Universalism

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Jaydes said:

I would consider myself along the lines of a Restorationist Universalist.

 

 Here is another relevant quote from Joseph Smith:

 

"All sins and blasphemy, were to be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost. God has made provision for every spirit in the eternal world, and the spirits of our friends should be searched out and saved, Any man that has a friend in eternity can save him if he has not commit the unpardonable sin, He cannot be damned through all eternity, there is a possibility for his escape in a little time, If a man has knowledge he can be saved, if he has been guilty of great sins he is punished for it, when he consents to obey the gospel whether, Alive or dead, he is saved, his own mind damns him. I have no fear of hellfire that dont exist, No man can commit the unpardonable sin, until He receives the Holy Ghost, All will suffer untill they obey Christ himself, even the devil said I am a savior and can save all rose up in rebelion against God and was cast down. Jesus Christ will save all except the sons of perdition. "

What is your source for that quote?  (I'm curious about its composition). 

Edited May 28, 2023 by InCognitus

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

What is your source for that quote?  (I'm curious about its composition). 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/6

King Follett discourse.

It's present in all 4 accounts I think.

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It seems to me the whole question of Universalism requires a belief in a binary judgement.  Saved or lost, heaven or hell, sinners and saints, everyone or just specific people.

I'm not convinced that our theology accepts such a limited view.

Christ says all will be saved except perdition.  But not all among the saved will be in identical situation. If we confuse salvation from perdition into eternal life to be the only end then sure, I'm a universalist.

But our scripture indicates that eternal judgement will bring about anything but a universal result.

Maybe I am confusing you for someone else but I thought you accepted section 19 in allowing for eternal progression between kingdoms, even for those in outer-darkness.  With eternity being an extremely long time, the idea is that no one would choose to endure suffering endlessly and all would eventually progress in time.      

[pogi]

22 hours ago, Nevo said:

Dan Vogel has argued, on the basis of D&C 19, that Joseph Smith was a secret Universalist: "Despite posing as a traditionalist in regard to heaven and hell, Smith privately aligned himself with the Universalists and did not himself fear an eternal, never-ending punishment" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, xix). But I'm not convinced that that Joseph had any Universalist leanings in the 1820s (or even in the 1830s).

Grant Underwood has noted that Joseph, like other early Saints, seems to have maintained a traditional Protestant view of heaven and hell until well into the 1840s, notwithstanding D&C 19 and D&C 76.

In his 1838-39 account, Joseph described being attracted to Methodism in his teens: "In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them." This is confirmed by Palmyra acquaintances Orsamus Turner and Pomeroy Tucker. Turner remembered that Joseph had caught "a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road," and later became "a very passable exhorter in the evening meetings." Tucker recalled that "at one time [Smith] joined the probationary class of the Methodism church in Palmyra, and made some active demonstrations of engagedness." Methodists were among the leading opponents of Universalism in western New York in the 1820s.

This paper by Casey Paul Griffiths paints Joseph as being much more influenced by universalism:

https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants-revelations-context/universalism-revelations-joseph-smith

Joseph instantly accepted and rejoiced in "The Vision" of section 76 while most of the rest of the church struggled with it.  Universalism was viewed as being akin to atheism at the time.  It is telling that many members left the church or were excommunicated for not being willing to believe or teach it, and many more struggled to accept it.  It is telling how the revelation was viewed at the time by embers and non-members a like as a universalist doctrine.   It was viewed by many as serious heresy.  For this reason, this doctrine was kept secret for some time.  Even after it was brought forth it was kept silent.  No one taught it, in fact, the missionaries were explicitly instructed to not teach it. 

I have posted quotes by members at the time who struggled with it because of its universalist leanings.  

Quote

Brigham Young’s brother Joseph perhaps best captures the spirit of the mood: “When I came to read the visions of the different glories of the eternal world, and of the sufferings of the wicked, I could not believe it at the first. Why the Lord was going to save every body.”

With the small exception of the sons of perdition, it was viewed as universalist doctrine.  

Brigham Young himself really struggled to accept it at first.  But eventually came to love it and embraced the universalism that members at the time saw in it:

Quote

On another occasion President Young read the revelation in its entirety then summarized its lessons by saying, “He is compassionate to all the works of His hands, the plan of His redemption, and salvation, and mercy, is stretched out over all; and His plans are to gather up, and bring together, and save all the inhabitants of the earth, with the exception of those who have received the Holy Ghost, and sinned against it. With this exception, all the world besides shall be saved.—Is not this Universalism? It borders very close upon it.”[48] Within one generation the Saints had not only come to accept the vision but also to rejoice in its meaning and beauty.

I think Joseph's quick acceptance of the revelation shows that he had universalist inclinations and leanings, or at least sympathies at the time it was given. 

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

According to the definition of universalism, it indicates that all of humanity will be saved in the end. To compare the LDS faith to universalism, we must first define what "saved" means. "Saved" means aaved from sin and its consequences, which include death and SEPARATION from God, according to a Christian. Isn't the Christian definition of salvation different from the Mormon definition?

It is impossible to do a direct comparison to the views of salvation that other Christians hold with their dualistic heaven/hell, and heaven with their views of a trinitarian God presence.  But in many ways our views are similar.  Salvation is often expressed in terms of being saved from everlasting hell.  In that respect, we are near universalists, and certain interpretations of section 19 that many church leaders hold, make it possible to view hell itself as temporary.  This aligns exactly with Universal Restorationist views.   We learn from the temple and from scripture that death and hell are the consequence of sin.  Our doctrines saves us all from the ultimate consequences of sin.  We absolutely are universalist in that way.        

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

I believe the church teaches that even after salvation, a person might be estranged from God. Only exaltation can bring us back into his presence. 

Again, it is impossible to do a direct comparison because we view God/s in a very different way.  Every kingdom will be privileged with the presence of a deity, who are all one in glory, knowledge, goodness, etc. 

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

I don't believe our teachings are even close to universalism's beliefs.

When the revelation was given, those within the church and without certainly saw it as universalist.  

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

The majority of the teachings we follow teach that after mortal death, most will be separated from God. 

Again, depends on your definition of God.  It also depends on the duration of that separation.  If eternal progression between kingdoms is possible, as the scriptures hint and as many of our church leaders believe and have taught, then such separation from God need not be permanent.

I will post these again for easy reference:

Quote

•    Charlotte Haven, a contemporary of Joseph Smith, records him as saying that a spirit in the lowest kingdom “constantly progresses in spiritual knowledge until safely landed in the Celestial.”

•    Brigham Young taught that “those who fail to secure exaltation by the conclusion of their earthly probation ‘would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy & advancing to a Celestial kingdom but it would be a slow process.'” [Double quotes here are the Givenses; single quotes are Young.]

•    Lorenzo Snow: “You that are mourning about your children straying away will…get all your sons and daughters in the path of exaltation and glory.”

•    B.H. Roberts: “The ministry alluded to in each kingdom seemed meaningless ‘unless it be for the purpose of advancing our Father’s children along the lines of eternal progress.'” [Again, double quotes here are the Givenses; single quotes are Roberts.]

•    James Talmage, in the first edition of Articles of Faith: “Advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for….Eternity is progressive.”

•    Joseph F. Smith: “There is a time after this mortal life, and there is a way provided by which we may fulfill the measure of our creation and destiny, and accomplish the whole great work that we have been sent to do, although it may reach far into the future before we fully accomplish it.”

•    J. Reuben Clark Jr.: “We do not ‘seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that…if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed.”

•    James E. Faust: “I recognize that now is the time to meet God….If the repentance of the wayward children does not happen in this life, is it still possible for the cords of the sealing to be strong enough for them yet to work out their repentance?…Perhaps in this life we are not given to fully understand how enduring the sealing cords of righteous parents are to their children….I believe there is a strong familial pull as the influence of beloved ancestors continues with us from the other side of the veil.”

These quotes sound exactly like the teachings of Universal Restorationism to me. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Maybe I am confusing you for someone else but I thought you accepted section 19 in allowing for eternal progression between kingdoms, even for those in outer-darkness.  With eternity being an extremely long time, the idea is that no one would choose to endure suffering endlessly and all would eventually progress in time.      

I absolutely believe in either progression between kingdoms or more likely eternal progression OF kingdoms (an important distinction).

I don't consider that to be a fully universalist view but I see the connection.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I absolutely believe in either progression between kingdoms or more likely eternal progression OF kingdoms (an important distinction).

I don't consider that to be a fully universalist view but I see the connection.

It depends on how one defines universalist I guess.  The way I see it, if we were to make a chart of religious groups and place them on a spectrum of universalism.  At the top of the chart would be the ultra-universalists, just below them would be the Universal Restorationists, and just below them would be the Latter-day Saints.   I view them all as universalist in different ways and in different degrees. 

 I think our progressive views of the after life are more closely aligned with Universal Restorationists than any other group.  We are a million miles away from the opposite extreme of the more fundamentalist eternal heaven/hell dichotomy where unbaptized children and non-Christians, etc. are doomed to eternal hell-fire (a literal burning). 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/6

King Follett discourse.

It's present in all 4 accounts I think.

 

Thank you.

The precise wording is specific to Wilford Woodruff's account, which is why I was curious.  I just wasn't sure if Jaydes was getting it from a published version of that account, or from somewhere else.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Other than the Christian term, everything she said is accurate.  if we are not exalted, we will be separated from God.  This is not taught by other Christian churches. 

Disagree. Of course it is!

Eternal hellfire is not exactly where God visits occasionally.

But I will not argue semantics with you.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It seems to me the whole question of Universalism requires a belief in a binary judgement.  Saved or lost, heaven or hell, sinners and saints, everyone or just specific people.

I'm not convinced that our theology accepts such a limited view.

Just to clarify, ultra -universalists don't actually believe in hell.  All suffering for sin, they believe, happens here in this life.  In the after-life there is only heaven.  At least, that is how they originally believed.  Now, they don't even need to believe in a God or an after-life.  Many are atheists.   The other group of universalists are Universal Restorationists who do believe in a heaven and hell, but the suffering in hell is not permanent, but it is a temporary and preparatory state to become worthy for heaven.   As you can see, universalism is not as monolithic as perhaps you make it seem.  It is a broad group with a diversity of views and beliefs of the after-life and judgment, etc.   As such, I think we fit neatly under that broad umbrella.

I think our universalist doctrines are not only recognized by ourselves.  I came across one fellow who I think saw the similarities to his beliefs as a Universal Restorationist and has adopted many of our views.  We are taught in Mormonism to adopt truths from other religions, but it is rare that we see other religions seeing and adopting truth from our own.  If you want to know what a hybrid of Mormonism and Universal Restorationism might look like, check this out:

 

Quote

 

In particular, Eric focuses on the theology of universal reconciliation or postmortem salvation, human identity as the children of God and co-heirs with Christ, divinization or deification of human beings in God’s image, the nature of God as both our Father in Heaven and Heavenly Mother, and the church as the visible manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth.

Eric also writes about religious history, devotional practices, the sociological benefits of religion, and the special role of America as a chosen people in modern times.

https://universalrestoration.org/about/

 

 

[manol]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Is this fear that universalism leads to "licentiousness" well grounded in history?  It seems to me that the universalists of history, starting with Origen, seem to be as honorable and moral as the rest.   We have had 5 US presidents that were universalists, including Thomas Jefferson.  Here is a list of notable universalist in Us history including Paul Revere, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, of course, among many others.  From what I can tell of UU members, they are up-right and honest people who subscribe to the values and morals of humanism - they are not about taking advantage of others because it will all be good in the end.  

Did McConkie realize how many people he was throwing under the bus as heretics?

It is easy to paint universalism as unrestrained permissiveness and imo that's an overly broad brush.  But I readily concede that in general universalism is a poor motivator here on Earth. Let me explain:

For those at a spiritual energy level where fear is what motivates them, universalism fails miserably to induce progression and could easily be counter-productive (imo this is implied by Section 19). 

For those at a spiritual energy level where reward is what motivates them, again universalism fails, though perhaps not quite as miserably.

On the other hand, for those who aspire to a spiritual energy level which is aligned to the Pure Love of Christ, universalism arguably has a great deal to offer. I may well be using the term “universalism” incorrectly here, so let me outline what I have in mind when using the term in this context:  Imo the central concept is union, as opposed to separation, which admittedly seems to be much more in evidence. 

I see the term "universalism" as compatible with the idea that we are actually one, or at least very much connected, at a fundamental level which is not presently apparent because of the veil. At this level our best interests are the same, therefore when we are aligned to this level we do not mistakenly seek our own best interest at the expense of another.

At this level only love is real. Everything which falls short of love, and to be more specific short of the Pure Love of Christ, will either be healed or outgrown. Because free will is always respected, WHEN we align ourselves with this level is a matter of individual choice.

Making this choice from where we are now is not easy, and this is intentional. Coming to Earth is like going to the gym: We are working out spiritual muscles which would not have been challenged in Heaven. For example, here we might accumulate a litany of grievances, a cumbersome burden which we cannot take with us to the level of the Pure Love of Christ. So we need to develop our forgiveness muscles, something we would not have the opportunity to do, at least not at this level of intensity, in Heaven.  (How do we forgive? We forgive by letting go of EVERYTHING that would prevent forgiveness.)

Imo our connection/oneness ALREADY exists on a level permeated by the Pure Love of Christ. This is ALREADY our reality but is (generally) outside of our current perception. We may become aware of it by “tuning in” to it through deliberately and consistently aligning our thoughts, our words, and our actions to it, which again is where our free agency comes in. 

As we attempt to align ourselves to this level, which might be described as “on Earth as it is in Heaven insofar as the veil permits”, EVERY encounter becomes an opportunity for union, an opportunity to know oneself in union, and an opportunity to know oneself as union.

In my opinion.

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by manol

[Jaydes]

This is an interesting quotation by Hyrum Smith regarding progression between kingdoms.

 

“Hyrum said Aug 1st. 43 Those of the Terrestrial Glory either advance to the Celestial or recede to the Telestial or else the moon would not be a type, because it ‘waxes & wanes.’”

(August 1, 1843, transcribed by Franklin D. Richards; Words of the Prophet, pg. 24; CHO Ms/d/4409/Misc Minutes Collection)

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Jaydes said:

This is an interesting quotation by Hyrum Smith regarding progression between kingdoms.

 

“Hyrum said Aug 1st. 43 Those of the Terrestrial Glory either advance to the Celestial or recede to the Telestial or else the moon would not be a type, because it ‘waxes & wanes.’”

(August 1, 1843, transcribed by Franklin D. Richards; Words of the Prophet, pg. 24; CHO Ms/d/4409/Misc Minutes Collection)

Love that.  Not sure I've ever read it before.  I think common sense and logic require some method of progression over the course of infinite eternal lives.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Love that.  Not sure I've ever read it before.  I think common sense and logic require some method of progression over the course of infinite eternal lives.

Good one, thanks. An interesting analogy, I just cannot see how to incorporate it into the LDS paradigm

And yes, imo progression should work both ways.  It does here, why would it get locked in?

I suppose because the paradigm calls for a different body for each Kingdom, due to different ranks of glory.  Gotta have a different body that can take the stress of the higher energy level or sumptin' lak 'at thar, ah reckon!   

 

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Good one, thanks. An interesting analogy, I just cannot see how to incorporate it into the LDS paradigm

And yes, imo progression should work both ways.  It does here, why would it get locked in?

I suppose because the paradigm calls for a different body for each Kingdom, due to different ranks of glory.  Gotta have a different body that can take the stress of the higher energy level or sumptin' lak 'at thar, ah reckon!   

 

So you feel we will be able to grow and progress after being assigned a kingdom? While studying LDS doctrine, I had never heard of such a thing. It appears to contradict what the atonement stands for and does for us. If we can someday develop and jump to a higher realm after being judged, Christ's atonement and his death were a pointless act of love, a footnote. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

If we can someday develop and jump to a higher realm after being judged, Christ's atonement and his death were a pointless act of love, a footnote

Not if the only way we can progress to a higher realm at any time is by accepting his atonement, just as in the initial assignment of kingdoms.

Would it not be more of a contradiction of his atonement to not allow those that first refused to accept the fullness on his atonement, but who came to love God more as time went on to then accept it?

There have been a number of church leaders who accepted progression between kingdoms, Talmage for one iirc.  The Church itself does not have an official position on it.

Here are various quotes on the subject:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormons_believe_that_there_is_there_progression_between_the_three_degrees_of_glory%3F

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And yes, imo progression should work both ways.  It does here, why would it get locked in?

I can see one possible reason why progression is only forward and there is no regression and that is by the time we are assigned kingdoms, we have been purged in some fashion of all unrighteousness or sin.  I can see stagnation as a result of not accepting more blessings, but if we are sinless would we reject any blessing we had once accepted, intentionally separating ourselves further from God?  That seems unlikely to me to occur without sin/pride and that would prevent regression from occurring, it seems to me.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Calm

[Nevo]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

This paper by Casey Paul Griffiths paints Joseph as being much more influenced by universalism

Yes, and I don't think he's right about that, for the reasons I've already given.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Joseph instantly accepted and rejoiced in "The Vision" of section 76 while most of the rest of the church struggled with it.  

Joseph's statement praising the revelation was written in 1843. Perhaps he did instantly accept it, but we don't see it having any appreciable effect on his preaching until after 1843.

Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that "most of the rest of the church struggled with it." The reception was mixed. As Matthew McBride puts it in Revelations in Context, "while a few early Church members struggled to accept 'the Vision,' many embraced it unreservedly" (152).

Again, I think Grant Underwood's research is important here:

"The Vision seemed to attract some attention for the first year or two. Though a few 'stumbled at it,' at least one individual considered it 'the greatest news that was ever published to man.' Some developed strange ideas about it that required reproof, but even legitimate comments were sufficiently superficial that they offered no real interpretation or elucidation of the Vision and certainly no repudiation of the traditional Christian cosmos.

A specific search of presently available periodicals, pamphlets, and tracts, as well as hundreds of unpublished diaries, journals, and letters from this time period reveals that throughout the rest of the decade and on into the early 1840s, the Vision was virtually ignored. . . . The only example of anything like a substantive commentary on the Vision was Joseph Smith's 1843 poetic version. Perhaps the experience of reissuing the revelation as a kind of epic poem stimulated the Prophet's pondering of the overall significance of the Vision, for in the remaining sixteen months of his life he discussed in new ways the nature of hell and the torment of the damned" (Underwood, "Saved or Damned," 93–94).

Underwood continues:

"It must also be remembered that before the late Nauvoo period there was little explanatory discussion of the term unpardonable sin. Therefore, even if the early Saints had talked of damnation coming in its fullest sense only to 'sons of perdition,' there were then no conceptual restraints limiting that category to apostate Mormons alone. Again we see that circumstances and understandings in the 1830s did not require interpretations of the Vision that undermined the old saved-damned dichotomy.

As for hell itself, Joseph's belief in its reality, and his use of traditional jargon to describe it, is conspicuous as late as his 1843 poem. Whereas in the original scriptural text of the Vision the word hell is found only once, the Prophet uses it six times in his poem. In terms familiar to any evangelical Protestant, he talks of the ungodly suffering 'in hell-fire, and vengeance, the doom of the damn'd'" (Underwood, 96).

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

So you feel we will be able to grow and progress after being assigned a kingdom? While studying LDS doctrine, I had never heard of such a thing. It appears to contradict what the atonement stands for and does for us. If we can someday develop and jump to a higher realm after being judged, Christ's atonement and his death were a pointless act of love, a footnote. 

 

 

 

No, it's not doctrinal, yes you are right.  I was playing with the paradigm's logic of how and why the paradigm's meaning could or could not be interpreted.

Imo, the paradigm is not necessarily perfect, why should it be?

And no it has nothing to do with the atonement, why would it?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I can see one possible reason why progression is only forward and there is no regression and that is by the time we are assigned kingdoms, we have been purged in some fashion of all unrighteousness or sin.  I can see stagnation as a result of not accepting more blessings, but if we are sinless would we reject any blessing we had once accepted, intentionally separating ourselves further from God?  That seems unlikely to me to occur without sin/pride and that would prevent regression from occurring, it seems to me.

Yep, I think you're right. Scratch that idea. Maybe that is what @Sara H meant about the atonement.

On the other hand, if we accept the possibility of progression in one way only, there EXISTS no other option.

You cant have a plus concept without a minus concept, one defines the other!!

So Doctrine wins after all! To me there is nothing more to discuss logically. Solved! 

Thanks @Sara H and Calm!

Frankly I think that trying to pretend we know more about this, is a waste of time. 

It's a bit like discussing Klingon history to me.  It has no relevance to the daily slog thru one more day on this planet. 

I just worry about doing the absolute best I can for today.

Anything else is "just some people talkin'", Desperado !  

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

So you feel we will be able to grow and progress after being assigned a kingdom? While studying LDS doctrine, I had never heard of such a thing.

Yes.

It's always existed as an unofficial sub-belief in our theology.  There are general authorities that accepted the idea and general authorities who rejected it. I find the rejection view to be irrational.

Quote

It appears to contradict what the atonement stands for and does for us. If we can someday develop and jump to a higher realm after being judged, Christ's atonement and his death were a pointless act of love, a footnote. 

Not much of an infinite atonement if it has a linear end and a time limit.  If the price has been paid it remains paid.  Justice remains satisfied by the atonement.

The only question remains is whether we can permanently leave it behind.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not much of an infinite atonement if it has a linear end and a time limit.  If the price has been paid it remains paid.  Justice remains satisfied by the atonement.

I cannot and will never, I think, accept the monetary description of the atonement as if there are some kind of entities named Justice and Mercy battling it out over an invoice.

That explanation is simply absurd to me.

I think the atonement is non-understandable mystery which is based on the empathy of Christ taking away the EFFECTS of sin in our lives because we are now presented with the notion that ther is One who UNDERWENT more than any human can understand to OVERCOME those effects of sin to show us that no matter how low we can go, He has gone infinitely farther, and is always with us in the pain of true repentance restoration of what cannot ever be fully restored.

I have an acquaintance who had too much to drink, who while driving, hit a pedestrian accidentally, whose body crashed through the windshield, and landed, dying, in the passenger's seat.

I cannot even imagine the pain, not only of the pedestrian but also the driver.  He SAW the effects of his sin immediately and could not recover from the guilt he experienced throughout his life. 

And imagine the horror of the pedestrian, in the last seconds of his life!!

But it WAS an accident. The pedestrian was running, it was dark, and he was not in a crosswalk.

Christ's atonement was very beneficial- he quit drinking and changed his life but how does one make "restitution" for such a thing??

Were Justice and Mercy arm wrestling over that one? How much pain did the driver deserve?

He changed his life but was haunted by that event throughout his life, and the only comfort he could receive was the COMFORT given by the atonement.

For me, THAT is the reason for the atonement, it is not some bargain between imagined entities.

Christ frees us from the effects of sin, and allows us to know that we can again become clean through His sacrifice.  It brings hope into our lives, when all hope was gone.

[Navidad]

On 5/28/2023 at 4:14 AM, Sara H said:

Isn't the Christian definition of salvation different from the Mormon definition? I believe the church teaches that even after salvation, a person might be estranged from God.

I am always intrigued when I see a distinction made between a "Christian" something and a "Mormon" something. Do my LDS friends want to be considered Christians, or not? Or is it your intent to make a distinction between yourselves and Christians? But, on the other hand if a non-LDS person makes a distinction between Christians and Mormons you get real upset!

I thought it was settled from the church's perspective that the LDS is a Christian church and that LDS Christians are  . . . . . well . . . . Christians. I always tell folks of other faith that I believe the same percentage of members of the LDS Church are Christians as of any other Christian church. I don't think being a member of any church automatically or autonomically makes anyone a Christian, since that is a personal thing between an individual and Christ. I am a Mennonite and certainly the Mennonite church teaches that even after salvation, a person might be estranged from God. Some Christian churches don't believe that, but others certainly do.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

In terms familiar to any evangelical Protestant,

Please don't lump us all together - the Evangelical community is wonderfully diverse and requires no common belief in the specific characteristics of hell.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Yes, and I don't think he's right about that, for the reasons I've already given.

Joseph's statement praising the revelation was written in 1843. Perhaps he did instantly accept it, but we don't see it having any appreciable effect on his preaching until after 1843.

Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that "most of the rest of the church struggled with it." The reception was mixed. As Matthew McBride puts it in Revelations in Context, "while a few early Church members struggled to accept 'the Vision,' many embraced it unreservedly" (152).

Again, I think Grant Underwood's research is important here:

"The Vision seemed to attract some attention for the first year or two. Though a few 'stumbled at it,' at least one individual considered it 'the greatest news that was ever published to man.' Some developed strange ideas about it that required reproof, but even legitimate comments were sufficiently superficial that they offered no real interpretation or elucidation of the Vision and certainly no repudiation of the traditional Christian cosmos.

A specific search of presently available periodicals, pamphlets, and tracts, as well as hundreds of unpublished diaries, journals, and letters from this time period reveals that throughout the rest of the decade and on into the early 1840s, the Vision was virtually ignored. . . . The only example of anything like a substantive commentary on the Vision was Joseph Smith's 1843 poetic version. Perhaps the experience of reissuing the revelation as a kind of epic poem stimulated the Prophet's pondering of the overall significance of the Vision, for in the remaining sixteen months of his life he discussed in new ways the nature of hell and the torment of the damned" (Underwood, "Saved or Damned," 93–94).

Underwood continues:

"It must also be remembered that before the late Nauvoo period there was little explanatory discussion of the term unpardonable sin. Therefore, even if the early Saints had talked of damnation coming in its fullest sense only to 'sons of perdition,' there were then no conceptual restraints limiting that category to apostate Mormons alone. Again we see that circumstances and understandings in the 1830s did not require interpretations of the Vision that undermined the old saved-damned dichotomy.

As for hell itself, Joseph's belief in its reality, and his use of traditional jargon to describe it, is conspicuous as late as his 1843 poem. Whereas in the original scriptural text of the Vision the word hell is found only once, the Prophet uses it six times in his poem. In terms familiar to any evangelical Protestant, he talks of the ungodly suffering 'in hell-fire, and vengeance, the doom of the damn'd'" (Underwood, 96).

 

I don't think he was wrong about the influence that universalism had on Joseph.  I am not arguing that he was 100% on board with everything universalism, but it clearly influenced many of his feelings and ideas stemming from his strong aversion to creeds and dogmas, to his liberal search for truth from all religions and sources under the heavens.  The death of his unbaptised brother also caused him to lean universalist in many instances. 

I thin more than a "few" stumbled at the revelation.  Even the most stalwart Brigham Young found it very hard to accept.  He and his brother both struggled and recognized it as universalist leaning doctrine.  Most of the converts to Mormonism came from the same protestant background and understanding as Brigham Young.   I find it hard to believe that such a drastic change would come easily.   The fact that it was discussed little in the first few years was by design. 

The revelation wasn't "ignored", it was in fact intentionally kept quiet out of fear that many would apostasies or reject the gospel because of it.  Joseph commanded Martin Harris to not speak a word of the revelation.  It was kept under wraps for 5 months, and after that it was mostly kept quiet in the wards and the missionaries were instructed to speak no word of the revelation to investigators.   It seems that Joseph was slowly testing the waters and had some reservations at the response by many members.  He fully embraced the vision though and even excommunicated members who refused to believe it.  As Joseph reflected back to the time of receiving the revelation, he remembers it being received with great joy. 

Quote

 

Realizing new converts may not be ready for the profound message of the vision, the Prophet counseled missionaries traveling to England not to mention it before the proper foundation could be built. He wrote: “My instructions to the brethren were, when they arrived in England, to adhere closely to the first principles of the Gospel, and remain silent concerning the gathering, the vision, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, until such time as the work was fully established, and it should be clearly made manifest by the Spirit to do otherwise.”[4]

Why did so many stumble to accept what today is taken for granted as one of the most appealing parts of Latter-day Saint theology? It must be remembered that when the vision was received there was no one in the Church who had been a member for more than three years. The most devoted followers struggled with the dramatic new ideas of the vision. Even a stalwart such as Brigham Young could not conceal his difficulties in understanding the revelation. He recalled, “My traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was so directly contrary and opposed to my former education, I said, wait a little; I did not reject it, but I could not understand it.”[5] Though he would later be one of its greatest proponents, at the time he first heard of the vision, Brigham was a new and tender convert wrestling to grasp concepts diametrically opposed to everything he had known. Like Brigham, most of the converts of early Mormonism came from a background of what might be called “heaven and hell” Protestantism. Taught so long of the firm dividing line between the saved and the damned, they struggled to comprehend the largesse of God’s plan of salvation, where even a murderer could inherit a kingdom glorious enough to surpass all understanding (see D&C 76:89). Brigham Young’s brother Joseph perhaps best captures the spirit of the mood: “When I came to read the visions of the different glories of the eternal world, and of the sufferings of the wicked, I could not believe it at the first. Why the Lord was going to save every body.”[6]

While Joseph marveled at the “sublimity of the ideas,” others in the Church struggled to accept the new revelation. Brigham Young gave a summary of the general feeling in the Church toward the vision:

When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of good, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation, and many stumbled at it.[2]

Records of the time verify the truth of Brigham Young’s observations. Orson Pratt and John Murdock both recorded several incidents where members of local branches rebelled against the teachings contained in the vision. In one branch a certain brother rose up and declared that the revelation was from Satan, and he “believed it no more than he believed the devil was crucified” and “would not have the vision taught in the church for $1000.”[3] Elders Pratt and Murdock worked patiently to help the man accept the doctrine but were ultimately unsuccessful.

Realizing new converts may not be ready for the profound message of the vision, the Prophet counseled missionaries traveling to England not to mention it before the proper foundation could be built. He wrote: “My instructions to the brethren were, when they arrived in England, to adhere closely to the first principles of the Gospel, and remain silent concerning the gathering, the vision, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, until such time as the work was fully established, and it should be clearly made manifest by the Spirit to do otherwise.”[4]