Thoughts as I go: It seems like there’s a contradiction between arguments in 18 and 19: our body is eternally ours and therefore will not end; though it has a beginning; yet our body is only a temporary shell for our spirits. If I’m misunderstanding that, let me know, but those seem to clash and offer more argument for the “beginning and end” teaching If there is forgiveness of sins in the next world, would it not follow that baptism for the remission of sins would also be offered? Yes, without law there is no sin, but there are other degrees of law which men receive, for which, if they break, they would still need forgiveness of that condemnation. And for proxy baptism being a cryptic phrase in the Bible with no mention in the BOM, perhaps it was supposed to remain as a temple ceremony, as one of the mysteries taught to the faithful, but was prematurely taught to the public? I don’t know, I’ll need to re-look into this, but I believe the Nauvoo temple revelation (from the LDS D&C) claimed once the temple was done, proxy baptisms would only be held there.
I can see where there could be confusion. We don't have permanent bodies yet so we are essentially spirits in a body. However when we do have permanent bodies then the bodies will certainly have a start point. There may be baptism in the next life if that is what you mean. A child who dies at one day old needs no baptism and will get everything God has to offer. Why is this? Yes the Bible could be cryptic because it was a "hidden" ceremony. However this logic could be applied to virtually anything. I am not suggesting that we should say it not being in the scriptures means anything specifically. However, if it were such an essential concept then it certainly seems like we should find it somewhere except at the final stage of Nauvoo when the church was already in apostasy.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism On the body point, I do wonder if those bodies are the bodies we had before this lifetime, since at least some were souls (spirit and body together, from the D&C and Abraham; I’ll need to get the citations later). That could (partially, potentially) explain the babies inheriting everything, though not them remaining as children for eternity. I don’t have anything to say on that count, it doesn’t fit yet. XD And that’s a fair point on baptism for the dead. I seem to recall that some of the early church fathers discussed this favorably, but I need to review those before offering anything more certain.
@@SirKn1ght47 I believe Baptism for the Dead was one of those esoteric concepts that does kind of make sense. If I am required to be baptized then it kind of makes sense to require dead people also therefore why not be baptized for my dead friend and such. There is however no scriptural case at all for any other temple ordinances. I am not sure if we had bodies before this life and I really don't know why in Mormonism bodies are seen as an end goal. Is a spirit literally not capable of doing certain things that a body can do? Is a body then more capable than a spirit? Are there "lower" forms of existence then that can do certain things that a body cannot do?
On the unpardonable sin during mortality: it seems like he’s saying something degrees of magnitude greater than “ignoring what we know to be right,” as that definition could apply to any sin committed (in my opinion); since he said “to claim the sun is not shining while he sees it with his eyes open” suggests, at least to me, a degree of faith most don’t achieve: to behold the face of God while otherwise veiled in flesh, likened to viewing the sun (elsewhere described as the sun at noonday) with your own eyes. I think, to achieve that knowledge on Earth while working first through faith, is different than escaping this veil through death and seeing God as a spirit. But I don’t yet have scripture to back this up, this is me theorizing while at work.
I think you are correct. However ultimately what is the difference between seeing God in mortality and then denying him vs actively working against God in the next life. Both have a degree of going against truth that you know is true. Satan is fighting against God and is going to get the most severe punishment possible eventually. Satan never had a mortality, as far as we know, yet what he is doing sounds an awful lot like going against truth that you know is true. Is there a more severe punishment for those that commit the unpardonable sin than what Satan is going to receive? Ultimately I think God can forgive everything that we personally are willing to move past. The only sin that we personally are not willing to move past is when we intentionally go against something that we know is true. Therefore it is an eternal damnation on our own selves. I think this fits nicely in with everything else. There is also no reason that I can't rebel against God in the next life and get a fitting consequence. Thinking this is not possible is strange and denies agency.
Is it true that only the Wilfred Woodruff account says resurrected children will stay as children forever? If so, I think Woodruff misunderstood the speech. And he added the part that said "they shall never grow." I have a hunch Joseph said something like "your children shall resurrect as children and you shall have them as your children forever." And Wilfred misinterpreted this as they shall be children forever. An honest mistake.
Yes he is the one to more fully record that. However it seems everyone at the time had the understanding that children wouldn't grow. If I gave a speech that was recorded by 4 people, with one of them giving a more detailed account, and you polled the listeners afterwards who seemed to all agree with the detailed account, then which account do you think was the more accurate? All four accounts were summaries to a degree.
Point 26: Can we go back and forth between Heaven and Hell in eternity? This seems to be how Satan came to his demise of eternal damnation and it seems to have been a one way trip. Can Satan choose to finally end up in Heaven? Would he stay in Heaven or choose to go back and forth?
The word "Hell" is not in the original language of the Bible, and if you see it in your Bible, it is a bad translation. "Hell" is found 31 times in the KJV Old Testament, where it is translated from the Hebrew word "Sheol." Sheol is the Hebrew word for the place of the dead. But nowhere do we see Sheol as a fiery place of torment. You will never get the traditional view of hell from the Tanakh.
@@DangerMountain The concept of hell we have today was likely created to just scare people into compliance. No one wants to "burn forever". However if you flip things and understand everything we do as an opportunity to advance towards or distance away from God then everything takes on a different meaning. Do we want to improve personally and become more like God or do we want to "do good" so we can "go to heaven". They are totally different mental paradigms.
@uncorrelatedmormonism It was Lucifer who held the greatest spiritual ambition, right? He was not content with his place or position. So when folks talk about trying to be like Heavenly Father... I get real suspicious about how they take that to mean. Biblically, we are to exalt the Lord, not the other way around. In fact, it's spoken quite literally just that. Matthew 23:12 KJV - And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But back to the topic of eternal punishment... It's just as Jesus had said in John 3:16 KJV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The wicked don't get eternal life at all. Including the lake of fire. No, they parish. That is total annihilation of body and spirit.
Heaven isnt some magical place, it is only different realms of discernment. Hell is an awayness from God, where one cant begin to comprehend God and our common sense has always seen this but we ignore it. We've seen people who look like empty vessels, they are the ones experiencing hell. Please ask God for wisdom when you read the Bible.
Jesus said except a man be born of physical water 💧 and spirit, he shall no way inherit the kingdom of God. Since 99.99999% of people that come to this earth don't have this opportunity I see proxy baptism as extremely important for unlocking this 99.99999% from spirit prison. The New Testsmeny speaks both of baptism for the dead and spirit prison.
Baptism is for those with the law. From a Mormon perspective it does make sense to baptize everyone. However it also is very strange to think that I need a water baptism if I repent and accept Christ in a million years. This to me seems like an artificial requirement. If proxy work was so important then why not find it in the Book of Mormon? Why did Joseph only teach it after they lost the fulness?
Children receive heaven without baptism. Why is this? I was reading in Alma 7 this morning. It mentions, "If ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." We can then witness this by being baptized. According to this we must be changed to enter heaven, but baptism is just a sign of the change.
@uncorrelatedmormonism It could be mentioned in the sealed plates. The Book of Mormon can not possibly mention every single existing doctrine out there. Also, Moroni mentioned the sacrament prayer as an after thought because he happened to have a bit of space left on the plates. Without this fluke, the prayer would not have been recorded. But that does not mean it did not exist.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Yes that is true. I do see a difference though between an essential aspect of our very salvation and an optional prayer. For instance, if you never took the sacrament you can still be spiritually fine. However, according to Joseph if we don't do proxy work then we are eternally lost.
@@jaredvaughan1665if something is in the sealed portion, then it isn’t supposed to be revealed to the church yet, so I don’t think that is a good argument. I also don’t think it is a good argument to say that 99.99% of people need to be baptized after they are dead, and this is why: First of all, they would have needed to have the law in order to be under the law (Alma 29:5, Alma 42:21). The BOM says those without the law are covered by Christ’s atonement (Mosiah 3:11, 15:24). Furthermore, those who had the law in this life are supposed to repent in THIS life (Alma 34:32-33). Many Christians will point to the story about the thief who repented and accepted Christ while on the cross and did not have a chance to be baptized, yet Jesus said he’d see him in paradise. That man was saved. I’ve been trying to work this out, but I think that baptism by water is an act of obedience that represents our repentance and desire to come to Christ and take his name on us. It is an action we can take to show God that we mean it. The baptism by water also usually (but not always) comes before the baptism of fire and Holy Ghost, which is what I believe seals us to Christ. So in this way, it could be quite essential, and yet God sometimes gives the baptism of fire and Holy Ghost without a water baptism. God is in charge, he knows what he is doing, he knows our hearts. He knows if we didn’t have a chance to get baptized, and I don’t believe he holds that against us. Jesus said, “Let the dead bury the dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” He said that when someone wanted to go bury his father before coming with Jesus on his ministry. I think Jesus was saying to let those who are spiritually dead (not alive in Christ) to worry about those who are dead, but a disciple of Christ should be preaching the gospel to the living.
Thank you for expressing your thoughts. This is very helpful to many!
Thoughts as I go:
It seems like there’s a contradiction between arguments in 18 and 19: our body is eternally ours and therefore will not end; though it has a beginning; yet our body is only a temporary shell for our spirits. If I’m misunderstanding that, let me know, but those seem to clash and offer more argument for the “beginning and end” teaching
If there is forgiveness of sins in the next world, would it not follow that baptism for the remission of sins would also be offered? Yes, without law there is no sin, but there are other degrees of law which men receive, for which, if they break, they would still need forgiveness of that condemnation.
And for proxy baptism being a cryptic phrase in the Bible with no mention in the BOM, perhaps it was supposed to remain as a temple ceremony, as one of the mysteries taught to the faithful, but was prematurely taught to the public? I don’t know, I’ll need to re-look into this, but I believe the Nauvoo temple revelation (from the LDS D&C) claimed once the temple was done, proxy baptisms would only be held there.
I can see where there could be confusion. We don't have permanent bodies yet so we are essentially spirits in a body. However when we do have permanent bodies then the bodies will certainly have a start point.
There may be baptism in the next life if that is what you mean. A child who dies at one day old needs no baptism and will get everything God has to offer. Why is this?
Yes the Bible could be cryptic because it was a "hidden" ceremony. However this logic could be applied to virtually anything. I am not suggesting that we should say it not being in the scriptures means anything specifically. However, if it were such an essential concept then it certainly seems like we should find it somewhere except at the final stage of Nauvoo when the church was already in apostasy.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism On the body point, I do wonder if those bodies are the bodies we had before this lifetime, since at least some were souls (spirit and body together, from the D&C and Abraham; I’ll need to get the citations later).
That could (partially, potentially) explain the babies inheriting everything, though not them remaining as children for eternity. I don’t have anything to say on that count, it doesn’t fit yet. XD
And that’s a fair point on baptism for the dead. I seem to recall that some of the early church fathers discussed this favorably, but I need to review those before offering anything more certain.
@@SirKn1ght47 I believe Baptism for the Dead was one of those esoteric concepts that does kind of make sense. If I am required to be baptized then it kind of makes sense to require dead people also therefore why not be baptized for my dead friend and such.
There is however no scriptural case at all for any other temple ordinances.
I am not sure if we had bodies before this life and I really don't know why in Mormonism bodies are seen as an end goal. Is a spirit literally not capable of doing certain things that a body can do? Is a body then more capable than a spirit? Are there "lower" forms of existence then that can do certain things that a body cannot do?
On the unpardonable sin during mortality: it seems like he’s saying something degrees of magnitude greater than “ignoring what we know to be right,” as that definition could apply to any sin committed (in my opinion); since he said “to claim the sun is not shining while he sees it with his eyes open” suggests, at least to me, a degree of faith most don’t achieve: to behold the face of God while otherwise veiled in flesh, likened to viewing the sun (elsewhere described as the sun at noonday) with your own eyes. I think, to achieve that knowledge on Earth while working first through faith, is different than escaping this veil through death and seeing God as a spirit. But I don’t yet have scripture to back this up, this is me theorizing while at work.
I think you are correct. However ultimately what is the difference between seeing God in mortality and then denying him vs actively working against God in the next life. Both have a degree of going against truth that you know is true.
Satan is fighting against God and is going to get the most severe punishment possible eventually. Satan never had a mortality, as far as we know, yet what he is doing sounds an awful lot like going against truth that you know is true. Is there a more severe punishment for those that commit the unpardonable sin than what Satan is going to receive?
Ultimately I think God can forgive everything that we personally are willing to move past. The only sin that we personally are not willing to move past is when we intentionally go against something that we know is true. Therefore it is an eternal damnation on our own selves. I think this fits nicely in with everything else. There is also no reason that I can't rebel against God in the next life and get a fitting consequence. Thinking this is not possible is strange and denies agency.
Is it true that only the Wilfred Woodruff account says resurrected children will stay as children forever?
If so, I think Woodruff misunderstood the speech. And he added the part that said "they shall never grow."
I have a hunch Joseph said something like "your children shall resurrect as children and you shall have them as your children forever."
And Wilfred misinterpreted this as they shall be children forever.
An honest mistake.
Yes he is the one to more fully record that. However it seems everyone at the time had the understanding that children wouldn't grow.
If I gave a speech that was recorded by 4 people, with one of them giving a more detailed account, and you polled the listeners afterwards who seemed to all agree with the detailed account, then which account do you think was the more accurate?
All four accounts were summaries to a degree.
26 So you are saying also that if the Devil and the Demons can obey and get back to Heaven. False.
Not sure what this means.
Point 26: Can we go back and forth between Heaven and Hell in eternity? This seems to be how Satan came to his demise of eternal damnation and it seems to have been a one way trip. Can Satan choose to finally end up in Heaven? Would he stay in Heaven or choose to go back and forth?
It depends on how you define heaven and hell. However would God require you to be anywhere for eternity if you didn't want to be there?
The word "Hell" is not in the original language of the Bible, and if you see it in your Bible, it is a bad translation.
"Hell" is found 31 times in the KJV Old Testament, where it is translated from the Hebrew word "Sheol."
Sheol is the Hebrew word for the place of the dead. But nowhere do we see Sheol as a fiery place of torment. You will never get the traditional view of hell from the Tanakh.
@@DangerMountain The concept of hell we have today was likely created to just scare people into compliance. No one wants to "burn forever".
However if you flip things and understand everything we do as an opportunity to advance towards or distance away from God then everything takes on a different meaning.
Do we want to improve personally and become more like God or do we want to "do good" so we can "go to heaven". They are totally different mental paradigms.
@uncorrelatedmormonism
It was Lucifer who held the greatest spiritual ambition, right? He was not content with his place or position.
So when folks talk about trying to be like Heavenly Father... I get real suspicious about how they take that to mean.
Biblically, we are to exalt the Lord, not the other way around. In fact, it's spoken quite literally just that.
Matthew 23:12 KJV - And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But back to the topic of eternal punishment... It's just as Jesus had said in John 3:16 KJV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The wicked don't get eternal life at all. Including the lake of fire. No, they parish. That is total annihilation of body and spirit.
Heaven isnt some magical place, it is only different realms of discernment. Hell is an awayness from God, where one cant begin to comprehend God and our common sense has always seen this but we ignore it. We've seen people who look like empty vessels, they are the ones experiencing hell.
Please ask God for wisdom when you read the Bible.
Jesus said except a man be born of physical water 💧 and spirit, he shall no way inherit the kingdom of God.
Since 99.99999% of people that come to this earth don't have this opportunity I see proxy baptism as extremely important for unlocking this 99.99999% from spirit prison.
The New Testsmeny speaks both of baptism for the dead and spirit prison.
Baptism is for those with the law. From a Mormon perspective it does make sense to baptize everyone. However it also is very strange to think that I need a water baptism if I repent and accept Christ in a million years. This to me seems like an artificial requirement.
If proxy work was so important then why not find it in the Book of Mormon? Why did Joseph only teach it after they lost the fulness?
Children receive heaven without baptism. Why is this?
I was reading in Alma 7 this morning. It mentions, "If ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." We can then witness this by being baptized. According to this we must be changed to enter heaven, but baptism is just a sign of the change.
@uncorrelatedmormonism It could be mentioned in the sealed plates.
The Book of Mormon can not possibly mention every single existing doctrine out there.
Also, Moroni mentioned the sacrament prayer as an after thought because he happened to have a bit of space left on the plates.
Without this fluke, the prayer would not have been recorded. But that does not mean it did not exist.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Yes that is true. I do see a difference though between an essential aspect of our very salvation and an optional prayer.
For instance, if you never took the sacrament you can still be spiritually fine. However, according to Joseph if we don't do proxy work then we are eternally lost.
@@jaredvaughan1665if something is in the sealed portion, then it isn’t supposed to be revealed to the church yet, so I don’t think that is a good argument. I also don’t think it is a good argument to say that 99.99% of people need to be baptized after they are dead, and this is why: First of all, they would have needed to have the law in order to be under the law (Alma 29:5, Alma 42:21). The BOM says those without the law are covered by Christ’s atonement (Mosiah 3:11, 15:24). Furthermore, those who had the law in this life are supposed to repent in THIS life (Alma 34:32-33). Many Christians will point to the story about the thief who repented and accepted Christ while on the cross and did not have a chance to be baptized, yet Jesus said he’d see him in paradise. That man was saved.
I’ve been trying to work this out, but I think that baptism by water is an act of obedience that represents our repentance and desire to come to Christ and take his name on us. It is an action we can take to show God that we mean it. The baptism by water also usually (but not always) comes before the baptism of fire and Holy Ghost, which is what I believe seals us to Christ. So in this way, it could be quite essential, and yet God sometimes gives the baptism of fire and Holy Ghost without a water baptism. God is in charge, he knows what he is doing, he knows our hearts. He knows if we didn’t have a chance to get baptized, and I don’t believe he holds that against us.
Jesus said, “Let the dead bury the dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” He said that when someone wanted to go bury his father before coming with Jesus on his ministry. I think Jesus was saying to let those who are spiritually dead (not alive in Christ) to worry about those who are dead, but a disciple of Christ should be preaching the gospel to the living.