Chain of command for those who welcome loved ones into the Spirit World?

[Stargazer]

On 5/22/2025 at 8:50 PM, Calm said:

Since baptism is the first ordinance we receive, it seems logical that at the very least it is required to leave Spirit Prison according to what is our doctrine.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

Yes, I know. The Nehor pointed that manual section out to me.  Which was, as I said, the first time I had ever heard of the idea. I am afraid that I don't quite accept that as correct doctrine. First of all, logically, because when Jesus arrived in the Spirit World as D&C 138:11-12 describes, 

"As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great. And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;"

An innumerable company suggests a number so large they couldn't be counted. To that point in human history, how many people had been baptized by authority? Before John the Baptist was anyone baptized in the history of Abraham's seed? In Moses 8 we learn that Adam was baptized, and presumably some of his righteous descendants were as well. But this obviously died out except among some lines of his descendants, until there was only one left, that being Noah. If we go by Archbishop Ussher's timetable (which I don't), there would have been very few people baptized by authority when Jesus arrived in the Spirit World. Not an innumerable company.

That's my logical argument. 

My spiritual argument pertains to what is known about the baptismal state of men and women who were not wicked, and who tried to keep the commandments as best they could, but did not live in a time when baptism was available. Were Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob baptized? How about Moses, Isaiah, or Jeremiah? No record of it, and neither had Nephi or Lehi been baptized. So these great prophets of God were shoved into Spirit Prison when they died? Seems a bit odd, to be honest. And then we come to an argument from justice or mercy, which asks about children who were past the age of accountability but died before they were 12 years old, having had no chance to be baptized or not much chance to sin. Spirit Prison for them, too? It don't compute.

Looking at D&C 138:12 it speaks of "the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality" as being there to greet Jesus upon his arrival. It doesn't say they had been baptized in life. But they were "just." As for being faithful in the testimony of Jesus, seems like an odd thing to be faithful in, if Jesus hadn't yet begun his mortal ministry, doesn't it? The Old Testament refers only very sparsely and elliptically to the Messiah, and certainly doesn't say his name will be Jesus. But perhaps there were passages or books in the OT that contained more explicit information which was removed by scribes who didn't like it. Nephi is told about this in 1 Nephi 13, that "many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." So perhaps these things were better known among the pre-Christian Israelites than we believe, and a testimony of the Messiah and what he would do was more prevalent than we know.

In any case, I remain unconvinced of that idea that baptism is required for Paradise. Since there is no ancient or modern revelation that explicitly supports baptism for entry into Paradise, I must conclude that all that is required to enter Paradise is a judgment that a person was "just." And that's up to God.

 

[Stargazer]

On 5/22/2025 at 7:21 PM, manol said:

We really don't know of course, as you say, but here's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how state, rather than locality, can be what really matters:  Imagine you and I are sitting next to each other watching General Conference. You are really into the talk being given and I'm getting angrier and angrier by the minute over something I don't like about it.  Which one of us will God the Holy Spirit go to?  Which one of us will hear the voice of God the Holy Spirit?  

And if we trade locations, would that make any difference?  Of course not!   At the risk of oversimplifying, the difference is that I have chosen to "tune in" to the low spiritual energy of judgment and grievance, and you have chosen to "tune in" to the high spiritual energy of receptiveness.  It's like I've tuned my radio to Gwar, and you've tuned your radio to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Handel's Messiah.  In other words state, rather than locality, is what matters here. 

Yes, but when modern revelation (e.g. D&C 138) speaks about it, the terms used suggest location. How does the crucified Savior send his anointed servants to those in Spirit Prison, if it is merely their state? How does he avoid those of prison state when he shows up where those in Paradise are, and those in Spirit Prison are not?

Of course, we may be arguing along the lines of how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, but when modern revelation (e.g. D&C 138) speaks about it, the terms used suggest location. How does the crucified Savior send his anointed servants to those in Spirit Prison, if it is merely their state? How does he avoid those of prison state when he shows up where those in Paradise are, and those in Spirit Prison are not?

I would argue that there is a place called Spirit Prison but it's more like a gathering place for people in the state of Prison than a prison in its own right. The place is not Prison because of any of its own characteristics, but rather the characteristics of the people who gather there. The same, on this model, would be true of Paradise. The borders between them would be rather porous, if indeed they existed at all.

As we've been hashing out, D&C 138 contains no references to Paradise or Prison - it's just not the relevant interpretive concept. There is clearly, however, a gathering of the innumerable company of the just, and I would argue that is the definition of Paradise and is identical thereto.

Edited May 25, 2025 by OGHoosier

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I can see why it might be taught. But when in D&C 138 it speaks of an innumerable number of people waiting for Jesus to come through into the Spirit World, how could they all have been baptized?

The Nephites and Lamanites had baptism for their whole history. That could provide an innumberable….ummmmm….number.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Some of what I believe in connection with all this could be said to "reasoned out." The idea that there could be "degrees of spirit prison" doesn't seem outlandish at all, to me. In connection with this, I shall direct your attention to something Heber C. Kimball reported that Jedidiah M. Grant told him about a vision he had had not long before Grant's death. He indicated that there was a definite organization in the Spirit World:

"At President Grant’s funeral, President Kimball said: '[Brother Grant] said to me, [Brother] Heber, I have been into the spirit world two nights in succession, and, of all the dreads that ever came across me, the worst was to have to again return to my body, though I had to do it. But O, says he, the order and government that were there! When in the spirit world, I saw the order of righteous men and women; beheld them organized in their several grades, and there appeared to be no obstruction to my vision; I could see every man and woman in their grade and order. I looked to see whether there was any disorder there, but there was none; neither could I see any death nor any darkness, disorder or confusion. He said that the people he there saw were organized in family capacities; and when he looked at them he saw grade after grade, and all were organized and in perfect harmony'."

That sounds pretty horrible to me honestly. So regimented and orderly. I want some chaos!

I think this is one reason we are told not to take Spirit World visions as indicative of truths. They may be real but they are calculated to appeal to the person having them.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I found this in the Introduction to Family History student manual. The above is not canonized scripture, so it isn't quite authoritative. But it's there. 

The original 12 apostles hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost until Pentecost. Perhaps they received the ordinance from Jesus, but didn't receive the Spirit itself until then, but that's not written anywhere. 

The vast majority of the human race will only learn about the gospel in the Spirit World. The vast majority will have never heard of Jesus Christ until they arrive there. This means that authoritative baptism performed in mortal life is very rare. Why it vanished? Did it? Apostasy, leading to ignorance, is the only answer I can come up with.

I know most will never hear of it. It does make me wonder why the world was designed to give so few that chance when the gospel is given as the reason the world exists.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But on the other hand, there are some things we don't know about in the distant past because they were not documented, or not documented in surviving records. For example, have you heard of those odd bronze dodecahedrons that have been found throughout Europe? They are called "Roman dodecahedrons," though none have been found in the Roman heartland, in Italy. About 130 of them have been found. 

No-one has a clue what they were used for, because there's nothing written about them.

Yeah, I read about them. My not very educated guess is that it was a status symbol or proof of a level of mastery in metalsmithing for a guild member or something along those lines. 

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

By the same token, people might have been baptizing in past eras, but because it was so commonplace nobody felt the need to write about it much. And for so many ancient cultures we have virtually no documentation.

Yep.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If God were not bound by law, then could we trust him? If he were capricious, then how could we have faith in him?

I don’t really trust God.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Alma 42:22 -> "But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." [emphasis added]

Quite a radical idea, that of God ceasing to be God. The thing is, once we've sinned, God cannot take us back. NOT "doesn't want to," but cannot take us back. Because we are unclean, and even after we've repented, the stain of our sins follow us. That's the whole justification and need for a savior, one who had never sinned himself, but nevertheless took on himself the punishment required for disobedience.

I am not convinced that the whole “God would cease to be God” phrase was intended to be taken literally. I don’t know.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In the next verses, Alma lays out the whole law of the gospel in its entirety. I won't reproduce it here.

It is my understanding that having willingly suffered the punishment for sin, despite having no sin himself, Christ won for us the mercy to accept our repentance to make us as if we had not sinned. And being thus clean, we can return to the presence of God. While those who are required to suffer for their own sins cannot do so. They are "at one" with God, but are still unclean.

Consider Alma again:

And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.
(Alma 34:15–16, italics added.)

In case you're interested, at the risk of presenting a "private interpretation," I present an article I wrote, the Roles of Justice, Sacrifice and Mercy in the Atonement of Christ and put it on my personal wiki. 

I have a much darker potential interpretation of why the atonement was required but I am not at all certain of it and it makes me feel like a gnostic to recast the whole story in a new light. I don’t intend that as a compliment to myself.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There we go with those "mistakes of men." If His servants muck it up, how can God hold us responsible for those mistakes when God's servants have "mucked it up"? Of course he is able to work around that to a degree. 

In King Benjamin's sermon, he explained that to ensure a righteous judgment, the Savior’s blood atoned “for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” and for those “who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.” A righteous judgment also required, he taught, that “the blood of Christ atoneth for” the sins of little children.

In the April 2020 General Conference said: "These scriptures teach a glorious doctrine: the Savior’s atoning sacrifice heals, as a free gift, those who sin in ignorance—those to whom, as Jacob put it, 'there is no law given.' Accountability for sin depends on the light we have been given and hinges on our ability to exercise our agency. We know this healing and comforting truth only because of the Book of Mormon and other Restoration scripture."

This makes me dubious of it. If it is eternal why does it only appear in dispensations that were also revealed in this dispensation. Seems kind of important.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What is hell? Our non-LDS Christian friends believe it lasts forever. But when Jesus describes it (see D&C 19:17-18) he says hell is what he suffered...

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

The duration of that punishment (which has to be suffered in both the body and the spirit -- i.e. after resurrection) in earthly terms seems to be about 18 hours long. That's how long Jesus was suffering, beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane and ending upon the cross, when he said "It is finished." 

But the only people that have to experience the atonement in their own persons are those who reject Christ ultimately. This is not because Father wants them to suffer, but because justice must be meted out to them -- or else God would cease to be God. Those who reject him here, but accept him in the Spirit World, are home free, and do not suffer, having accepted Christ. I cannot remember where and when it was said, but I believe it was Elder Boyd K. Packer who said that the number who do reject Him in the end will be relatively few. And even they, once they atone for their sins, will have earned the Telestial Kingdom, which we understand to be a kingdom of glory as well as far better than anything we can imagine here.

But you know this, so I'm preaching to the choir, I think. 

Thanks though.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So regimented and orderly.

That would depend on what he defined as order.  A natural/wild garden that was beautifully cared for would be called orderly by me.  Orderly isn’t always regimented.

https://wonderground.press/gardens/claire-takacs-world-tour-wild-gardens/

Quote

They may be real but they are calculated to appeal to the person having them.

This makes most sense to me.  I am not sure it’s a “calculation” though.  I think more likely it is just what draws our attention and it gets interpreted by the ability of the person who receives it.  I don’t think we could truly comprehend it, but we pick out things that look familiar and comfortable and attach our own experience to them, which may or may not be an accurate interpretation just as some words in other languages seem familiar, but are not.  My daughter loved calling her brother “brother” in Russian.  It sounds like “brat”.

Edited May 25, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 5/25/2025 at 4:25 PM, OGHoosier said:

I would argue that there is a place called Spirit Prison but it's more like a gathering place for people in the state of Prison than a prison in its own right. The place is not Prison because of any of its own characteristics, but rather the characteristics of the people who gather there. The same, on this model, would be true of Paradise. The borders between them would be rather porous, if indeed they existed at all.

I like that. Seems sound. Of course it could be completely wrong, but so could a lot of other things.

The odd thing about this idea is that it is the premise of a science-fiction novel by Parke Godwin, The Snake Oil Wars. Except that God isn't involved at all, as Godwin was quite the atheist. That novel is the sequel to Waiting for the Galactic Bus, which I didn't find as entertaining as The Snake Oil Wars. In Snake Oil, when humans die, their post-life energies voluntarily associate themselves with the two places, one where the "good people" congregate, and the other place being where the "bad people" take themselves. And there is porosity between them. You get to meet Godwin's versions of all kinds of people, including Abraham Lincoln, Jesus, Judas, Dorothy Parker, L. Ron Hubbard, and Benjamin Disraeli. Even Hitler and Joseph Smith get brief mentions. In the case of Hitler, in his post-life he apparently embarks on a career as an art and film critic. Joseph's reference is negative, of course. Judas drives a spirit taxi, and towards the end of the book he and Jesus reconcile their friendship -- though this is mere subplot. 

The books are very tart towards Christianity and American jingoism, and not at all to everyone's taste. But I found them entertaining.

On 5/25/2025 at 4:25 PM, OGHoosier said:

As we've been hashing out, D&C 138 contains no references to Paradise or Prison - it's just not the relevant interpretive concept. There is clearly, however, a gathering of the innumerable company of the just, and I would argue that is the definition of Paradise and is identical thereto.

I agree that it is the definition of Paradise. As for Spirit Prison, we took that reference from Paul. Though in that reference he's including Noah and his family in that place. We have to name them something. What we've named them seems adequate for the purpose of communication.

 

Edited June 1, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

The Nephites and Lamanites had baptism for their whole history. That could provide an innumberable….ummmmm….number.

I remember a photograph of an apparent font that some LDS member took in a Mesoamerican ruin. He claimed it was a baptismal font.

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

That sounds pretty horrible to me honestly. So regimented and orderly. I want some chaos!

I think this is one reason we are told not to take Spirit World visions as indicative of truths. They may be real but they are calculated to appeal to the person having them.

I agree. 

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

I know most will never hear of it. It does make me wonder why the world was designed to give so few that chance when the gospel is given as the reason the world exists.

I kind of disagree on that. The Gospel is the answer/solution to the Fall. Without the Fall, the Gospel is unnecessary. The Gospel is the Good News. The News being that Christ's sacrifice saves you from your sins. My take is that the reason for the world's existence is to see what we will all do when out of Father's sight, and, knowing that we will sin, a Savior is provided to save us from those sins, if we will strive to repent and obey. From that viewpoint, we don't need to hear about and choose the Gospel in this life. If we don't we will have the opportunity later, while we are still within the veil of forgetfulness. The important question is, what will we do when we have complete freedom to make choices. 

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I read about them. My not very educated guess is that it was a status symbol or proof of a level of mastery in metalsmithing for a guild member or something along those lines. 

That actually sounds very plausible! And the most plausible one I've seen. And whether or not you're very educated, you're not alone. I've found that idea mentioned in at least one place on the web. 

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

I don’t really trust God.

Might It be that you've not experienced enough interaction? I don't claim to understand everything, but my experiences with him tend to lead me towards complete trust. 

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced that the whole “God would cease to be God” phrase was intended to be taken literally. I don’t know.

I have a much darker potential interpretation of why the atonement was required but I am not at all certain of it and it makes me feel like a gnostic to recast the whole story in a new light. I don’t intend that as a compliment to myself.

I'm intrigued as to your dark potential interpretation, actually. But this is probably not the thread for it.

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

This makes me dubious of it. If it is eternal why does it only appear in dispensations that were also revealed in this dispensation. Seems kind of important.

We are the last dispensation, so we get the whole package, including information about the other dispensations. That's my take on it, anyway.

Dispensationalism isn't only taught in our church. One of my sons joined an offshoot of an offshoot of the Adventist movement, and his new wife's father was a pastor of it in Victoria, BC. We visited them at one point, and attended his church (on a Saturday, naturally). Their church service was long and except for the dad's short sermon (which was actually quite interesting), it was as boring as all get out. The most important part of it (to them) was a sermon originating in North Carolina being broadcast over the internet. This was by their chief pastor, and man, he was on and on interminably, like about an hour. I tried to follow what he was on about, but it was difficult. One of the points he tried to make was the many dispensations of God's word. I lost count as to how many of them there were. Almost as if every new Old Testament prophet started a new dispensation. 

On 5/25/2025 at 7:58 PM, The Nehor said:

Thanks though.

You're welcome!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What we've named them seems adequate for the purpose of communication.

“Prison” has too much baggage, imo, associated with punishment of bad people, often extreme. Therefore it seems unfair to link it to the good people that are still in the process of learning…especially since that appears to be everyone according to Joseph Smith.

Edited June 2, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Might It be that you've not experienced enough interaction? I don't claim to understand everything, but my experiences with him tend to lead me towards complete trust. 

I don’t think the “enough” is a good assumption.

Someone with very little interaction that was all very positive would be more likely to have significant trust while another person who had extensive interaction, but of a mixed variety in their perception has good reason to not trust.

How we interpret our experiences will likely be very individualistic and may be to a great extent determined by our environment at this time.  

With perception having such a massive impact, I don’t believe telling someone they just need more interaction without understanding what they have perceived their experiences as a negative first is that helpful.

The longer I live and observe others, the more it seems to me the ability to trust God is a gift and for whatever reason, God has not chosen to hand it out to everyone at birth.  Just basic brain chemistry seems to indicate that not all have even the capacity to feel trust even if they were given a massive amount of positive experiences with no promise or expectation ever unfulfilled.

My guess is a lot won’t get it till after death.

Edited June 2, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 6/2/2025 at 1:13 AM, Calm said:

I don’t think the “enough” is a good assumption.

Someone with very little interaction that was all very positive would be more likely to have significant trust while another person who had extensive interaction, but of a mixed variety in their perception has good reason to not trust.

How we interpret our experiences will likely be very individualistic and may be to a great extent determined by our environment at this time.  

With perception having such a massive impact, I don’t believe telling someone they just need more interaction without understanding what they have perceived their experiences as a negative first is that helpful.

The longer I live and observe others, the more it seems to me the ability to trust God is a gift and for whatever reason, God has not chosen to hand it out to everyone at birth.  Just basic brain chemistry seems to indicate that not all have even the capacity to feel trust even if they were given a massive amount of positive experiences with no promise or expectation ever unfulfilled.

My guess is a lot won’t get it till after death.

You're correct, of course.

So much of how we perceive the universe is bound up with our brain chemistry! If chemistry is the answer, which it may not be. Two people experiencing the exact same thing at the same time can come away with entirely different feelings about the thing. I lost my mother to cancer at age 7, but this never caused me to doubt God's love for me. However, similar things have happened to others and they held a grudge against God! That's a worldly event of great emotional impact, but even strong spiritual experiences received by two different people sometimes have disparate outcomes.

What is "enough" is so very personal. I've had a lot of "strong" spiritual experiences, and they have taught me that God really does care about me, and that I can trust him. My wife told me once that her late husband had exactly one spiritual experience early on in his conversion, no others that he had ever spoken of, and as she said, "It was enough for him." How many does one need? God knows, but I don't.

In one of those FAIR conferences Daniel Peterson once told about a pair of missionaries who each received the same dream about a particular address in a particular place that they needed to go visit, that the person living there was waiting for the gospel. They went to that place, and the person living there was ready to hear and joined the church. After their missions, years later, one of the two former missionaries apostatized and when his dream and its result was mentioned to him, he responded "It means nothing." 

So, yes, what is enough?

[Stargazer]

Elder Boyd K. Packer spoke upon the topic of the redemption of the dead in the October 1975 General Conference, and while he doesn't directly address the topic of this thread, I felt I should mention that talk here. And rather than try to summarize it, you can view/listen/read it in its entirety here.

"The Redemption of the Dead" By Elder Boyd K. Packer Of the Council of the Twelve

 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're correct, of course.

So much of how we perceive the universe is bound up with our brain chemistry! If chemistry is the answer, which it may not be. Two people experiencing the exact same thing at the same time can come away with entirely different feelings about the thing. I lost my mother to cancer at age 7, but this never caused me to doubt God's love for me. However, similar things have happened to others and they held a grudge against God! That's a worldly event of great emotional impact, but even strong spiritual experiences received by two different people sometimes have disparate outcomes.

What is "enough" is so very personal. I've had a lot of "strong" spiritual experiences, and they have taught me that God really does care about me, and that I can trust him. My wife told me once that her late husband had exactly one spiritual experience early on in his conversion, no others that he had ever spoken of, and as she said, "It was enough for him." How many does one need? God knows, but I don't.

In one of those FAIR conferences Daniel Peterson once told about a pair of missionaries who each received the same dream about a particular address in a particular place that they needed to go visit, that the person living there was waiting for the gospel. They went to that place, and the person living there was ready to hear and joined the church. After their missions, years later, one of the two former missionaries apostatized and when his dream and its result was mentioned to him, he responded "It means nothing." 

So, yes, what is enough?

Do you know which talk that is?

I've decided I need to go on a deep dive about mystical experience and therefore all such stories interest me.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Do you know which talk that is?

I've decided I need to go on a deep dive about mystical experience and therefore all such stories interest me.

It's available on YouTube on the FAIR channel. When I first heard the talk, that particular story stood out to me. When I wanted to listen to it again I went searching and I had a difficult time trying to re-find it. Dr. Petersen's talks are long, so it took me some time before I finally located it again.

He tells the story in two parts in his talk, the two parts being separated by a long interval, and the relevant parts of the story only lasts about two or three minutes.  This was a talk given at the FAIR Conference back in 2008. I'm going to give links to the two relevant parts below, but the entire talk is worthy of listening to. Here's the link to the entire talk: Humble Apologetics. The video is just over an hour long.

Here are links to the precise points in the talk to which I was referring:

• First - 9:35 to 11:55 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKY-ndlPI3M&t=582s
• Second - 47:17 to 48:54 - https://youtu.be/aKY-ndlPI3M?si=no8ohC5KW9x4WYFl&t=2836

I have a strong interest in what Dr. Petersen says and writes, so I gathered many of his FAIR talks into a playlist. It's a public playlist, so if you want to see it, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJiNesxstia4GUr928wPEtoUSUw2U3-mJ

EDITED TO ADD: 

I had made a transcription of the story from the video, and just for grins here it is:

Quote

"I remember a friend of mine who unfortunately is now out of the church, I'll come back to him. He's, he's been instructive to me over the years for a number of reasons. A couple of you here may actually know him, but I'm not going to name him. But he had an experience years ago as a missionary in Paris, which has taught me something possibly about the nature of revelation and of prophets, though he was not a prophet.

"He had an experience, when he was a missionary serving in Paris, of having a very distinct dream. And in this dream he saw a street and a certain neighborhood in Paris which he'd never seen before, but he saw it so distinctly. He saw the street name, he saw the street. He saw an apartment on the street. He saw a specific apartment number, the number on the door. He saw the person within the apartment, he saw that person joining the church. He wrote this in his journal. 

"He went out with his companion and they found the place and they knocked on that door and that person did join the church. And this is an incredibly powerful predictive dream. Now I have not only his account of that, he told it to me personally some years later and like an idiot. I didn't write this down or write down the name of the person. I ran into his companion by sheer chance, who began telling this story. And I said, 'Wait a minute, wait a minute. I've heard this story – were you the companion with so and so?' And he said, 'Yes, I was.' And he told the story. I said, 'Then it it's absolutely true?' And he's, 'Yeah, that's exactly how it happened. That is precisely how it happened.' 

At this point his talk, Dr. Petersen went on to other aspects of the subject, but later on he returned to the man's story, which someone who had attended a conference at which this man spoke reported on. The one who was there reported to Dr. Peterson what he had heard. 

"I think of my friend who had the experience in Paris. Years after that, he gave a speech at a certain symposium... I wasn't there, but a friend of mine who was there reported that he told the story of the apartment in Paris, which I already knew. He told another story, but I should say his response to that was since he had now at this point left the church, he said, ‘What does that mean? It means nothing. It means nothing.’ 

"He then told another story where he said, and I have only his word on this, where his mother-in-law had come to him after she passed away from cancer and said, 'Listen to me. You know you made my last year miserable with all your doubts about the church. Well, I'm over here now and the church is true, and you stop it! But if you're not going to stop, take yourself to hell, but don't take my daughter and my grandchildren to hell with you.'

"And he said, 'I woke up in a cold sweat and I thought about it. What does it mean? Nothing. It means nothing.' Ohh man, I don't know what takes to become a Son of Perdition, but I would not be playing on the edges."
 

 

Edited June 3, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 6/2/2025 at 1:09 AM, Calm said:

“Prison” has too much baggage, imo, associated with punishment of bad people, often extreme. Therefore it seems unfair to link it to the good people that are still in the process of learning…especially since that appears to be everyone according to Joseph Smith.

Yes, but it ultimately wasn't us that originated the idea of calling it a prison, it was Paul:

1 Peter 3:19 -> By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

This was referring to the disobedient -- which seems to contradict D&C 138, except that Paul was writing a letter, not a doctrinal dissertation. So one might assume a lesser degree of precision in terminology. And then we have the idea from D&C 1:38 -> "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

[manol]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I've decided I need to go on a deep dive about mystical experience and therefore all such stories interest me.

I wish you the very best on this leg of your journey.

One thought I'd like to toss out - don't assume that someone who has more mystical experiences is any better than someone who has none.  All are alike unto God.  And for all we know, the person who has never had a mystical experience may have signed up for the more challenging earth-life journey. 

[CV75]

This who was my chain of command when I entered the spirit world, whether in the body or not I cannot tell...

[The Nehor]

So did Jesus preach to the Watchers before or after he went to the mortal dead?