If They Tarry…

“…if he had been killed the day after his mission ended, he was probably very righteous and would have gone straight to the Celestial Kingdom.”
Of course not. This mentality is inherently wrong and contrary to Church doctrine. Departed spirits go directly to the spirit world, not any of the kingdoms. Even Jesus, the most righteous person ever, went to the spirit world upon death. Speculators who find themselves on the line of thought you described should keep such things in mind.

They should also remember that we all have individual journeys, just as you are describing with “Ted.”

“So, it got me thinking, what happens to those that perhaps died on a mission or similar circumstance, but “if they had been permitted to tarry”, they might have become wicked.”

Here’s a bit of speculation for you: If God knows we all will sin, and many turn to wicked practices, why does he not step in and bring all those home again before they can succumb to apostasy? The possibility for wickedness exists in every single one of us, and for God to snatch us all up before we sin would not only be overprotective, it would be contrary to our purpose here. We are to learn to truly appreciate the Atonement and apply it in our lives, and if we have 9 years or 90 years to do that is His prerogative.

It seems to me that the scripture was given to remind us that work is done on both sides of the veil. Those who had no opportunity to embrace Christ’s gospel in life have the opportunity to claim every blessing, but those who could have fallen away given enough time to “tarry” aren’t penalized for sins they never committed. By that same token, if we DO sin, and absolve ourselves of it through the Atonement, it is as if that sin was never committed.

When it comes down to it, I don’t think we can even know that. At least not right now. My favorite daydream is that one day, when all is done and “the Earth is rolled up as a scroll” I’ll get to sit down and just get answers to all of the questions like this that plague me. The motivations behind inexplicably tragic or abrupt deaths, including prehistoric mass extinctions… The many apparently contradictory ideas peppered here and there throughout history and doctrine… For me, heaven will just be a huge Google search full of incontrovertible answers.

I think the key is in the last sentence of the blog post: “Can we really be so certain of anyone’s final judgment?”

The point is that WE can’t be certain. And it’s not our job to be certain, since we don’t know people’s hearts. We don’t know what led up to this man’s “unconversion”. I think that the idle speculation on the eternal destination of others is one of the most dangerous of all speculations.

E Black,

I note a few problems with your explanation. First of all, ordinances for the dead weren’t known at the opening of the Kirtland Temple, so Alvin hadn’t been baptized. Secondly, verse 6 says “And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that [Celestial--see verse 1] kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.”

So did Alvin bypass this Spirit World, and go straight to the Celestial Kingdom with Abraham? It seems to not quite agree with section 138 where Joseph F Smith discusses his vision of the Spirit World. Joseph clearly sees Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom without baptism, and Alvin seems to have bypassed the Spirit World. So, what are the implications about the importance of baptism?

Verse 10 discusses children who die before the age of accountability go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. Clearly, Joseph saw real problems with the Catholic idea that infants needed to be baptized, but if Alvin was in the Celestial Kingdom without baptism, how critical is baptism anyway?

MH – The vision was not of the present, because Joseph says he saw his father and mother (both of whom were alive in 1836) in the Celestial Kingdom. So he saw Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom after the Judgment, apparently.

This revelation was groundwork for later revelations on baptism for the dead, so just because it doesn’t mention the practice, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be required for Alvin.

#10: “At what point does this twin become responsible for his own sins. Are his parents guilty for his murders? Meanwhile, his 7 year old twin ends up in the Celestial Kingdom because of a stray bullet?”

You’ll have to forgive my imagination. Whenever I read a story that starts with two twins one often jumps in a rocket ship and takes a round trip at relativistic speeds.

But you said it best, MH: we’re in no position to make that judgment, and shouldn’t speculate about the hypothetical twins nor about “Ted’s” immortal soul.

“It’s troubling to me when we get so confident in our ability to assign people to kingdoms.”

To me as well. Hence the warnings in previous comments about speculating about such things.

“How binding do you think verse 10 is?”
As binding as God deems it to be. The decisions about kids and Teds is above my pay grade.

“So does one heroic act put us there, despite they previous lives that may not have been Celestial worthy, or is this just something nice to say at a funeral?”

I’d firmly place this in the “something nice to say” category. Those boys’ act was truly heroic, and I have no doubt their selflessness will be appropriately rewarded. However, this statement is not found in any scripture, and thus should not be considered such. Too often the words of a general authority are taken as prophetic when they are only the statement of well meaning, intelligent, but fallible men.

The problem that comes when we decide what kingdom someone will end up in is that we don’t know that person’s backstory. And that plays into the equation. A long time ago, I was contemplating that, and I blogged about it, here: http://moboy.blogspot.com/2005/11/yu-gi-oh-destiny-and-judgment-day-from.html

On another threadline introduced, here, I think that when a child is raised to sin, that child, past the age of accountability, is still accountable for their own choices, to the extent that they are able to understand the consequences. Remember that murder is a serious sin, but the king Lamoni and his people repented of it, because they had been taught differently. The person committing the sin still bears some responsibility.

The sin that rests on the heads of the parents is the sin of not raising their children correctly. And, that can be a very, very serious sin. It’s certainly one that I don’t want on my head.

I think the scripture is also reassurance that we are judged on what we are, not merely on what we do.

And the truth is that others’ salvation is none of our business. Even if those others are our own children.

Reminds me of hearing that if Benedict Arnold had died at battles at Ticonderoga or Saratoga, he would have been remembered as one of the greatest of American heroes.

“we HAVE to live UP to our sure knowledge”

That’s an interesting use of phrasing. Of course, this would apply to those of us with “sure knowledge” as per section 132.

This is an interesting discussion for a variety of reasons. I recently had an email exchange with a local minister who had placed a tract on our car titled “Are You Keeping Your Covenants”. His thesis was that Mormon theology teaches that a person must attain to sinless perfection in mortal life, in order to qualify for exaltation. Therefore, at the end of the day, salvation was largely an impossibility. I debated with him whether that is truly a component of Mormon doctrine, countering his usage of Alma 34 with D&C 137.

In reality, this whole discussion is about the process of attaining to perfection on a time bound continuum. It reminds me of the old Christian debates about “death-bed-salvation”, and it’s inverse. Is it possible for a person to recognize at the last possible moment the error of their ways, and turn to light side of the force a-la-mode Darth Vader? What about the opposite? Is it possible for a person to live their whole life in righteousness, still maintaining the possibility of throwing it all away at the last possible moment? Let’s take this a bit further now and introduce somewhat of an abstract and debatable LDS notion, that God operates outside of the sphere of time where all things to him are “omni-present”. Perhaps this adds new depth to the Old-Testament teaching of David that, whereas man “looketh upon the flesh”, “God looketh upon the heart”. Lastly I am aware of some commentary of the JST of the New Testament verse which is modified from “judge not…” to “judge not unrighteously” (Matthew 7:1). The notion is that because God and/or Christ are the only true righteous judges, the honor of “final judgement”, ie, which Kingdom do we get, is reserved for them alone. However, temporary judgements such as how we will act, or who we will align ourselve, etc, ought to performed by each of us regularly. I tend to like that notion. We each must judge, for that is a requisite component of choice. Still understanding that only God truly knows our hearts, we ought not busy ourselves with judgements that are clearly beyond our mortal capacities – after all wasn’t that part of why the atonement was necessary, so that Christ might know how to succor his children. The point I made to the minister was focused around D&C 137:9, “for I will judge man according to his works, according to the desires of his heart”.

Henry:

You are raising a question which my wife and I were discussing a few weeks ago. The conversation quickly evolved to WWJD. For me this begs the question of the Sacrifice made by Christ on behalf of mankind. Yes, on the one hand he had to endure unfathomable mortal and godly suffering, but on the other, as far as I understand the doctrine, he had everything to gain. The notion of God giving his only Son is a bit lost on me, again with the exception of understanding the suffering, because he did not risk “losing” him in any sense that I understand. In fact, it was this act that ultimately made Jesus one with the father. The only way I can get my mind around this, so that it is both doctrinally consistent, and logical, is too surmise what we already believe – that the whole thing was related to the temporary suffering. This then raises the question: Would Jesus have truly taken our place if the consequences were more permanent -which of course then, for me, would almost suggest that the parent in scenario 1 – demonstrates even greater benevolence.

I personally feel we will be judged on who we ARE, and not what we’ve DONE–although the to are closely related. Part of the ambiguity comes from whether the core of who we are can change in the Spirit World prior to final judgement. I believe the scriptures indicate that we can. Anyway, I don’t believe deathbed repentance or deathbed apostasy is valid.

One interesting insight on the topic is this one from Elder Ballard:

“Shortly after returning from my first mission, I heard our faithful stake patriarch bear his testimony in our ward fast and testimony meeting. He was just over 90 years of age; he said, “I pray every night that God will see me safely dead with my testimony burning brightly.” Seeking to comfort this righteous patriarch, I said to him, “Patriarch, I know of no one more prepared than you are.” He responded, “My boy, no one is safe until he has endured to the very end of his life.” ”

(Ref the whole talk here http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=245b6378be7f0210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)