage and eternal life, meaning exaltation. Eternal life does not just mean "living forever"- it means the same kind of life as God has. They will be gods.

Quote

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have no interest in living with my dad for eternity. If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity? Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out? If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did?

Do you think Christ could possibly forgive your father and see him and his problems as resulting probably from his own childhood and then he became the author of his own misery? Would it be more "Christian" to be able to forgive him and forget or to keep your anger toward him? IF he desired to repent and did so to the best of his abiity, I am sure that Christ would forgive him- THAT is the promise. If he became more spiritual than you if you (theoretically) refused to forgive him, who would be acting more like Christ?

People can change and eternity is a long time- we have that long to learn and will continue progressing for all that "time"

Quote

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow? Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

It is not for us to judge others and who was more or less "justified" for divorce and we cannot know if those divorced later made ammends or not.

Do you think God is fair? Do you have the faith to think that HE will know how to resolve this in the most loving way? These are some of the mysteries we will simply have to live through to understand and see how He judges as we ourselves continue our learning.

Quote

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased? Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that? I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma(who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine? Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection? If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

Yes it is correct.

Remember "being together" is not the same as having a marriage relationship while you have having spiritual children. We don't know how that all works, but exaltation is post-resurrection obviously. Yes I am sure if you are together in the spirit world and love your family it will be an indicator of what is to come after the resurrection.

We are returned to our families in the spirit world- IF we are worthy and have progressed enough to be able to forgive them. Paradise would not be paradise having to hang out with people you hate- so either we are going to have to change to love them, or they change enough to love you, or you will not be together. Not being together in the spirit world seems to be a poor way to ensure being together forever after the resurrection, don't you think? Remember for us repentance continues in the spirit world, because conversion to the gospel itself is possible in the spirit world- that's why we offer the dead to accept or not accept the ordinances we do for them in the temple.

It's LIKE being here in the world. If you do not resolve your divorce here, will it be different there? Maybe yes, maybe no.

So we can repent- they can repent or either or both of us remain unrepentant. It's up to us, and that determines how we are finally judged.

Quote

I don’t want to go on with my questions. I would value it if someone knows of a few real live sources that deal with real live no kidding issues in how this family-forever salvation/exaltation doctrine really no kidding in actuality plays out for the no kidding average church member.

I gave you two good sources- there are hundreds more on LDS org.

Quote

No kidding, how does all this work in dysfunctional family situations? Someone in elders quorum yesterday mentioned that four of his six children have left the church. Is his hope for exaltation shattered? I have never heard a testimony in the ward where someone has said “I know I have no hope of exaltation because of my messed-up family situation going back four generations!” Or, “I am related to Ervil LeBaron (a reality in our ward) and I don’t want to live with him for eternity!” So, how does this all work?

I am surprised that member does not know that repentance continues in the spirit world. What else is it for? Why not be instantly resurrected to a kingdom if learning does not continue in the spirit world? How are those who have never heard of Christ to learn of Him if we cannot learn and progress in the spirit world? That is an area where Protestantism is highly deficient in my view- what of those who lived in a time/place where Christianity was never taught?

Quote

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology? My wife and I sat up late into the night last night talking about all of this. Thanks so much

There are differences in ALL matters of LDS theology precisely because we are to interpret the scriptures for ourselves and use personal revelation

We do not have a Magesterium.

Edited January 14, 2020 by mfbukowski

Navidad · January 14, 2020

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is in no way a personal criticism of you, but of what you have been taught.

I cannot imagine in all the Sunday school classes you have attended, why all of these questions have not been covered.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-20?lang=eng

Does it make sense that if your marriage vows said "til death do we part" then God will give you marriage BEYOND death?

You already covenanted to leave each other at death! Unless you marry in a temple....

Who else offers that promise?

Now, one by one:

As these articles point out, all those who receive the ordinance of temple sealing, and obey the commandments, are promised eternal marriage and eternal life, meaning exaltation. Eternal life does not just mean "living forever"- it means the same kind of life as God has. They will be gods.

Do you think Christ could possibly forgive your father and see him and his problems as resulting probably from his own childhood and then he became the author of his own misery? Would it be more "Christian" to be able to forgive him and forget or to keep your anger toward him? IF he desired to repent and did so to the best of his abiity, I am sure that Christ would forgive him- THAT is the promise. If he became more spiritual than you if you (theoretically) refused to forgive him, who would be acting more like Christ?

People can change and eternity is a long time- we have that long to learn and will continue progressing for all that "time"

It is not for us to judge others and who was more or less "justified" for divorce and we cannot know if those divorced later made ammends or not.

Do you think God is fair? Do you have the faith to think that HE will know how to resolve this in the most loving way? These are some of the mysteries we will simply have to live through to understand and see how He judges as we ourselves continue our learning.

Yes it is correct.

Remember "being together" is not the same as having a marriage relationship while you have having spiritual children. We don't know how that all works, but exaltation is post-resurrection obviously. Yes I am sure if you are together in the spirit world and love your family it will be an indicator of what is to come after the resurrection.

We are returned to our families in the spirit world- IF we are worthy and have progressed enough to be able to forgive them. Paradise would not be paradise having to hang out with people you hate- so either we are going to have to change to love them, or they change enough to love you, or you will not be together. Not being together in the spirit world seems to be a poor way to ensure being together forever after the resurrection, don't you think? Remember for us repentance continues in the spirit world, because conversion to the gospel itself is possible in the spirit world- that's why we offer the dead to accept or not accept the ordinances we do for them in the temple.

It's LIKE being here in the world. If you do not resolve your divorce here, will it be different there? Maybe yes, maybe no.

So we can repent- they can repent or either or both of us remain unrepentant. It's up to us, and that determines how we are finally judged.

I gave you two good sources- there are hundreds more on LDS org.

I am surprised that member does not know that repentance continues in the spirit world. What else is it for? Why not be instantly resurrected to a kingdom if learning does not continue in the spirit world? How are those who have never heard of Christ to learn of Him if we cannot learn and progress in the spirit world? That is an area where Protestantism is highly deficient in my view- what of those who lived in a time/place where Christianity was never taught?

There are differences in ALL matters of LDS theology precisely because we are to interpret the scriptures for ourselves and use personal revelation

We do not have a Magesterium.

My friend I love this little article by church member Gordon Smith on the Times and Seasons website:

"When the topic turns to marriage, someone in Gospel Doctrine class inevitably refers with derision to that famous phrase from traditional marriage vows, “’til death do us part.” To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “I do not think this [phrase] means what you think it means.” Mormons have a nasty habit of caricaturing other religions. Of course, we do not have a monopoly on this practice, but we should be more charitable.

From the tone of comments that I have heard in various Gospel Doctrine classes, I infer that many Mormons think of the phrase “’til death do us part” as evidence of a doctrine of eternal separation. A charitable reading of the phrase, however, suggests that the focus is on a noble intention to remain committed during this earthly life. (Indeed, when you consider the modern alternatives, “’til death do us part” seems quite elevated.) It is also an accurate description of the effect of physical death, at least when one of the marriage partners remains alive. Most significantly, it says nothing about the ultimate destiny of the couple, thus reflecting either uncertainty about the details of the afterlife or a belief that marriage will be replaced with some greater union (e.g., of all of the righteous into God) after death.

We Mormons are right to be thankful for the doctrine of eternal marriage, which eliminates the uncertainty and provides a compelling vision of the role of families in the plan of salvation. Why does our gratitude so often find expression in mockery?"

I couldn't agree more with him about the the phrase and the mocking part. I regret it when either my LDS and non-LDS Christian friends enjoy engaging in mockery of the other. It happens too often. That is what I think makes God cry. Speaking of crying, we only have one recorded time in the Old Testament that Abraham cries - it is at his wife Sarah's death. It is touching scene with implications that we are all strangers and sojourners on this earth. As I have written on this forum before I have always believe that I am first and foremost a part of the family of God. I believe I will be together with the family of God (however Christ chooses to define that for individuals from his judgment seat). I have no strong belief about whether I will know my wife in heaven as such and remember all our wonderful times together. However it will play out, I am pretty sure she will be with me in the same heaven and it is very possible that we will be as family. Our faith, not our exaltation will make that happen. Then the marriage of the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (the Christian Church) will take place in heaven. I do believe marriage as we know it foreshadows that most perfect marriage of all - the resurrected Christ with his resurrected Church!

The phrase "Til death us do part" is the same for every LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian, it only speaks to the temporal loss here on earth. It says nothing about eternity. I agree with Gordon Smith!

Edited January 14, 2020 by Navidad

Tacenda · January 14, 2020

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

My friend I love this little article by church member Gordon Smith on the Times and Seasons website:

"When the topic turns to marriage, someone in Gospel Doctrine class inevitably refers with derision to that famous phrase from traditional marriage vows, “’til death do us part.” To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “I do not think this [phrase] means what you think it means.” Mormons have a nasty habit of caricaturing other religions. Of course, we do not have a monopoly on this practice, but we should be more charitable.

From the tone of comments that I have heard in various Gospel Doctrine classes, I infer that many Mormons think of the phrase “’til death do us part” as evidence of a doctrine of eternal separation. A charitable reading of the phrase, however, suggests that the focus is on a noble intention to remain committed during this earthly life. (Indeed, when you consider the modern alternatives, “’til death do us part” seems quite elevated.) It is also an accurate description of the effect of physical death, at least when one of the marriage partners remains alive. Most significantly, it says nothing about the ultimate destiny of the couple, thus reflecting either uncertainty about the details of the afterlife or a belief that marriage will be replaced with some greater union (e.g., of all of the righteous into God) after death.

We Mormons are right to be thankful for the doctrine of eternal marriage, which eliminates the uncertainty and provides a compelling vision of the role of families in the plan of salvation. Why does our gratitude so often find expression in mockery?"

I couldn't agree more with him about the the phrase and the mocking part. I regret it when either my LDS and non-LDS Christian friends enjoy engaging in mockery of the other. It happens too often. That is what I think makes God cry. Speaking of crying, we only have one recorded time in the Old Testament that Abraham cries - it is at his wife Sarah's death. It is touching scene with implications that we are all strangers and sojourners on this earth. As I have written on this forum before I have always believe that I am first and foremost a part of the family of God. I believe I will be together with the family of God (however Christ chooses to define that for individuals from his judgment seat). I have no strong belief about whether I will know my wife in heaven as such and remember all our wonderful times together. However it will play out, I am pretty sure she will be with me in the same heaven and it is very possible that we will be as family. Our faith, not our exaltation will make that happen. Then the marriage of the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (the Christian Church) will take place in heaven. I do believe marriage as we know it foreshadows that most perfect marriage of all - the resurrected Christ with his resurrected Church!

The phrase "Til death us do part" is the same for every LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian, it only speaks to the temporal loss here on earth. It says nothing about eternity. I agree with Gordon Smith!

Wow! Never thought of it this way, that is amazing. Because death will separate you temporarily from your loved one, doesn't mean you're no longer married.

ETA: Here is another thought as well, it means husband and wife are together and shouldn't ever part ways, unless the only thing to separate you is death.

"till death do us part" is a part of some traditional wedding vows. The signifies that the married couple intend to spend the remainder of their lives together - They will be parted only by death. part - note that it is used as a verb in this instance. S: (v) separate, part, split (go one's own way; move apart) "The.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Tacenda

smac97 · January 14, 2020

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yesterday in sacrament meeting, one of the speakers said, “The family is not a part of salvation; the family is the plan of salvation.” That sounded to me like a quote from some talk somewhere. It sounded nice but didn’t make sense to me.

I think it's more an emotive expression, rather than a clinically precise exposition on Latter-day Saint soteriology.

Quote

I have always thought that the correct LDS differential is that salvation is an individual thing and exaltation is a family thing.

We are universalists in a sense. But exaltation necessarily requires the "family thing." That is the Plan of Salvation in its fullest flower.

Quote

I came home and browsed around the LDS website, but didn’t find answers for my questions. There are almost never examples of negative situations in LDS teaching aides.

So, I find myself in the familiar State of Chihuahua, engaged in my familiar state of confusion! I am confused about this LDS biological family for eternity emphasis.

We don't have a "biological family for enternity emphasis." Just a "family for eternity" emphasis.

I have three adopted siblings. They are as bound to my parents as I am.

Quote

I would like to ask some questions; perhaps someone here would help me with them:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever?

I don't know about that. I think the mercy of God will be far more profound than we can presently comprehend.

Quote

Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope) they will end up with their families together.

Yes, that is what we believe and hope.

Quote

Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons?

I'm not sure what this means. I think exaltation is available to all who want it.

Quote

Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy?

God will judge such things.

Quote

Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

Nope. Such ordinances must be ratified, or "sealed," by the Holy Spirit of Promise. See here.

Quote

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have little interest in living with my dad for eternity.

I don't think any of us will be compelled to have such relationships. Meanwhile, we must be content with our finite, blinkered perspective of "see{ing} through a glass, darkly," exercise faith and repentance, forgive and serve others, and trust that God is both just and merciful, and will sort all such things out in the end. And that He will do so in ways that transcend our ability to comprehend.

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor. 2:9.)

Quote

If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites, in and of themselves change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity?

I don't think so. He must choose to change himself.

"Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." (Alma 34:34.)

"And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?" (Alma 5:26.)

Quote

Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out?

With justice and mercy and equanimity. I don't know the particulars, but I trust that God is at the helm.

Quote

If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did?

Through the proxy work alone? No. He must repent, if he can. He must choose.

Quote

Doesn't repentance play a key role in addition to the act of proxy sealings?

Yes, it does.

Quote

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow?

A good and fair question. I think the best answer is "We don't know. We currently lack sufficient light and knowledge to speak intelligently as to the particulars of such a situation. However, the Lord will sort out such things."

Brigham Young indicated this will be a big part of the work during the Millennium:

Quote

In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God {see Revelation 3:12}, and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. … And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then {children} will be sealed to {parents} until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene.

This will be the work of the Latter-day Saints in the Millennium (DBY, 116).

I think it stands to reason that this "perfect chain" will only involve those who choose to be in it.

Quote

Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

No. The only person can only deprive himself of such blessings. Through his choices.

Quote

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased?

This article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism condenses things down quite nicely.

Quote

Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that?

We really aren't in a position to declare such things as to any particular person.

Quote

I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma (who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine?

I believe so, though I am not sure if we can speak definitively of such things. From the above article:

Quote

The relative conditions and state of mind in the two spheres of the postmortal spirit world are described by the Prophet Joseph Smith: "The spirits of the just are exalted to a greater and more glorious work; hence they are blessed in their departure to the world of spirits. Enveloped in flaming fire, they are not far from us, and know and understand our thoughts, feelings, and motions, and are often pained therewith" (TPJS, p. 326). On the other hand, "The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, and they are their own accusers" (TPJS, pp. 310-11).

A statement regarding conditions in the spirit world among the righteous was given in 1856 by Jedediah M. Grant, a member of the First Presidency. He had related to President Heber C. Kimball a vision he had had of the spirit world, which President Kimball subsequently discussed at Grant's funeral a few days later on December 4, 1856. Although an unofficial statement, it represents concepts generally held by Latter-day Saints. A summary follows: Jedediah Grant saw the righteous gathered together in the spirit world; there were no wicked spirits among them. There were order, government, and organization. Among the righteous there was no disorder, darkness, or confusion. They were organized into families, and there was "perfect harmony." He saw his wife, with whom he conversed, and many other persons whom he knew. There was "a deficiency in some" families, because some individuals "had not honored their calling" on earth and therefore were not "permitted to dwell together."

Hope this helps.

Quote

Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection?

I would think that those who kept their covenants would enjoy some of the blessings associated therewith, but some appear to require "final judgment."

Quote

If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

I believe so.

Quote

I don’t want to go on with my questions. I would value it if someone knows of a few real live sources that deal with real live no kidding issues in how this family-forever salvation/exaltation doctrine really no kidding in actuality plays out for the no kidding average church member.

I encourage you to give the matter further thought and study.

Personally, though, I try not to get too fixated on the herafter. I hope for it yes. I have faith it will be wonderful, yes. But meanwhile, I need to focus on making sure I am exercising faith and repentance, serving others, taking care of my family, and so on. For me, dwelling too much on the future tends to distract my attentions on my current efforts. And this seems to work for me. I love my wife. I love my children. I want to keep the covenants that bind us together.

Quote

No kidding, how does all this work in dysfunctional family situations?

Again, we really aren't in a position to declare such things as to any particular person. In the face of dysfunction, I think we can exercise faith, and repentance, and forgiveness, and patience, and endurance. We should help each other out as best we can, but in the end leave such things to God.

Quote

Someone in elders quorum yesterday mentioned that four of his six children have left the church. Is his hope for exaltation shattered?

No, I don't think so.

Quote

I have never heard a testimony in the ward where someone has said “I know I have no hope of exaltation because of my messed-up family situation going back four generations!” Or, “I am related to Ervil LeBaron (a reality in our ward) and I don’t want to live with him for eternity!” So, how does this all work?

By choice. I think Lehi sums things up rather well:

Quote

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.

Yep.

Quote

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology?

I think there is a fairly broad consensus as to the framework, but some diversity of belief as to particulars.

Quote

My wife and I sat up late into the night last night talking about all of this. Thanks so much

Happy to help.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 14, 2020 by smac97

mfbukowski · January 14, 2020

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

My friend I love this little article by church member Gordon Smith on the Times and Seasons website:

"When the topic turns to marriage, someone in Gospel Doctrine class inevitably refers with derision to that famous phrase from traditional marriage vows, “’til death do us part.” To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “I do not think this [phrase] means what you think it means.” Mormons have a nasty habit of caricaturing other religions. Of course, we do not have a monopoly on this practice, but we should be more charitable.

From the tone of comments that I have heard in various Gospel Doctrine classes, I infer that many Mormons think of the phrase “’til death do us part” as evidence of a doctrine of eternal separation. A charitable reading of the phrase, however, suggests that the focus is on a noble intention to remain committed during this earthly life. (Indeed, when you consider the modern alternatives, “’til death do us part” seems quite elevated.) It is also an accurate description of the effect of physical death, at least when one of the marriage partners remains alive. Most significantly, it says nothing about the ultimate destiny of the couple, thus reflecting either uncertainty about the details of the afterlife or a belief that marriage will be replaced with some greater union (e.g., of all of the righteous into God) after death.

We Mormons are right to be thankful for the doctrine of eternal marriage, which eliminates the uncertainty and provides a compelling vision of the role of families in the plan of salvation. Why does our gratitude so often find expression in mockery?"

I couldn't agree more with him about the the phrase and the mocking part. I regret it when either my LDS and non-LDS Christian friends enjoy engaging in mockery of the other. It happens too often. That is what I think makes God cry. Speaking of crying, we only have one recorded time in the Old Testament that Abraham cries - it is at his wife Sarah's death. It is touching scene with implications that we are all strangers and sojourners on this earth. As I have written on this forum before I have always believe that I am first and foremost a part of the family of God. I believe I will be together with the family of God (however Christ chooses to define that for individuals from his judgment seat). I have no strong belief about whether I will know my wife in heaven as such and remember all our wonderful times together. However it will play out, I am pretty sure she will be with me in the same heaven and it is very possible that we will be as family. Our faith, not our exaltation will make that happen. Then the marriage of the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (the Christian Church) will take place in heaven. I do believe marriage as we know it foreshadows that most perfect marriage of all - the resurrected Christ with his resurrected Church!

The phrase "Til death us do part" is the same for every LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian, it only speaks to the temporal loss here on earth. It says nothing about eternity. I agree with Gordon Smith!

Great!

Then what is the purpose of the discussion?

You asked for Doctrine and I gave that to you, but you chose Gordon.

It's all hermeneutics anyway, so there ARE no hard answers if Gordon disagrees with the commonly accepted LDS interpretation.

You asked for Doctrine, and you got it.

No one is forcing you to accept it. It is by your own choice that you end up at that Chapel every week.

if you want a social club that's fine but then don't worry about the doctrine.

Edited January 14, 2020 by mfbukowski

Ahab · January 14, 2020

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yesterday in sacrament meeting, one of the speakers said, “The family is not a part of salvation; the family is the plan of salvation.” That sounded to me like a quote from some talk somewhere. It sounded nice but didn’t make sense to me. I have always thought that the correct LDS differential is that salvation is an individual thing and exaltation is a family thing. I came home and browsed around the LDS website, but didn’t find answers for my questions. There are almost never examples of negative situations in LDS teaching aides.

So, I find myself in the familiar State of Chihuahua, engaged in my familiar state of confusion! I am confused about this LDS biological family for eternity emphasis. I would like to ask some questions; perhaps someone here would help me with them:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever? Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope) they will end up with their families together. Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons? Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy? Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have little interest in living with my dad for eternity. If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites, in and of themselves change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity? Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out? If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did? Doesn't repentance play a key role in addition to the act of proxy sealings?

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow? Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased? Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that? I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma(who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine? Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection? If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

I don’t want to go on with my questions. I would value it if someone knows of a few real live sources that deal with real live no kidding issues in how this family-forever salvation/exaltation doctrine really no kidding in actuality plays out for the no kidding average church member.

No kidding, how does all this work in dysfunctional family situations? Someone in elders quorum yesterday mentioned that four of his six children have left the church. Is his hope for exaltation shattered? I have never heard a testimony in the ward where someone has said “I know I have no hope of exaltation because of my messed-up family situation going back four generations!” Or, “I am related to Ervil LeBaron (a reality in our ward) and I don’t want to live with him for eternity!” So, how does this all work?

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology? My wife and I sat up late into the night last night talking about all of this. Thanks so much

The easiest way I know how to think about this is in relation to covenants and how they pertain to those who enter into them. I see it as strictly between those people and nobody else. For example, if I covenant with my wife to be with her forever, with her as my wife and me as her husband, and she also enters into the same covenant with me to be my wife while I am her husband, then as long as God honors that covenant between me and my wife and my wife and I also honor our covenant with each other then we will be together as husband and wife forever, since we would have chosen to get ourselves into it and none of us would be choosing to get ourselves loosed from that covenant. All 3 of us would be honoring that covenant forever.

If on the other hand either my wife or I later chose to be loosed from that covenant, with God allowing us to be loosed from it, we would no longer be in that covenant and it would be over for us, simply because we chose to end that covenant relationship.

So now let's consider how this would or might apply to you and anyone else who might agree to get into a covenant relationship with you. If you're ever going to get into a covenant relationship with someone, with God agreeing to honor your covenant with that other person, how do you think you would get yourself into a covenant relationship with that other person and with God agreeing to honor that covenant?

Navidad · January 14, 2020

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is in no way a personal criticism of you, but of what you have been taught.

I cannot imagine in all the Sunday school classes you have attended, why all of these questions have not been covered.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-20?lang=eng

Does it make sense that if your marriage vows said "til death do we part" then God will give you marriage BEYOND death?

You already covenanted to leave each other at death! Unless you marry in a temple....

Who else offers that promise?

Now, one by one:

As these articles point out, all those who receive the ordinance of temple sealing, and obey the commandments, are promised eternal marriage and eternal life, meaning exaltation. Eternal life does not just mean "living forever"- it means the same kind of life as God has. They will be gods.

Do you think Christ could possibly forgive your father and see him and his problems as resulting probably from his own childhood and then he became the author of his own misery? Would it be more "Christian" to be able to forgive him and forget or to keep your anger toward him? IF he desired to repent and did so to the best of his abiity, I am sure that Christ would forgive him- THAT is the promise. If he became more spiritual than you if you (theoretically) refused to forgive him, who would be acting more like Christ?

People can change and eternity is a long time- we have that long to learn and will continue progressing for all that "time"

It is not for us to judge others and who was more or less "justified" for divorce and we cannot know if those divorced later made ammends or not.

Do you think God is fair? Do you have the faith to think that HE will know how to resolve this in the most loving way? These are some of the mysteries we will simply have to live through to understand and see how He judges as we ourselves continue our learning.

Yes it is correct.

Remember "being together" is not the same as having a marriage relationship while you have having spiritual children. We don't know how that all works, but exaltation is post-resurrection obviously. Yes I am sure if you are together in the spirit world and love your family it will be an indicator of what is to come after the resurrection.

We are returned to our families in the spirit world- IF we are worthy and have progressed enough to be able to forgive them. Paradise would not be paradise having to hang out with people you hate- so either we are going to have to change to love them, or they change enough to love you, or you will not be together. Not being together in the spirit world seems to be a poor way to ensure being together forever after the resurrection, don't you think? Remember for us repentance continues in the spirit world, because conversion to the gospel itself is possible in the spirit world- that's why we offer the dead to accept or not accept the ordinances we do for them in the temple.

It's LIKE being here in the world. If you do not resolve your divorce here, will it be different there? Maybe yes, maybe no.

So we can repent- they can repent or either or both of us remain unrepentant. It's up to us, and that determines how we are finally judged.

I gave you two good sources- there are hundreds more on LDS org.

I am surprised that member does not know that repentance continues in the spirit world. What else is it for? Why not be instantly resurrected to a kingdom if learning does not continue in the spirit world? How are those who have never heard of Christ to learn of Him if we cannot learn and progress in the spirit world? That is an area where Protestantism is highly deficient in my view- what of those who lived in a time/place where Christianity was never taught?

There are differences in ALL matters of LDS theology precisely because we are to interpret the scriptures for ourselves and use personal revelation

We do not have a Magesterium.

Thanks for your point by point summary of my questions. I have highlighted and italicized the part of your reply wherein you tell me what I believe about my marriage vows. I have commented about that in the quote from the Times and Seasons blog. Methinks we have a hermeneutic difference on the meaning of the non-LDS Christian vow. I have always thought I would be together with my wife in heaven - I am simply uncertain of the exact nature of the relationship, but with all the couples I have married I have never said that the "til death us do part" vow implies eternal separation. That interpretation is held by some for sure - but certainly not all. Those who source the Book of Common Prayer in their liturgy are more apt to give it an eternal significance (Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, and some Lutherans).

I perhaps should have better clarified the context of my questions. It is my fault I did not do that. I am busy researching the specific doctrinal implications of the Mormon fundamentalist movements, especially as manifested here in Mexico, together with the very complicated nature of the intersections of the same with LDS folks. So, I am tending to focus on dysfunction. This is where I got frustrated looking at the LDS resources online. In the first article you cited, Elder Nash makes the following statement: "For example, if I do not receive the ordinance and keep the covenant of baptism, I will be damned, meaning that I cannot progress—I cannot inherit the fulness of His glory. Likewise if I do not receive the ordinances of the temple and keep the associated covenants or, indeed, if I refuse to receive any of the ordinances of the gospel or if I refuse to abide by any of the associated covenants, I cannot be exalted. Instead, I will be damned, meaning that my progress will be stopped. In short, I must receive every ordinance of the gospel and abide by every associated covenant if eternal life is my desire." Pretty strong language, huh? I guess I am damned. I would understand this if he said dammed as in the big concrete thing behind my house that stops the flow of the river. But, damned is a whole different thing, unless LDS theologians have a very different concept of being spiritually damned by God! In this case, I guess the elder is saying that dysfunction leads to damnation. Maybe that is my answer!

I don't know who wrote the second article you cited, but it is even less satisfactory for answering my questions. Whoever it is again tells us what we mean by our vow: "The Latter-day Saints marry for time and eternity, not merely until death parts husband and wife. Marriages performed under the civic law and by ministers of other denominations are regarded as honorable and effectual so far as relates to this life, but in order to be effectual in the life to come such covenants must be made for eternity, such unions must be formed according to God’s law and under his authority, or they will have no force or effect hereafter." He or she also lost me by criticizing small families - "Bachelorhood and small families carry to the superficial mind the idea that they are desirable because they bring with them the minimum of responsibility. The spirit that shirks responsibility shirks labor. Idleness and pleasure take the place of industry and strenuous effort. The love of pleasure and of an easy life in turn make demands upon young men who refuse to look upon marriage and its consequent family enlargement as a sacred duty." My wife had a tumor burst on her female parts within a year or so of our marriage. She was unable after that to have children. So sometime later we adopted a severely handicapped child who 42 years later is still with us and has taken all our energy and much of our resources. I do say a hearty shame on the author for his mean-spirited words. And people wonder why we don't want to join a church that puts such terrible and mean-spirited verbiage on their website?

Sorry, I am getting off track again. I wanted you to know I followed through on the two pages you recommended. I found them helpful in some ways and very unhelpful in others. Sorry, I know that will frustrate you. I took too much of what I read personally. Sorry. I am too old and have worked too hard and have loved my son too well to be told by some anonymous author that I have a "love of pleasure and of an easy life and shirk my "sacred duty" and by another that I am damned.

Navidad · January 14, 2020

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Great!

Then what is the purpose of the discussion?

You asked for Doctrine and I gave that to you, but you chose Gordon.

It's all hermeneutics anyway, so there ARE no hard answers if Gordon disagrees with the commonly accepted LDS interpretation.

You asked for Doctrine, and you got it.

No one is forcing you to accept it. It is by your own choice that you end up at that Chapel every week.

if you want a social club that's fine but then don't worry about the doctrine.

Wow, now we are getting harsh again. Have you met many non-LDS Christians who have tried as hard as I have to understand and "worry about the doctrine?" If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were a social club I would have joined years ago. It isn't. It has views that have eternal consequences. Is it wrong for me to persevere in trying to understand such things? Is not joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a pretty important decision? My wife and I have spent countless hours, perhaps hundreds trying to understand. It isn't easy, is it? LDS doctrine is very complex with much that in the end is unknowable. One last thing. I disagree that it is "by your own choice that you end up at the Chapel every week." I strongly disagree with that. We believe it is strongly by God's choice that we are there. I am not sure of much beyond that, but I am sure of that one thing.

Ahab · January 14, 2020

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your point by point summary of my questions. I have highlighted and italicized the part of your reply wherein you tell me what I believe about my marriage vows. I have commented about that in the quote from the Times and Seasons blog. Methinks we have a hermeneutic difference on the meaning of the non-LDS Christian vow. I have always thought I would be together with my wife in heaven - I am simply uncertain of the exact nature of the relationship, but with all the couples I have married I have never said that the "til death us do part" vow implies eternal separation. That interpretation is held by some for sure - but certainly not all. Those who source the Book of Common Prayer in their liturgy are more apt to give it an eternal significance (Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, and some Lutherans).

I perhaps should have better clarified the context of my questions. It is my fault I did not do that. I am busy researching the specific doctrinal implications of the Mormon fundamentalist movements, especially as manifested here in Mexico, together with the very complicated nature of the intersections of the same with LDS folks. So, I am tending to focus on dysfunction. This is where I got frustrated looking at the LDS resources online. In the first article you cited, Elder Nash makes the following statement: "For example, if I do not receive the ordinance and keep the covenant of baptism, I will be damned, meaning that I cannot progress—I cannot inherit the fulness of His glory. Likewise if I do not receive the ordinances of the temple and keep the associated covenants or, indeed, if I refuse to receive any of the ordinances of the gospel or if I refuse to abide by any of the associated covenants, I cannot be exalted. Instead, I will be damned, meaning that my progress will be stopped. In short, I must receive every ordinance of the gospel and abide by every associated covenant if eternal life is my desire." Pretty strong language, huh? I guess I am damned. I would understand this if he said dammed as in the big concrete thing behind my house that stops the flow of the river. But, damned is a whole different thing, unless LDS theologians have a very different concept of being spiritually damned by God! In this case, I guess the elder is saying that dysfunction leads to damnation. Maybe that is my answer!

I don't know who wrote the second article you cited, but it is even less satisfactory for answering my questions. Whoever it is again tells us what we mean by our vow: "The Latter-day Saints marry for time and eternity, not merely until death parts husband and wife. Marriages performed under the civic law and by ministers of other denominations are regarded as honorable and effectual so far as relates to this life, but in order to be effectual in the life to come such covenants must be made for eternity, such unions must be formed according to God’s law and under his authority, or they will have no force or effect hereafter." He or she also lost me by criticizing small families - "Bachelorhood and small families carry to the superficial mind the idea that they are desirable because they bring with them the minimum of responsibility. The spirit that shirks responsibility shirks labor. Idleness and pleasure take the place of industry and strenuous effort. The love of pleasure and of an easy life in turn make demands upon young men who refuse to look upon marriage and its consequent family enlargement as a sacred duty." My wife had a tumor burst on her female parts within a year or so of our marriage. She was unable after that to have children. So sometime later we adopted a severely handicapped child who 42 years later is still with us and has taken all our energy and much of our resources. I do say a hearty shame on the author for his mean-spirited words. And people wonder why we don't want to join a church that puts such terrible and mean-spirited verbiage on their website?

Sorry, I am getting off track again. I wanted you to know I followed through on the two pages you recommended. I found them helpful in some ways and very unhelpful in others. Sorry, I know that will frustrate you. I took too much of what I read personally. Sorry. I am too old and have worked too hard and have loved my son too well to be told by some anonymous author that I have a "love of pleasure and of an easy life and shirk my "sacred duty" and by another that I am damned.

I looked this up to find the technical definitions but they sound like pretty much the same thing to me... to be stopped or limited in some way, compared to how things would be without being dammed or damned.

The noun dam refers to a structure used to hold back water. The word also works as a verb; to dam is (1) to hold back by means of a dam, or (2) to close up or obstruct. To damn is (1) to condemn, (2) to bring about the failure of, (3) to prove guilty, or (4) to send to everlasting punishment.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Ahab

smac97 · January 14, 2020

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

My friend I love this little article by church member Gordon Smith on the Times and Seasons website:

"When the topic turns to marriage, someone in Gospel Doctrine class inevitably refers with derision to that famous phrase from traditional marriage vows, “’til death do us part.” To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “I do not think this [phrase] means what you think it means.” Mormons have a nasty habit of caricaturing other religions. Of course, we do not have a monopoly on this practice, but we should be more charitable.

From the tone of comments that I have heard in various Gospel Doctrine classes, I infer that many Mormons think of the phrase “’til death do us part” as evidence of a doctrine of eternal separation. A charitable reading of the phrase, however, suggests that the focus is on a noble intention to remain committed during this earthly life. (Indeed, when you consider the modern alternatives, “’til death do us part” seems quite elevated.) It is also an accurate description of the effect of physical death, at least when one of the marriage partners remains alive. Most significantly, it says nothing about the ultimate destiny of the couple, thus reflecting either uncertainty about the details of the afterlife or a belief that marriage will be replaced with some greater union (e.g., of all of the righteous into God) after death.

We Mormons are right to be thankful for the doctrine of eternal marriage, which eliminates the uncertainty and provides a compelling vision of the role of families in the plan of salvation. Why does our gratitude so often find expression in mockery?"

I couldn't agree more with him about the the phrase and the mocking part. I regret it when either my LDS and non-LDS Christian friends enjoy engaging in mockery of the other. It happens too often. That is what I think makes God cry. Speaking of crying, we only have one recorded time in the Old Testament that Abraham cries - it is at his wife Sarah's death. It is touching scene with implications that we are all strangers and sojourners on this earth. As I have written on this forum before I have always believe that I am first and foremost a part of the family of God. I believe I will be together with the family of God (however Christ chooses to define that for individuals from his judgment seat). I have no strong belief about whether I will know my wife in heaven as such and remember all our wonderful times together. However it will play out, I am pretty sure she will be with me in the same heaven and it is very possible that we will be as family. Our faith, not our exaltation will make that happen. Then the marriage of the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (the Christian Church) will take place in heaven. I do believe marriage as we know it foreshadows that most perfect marriage of all - the resurrected Christ with his resurrected Church!

The phrase "Til death us do part" is the same for every LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian, it only speaks to the temporal loss here on earth. It says nothing about eternity. I agree with Gordon Smith!

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-heaven.html

The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)? Evidently, there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven. This does not mean that a husband and wife will no longer know each other in heaven. This also does not mean that a husband and wife could not still have a close relationship in heaven. What it does seem to indicate, though, is that a husband and wife will no longer be married in heaven.

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/sex-in-heaven

Randy, we know from the Bible, there’s no marriage in heaven, and no child bearing either.

http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2003/july/17.18.html

Q. Since the recent death of my wife, a godly "Proverbs 31" woman, I have been wondering if our marriage will continue in heaven. What does the Bible say about this?

A. May God bless and comfort you, John, on the loss of your dear wife. You can be confident that we will someday be reunited with our believing loved ones.

...

So, I think it's safe to say you will see your wife again. Your question, however, is more specific: will your marriage continue in heaven?

Most Protestant commentators since the Reformation have not been comfortable going that far.

...

Although we can't imagine how the marriage relationship might appear in heaven, it's enough to know that we will see and enjoy our believing friends and family again.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodandtruth/2012/09/is-there-marriage-in-heaven/

One final note: it is not only Swedenborgians (and Mormons) who entertain the possibility of marriage (or something spiritually analogous) continuing in the resurrection. Eastern Orthodoxy allows for that possibility; several Protestant Bible scholars have made similar arguments to the one I make above (e.g. Ben Witherington in Women in the Ministry of Jesus); and even some staunch Calvinists hold it out as a possibility.

http://christianity.net.au/questions/will_my_marriage_and_other_relationship_be_the_same_in_heaven

So, according to Jesus, people won’t be married in heaven.

http://www.nancyguthrie.com/i-know-we-wont-be-married-in-heaven-but-will-we-know-and-love-each-other/

We know that Jesus said we won't be married in heaven. But that does not mean we won't have rich, meaningful, intimate relationship with each other in heaven. Certainly we will. It is not that we won't be married. We will all be married to the same person as the bride of Christ and be completely fulfilled.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/marriageinheaven.html

Contrary to the Mormon view of heaven, it doesn't seem that people in heaven will be either male or female.

...

The idea that we will no longer be married is disturbing to some people. Personally, I like to be married. From an earthly perspective, the dissolution of marriage in heaven doesn't sound like a good thing. However, in heaven, we will be "married" to Jesus, who will be our spiritual "husband."

https://C***.org/will-there-be-marriage-in-heaven

Christians who were married here on earth will not be married in Heaven. The Bible tells us that marriage is dissolved at death.

http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/theres-no-marriage-in-heaven-luke-2027-38-david-smith-sermon-on-jesus-teachings-113894.asp

Luke Chapter 20 – Jesus tells us that there is no marriage in heaven.

I had long thought the the Church is more or less unique in having a systematic, expressly doctrinal, non-suppositional set of beliefs on this subject.

Thx,

Smac

Navidad · January 14, 2020

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The easiest way I know how to think about this is in relation to covenants and how they pertain to those who enter into them. I see it as strictly between those people and nobody else. For example, if I covenant with my wife to be with her forever, with her as my wife and me as her husband, and she also enters into the same covenant with me to be my wife while I am her husband, then as long as God honors that covenant between me and my wife and my wife and I also honor our covenant with each other then we will be together as husband and wife forever, since we would have chosen to get ourselves into it and none of us would be choosing to get ourselves loosed from that covenant. All 3 of us would be honoring that covenant forever.

If on the other hand either my wife or I later chose to be loosed from that covenant, with God allowing us to be loosed from it, we would no longer be in that covenant and it would be over for us, simply because we chose to end that covenant relationship.

So now let's consider how this would or might apply to you and anyone else who might agree to get into a covenant relationship with you. If you're ever going to get into a covenant relationship with someone, with God agreeing to honor your covenant with that other person, how do you think you would get yourself into a covenant relationship with that other person and with God agreeing to honor that covenant?

I am not 100% sure I understand what you have written. What you have said is not a hypothetical. I have gotten into a covenant relationship with someone (my wife), with God agreeing to honor that covenant with that other person. I did so when I married my wife. That is how I got myself into that covenant relationship. I understand that you most likely don't believe God agreed to honor our covenant, but we will respectfully have to agree to disagree. If I became a member of the LDS church, I would not agree to make either of those covenants over again because that would imply that I have come to the conclusion that my first covenanting fifty years ago with her was faulty, along with the covenants I made sixty-three years ago with God was faulty. I believe my baptism and my marriage were both performed by one with administrative (by the church) and spiritual authority (by God) to do so and was done in the presence of God with covenants. Therefore I don't know how to join the LDS Church without openly disagreeing with what I just said. All those years living in a covenant relationship with God and my wife in vain because no LDS priesthood holder was involved? I know I don't agree with that, so I guess I will never join, because invalidating my entire Christian experience is required for membership. That doesn't mean I can't fellowship, worship, and yes, minister as a faithful non-member.

I am sorry because again, this has been turned around to be about me. My original questions were not asked to solve a problem I have. They were asked in relationship to questions I have about fundamentalist mormon groups and practices and how to better understanding the doctrine of family and marital dysfunction so that I could more accurately write and speak about the history. I am positive that a non-member of the church cannot write accurately about the history of the church without understanding the doctrine of the same. But one can understand and write accurately without agreeing with the same. In fact that is one of the great opportunities in writing religious history. Somehow I shouldn't personalize all this. It is hard not to.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Navidad

Navidad · January 14, 2020

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I looked this up to find the technical definitions but they sound like pretty much the same thing to me... to be stopped or limited in some way, compared to how things would be without being dammed or damned.

The noun dam refers to a structure used to hold back water. The word also works as a verb; to dam is (1) to hold back by means of a dam, or (2) to close up or obstruct. To damn is (1) to condemn, (2) to bring about the failure of, (3) to prove guilty, or (4) to send to everlasting punishment.

If I said to you "You are damned because you are not a Mennonite!" How would you take it? Lest what I just said be taken out of context - let me affirm that I am not saying that! I wholeheartedly believe in the Christianity of my LDS friends. I see no need for them to become anything else but LDS!

Edited January 14, 2020 by Navidad

Ahab · January 14, 2020

52 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not 100% sure I understand what you have written. What you have said is not a hypothetical. I have gotten into a covenant relationship with someone (my wife), with God agreeing to honor that covenant with that other person. I did so when I married my wife. That is how I got myself into that covenant relationship. I understand that you most likely don't believe God agreed to honor our covenant, but we will respectfully have to agree to disagree. If I became a member of the LDS church, I would not agree to make either of those covenants over again because that would imply that I have come to the conclusion that my first covenanting fifty years ago with her was faulty, along with the covenants I made sixty-three years ago with God was faulty. I believe my baptism and my marriage were both performed by one with administrative (by the church) and spiritual authority (by God) to do so and was done in the presence of God with covenants. Therefore I don't know how to join the LDS Church without openly disagreeing with what I just said. All those years living in a covenant relationship with God and my wife in vain because no LDS priesthood holder was involved? I know I don't agree with that, so I guess I will never join, because invalidating my entire Christian experience is required for membership. That doesn't mean I can't fellowship, worship, and yes, minister as a faithful non-member.

I am sorry because again, this has been turned around to be about me. My original questions were not asked to solve a problem I have. They were asked in relationship to questions I have about fundamentalist mormon groups and practices and how to better understanding the doctrine of family and marital dysfunction so that I could more accurately write and speak about the history. I am positive that a non-member of the church can write accurately about the history of the church without understanding the doctrine of the same. And, one can understand and write accurately without agreeing with the same. In fact that is one of the great opportunities in writing religious history. Somehow I shouldn't personalize all this. It is hard not to.

I don't have a problem with you making this personal, either about you or about me if you want to, but if you don't want to do that I'm sure we can manage to talk about this in a more general sense with more vague terms to try to get at the heart of the issue. I just think it's easier to understand something like this when we make this kind of thing a personal issue, so that's the way I tend to drift. And it doesn't matter if we don't agree with each other, either, in my perspective Whether you or anyone else does have a covenant marriage with a spouse, the thing that makes it "work" is the fact that it is a covenant those people have entered into and that God has authorized, specifically, in that particular instance. And by that I simply mean that it isn't enough to do it "like" the way it is done when it is properly done. It has to actually be authorized by God and done by someone with the authority God has given to bind their covenant together, otherwise it might look like a proper act but not actually be proper.

For example, my Dad was a minister of a church and he compared the Bible to a rule book, saying that as long as something was done as it was done back then, as illustrated from the Bible, that was all that really mattered. For example he believed that anyone could put themselves into the perspective of who Paul or Peter wrote to in their letters, or that anyone reading what Jesus said to his apostles could put themselves into the perspective of an apostle who Jesus was speaking to while thinking that what Jesus said to his apostles applied equally well to themselves, like you or me for example. :Like when Jesus told his apostles to go out into the world and teach everybody what he had taught them, that was the same as Jesus telling anybody and everybody to go out into the world and teach what they can see from the Bible that he taught them. I don't know if I'm being clear enough here but these are some ideas that I consider to be problematic. I compare it to someone marrying 2 other people because they know or think they know what people are supposed to say when they marry 2 other people together. Just ask if he takes her and she takes him and then say something like "by the power of God I now join these people together as husband and wife" and then boom, it is done, because the person marrying the 2 other people together thinks he or she has the power or authority of God to do that. And again it doesn't really matter if we agree or do not agree. All that really matters is whether the person marrying the 2 other people together actually has the authority or power of God to do that.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Ahab

Ahab · January 14, 2020

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I said to you "You are damned because you are not a Mennonite!" How would you take it?

As your opinion.

27 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Lest what I just said be taken out of context - let me affirm that I am not saying that! I wholeheartedly believe in the Christianity of my LDS friends. I see no need for them to become anything else but LDS!

Understood.

Sign In

Families and the Plan of Salvation/Exaltation

Recommended Posts

Navidad

Duncan

Metis_LDS

The Nehor

Metis_LDS

JAHS

JAHS

longview

CV75

Metis_LDS

Maidservant

mfbukowski

Navidad

Tacenda

smac97

mfbukowski

Ahab

Navidad

Navidad

Ahab

The noun dam refers to a structure used to hold back water. The word also works as a verb; to dam is (1) to hold back by means of a dam, or (2) to close up or obstruct. To damn is (1) to condemn, (2) to bring about the failure of, (3) to prove guilty, or (4) to send to everlasting punishment.

smac97

Navidad

Navidad

The noun dam refers to a structure used to hold back water. The word also works as a verb; to dam is (1) to hold back by means of a dam, or (2) to close up or obstruct. To damn is (1) to condemn, (2) to bring about the failure of, (3) to prove guilty, or (4) to send to everlasting punishment.

Ahab

Ahab

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse