In another post, it seems you took the position that if someone is in the new and everlasting covenant, and they don't shed innocent blood, then no matter what else they do they will be made Gods and receive eternal life. Is this right? If so, I think I know where you are getting the idea (from the D&C). Why do you interpret the scripture that way?
quote: And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
D & C 132: 19 (empahsis is mine)
What is an alternative interpretation of this scripture?
posted
I don't think that "new and everlasting covenant" is the same thing as a temple marriage. I'm not sure what it is, but it's something over and above just being sealed.
Posts: 1366 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The key phrase, in my mind, is "sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise." If you get married in the temple (and yes, VL, that is entering into the new and everlasting covenant) then that covenant has to be ratified by the Spirit--and not just at the time of the covenant but over your whole life.
Isn't it silly to think that if you get a temple marriage then you have a free pass to do all manner of sin, just so long as you don't kill anybody? In that vein of thinking, I guess President Hinckley, for example, was only talking to a minority of the church when he urged the brethren to avoid pornography.
edit: oh yeah, the shedding of blood part. Remember what we believe about murder: the blessings of Godhood are withheld from those who are found guilty of that sin.
posted
This verse is a very complex verse, and is highly misunderstood by most because of its structure. Can we break it down to if/then statements to make it easier to understand? These would be a list of conditions and consequences
IF: 1. "a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant..." 2. "...and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise..." 3. And the sealing of the Holy Spirit of promise is performed by: "...him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood..." 4. "and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection" among other promises made in #2 5. "...and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood..."
THEN: 1. "...then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood..." 2. "...it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity..." 3. "...and shall be of full force when they are out of the world..." 4. "...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there..." 5. "...which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."
It is difficult to speak of these things without running afoul of the Nauvoo Compact regarding things of the temple, but I'll try. Kathryn, let me know if I cross the line. I will stay focused on the scripture. Let's look at this:
IF #1...Marriage in the new and everlasting covenant would be a sealing of a man and woman for time and eternity. This is a temple marriage. IF #2...What does it mean to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise? This happens after a temple marriage and is separate and distinct from a temple marriage. The next phrase gives a clue: IF #3...This sealing spoken of in IF #2 is performed by "...him who is anointed" and has been "appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood" Who is this? I believe this is talking about someone here on this earth, rather than someone in the afterlife. I believe it is the President of the Church. IF #4...and during this sealing spoken of in #2 above they are told that: "...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection..." At what point, and in what context is this ever said to anyone? IF #5...I placed this here, even though it comes after the next phrase in the verse, but it is a condition "...and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood".
The results?
THEN #1...It will be written in the Lambs Book of Life that they will not commit murder whereby to shed innocent blood. When is this done and by whom? THEN #2...whatsoever statements said by the anointed at the time of the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise spoken of in IF #2 above, will last through time and eternity. THEN #3...that and other promises made will continue in force when they are out of the world. THEN #4...they will pass by the angels etc. to their exaltation. THEN #5...will have the glory of fulness and continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
So the question is, what is "IF #2" talking about? When does the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise happen, how can we know that its happened and is there a specific ordinance associated with this occurance? And is it something that happens here on this earth, or in the afterlife.
My interpretation of the verse, is that the anointed one, is the president of the Church, and that #2 can and does happen on this earth, and that when it does, the person having it will know that it has happened, and that it is associated with a specific ordinance. And in order to go into more detail, I would have to break the Nauvoo Compact. But, there is a book called "Mysteries of Godliness" by David John Buerger, that discusses this in detail. I don't agree with this author's conclusions regarding this concept, but the book is historically accurate, well documented, and full of much of the history and practice of this ordinance. FWIW.
posted
It was also my understanding that there is a specific ordinance associated with the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise.
Posts: 2969 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zeta...in reading a few more verses in Section 132 there's more information regarding this subject and why Quadrata may have interpreted those scriptures in that way, which also happens to be my interpretation...but I'd be interested in how to interpret them differently. Anyway here it is:
quote: Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.
The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.
D & C 132: 26-27
More if/then statements, but here's what I get out of it.
IF: #1 If a man and woman are sealed, and #2 have their sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise and #3 then commit any transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, #4 as long as they don't commit murder, wherein to shed innocent blood,
THEN: #1 Yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, but #2 they will be destroyed in the flesh, and #3 turned over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption
And it seems in order to make it completely clear, the next verse defines the sin against the Holy Ghost as:
"in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant"
Posts: 259 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that having the holy Spirit of promise seal these blessings upon someone would include having their calling and election made sure. And while receiving all the earthly ordinances we can is a prerequisite to having our callings and election made sure, I don't see it as sufficient.
Posts: 5046 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. The conditions set upon us include entering into all possible ordinances and covenants AND enduring to the end.
I sense there is an element of dogma and witchcraft hangs around the term and concept of 'having their calling and election made sure'. My reading of the doctrine surrounding this concept is that it comes in no packet of breakfast cereal.
The Doctrine and Covenants clearly states the requirement, conditions and details attaching to the Sealing Ordinances and is equally upfront about recognising the likelihood some or many, who enter into the covenant, may not adhere fully in life to their promises. In this case it points out they will die and endure remorse etc., in spirit prison but, other conditions being equal, they will yet come forth in the final resurrection to obtain the rewards of their faith.
Sometimes I get the impression debate on this concept is designed to identify some small print escape clause!! Good try!
On the other hand, I find the whole doctrine sweetly and sublimely adapted to the frailties of mortal capacity. Father acknowledges the fact we will sin. But the Law states: without Faith ye shall not enter in - and the prescribed manners of demonstrating Faith are clearly laid down in Scripture. So sweet.
Who can endure mortality? Yet who resists the promises of the Covenant merely because they feel too impure to enter in?
"It is by Faith ye are made clean."
I just love it.
Posts: 886 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading the new(ish) missionary manual today and recalled seeing this thread.
quote: To be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise means that the Holy Ghost confirms that righteous acts, ordinances and covenants are acceptable to God. The Holy Spirit of Promise tesitifies to the Father that the saving ordinance have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept. pg. 91
"covenants associated with" is a fairly large set. It also refers to his testimony as being witnessed about acts in the past tense, presumably at judgement.
I am saddened by this topic because I know someone who seems really intelligent, who got massively hung up on others being hung up on this verse. I think the verse is just a fancy way of saying we can repent of just about anything but the shedding of innocent blood. There is more to it than that, of course, but in the depth that some are saying "if you don't shed innocent blood, you're in" that's all it means.
But maybe I'm wrong- maybe you do live, say, the law of consecration perfectly. If so, my son needs a trip to the dentist.
quote: It seems to me that having the holy Spirit of promise seal these blessings upon someone would include having their calling and election made sure. And while receiving all the earthly ordinances we can is a prerequisite to having our callings and election made sure, I don't see it as sufficient.
I answer:
quote: First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you. D & C 124: 124
"To obtain this sealing is to make our calling and election sure." Joseph Smith...Words of Joseph Smith, Ehat and Cook p. 355
How do you correlate your thoughts with these quotes that seem to make the Holy Spirit of Promise, and the calling and election made sure the same thing?
quote: To be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise means that the Holy Ghost confirms that righteous acts, ordinances and covenants are acceptable to God. The Holy Spirit of Promise tesitifies to the Father that the saving ordinance have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept. pg. 91
Bumbershoot, if this were the entire story, why would it require that the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise be performed "by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood" as stated in D & C 132: 19? In any case, if I had to choose between Section 132 and the missionary manual, I'd take Section 132.
I assume that because your post follows mine that the "No" is directed towards me. Let me assure you that I do not believe having one's calling and election made sure gives someone a get-out-of-jail-free card.
LVChuck,
First, D&C 124 is in connection with Hyrum's calling as patriarch to the Church. Being a patriarch, and having the keys that go along with that, is not the same as having the keys that go along with sealing marriages (although, in my opinion, they both hold "sealing" keys). The sealing power rests with the President of the Church, and is imparted (by revelation) to sealers and patriarchs.
Second, in my opinion, "obtaining the sealing" is different than having things "sealed upon you." For example, my patriarchal blessing promises (i.e. seals) things upon me. When I was married to Sarah it was sealed. But, if I don't endure to the end, I will not "obtain" that sealing. Verse 19 mention "abiding in the covenant." While verse 26 does not, it seems implicit.
posted
Yeah, Zeta, I wasn't real comfortable using that one (section 124)...and I hope I'm not parsing too much here in order to make the point, but if I am, let me know. The person spoken of in verse 19 of 132 and in conjunction with verse 7 of the same section, is clearly Joseph Smith. The powers to seal in marriage, seal up unto eternal life, etc. clearly reside in the President of the Church.
How I read 124: 124 is (parsing begins) that Hyrum was given right to hold the sealing blessings of "my church" i.e. Patriarchal Blessings, and the speaker then goes global by referencing the Holy Spirit of Promise "whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption." So its not that Hyrum holds the power to seal up unto the day of redemption, but that the church holds that power. (Parsing ends) To seal up unto the day of redemption is clearly a reference to the calling and election made sure. I don't believe there is that much difference between C&EMS and being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. You do seem to be making that distinction.
My whole point however is that there is another ordinance beyond being sealed in marriage. It is spoken of in verse 19, my IF #2 above, that is associated with the Holy Spirit of Promise and/or Calling and Election Made Sure. This is not idle speculation, but an historic fact. Something on the order of 500 of these ordinances were performed in Nauvoo prior to the exodus. Joseph Smith himself administered the ordinance to 10-12 in the upstairs of the Red Brick store. These 10-12 who roughly, but not exactly, corresponded to the apostles, were called the "elect", the "anointed" and the "quorum of the anointed." Joseph and Emma were the first ones to receive this ordinance.
I believe this ordinance still goes on today. Now as to how this earthly work corresponds to the heavenly reality of it, is a matter of debate, just as when you are confirmed, you are told to receive the Holy Ghost, but may not receive it then and there, but have the right to it. But the early brethren in Nauvoo did not make that distinction, they saw the ordinance and its effects as one in the same.
Section 132 speaks of the ordinance, and also tells the conditions under which it can happen and be effective, and what its effects are. You asked about shedding of innocent blood at the top of this thread, and verses 19 and 26-27 address that. One of the effects of this sealing up unto eternal life is that one who has received this blessing can, in verse 26-27, commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant up to murder wherein innocent blood is shed, and still come forth in the first resurrection. But there are consequences and not very nice ones for committing those transgressions. Once this blessing is received, the recipient can either be exalted or be a Son of Perdition, it appears there is no in between.
Also, what does the phrase "abide in my covenant" after receiving the Holy Spirit of Promise mean? It does seem to have a very specific meaning as explained in the next phrase "...and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood...", so the covenant is to not commit murder, after receiving the Holy Spirit of Promise.
And with this post, I have gotten way more explicit than I wanted to, so Kathryn feel free to edit me, if needed.
quote:Yeah, Zeta, I wasn't real comfortable using that one (section 124)...and I hope I'm not parsing too much here in order to make the point, but if I am, let me know. The person spoken of in verse 19 of 132 and in conjunction with verse 7 of the same section, is clearly Joseph Smith. The powers to seal in marriage, seal up unto eternal life, etc. clearly reside in the President of the Church.
No argument here. As I said in my previous post, the President delegates this power to others, such as patriarchs. And these people can seal upon us the promise to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection.
quote:How I read 124: 124 is (parsing begins) that Hyrum was given right to hold the sealing blessings of "my church" i.e. Patriarchal Blessings, and the speaker then goes global by referencing the Holy Spirit of Promise "whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption." So its not that Hyrum holds the power to seal up unto the day of redemption, but that the church holds that power. (Parsing ends) To seal up unto the day of redemption is clearly a reference to the calling and election made sure. I don't believe there is that much difference between C&EMS and being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. You do seem to be making that distinction.
I see the C&EMS as being part of having the sealing take effect; usually the sealing happens much earlier. As I said in my previous post, lots of things are sealed upon us, *according to our faithfulness.* It is only later that these sealings are realized. I think that the C&EMS is realized upon reception of the 2nd comforter.
quote:My whole point however is that there is another ordinance beyond being sealed in marriage.
I know about this. No need to be more specific.
quote:But the early brethren in Nauvoo did not make that distinction, they saw the ordinance and its effects as one in the same.
So did Paul concerning baptism. The effect of baptism is to seal us as Christ's disciples--and hence those who receive baptism will have eternal life. The problem is that if we confound the ordinance with it's effects, we can sometimes lose sight of the requirement to endure to the end.
quote:Once this blessing is received, the recipient can either be exalted or be a Son of Perdition, it appears there is no in between.
I agree, if you mean that it was received by a worthy recipient. My problem is with the idea that it gives people license to sin without repentence. They will either eventually repent or be damned. Also with the idea that every one who received it was worthy of it. If they were worthy, then eventually they receive the 2nd comforter.
quote:Also, what does the phrase "abide in my covenant" after receiving the Holy Spirit of Promise mean? It does seem to have a very specific meaning as explained in the next phrase "...and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood...", so the covenant is to not commit murder, after receiving the Holy Spirit of Promise.
I disagree. I think the word 'and' shows us that abiding in the covenant was a requirement along with not shedding innocent blood through murder.
As your post was addressed to me, I will respond, even though, it appears LVChuck and I share very similar views with regard to this topic. Unfortunately, because of the charter, I cannot expound completely my views on what you have asked, and, in fact, have been corrected in the past for trying.
In addition to, 'what he[LVChuck] said', I just wanted to say that I was in no way suggesting that someone can have a "get-out-of-jail-free card", nor do I believe that anyone can obtain one. I was, however, trying to imply that Emma's "promise", as Paul puts it, is still valid - though, conditional, as LVChuck has pointed out; but non-the-less valid as she has not shed innocent blood.
posted
I agree with what Zeta-Flux just said. It also makes sense in the context of what the Church teaches about sin and repentance in general. With most sins, there is still a chance to "abide in the covenant" if you repent of them. By "shedding inocent blood," you've permanently broken the covenant and will have to face certain consequences.
Posts: 1366 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for your response. Do you think that receiving the second comforter is part of the package, or can one receive the promise in D&C 132 before that? I tend to think that receiving the second comforter is part of the equation, before the promise is in full.
Do you think that receiving the second comforter is part of the package, or can one receive the promise in D&C 132 before that?
It seems to me that one may receive the ordinance that is associated with receiving the Holy Spirit of Promise, and thereby entering into the corresponding covenants before having one's calling and election made sure by the manifestation of the Second Comforter. DPJS p.114-115; TPJS p.150-151; Eph.1:13-14
However, I would agree that these three things are sometimes referred to synonymously by the early saints - or to use your words, put into the "same package". I wouldn't be surprised either, if there have been occasions where they were all, excuse the crude way of describing it, bundled together into one relative occurance - they do seem to be closely tied together.
Do you believe someone can shed innocent blood after they have died?
If not (and I suppose your answer is no to my first question), do you believe that someone who has received the promise given in D&C 132, who has not shed innocent blood, but has broken the covenants made in the temple, and dies without repenting first, will be exalted?
posted
If I may interject again, even though the question was not asked of me, and I'm also interested in what Quadrata has to say on this.
quote: do you believe that someone who has received the promise given in D&C 132, who has not shed innocent blood, but has broken the covenants made in the temple, and dies without repenting first, will be exalted?
My answer would be, that they WILL be exalted, and that they will eventually repent, as every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, but will have to endure the buffetings of Satan until the day of remdemption.(D&C 132: 26-27)
On a speculative note, perhaps they will have to bear the consequent pain and suffering associated with those sins subsequent to being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, of breaking the covenants in the interim themselves, and that is what is meant by the "buffetings of Satan." I have no documentation to back that up, but that's my take on it.
We may agree to disagree on the meaning of the phrase, "abide in my covenant." I believe that this is a specific covenant, and possibly refers to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. My own thought is that it is the covenant to not shed innocent blood, as that is what is being talked about in the phrase, with the promise to not, and the writing of the promise in the Lambs Book of Life. I take the "and" in that phrase as not specifying another condition, as you interpret it, but as connecting the action to the covenant. An example: "I'm going to drive in my car, and go down the street." Its a redundant statement with a second phrase that reinforces the first, rather than "I'm going to the store to buy a paper, and a quart of milk, and a candy bar" where the ands add one to another.
posted
Todd...see my post above on D&C 132: 26-27. Particular attention to these words:
quote:"...if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies"..."yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption"
This seems to imply that someone who has fulfilled the requirements of and received this order of the Priesthood, has a different set of rules that apply, than what applies to those of us who have not received it. And it seems to imply that they can (note that I did not say may) "commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever" and still "come forth in the first resurrection." But in the meantime, their consequences will be much worse than what the rest of us have to deal with as the next phrase indicates.
I think Zeta brings up a hypothetical, which may or may not be realistic. Someone who has obtained this order of the priesthood, should be one who has "...no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually." (Mosiah 5:2) What their life has been about to bring the "Sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise" to pass; the sacrafices, and Abrahamic tests they have endured; should have purged their souls to the extent that this wouldn't happen. However, the possibility exists as evidenced by v. 26-27, and the outcomes are spelled out. I don't think this gives anyone license to sin, but they should have demonstrated fully their tendancy to live by every word of God, to the extent that they would not be likely to sin after receiving this Promise.
Could someone who has received the Holy Spirit of Promise, be unworthy of it? I can think of one example of someone who might fill that description. (a former apostle of 1950's vintage) Could someone receive the ordinance, and still not be worthy...yes possibly, but I would hope and have faith that revelation dictates the administration of this ordinance more than any other in the church, to the extent that it is very unlikely.
posted
LVChuck, it seems to me that you #5 IF statement should really be #5 and #6.
quote: 5. "...and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood..."
should perhaps be
5. "...and if ye abide in my covenant,... " 6. "...and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood..."
I read it as 2 things instead of instruction of how to abide in the covenant. It seems some might read it as,"and if ye abide in my covenant, by committing no murder whereby to shed innocent blood..."
To me it does make a difference. And it brings into focus what we might do to break the covenant we made in the temple. I can certainly thing of ALOT of things we may fall short of the covenants made there. I probably do every week, or more often. Therefore, repentance.
Posts: 1237 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gishfarm, exactly...that's what this discussion will come down to, is how to interpret that line. However, looking at v. 19 and then reading v 26-27, it's the only way to have v 26 make sense. I believe this has application to a select few, who have had their temple covenants sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Most of us have not had that and therefore these verses do not apply to us. Being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is a very specific and well defined condition, with an associated ordinance, and is in fact another order of the priesthood above just being sealed to a wife for time and eternity. This condition does not apply to most of us. This is exactly what v. 26-27 is saying. And yes, I'll reiterate, that I do believe that the "and" in v 19, defines the covenant per v. 26-27. In other words, after this condition applies, the only stipulation on these people, is that they not commit murder wherein to shed innocent blood. I also believe that being buffeted by Satan is more than what those of us who do not obtain this Promise, will ever have to endure. We're not talking about a condition of no consequence...the consequences are much higher and much more serious after this Promise is given. And I'm not saying that repentance is not important and even necessary, in fact, it is the one and only way for us to obtain the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise.
posted
Thank you so much for this discussion. What a wonderful way to explore line upon line. Here are a couple of my thoughts. First, we never get to a point where we "have it made". We'll all be evaluated by how well we endure to the end. And not that we just "endured" it, we must endure it well, which is different for everyone, we all having different circumstances, tests and temptations. Second, for the average joe, shedding innocent blood is murder. But, for some, I believe this refers to Christ's blood. When we have accepted His salvation, enter into covenants to obey His commandments, then sin again in such a way as to crucify Him all over again, in a sense we shed innocent blood. As great is our joy in singing the song of redeeming love, as great is His agony when we like dogs, return to our vomit(or even greater since He has so much more clarity than us). Sin is different for everyone, and just like mercy and justice work together, so does the light we sin against work with the ensuing consequences. Third, can we sin out of the flesh? of course, we have our free agency until we resign it. Fourth, some of this conversation reminds me of the sure mercies of David. He sinned against a great light, and forsook his reward, and will spend a thousand years in Spirit Prison, but at the last day will be redeemed. It's not spelled out, but I believe he will suffer, lose the exaltation he previously earned, then come to the Celestial Kingdom, but what level of the Celestial Kingdom is not known by me(I'll be surprised if he is more than a Celestial Angel serving the men and women who honored their sealing covenants). Fifth, I would be surprised to hear sealing Endowments are still being performed. Just like the ordinance of the washing of the feet, I don't think it's necessary for all to receive it in this life to attain to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, but it's common knowledge that some of both of these ordinances have been performed. Lastly, just like some have received the Holy Ghost and did not know it, I bet there are some that have had their C&EMS, received the Holy Spirit of Promise, or whatever you want to call it and did not know it. Conversion is a process, and those who are valiant at it are an inspiration for us all. I love you all for seeking and discussing Heavenly Father's greatest blessing for His children. And I respect you for not trampling on sacred things. And if I erred in my opinion, I'm still early in my journey back Home. Oh, and Merry Christmas, too!
Posts: 1 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm not saying that repentance is not important and even necessary...
No one is saying you feel this way. We are just confused in how repentance plays a role in your theory. Especially when you say things like:
quote:In other words, after this condition applies, the only stipulation on these people, is that they not commit murder wherein to shed innocent blood. (empahsis added)
I think todd pointed this out very well in his last post.
By the way, I think it is clear, from historical records, that there were people who had all the ordinances given to them, but they certainly had not proven themselves to be faithful in all things, or worthy of having their calling and election made sure. So, again, I don't think this promise applies until the Son actually ratifies the sealing when He manifests Himself to the person.
quote: We are just confused in how repentance plays a role in your theory.
I guess the answer is that I don’t know how repentance applies to those who are under this condition. Section 132 doesn’t tell us. Its not my “theory”. Its what D&C 132 plainly says, and its what Joseph Smith taught and the early brethren understood of this doctrine.
Me
quote: In other words, after this condition applies, the only stipulation on these people is that they not commit murder wherein to shed innocent blood.
You’re right…I made a mistake…let me add a phrase to more accurately reflect what I’ve been saying if you read my statements in context, and what v. 26 says:
quote: (REVISED) In other words, after this condition applies, the only stipulation on these people (added: in order to achieve exaltation), is that they not commit murder wherein to shed innocent blood.
Zeta
quote: By the way, I think it is clear, from historical records, that there were people who had all the ordinances given to them, but they certainly had not proven themselves to be faithful in all things, or worthy of having their calling and election made sure.
How could this be judged? What examples do you have to support this?
Zeta
quote: I don't think this promise applies until the Son actually ratifies the sealing when He manifests Himself to the person.
You and I agree on this. It still doesn’t change the conditions. I guess the question is how can you or I ever know if this has or has not happened for someone else?
posted
David, I think we are exactly exploring the possible scenario where someone (probably very very very few of us) DOES get to the place where they have 'made it' unless they shed innocent blood.
I like your slant on the definition of innocent blood. I have to disagree however. If someone decides to re-crucify Christ after knowing the truth I think the consequences would be more severe than 'buffetings for a time'.
I think there are 2 worlds of difference between having yoru calling and election made sure and having a temple marriage however.
Posts: 1237 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the answer is that I don’t know how repentance applies to those who are under this condition.
The problem with this response, and we have discussed it repeatedly, is that we have shown how your answer implicitly denies any need for repentance on the part of the sinner in the covenant. That is, unless you can point out where the repentance is happening (and required).
By the way, my position isn't that much different than yours. If you'd like to know what I think the scripture says, I'd be glad to explain it. But in the meantime I'm glad you are explaining your take, and letting us pick it apart. If you want a turn at me, just ask.
quote:Its what D&C 132 plainly says, and its what Joseph Smith taught and the early brethren understood of this doctrine.
And Matt. 12:31-32 says that all sins, except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, will be forgiven. No mention of repentance. And yet, the plain meaning is that there is implicitly a need for repentance.
quote:How could this be judged? What examples do you have to support this?
It can be judged only from our limited knowledge of the characters of those in the early Church, their life and works, as far as we can ascertain them. Certainly, that limits us. But, in my opinion, we can get to know some of their deeds pretty well.
I don't have any specific examples (although, you seem to have one). But maybe the following quote will help illustrate my point:
"The next circumstance of importance was the dedication of the Logan Temple, May 17th, 18th, and 19th. The services were attended by thousands of people and were repeated in order to accomodate all who desired the privilege and were entitled to be present. People were admitted to the services by tickets of recommendation given them by their bishops. On that occasion a circumstance happened analogous to that of Annanias and Sapphira who lied to the Lord and to Peter in the days of the ancient apostles. As the hosts of people were climbing the stairs to the assembly room of the Temple, President Taylor discerned in the multitude one woman unworthy of admission. He did not know her but said to President C. O. Card, "Turn that woman back." "Why?" asked President Card, "She has come with a ticket of recommendation as well as all the others." "I don't know why, " replied President Taylor, "only that the spirit of the Lord says, 'Turn that woman back.'" President Card observed the instructions to him and upon special investigation learned that the lady was altogether an improper person, and by connivance with another she had procured the ticket for the price of one dollar. In commenting upon this circumstance later, President Taylor said: "You may deceive the bishop, the president of the stake, the apostles, the president of the Church, but you can't deceive the Lord, Jesus Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, and sooner or later the unworthy, the hypocrites and unrepenting transgressors will be found out and separated from the assembly of the righteous."" --Wilford Woodruff's Daily Journals, Chapter 50
Note, Pres. Taylor was President of the Church at the time. So, it seems pretty authoritative to me when he says that the President could be deceived.
quote:I guess the question is how can you or I ever know if this has or has not happened for someone else?
Through revelation. For example, I know that it happened to Joseph Smith.
---------
Well, I decided I would explain my interpretation of the scripture. That way you can see where I am coming from.
First, I do not believe that "commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood" is limited to actual murder of an innocent person. There are many ways to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. One is to turn altogether from the Melchizedek priesthood (if you have received it). So, for example, if someone falls under the promise given in D&C 132:26, and is turned over to the buffetings of Satan, and still refuses to repent; then, in my opinion, that soul is assenting unto Christ's death, and thereby shedding innocent blood by denying the atonement's effects.
So, in effect, the promise given in D&C 132:26 is that someone who has come that far in life is only worthy to be exalted or to become a son of perdition. And, thus, the buffetings and destructions are put in place to help the person choose between them. If they don't repent during the buffetings and in spirit prison, they become sons of perdition.
Second, I believe that the phrase "and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise" can be understood in two parts. Namely, (1) having the ordinance done by a person in authority to do so, and (2) being worthy of the sealing.
The promise only applies to those who are worthy of it, and hence worthy of the 2nd comforter. If Christ doesn't come to them, then they are not worthy. While revelation definitely does go on with regards to whom ordinances should be administered, there are those who choose to mock God. This is true even of the temple. The sealing is efficacious if and only if we are right before the Lord. But, I guess my point is; even if you, Chuck, are right that everyone who gets to that point will receive the 2nd comforter, then that only bolsters my point that receipt of the 2nd comforter completes the ordinance and shows that the promise is efficacious.
posted
Well thanks Zeta...I was feeling a bit dissected for awhile there. I like your response, and I don't believe that we disagree as much as this thread might indicate. I'm also happy that you elaborated on your position, because it seemed we were going nowhere, with shots being taken. May I indulge in some speculation regarding the need for repentance for one who has received the sealing of the HSoP, and while I don't KNOW this, as its not explicitly stated in D&C 132, this may explain my stand. I have tried to express this concept during the thread, without coming right out and saying it, but it must have been unintelligible.
quote: The problem with this response, and we have discussed it repeatedly, is that we have shown how your answer implicitly denies any need for repentance on the part of the sinner in the covenant. That is, unless you can point out where the repentance is happening (and required).
Repentance is not required in the economy of God; it is chosen. The law of justice will be fulfilled with or without repentance. Either we will pay for our own sins through our own suffering, or we will qualify through repentance to have Christ’s suffering pay for them. It is either justice or mercy. For sins committed after receiving the C&EMS, that individual will be turned over to the buffetings of Satan, until justice is fulfilled. By the time the day of redemption arrives, when we know that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, all sins will have been paid either by ourselves, or by Christ for those sins of which we have repented. v. 26-27 seem to be very clearly saying that the rules for these people have changed. And that the only act they could commit which would reverse the C&EMS is a commission of a sin as gross as murder. But for all other sins under the new and everlasting covenant, they will be turned over to the buffetings of Satan to suffer for their own sins.
v. 20 states:
quote:"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."
While this verse is talking about future things for such a person, for someone in this state, who has qualified for godhood, is it possible that they no longer have a need of repentance, because a.) they have qualified for exaltation, b.) because their spirits have become strong enough to bear whatever additional sins they commit, c.) because they are not likely to commit very many more sins because they have overcome themselves and the world.
quote: And Matt. 12:31-32 says that all sins, except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, will be forgiven. No mention of repentance. And yet, the plain meaning is that there is implicitly a need for repentance.
Or at least the need for justice to be satisfied. Either we will bear our own, or Christ will. The economy of God will not be altered. Perhaps those who receive the C&EMS are back where they started, prior to their first covenants, bearing their own sins. Just something to think about. Feel free to take some shots. I’m not committed to this concept, but it seems to fit.
quote: So, in effect, the promise given in D&C 132:26 is that someone who has come that far in life is only worthy to be exalted or to become a son of perdition. And, thus, the buffetings and destructions are put in place to help the person choose between them. If they don't repent during the buffetings and in spirit prison, they become sons of perdition.
This is also what the early brethren believed.
quote: But, I guess my point is; even if you, Chuck, are right that everyone who gets to that point will receive the 2nd comforter, then that only bolsters my point that receipt of the 2nd comforter completes the ordinance and shows that the promise is efficacious.
I’m not sure I said this. I suppose its possible that someone could have the ordinance performed and never receive the presence of Christ, and in such a case, I would agree with you that the promise was not complete, only that we could never know whether it never happened. I do agree that the 2nd comforter is a requirement, but that the conditions spoken of in 132 are for those who have completed all the requirements.
posted
For a very complete discussion on C&EMS concepts please see Elder McConkie's writings on this topic in his "Doctrinal New Testament Commentary." Most of the questions posed here on that topic are answered there.
Posts: 206 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either we will pay for our own sins through our own suffering, or we will qualify through repentance to have Christ’s suffering pay for them. . . . By the time the day of redemption arrives, when we know that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, all sins will have been paid either by ourselves, or by Christ for those sins of which we have repented.
I know of nowhere in scripture that suggests that it is possible for us to pay for our own sins. Suffer for them, yes, but pay (atone) for them, no. Christ is the only way, there is no other. If it is possible for us to pay for our own sins then there is no need for a Savior.
Posts: 580 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know of nowhere in scripture that suggests that it is possible for us to pay for our own sins. Suffer for them, yes, but pay (atone) for them, no. Christ is the only way, there is no other. If it is possible for us to pay for our own sins then there is no need for a Savior.
My response:
quote:(Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-17.)
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
quote:(Alma 42:22-24.)
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.
23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.
24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.
quote:The prophets and apostles from Adam and Enoch down, and all men, whether cleansed and sanctified from sin or not, are yet subject to and do in fact commit sin. This is the case even after men have seen the visions of eternity and been sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise which makes their calling and election sure. Since these chosen ones have the sure promise of eternal life, and since "no unclean thing can enter into" the Father's "kingdom" (3 Ne. 27:19), "or dwell in his presence" (Moses 6:57), what of sins committed after being sealed up into eternal life?
Obviously the laws of repentance still apply, and the more enlightened a person is, the more he seeks the gift of repentance, and the harder he strives to free himself from sin as often as he falls short of the divine will and becomes subject in any degree to the Master of Sin who is Lucifer. It follows that the sins of the godfearing and the righteous are continually remitted because they repent and seek the Lord anew every day and every hour.
And as a matter of fact, the added blessing of having one's calling and election made sure is itself an encouragement to avoid sin and a hedge against its further commission. By that long course of obedience and trial which enabled them to gain so great a blessing the sanctified saints have charted a course and developed a pattern of living which avoids sin and encourages righteousness. Thus the Lord said: "I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you." (D. & C. 124:124.)
But suppose such persons become disaffected and the spirit of repentance leaves them—which is a seldom and almost unheard of eventuality—still, what then? The answer is—and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith so recite!—they must then pay the penalty of their own sins, for the blood of Christ will not cleanse them. Or if they commit murder or adultery, they lose their promised inheritance because these sins are exempt from the sealing promises. Or if they commit the unpardonable sin, they become sons of perdition.
(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1973], 3: 344.)
We wouldn't even have the opportunity to pay for, or suffer for our own sins, much less repent, were it not for the atonement of the Savior, in fact our state would be much worse than just suffering for our sins (per 2 Nephi 9). In any case without the atonement of Christ we could never overcome the bands of death, so we would still be lost. I never said atone, btw, I said we would pay for our sins under the demands of the law of justice just as Jesus did. In nothing I have said, have I denied the need for a Savior. In fact this incredible and loving gift, the potential to have our calling and election made sure is the crowning jewel of the atonement of Christ. It is God's greatest gift to His children.
You should have included the information just before the "Obviously the laws of repentance..." statement, which says in so many words that those who have had their C&EMS can still take advantage of repentance and the Atonement through the Savior. If that were not the case there would be many sons of perdition since no one, even those who have thier C&EMS are perfect, which means even they sin (but hopefully repent quickly).
posted
Therese--thanks...its been added. Thanks for that reference by the way...its very enlightening.
Posts: 259 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm surprised that panamajones hasn't responded yet. But basically you really didn't address his question. None of those scriptures talk about paying for our own sins. Rather, they talk about paying the penalty for our own sins. And, as we know, the penalty is as eternal as the life of the soul. Suffering the penalty does not make us penitant--although sometimes suffering is part of the repentance process. We must repent or suffer. And the suffering doesn't end until we repent. "...none but the truly penitent are saved."
Posts: 5046 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zeta...we're arguing semantics here. When we hear the phrase that at some point "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ", we're talking about a state of penitance and I believe when this time arrives, it is what is known as the day of redemption. If we disagree at all, its that suffering will bring us to a state of repentance. I believe it will. We know from the scriptures that all will come to this state of penitance at some point, except the sons of perdition. Its my belief that, except for those who have received the C&EMS, that the amount of suffering we have to endure before confessing and accepting Christ's atonement will have much to do with our eternal kingdom. However, in the end, all but the sons of perdition will come to this point and inherit a kingdom of glory. Those who have received the C&EMS will have to endure the "buffetings of Satan" for sins committed after receiving the C&EMS, but as v. 26 says, "yet they shall come forth in the morning of the first resurrection." Actually I don't agree that the "the penalty is as eternal as the life of the soul." Once we are assigned a kingdom of Glory, the suffering is over.
Once we've paid the penalty for our sins, what else is there besides confessing Christ? I think the scriptures I cited do address panama's point, unless I'm missing something...a very real possibility. Alma 42 makes the point that the law assigns a penalty to our sins, and that if we don't repent, we will be under the demands of the law of justice, to pay that penalty for sins we don't repent of. D&C 19 indicates that the Lord suffered the same penalty for each sin we commit as we will, if we don't repent. And beyond that it says that He suffered the cumulative penalties for all of our sins. Perhaps you can elaborate the difference between paying the penalty for our sins, and paying for our sins. What do you see as the difference?
Lastly, I believe in v.26 where it says that those who sin after receiving the C&EMS will have to suffer the buffetings of Satan that this is saying that they will have to pay the penalty of their own sins, which McConkie, in the quote in my last post, didn't seem to disagree with. I also said that this is very unlikely since repentance is what brought them to the point of the C&EMS to begin with. McConkie again seems to say the same thing.
This whole discussion regarding repentance came about because you asked the following question:
quote: do you believe that someone who has received the promise given in D&C 132, who has not shed innocent blood, but has broken the covenants made in the temple, and dies without repenting first, will be exalted?
My answer was:
quote: ...that they WILL be exalted, and that they will eventually repent, as every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, but will have to endure the buffetings of Satan until the day of remdemption.(D&C 132: 26-27)
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
