Confessing God’s hand in all things
I can’t get any of my real posts to the point where I am willing to pull the trigger, so I will settle today with a quick question about an interesting scripture:
21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments. (D&C 59:21)
The idea that God’s wrath is kindled against those who don’t confess his hand in all things is often used to argue that God is sticking his fingers is way more things than some of us have supposed. For example, Blake used this scripture in that way here, which got me thinking about it again. Earlier in that thread, I said that I reject the “everything happens for a purpose” way of thinking. I don’t think God is micro-managing everything that happens. I don’t feel compelled to attribute every good thing that happens to some form of divine intervention.
Of course, I don’t believe God is totally hands off either. I am not a Deist. I believe in a God who can answer prayers and perform miracles, but I think these must be considered to be the exception rather than the rule if we have in mind everything that happens. So I can’t sign on to Blake’s reading of this verse. There are several other possible readings; I am not overly committed to any of them and I am interested in your take.
Suggested reading 1: I’ll use this to refer to Blake’s reading as cited above, and further defined on this thread in which Blake argued that God guarantees that all the children who die were celestial before coming to earth and anyone who was not celestial is protected from the possibility of death in infancy. This is the kind of systematic intervention I don’t believe in at all, and I described many of my reasons in my discussion with Blake on that thread just linked to.
Suggested reading 2: One possible reading (which is supported by the verses preceding, if you ask me) is that God has given us this earth and we should confess our dependence on him as the creator. In this spirit, we might note that God “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” We should confess God’s hand in the blessing of a sunny day or the rain on our crops, but this does not require us to believe that God personally intervenes to cause each rain storm and each sunrise. Acknowledging God’s hand in all things, then, does not mean acknowledging that God is perpetually tweaking every situation and sticking his fingers in all sorts of things where no one asked him to intervene.
Suggested reading 3: Another reading which I confess to liking is that we usually do not know which things were done by God and which were not. In the spirit of epistemological humility, we should confess that God’s hand might well have been in any particular thing. I don’t think we should be quick to discount divine intervention the way non-believers do, betraying a distrust of miracles per se.
So, what do you think this verse means? Feel free to add some new suggested readings.
God’s wrath is kindled against people who exhibit two characteristics (not one). THese characteristics are not confessing his hand in all things AND not obeying the commandments. I think this combination is important. I would guess that the commandments part is by far the biggest part of the equation.
Comment by Eric Nielson — January 31, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
There is nothing in this world that comes from any other source than that of God the Eternal Father.
Comment by Dan — January 31, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Eric, Good point.
Dan, What about all the things that I create through the free excercise of my own will? I posted on that question here. I would contend that if you give God the credit for everything that happens than you must give him the blame for it as well, which makes for a difficult theodicy.
Comment by Jacob J — January 31, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Hi Jacob,
While in the mission field, I read something by BY that shaped the way I used to see the world. He said, (or something like this) “When the truth is known, every pain or sickness we have, there was an evil spirit there causing it.” I am not sure I still believe this to be true, but of course it could be true.
So I believed, and still do to some extent, that there are only two forces that govern the universe. The force of good and the force of evil. If that is true, then if something is not caused by one force, then it must have been caused by the other.
So I have no problem with the idea that God’s hand is in all things. If God can set this world into motion with natural/physical laws that govern everything in it, why is it so hard to believe that God can have spiritual laws that govern everything we do in relation to our future lives in heaven?
For instance, if I drop something, I do not believe God is in heaven watching me, to make sure it falls, anymore than I believe when I pray, that I have God’s undivided attention to answer my prayer. When I say, our Father in heaven, I am taping into spiritual laws that automatically take control and make sure that certain things happen in accordance with what is in my best interest and God’s plan.
Needless to say, this leaves a lot of questions unanswered or at best, difficult to answer.
Comment by CEF — January 31, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Seems to me that “confessing his hand in all things” could simply mean we admit he is aware of everything on our planet and able to intervene any time he chooses. We dealt with this general subject in my recent theodicy post. I submit that a major part of faith in God is trusting his judgment when it comes to intervening or not.
Comment by Geoff J — January 31, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
CEF,
When I say, our Father in heaven, I am taping into spiritual laws that automatically take control and make sure that certain things happen in accordance with what is in my best interest and God’s plan.
Okay, you have me curious. What in the world do you mean by this? Are you saying that your prayers are not addressed in a personal way, but through some sort of spiritual automation? What sort of spiritual laws do you have in mind here?
Geoff,
I’m not sure I can go along with God’s awareness of all things being called his hand in all things, but “able to intervene any time he chooses” sounds pretty close to my third reading. At any rate, I think we are on the same page on this topic. I agree with your point about trusting God’s judgment.
Comment by Jacob J — January 31, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Jacob,
In answer to your question to Dan, God created you, your agency is a gift and part of a plan for which a war in heaven was fought, so your use of agency and creation are still fruits in which he had a (rather big) hand in. Gratitude does not undermine agency. Certainly many are angry with God because he seems to have given us leeway to royally screw the world up. They are correct he had a hand in that, the question is, is Satan’s plan better?
Comment by Doc — January 31, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
PS.
Notice how God can have a hand in things without micromanaging.
Comment by Doc — January 31, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Doc,
Your comments seem to fall under suggested reading 2 from the post I think (no?). I can get on board with the idea that God has a hand in everything if we mean that he enables everything at some level. If that is what you mean then I agree.
On the topic of Dan’s comment, he said that nothing in this world comes from any other source than God, which is a much stronger statement than the one you are making. I am with you, but I’m not sure I am with Dan unless he clarifies his position a bit more.
Comment by Jacob J — January 31, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Jacob: I can get on board with the idea that God has a hand in everything if we mean that he enables everything at some level.
If God enables everything that occurs, then I suppose you could agree that God concurs in every event as I outlined in ch. 3 of vol. 1? If that is the case, then nothing occurs without either enabling it or permitting it and I don’t see how that view differs from 1, for in that event no one dies without God concurring. If he concurs in every death, then why is it so problematic that he must concur in the death of infants who are celestial?
My biggest problem is that you simply reject outright very clear language:
D&C 137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
How much clearer does it have to get for you?
Comment by Blake — January 31, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
I’ve never interpreted that passage (D&C 59:21) to mean that God micromanages and/or is responsible for all things (which would lead us back into serious issues of agency and theodicy). Instead, I’ve always seen it as a corollary to King Benjamin’s address, particularly in Mosiah 4. The whole chapter applies, but in particular the passage:
I think that sums up “confess[ing] the hand of God in all things.” ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — January 31, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Blake,
As you know, I provided a detailed analysis (here) of why I don’t think D&C 137 is as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be above. But, as you often point out, we don’t just have to live with our positions, but with all that those positions entail. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that God ensures the deaths of all children who were celestial in the pre-existence and guarantees that all non-celestial children cannot be killed. Your view entails that there is nothing wrong, per se, with killing children.
As to enabling everything that occurs, I will have to read ch. 3 again to be able to say if I sign up for your view of God’s concurrence. I will say, however, that it is obvious that God allows lots of things to happen that he disapproves of. Thus, his allowing children to die is obviously different than his ensuring that they die.
Comment by Jacob J — January 31, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
bfwebster,
Verse 9 is a good match, thanks. It actually seems to have the key elements of readings 2 and 3, actually. Interesting.
Comment by Jacob J — January 31, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
I sort of assumed God’s hand in all things simply acknowledged his creator(organizer) role “in the beginning” of all things, and thus his right to impose commandments, based on his mastery of all things.
Comment by Matt W. — January 31, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Jacob: I know that you have addressed the issue. I remember. I disagreed. Remember?
Jacob: Thus, his allowing children to die is obviously different than his ensuring that they die.
Really? How is God less responsible for one than the other? Merely allowing something to happen that you could stop without any effort or danger to yourself is morally equivalent it seems to me. So why do you have such heartburn that God would have a plan that those assured of celestial glory die, say of cancer, when he could surely prevent the death any time he wanted? How come one gives you heartburn and the other not?
Matt: I sort of assumed God’s hand in all things simply acknowledged his creator(organizer) role “in the beginning” of all things, and thus his right to impose commandments, based on his mastery of all things.
Actually, what you propose is merely a deistic view where God gets it rolling and stands back and watches. How is that somehow having his “hand in all things”?
Comment by Blake — January 31, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Contextually, it says:
“And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made” (preceding vs)
I do not claim that God does not ever intervene. I think we have all experienced those moments of interventionin our lives. However, I think when “God’s hand in all things” is mentioned, it is more of a reminder that all things belong to God, having been made by God, and thus we must be grateful to God.
Comment by Matt W. — January 31, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Matt: In what sense are all things made by God? Did he make the present state of the world? Did he make the ward that you’re in? Did he make the shirt you’re wearing? Or did he just organize the particles that make everything up?
I see God’s hand in all things. With very few exceptions, God could have virtually everything that occurs different if he wanted. So I see God’s hand in all things because it unfolds according to his plan and his specific choices to either cause it or leave it alone to do what he hasn’t prevented from occurring.
Comment by Blake — January 31, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Jacob: Let me revisit your exegesis of Section 137. This is your solution:
The doctrine of automatic salvation for those without law was replaced by the doctrine of so-called “middle knowledge,” or the knowledge of what “would have been.”
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; (D&C 137)
The important thing to notice is that this is not the full doctrine of salvation for the dead. In fact, we no longer believe that God judges those without law based on what they “would have done.” Instead, we believe that they are presented with the gospel in the spirit world and are given a chance to respond to the gospel in the same sense that people on earth were given that chance. Notice that in D&C 137:10, Joseph was shown that little children were also saved in the celestial kingdom. The two groups are still showing up together.
However, I don’t believe that this scripture ever adopted middle knowledge. It could be and has been at times read that way. However, I believe it was always foreshadowing baptism for the dead. Those who would have accepted the gospel are known to God when they actually accept the gospel thru work for the dead.
The important point, however, is that the statement regarding little children is not counterfactual. Your argument amounts to the logical fallacy of supposed guilt by association. That is, 137:10 must be rejected because 137:7-8 must be rejected because it adopts middle knowledge. That is just a logical fallacy. 137:10 doesn’t adopt middle knowledge because it is not a counterfactual and therefore your supposed reason for rejecting 7-8 doesn’t apply to 137:10. More importantly, I don’t believe that 137:7-8 ever adopted middle knowledge, so I don’t reject it; I just interpret it in the context of the later practice of baptism for the dead as the way that God knows who would have accepted the gospel in this life.
Equally importantly, baptism for the dead cannot be the explanation of how little children are saved in the celestial kingdom. They don’t need baptism. We don’t perform baptisms for children who die at less than 8 years of age. Thus, their exaltation must be based on something else. What else could it be? Having progressed to the point where they had already achieved celestial glory except for taking a body immediately comes to mind. Moreover, it solves the problem. You reject that because you think that everyone must have the same goals and challenges in life to be fair. That just isn’t the case. It is obvious that life’s challenges are vastly different for everyone. The best explanation for this fact in my view is that life has been designed as a place where we face challenges that give us the opportunity to learn what we agreed before this life to learn if we so choose.
That is why I don’t think that your drastic surgery on D&C 137 is necessary or even desirable. I believe there is a better solution.
Comment by Blake — February 1, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Jacob,
Like Doc answered you, God created your abilities to create. You may have an ability to create something new, but that ability comes from God. The acknowledgment statement doesn’t say we should acknowledge God IN all things, but that his “hand” is in all things.
Comment by Dan — February 1, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Can we agree on an answer as to what “all things” means? Peter preached about the “restitution of all things.” (Acts 3:21) How is that “all things” different from the “all things” in D&C 59, which, according to the verses preceding our verse 21 now in question, speaks of the fulness of the earth - those things created by God for the use of man. Are we expanding the term beyond what we should?
Comment by mondo cool — February 1, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Jacob, I got the idea form a talk I heard in the mission field by BRM. So the concept is not mine. I believe he used D&C 130 to make his points about receiving any blessing form God was due to our living the law for that blessing. And that it was automatic, we could rest assured it would happen the same as we could expect something to fall if we dropped it.
It was also his suggestion that when we pray, God is not necessarily paying attention to us, as in having His undivided attention. Is this impersonal? I do not think so. I understand that the Holy Ghost works through the light of Christ which is everywhere. So I would not consider this to be impersonal at all. Just a very efficient, multitasking way of running the universe.
So yes, I think there are laws that are in play, behind the scenes so to speak, that work automatically if we do what is required to put those laws into affect for our individual lives. For instance, if I wish to be forgiven, I must learn how to forgive others, etc. I hope this helps.
Comment by CEF — February 1, 2008 @ 10:48 am
CEF: It was also his suggestion that when we pray, God is not necessarily paying attention to us, as in having His undivided attention. Is this impersonal?
Yes it is. It means that God could turn answering prayers over to a computer — and what is more impersonal than spam?
Comment by Blake — February 1, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Dan: Like Doc answered you, God created your abilities to create
What do you mean by this Dan? We have existed forever according to Joseph Smith. I believe we have had free will forever (D&C 93:30 says “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.”) If you are saying God created our free will at some point I simply disagree.
My problem is that you seem to be using the term “create” in a very creedal-Christian (read: creation ex nihilo) kind of way. I am probably not reading you right but perhaps you could help me understand that better…
Comment by Geoff J — February 1, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Geoff,
Please reread what I said. God created our abilities to create, not our free will. I think our abilities to create (or better said reorganize) things, such as music, or art, or architecture, etc., come from the bodies that God has created for us. Our free will comes from us, the individuals, that God did not create. However, without the bodies God created for us, we would not be able to express the talents that come with those bodies.
Comment by Dan — February 1, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Blake (#15),
Merely allowing something to happen that you could stop without any effort or danger to yourself is morally equivalent it seems to me.
So, in your view, when a child is raped, God is as morally culpable for that rape as the rapist. Do I have that right?
Comment by Jacob J — February 1, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Blake (#18),
Thanks for taking on my argument in a substantive and specific way. First, I have never rejected D&C 137, I just think that when viewed in historical perspective and understanding that salvation for the dead was revealed piece by piece, we should not interpret it as though it was revealed to us today given our current understanding.
I will readily acknowledge your reading as a possible one, but hopefully you will acknowledge that there is some ambiguity in what “would have done” refers to. You are saying that what they “would have done” is determined by how they react in the spirit world when presented with the gospel. Although this idea of the language “foreshadowing” the full doctrine is one possible way of reading it, I think we will both agree that this is not the way Joseph would have understood it when it was revealed to him. Furthermore, I am not sure that I believe you can tell what I “would have done” by looking at what I do today. People change with each passing day, and I don’t think it is tenable, if we hold to LFW and an open future, to say that by seeing if I accept the gospel today you can tell if I would have accepted it 20 years ago. This is the main reason I don’t agree with your reading.
Now to the most important part of my response: It seems to me you are missing the main thrust of my argument in the previous post. Your “guilt by association” comments indicate to me that you are not correctly understanding my point in bringing up the coupling of those without knowledge and little children. I am not trying slyly apply the counterfactual over to children where it was not used. My point is that we have an example of a group for which the plan of salvation was not revealed. We can see what God said when the BofM prophets didn’t know anything about salvation for the dead. We can see what God said when Joseph Smith started to get the first pieces of that doctrine revealed. We can see that they were told some things at the beginning which they had no way to make sense of other than to have faith that there would be a way to sort it out.
I am arguing that we have the same situation with regard to the salvation of little children. We have some promises which we have no way to explain. Well, I take that back, we can adopt your view that God systematically prevents the deaths of any children who were not celestial in the pre-existence. However, I find it much, much more acceptable to believe that the plan of salvation for little children is, in the end, very similar to the plan for everyone else. Just as we found out that salvation for the ignorant is very similar to the regular plan, even though at first it was revealed as though they received automatic salvation without condition.
Comment by Jacob J — February 1, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Dan: God created our abilities to create, not our free will
I think free will is the ability to create (at least in the sense of organizing and creating thoughts, art, ideas, etc.). Also, are you claiming that there is no music, art, or architecture created by free willed persons in the spirit world?
Comment by Geoff J — February 1, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Jacob: So, in your view, when a child is raped, God is as morally culpable for that rape as the rapist. Do I have that right?
I’ll take your question as a reductio because you believe that it leads to unacceptable consequences. However, you ignored what I said about moral parity. I didn’t say that God is just as responsible as a rapist; I stated that God is responsible for not preventing what occurs when he can stop it. So God is responsible whether he stops something from occurring or allowing it to occur if it is within the scope of his power to bring it about or prevent it. That is what you have to address. Do you disagree with that?
Jacob: However, I find it much, much more acceptable to believe that the plan of salvation for little children is, in the end, very similar to the plan for everyone else.
I take it that the entire point of D&C 138 is that little children are not similarly situated to those who live to an age of accountability. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to accept that God prevents all kinds of deaths and allows others. In that respect little children are not different except that God prevents the deaths of all those who had not already progressed to a certain point. So the distinction you are drawing doesn’t work for me. Indeed, it is a distinction without a difference.
Further, you haven’t dealt with the logical fallacy that I pointed out or the fact that little children are not in fact baptized even for the dead. Your attempt to tie the fate of little children who die in infancy with those who will hear and be baptized in the hereafter is therefore ill considered in my view. I acknowledge and appreciate the care and thought that has gone into your solution to what you believe is a problem. I don’t believe that there is a problem. What if we would all be snuffed out daily except for God’s intervention and God intervenes rather regularly to make sure that those of us who still have something to learn from mortal life that is important for our exaltation are not snuffed out? Why would that bother you? It seems to me that you are going to accept that God sometimes intervenes to prevent deaths — even of little children. Thus, if you believe such intervention is problematic, you still have this problem.
Comment by Blake — February 1, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Matt (#14), I agree. (#16), this post which I link to in response to Dan was my argument that everything does not belong to God.
Comment by Jacob J — February 1, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Blake - I know that if you go in for a temple recommend interview, and you see one of the councilors instead of the SP, you do not feel that somehow the interview was impersonal. I know I do not see it that way. Or if one of the GAs speaks at our Stake Conference instead of the Prophet, that we are slighted in some way. So why would you think that the Holy Ghost working through the light of Christ in behalf of the Father, would somehow be less that God Himself answering your prayer?
I believe very few things today that I learned in the mission field, but because I have learned nothing that would replace this idea from BRM, I still believe it could be true. Do you have a way to explain how God could be talking directly to Joseph Smith and still hear and answer the prayers that surely must have been said at that very same time? I suppose He could, but it just seems more likely to me that there is some other way He does things.
Comment by CEF — February 1, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Blake,
I didn’t say that God is just as responsible as a rapist; I stated that God is responsible for not preventing what occurs when he can stop it.
No, you said that not preventing it was the “moral equivalent” of doing it. Moral equivalency seems to imply exactly what I stated, I was reading your response carefully.
Further, you haven’t dealt with the logical fallacy that I pointed out or the fact that little children are not in fact baptized even for the dead.
Sorry, I thought my approach to this would be obvious, but I should have stated it directly. I have suggested that God has not yet fully revealed his plan for the salvation of little children, and that when he does, it will look very much like salvation for those who die in ignorance. Let’s assume for a moment that I am correct. Unless and until God reveals the plan, we should operate temples with the same sort of faith exercised by BofM prophets that God will take care of little children. The policy not to baptize little children for the dead is not some sort of additional revelation about what is needed for the salvation of children, it is a reflection of our current understanding. I totally agree with our current policy and would expect nothing different.
I don’t believe that there is a problem.
Yes, I think this is at the heart of things. I am trying to solve a problem you don’t think exists, so we diverge on this one early on.
It seems to me that you are going to accept that God sometimes intervenes to prevent deaths — even of little children. Thus, if you believe such intervention is problematic, you still have this problem.
This is similar to the discussion I was having on the theodicy thread recently. I think there is a very big difference between the idea that God sometimes intervenes (I believe he does, although almost always as a response to faithful petitions) and the idea that God systematically intervenes. The kind of intervention you are suggesting is actually quite intrusive. With millions of children born who cannot be killed by any method until they turn eight, I would think we’d eventually notice this fact about one of them. You, of course, will say that God is very crafty in covering his tracks, which really requires that he pull all kinds of strings all over the place to make sure that none of these non-celestial children end up in a situation that we will notice their invincibility. I am not saying it is logically flawed, it is just beyond me to convince myself that God is doing this. However, the idea that God can respond to prayers of faith does not present me with the same problem.
Comment by Jacob J — February 1, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
CEF,
Thanks for your explanation in #21. I think it is when you start talking about prayers being answered as a matter of law that it becomes straightfowardly impersonal. If you want to suggest God has a lot of angels helping him listen to and answer prayers, then I wouldn’t call this impersonal.
Comment by Jacob J — February 1, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
CEF: Do you have a way to explain how God could be talking directly to Joseph Smith and still hear and answer the prayers that surely must have been said at that very same time?
Sure, God is even better than a multi-tasking supercomputer with a billion microchips, he can hear us all at once. He is, after all, maximally knowledgeable.
The scriptures state very clearly that God hears and answers our prayers. He can clearly have his minions answer prayers at his command; what he cannot delegate is the interpersonal relaionship that is created through prayer. If you wanted to have intimacies with your wife and she sent the maid, I suspect that you’d see fairly quickly that in interpersonal relationships, only direct and interpersonal contact with the beloved will be acceptable.
Comment by Blake — February 1, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Jacob: No, you said that not preventing [rape] was the “moral equivalent” of doing it. Moral equivalency seems to imply exactly what I stated, I was reading your response carefully.
Actually, I couldn’t have said any such thing since you’re the one who brought up rape. Further, let me clarify if I was unclear (since I’m not dead yet), I believe that God is morally responsible for allowing what he could stop–tho less so than if he were the one actually perpetrating it and causing it. However, less morally responsible doesn’t mean not morally responsible.
I have suggested that God has not yet fully revealed his plan for the salvation of little children, and that when he does, it will look very much like salvation for those who die in ignorance.
Well, he has revealed a good deal about the salvation of little children and you don’t seem to like it. However, speculating that God’s answer is going to align with your speculations and arguments — well, I guess I’m a little out of breath.
The policy not to baptize little children for the dead is not some sort of additional revelation about what is needed for the salvation of children, it is a reflection of our current understanding. I totally agree with our current policy and would expect nothing different.
I would have expected you to be teaching us that we should be baptizing all of those who died in infancy — pace Mormon and D&C 138:10. After all, the implication of your view is that they need baptism because the need the same kinds of experiences, right?
I think there is a very big difference between the idea that God sometimes intervenes (I believe he does, although almost always as a response to faithful petitions) and the idea that God systematically intervenes. The kind of intervention you are suggesting is actually quite intrusive.
So here is your real problem, you think that constant intervention is more problematic than occasional intervention because it is “more intrusive”. Well, just how just how much intrusion it too much for you? You have exactly the same problem if God only occasionally intrudes, except you have to explain why he intrudes only occasionally in addition to explaining why he intrudes at all.
You, of course, will say that God is very crafty in covering his tracks,
Chaah! Of course God is crafty. Can you point to anything that an atheist would accept as evidence of divine intervention? God is not only very wise on my view, but also omnicompitent. That pretty well makes this a non-issue for me.
which really requires that he pull all kinds of strings all over the place to make sure that none of these non-celestial children end up in a situation that we will notice their invincibility. I am not saying it is logically flawed, it is just beyond me to convince myself that God is doing this. However, the idea that God can respond to prayers of faith does not present me with the same problem.
You mean God would have to be really active in this world that loves? God forbid! Seriously, your complaint comes down to — “it’s just hard for me to believe.” Doesn’t it? Further, the idea that God can respond to prayers may not present the same psychological problem for you, but I fail to see any logical difference.
I still want to emphasize that I appreciate your careful thought on this issue.
Comment by Blake — February 1, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Jacob - Thank you, I suppose if BRM had been asked these questions, he might have very well said something more in line with what you and Blake are saying. I had never heard anything like that before or since that time. But I do tend to cling to things that I can understand over things that I cannot understand. But to be fair to BRM, it has been a very long time ago, and I might have gotten something wrong by now.
Maybe I just misunderstood what he was teaching. I suppose there would/could be more than one way to understand what he said. But is sure did seem clear at the time. :)
Blake - I suppose what “maximally knowledgeable” is would be the question. As I said, I suppose it is possible for God to do that, and it certainly is scriptural, I just have a hard time understanding it.
As far as the maid taking the place of my wife as analogous to the oneness of the Godhead, well, I fail to see that as the same thing. But as I said to Jacob, I could have just misunderstood what BRM was saying.
Comment by CEF — February 1, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Blake,
I believe that God is morally responsible for allowing what he could stop–tho less so than if he were the one actually perpetrating it and causing it.
I’m glad you’re not dead yet and I welcome your clarification. Does this mean you no longer take issue with my original statement from #12 that “[God’s] allowing children to die is obviously different than his ensuring that they die”? (It seems like this is in harmony with your most recent statement above.)
I would have expected you to be teaching us that we should be baptizing all of those who died in infancy
I acknowledge that vicarious work for dead infants follows from my position, but I would not suggest we act (as a matter of church policy) beyond what God has revealed. I don’t feel bad throwing out a bit of speculation on a blog about the salvation of little children. Changing church policy based on that speculation would be dumb. If God is content not to reveal any more at the current time, I am content to follow the prophet happily.
So here is your real problem, you think that constant intervention is more problematic than occasional intervention because it is “more intrusive”. Well, just how just how much intrusion it too much for you?
It is not simply a certain amount of intrusion that bothers me. It is that God seems to intrude (according to what he has said) based on faithful petitions. I see way too much evil in the world to believe the God is intruding constantly without being asked to. I think the purpose of God’s intrusions are to build our relationship with him as he responds to our requests and interacts with us as a person.
On top of all of that, your whole proposal just seems implausible. We know that the majority of children live past age eight, which means that the majority of children (according to your theory) cannot be killed in infancy. So, to plan for an atom bomb being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, God had to send a whole boat load of celestial spirits in advance to those places, or else, when the bomb dropped, all the kids at ground zero would have lived. But, whether we dropped the bomb when we did, or where we did, is partly determined by free choices which had not yet played out. If we had decided NOT to drop the second bomb, God would need to go make sure that all the children who would have been at ground zero die in childhood for some other reason. But he has to make sure we never catch on that something strange is happening. Given all the possible disasters of every kind, adding free will to the mix makes this seem quite impossible. This problem multiplies itself a billion times over every day.
Comment by Jacob J — February 1, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Jacob: I’m glad you’re not dead yet and I welcome your clarification. Does this mean you no longer take issue with my original statement from #12 that “[God’s] allowing children to die is obviously different than his ensuring that they die”?
I guess I’m confused. The fact that allowing children to die is less culpable than causing them to die still leaves you with the same problem: God is responsible for those who die. Why? Because he could stop virtually every death.
It is not simply a certain amount of intrusion that bothers me. It is that God seems to intrude (according to what he has said) based on faithful petitions
Whoa Nellie. Are you saying that God doesn’t respond to faithful petition? That would be a major overhall of not only the LDS tradition, but virtually every Western theistic tradition, and certainly contrary to what Jesus taught. Why would you be bothered that God answers prayers? I would have thought that God’s not answering prayers would the problem.
I think the purpose of God’s intrusions are to build our relationship with him as he responds to our requests and interacts with us as a person
Are you saying that God’s “intrusions” (I would have called it “loving persuasion and intervention”) are limited to this sole purpose? That seems way drastic to me. What about prayers for others? Are you saying that we ought not prayer for others — since that seems to be the implication of your position?
But, whether we dropped the bomb when we did, or where we did, is partly determined by free choices which had not yet played out. If we had decided NOT to drop the second bomb, God would need to go make sure that all the children who would have been at ground zero die in childhood for some other reason. But he has to make sure we never catch on that something strange is happening. Given all the possible disasters of every kind, adding free will to the mix makes this seem quite impossible. This problem multiplies itself a billion times over every day.
It seems to me that you are claiming way more than you could possibly know. I acknowledge that God’s wisdom and competence must be far beyond what is possible given our grasp of things. But then, to allow the kinds of experiences and evils that we experience, that would have to be the case in any event.
I think that the real difference between us is that you just have a hard time comprehending how God pulls it all off. Join the large crowd. But then, God has told us not to expect to be able to understand how or why he does what he does, and our limited epistemic grasp counsels vast humility in the face of God’s greater competence and grasp of how the world is governed in divine providence. Note that I am not advocating sheer incoherence or just saying that God is exempt from moral demands (since you know that I would endorse neither). However, as you admit, you haven’t shown any incoherence and it boils down to your inability to believe that God is that resourceful. That’s not much of an argument in my book — especially in the face of a very clear statement by Joseph Smith that “I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.”
Comment by Blake — February 1, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
Blake,
Whoa Nellie. Are you saying that God doesn’t respond to faithful petition?
How in the world did you get this from my comment, which was saying specifically that he DOES respond to faithful petition? I am saying that faithful petition is the primary impetus for divine intervention. That includes prayers for ourselves as well as prayers offered on behalf of others. Frankly I am not sure how you could mistake me for saying I don’t think God answers prayers. You know me better than that.
I think that the real difference between us is that you just have a hard time comprehending how God pulls it all off.
It is true that I don’t know how God would pull off what you have suggested. More than that, though, my example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrates why I don’t think it is feasible for God to do what you are suggesting that he does (given the constraints of libertarian free will and an open future).
Comment by Jacob J — February 2, 2008 @ 12:20 am
Jacob (#29) good catch, “belong to” is incorrect. “comes from” wold have been better in my #16…
Comment by Matt W. — February 2, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Jacob: I asked the question precisely because I know you better than that. It was a genuine question — not a rhetorical point. I think if you read what you wrote you can see how I pulled that message out: You state that it isn’t only the number of intrusions that bother you, but also that God intrudes based on specific petitions. Now I’m glad for the clarification. But why do you think of God’s action in the world as “an intrusion”? I guess I was thrown by this very negative view — God is an intruder if he acts in the world on your view. In my view, God is a loving Father interacting in the world.
What? You don’t think that God has enough power and pays enough attention to the world that he can’t make a triggering mechanism on an atomic bomb misfire? That’s not feasible on your view?
Now I admit that arranging it so that all those who are younger than 8 years in Nagasaki fit the picture of those who have progressed enough that they are celestial may be hard to imagine. I don’t have the resources to pull it off. But saying that God doesn’t in light of the fact that we are each born into a place and time that he controls is just a bit of an epistemic leap on your part. Look at it this way. God’s grasp of the entire sociological patterns and factors is complete. Moreover, while engaging in procreative acts is a matter of free will, where a spirit is born, when it is born, and whether the pregnancy is brought to term are all acts within God’s control completely. Do you imagine that God just throws us into countries, into dysfunctional families with their histories, to a single mother likely to abandon her child at birth or into a loving family, that all of that is just happenstance? I don’t.
I believe that God places us in circumstances that are conducive to assisting us to learn the lessons that we agreed to take on in this life. I believe that God places us in circumstances that will challenge us where we need it to grow and progress. I believe that specific events occur in our lives every day that are designed to give us opportunities to see his hand, to become kinder, to be inspired and so forth. I don’t believe that God is micromanaging, I believe that he is facilitating. I don’t believe that evils have meaning unless we give them meaning — by doing what we can to alleviate them, to soften the blow of them, by learning to repent and to love. I don’t live in world that is micromanaged and where God intrudes as I believe that you see it; I live in a world where God is present and intimately involved in my life, speaking and guiding every moment that I am open to listen and let him in.
Comment by Blake — February 2, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Blake,
I used the word “intrude” only because I was carrying on the discussion that started from me saying that a certain kind of involvement seemed “intrusive” to me. But, of course, I don’t consider God an intruder when he decides to act. I can see why the word could send the wrong message.
You admit that it is hard to imagine how God could make sure all the children in Nagasaki were celestial, but then you try to mitigate with three suggestions (1) that God gets to choose which spirits go where to be born and (2) that “God’s grasp of the entire sociological patterns and factors is complete” and (3) that God can “make a triggering mechanism on an atomic bomb misfire” if he wants.
Choosing where children are born (number 1 above) does not account for the fact that people move and travel. So especially when we consider something like the holocaust in Germany, the fact that certain spirits were born in a general vacinity does not account for the actual complexity that exists in the world. It doesn’t really account for every child who was in Nagasaki when the bomb dropped either. On (2), you will be the first to point out that sociological patters and factors are not determinitive, so however well God can guess at certain outcomes, he cannot predict them with certainty. Thus, your answer (3) seems to be the one that is most crucial, which is that God doesn’t really leave events like the ones we are discussing up to freely made decisions of humans. He rigs the switches on their atomic bombs based on whether he decided to send the city 100% celestial spirits starting from eight years prior. But, then, it seems that God is making the decision, not President Truman.
Further, when we consider more chaotic mass killings in the holocaust or Darfur, there is no single switch on an atomic bomb. God must send a predominance of celestial spirits (counter to his usual mix of mostly non-celestial spirits) several years ahead of time and then make sure that only those spirits are killed in the random and chaotic genocides while a small percentage of children in the vacinity make it through to adulthood. Given how much divine intervention is required to accomplish this, it seems to me God is going to be bumping into free will all over the place. In the end, it seems like you are relying on a general trust in God’s supreme craftiness, which doesn’t seem sufficiently explanatory to assuage my doubts. I conceed that it may simply be my lack of faith, but I would love to put this to some sort of poll to see how many people share my concern (of course, we may all be faithless, but it would interesting none the less).
Comment by Jacob J — February 2, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Blake,
Jacob made his position about God’s willingness to intervene crystal clear several times in this thread. For instance in #31 he said:
Your “whoa Nellie” comment comes off as pretty strange in light of Jacob’s clear statements on that subject.
I think Jacob has a much better point than you are giving him credit for. Saying “God is just that resourceful” is doesn’t really solve this problem that Jacob brings up. The problem is that you are claiming that their are billions of children who were/are unkillable on this planet despite your belief in libertarian free will and an open future.
His Hiroshima example is a good one. A lot of tampering with the free choices of adults would have been required to ensure that 100% of the children who died in those bombings were premortal Celestials. All the parents who had non-Celestial kids would have to get their kids out of town as caused?/directed?/compelled? by God too. I think his point that a scheme like the one you are proposing would require compulsion on too many people. Either that or it would require foreknowledge. Neither of those solutions are compatible with our shared views on LFW and an open future.
Comment by Geoff J — February 2, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Jacob: Thus, your answer (3) seems to be the one that is most crucial, which is that God doesn’t really leave events like the ones we are discussing up to freely made decisions of humans. He rigs the switches on their atomic bombs based on whether he decided to send the city 100% celestial spirits starting from eight years prior. But, then, it seems that God is making the decision, not President Truman.
See, here is where I am confused Jacob. Are you saying that God doesn’t have power or doesn’t really care whether an atomic bomb goes off? You cannot really be saying that — although it follows implicitly from what you do say.
If I have understood you, you in fact believe that God could and would, if he wanted to, stop the firing mechanism of the atomic bomb from firing. WE have agreed that there is a moral distinction between causing and allowing, but there is still moral responsibility for allowing. If you believe that the premises I gave lead to it seeming that the decision is made by God, not President Truman, the actual answer on both of our positions is that it was both God and President Truman. Truman authorized it, God didn’t stop it from occurring when he could have. Thus, I think that you’re avoiding the implications of your own commitments here my friend.
With children who die — are you suggesting that God didn’t have enough power and wasn’t resourceful enough to avoid the death of every single one of them? If we take them individually (not en masse) then certainly in every instance God could have avoided the death in question. That means that he could have acted individually to avoid every single one of these deaths. Now that makes the task of theodicy harder — but trying to avoid this problem by saying that God merely allows children to die and doesn’t cause it isn’t a logical distinction that will hold on your beliefs or mine with respect to whether God is responsible for its occurrence. What I am saying is that you think you avoid a problem with your position that you don’t.
You also appear to believe that all deaths are random and God just watched. If not, then you have to agree that God sometimes intervenes to avert death and other times allows it to take its course. I believe it boils down to the fact that I just believe that God is that competent and resourceful, and you just cannot imagine how that could be so that you don’t. I suggest that we start a poll asking how many believe that little children who die in infancy are assured exaltation. Now it may not be exaltation instantly but only after they have experienced certain things in the after life or millenium, but assured they are according to Joseph Smith and the vision he had.
What is wrong with an entire nation of people who have children who are celestial but for a body? What is wrong with insuring that virtually every child born in Europe and Asia in 1920-1948 is celestial? I suggest that the number of celestial persons is far greater and the rule and not the exception. So it isn’t a predominance of celestial persons; it is all of them! Only those who are saved from death are those who have something more to learn and gain from mortality — and they are by far the exception. So I see it vastly differently than you do.
Comment by Blake — February 2, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Blake,
The problem with leaning heavily on the “where they are born” explanation for you position is it does not take into account the fact that where children live in the first eight years of their lives is dependent on the free choices of their parents/guardians. That leaves you with a major problem still. Even if “virtually every child born in Europe and Asia in 1920-1948 is celestial” there is the problem with parents freely choosing to moving in and out of Europe and Asia after children are born. Unless you want to say God has foreknowledge or that he controls over the choices of the parents you are still in the same sticky situation with this position of yours.
Off the top of my head I can think of other ways to reconcile LFW with the statement in D&C 137. One is to simply assume that the verse is at least incomplete (as Jacob suggests). Another is to assume that “saved in the celestial kingdom” as mentioned in that verse is not the same as exalted. Another might to simply assume to that no kingdom is permanent.
Any of those seem at least as good if not better than the solution you are defending to me.
Comment by Geoff J — February 2, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Geoff: I am not suggesting that any of my suggestions (which is all that they are, since I don’t know and neither do you) must be the one and only answer. I believe that Joseph Smith was fairly clear in 1836 what celestial kingdom meant — it meant the highest of the three degrees of glory, tho it doesn’t entail exaltation. Further, you know that I believe that no kingdom is necessarily permanent. Nevertheless, Jacob hasn’t made a logical case; he admits it is possible for God to do what he just has a hard time believing. That isn’t an argument, it’s just an expression of incredulity.
Further, at least until recently, populations were much less mobile than they are now. Born in china, staying in China. Further, I believe that when life is on the line (certainly with respect to atomic weapons) God is aware and cares whether it goes off - don’t you? There are thousands upon millions who can tell stories about how their lives were preserved even in the worst disasters and wars. Don’t you believe that God is active in that way? If so, then why not with little children?
Comment by Blake — February 2, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
I think the precept that all little children who die are automatically saved in celestial glory is theological nonsense. It is basically first rate Calvinism.
The idea that God foreknew that all these souls were celestial has several problems:
First, if they were all so wonderful, it would be far better if they lived longer, in order to help the rest of us. Joseph Smith taught that we have more power with a body than without.
Second, it violates the no respecter of persons principle and the explanation for why Jesus was baptized.
Third, it violates the principle that if possible, getting married and having earthly posterity is better than not having one.
Fourth, it places God in the quasi-Calvinistic position of not just allowing these deaths, but rather counting on them (if not causing them) in advance.
The other alternative, that these deaths incidentally lead to celestial glory also violates the no respecter of persons principle, creates an enormous moral hazard, trivializes the very idea of sanctification through work and sacrifice, and raises the question of why God doesn’t smite as many little children as possible and what the purpose of this earthly tenure is anyway.
Comment by Mark D. — February 2, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Mark: You are simply forgetting about the pre-mortal life. God could easily know that those who die as children have already progressed sufficiently that they are celestial. Problem one solved - totally and decisively.
Second problem: we all have different challenges and lives and your notion of what it means for God to be a respecter of persons cannot mean that we don’t have different life challenges. I just don’t see what explanation for Jesus being baptized you mean — but if you mean to “fulfill all righteousness” you might want to read Mormon’s take on those who think that little children need baptism. I agree with Joseph Smith and Mormon.
Third, what principle says that anyone has to be married for celestial glory? Further, the notion that there is some principle that the purpose of everyone’s existence must be marriage, then why do little children die before marriage? I think that this so-called principle ain’t one.
Fourth, how is it quasi-Calvinistic? Little children die. That’s a fact. You can’t pretend that they don’t to fit your preconceived notion. Therefore, it must be that little children made choices in the pre-mortal life sufficient for them to already have developed a celestial character and glory.
The last paragraph is full of assertions that I’m just not sure why or what you mean.
However, I suggest that before you call one of Joseph’s visions nonsense you adopt a wider theological view that will accommodate his vision rather than your theology. Also this is the first time anyone has had the gonads to call me a Calvinist. I know a bit about Calvinism. It ain’t Calvinism.
Comment by Blake — February 2, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Blake: What is wrong with an entire nation of people who have children who are celestial but for a body?
Nothing I guess.
Actually, I think your case is easier to defend if we assume that not only children who die were already celestial souls before arriving here. For instance, if we assume that all of the “noble and great” spirits spoken of in the book of Abraham were already celestial-grade spirits (whatever that means) before coming here then perhaps you are right that large percentages of us or even entire nations were celestial beings before coming here. Some of those premortal celestial people die as infants, some live on. This works ok if we assume that no kingdom is permanent because free will has no end. They might lose their celestial status through their choices here but they could lose that through choices there too so presumably no additional risk is placed on them for not dying as children.
More problems arise if we assume that 100% of premortal celestial spirits (except Jesus) must die as children. I don’t think Blake’s notion about un-killable non-celestial children and must-die celestial children jibes with free will and an open future at all in the absence of something like the idea I mentioned above.
Comment by Geoff J — February 2, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Geoff: Actually I just assumed that everyone knows that I believe that the spirits who come here were gods in the council of gods and we are divine persons having a mortal experience.
Why would a celestial child have to die? If they die, they are celestial; but it doesn’t follow that if they are celestial that they must die as children. Why are celestial children un-killable? If there were non-celestial children, then God simply insures survival; but I believe that there are no non-celestial children.
Comment by Blake — February 2, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Blake: Why are celestial children un-killable?
I actually said “un-killable non-celestial children”.
So I am a little confused by your comment. Are you saying in your “council of the gods” comment that all of human-kind were celestial before coming here and thus any child could die and be assured salvation in the celestial kingdom? Your first sentence implies that but later you said “If there were non-celestial children”. I can’t tell what you mean here.
Comment by Geoff J — February 2, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Blake,
I didn’t call you a Calvinist. I said that the doctrine was Calvinist. I did not neglect the pre-mortal life.
I. The first set of objections are predicated on the view that all little children that actually die do so because God foreknows that they are celestial individuals.
Your response to problem one doesn’t address it at all. The problem is that Joseph Smith taught that power consists of having a body. Therefore these individuals could (in aggregate) do far more good helping the rest of us here on earth than in the spirit world. I mean we have thousands of years as spirits, but only a short time as mortals. Shortening it on purpose has no rational explanation.
Problem 2: Nothing to do with baptism per se, but rather the principle that even perfect people should ‘pass the test’ - e.g. Christ’s temptations, suffering, etc.
Problem 3: You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about a requirement for marriage. I said that the principle is that earthly marriage and posterity are better than not.
Problem 4: It is quasi-Calvinistic because God pre-destines a set of pre-qualified individuals to an early death. Certainly no non-celestial individuals are allowed to die as little children in this view. God has to know who the celestial ones are and then reliably arrange that only they die as little children. As a matter of economy, this is kind of silly.
II. The second set of objections are predicated on the view that the celestial salvation of little children who die is incidental, i.e. not based on pre-mortal qualification.
A) This violates the no respecter of persons principle - God is celestializing individuals automatically, without a comparable test to others.
B) This violates the principle that celestial sanctification requires long term work and sacrifice. Apparently, God can sanctify anybody without them lifting a finger.
C) This also leaves us with no plausible explanation for this earthly tenure. Same reason as B.
D) This then raises the question of why God doesn’t smite as many little children as possible to take them directly into celestial glory, saving every one a lifetime of mortal suffering.
E) It also creates a severe moral hazard in favor of abortion and infanticide.
Comment by Mark D. — February 2, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
Mark: Therefore these individuals could (in aggregate) do far more good helping the rest of us here on earth than in the spirit world. I mean we have thousands of years as spirits, but only a short time as mortals. Shortening it on purpose has no rational explanation.
Really? How do you know? Apparently God disagrees with you because they die in infancy. Moreover, your foreknowledge objection doesn’t work. God can know that they are celestial because it is a present fact. Thus, the celestial status of little children does not create a problem for foreknowledge since it only requires present knowledge.
Problem 2: Why should anyone have to pass a meaningless test? Little children die without such experiences. What that means is that they could become celestial without such “tests.” I would add that Christ was not merely celestial before he was born, but fully divine without such tests and so is the Holy Ghost right now. Your supposed principle of “passing the test” as a condition to being celestial is mistaken.
3. Earthly marriage is better than not? Then why do people die without marrying? Perhaps they get the opportunity later to marry by proxy or other means, but it is obvious beyond dispute that not all celestial persons must be married. Thus, your argument is fallacious.
4. God doesn’t predestine anyone. Those who had already progressed before coming here made free choices in a libertarian sense that made them celestial just as we do here. That is hardly Calvinism. Your perspective is way too limited and geocentric. Moreover, if all children are celestial as they are, it follows that only the celestial die as children. How hard is that?
I would reject all of your II arguments because they assume no pre-mortal qualification and therefore simply ignore and deny the obvious. If little children are celestial, then it is based on pre-mortal qualification. Why should anyone spend any time answering such notions who believes in a pre-mortal life?
Now Mark, what is you explanation for this obvious language: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” I don’t give a fig for the arguments you give until they make sense in good faith of this vision. You trust your theology more than Joseph’s visions. I trust Joseph’s visions more than your theological arguments — which I don’t find persuasive.
Geoff: If all children are celestial, then only the celestial die as children. It doesn’t follow that all children who are celestial must die. However, by reaching the age of accountability, we risk making responsible choices that could forfeit our celestial status for the opportunity to grow into a peer relationship with God and exaltation. Since it is the only way to achieve exaltation, it is worth it. Little children will receive that possibility later, but they don’t risk in this life losing their celestial status. Little children are celestial because they are innocent and they never lose that innocence. They are celestial like Adam was. Remember, being celestial doesn’t entail being exalted.
Comment by Blake — February 2, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Blake,
I assume here that you are defending position I - celestial glory based on pre-qualification. I agree foreknowledge isn’t necessary here.
1) “Apparently God disagrees with you” - This is petitio principi. You have not addressed the import of Joseph Smith’s teaching that power comes in having a body, or the obvious point that our life here on earth is limited compared to our tenure as spirits, and the principle that there is an enormous work to be performed that can only be done or done effectively by mortals. The doctrine amounts to a wholesale devaluation of earthly life, marriage, family, and so on.
2) Here you assume that a test is meaningless simply because a person is amply qualified to pass it. You also imply that there is not any benefit to others in the process. Otherwise how could it be “meaningless”? In any case, your explanation makes earthly life more test-like precisely because you imply it has no other purpose. I rather disagree.
I must also state that in LDS terms the idea that either Jesus in his pre-resurrected state or the Holy Ghost are “fully divine” in the same sense as the Father is exceedingly dubious. It is equivalent to the assertion that there is no benefit to a glorified resurrected body whatsoever. Why not dispense with the resurrection completely?
3) Here you are implying that the doctrine that one should get married and have children is of no spiritual consequence. I am not arguing that earthly marriage is required, merely that it is good(!). It is hard to think of a more direct contravention of a fundamental LDS principle than the idea that marriage and family are spiritually inconsequential. If you are not asserting that, my point stands.
4) I did not argue in favor of predestination to a certain kingdom, but rather effective predestination to an early death (or a late death) as the case may be. It is like - Middle ages: child mortality is very high now, let’s get with the program and send overwhelmingly large percentages of celestial individuals now, and we will intervene to preserve only the lives of the non-celestial.
Implies that earthly probation is the exception not the rule and that either modern efforts to reduce child mortality perpetuate meaningless suffering for some definite class of celestial individuals who are denied the blessing of dying young or God just doesn’t send very many celestial souls any more.
II. You are just repeating the definition of why those objections belong in class II. If you defend (I), these do not apply to you.
III. [New argument] Children are automatically celestial because they have never committed a sin they are accountable for. (I believe this was probably Joseph Smith’s original understanding.)
Similar objections as before:
i) Trivializes the purpose of earthly tenure
ii) Trivializes marriage and family
iii) Discounts the idea of true (adult) sanctification through service and sacrifice
iv) Implies that sin is a feature of earth life only
IV. [Possible Explanation] Joseph Smith did enormous editing of the D&C as his understanding deepened. D&C 137 was not canonized until 1976. It is certainly plausible that he would have clarified verse ten had he lived longer, or actually revisited it for canonization. The fact that he left it out of the Nauvoo edition is perhaps telling.
I recognize that D&C 137’s canonical status is more than adequate reason to adopt verse ten vertabim. That doesn’t diminish the enormous difficulties and acrobatics that such a precept implies, however.
In my opinion, the thrust of Joseph Smith’s other teachings gives ample reason to suspect that either we read him differently than he intended, or that there is more to the story than is apparent. How does one behold (rather than be told) such a categorical assertion anyway?
Comment by Mark D. — February 3, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Mark,
I think you are missing Blake’s point in your response 4). Blake is saying that 100% of humans are celestial spirits upon arriving here. So there are no non-celestials that come here at all. Therefore he believes any child who dies is already celestial. The idea is that other opportunities to become exalted (or to lose celestial status) will be available in the future for those spirits.
So yes, that approach does reduce the emphasis on this particular world, but I think that is probably a good thing on lots of levels — especially regarding the problem on evil. I am largely on board with that part of his general approach (de-emphasizing this life in the eternal scheme) as well.
Comment by Geoff J — February 3, 2008 @ 9:22 am
I should note that the problem with assuming that 100% of us were already celestial-grade (or whatever) spirits is that the scriptures like section 76 indicate that a small percentage of people who live to adulthood leave this life as celestial people. So it would seem that there is great spiritual disadvantage to living past childhood in Blake’s suggested model. In other words, the odds of us even breaking even seem very slim.
Comment by Geoff J — February 3, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Geoff,
My first four objections only apply to position I -the essential feature of which is extraordinary pre-qualification. Saying that everyone who comes here is celestial as an answer to objection 4 is equivocating on the definition of “celestial individual”. Either these folks were unusually valiant in the pre-mortal life or they weren’t.
Asserting the latter amounts to an abandonment of position I and an adoption of position III. They are mutually exclusive - one cannot simultaneously argue that God only allows certain pre-mortally qualified individuals to die as children (position I) and also that all children are celestial (position III).
If Blake wants to defend the latter position instead, different objections naturally apply.
Comment by Mark D. — February 3, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Geoff and Mark: You are both missing what is occurring in D&C 137. Little children are celestial because they are innocent and cannot sin. They are not exalted. Thus, the status of little children is based on the fact that all pre-earth spirits are celestial gods who have taken a risk to come to earth. You don’t like the risk, but we already fought a battle over whether to take that risk and you and I chose to come here.
Geoff, how to do you know that only a small percentage will receive celestial glory? There are liars and cheaters and adulterers and murderers in the telestial kingdom. There are those who are fooled by the craftiness of men and who refuse to receive the gospel in the hereafter in the terrestrial kingdom. But according to D&C 138:38 there is a vast congregation of the celestial who receive the gospel after this life. According to D&C 137 and 138, those who accept the gospel in the hereafter are celestial. How do you know that the vast majority, even to the point where those who are not celestial are (numerically speaking) de minimus? If your only problem is that only a few will be celestial, then I disagree again. There will be vastly more celestial than either of the other kingdoms — and given eternal perspective, I believe no one is left in lower kingdom except sons of perdition who have no kingdom of glory. Add to that fact what we both agree upon, that there is progression between kingdom, and over time the number of celestial spirits is vast indeed. So the odds of “breaking even” (whatever that means) in terms of gaining glory through our experiences is about 99.999999%!
Add to this the fact that any person who has a body has a gained an advantage in terms of being able to grow through further experience (whether on earth or afterward), and it adds up to an easy decision — take on mortal life! So I think that your math is off and is way too pessimistic.
Mark: You have not addressed the import of Joseph Smith’s teaching that power comes in having a body,
Yes I have. Even children who die in infancy get a body and receiving a body both justifies the entry into mortal experience and it may be all that is necessary for further progression for these particular individuals. I don’t see any problem here.
Here you assume that a test is meaningless simply because a person is amply qualified to pass it.
No I don’t. It is obvious that children sometimes die. So they don’t have to face any supposed tests in this life. It is that simple. Otherwise, God’s plan is frustrated by the death of small children because they don’t get to face some arbitrary test that you think they must.
I must also state that in LDS terms the idea that either Jesus in his pre-resurrected state or the Holy Ghost are “fully divine” in the same sense as the Father is exceedingly dubious. It is equivalent to the assertion that there is no benefit to a glorified resurrected body whatsoever. Why not dispense with the resurrection completely?
Mark, it is simply LDS doctrine that Jesus was already fully divine as the God of the Old Testament before being born. Your error is in assuming that being “fully divine” means that there is no further progression. That is false, being “fully divine” means progressing eternally. Further, the Holy Ghost is God. Do I really need to cite the statements in the Book of Mormon and D&C t show it? Oh, I forget — grin — if it doesn’t fit with your theology the scriptures can be discounted or ignored.
On 3, we now agree that marriage isn’t required for celestial glory — it is just good [for exaltation].
Re: 4. You’re right Mark, my view entails “predestination to an earthly death.” Grin — earth to Mark: we’re all going to die. However, nothing in my view requires anyone to die at a particular point in time. Your argument is fallacious.
In my view what Joseph beheld in vision reported in D&C 138 is crystal clear regarding whether little children who die in infancy receive celestial glory. All of these attempts to explain it away are the mental gymnastic and acrobatics of those who don’t have any decisive logical arguments, but just have misgivings about accepting the revelation. Be careful, you could slip a spiritual disc attempting such gymnastics.
Comment by Blake — February 3, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Blake,
Your first paragraph amounts to a wholesale shift in position from position I to position III. If true, that makes much of the rest of what you say (about my objections to position I) moot.
Regardless:
a) You rely on the assumption that spirits receive a present blessing from having had a body in the past. This contradicts D&C 138:50 which states: “For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.”
Joseph Smith said that:
Clearly a spirit has no body in the same sense that the devil has no body. D&C 129 is ample support of that.
c) I didn’t invent the term “probationary state”, which is where the idea of life as a test comes from. My point is that life is much more than a test.
d) “Fully divine” is not a term in the LDS doctrinal lexicon. “Divine” itself rarely appears, and then only in the senses of divination and pertaining to God. The idea of divine as a unitary predicate is rather foreign to Mormonism, and indeed primitive Christianity. Suffused with divinity is more like it.
e) If you want to defend scriptural inerrancy you are going to have an uphill battle. The scriptures say all sorts of stupid and contradictory things all over the place. e.g. “shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6)
f) You misquoted me - I did not say predestination to an “earthly” death. I said “effective predestination to an early death (or a late death) as the case may be” (emphasis added).
If you are serious about your conversion to position III (all children are celestial), nearly all of this is moot. Please make up your mind.
Comment by Mark D. — February 3, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Mark: a) I haven’t shifted. How is the notion that all little children who die in infancy had progressed to celestial glory before this life inconsistent with the view that all little children are celestial because they are innocent? In fact, one is logically the subset of the other.
b) Nothing I have said contradicts anything about the importance of having a body. In fact, infants may become mortal solely to obtain a body - and that makes it of unique importance for the purpose of life. Nothing I have said detracts at all for the importance of a body. That a spirit doesn’t have a body is clear — that a spirit cannot be celestial is a false conclusion that you draw from that notion of the importance of having a body and is a simple non sequitur and obviously false in LDS theology. So let’s get clear Mark: Are you saying that Christ wasn’t fully divine before he became mortal? Are you asserting that the Holy Ghost is not fully divine, or possesses all of the properties necessary to be divine and be called “God”?
c) Are you suggesting that little children who die in infancy must somehow have a probationary state before they are saved or celestial? If so, you simply deny Mormon and D&C 138. Further, it doesn’t follow at all that one must pass thru a probationary state before being celestial.
d) Fully divine is a term that I define at length in my books — it means having all of the properties necessary to be divine. Look again at Colossians, Ephesians and D&C 93 which speak of having a fullness — and thus a fullness is a scriptural term.
e) Who is defending scriptural inerrancy? You appear to think that the only alternative to scriptural inerrancy is scriptural impotence. The problem is that this scripture reports a vision and a very clear statement about what Joseph learned in vision. If you think that your know better in your theology than what Joseph learned gazing into heaven, then I suggest you rethink it. I don’t find your theological arguments to be at all persuasive and I find Joseph’s vision very clear and persuasive. I emphasize again: you are placing your mental machinations and gyrations over Joseph’s clear statements of what he learned in a heavenly vision. Guess which I trust more?
f) I know Mark, I gave you the benefit of the doubt because nothing I have said entails that celestial persons must die in infancy. It does entail that if they die in infancy they are celestial — just As Joseph said. So your bare assertion that I have somehow adopted a view that necessitates an early death is bassackwards and a non-sequitur.
Please note before you spout off: I have maintained that all children are celestial since I began to discuss this issue with Jacob’s first post, so it isn’t a matter of me making up my mind but of you reading perhaps a bit more carefully. So here is your challenge: show that the view that all children are celestial because they progressed so far in the pre-mortal existence is somehow inconsistent with the view that all children are celestial because they are innocent and haven’t yet sinned.
Comment by Blake — February 3, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Blake,
I am getting tired of this because you never seem to respond directly, but rather specialize in misdirection, red herrings, side issues, and other unpleasantries. I am not making a personal attack, so quit acting like it.
a) Position I naturally excludes the proposition that all children were extraordinarily valiant in the pre-mortal life. The mechanics of divine intervention and mortal purpose are completely different. That is why I added position III.
b) You appear to have missed the point here. I quote myself: “The problem is that Joseph Smith taught that power consists of having a body. Therefore these individuals could (in aggregate) do far more good helping the rest of us here on earth than in the spirit world. I mean we have thousands of years as spirits, but only a short time as mortals. Shortening it on purpose has no rational explanation.”
d) As far as this ridiculous tangent about unitary divinity is concerned, I do not believe that the Son could have a fulness without the Father and refer you to D&C 93:17 in support of that proposition. But that is irrelevant.
e) Ad hominem rhetoric from beginning to end.
f) I made no such assertion. I was criticizing position I, not your personal beliefs.
Comment by Mark D. — February 3, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Objections in response to position III (all children are inherently celestial).
1) Trivializes the value of an earthly existence beyond the day of birth. Suggests that the best possible plan is where a small breeding class that produces children and immediately kills the majority of them off, so that they are assured of a spot in celestial glory. Or alternatively, that the living conditions of the middle ages were more spiritually beneficial due to the high natural rate of child mortality.
2) Implies that no collective net forward spiritual progress is made through the process of life on earth. The vast majority lose their celestial status and never regain it during their mortal lives.
3) Trivializes the spiritual significance of maturity and the character traits of adulthood. Maturity is a step backward on this view. Better to be innocent, incompetent, and celestial.
4) Implies that sin (or responsibility for sin) is non-existent in post-mortal life. If you die as a child, nothing you can do thereafter disqualifies you from celestial glory while numerous honorable god-fearing adults get left behind in the terrestrial.
Comment by Mark D. — February 3, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Mark, I’m pretty sure that we’re not going to make any headway here. Thanks for the conversation.
Comment by Blake — February 3, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Blake (#57): Little children are celestial because they are innocent and cannot sin. They are not exalted.
Ok, so your approach is to say everyone was “celestial” before coming here so dying before becoming accountable means one “breaks even” and remains celestial. You make a major distinction between being celestial and being exalted.
In your view what must a celestial soul do to become exalted?
So the odds of “breaking even” (whatever that means) in terms of gaining glory through our experiences is about 99.999999%!
Here it appears you are taking a universalist approach and basically saying that even the most vile miscreant who must go to hell and then to the telestial kingdom as a result of choices in this life will eventually progress to the Celestial kingdom. Am I reading you right there?
So do you also think that 99.999999% of the inhabitants of the world will end up exalted? If not, why?
Comment by Geoff J — February 3, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Geoff: In your view what must a celestial soul do to become exalted?
Read D&C 76:51-58 and 132:19-21 which define real clearly what has to be done for exaltation.
So do you also think that 99.999999% of the inhabitants of the world will end up exalted? If not, why?
I don’t know if 99% will be exalted, but the God I believe in will never give up, He is very persuasive, and He has all eternity to work on it. That adds up to really good odds on my view. I am darn near universalist. However, not even God can guaranty that everyone will freely choose to enter into relationship of indwelling unity or that once they do they will continue to do so. However, it is the only rational course in life and I believe that sooner or later He’ll get thru to everyone but those so hardened that we cannot get to them and they will not let us in, so it is for all intents and purposes as if they live in their own private universe without any contact outside the hell of their own demented minds.
Comment by Blake — February 3, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
Wow, I was gone for awhile and things got lively without me. Good discussion.
We’ve had some important developments. Blake has committed himself to the position that all children are celestial. On the previous thread I tried (here) to get a straight answer on this and Geoff followed up to re-ask the question (here) when it didn’t get answered, but in the end, the answer from Blake was “I don’t know.” So, that is progress as far as I am concerned.
But, with the clarity on this point comes a number of new questions. Let me bring up the first few for me.
Blake,
You said that:
I want to be very clear on how Adam was celestial in your view because this is am important point. When you say children are celestial, do you merely mean they were innocent in this life because they never came to understand right and wrong? This is far different than the traditional explanation that they were so righteous in the pre-existence that they did not require a mortal probation having already become celestial in the sense of having progressed to being able to live by a celestial law. In the quote above, you seem to use celestial as a synonym for innocent which is very unusual in Mormon thought.
Next. In the same paragraph as the quote above, you said:
I am confused, so I need clarification on this one. In the first statement you say that reaching the age of accountability “is the only way to achieve exaltation” which makes it sound as though little children who die are precluded from the possibility of exaltation. But, then you say that they will receive this opportunity later.
Will they receive this opportunity later through another chance at a mortal probation, or was your previous statement about a mortal probation being “the only way” an exaggeration?
Comment by Jacob J — February 3, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
Thanks for the response Blake. That helps me understand your position better.
Jacob has asked some of the questions I still have about your position as well. Since you believe that 100% of the spirits were celestial spirits already before arriving here, my question is: What does the term “celestial spirit” mean to you? Have they always been celestial spirits on your view? Or did they (we) progress through telestial and terrestrial stages to attain celestial status in the eternities prior to this world?
Comment by Geoff J — February 3, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Jake: Here is how I see it — and have for some time. Before coming to earth we have a glory that Adam possessed in the garden — the ability and glory to be in God’s direct presence. We can be in God’s presence only if we share a certain glory — a celestial glory. When we become mortal, we forfeit the immediate presence but we do not forfeit our celestial status unless and until we begin to make morally accountable choices that create alienation from God. Little children are innocent before God. Note what Mormon had to say:
Mormon doesn’t mince words for those who say little children need baptism. We must all become as little children according to Mosiah, and all children are born innocent according to D&C 93:
So it isn’t until children begin to grow and lose the light thru disobedience and tradition that they lose the innocence of their redeemed status before God. They are like Adam in the garden before the fall (see 2 Ne. 2) — innocent and pure before God. Once they reach the age of accountability and begin to make choices, they are as Adam when he made the choice to become alienated from God represented by the story of eating the forbidden fruit. They enter the world of moral decision and moral growth through encountering challenges and opposition in all things. Little children who die in infancy and mentally challenged don’t encounter these moral challenges in this life.
So here is how it falls out. The spirits who choose to come here have not engaged in the sins that alienate them from God until they reach the age of accountability. Before that, they are celestial in the sense that they are able to be in God’s immediate presence without wishing rocks would fall on them and hide them from God. As children grow to accountability, they choose to become alienated and will not willingly enter into God’s presence unless they accept the atonement. However, they also receive that degree of light that they are willing to accept.
If little children die before the age of accountability, then they receive a body that allows them to continue to progress — but they don’t need another mortal experience. They are resurrected never to die again — according to Alma 40. However, they can still have vicarious ordinances such as marriage and sealing to families performed for them. If they are celestial, they never stop progressing if that is what they choose. I don’t believe that they are destined to remain ministering angels for all eternity.
When a child dies, that child dies innocent and celestial or fit for God’s immediate presence and quickened by the celestial glory in the resurrection. The body that they have received open the door for further progression.
At least, as I put together Joseph Smith’s revelations, this is the picture that falls out for me. I believe that it is a comforting and inspiring picture and it is certainly correct that little children have not sinned and don’t deserve to be cast out of God’s presence for anything that they have done.
Comment by Blake — February 3, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Blake,
If I am reading you correctly, some of the points Mark brought up in #61, especially his first point, are relevant. It seems that the best thing for God to do is to give us a physical body and skip the “mortal probation” part of the plan.
Additionally, my old question about what is wrong with killing children rears its ugly head again. Our last exchange on this was your reponse (here) where you said it doesn’t matter because I couldn’t bring myself to kill a child. I responded (here) saying that there are people who do kill children, so the morality of such actions most definitely has pragmatic value. A theology which says children are better off being killed in infancy is a big problem in my opinion. I brought it up again in #12 of this thread but I don’t think it has gotten a response here.
Comment by Jacob J — February 3, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
By the way, I don’t want to get sidetracked with the quote from Moroni 8, but also don’t want to let it go without any comment. One of the verses you quote above says:
This is flatly incorrect and betrays Mormon’s lack of knowledge about salvation for the dead including vicarious ordinances. Given Mormon’s understanding of the plan, his position makes very good sense as does his strong stand against people preaching the necessity of baptism for children. However, given that God has seen fit to reveal more of the plan to us, it would be foolish to apply all of Mormon’s reasoning in places where we now know it to be lacking in understanding. This has been my whole point all along. God has revealed this doctrine of salvation for the dead piece by piece, it is not a stretch to suggest that there are a couple of pieces even we have not been given.
Comment by Jacob J — February 3, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
I have to agree with Jacob and Mark on this one Blake. If the universe really worked the way you are describing it it seems to me that we all would be vastly better off dying as children than living to adulthood. If the Celestial kingdom is a place nearly everyone will progress to exaltation over times and the lower kingdoms are mostly temporary (and perhaps painful) setbacks to people getting into to the celestial kingdom why is God wasting his energy letting so many of us live to maturity here? Especially if we were all “celestial spirits” before we got here to begin with. Seems mighty inefficient to me if God’s work and glory is to help all of us become exalted.
Comment by Geoff J — February 3, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Jacob: It is better for children to live because then they can progress now and enjoy the benefits of growth now in this life, learning and moving toward exaltation without being stunted in their joy and happiness by having to wait. Frankly, I’m not clear how you arrive at the view that it is better to kill children — you don’t give an argument you just assert it just like Mark did. Further, if you factor in the fact that you will forfeit your own glory and thus will have damned yourself for a very long time (possibly forever), and will have also stunted the temporal chance at progression of a child toward exaltation, it becomes a no-brainer. Of course, if you don’t wish to have a shot at growth but wish to wait around for eternity without an exalting relationship with God, then what you say could possibly make sense. It made sense to Satan and his minions apparently according to Joseph Smith.
Now show me a single person who has ever suggested that killing children is better who believed in the doctrine of celestial glory for little children. I repeat our earlier discussion: not only does it not follow from the view that Joseph Smith taught, it isn’t something that anyone could take seriously. That is why the I don’t take it seriously because it cannot be asserted in good faith.
This is getting real interesting. You not only flatly reject D&C 138:10, you also now say that Mormon is just flat wrong and I suppose so is the Church in the way it conducts baptisms for the dead without performing them for children who die in infancy because of Joseph’s revelations and Mormon’s clear statements. Isn’t all of this rejection of visions and revelations getting uncomfortable by now? What are your criteria for accepting scripture? It seems that it must be that they must square with your theology and beliefs rather than the other way around. I suppose that you’ll say that Joseph later pronouncements require rejecting celestial glory of little children — but they don’t. You haven’t come close to showing that Joseph’s later views entail any such thing. This response is not an ad hominem as Mark labeled it to avoid it; rather, it a part of the cost of adopting your position. And it is a very large cost indeed. Now instead of scripture and revelation being the basis for your theology, any scripture that doesn’t fit your theology is just “flat wrong.” You see, I accept celestial glory of little children because Joseph had a vision and said so. It fits with virtually everything revealed to him. Frankly, I would not have guessed that I need to defend what are obviously sound principles, such as the innocence of little children, the fact that pre-mortal spirits are celestial in the sense that they are able to be within God’s immediate presence as was Adam, and sheer non-sense that small children who die in infancy somehow forfeited that glory to be in God’s immediate presence just by taking on them a body.
Mormon is not flat incorrect about baptism for little children. We don’t baptize them. Baptism only applies to those who stand in need of repentance. What do little children need to repent of in your view? It is as I suggest that given your stance, you should be preaching that we ought to baptize little children — and then I believe Mormon’s condemnations accurately apply to your view “standing in the gall of bitterness” nonetheless. So are you going to get consistent and real and start telling us that the Church and Mormon are wrong and you’ve got it all figured out? As for me, I believe that Mormon is not only correct, but plainly correct. Why do little children need baptism on your view?
Geoff: I’m surprise to hear such agreement from you based on your MMP stance where arguably it doesn’t matter if we kill anybody we’ll all get another shot anyway. How is the argument you now make different from the MMP that makes completely unimportant whether we do good or evil except for the temporal immediacy I suggested above in response to Jacob?
Comment by Blake — February 3, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Blake,
Frankly, I’m not clear how you arrive at the view that it is better to kill children — you don’t give an argument you just assert it.
Actually, the argument has been expressed by several people already. In your view, a person is assured a place in the celestial kingdom if they die in childhood and they are virtually assured that they will continue on to exaltation. By contrast, lots of those who grow into adulthood fit the descriptions in D&C 76 for either telestial or terrestrial glory in the resurrection. Everyone automatically going to the celestial rather than the telestial/terrestrial seems to be obviously preferable.
Further, if you factor in the fact that you will forfeit your own glory and thus will have damned yourself for a very long time
At the very worst, I will go to the telestial for awhile, but then on to exaltation according to you #57. But more importantly, in order for you to say I will forfeit my own glory, you must assume the very point under debate, which is that killing children is morally wrong. I ask why it is wrong and you answer that it is wrong because if I do it I will be punished for doing something wrong. This is perfectly circular.
Further, Mormon is not flat incorrect about baptism for little children.
I went out of my way to quote the exact verse I was claiming to be incorrect, so please don’t recklessly apply that statement to something different in the chapter (as you do in the quote above). Verse 13 is unquestionably incorrect and your response avoids the substantive point I made in #69.
Comment by Jacob J — February 4, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Jacob: and they are virtually assured that they will continue on to exaltation.
OK, now I think I see why you think that it is better to kill little children if they will surely be celestial. However, you argument is based on a non-sequitur and a false assumption. You believe that on balance having everyone in the celestial kingdom is better than having some in lower kingdoms. Of course it is. But it doesn’t follow if taking the risk to progress toward exaltation is worth the risk. You falsely assume that I assert that everyone is “virtually assured” that they will be exalted. I don’t state or claim that it is inevitable or assured that anyone will progress to exaltation — just that God will never give up. Don’t you believe too? Yes, we face a risk in coming to mortality that we might not return to our Father — ever. We risk that we might commit such acts that we are telestial or terrestrial — without the doors to higher kingdoms being slammed. Whether we progress is up to us. That depends on the state of our hearts as D&C 138 states. The chance at exaltation makes it worth while — even if we forfeit our status to be in God’s immediate presence because it is the only way forward into an exalting relationship. We must have bodies and at some time have a choice to enter into relationship.
At the very worst, I will go to the telestial for awhile, but then on to exaltation according to you #57.
Really, I must have missed the part that you will surely go on to exaltation. Killing little children is wrong because the chance to experience this life is valuable and it ain’t your call — you take away what God has given. Now are you serious? It is contrary to the law of love to murder little children and if you pre-meditate doing so then growing beyond a telestial glory will be nigh unto impossible. Sheesh. Do I really have to argue that killing little children is wrong? Why on your view is it wrong to murder little children?
Here is the verse from Mormon that you say is wrong: 13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
First, I guess you’re not making Mark’s argument that little children need baptism? However, Mormon is absolutely correct. Remember that to be saved in both the BofM and D&C 76 means to be redeemed from hell. If little children must be baptized w