Ask a Mormon, Part 4

[GhostWriter16]

So . . . Jesus is the Son of God, we can all agree. But isn't everyone who is alive also a child of God?

I think that's an assumption, (I recall a Scripture verse that seems to imply only those who are in the Christian faith are children of God, I'll have to look it up) but I meant that Mormons LITERALLY believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (If I remember Mormon theology, Jesus and Lucifer were literal children of God the Father and Mary.)

You may know that we have a doctrine of different levels of "the afterlife," including the highest level, where God will be, and other lower levels, all the way down to the level where Satan and his minions will be. Those who are resurrected to the celestial (highest) glory, will have endless progression. Those who are resurrected to another level (for example, the terrestrial), will be able to progress within that level, but will not be able to progress beyond it.

So, how is it determined who goes where?

Before the final judgment, everyone will have at least one bonafide chance to truly know what their choices are; nobody will be able to say "but that's not fair, I would have chosen the celestial glory if I had only known what was really going on." There will be ample opportunity before the resurrection for everyone to hear the truth - the full truth - and make a choice.

So, what reason would there be for anyone to NOT choose the Celestial level?



Doesn't that also include those who were once angels, but fell? In other words, doesn't it make sense to say that Satan is also a child of God?

And what is the relationship between two individuals with the same parent? Generally, we call them siblings.

LDS theology recognizes that resurrection is a free gift that will be given to all of God's children who came to this earth. We will all be saved from physical death, regardless of choices in this life. One third of God's children chose to follow Satan during the war in heaven, however, and they will never be born to mortal bodies. For them, salvation from death will not be necessary because they will never experience mortality.

By "God's Children" do you mean angels here? Or, if I understand correctly, are you saying humans were once angels???

We differ from other Christian faiths in our belief that the physical body is an absolutely essential part of our future existence. When we are dead and not yet resurrected, we will long for our bodies and we will rejoice when our spirits and bodies are reunited (to form a complete soul, as Eran explained earlier to Perfection's question). The resurrected body will be perfect, immortal, and will radiate glory (the intensity will match the individual's level of salvation, which is why Paul spoke of different levels of resurrection in Corinthians 15: 39-42; depending on your translation, it may say that there is a celestial resurrection, a terrestrial, and also additional levels that differ from each other as one star differs from another in brightness; this is what we call the telestial resurrection).

Again, how is it determined who goes where?

And do Mormons believe in a traditional Hell at all?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that's an assumption, (I recall a Scripture verse that seems to imply only those who are in the Christian faith are children of God, I'll have to look it up) but I meant that Mormons LITERALLY believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (If I remember Mormon theology, Jesus and Lucifer were literal children of God the Father and Mary.)

Well, we don't. In fact, we believe Satan doesn't have a physical body - one of the consequences of his rebellion. And the term "children of God" is used several ways in scripture, but we generally use it to mean "everyone", as we are all created by God.

So, how is it determined who goes where?

Based on the things they have done and the sort of people they have spent their life becoming.

So, what reason would there be for anyone to NOT choose the Celestial level?

Why do people sin? Why do people do bad things?

. . . an excellent question.

By "God's Children" do you mean angels here? Or, if I understand correctly, are you saying humans were once angels???

In our view, the only difference between angels and humans is that humans are currently occupying a mortal body.

Again, how is it determined who goes where?

God's judgment.

And do Mormons believe in a traditional Hell at all?

If by that you mean "an eternity of fire and brimstone", then no. Those who reject Christ's atonement will have to suffer for their sins, but not forever - they will, eventually, move to what we call a degree of glory - that is, even the worst person on earth (well, with one exception, but no one you know is even capable of committing the sin against the Holy Ghost as we understand it) will spend eternity in a condition so glorious it surpasses our ability to understand it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, we don't. In fact, we believe Satan doesn't have a physical body - one of the consequences of his rebellion. And the term "children of God" is used several ways in scripture, but we generally use it to mean "everyone", as we are all created by God.

OK fair enough

Based on the things they have done and the sort of people they have spent their life becoming.

How does this coincide with the idea that ones eternal destination is not locked in at death?

Why do people sin? Why do people do bad things?

. . . an excellent question.

Well, it seems by the way you worded it that to reject Celestial Glory you would have to say "I know Mormonism is true and no, I don't want to go to Celestial Glory." Why would anyone do that?

In our view, the only difference between angels and humans is that humans are currently occupying a mortal body.

So how did Gabriel talk to Mary as an angel? Shouldn't he (Being a good angel) have been reincarnated into a human body?

God's judgment.

Are we aware of any guidelines to this though? (Such as how good a person we have to be, how much being a Mormon helps, exc.) or is this something only God knows?

If by that you mean "an eternity of fire and brimstone", then no. Those who reject Christ's atonement will have to suffer for their sins, but not forever - they will, eventually, move to what we call a degree of glory - that is, even the worst person on earth (well, with one exception, but no one you know is even capable of committing the sin against the Holy Ghost as we understand it) will spend eternity in a condition so glorious it surpasses our ability to understand it.

What is the sin of the Holy Ghost, and why can't people today commit it?

Also, how long do people suffer for their sins?

 

[downtown]

Well, it seems by the way you worded it that to reject Celestial Glory you would have to say "I know Mormonism is true and no, I don't want to go to Celestial Glory." Why would anyone do that?

Do you ever sin? I mean, you know whats right, you have a goal, and yet you still do other things sometimes, don't you?

I don't believe that it becomes immediately obvious that Mormonism is correct after death. We believe missionary work continues.

Are we aware of any guidelines to this though? (Such as how good a person we have to be, how much being a Mormon helps, exc.) or is this something only God knows?

They aren't altogether different from the rest of Christiandom. Have faith in Christ, love your neighbor and God. Serve others. Repent of your sins. Be baptized. Follow the commandments, etc.

What is the sin of the Holy Ghost, and why can't people today commit it?

Denying the spirit after having a perfect knowledge. None of us have that kind of information, (unless God showed up at your house and you told him to beat it).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

How does this coincide with the idea that ones eternal destination is not locked in at death?

By "life" I didn't just mean "mortal life".

Well, it seems by the way you worded it that to reject Celestial Glory you would have to say "I know Mormonism is true and no, I don't want to go to Celestial Glory." Why would anyone do that?

It's never that simple. Celestial glory is conditional, in part, on repenting for one's sins. And earnestly striving to overcome them.

So how did Gabriel talk to Mary as an angel? Shouldn't he (Being a good angel) have been reincarnated into a human body?

Well, Christ was the first to be resurrected, so no one before him was, obviously. But why can't a being of spirit speak to a human?

Are we aware of any guidelines to this though? (Such as how good a person we have to be, how much being a Mormon helps, exc.) or is this something only God knows?

The scriptures and modern revelation give us an idea of what we should do. And we have consciences.

But thinking "what is the minimum I can do, how good do I have to be exactly, to be saved" is entirely the wrong attitude . . .

What is the sin of the Holy Ghost, and why can't people today commit it?

That's not what I said. To commit the sin against the Holy Ghost requires having a perfect knowledge of God (more than just believing strongly) and then rejecting Him. As very few people meet the first condition, even fewer would meet the second; maybe a dozen people ever, or something. I wouldn't even mention it at all except that an exception that applies to one out of a billion people (or whatever) is still something I feel the need to mention.

Also, how long do people suffer for their sins?

We don't have, like a chart that gives you points for sins and tells you how long each point is worth.

Plus, I am sure the concept of time is slightly different in the next life.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Based on the things they have done and the sort of people they have spent their life becoming.

I think he's looking for more specifics--which people go to which kingdom?

If I remember correctly, the highest state of glory is for those whose marriages were sealed in the temple.

He might be wondering which kingdom would be the destination for a "good" (relatively speaking of course) person of another faith, where a "bad" Mormon would go, etc.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you ever sin? I mean, you know whats right, you have a goal, and yet you still do other things sometimes, don't you?

Yes.

I don't believe that it becomes immediately obvious that Mormonism is correct after death. We believe missionary work continues.

This makes more sense.

However, wouldn't the fact that I'm dead and still hearing from Missionaries make it kinda obvious that Mormonism is true? Unless I didn't know I'm dead?

Denying the spirit after having a perfect knowledge. None of us have that kind of information, (unless God showed up at your house and you told him to beat it).

Wouldn't we eventually have that knowledge sometime after we're dead though?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's never that simple. Celestial glory is conditional, in part, on repenting for one's sins. And earnestly striving to overcome them.

OK, that makes sense.

The scriptures and modern revelation give us an idea of what we should do. And we have consciences.

But thinking "what is the minimum I can do, how good do I have to be exactly, to be saved" is entirely the wrong attitude . . .

To the second paragraph- Yes I am aware, I'm more just trying to understand the context of where Mormon theology comes from. For instance, I know in some religious systems you have to be more good then bad...

That's not what I said. To commit the sin against the Holy Ghost requires having a perfect knowledge of God (more than just believing strongly) and then rejecting Him. As very few people meet the first condition, even fewer would meet the second; maybe a dozen people ever, or something. I wouldn't even mention it at all except that an exception that applies to one out of a billion people (or whatever) is still something I feel the need to mention.

OK.

We don't have, like a chart that gives you points for sins and tells you how long each point is worth.

Plus, I am sure the concept of time is slightly different in the next life.

Well, I know, but I was more thinking in very general terms, for instance is the torment short, very lengthy, millions of years, exc.

You still might not be able to answer it, which is fine, I was just wondering.

I think he's looking for more specifics--which people go to which kingdom?

If I remember correctly, the highest state of glory is for those whose marriages were sealed in the temple.

He might be wondering which kingdom would be the destination for a "good" (relatively speaking of course) person of another faith, where a "bad" Mormon would go, etc.

Also, yes, that's what I meant.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, the fact that there are Mormon missionaries in the next life won't prove the truth of Mormonism to anyone - I mean, we are everywhere now, so why would we stop after we are dead?

Seriously, though, yes, everyone who lived and died without having a chance to fully understand our message will get that chance, in the next life. There will quickly come a point where it doesn't matter that much what one's religious affiliation was in mortal life.

 

[Plotinus]

What I consider weird is that a human being can eventually become God...

But you know that that's a traditional Christian doctrine and still an important one in the Orthodox Church. In fact, Calvin had quite a lot to say about the divinisation of human beings, too.

Of course the Orthodox don't think that human beings can acquire the divine nature, but they think that human beings will share in the divine properties.

...that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers...

Lactantius believed something like that, as it happens. It's not original to Mormonism anyway.

Another question: Does the spiritual progression at the end of life ever end somewhere? Or is someone always advancing? If the latter, wouldn't everyone be saved eventually?

You may be interested to know that one of the most important doctrines of St Gregory of Nyssa was that spiritual progression never ends, because God is infinite. St Gregory also believed that everyone will be saved eventually. I don't see any necessary connection between these doctrines, though. Just because spiritual progression is infinite doesn't entail that everyone is doing it.

We differ from other Christian faiths in our belief that the physical body is an absolutely essential part of our future existence.

That's not a difference from Christianity. It's one of the most distinctive doctrines of Christianity. Ancient Christian authors who wrote descriptions of Christianity for non-Christian readers pretty much devoted all their time to explaining two doctrines - monotheism and the resurrection of the body, since these were the most distinctively Christian doctrines. Any version of Christianity which tries to account for life after death without reference to the physical body will have a lot of difficulty dealing with passages like 1 Corinthians 15, where it is quite explicit that Christ's resurrection is the prototype of the resurrection of all Christians.

(the intensity will match the individual's level of salvation, which is why Paul spoke of different levels of resurrection in Corinthians 15: 39-42; depending on your translation, it may say that there is a celestial resurrection, a terrestrial, and also additional levels that differ from each other as one star differs from another in brightness; this is what we call the telestial resurrection).

I don't think that this is a correct interpretation of that passage. In those verses, Paul is not distinguishing between different kinds of resurrection. That would not fit in with the line of his argument. In verses 35-38 he considers the question of what kind of flesh the risen body will have, and he points out that a seed differs from the plant that grows from it. In verses 39-41 he points out, further, that there are all sorts of different kinds of bodies in the natural world - in particular, celestial bodies such as stars and planets have different kinds of bodies from things on the earth, and indeed different kinds of celestial bodies differ again from each other. This reflects ancient cosmological beliefs such as Aristotle's to the effect that the kind of matter found above the sphere of the Moon was fundamentally different from that found beneath it.

Having made this point, that there are different kinds of bodies, it is only in verses 42-44 that Paul applies it to the resurrection. His point is that the resurrection body differs in kind from the bodies we have now. Just as different kinds of animals have different kinds of bodies, and different celestial bodies have different kinds of bodies, and just as the plant differs from the seed, so too the resurrection body is different in kind from the natural body.

So the distinction Paul is making is between the natural and the resurrection bodies. He's not making any distinction between different kinds of resurrection bodies, and his discussion of the stars and planets is literally that, and not code for different kinds of resurrection bodies. If it were, his argument would make no sense.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, the fact that there are Mormon missionaries in the next life won't prove the truth of Mormonism to anyone - I mean, we are everywhere now, so why would we stop after we are dead?

Well, because we're DEAD! That's why. And IIRC no other religion teaches that there will be missionaries running around after death. I mean, I don't think any religion is going to say "Well, when you die, you will see Mormon missionaries, but DON'T BELIEVE THEM, they are liars." Other religions would simply teach that Mormon missionaries won't be proselytizing after they're dead.

That is, unless we won't be aware that they are dead.

Seriously, though, yes, everyone who lived and died without having a chance to fully understand our message will get that chance, in the next life. There will quickly come a point where it doesn't matter that much what one's religious affiliation was in mortal life.

OK.

But you know that that's a traditional Christian doctrine and still an important one in the Orthodox Church. In fact, Calvin had quite a lot to say about the divinisation of human beings, too.

Of course the Orthodox don't think that human beings can acquire the divine nature, but they think that human beings will share in the divine properties.

Wait, what does that even mean?

You may be interested to know that one of the most important doctrines of St Gregory of Nyssa was that spiritual progression never ends, because God is infinite. St Gregory also believed that everyone will be saved eventually. I don't see any necessary connection between these doctrines, though. Just because spiritual progression is infinite doesn't entail that everyone is doing it.

In the context of my post, I was asking spiritual progression never ends PERIOD, not solely for individuals. If someone is constantly spiritually progressing, he can't stay in Hell forever.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

We differ from other Christian faiths in our belief that the physical body is an absolutely essential part of our future existence. When we are dead and not yet resurrected, we will long for our bodies and we will rejoice when our spirits and bodies are reunited (to form a complete soul, as Eran explained earlier to Perfection's question). The resurrected body will be perfect, immortal, and will radiate glory (the intensity will match the individual's level of salvation, which is why Paul spoke of different levels of resurrection in Corinthians 15: 39-42; depending on your translation, it may say that there is a celestial resurrection, a terrestrial, and also additional levels that differ from each other as one star differs from another in brightness; this is what we call the telestial resurrection).

All orthodox strains of Christianity affirm the resurrection of the body. Too often this is minimized by those who are ignorant or too intellectually lazy to distinguish between the final fate and whatever foretaste the spirit might experience in the intermediate state, but all major denominations officially maintain the distinction and look having glorified bodies like that of the risen Christ.

 

[_random_]

Wait, what does that even mean?

I know I've linked you to this multiple times in the past. There are some very important differences between Mormon and Orthodox thoughts on the matter, but the basic idea that men will become "partakers of the divine nature" is pretty clearly Biblical.

 

[Miles Teg]

So, a Virginia county schoolboard took A Study in Scarlet, the first Sherlock Holmes story, off the reading list for sixth graders, because they felt that the content of the novel would be offensive towards Mormons.

The plot of the second half of the book is centered around a woman running away from Mormon Danites, although Mormons aren't portrayed totally unsympathetically (they save the woman and her father when the two are lost in the desert). It was the following paragraph that apparently got it banned.

(John Ferrier) had always determined, deep down in his resolute heart, that nothing would ever induce him to allow his daughter to wed a Mormon. Such marriage he regarded as no marriage at all, but as a shame and a disgrace. Whatever he might think of the Mormon doctrines, upon that one point he was inflexible. He had to seal his mouth on the subject, however, for to express an unorthodox opinion was a dangerous matter in those days in the Land of the Saints.

I'm curious as to what the CFC Mormons feel about this story and the school board's decisions.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that censorship is almost always a bad idea.

I also think that back when that story, people were doing and saying much worse things than that. But it does illustrate the dangers of ignorance and stereotyping.

 

[downtown]

I'm curious as to what the CFC Mormons feel about this story and the school board's decisions.

Yeah, as far as anti-LDS stuff goes, that's pretty tame. A good teacher could use that for a springboard to talk about prejudice, or why that sort of attitude is hurtful and negative.

I imagine there are plenty of less controversial Holmes texts that could be used to meet those state standards, and I'm happy that somebody is actually standing up for Mormons in public, but I wouldn't have voted to ban the book either.

 

[Plotinus]

I have to say, I think that that story is extremely negative about Mormons - far more than just that paragraph suggests. I can entirely see why they wouldn't want it on their reading lists, although I'm not sure why it would be on them to start with.

However, I don't think that removing a text from a school curriculum really counts as "censorship". Censorship means banning a text or parts of it, not just not teaching it. I'm sure there are lots of book that aren't on school reading lists, but that doesn't mean they're censored or banned, just that they're not taught.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, it probably doesn't belong on the required summer reading list, but it does belong in the library.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Bumping

Both, kind of. Coffee and tea are explicitly forbidden. Some members will conclude that they should abstain from caffeine completely because of this, but most don't. That being said, most root beer is caffeine free.

Note that this was from a non-Mormon talking about Mormonism, so if this is wrong, feel free to say so.

Assuming it is accurate, why are these two drinks in particular banned? Why is it a sin to drink coffee and tea?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's actually exactly correct - which is a minor miracle, as almost every non-Mormon I know (including official sources like news stories and the like) just say "caffeine is prohibited".

Anyways, the Word of Wisdom - canonized scripture, which was given as a revelation to Joseph Smith - specifically forbids "hot drink" but doesn't define it. Later prophets have said that this means coffee (caffeinated or not) and leaf (ie, non-herbal) tea. This is partly for health reasons, and partly because learning to be obedient in the small things helps one to be obedient in the large things.