A Major New Study of Religion in the US Has the following to Say About Mormons:

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,
I never said nor did I imply that it did. However, one does note that Paul when writing about the third heaven wrote that he “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter”.

I think people will receive what they have deep-down wanted and have shown they wanted by how they lived, how they loved others, how they forgave others, how they allowed for others’ choices without compelling them in any way, how they grew in faith, and how they ultimately allowed the Savior to heal them and to bring them upward spiritually to a point of being cleansed and changed “every whit” so that they really can become like Him. To do that, they would need to be able to be trusted, so that if they did “hear unspeakable words” they would keep the lawful conditions about those words they had heard.

My understanding, and I may be mistaken, is that in order to be exhalted, the LDS member must have been through the temple ceremony. This is the primary reason why the LDS Church members undertake the ceremony by proxy for deceased family members… because it is necessary to obtain the fullness of what is offered in the afterlife. Without it, one can spend an eternity in happiness, and yet not be completely fulfilled. (Which also seems entirely inconsistent with reason and logic) As non-members, this option is not open to us, correct? (Really could use an explanation here.)

ParkerD:

By the way, I suppose you realize that every child who died before the age of eight, all through history, is believed by LDS to go to the Celestial kingdom, where they will receive eternal joy with Christ and with Heavenly Father, though having lived such a short time on earth.

OK. What about their opportunity for eternal progression? How is this open to them, since they have not been through the temple ceremony?

ParkerD:

If you have gotten the impression from LDS or from reading about them, that having a temple recommend entitles them to the Celestial kingdom, then they or you have been greatly misinformed. What matters is how they allow Christ to change their heart, and how much faith they learn to have, plus all the other qualities I mentioned above.

Peace to you, also.

No, no. I don’t understand that all that is required is a Temple Recommend. But I do understand that the ceremony is intended to impart to LDS members certain revealed eternal truths that are necessary to become an exhalted being. These eternal truths cannot, so I understand, be imparted elsewhere. Thus, non LDS members and LDS members who are not temple-worthy must settle for the penultimate afterlife.

I’d like to hear more about it, but I understand that LDS members are restricted in their ability to discuss the temple ceremony.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

My understanding, and I may be mistaken, is that in order to be exhalted, the LDS member must have been through the temple ceremony. This is the primary reason why the LDS Church members undertake the ceremony by proxy for deceased family members… because it is necessary to obtain the fullness of what is offered in the afterlife. Without it, one can spend an eternity in happiness, and yet not be completely fulfilled. (Which also seems entirely inconsistent with reason and logic) As non-members, this option is not open to us, correct? (Really could use an explanation here.)

OK. What about their opportunity for eternal progression? How is this open to them, since they have not been through the temple ceremony?

Robert,
Those are great questions. I’m going to give my perspective based on LDS scriptures and on thinking about those kinds of issues:

First, about infants and children who died before age eight (or maybe even age nine, since during their eighth year they would be reaching an age of “accountability” at different points given individual circumstances)–

Their exaltation is completely assured by the atonement of Christ. They had no full accountability for any wrongdoing during their lives, so they don’t need the ordinances of an LDS temple except that an LDS temple sealing is done for children of parents whose temple work is done for those parents. But their exaltation would be assured, in any case.

Second, to answer your first paragraph–

For anyone desiring exaltation, the answer seems pretty clear that the goal really is to “become like Christ” through being healed, cleansed, and lifted up by His grace and by having shown obedience that showed a willingness to do His will at every moment–not our own will.

Given that ultimate goal, the answer is “what did they do with what they knew.”

For LDS members, they do know that a temple sealing in marriage is ultimately part of “the goal”, because if they are really wanting to start to experience the kind of love for others and forgiveness of others that is part of becoming like Christ, they need close, interdependent relationships where their unselfishness is really tested and their willingness to forgive is really tested. They also know that they need to be “sealed” to their ancestors because of Malachi’s teaching that otherwise there is a “curse” on the earth and it doesn’t become a celestial abode.

But supposing LDS members somewhere in the world had shown by their obedience to the promptings of the Spirit during their lives, and by their love and forgiveness toward others, that even though they might have lived in a place where there was no temple and their resources didn’t allow them to travel to one–then “what did they do with what they know (and with the resources they have)” is going to be part of their judgment.

For non-LDS, Christ is the absolutely perfect judge of “what did they do with what they knew”, and they will be judged by the desires of their hearts that led them to sincere obedience to the commandments, sincere forgiving of others with love and compassion, sincere repentance of wrongdoings, and sincere following the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their life when they received that guidance. (Who am I to know what guidance they received, and what God needed them to do to be of benefit to others in their sphere of influence?)

No, no. I don’t understand that all that is required is a Temple Recommend. But I do understand that the ceremony is intended to impart to LDS members certain revealed eternal truths that are necessary to become an exhalted being. These eternal truths cannot, so I understand, be imparted elsewhere. Thus, non LDS members and LDS members who are not temple-worthy must settle for the penultimate afterlife.

I’d like to hear more about it, but I understand that LDS members are restricted in their ability to discuss the temple ceremony.

Peace,
Robert

The truths revealed in the LDS temple can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, the Bible, and in the published teachings of LDS prophets and leaders. They are not “new teachings”. They teach about the purpose of the creation of this earth and the purposes of this life.

What happens in an LDS temple is that a person is making covenants and gaining what Christ taught as
Luke 24: 49
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

That gift or “endowment” of “power from on high” ties to covenant-making and covenant-keeping, and ties to the grace of Christ through repentance and His lifting up beyond a person’s own innate abilities, even though those abilities are God-given.

Thus, even after receiving that gift or “endowment”, then an LDS member is on a path where they absolutely need to show their sincere love of God and others through “what they do with what they know”, because as Christ taught,

“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:” (Luke 12:48)

D&C 82: 3
3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

Thanks for the questions, and wishing you great peace in your life and the lives of your loved ones.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

First, about infants … Their exaltation is completely assured by the atonement of Christ. They had no full accountability for any wrongdoing during their lives, so they don’t need the ordinances of an LDS temple except that an LDS temple sealing is done for children of parents whose temple work is done for those parents. But their exaltation would be assured, in any case.

What about non-LDS children? Who does their temple-work? And who does the temple work for all the aborted children?

ParkerD:

For anyone desiring exaltation, the answer seems pretty clear that the goal really is to “become like Christ” through being healed, cleansed, and lifted up by His grace and by having shown obedience that showed a willingness to do His will at every moment–not our own will.

Given that ultimate goal, the answer is “what did they do with what they knew.”

This seems inconsistent with what other LDS sources tell be about exaltation and the necessity of temple work. Are you saying that a Buddhist who lives a life that responds to the graces that he was given by God can become an exalted being just like an LDS member who has undergone the LDS temple endowments? Again, I’m not talking about just getting in the door to heaven here, I’m talking about a non-LDS member obtaining what I understood LDS members believed was the highest possible heavenly reward - exaltation. Are you saying that LDS doctrine teaches that this is possible for non-LDS members? If so, I’d like to see a citation to some LDS authority that states this. Because I have always been told that the exaltation of a person depends upon the extent to which they accept LDS endowments.

ParkerD:

The truths revealed in the LDS temple can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, the Bible, and in the published teachings of LDS prophets and leaders. They are not “new teachings”. They teach about the purpose of the creation of this earth and the purposes of this life.

Then why are the endowment ceremonies still concealed from the general public?

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

Robert,
I never said nor did I imply that it did. However, one does note that Paul when writing about the third heaven wrote that he “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter”.

Parker, I have never understood why the LDS believe that Paul is speaking of different levels of heaven in the passage found in 1 Corinthians 15:36-49. He is clearly speaking of the difference between our earthly bodies and our glorified bodies subsequent to the resurrection. This has nothing to do with different levels of heaven.

Could you please explain? Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

That interpretation is manifestly in error. Paul speaks of the three heavens as places that one can go to. He counts himself lucky that he was taken to the third one; but he might just has easily have been taken to the first or second. The atmosphere and the sky does not match the description of a place where one can go to.

No, he speaks about the third heaven, which he subsequently calls “Paradise” as a place to go. He says nothing of the other two. You think he was “lucky” to go to the third heaven - that “he might just as easily been taken to the first or second”?. Where do you find that? I don’t think God was flipping a coin to see where he would go.

 

[lax16]

You were told wrong.

I don’t know zerinus - if I cut out the middle man (you) and go straight to the source (D&C) this is what I find:

D&C 9:8
“But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

 

[lax16]

By the power of the Holy Ghost.

Okay.

If you are referring to the Book of Mormon, it was translated by Joseph Smith, by the gift and power of God.

Of course I am - you said you don’t need a middle man - but JS was most certainly that!

Modern day prophets are like the old day prophets, they speak the words that God wants them to speak to the people of this generation, as they did to theirs.

Exactly, middle men.

Remember zerinus, you said you do not need a middle man? In order to be a Mormon one would definitely have to accept the ever-changing revelations of middle men, not just confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

 

[zerinus]

No, he speaks about the third heaven, which he subsequently calls “Paradise” as a place to go. He says nothing of the other two. You think he was “lucky” to go to the third heaven - that “he might just as easily been taken to the first or second”?. Where do you find that?

That is what I read into the context. If you don’t fair enough; but I think you are mistaken. We know better because we know something that you don’t.

I don’t think God was flipping a coin to see where he would go.

Neither do I. There are three heavens, and God decided to show him the highest instead of one of the lower ones. He was treated as a VIP!

 

[zerinus]

I don’t know zerinus - if I cut out the middle man (you) and go straight to the source (D&C) this is what I find:

D&C 9:8
“But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

What has that got to do with Moroni 10:4-7?

 

[zerinus]

Exactly, middle men.

Remember zerinus, you said you do not need a middle man? In order to be a Mormon one would definitely have to accept the ever-changing revelations of middle men, not just confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

The “middle-man” I was referring to was uninspired commentators, not inspired prophets.

 

[lax16]

What has that got to do with Moroni 10:4-7?

I don’t know, maybe that Mormons pray for divine inspirations… then wait for the burning?

Obviously, Mormons believe in both. To say otherwise, is well, back-peddling.

 

[zerinus]

No, he speaks about the third heaven, which he subsequently calls “Paradise” as a place to go. He says nothing of the other two. You think he was “lucky” to go to the third heaven - that “he might just as easily been taken to the first or second”?. Where do you find that?

And by the way, Paul does “count himself lucky” to have been taken to the third heaven rather than one of the lower ones. He ways:

2 Corinthians 12:

1 IT is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

To “glory” means to be proud of, count it a privilege.

 

[lax16]

The “middle-man” I was referring to was uninspired commentators, not inspired prophets.

**Your post said:
But I have another source of information that the middle-man does not have, and that is the modern revelation and scriptures of the LDS Church. Okay, you are going to tell me that you don’t believe that; but I do; and know it is true! The middle-man’s opinion may be persuasive to you, but it ain’t to me, because I happen to know better! **

Put it any way you want, zerinus, but you definitely believe in middle men!
Obviously, the “modern revelation and scriptures of the LDS Church” are being told to you by men. You believe inspired prophets, either way, men in the middle of you and God’s message.

Now, what happens when you don’t believe what these men/prophets say? For instance, all of the stuff JS has said that was considered “not prophet material” - is he still a full time prophet in your eyes or does he go in and out of “inspiration”?
What if you were living in the time of JS and heard him speak - how would you know if his sermon was inspired or not? Would you know at the time? Or would you wait to see how it played out to find out if it was inspired?
When JS was “inspired” did he look different as so many people do when receiving a divine vision or message? Are there any reports of this to help people back then know when to listen to him and heed his heavenly message or did they have to wait for the edited version to come out in writing?
It is fascinating to me that a prophet speaking to his congregation was not always inspired by God. Would the HS come over him while speaking or when he was sleeping?
I find the subject of visions and personal revelation fascinating and have read many accounts of Catholic saints receiving these messages.
Is there a book I can read about JS and his divine inspirations?

 

[zerinus]

I don’t know, maybe that Mormons pray for divine inspirations… then wait for the burning?

Obviously, Mormons believe in both. To say otherwise, is well, back-peddling.

I am doing no such thing. You just happen to have a very shallow and superficial understanding of Mormonism. God can reveal truth of something to you in an infinite variety of ways; He is not confined to the “burning in the bosom”. Moroni 10 says God will reveal the truth of it to you “by the power of the Holy Ghost;” it does not say that God will reveal the truth of it to you “by the burning of your bosom”. You seem to be caught in some kind of Mormon “time warp,” where you can’t think of Mormonism in terms of anything but the most mundane clichés.

 

[lax16]

I am doing no such thing. You just happen to have a very shallow and superficial understanding of Mormonism. God can reveal truth of something to you in an infinite variety of ways; He is not confined to the “burning in the bosom”. Moroni 10 says God will reveal the truth of it to you “by the power of the Holy Ghost;” it does not say that God will reveal the truth of it to you “by the burning of your bosom”. You seem to be caught in some kind of Mormon “time warp,” where you can’t think of Mormonism in terms of anything but the most mundane clichés.

Twenty years of living with Mormonism and living in Utah is not so shallow, zerinus. In fact, I am in it up to my eyeballs.

Read my post - I said that God obviously uses both - and I never said God is confined to anything.

I know that you don’t want anyone living in a Mormon time warp! You want everything to be brand new, squeaky clean, and focus on the now (Mormons are such nice people, they have family values, they have the most eagle scouts, look how helpful they are!)

I can promise you this zerinus, here and now, I will not stop bringing up Mormon doctrine and teachings to all in the effort to keep all unsuspecting people from joining your club.

Do not distort the teachings of the LDS religion or the Catholic Church here or on your blog, please.

btw - since when is quoting the D&C being cliche?

 

[zerinus]

**Your post said:
But I have another source of information that the middle-man does not have, and that is the modern revelation and scriptures of the LDS Church. Okay, you are going to tell me that you don’t believe that; but I do; and know it is true! The middle-man’s opinion may be persuasive to you, but it ain’t to me, because I happen to know better! **

Put it any way you want, zerinus, but you definitely believe in middle men!

Of course I do. I told you, the middle-men I believe in are inspired prophets of God, not uninspired commentators.

Now, what happens when you don’t believe what these men/prophets say? For instance, all of the stuff JS has said that was considered “not prophet material” - is he still a full time prophet in your eyes or does he go in and out of “inspiration”?

A Prophet is a prophet when he is acting as such. It does not mean that when he is cooing to his baby at breakfast table he is prophesying.

What if you were living in the time of JS and heard him speak - how would you know if his sermon was inspired or not? Would you know at the time? Or would you wait to see how it played out to find out if it was inspired?

I don’t need to have lived in the days of Joseph Smith to make that judgement. We have living prophets and Apostles among us today about whom I need to make that judgement. I listen to their sermons every conference, and read their messages in the Ensign every month. I can tell when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost (or when they are not) by the power of Holy Ghost. If you have the Holy Ghost then what seems hard to you now becomes easy.

When JS was “inspired” did he look different as so many people do when receiving a divine vision or message? Are there any reports of this to help people back then know when to listen to him and heed his heavenly message or did they have to wait for the edited version to come out in writing?
It is fascinating to me that a prophet speaking to his congregation was not always inspired by God. Would the HS come over him while speaking or when he was sleeping?
I find the subject of visions and personal revelation fascinating and have read many accounts of Catholic saints receiving these messages.
Is there a book I can read about JS and his divine inspirations?

The best book I can recommend is the Book of Mormon, followed by the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Those are the definitive revelations he brought forth. You are overlooking the most relevant source in favour of the least relevant ones.

 

[zerinus]

I can promise you this zerinus, here and now, I will not stop bringing up Mormon doctrine and teachings to all in the effort to keep all unsuspecting people from joining your club.

Do not distort the teachings of the LDS religion or the Catholic Church here or on your blog, please.

LOL! I teach Mormonism as it is, and I am not worried about what you intend to do about it. I suggest you don’t try to lecture me about what Mormonism is.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks for your post, that helps out my wonderment of one aspect of the LDS church.

The Old Testament patriarchs were Hebrew’s or under a Covenant of God. The LDS church began in the 1800’s, These Hebrew Patriarchs, law givers and prophets were never of the LDS church. How do you make this connection between the Hebrews from antiquity to your LDS faith? using your “different terminology”? I don’t see the connection? between the Hebrews of the Old Covenant and the LDS church?

ParkerD;7282011]

1. We don’t call them “saints” in the same terminology you use, but it would be “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the ten apostles besides John who is still on earth, Paul, Matthias, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah, Noah, Ezekiel, (note: Enoch and Melchizedek were translated and thus are awaiting a time to come back to earth, but will be there when they finish their work)”, among many others including some from Ancient America.

But again, it’s a different terminology than what you would be thinking with the word “saints”.

Grant it these missionaries are to be recognized and may God bless their humanitarian efforts.

I have to agree your LDS understanding and “terminology of saints” differs from a Catholic understanding of a Christian saint. Mother Theresa never took time off from work, to serve the Poor, rejected, and dieing, this was her life work. This same Catholic list of saints continues from today all the way back to biblical times of those Christians who practiced an lived out their Catholic faith.

Do LDS have religious orders or communities who live this Christian Catholic life of celibacy, poverty and obedience to God and His Church, who have rejected the world and its riches and give their way of life up to serve the poor?

1. Yes, indeed. There are many humanitarian service missionaries who go about doing much good, without pay and with love in their hearts, and travel all over the world during their retirement years or as doctors, nurses, or dentists taking time off from their work.

Were the following the participants who concluded with your LDS study you provided? Do you know if they included the Catholic religious in their report of surveys of Christians, or just the laity?

1. Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religious Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

 

[SteveVH]

That is what I read into the context. If you don’t fair enough; but I think you are mistaken. We know better because we know something that you don’t.

Please enlighten me. Is this secret knowledge that you posess allowed to be shared?

 

[SteveVH]

And by the way, Paul does “count himself lucky” to have been taken to the third heaven rather than one of the lower ones. He ways:

Its no biggy, zerinus. You meant that he felt fortunate or privileged. I just misunderstood you.