Universalism

[Calm]

On 5/29/2023 at 12:17 PM, Navidad said:

thought it was settled from the church's perspective that the LDS is a Christian church and that LDS Christians are  . . . . . well . . . . Christians.

It is. See below.***
 

Someone may identify with the Church partially or even fully and not accept all its doctrine or position.  If something sounds unusual best to ask if doctrinal or not and with documentation because some assume something  is official because they have never heard anything different or some leaders have taught it, but it may not be. 
 

There are typically two groups in Mormon culture who refuse to call Saints Christian in my experience.  The first have had some a bad experience with antimormon Christians they refuse to be identified with them. I have met very few of those.  The other group are disaffected Mormons who are no longer believers in the gospel, but are still believers in Christ and now try to show the error of our doctrine, etc.

There have been a few who played the second role, but turned out to be trolls so I suppose those are a third group.

There are likely others holding more unique positions.

 

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng
 

Quote

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ. When asked what the Latter-day Saints believe, Joseph Smith put Christ at the center: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, ‘that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;’ and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.”1 The modern-day Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reaffirmed that testimony when they proclaimed, “Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. … His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come.”2

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Calm

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

The fact that it was discussed little in the first few years was by design.

Maybe, maybe not. See Grant Underwood's footnote 48 for an alternative view.

In any case, the Vision wasn't substantively discussed until 1843, when Joseph Smith published his poetic version (likely ghostwritten by W. W. Phelps). But even this did not reveal a Universalist mindset. Far from it.

E.g.,

And I saw, too, the suff’ring and mis’ry of
those,
(Overcome by the devil, in warfare and fight,)
In hell-fire, and vengeance, the doom of the
damn’d;

 . . .

[Of the Sons of Perdition:]

They’re vessels of wrath, and dishonor to
God,
Doom’d to suffer his wrath, in the regions of
woe,
Through the terrific night of eternity’s round,
With the devil and all of his angels below:
 
Of whom it is said, no forgiveness is giv’n,
In this world, alas! nor the world that’s to
come;
For they have denied the spirit of God,
After having receiv’d it: and mis’ry’s their
doom.
 
And denying the only begotten of God,—
And crucify him to themselves, as they do,
And openly put him to shame in their flesh,
By gospel they cannot repentance renew.
 
They are they, who must go to the great
lake of fire,
Which burneth with brimstone, yet never
consumes,
And dwell with the devil, and angels of his,
While eternity goes and eternity comes.
 
They are they, who must groan through the
great second death,
And are not redeemed in the time of the Lord . . .

If there was one thing that all Universalists agreed on, it was that God would "finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness" (Winchester Profession, 1803). No one would suffer endless punishment.

This was something that Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, could not accept.

When a Universalist preacher came to Kirtland in 1835, Oliver Cowdery opposed his teachings in the Church's newspaper, arguing that damnation was real and that, "if no such principle exists as damnation, and that eternal," then Christ "certainly has spoken nonsense and folly" when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost are in danger of eternal damnation.

To recap, then, Joseph in his youth felt drawn to the Methodists, a group that strongly opposed Universalist teaching. In the 1820s, he brought forth the Book of Mormon, which took a strong anti-Universalist stance. In the 1830s, and up until the last months of his life, he spoke of salvation and damnation in traditional terms. If he was secretly a Universalist in these years or sympathetic to Universalism, he kept a tight lid on it.

In 1838, he stated that all non-Mormons would be "damned," and a "great portion" of Mormons too, "unless they repent and work righteousness." In January 1843, he taught that "the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation &
the oracles of God . . . will be damned & whan you get into the eternal world you will find it to be so[.] thay cannot escape the damnation of hell."

This is not how Universalists spoke or thought, even the Restorationist variety.

Only at the end of his life did Joseph Smith start to expound what Griffiths calls "a different concept of the afterlife." In the King Follett sermon, he stated that hell fire  "doesn't exist"; the lake of fire and brimstone was symbolic only, describing a state of mind. In May 1844, he declared: "I do not believe the [M]ethodist doctrine of sending honest men, and noble minded men to hell, along with the murderer and adulterer— they may hurl all their hell and fiery billows upon me, for they will roll off me as fast as they come on—but I have an order of things to save the poor fellows at any rate, and get them saved for I will send men to preach to them in prison and save them if I can."

This still wasn't Universalism, but it was Universalist-adjacent, and set Mormonism on a different trajectory. Such that Lorenzo Snow could declare over the pulpit in 1872:
 

Quote

God loves his offspring, the human family. His design is not simply to furnish happiness to the few here, called Latter-day Saints. The plan and scheme that he is now carrying out is for universal salvation; not only for the salvation of the Latter-day Saints, but for the salvation of every man and woman on the face of the earth, for those also in the spirit world, and for those who may hereafter come upon the face of the earth. It is for the salvation of every son and daughter of Adam. They are the offspring of the Almighty, he loves them all and his plans are for the salvation of the whole, and he will bring all up into that position in which they will be as happy and as comfortable as they are willing to be. Our mission is to the world, and not simply to carry the Gospel to the people, but to establish plans and lay schemes for their temporal salvation. Our object is the temporal salvation of the people as much as it is for their spiritual salvation.

(Lorenzo Snow, 14 January 1872, Journal of Discourses, 14:308–309)

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Nevo

[Sara H]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

Maybe, maybe not. See Grant Underwood's footnote 48 for an alternative view.

In any case, the Vision wasn't substantively discussed until 1843, when Joseph Smith published his poetic version (likely ghostwritten by W. W. Phelps). But even this did not reveal a Universalist mindset. Far from it.

E.g.,

And I saw, too, the suff’ring and mis’ry of
those,
(Overcome by the devil, in warfare and fight,)
In hell-fire, and vengeance, the doom of the
damn’d;

 . . .

[Of the Sons of Perdition:]

They’re vessels of wrath, and dishonor to
God,
Doom’d to suffer his wrath, in the regions of
woe,
Through the terrific night of eternity’s round,
With the devil and all of his angels below:
 
Of whom it is said, no forgiveness is giv’n,
In this world, alas! nor the world that’s to
come;
For they have denied the spirit of God,
After having receiv’d it: and mis’ry’s their
doom.
 
And denying the only begotten of God,—
And crucify him to themselves, as they do,
And openly put him to shame in their flesh,
By gospel they cannot repentance renew.
 
They are they, who must go to the great
lake of fire,
Which burneth with brimstone, yet never
consumes,
And dwell with the devil, and angels of his,
While eternity goes and eternity comes.
 
They are they, who must groan through the
great second death,
And are not redeemed in the time of the Lord . . .

If there was one thing that all Universalists agreed on, it was that God would "finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness" (Winchester Profession, 1803). No one would suffer endless punishment.

This was something that Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, could not accept.

When a Universalist preacher came to Kirtland in 1835, Oliver Cowdery opposed his teachings in the Church's newspaper, arguing that damnation was real and that, "if no such principle exists as damnation, and that eternal," then Christ "certainly has spoken nonsense and folly" when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost are in danger of eternal damnation.

To recap, then, Joseph in his youth felt drawn to the Methodists, a group that strongly opposed Universalist teaching. In the 1820s, he brought forth the Book of Mormon, which took a strong anti-Universalist stance. In the 1830s, and up until the last months of his life, he spoke of salvation and damnation in traditional terms. If he was secretly a Universalist in these years or sympathetic to Universalism, he kept a tight lid on it.

In 1838, he stated that all non-Mormons would be "damned," and a "great portion" of Mormons too, "unless they repent and work righteousness." In January 1843, he taught that "the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation &
the oracles of God . . . will be damned & whan you get into the eternal world you will find it to be so[.] thay cannot escape the damnation of hell."

This is not how Universalists spoke or thought, even the Restorationist variety.

Only at the end of his life did Joseph Smith start to expound what Griffiths calls "a different concept of the afterlife." In the King Follett sermon, he stated that hell fire  "doesn't exist"; the lake of fire and brimstone was symbolic only, describing a state of mind. In May 1844, he declared: "I do not believe the [M]ethodist doctrine of sending honest men, and noble minded men to hell, along with the murderer and adulterer— they may hurl all their hell and fiery billows upon me, for they will roll off me as fast as they come on—but I have an order of things to save the poor fellows at any rate, and get them saved for I will send men to preach to them in prison and save them if I can."

This still wasn't Universalism, but it was Universalist-adjacent, and set Mormonism on a different trajectory. Such that Lorenzo Snow could declare over the pulpit in 1872:
 

 

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It makes numerous excellent points regarding how the LDS doctrines I grew up with do not correspond with a universalism viewpoint. Indeed, the mission of the gospel, the LDS gospel, not the Christian gospel of 2000 years, is to proclaim and teach that there is eternal damnation and that the restored gospel is the only way back to our Heavenly Father. Is it correct that the Christianity that existed before to Joseph's restoration of the gospel was an apostate Christianity, a watered-down version of the true gospel, the gospel found in the LDS scriptures? If this is correct, the LDS faith is far from universal.  

 

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

it was that God would "finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness" (Winchester Profession, 1803). No one would suffer endless punishment.

The lessons that are given regarding the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms seem like they would amount to an everlasting form of punishment. Everything we do throughout our time in this earthly existence is directed towards the goal of returning to the presence of our heavenly father, who is eternal. Both kingdoms that were described stand between us and him. That seems to me to be an unending form of punishment. 

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

if no such principle exists as damnation, and that eternal," then Christ "certainly has spoken nonsense and folly" when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost are in danger of eternal damnation.

In my prior post, I was referring to something very similar to what you have here. If it is true that everyone will one day be elevated to the celestial heavenly kingdom, then the pain that Christ endured while he was here on earth will have been for nothing at all when we have all passed away. If the greatest sinner who ever lived on earth was able to make it back to the presence of God after enduring the trials of a lower kingdom, then there was no need for a saviour or for the gospel to be restored. 

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

In 1838, he stated that all non-Mormons would be "damned," and a "great portion" of Mormons too, "unless they repent and work righteousness." In January 1843, he taught that "the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation &
the oracles of God . . . will be damned & whan you get into the eternal world you will find it to be so[.] thay cannot escape the damnation of hell."

This is not how Universalists spoke or thought, even the Restorationist variety.

This presents the gospel of the LDS church and its mission in such a way that is so clear and concise. To put it another way, doesn't the doctrine of the restored gospel make it abundantly plain that one must either accept our interpretation of Christianity or remain eternally estranged from Heavenly Father? 

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

This still wasn't Universalism, but it was Universalist-adjacent, and set Mormonism on a different trajectory. Such that Lorenzo Snow could declare over the pulpit in 1872:
 

Quote

God loves his offspring, the human family. His design is not simply to furnish happiness to the few here, called Latter-day Saints. The plan and scheme that he is now carrying out is for universal salvation; not only for the salvation of the Latter-day Saints, but for the salvation of every man and woman on the face of the earth, for those also in the spirit world, and for those who may hereafter come upon the face of the earth. It is for the salvation of every son and daughter of Adam. They are the offspring of the Almighty, he loves them all and his plans are for the salvation of the whole, and he will bring all up into that position in which they will be as happy and as comfortable as they are willing to be. Our mission is to the world, and not simply to carry the Gospel to the people, but to establish plans and lay schemes for their temporal salvation. Our object is the temporal salvation of the people as much as it is for their spiritual salvation.

(Lorenzo Snow, 14 January 1872, Journal of Discourses, 14:308–309)

I absolutely adore this explanation that Lorenzo Snow is providing here; however, he is speaking about salvation, not exaltation. To strive for exaltation is something that we are instructed to do in the gospel. It is not via salvation that we escape damnation; rather, it is through exaltation. If I have the spirit world correctly understood, there is the potential for redemption in every kingdom of heaven other than the celestial realm. Exaltation, however, is the only path that will allow one to join the kingdom of God and be in his presence; redemption on its alone is insufficient.

[Sara H]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

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!

At the present time, it is extremely common practise within the LDS church to be considered or even grouped together with all of the other Christian religions. However, the teachings and practises that we adhere to completely set us apart from other Christian denominations. For instance, in order to once again come into the presence of our Heavenly father, one must first acknowledge and embrace our restored form of Christianity. Every other interpretation of Christianity will fall short when it comes to bringing you into the presence of God. If you are saved, you will be able to enter the telestial or terrestrial kingdom; but, this does not mean that you will be saved in the sense that you will be able to enter the presence of our Heavenly Father. The atonement for our sins is without cost,  it was a free gift. The achievement of exaltation requires work, as well as passing a test and demonstrating one's merit. Would it be accurate for me to say that the majority of the Christian world adheres to the doctrine that salvation is a gift from God and that just accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is all that is necessary to be saved? 

 

To tell you the truth, the more I look into it, the more I get the impression that many people who practise my religion are attempting to reinterpret the meaning of the word "exaltation." It's almost as though they're embarrassed of the work involved to achieve exaltation and want to give the impression that being "saved" and being exalted are the same thing. Joseph revitalised the Christian message primarily with the purpose of reintroducing the idea of exaltation rather than just salvation. Before the gospel was restored in 1830, the practise of exaltation was absent from the Christian religion. There has never been a time when people couldn't find salvation. 

 

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, Sara H said:

At the present time, it is extremely common practise within the LDS church to be considered or even grouped together with all of the other Christian religions. However, the teachings and practises that we adhere to completely set us apart from other Christian denominations. For instance, in order to once again come into the presence of our Heavenly father, one must first acknowledge and embrace our restored form of Christianity. Every other interpretation of Christianity will fall short when it comes to bringing you into the presence of God. If you are saved, you will be able to enter the telestial or terrestrial kingdom; but, this does not mean that you will be saved in the sense that you will be able to enter the presence of our Heavenly Father. The atonement for our sins is without cost,  it was a free gift. The achievement of exaltation requires work, as well as passing a test and demonstrating one's merit. Would it be accurate for me to say that the majority of the Christian world adheres to the doctrine that salvation is a gift from God and that just accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is all that is necessary to be saved? 

 

To tell you the truth, the more I look into it, the more I get the impression that many people who practise my religion are attempting to reinterpret the meaning of the word "exaltation." It's almost as though they're embarrassed of the work involved to achieve exaltation and want to give the impression that being "saved" and being exalted are the same thing. Joseph revitalised the Christian message primarily with the purpose of reintroducing the idea of exaltation rather than just salvation. Before the gospel was restored in 1830, the practise of exaltation was absent from the Christian religion. There has never been a time when people couldn't find salvation. 

 

Thanks for your reply. However I guess I still have my original question. Do you consider yourself a Christian? I guess my example is this - I am first and foremost a Christian because of my individual relationship to Christ; second I am an Evangelical because I am attracted to its distinctiveness from Fundamentalism and Mainline Christianity since the 1940s; third, I am a Mennonite. Mennonitism is the specific Christian community (denomination/group) with which I most identify. For over five years my wife and I have attended an LDS ward as what I like to think of as a faithful non-member.  However, first and foremost in all of that I consider myself a Christian. As an historical anecdote, the Whitmers were Mennonite, then River Brethren, and then German Baptist prior to helping found the LDS church, some became something else afterwards. In all of that migration, they were Christians with a strong faith in and commitment to Christ.

The vast majority of my LDS friends and acquaintances consider themselves to be Christians. I am always interested in the similarities and distinctions between what my LDS friends call exaltation and what I call sanctification. While I believe that salvation is a point-in-time experience, I believe that sanctification is a life-long experience that extends into the eternities as I learn and grow in Christ.

On the other hand, and with great interest, I live in a community with members of different groups who each identify themselves as Mormon. Their membership is in different denominations or communities within Mormonism (they each follow the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith) but they identify as Mormons - dare I even say as Mormon Christians! Where I live the LeBaron Mormon community is probably better known than the LDS community, although the vast majority of Mexican mestizos would not ascertain a difference. There are several firstborn church groups (Fulness of Times and Lamb of God) and a Church of the Fullness of the Kingdom of God and New Jerusalem here, each of which claim the Mormon appellation along with the LDS. Each of them claim to have the only true apostolic authority here in earth in this dispensation. For the average Mexican, they are all "mormons." They are all powerful, and many are considered wealthy.

If I ever had joined the LDS church via its ward near us, I would still consider myself first and foremost a Christian, second an Evangelical, and third a Mormon as a member of the LDS church. Of course our LDS folks don't use the term Mormon to the same degree as they did pre-President Nelson, but they still accept the use of the term as in "Mormon colony" and the vast majority (perhaps 100%) consider themselves Christian. As do I. Take care and best wishes.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

This presents the gospel of the LDS church and its mission in such a way that is so clear and concise. To put it another way, doesn't the doctrine of the restored gospel make it abundantly plain that one must either accept our interpretation of Christianity or remain eternally estranged from Heavenly Father? 

But doesn't it also make it abundantly plain that, at minimum, the vast majority of the earth's population will accept it and reach the celestial kingdom?  We do work for the dead for everyone.  Everyone gets the chance in the spirit world to accept.  Why wouldn't they?  Who wouldn't accept it there?  I've always had a hard time trying to reason that people who've died and are now in the spirit world will still not accept Christ there.  Plus, lots of people who do temple work always talk about how they felt a confirmation saying the person accepted it.

Plus, all children who died under the age of accountability will reach the celestial kingdom.  That's a lot of people.  https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality#mortality-in-the-past-around-half-died-as-children says that almost half of all children died before age of 15.  And most of the deaths are in the younger years.

Personally, I expect the other two kingdoms to be extremely small.

[Nevo]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

Personally, I expect the other two kingdoms to be extremely small.

This reminds me of my favorite book title ever:

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

Maybe, maybe not. See Grant Underwood's footnote 48 for an alternative view.

In any case, the Vision wasn't substantively discussed until 1843, when Joseph Smith published his poetic version (likely ghostwritten by W. W. Phelps). But even this did not reveal a Universalist mindset. Far from it.

E.g.,

And I saw, too, the suff’ring and mis’ry of
those,
(Overcome by the devil, in warfare and fight,)
In hell-fire, and vengeance, the doom of the
damn’d;

 . . .

[Of the Sons of Perdition:]

They’re vessels of wrath, and dishonor to
God,
Doom’d to suffer his wrath, in the regions of
woe,
Through the terrific night of eternity’s round,
With the devil and all of his angels below:
 
Of whom it is said, no forgiveness is giv’n,
In this world, alas! nor the world that’s to
come;
For they have denied the spirit of God,
After having receiv’d it: and mis’ry’s their
doom.
 
And denying the only begotten of God,—
And crucify him to themselves, as they do,
And openly put him to shame in their flesh,
By gospel they cannot repentance renew.
 
They are they, who must go to the great
lake of fire,
Which burneth with brimstone, yet never
consumes,
And dwell with the devil, and angels of his,
While eternity goes and eternity comes.
 
They are they, who must groan through the
great second death,
And are not redeemed in the time of the Lord . . .

If there was one thing that all Universalists agreed on, it was that God would "finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness" (Winchester Profession, 1803). No one would suffer endless punishment.

This was something that Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, could not accept.

When a Universalist preacher came to Kirtland in 1835, Oliver Cowdery opposed his teachings in the Church's newspaper, arguing that damnation was real and that, "if no such principle exists as damnation, and that eternal," then Christ "certainly has spoken nonsense and folly" when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost are in danger of eternal damnation.

To recap, then, Joseph in his youth felt drawn to the Methodists, a group that strongly opposed Universalist teaching. In the 1820s, he brought forth the Book of Mormon, which took a strong anti-Universalist stance. In the 1830s, and up until the last months of his life, he spoke of salvation and damnation in traditional terms. If he was secretly a Universalist in these years or sympathetic to Universalism, he kept a tight lid on it.

In 1838, he stated that all non-Mormons would be "damned," and a "great portion" of Mormons too, "unless they repent and work righteousness." In January 1843, he taught that "the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation &
the oracles of God . . . will be damned & whan you get into the eternal world you will find it to be so[.] thay cannot escape the damnation of hell."

This is not how Universalists spoke or thought, even the Restorationist variety.

Only at the end of his life did Joseph Smith start to expound what Griffiths calls "a different concept of the afterlife." In the King Follett sermon, he stated that hell fire  "doesn't exist"; the lake of fire and brimstone was symbolic only, describing a state of mind. In May 1844, he declared: "I do not believe the [M]ethodist doctrine of sending honest men, and noble minded men to hell, along with the murderer and adulterer— they may hurl all their hell and fiery billows upon me, for they will roll off me as fast as they come on—but I have an order of things to save the poor fellows at any rate, and get them saved for I will send men to preach to them in prison and save them if I can."

This still wasn't Universalism, but it was Universalist-adjacent, and set Mormonism on a different trajectory. Such that Lorenzo Snow could declare over the pulpit in 1872:
 

Yes, Joseph did use typical protestant language at times when speaking of "damnation", but section 19 might elucidate as to why - "to work upon the hearts of the children of men", but that section gives the further understanding that "damnation" is not used in the same way that other protestants use the word.  In fact, it put forth a universalist argument at the time that "Eternal damnation" was in reference to the name of God and not to the duration of damnation.   He might be using the same words as other traditional Christians, but it seems clear that they are not using the same language.  Joseph's vision and understanding of the after-life was so much closer to universalism than anything else.   While he might have stated that all non-members would be "damned", clearly he viewed that meaning differently than what Methodist's would have thought at the time.  He understood differently that they would not all be damned to eternal hell-fire (something he didn't view as being a literal place of fire and burning, BTW), but would all be saved from such things.  The only ones he understood might be eternally damned were Mormons - the son's of perdition.  With the exception of that almost invisible fraction of the human population, his understanding of the afterlife was almost entirely universalist.   That is how Brigham Young undersood the revelation - "if it isn't universalism, it borders really close to it."  That might not be a direct quote, but he said something to that effect.  But even then, section 19 leaves open the possible interpretation for even the son's of perdition to progress beyond damnation eventually, although it is not clear that Joseph ever taught such things. 

Here is an interesting discussion on the influence of universalism on Joseph Smith and the early church.  It seems that Grant Underwood fully acknowledges the heavy influence in this discussion and acknowledges that the early Saints more closely resembles universalism more than tradition Christianity.

Quote

 

Fluhman: In my research, I examine how members of other faiths 
perceived the revelations in Joseph Smith’s day. For example, one day I 
came across a Universalist newspaper editor’s response to “the Vision,” 
now section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Universalism was a 
movement, not a fully realized church, that came together in the time 
of Joseph Smith. It had long been an approach to Christianity—to 
some in New England, a heretical approach. Joseph Smith’s father and 
some of his family had been influenced by this approach to Christianity 
that was essentially a rejection of Calvinist orthodoxy. This Universalist 
newspaper editor briefly noted the reception of the section 76 of the 
Doctrine and Covenants and added a comment like, “Heaven help 
us if the Mormons are now in our camp.” The way he perceived the 
revelation as reflecting Universalist views changed the way I saw section 76. Other historians had noted that section 76 rather dramatically 
reoriented Latter-day Saint perceptions of the afterlife, but this comment made me wonder how that revelation would have been viewed 
at the time. 
Today my students typically focus on the three degrees of glory in 
section 76, but that Universalist’s comment made me wonder what he 
agreed with. It made me wonder, in what sense would a Universalist 
latch onto it? Rather than being surprised by the idea of a multitiered 
heaven, he may have become enthused that the Mormons believed 
that salvation was more widespread than most people believed and that 
the sons of perdition were “the only ones on whom the second death 
shall have any power” (v. 37). “All the rest,” says verse 39, “shall be 
brought forth by the resurrection of the dead.” In other words, those 
early Saints may have been surprised by the vast reach of Christ’s saving 
power. For me, that has become the new core of the section, the extent to which Jesus saves. Verses 40–44: “This is the gospel . . . , that he 
came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to 
bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it 
from all unrighteousness; that through him all might be saved whom 
the Father had put into his power and made by him; who glorifies the 
Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him. Wherefore, 
he saves all except them.” For me, this middle part of the section sums 
up the scope of Christ’s saving mission: he saves more, redeems more, 
sanctifies more than many of those formerly traditional Christians had 
thought, and I think that was the real radicalism in the section.

Underwood: Yes, I think your historical context helps. It shows 
how early LDS views had more in common with Universalism (the idea 
of universal salvation) than with traditional Christianity. Most Latter-day Saints today do not have any awareness of Universalists, but back 
then Joseph Smith and others were part of a dialogue, so to speak, 
about the extent of salvation. Joseph’s grandfather Asael Smith had 
Universalist leanings.

Harper: You can see similar dialogues throughout section 20. 
There is a clear response to Calvinism; for example, the Calvinists 
believe in the perseverance of the Saints, or as they say, “once saved, 
always saved.” Section 20 flatly rejects that idea even as it agrees with 
part of the terminology of Calvinism to some degree. We believe in 
sanctification through the blood of Christ, we believe in justification, 
but we reject the perseverance of the Saints. So it behooves Latter-day Saints to know Christianity, to know doctrine well enough to see 
what the fruits of the Restoration are and to see that we have a lot in 
common with a lot of good folks out there, even as we differ in some 
ways

Underwood: Section 19 also clearly engages Universalism and 
redefines “eternal punishment” or “endless punishment” as not interminable but simply of divine origin and execution. It is a wonderfully 
sensitive move that positions the Saints much closer to a Universalist 
sentiment—actually, a subdivision of Universalism called Restorationism, which refers to being restored to God’s favored grace. And there 
was a subdivision of Universalism where the traditional Universalists 
would have said, “All suffering for sin takes place in mortality. It is the 
natural consequence of disregarding divine law. There is no postmortal 
punishment.” The Restorationists believed there is enough in the Bible 
to indicate something about afterlife punishment, but they could notenvision it lasting forever, so after a period of punishment, the sufferer 
would be restored to salvation and God’s presence. 

Harper: Some members of the Knight family were Restorationists. Those ideas were in the air, and they were in the minds of several 
Latter-day Saints.

Underwood: It’s probably human nature, but we can be very 
myopic. We try to apply every revelation to ourselves and think me or 
my. Sometimes we forget that actually the people who receive the revelations themselves had their own issues. Quite honestly, God wasn’t 
just speaking to somebody living in the year 2009; he was speaking 
to people living in the 1830s. When we read prophecies from Isaiah, 
sometimes we think they are all about our day. God speaks through his 
prophet to real people who live in a real world, and he is in dialogue 
with them, and they are learning and adjusting their thinking and seeing new insights.

Fluhman: To build on your point, it becomes helpful, then, to a 
modern Latter-day Saint to see what was being rejected and what was 
being validated, lest we think that the Restoration, as we understand it, 
is just an utter rejection of everything that came before. That is simply 
not the case, so it helps us both see what people believed and then the 
new revelations, such as the distinctive doctrine of exaltation and a 
multitiered heaven in section 76. 

Harper: Section 10 was revealed before the Church was restored. 
And the Lord, in section 10, talks about His Church. He essentially 
says, “I am not bringing forth the Book of Mormon to destroy my 
church. I am doing it to build up my church.” It seems to me that 
he is referring to Christianity. If, as Latter-day Saints, we have the 
impression that there is nothing useful in Christianity and that the 
Restoration is starting from scratch, then perhaps we are not thinking along the same lines that the Lord is thinking. He’s trying to save 
Christianity by restoring the Church. I heard a beautiful metaphor the 
other day. It drew on the idea of restoring a house. When you restore 
an old house, you do not demolish the thing and start over, you preserve the wonderful parts. You keep as much of it intact as you can. 
You do not want to throw the whole thing away, and the restoration 
of the Church does that with Christianity

https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Doctrine_and_Covenants_A_Roundtable_Discussion_Part_1.pdf

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by pogi

[manol]

7 hours ago, Sara H said:

If it is true that everyone will one day be elevated to the celestial heavenly kingdom, then the pain that Christ endured while he was here on earth will have been for nothing at all when we have all passed away. If the greatest sinner who ever lived on earth was able to make it back to the presence of God after enduring the trials of a lower kingdom, then there was no need for a saviour or for the gospel to be restored.

Actually if the greatest sinner is able to make it back to God, in whose presence no unclean thing can dwell, would that not be the ultimate triumph of the Atonement over sin? 

What is Christ's mission?  It is to ultimately get everyone, even the greatest sinner, back to God:  "For this is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."  (Moses 1:39)  "Immortality and eternal life" means "salvation and exaltation", and in this context "man" means "mankind".

Will Christ give up on anyone?  The Parable of the Good Shepherd says no.

Aren't the souls of sinners worth less in the eyes of God?  Nope. "Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God; For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men [even the greatest sinner!] might repent and come unto him."  (D&C 18:10-11)

We can of course be exalted (made perfect) without those who fall short, can't we?  Nope!  "For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect." (D&C 128:18)

Will Christ succeed in his mission? Apparently so.  "The works and the designs and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught" (D&C 3:1)

Why then is there so much emphasis on endless punishment and eternal damnation in the scriptures?  It is FOR EFFECT; it is NOT the highest level of truth on the subject!  From D&C 19:6-12:

"Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory... For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name.  Wherefore— Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.  Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

Can those in a lower kingdom realistically aspire to a higher one?  Apparently so.  This earth is "the Telestial world", and the D&C uses the terms "world" and "kingdom" interchangeably, and the inhabitants of this Telestial world aspire to progress not ONE but TWO kingdoms higher. 

But doesn't the sequence of events taught by the LDS Church preclude the possibility of progression between kingdoms after this life?  The sequence of events is not clear.  In the Sunday School manual resurrection precedes the final judgment and exaltation, but the sequence of events is very different in the King Follet Discourse.  Therein, "exaltation" (actually, multiple exaltations!) precedes the resurrection: 

"you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, ... by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” (Emphasis mine.)  The point being, the Sunday School manual teachings on what happens after this life are not necessarily completely correct.

And finally, as @JLHPROF indicated, there are no limitations on what an "Infinite and Eternal" Atonement can do. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by manol

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

But doesn't it also make it abundantly plain that, at minimum, the vast majority of the earth's population will accept it and reach the celestial kingdom?  We do work for the dead for everyone.  Everyone gets the chance in the spirit world to accept.  Why wouldn't they?  Who wouldn't accept it there?  I've always had a hard time trying to reason that people who've died and are now in the spirit world will still not accept Christ there.  Plus, lots of people who do temple work always talk about how they felt a confirmation saying the person accepted it.

Plus, all children who died under the age of accountability will reach the celestial kingdom.  That's a lot of people.  https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality#mortality-in-the-past-around-half-died-as-children says that almost half of all children died before age of 15.  And most of the deaths are in the younger years.

Personally, I expect the other two kingdoms to be extremely small.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I can tell you don’t understand Doctrine and Covenants Sections 76 and 138. It’s apparent you don’t realize that although all those.who are saved in any of the three kingdoms of glory will first have to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, the fact is that the vast majority of the saved will be relegated to a telestial glory.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore; (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Since modern astronomy informs us there are trillions of stars in our universe, it’s obvious that the above verse is testifying to the reality that the majority of the human family are going to inherit a telestial glory, for many are called to a fullness of glory but few are chosen.

Doctrine and Covenants 76 informs us that the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom are believers in Christ who were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; while the inheritors of the telestial kingdom will first have to suffer for their sins in the spirit prison in order to be humbled to the point that they accept the fact they need to humbly accept Christ as Savior in order to escape from the misery of their confinement in darkness.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It makes numerous excellent points regarding how the LDS doctrines I grew up with do not correspond with a universalism viewpoint. Indeed, the mission of the gospel, the LDS gospel, not the Christian gospel of 2000 years, is to proclaim and teach that there is eternal damnation and that the restored gospel is the only way back to our Heavenly Father. Is it correct that the Christianity that existed before to Joseph's restoration of the gospel was an apostate Christianity, a watered-down version of the true gospel, the gospel found in the LDS scriptures? If this is correct, the LDS faith is far from universal.  

 

The lessons that are given regarding the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms seem like they would amount to an everlasting form of punishment. Everything we do throughout our time in this earthly existence is directed towards the goal of returning to the presence of our heavenly father, who is eternal. Both kingdoms that were described stand between us and him. That seems to me to be an unending form of punishment. 

In my prior post, I was referring to something very similar to what you have here. If it is true that everyone will one day be elevated to the celestial heavenly kingdom, then the pain that Christ endured while he was here on earth will have been for nothing at all when we have all passed away. If the greatest sinner who ever lived on earth was able to make it back to the presence of God after enduring the trials of a lower kingdom, then there was no need for a saviour or for the gospel to be restored. 

This presents the gospel of the LDS church and its mission in such a way that is so clear and concise. To put it another way, doesn't the doctrine of the restored gospel make it abundantly plain that one must either accept our interpretation of Christianity or remain eternally estranged from Heavenly Father? 

I absolutely adore this explanation that Lorenzo Snow is providing here; however, he is speaking about salvation, not exaltation. To strive for exaltation is something that we are instructed to do in the gospel. It is not via salvation that we escape damnation; rather, it is through exaltation. If I have the spirit world correctly understood, there is the potential for redemption in every kingdom of heaven other than the celestial realm. Exaltation, however, is the only path that will allow one to join the kingdom of God and be in his presence; redemption on its alone is insufficient.

Perhaps you are not accounting for repentance and a new beginning after death

The highest temple ordinance we can receive is eternal marriage, and that is offered even for those who never even heard of Jesus Christ in their lives, as well as those who possibly rejected him in earthly life.

Salvation and exaltation must still be available to all even after death, or we are wasting money by the ton in all the effort to build and maintain temples.  Remember Kingdoms of glory are assigned during resurrection, which allows for abundant time to change one's heart after death

You seem not to be acquainted with the Doctrine of spirit prison and why it exists BEFORE Kingdoms of glory are assigned.

"Damnation" and "Hell" and "Paradose" are temporary states before resurrection 

Spirit World

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/spirit-world?lang=eng

Edited May 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I think the point he was making is that the reach of the atonement stretches beyond death.  To limit its reach is to limit its eternal nature.  Traditional Christianity doesn't believe in redemption after death.  We clearly do - this makes us cousins of Universal Restorationists.   Where not everyone agrees is if such redemption is possible even after final judgment.  My question is, why not?  If it takes someone a bazzilion years before they have a change of heart, then it takes a bazzillion years, why would a merciful God who provided an infinite atonement not allow for redemption?  It has been argued that the ministry to lower kingdoms from higher kingdoms doesn't make much sense unless this is being done to administer higher laws and ways of living and to make possible progression between kingdoms. 

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your reply. However I guess I still have my original question. Do you consider yourself a Christian? I guess my example is this - I am first and foremost a Christian because of my individual relationship to Christ; second I am an Evangelical because I am attracted to its distinctiveness from Fundamentalism and Mainline Christianity since the 1940s; third, I am a Mennonite. Mennonitism is the specific Christian community (denomination/group) with which I most identify. For over five years my wife and I have attended an LDS ward as what I like to think of as a faithful non-member.  However, first and foremost in all of that I consider myself a Christian. As an historical anecdote, the Whitmers were Mennonite, then River Brethren, and then German Baptist prior to helping found the LDS church, some became something else afterwards. In all of that migration, they were Christians with a strong faith in and commitment to Christ.

The vast majority of my LDS friends and acquaintances consider themselves to be Christians. I am always interested in the similarities and distinctions between what my LDS friends call exaltation and what I call sanctification. While I believe that salvation is a point-in-time experience, I believe that sanctification is a life-long experience that extends into the eternities as I learn and grow in Christ.

On the other hand, and with great interest, I live in a community with members of different groups who each identify themselves as Mormon. Their membership is in different denominations or communities within Mormonism (they each follow the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith) but they identify as Mormons - dare I even say as Mormon Christians! Where I live the LeBaron Mormon community is probably better known than the LDS community, although the vast majority of Mexican mestizos would not ascertain a difference. There are several firstborn church groups (Fulness of Times and Lamb of God) and a Church of the Fullness of the Kingdom of God and New Jerusalem here, each of which claim the Mormon appellation along with the LDS. Each of them claim to have the only true apostolic authority here in earth in this dispensation. For the average Mexican, they are all "mormons." They are all powerful, and many are considered wealthy.

If I ever had joined the LDS church via its ward near us, I would still consider myself first and foremost a Christian, second an Evangelical, and third a Mormon as a member of the LDS church. Of course our LDS folks don't use the term Mormon to the same degree as they did pre-President Nelson, but they still accept the use of the term as in "Mormon colony" and the vast majority (perhaps 100%) consider themselves Christian. As do I. Take care and best wishes.

I suppose that I don't fully understand what you mean when you refer to someone as a Christian and whether or not you believe that only believing in Christianity is sufficient to guarantee a place in the eternal presence of God after death. 

 

Permit me to break down how I understand the LDS faith's doctrines, at least how I perceive what I have been taught over the course of many, many years. First, while a belief in Christianity or an acknowledgment that Jesus Christ is our saviour is necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient for exaltation on its own. Because salvation does not bring a person into the presence of god God, exaltation is the goal towards which we work. Which of these three identities, then, when you claim that you are a Christian, an evangelical, or a Mennonite, do you believe brings you closer to God's presence? In addition, I am very interested in learning what you think it is that makes you a Christian. This will help me see why it is so essential for you to believe that becoming a Christian is necessary in order to reconcile with God. We also believe, in accordance with the doctrine of redemption, that the vast majority of people currently inhabiting the earth are in a state of spiritual darkness. This would include all Christians, and if they wish to emerge from the darkness, they can do so by embracing the light that comes from the gospel that has been restored. 

 

To further break down my opinion based on what I've been taught over the course of many, many years as an LDS believer, salvation isn't only found within Christianity. Salvation is a free gift from Jesus because of what he performed on the cross. He saved us from physical death, a gift to all human beings from our saviour.  When I'm around other Christians, I often hear them use the phrase "born again." In my opinion, the LDS doctrine holds that being born again is synonymous with exaltation, which is not the same thing as salvation. This rebirth takes place in the waters of a LDS baptism, along with the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

 

 

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

That seems to me to be an unending form of punishment. 

Does unending punishment (as in Never. Ending. Punishment) seem to match any possible sin that one can commit in this life?  What sin has never-ending consequences that needs to be meted with never ending punishment.  Even the death from murder has an end.  There is no sin that I can think of that would warrant unending punishment.   That seems like heavy handed justice imbalanced with mercy.  That is a view of God that I have a hard time accepting. 

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

In my prior post, I was referring to something very similar to what you have here. If it is true that everyone will one day be elevated to the celestial heavenly kingdom, then the pain that Christ endured while he was here on earth will have been for nothing at all when we have all passed away. If the greatest sinner who ever lived on earth was able to make it back to the presence of God after enduring the trials of a lower kingdom, then there was no need for a saviour or for the gospel to be restored. 

Why would the Savior not be needed for sinners to overcome sin in this life, or the next?  

 

 

[pogi]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!!

The Book of Mormon certainly speaks of the possibility of regression after final judgment.  God himself suggest that he could potentially cease to be God.  If God can regress from Godhood, even after exaltation, then there must be an equal and opposite alternative possibility of progression to exaltation and Godhood from a state of lower glory/damnation - as you state the one concept defines the other. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It makes numerous excellent points regarding how the LDS doctrines I grew up with do not correspond with a universalism viewpoint. Indeed, the mission of the gospel, the LDS gospel, not the Christian gospel of 2000 years, is to proclaim and teach that there is eternal damnation and that the restored gospel is the only way back to our Heavenly Father. Is it correct that the Christianity that existed before to Joseph's restoration of the gospel was an apostate Christianity, a watered-down version of the true gospel, the gospel found in the LDS scriptures? If this is correct, the LDS faith is far from universal.  

 

The lessons that are given regarding the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms seem like they would amount to an everlasting form of punishment. Everything we do throughout our time in this earthly existence is directed towards the goal of returning to the presence of our heavenly father, who is eternal. Both kingdoms that were described stand between us and him. That seems to me to be an unending form of punishment. 

In my prior post, I was referring to something very similar to what you have here. If it is true that everyone will one day be elevated to the celestial heavenly kingdom, then the pain that Christ endured while he was here on earth will have been for nothing at all when we have all passed away. If the greatest sinner who ever lived on earth was able to make it back to the presence of God after enduring the trials of a lower kingdom, then there was no need for a saviour or for the gospel to be restored. 

This presents the gospel of the LDS church and its mission in such a way that is so clear and concise. To put it another way, doesn't the doctrine of the restored gospel make it abundantly plain that one must either accept our interpretation of Christianity or remain eternally estranged from Heavenly Father? 

I absolutely adore this explanation that Lorenzo Snow is providing here; however, he is speaking about salvation, not exaltation. To strive for exaltation is something that we are instructed to do in the gospel. It is not via salvation that we escape damnation; rather, it is through exaltation. If I have the spirit world correctly understood, there is the potential for redemption in every kingdom of heaven other than the celestial realm. Exaltation, however, is the only path that will allow one to join the kingdom of God and be in his presence; redemption on its alone is insufficient.

This is why I think it's all make believe, the religion part, not the maker part. 

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Even the death from murder has an end

Murder may be pardonable, but I don't believe it can be completely forgiven. A killer may eventually reach the terrestrial realm, but do you believe he or she may reach the celestial kingdom? Because if that's your opinion, and if it's true, then what Jesus did on the cross was pointless. 

 

 

 

[Sara H]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is why I think it's all make believe, the religion part, not the maker part. 

Possibly 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Murder may be pardonable, but I don't believe it can be completely forgiven. A killer may eventually reach the terrestrial realm, but do you believe he or she may reach the celestial kingdom? Because if that's your opinion, and if it's true, then what Jesus did on the cross was pointless. 

Then we have fundamentally different understandings of what Jesus did in the garden and on the cross and why.

If Christ completely took upon himself the consequences of sin, then what would be the point if he could not offer complete forgiveness and redemption from that sin.  Why would he need to suffer the full extent if the sinner was going to suffer for the sin himself and could not be fully forgiven?  Makes no sense to me.  In my mind it makes his suffering for naught and lessens the eternal nature of his atonement.   That, to me makes his suffering pointless.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

I suppose that I don't fully understand what you mean when you refer to someone as a Christian and whether or not you believe that only believing in Christianity is sufficient to guarantee a place in the eternal presence of God after death. 

 

Permit me to break down how I understand the LDS faith's doctrines, at least how I perceive what I have been taught over the course of many, many years. First, while a belief in Christianity or an acknowledgment that Jesus Christ is our saviour is necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient for exaltation on its own. Because salvation does not bring a person into the presence of god God, exaltation is the goal towards which we work. Which of these three identities, then, when you claim that you are a Christian, an evangelical, or a Mennonite, do you believe brings you closer to God's presence? In addition, I am very interested in learning what you think it is that makes you a Christian. This will help me see why it is so essential for you to believe that becoming a Christian is necessary in order to reconcile with God. We also believe, in accordance with the doctrine of redemption, that the vast majority of people currently inhabiting the earth are in a state of spiritual darkness. This would include all Christians, and if they wish to emerge from the darkness, they can do so by embracing the light that comes from the gospel that has been restored. 

 

To further break down my opinion based on what I've been taught over the course of many, many years as an LDS believer, salvation isn't only found within Christianity. Salvation is a free gift from Jesus because of what he performed on the cross. He saved us from physical death, a gift to all human beings from our saviour.  When I'm around other Christians, I often hear them use the phrase "born again." In my opinion, the LDS doctrine holds that being born again is synonymous with exaltation, which is not the same thing as salvation. This rebirth takes place in the waters of a LDS baptism, along with the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

 

 

 

I just spent too much time starting a new thread! But to answer your questions - The only one of my three identities that has any bearing on my eternal destiny is being a Christian. I believe also in a wideness in God's mercy. I believe that when Christ said "no man comes unto the father but by me" he was referring to his atonement and final judgment of each human. I certainly believe that there will be many in eternity with the Father and Son who were not Christians in this life.

I am not comfortable with the concept of exaltation, because I am not familiar with it and all of its ramifications. I am comfortable with the idea of sanctification or growth in the Christian life, both here and in eternity. Sanctification enables us to be like God, not as God in nature or substance. That is probably a difference between us. I once heard a conference talk by a general authority who encouraged the LDS to see being "born again" as something to which they could happily assent. In that spirit, I am not sure that the words we use matter all that much. I believe in a rebirth, but not through any baptismal water or via any church. The rebirth and gift of the Holy Spirit is an individual thing between a person and Christ. No church has anything to do with salvation, except to teach about it. What makes me a Christian? My trust and faith in the atonement (from incarnation to ascension) and the mercy of God in Christ as the perfect balance of mercy and righteousness. Thanks, take care.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Hate to burst your bubble, but I can tell you don’t understand Doctrine and Covenants Sections 76 and 138. It’s apparent you don’t realize that although all those.who are saved in any of the three kingdoms of glory will first have to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, the fact is that the vast majority of the saved will be relegated to a telestial glory.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore; (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Since modern astronomy informs us there are trillions of stars in our universe, it’s obvious that the above verse is testifying to the reality that the majority of the human family are going to inherit a telestial glory, for many are called to a fullness of glory but few are chosen.

Doctrine and Covenants 76 informs us that the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom are believers in Christ who were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; while the inheritors of the telestial kingdom will first have to suffer for their sins in the spirit prison in order to be humbled to the point that they accept the fact they need to humbly accept Christ as Savior in order to escape from the misery of their confinement in darkness.

 

On earth, we have had less than 200 billion people live on the earth and that is if you go back 8 million years ago (https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/).  If we limit it to just 6 thousand years ago, it is probably less than 100 billion.  And almost half of those are children that died under the age of accountability.

The vast majority of the people who lived on earth can't go to the telestial glory.  The numbers don't add up.

And I don't see how that scripture says that the majority are going to telestial since it doesn't give any comparison to the numbers in the other kingdoms.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

The Book of Mormon certainly speaks of the possibility of regression after final judgment.  God himself suggest that he could potentially cease to be God.  If God can regress from Godhood, even after exaltation, then there must be an equal and opposite alternative possibility of progression to exaltation and Godhood from a state of lower glory/damnation - as you state the one concept defines the other. 

Totally agree! 

Without "agency" God would be a robot, evolution would not work, and he could not change anything or save anyone.  He could not create new worlds.

FWIW, I think God works through evolution. We are just beginning to understand how a little "tweak" in one ecology can change everything.  My belief / paradigm is that he might work that way- making "tweaks" as needed as worlds develop over time.

We must remember he has CHOSEN to work as an immanent force, so he can be fully a "father" to his children, and lets his " nature app/algorithm" take care of the little stuff. "Survival of the fittest" depends on how you define "fit".  That's HIS input into the system He designed/defined 

Something like that... 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

I absolutely adore this explanation that Lorenzo Snow is providing here; however, he is speaking about salvation, not exaltation. To strive for exaltation is something that we are instructed to do in the gospel. It is not via salvation that we escape damnation; rather, it is through exaltation. If I have the spirit world correctly understood, there is the potential for redemption in every kingdom of heaven other than the celestial realm. Exaltation, however, is the only path that will allow one to join the kingdom of God and be in his presence; redemption on its alone is insufficient.

We (speaking as part of the LDS Church) have a problem in using early statements to comment on modern beliefs - but those early statements don't always apply well to our current beliefs - because those beliefs weren't there early on. It is worth pointing out that the LDS view of exaltation had not reached it's current form - even in 1872. The idea of three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom post-dates Joseph Smith by quite a bit (that isn't formalized in the Church until around 1878 - and the previous belief - of which we have illustrations - doesn't look at all like our diagrams today). In 1872, you still could not be sealed to your deceased family members (who had not been previously baptized and - for men - ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood) - that wouldn't happen until 1894. The idea of exaltation shifts with polygamy (which assigns the new highest degree in the celestial kingdom only to those who are polygamous) - and shifts again with the end of polygamy (which reverses the earlier shift - and makes the highest degree of glory apply to everyone who is married). We get another change in 1978 when all male members are given access to the Melchizedek priesthood. So when we go back to those early quotes, and attempt to use them in the context of our current belief set, we are always going to run into problems.

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Since modern astronomy informs us there are trillions of stars in our universe ...

Interestingly enough, current science suggests that the number of stars in the universe and the number of grains of sand on the earth are in the same ball park - roughly 200 billion trillion of them. Or, in other words, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Science also puts the estimate of the number of human beings that have ever lived at about 117 billion. That's 117,000,000,000 (that's going back to the earliest point at which we might identify humans - long before the time frame provided for Adam and Eve). Even if we extrapolate another thousand years or so, the numbers are off by a magnitude so great that we can conclude that this wasn't meant to be read literally, but figuratively. The idea that most individuals will end up in the Telestial Kingdom is a Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie idea. The other side of Church leadership on this point provided a very different perspective - suggesting that even if most of the human family start in the Telestial Kingdom, most of them will end up participating in the Celestial kingdom. McConkie was forced to argue that there was enough room in the Telestial Kingdom to allow for eternal progression without ever allowing those in that kingdom to progress to a different kingdom. Since I find this position to be contradictory (McConkie seems to struggle with the concept of eternity), I don't put a lot of stock in McConkie's viewpoint. Nor do I believe that we will find our relationships here in mortality to be so trivial that we will simply give up on them when those in a relationship find themselves (temporarily) separated into different kingdoms. And just to beat the dead horse, it is worth pointing out that modern astronomy informs us that our sun (to which the celestial kingdom is compared) isn't particularly bright as far as stars go. The brightest star that we can reliably measure is 14,000 times brighter than our own sun. The scriptures use a metaphor for glory - a metaphor that doesn't work well when we try to make it overly literal.

Finally -

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

while the inheritors of the telestial kingdom will first have to suffer for their sins in the spirit prison in order to be humbled to the point that they accept the fact they need to humbly accept Christ as Savior in order to escape from the misery of their confinement in darkness.

None of this is doctrine. The spirit prison exists only between the period of death and the resurrection. And all are resurrected - even the sons of perdition - within a finite period of time - there are no conditions placed on being resurrected in the last resurrection. And the Telestial Kingdom, as noted in D&C 76:82 is for "they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus."

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Murder may be pardonable, but I don't believe it can be completely forgiven. A killer may eventually reach the terrestrial realm, but do you believe he or she may reach the celestial kingdom? Because if that's your opinion, and if it's true, then what Jesus did on the cross was pointless. 

I think that we need to be careful about all of this from three perspectives.

First, eternity is a very, very long time - and to say that someone cannot repent or change sufficiently over an eternity is itself making a lot of assumptions about the nature of the atonement.

Second, I think that we need to be very careful about how we deal with the sins of others. It is easy enough for us to say that we would have done things differently had we been in another's shoes - but, unless we actually do, it's all just speculation. I don't believe that we will have universal standards - they will be individualized. The child soldier in Nicaragua who has killed many people may be held to a very different standard than a mother in the United States who has starved only one to death.

Third, on the nature of the atonement, there is a huge range of views. Do we see it as substitutionary? Do we follow the satisfaction theory? There are at least seven different models that are used to explain the atonement. For me, I tend to see the atonement as dealing with two separate issues. On the one hand we have the idea of sin and guilt (justice). On the other hand, we have this idea of judgment and intervention (mercy) - that is, that Jesus has to understand the individual in terms of both what they do and why they do it in order to pass appropriate judgment. Even if eternal progression allows someone to eventually move beyond their starting place into greater glory - and that somehow this negates the first part of the meaning of the atonement, it doesn't negate the second part of the meaning of the atonement.

I think our post-mortal selves will see all of our concerns as trivial and irrelevant once we come face to face again with the meaning of eternity.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

. That seems to me to be an unending form of punishment. 

If we are not prepared to stand in the presence of God, would it not be a punishment for us to do so?

There are many who would feel it the highest honor to be given some sort of medal for conduct above and beyond and to have a ceremony where  their importance to others, to humanity was recognized; a massive love fest for them. To me and others who have issues with crowds and being in the spotlight, that would be pure torture. I didn’t even go to my high school or college graduation.  As much as I like getting recognition and appreciation for what I do, I prefer such in smaller digestible portions and such being given to me by thousands at once would be overwhelming and exhausting and these days with my disorder would even be painful.

If there is eternal progression between kingdoms, it is logical to me that if our souls are purged of any unrighteousness as we are taught happens before judgment (nothing unclean can enter even the Telestial Kingdom), even hardened souls among us could eventually realize after living in the glory and wonder and ultimate comfort of either the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdoms for eons, that all that we have is given to us by God out of his love for us.  Wouldn’t that knowledge work on us over time (even if highly self centered still after losing all mortal physical and emotional disorders that interfere with connecting with others like narcissism and sociopathy), even if initially it works for us because we are still so self centered (as in “how can I get more?”).  Thus even if once we didn’t care much about God, we might grow over the eternities in appreciation for what God has done for us and our hearts could become softened and we could stop being so self centered and instead become more Christ centered.  

Add the fact that even in the Telestial we will be surrounded by individuals who have also been purged of sin and have no mortal limitations and who might not be the most loving at that point, but at least they no certainly will longer attempt to harm us as that would be sinful.  Surely we will eventually fully realize there is no need for self protection or mind games if that belief still lingers post spirit prison. That all that manipulation of others is wasteful effort that won’t work any more.  And since manipulation for greater power or fame is useless in God’s kingdoms, we will likely will also lose the impulse to seek for personal glory and power (whether in spirit prison or over the eternities).  Perhaps even in our immortal forms, something unused will fade.   With those self promoting habits lost, surely we could begin to look at our relationships with God and others in healthier ways and develop habits and ways of being that not only avoid what God wants us to avoid (sin), but eventually have us acting in greater love for our neighbour and God (obedience to God’s commandments), which in mortality is what prepares us for accepting God’s love.

I also believe that part of Judgment will be seeing ourselves for who we are in a very intense, down to atomic level awareness…an experience that can never be denied or dismissed, so there will be no ability to talk ourselves into thinking God’s judgment is unfair.  Even if that moment doesn’t permanently remove our pride and render us humble, I can see the possibility that the memory of that experience could work on us and thus provide the other element needed besides love to open us up to the Atonement in this life, a recognition that we are so, so much more with God’s help than we are without him.

If progression is possible, then in time surrounded by all the eternal blessings that even Telestial beings are blessed with, it makes sense to me that our hearts may become ready to accept God more and with God’s Infinite Atonement we will grow in our ability to accept more of God’s presence in our lives. And as we accept more, God gives us greater blessings including the best of becoming more one with him. 

The only thing that makes sense to me that might prevent progression is if our eternal natures are not capable of change, just like sitting in bright sunlight and gentle rain for millennia won’t ever cause a rock to bloom as a flower.  But LDS doctrine is that God can change the natural man in each of us if we put ourselves into his care and guidance, so it seems to me there is a different rule/process/law going on for mankind than there is for rocks.  If God is willing to change our natures when we are mortal, why would he refuse to do so when we are immortal (we are in essence immortal at this time after all, just experiencing life in a different way than we will experience life after resurrection), either before Judgment or after?  If he can’t change us after Judgment, what is stopping him from putting off judgment as long as necessary for change to happen?

All of the above is assuming the process of progression and Judgment is as we are taught it. My guess is it is more complicated (to mortal minds at least, simple to celestial ones just as square roots are complicated and hard to understand to most five year olds, but easy for the occasional genius and most older individuals who have been prepared through learning basic math facts, etc).  I think it more likely that eternal progression and being in the presence of God means something closer to the Final Judgement being an ongoing, never ending process in the sense we become aware of who we are and our destiny and that itself shapes us for the eternities to come…in each eternal moment that awareness and engagement with all that we are and could be will act upon us, adding to the process of eternal progression. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Calm