I learned in church today

[DrumNFeather]

Our new counselor in the bishopric: "A few weeks ago, we had an earthquake, followed by a hurricane, now we have a lobbyist in the bishopric...it's time to get your house in order." It got a good chuckle.

[Soccermom]

Our priesthood lesson was on the post-mortal spirit world. I'm not sure if others had the same reaction, but I thought the chapter was actually poorly written.

First off, the tone in places seems bad. Here's a paragraph that seems included as a scare tactic:

"Family relationships are also important. President Jedediah M. Grant, a counselor to Brigham Young, saw the spirit world and described to Heber C. Kimball the organization that exists there: “He said that the people he there saw were organized in family capacities. … He said, ‘When I looked at families, there was a deficiency in some, … for I saw families that would not be permitted to come and dwell together, because they had not honored their calling here’” (Deseret News, Dec. 10, 1856, 316–17)."

Great way to make parents of wayward children feel even better.

Then I'm not sure, but I think the following is not correct doctrine:

"Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 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” (D&C 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.

Two things. Although I've heard this doctrine before, but it seems to me that this is short-changing the atonement. Isn't it infinite? Doesn't it completely cleanse sin? So how can it only help part-way with those who reject the gospel?

Second: I went back to D&C 76 to check on those who go to the telestial kingdom. Verse 74 refers to those who didn't receive Jesus's testimony in the flesh, but afterwards received it, but this is in the section of the terrestrial kingdom. I couldn't find any verse that talked about those who repented of their sins after death and accepted the gospel going to the telestial kingdom. Am I wrong here?

And as usual with these matters, more questions came than answers. Verse 72 says that those who died without law go to the terrestial kingdom. Doesn't that completely contradict the B of M and section 138???

In all, not a great effort by the Correlation Committee

Yeah, I definitely have more questions than answers. I found the lesson a bit disturbing actually. Am I to understand that people like my grandparents (who didn't accept the gospel in this life despite chances and despite the fact that my grandma was baptized as a kid, but never did church as an adult) will not have a shot at the celestial kingdom? That the best they can do is terrestrial?

[TripletDaddy]

I guess we all had the same lesson yesterday. Ours was spent on wild tangents stemming from an old quote from Wilford Woodruff, I think. Or maybe it was Lorenzo rolling in his Benzo.

Anyway, the basics of the quote are that missionary work is going to be easier/more successful in the Spirit World than here. The bulk of the meeting was spent conjecturing why missionary work would be easier, which lead to all sorts of interesting personal opinions, chief among them that when you are in the Spirit world, it is now "obvious" that the Gospel is true and so it is harder to deny (no mention of 1/3 of the Hosts finding it fairly easy to rebel against the obvious). There was also a small detour about the size and age of our bodies at resurrection. The consensus of a few (again based on old quotes) is that children will be resurrected as children so that the resurrected moms can raise their children but nobody knew the age at which children would stop being children and simply resurrect as adults. Adults would be resurrected as adults in our "prime" and that there would be no racial characteristics (IOW, we would all be white)

Anyhow, I found the extreme specificity to be very interesting and edifying. Great lesson.

[mUUser]

there would be no racial characteristics (IOW, we would all be white)

Knock it off already! I'm fragile enough as it is in the church. I can't know that I have some commonalities with clodhoppers who genuinely believe this.

[Northwestcoug]

Yeah, I definitely have more questions than answers. I found the lesson a bit disturbing actually. Am I to understand that people like my grandparents (who didn't accept the gospel in this life despite chances and despite the fact that my grandma was baptized as a kid, but never did church as an adult) will not have a shot at the celestial kingdom? That the best they can do is terrestrial?

Yeah, a difficult topic all over. And it seems like it's made more difficult by a lot of contradictory "official" pronouncements.

Another thing that bugged me. If you noticed, there are 2 quotes from the (ahem) Deseret News, one by Wilford Woodruff and the other by Jedediah Grant. Do we really have to search obscure statements by leaders to include in an official church publication? Whatever happened to the teaching 'if it isn't ratified by the church membership it isn't doctrine/scripture'? If that bar has been lowered, there are quite a few enlightening (and more entertaining) quotes from leaders I'd love to talk about...

[pelagius]

Another thing that bugged me. If you noticed, there are 2 quotes from the (ahem) Deseret News, one by Wilford Woodruff and the other by Jedediah Grant. Do we really have to search obscure statements by leaders to include in an official church publication?

In the previous version of Gospel Principles the manual referred the reader to the Journal of Discourses as the source for those quotes. However, in the current edition, pretty much all the JD references are removed with a more obscure original publication of the material. That said, both quotes probably do come from conference talks (it may or may not make you feel better but that the original delivery of those these talks was no doubt in the tabernacle).

[Pheidippides]

Yeah, a difficult topic all over. And it seems like it's made more difficult by a lot of contradictory "official" pronouncements.

Another thing that bugged me. If you noticed, there are 2 quotes from the (ahem) Deseret News, one by Wilford Woodruff and the other by Jedediah Grant. Do we really have to search obscure statements by leaders to include in an official church publication? Whatever happened to the teaching 'if it isn't ratified by the church membership it isn't doctrine/scripture'? If that bar has been lowered, there are quite a few enlightening (and more entertaining) quotes from leaders I'd love to talk about...

Reminds me - after my lesson on fasting on Sunday, a good buddy of mine came up with a question. He said his dad told him before he got married that sex was also a no-go during fasting, but he was skeptical because he couldn't find anything in the scriptures, and did I know of any source on that?

I told him that, yes, Brigham Young said that. Also that sex during menstration was out. Also that mestruating women were not to attend the temple. Also that sex was for procreation only. Also that sex more than once or twice a month was adultery even with one's wife.

And on that note I left.

[HBCoug]

Reminds me - after my lesson on fasting on Sunday, a good buddy of mine came up with a question. He said his dad told him before he got married that sex was also a no-go during fasting, but he was skeptical because he couldn't find anything in the scriptures, and did I know of any source on that?

I told him that, yes, Brigham Young said that. Also that sex during menstration was out. Also that mestruating women were not to attend the temple. Also that sex was for procreation only. Also that sex more than once or twice a month was adultery even with one's wife.

And on that note I left.

Any opposed by the same sign? Thank you.

[Northwestcoug]

In the previous version of Gospel Principles the manual referred the reader to the Journal of Discourses as the source for those quotes. However, in the current edition, pretty much all the JD references are removed with a more obscure original publication of the material. That said, both quotes probably do come from conference talks (it may or may not make you feel better but that the original delivery of those these talks was no doubt in the tabernacle).

You're probably right. But I assume most of the Journal of Discourses was delivered in the Tabernacle as well. It's interesting how they have fallen out of favor recently.

Reminds me - after my lesson on fasting on Sunday, a good buddy of mine came up with a question. He said his dad told him before he got married that sex was also a no-go during fasting, but he was skeptical because he couldn't find anything in the scriptures, and did I know of any source on that?

I told him that, yes, Brigham Young said that. Also that sex during menstration was out. Also that mestruating women were not to attend the temple. Also that sex was for procreation only. Also that sex more than once or twice a month was adultery even with one's wife.

And on that note I left.

See? How come we couldn't talk about that a few weeks ago on our chastity lesson?

[Pheidippides]

You're probably right. But I assume most of the Journal of Discourses was delivered in the Tabernacle as well. It's interesting how they have fallen out of favor recently.



See? How come we couldn't talk about that a few weeks ago on our chastity lesson?

I skipped priesthood during the chastity lesson, and I am sorry I did so. I could have had some great fun.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Again, it was convenient for BY to have 30 wives if more than once or twice a month was 'wrong'.

Another thing that sticks out in my mind is the sheer number of early leaders who claimed to have personal revelations or spiritual witnesses of things. Over the years this seems to have subsided, or perhaps people are not allowed to speak about such things.

[DapperDan]

Another thing that sticks out in my mind is the sheer number of early leaders who claimed to have personal revelations or spiritual witnesses of things. Over the years this seems to have subsided, or perhaps people are not allowed to speak about such things.

This is one of many parallels early Mormonism shares with early Christianity. We have our reasons for why they are not as common now, just as the rest of Christianity has theirs. The difference is our reasons make sense (apparently).

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is one of many parallels early Mormonism shares with early Christianity. We have our reasons for why they are not as common now, just as the rest of Christianity has theirs. The difference is our reasons make sense (apparently).

Re-he-he-ally? (Jim Carrey voice)


I am sure 50 E North Temple had to crack down and regulate on this issue (probably 7 decades before that building existed). A religion that has too many 'visionary' leaders will soon find itself looking more like Waco or Jonestown.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Again, it was convenient for BY to have 30 wives if more than once or twice a month was 'wrong'.

Another thing that sticks out in my mind is the sheer number of early leaders who claimed to have personal revelations or spiritual witnesses of things. Over the years this seems to have subsided, or perhaps people are not allowed to speak about such things.

When this happens to other people, we call it apostasy. When it happens to us, we give many of the same reasons that the supposed apostates give.

[Pheidippides]

Re-he-he-ally? (Jim Carrey voice)


I am sure 50 E North Temple had to crack down and regulate on this issue (probably 7 decades before that building existed). A religion that has too many 'visionary' leaders will soon find itself looking more like Waco or Jonestown.

I think in 1844 we were Waco, just before it happened and on a larger scale. Sexual misbehavior. Insular society. Militarism. The differences are not great - one of them perhaps being that JS never claimed to be JC.