Doctrinal Debate

Sometimes, questions of doctrine arise where the scriptures have seen fit to remain silent.  The Lord’s oracles have not pronounced on all issues, but the elect must forge on regardless.  When such times arise and troubles stir around us, there is only one way to resolve our questions:

A blog poll.

Vote, and determine future scripture!


  1. Gotta be tough for the single man. What’s his excuse??

    Of course, being a polygamous wife would be pretty tough, too. I think there are different meanings to “who’s worst off”.

  2. john fowles says:

    I agree.

  3. of course, being a single woman in heaven could be terrible too — are there singles’ wards in heaven? If so, how can hell exist in heaven??

  4. This is a provocative question, and centers on what is meant by heaven. If heaven = the Celestial Kingdom, then we are taught that everyone will be happy, and that will be married in the CK. So there will be no single men or single women. And presumably couples will be able to procreate.

    If heaven is not defined as the CK, but instead defined in such a way as to mirror life on earth, then we do have some research to go on, in society at least.

    Of the following four categories: married men, single men, married women, single women, the findings are that the most happy group is married men and the most unhappy group is single men. The second happiest group is single women; the third happiest group is married women women.

    Of course this is all self-reports, on a variety of measures of happiness.

  5. a random John says:

    Who the heck is voting for married but childless couples? You’re going to hold infertility against people? Or is there an implication that if you don’t have children it is by choice? Do adoptions count here? How about people that get married at 50?

  6. “Who the heck is voting for married but childless couples?”

    I think its just that the couples with children hold the childless couples in contempt, while the childless couples just roll up the tinted windows on their BMW and don’t pay much attention to what the couples with children think.

  7. Sorry, that was insensitive of me…I meant to say Mercedez Benz.


  8. Talon, we don’t drive those cheap European cars, unless you’re talking about Aston-Martins.

  9. I’m one of those “things are really going to be diferent there;” so much so that I think it is dangerous to project our concepts of happiness and fullfillment onto the eternities.

    That said, there is the whole “same sociality” thing, which if it is completely literal, the single man loses.

  10. Adam Greenwood has asserted elsewhere that we will all look alike in the CK. This will make it extra terrible for both single men and single women since they’ll all look the same. You won’t even know if your date is a man or woman until you ask them, and then you’d better hope they’re telling the truth. Those of us that are already married can at least live with a perfect memory of what our spouses looked like in mortality.

  11. As if anyone who is in Mo heaven would be grousing, given the alternatives of eternal suffering and pain (outer darkness), life with a bunch of felons and moral degenerates (telestial), or permanent membership in the B-minus Club (terrestrial). Being “worst off” in Mo heaven would be like winning the lottery with a payout of “only” $20 million — not really anything to complain about and nothing anyone is going to worry about if they make the cut.

  12. I wonder what dating will be like in the ck. Maybe it will be some kind of Vulcan Mind Meld thing.

    “Ok dear today we’re going to go bowling!”
    “Righteous! Just lean in a little closer so I can get a good finger placement on your cheeks. Oh, and no cheating this time!”

    Personally, I’m thinking single women would be the worst off. Men at least have the priesthood while a woman would probably end up being like a Great Aunt Gertie who we have to invite to Thanksgiving Mind Meld again.

  13. Ok, sorry about my last comment! My husband read it and thinks it makes no sense and that I’m a doofus!

  14. OK, as long as people are speculating wildly over this sort of thing, here is a related question:

    If there are three degrees of glory within the Celestial Kingdom (cf. D&C 131:1), and the topmost is inhabited by eternally married faithfully sealed couples (D&C 131:2-3, 132:19-20) and the bottommost is inhabited by singletons and those who werent eternally married and sealed (cf. D&C 132:16-18), then who inhabits the middle tier?

    Please, Clark and J.Stapley, no quibbling over whether D&C 131 is actually referring exclusively to three degrees within the Celestial Kingdom and not just generically speaking of celestial=heaven. For the sake of rampant speculation, assume there really are three divisions within the uppermost Celestial Kingdom.

    And, no, DKL, complaining about the prose of the KJV isnt an appropriate or relevant answer.

  15. SO–in Heaven, who is worse off–single men or single women? Single men would have the priesthood and be able to marry. Single women would also be able to marry, but likely polygamously. (Many more SW and SM).

    Given those choices, SW are worse off, it seems to me.

  16. a random John says:


    Depending on how old-school you want to get, it seems that people used to think it was one degree per wife.

  17. Extreme Dorito,

    I think the three degrees are symbolic and that entire thing is actually on a continuum with no breaks between “tiers”.

  18. Steve Evans says:

    Laurie, how do we know that single men will be able to marry in the CK?

  19. My speculation vassilates between two scenarios:

    1st: Those who have recieved the fullness of the priesthood
    2nd: Those who are sealed
    3rd: Those who receive the endowment


    1st: Those who have recieved the fullness of the priesthood
    2nd: Those who are sealed
    3rd: Those who are baptized

  20. Steve Evans says:

    I love the speculation game. We should invent some kind of crazy criteria for the different degrees (although in reality my speculations follow Stapley’s):

    1st: those who recognize Wheat Thins as the ultimate snack
    2nd: those who eat of the Doritos, but partake not of the Wheat Thins
    3rd: those who eat of the ruffled chips, but partake neither of the Doritos nor of the Wheat Thins

    outer darkness: those who eat Ranch flavored CornNuts.

  21. 1. Those who recognize the fullness of the everlasting gospel in the original Star Wars Trilogy.
    2. Those who can quote Seasons 1-16 (and counting) of the Simpsons.
    3. Those who think Steven Speilberg, George Lucas and Peter Jackson are the Three Nephites.

    Outer Darkness: Those who think Simon and Simon was the best show ever made.

  22. Those ranch flavored corn nuts are NASTY! Really original flavored are the only corn nuts worth consuming unless you are completely jonesing for corn nuts and nacho cheese are the only ones you can find.

  23. Last Lemming says:

    J. Stapely,

    With reference to your first scenario, what evidence do you have that one must be endowed to reach the celestial kingdom?

  24. I had a member of the seventy on my mission give the following opinion on the three levels of the CK

    1. baptism
    2. Endowment
    3. Celestial marriage

    That is what he thought. He was quick to point out that it was just his opinion and that he was not the prophet.

  25. Steve Evans says:

    LL, I believe that is the teaching of the Endowment itself: Brigham Young said,
    “Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.”

  26. Yes, what Steve said. And I think B Bell reversed the hiearchy. Just so that we are all on the same page, #1 is the highest glory.

  27. Steve, your use of that quote to justify requiring the endowment to enter the celestial kingdom seems to assume that exaltation is just entry into the celestial kingdom. If we instead assume that exaltation is the highest rank or whatever within that kingdom, I’m not sure how much probative value that quote has. Everyone agrees that the endowment is supposed to be required for that top rank, after all.

  28. Steve Evans says:

    RT, you’re right — I was responding to Last Lemming’s comment, “what evidence do you have that one must be endowed to reach the celestial kingdom?”

  29. Steve, that’s my point: does the quote prove we have to be endowed to reach the celestial kingdom, or just that we have to be endowed to reach exaltation?

  30. Yeah,

    I accidentaly reversed it.

    1. Celestial marriage (exhaltation level of the CK)
    2. endowment
    3. baptism.

    This was just one GA’s opinion…

  31. Steve Evans says:

    I think the quote shows the necessity of the endowment to enter the celestial kingdom, nothing more. That’s the only reason I used it.

  32. D. Fletcher says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the CK will have single exalted women, but no single men. I don’t think there’s a question here — single men will be the worst off in heaven, because THEY WON’T BE ALLOWED IN THERE.

  33. RT, if I had to choose, I would say that the endowment is required for exaltation (the highest degree within the CK). However, as I believe that other ordinances are required for exaltation, then the endowment becomes a preparatory ordinance only, not definative.

  34. …and I’m not sure of any theology that would support your declaration, D.

  35. Steve Evans says:

    D., I think you’re mistaken too — single men can indeed make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

  36. D. Fletcher says:

    Really? I can go to the CK without marriage? YeeHAW!

    (P.S. I was always told, perhaps erroneously, that there would be many more exalted women than men. At an early age, I resigned myself to the role of Ministering Angel, a kind of civil servant of heaven, who gets to visit kool places but has to live in the Terrestrial quarter in an apartment above a grocery store.)

  37. Steve Evans says:

    Yep D., you got it made in the shade. See D&C 131 here

  38. D. Fletcher says:

    Yeah, thanks, guys, exactly as I thought. No single men in the highest degree of glory. It’s like winning the bronze medal at the Olympics — pretty good, but forget about endorsements.

  39. Ah. I misread your first comment — you’re right, no exalted single men.

  40. D. Fletcher says:

    The defense rests.

  41. However, according to many scenarios, there will be farley few exalted couples. The celestial kingdom becomes a society much as we have now, with a few exalted folks running around as governors.

    There is no equivication that single men can enter the celestial kingdom.

  42. D. Fletcher says:

    I suppose you’re right, J. There’s just always been this stigma, that somehow women will reach the upper CK even if they haven’t been chosen on earth, because they’re blessed, etc. But men who aren’t doing the choosing here, will be EXCORIATED for that.

    And ultimately, the CK isn’t heaven, is it? If there are levels to be reached, only the very highest can be considered heaven.

  43. I don’t know, D. While I used to be a hold out for the highest division within the Celestial Kingdom, the more I study the doctrine of exaltation, the more I come to the conclusion that I will live through eternity sealed, but not exalted. And I believe that I will be happy…I at least hope so.

  44. D.


    And we know, by the way, that no blessing will be denied in the next life to those who did not have the opportunity in this life. You have referenced a long line of well thought out statements that it is wrong for men who could marry to play around instead. That does not mean that every man could and should marry. And thus there may well be single men who receive additional blessings in the next life.

    It’s God’s problem to figure all that out. And who better to do it?

  45. D. Fletcher says:

    Well, I agree with both of you. I’m just trying to be my normal self, a bit of a jester. I’m of course, pasting my own life experiences into unknown territory — how we will all be judged in the next life. It seems to me, in this life, that single men of a certain age (I’m 47) are judged pretty harshly in the Church. Either we are perverts, or psychotics, or something else very bad. Women of the same age are often judged pathetic, but still blessed, if they are faithful. Do I have a good example? I think so. There aren’t any GAs who are single, even though technically, single men who have taken out their endowments are perfectly worthy to be chosen, and might be great ministering angels this way. I myself am a ministering angel, simply put on the earth to give some service, some music service. Perhaps in the next life, I will have an opportunity to get married, but if that’s so — why was I brought into this life? if only to wait until it’s over to progress.

    Of course, my sense that men in this life who aren’t marrying are judged more harshly, carries over to a sense of what judgment might be like in the next life.

    And I haven’t even thought about the possibility that J. suggests, that many married and sealed couples might not make it to exaltation, either.

  46. D.,

    Speaking of the purpose of your life…

    I followed Rosalynde’s link to your Articles of Faith music. I can’t read music (Although my wife can play the piano.) and I’m wondering if there is anywhere online I could hear a slice of your arrangement? We spend a lot of time on the articles of faith and having a better melody to sing with the kids might be very handy.

  47. D. Fletcher says:

    Hmm, I don’t have anything recorded, so I don’t really know what to tell you. My setting of the Articles was made for precisely the reason you have mentioned — the current ones are very difficult for children to remember. The Articles themselves aren’t poetry, and they aren’t simplified doctrine, either; in fact, quite the opposite, they hint at very complex doctrines (such as the repudiation of original sin). And the words themselves can only be considered adult rhetoric.

    Maybe this is a disclaimer, but the words of the Articles of Faith hardly lend themselves to “memorable” tunes — for instance, nothing is repeated except “we believe.”

    My setting is really like a theme-and-variations. I’ve set 4 of these with the same intro, the same tune on “we believe”. Others have their own rhythms and tunes, and I have solved some of the problems. I think my settings are slightly more melodic, slight more memorable, than the ones in the Primary Book, but it isn’t saying a lot.

    I hope people will buy them, and play them over a number of times, before making any harsh judgments about their memorability.

  48. Steve, I argue that single men will be able to marry in the CK for several reasons:
    1. because single women can;
    2. because of the doctrine of eternal progression and eternity is a long time;
    3. because only fair, given the human condition;
    4. because God is loving and fair.

    My strong suspicion is that we human engage in cosiderable doctrine to artifically constrain God.

  49. Sorry for my typos–earlier today I tried to post something and my message was lost–typepad lost it and sent me a message that it the glitch was being looked into–so just now I was more concerned that the posting worked. My apologies again. But I think the meaning is clear.

  50. I realize that, being a Tuesday and all, we are in jest, but I seriously hope none of the 19 people who voted for polygamous wives were serious. Whether or not polygamy extends into the next life, does anyone actually believe that the faithful polygamous wives of days past are going to be unhappy in the next life?

    I’m with Stapley in #9 such that I think that our understanding in post-mortal life will be so radically different that it’s actually dangerous to make assumptions about what our feelings will be in relation to our circumstances. Basically, saying that polygamous wives in this life are going to be unhappy in the next is on a par with saying that you prefer to go to hell because all they do in heaven is strum harps and sing church songs.

  51. Eric, I read the statements on polygamous wives to refer to those women who are polygamous wives in heaven–not to those who may have been in polygamous marriages in this life. Many assume that in the CK all women will be polygamous wives. We also assume that in the CK everyone will be happy. I personally find these two assumptions to be supremely contradictory.

  52. That’s exactly my point Laurie. It’s only contradictory in our weak, limited and very human understanding.

  53. Count me as one who doesn’t believe that polygamy will extend to the afterlife.

  54. D. Fletcher says:

    Really, Jonathan?

    Mmm, I don’t know how to… remark on that. My great-grandfather, Heber J. Grant, had 3 wives, and I’m descended from his third wife, Emily Wells Grant, the daugher of Daniel H. Wells, another big polygamist. I didn’t know the Grants, of course, but their daughter was my grandmother, Frances Grant Bennett, whom I knew and dearly loved. When she died, she willed me her Steinway piano which had been given to her at her wedding!

    It’s very hard for me to believe, that these people will not have each other in the next life. But if one assumes polygamy (one man with a number of women) one must logically follow that quite a number of men will not have any wife.

  55. It is one matter when people were polygamous in this life. That raises a separate set of issues.

    What about those in nonpolygamous marriages in this life? Will they necessarily become polygamous (defined as one man and multiple wives)in the CK?

    Does you think that it might be a simplier matter for men to accept this model of heaven, than for women to accept it?

  56. DRATS! I mean: Do you think….

    Isn’t there an editing feature on this?

  57. I guess this is where things get wierd, isn’t it? What does it mean to have your children sealed to you? Will your realationship with your genetic great-great grandfather be any different than your spiritual one (Jed vs. Joseph)? Did these women have strong relationships with their husbands or did they find meaning away from their husbands? I think resoundingly the latter. It doesn’t make much sense that the marraige relationships would endure except to exalt males (by progeny), which I think is not a correct principle.

  58. Polygamous wives. One wife is enough stress, thank you. Who needs more?

  59. D. Fletcher says:

    But what will happen to those women who were married in polygamy in this life? Will they… be partnered with someone else? I guess, I don’t think you can pull out this one belief, without toppling over all the others. Maybe ALL of us will be single in the next life. Maybe the sealings are meaningless.

  60. I had a member of the seventy on my mission give the following opinion on the three levels of the CK

    1. baptism
    2. Endowment
    3. Celestial marriage

    How sad. Even some of the 70s aren’t aware of the fulness of the priesthood, which Joseph taught (in April 1844) is the TRUE sealing power. Tisk tisk to that 70.

  61. Some people, even though they’ve jumped through all the hoops, are just not celestial material. I don’t really think that’s so terrible. From what I’ve heard, the terrestrial is pretty awesome, and even the telestial is a mighty glorious place.

    Here’s one of my favorite stories about the afterlife.

  62. Heber C. Kimball had some good answers to these perplexing questions I think. I’m leaning his way until I find a better model…

  63. D.,

    Thanks for the info. Maybe I’ll see if I can get my wife to play the first page that is available to see how it sounds.

    As for polygamy, it is not clear at all that there will be a one to one ratio of men to women who will be in the place where sealings hold. And God can probably figure that math problem out too. Especially if there are infinite spirits, in which case he has even more options!

  64. Ann, a great story!

    And we are told that the prophet Joseph revealed that the lowest degree of glory was shown to him, and that it was so glorious, that if it were made known to the world, there would be mass suicide to get there.

    I am encouraged by that. And by the oft-repeated observation we all have heard multiple times (and nongratuitously) from those we admire in the Church that many Mormons are going to be in for quite a few surprises when they see who actually “makes it” to the CK.

    Mother Teresa certainly would have my vote! I cannot even begin to fathom the illogic that would deem me (meaning me personally) as an endowed Temple wed worthy LDS member as having the CK-worthiness-edge over Mother Teresa in her unbaptized, unendowed, single state.

    I am not convinced that Heaven is the hierarchical rule-driven place we envision–given the eternities and all (such as fairness, love, and the other known attributes of God).

    NOTE TO everyone who finds a typo in this posting, please IMMEDIATELY send me an email and slap my hands, telling me to give it up for the night!

  65. How can you vote that polygamous women will be the worst off in heaven? This is the most egregious example of blaming the victim that I’ve seen in the bloggernacle.

  66. Laurie– Like you, I’ve heard the story about the Telestial being so great you’d commit suicide to get there, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen a source for that one. I’m beginning to suspect that it’s one of those pernicious Mormon myths. Does anyone have a source for this story?

    Miranda– I think worst off in this case means “gets the rawest deal.”

  67. Miranda, I did not vote for polygamous women as being worse off–but you are right, apparently someone did.

    And for those who did, I would interpret their intended meaning as not discriminatory or blaming the victim, but simply an acknowledgement that polygamous women are likely not to be happy because of their polygamous marriage, as compared with men, for example. I would guess that some polygamous-wives-voters in this poll might have the same view of the victimhood of polygamous wives that you suggest in your post.

    Just a thought.

  68. Well, rest assured that any woman willing to sustain her leaders enough to marry for them is going to get special consideration from Heavenly Father. No kind diety would make them suffer through what they did in mortality to get a raw deal in Heaven also. Polygamous wives will have their sorrows more than made up for.

  69. Just a note — you’re already in a Telestial World. Would you commit suicide to come here? (Depends how good or bad your situation was before you got here I guess…)

  70. Ned, The saying was popularized by the then Presiding Patriarch Eldred Smith (an office that no longer exists), who spoke at BYU on March 10, 1964:

    The Prophet Joseph Smith told us that if we could get one little glimpse into the telestial glory even, the glory is so great that we would be tempted to commit suicide to get there. (BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964 pg. 4)

    Richard Holzapfel spoke at a Sperry Symposia:

    Wilford Woodruff recounted a comment by the Prophet that may be the basis of that apocryphal story. According to Charles Lowell Walker, Wilford Woodruff “refered to a saying of Joseph Smith, which he heard him utter (like this) That if the People knew what was behind the vail, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there, but the Lord in his wisdom had implanted the fear of death in every person that they might cling to life and thus accomplish the designs of their creator.”(fn) (The Heavens Are Open: The 1992 Sperry Symposium pg. 155 – 156.)

      fn: Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, ed. A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1980), p. 465
  71. Well done thou good and faithful speculators. Some quibbles:

    1) If single women are allowed into the CK and its not their fault they didnt get married, and there are more women in the CK then men, then whats wrong with them polygynously marrying guys in the CK? Why would that be a raw deal? WOuldnt it be better to be polygamously married, then you wouldnt have to single handedly clean up all those messes left over after galaxies were created.

    And, who says there are more single women in the CK? If all children under the age of 8 are automatically in the CK, and infant and child mortality rates were astronomical until only some <100 years ago, then thats an awful lot of people populating the CK, and the paltry numbers we are adding to that by adult catchment would be insignificant as far as swaying the balance off the 50/50 split. Besides, with an eternity to wait, if a FIFO sort order is used, then you just wait a little longer in the cue for Mr. Right-eous.

    Also, we do vicarious ordinance work for everyone who has ever lived, so how could the three degrees within the CK be associated with ordinance work? There wont be anyone who has only been baptised and not endowed, and if they were married in mortality then they get married eternally and sealed.

  72. “Also, we do vicarious ordinance work for everyone who has ever lived, so how could the three degrees within the CK be associated with ordinance work?”

    I’m guessing the theory is that while people have all their ordinances performed by proxy, they have to accept them before they take effect. Theoretically, you could accept a baptism but not necessarily an endowment or a sealing.

    “that’s an awful lot of people populating the CK”

    It looks like heaven is easier to get into than Arizona State.

  73. Stapley– Nice pull. Thanks for the info; that was one of my favorite faith-promoting rumors so I’m glad it may not be a rumor after all.

  74. I guess it would depend on whether the single person in question were gay or straight. As far as who’ll be worst off in heaven, the obvious hierarchy is this (from worst to best)

    1. Gay single who wants to be same-sex partnered (same spirit will possess him in the next life as in this) but will never be sealed, never live with HF for eternity just because he’s gay.

    2. Gay single who struggles to “change” orientation in life, then on the other side gets married and has to grapple with living as a straight person for eternity.

    3. Single men who were too chicken to propose to anyone and God punishes them forever by giving them “ministering angel” status.

    4. Single women who don’t want to marry (yes, there are some of those. NOt eveyrone wants to get married, people).

    5. Married people who really want to be married to OTHER people and not to the spouses they picked at 20 due to BYU peer pressure and hormones.


    Actually, I think the real issue is that sealings are meaningless anyway. It’s just a nice way to say people should be chaste before marriage, remain faithful afterwards, and look forward to a nice eternal reward.

  75. Steve Evans says:

    Robinn: “sealings are meaningless anyway.”


    Where on earth are you getting that idea from, Robinn?? Certainly not from the Church or its doctrines in any way.

  76. My bishop opined that was the case. It makes the most sense. I don’t believe in a hierarchy-based heaven dependendent on sexuality, marriage choices, fecundity and segregation.

  77. Last Lemming says:

    Sorry I wasn’t able to keep up with this thread. Roasted Tomatoes represented me well in my absence. Since I do not equate exaltation with entry into the CK, I do not find the offered quote convincing.

  78. Steve Evans says:

    “I do not equate exaltation with entry into the CK,”

    Neither do I! But your question was “what evidence do you have that one must be endowed to reach the celestial kingdom?” I think the quote shows just that.

  79. Steve Evans says:

    Robinn: “My bishop opined that was the case. It makes the most sense.”

    Robinn, I find it hard to believe that your bishop said that sealings were meaningless. If he did, he really is preaching false doctrine. It’s fine if you don’t believe “in a hierarchy-based heaven dependendent on sexuality, marriage choices, fecundity and segregation,” but that’s what our church preaches, at least in part.

  80. I can see where Robinn is coming from. I think the most common phrase used when talking about sealings is, “It will all be sorted out in the millennium.” That and the fact that we don’t really understand what it means to be sealed to someone as a parent/child, I can understand Robinn’s point of view. A more felicitous phrasing might be, “sealings are fungible” instead of “sealings are meaningless.”

  81. I mentioned this on another post, but I often wonder about it, so I’ll bring it up again – maybe someone has an idea. My mom was never married. To anyone. I wanted to be sealed to her, but was denied, (and my own children can’t be sealed to me since my husband’s a non-member), because – and I never knew this before – but the way it was explained to me was that we aren’t actually sealed to our parents, but to the covenent itself. What are the doctrinal implications of this? Do you think this means that maybe it’s just a way to all be sealed to *each other* in the covenent of Heavenly Father or be sealed to the Celestial Kingdom? Is there no sealing to actual individuals? What does this mean? Scenario: Everyone who has been sealed will be free to start families or marry someone who has also been sealed or born under the covenant. Would this address the question about women who were sealed to polygamous husbands (and were unhappy about it), or children who died before the age of accountability? Just a thought… Does anyone know?

  82. Last Lemming says:

    What am I missing? The quote is explicitly about exaltation. If you are equating “the presence of the Father” with the CK, I think it is still ambiguous. One could read it two ways:

    1. Your endowment enables you to be exalted. In the process, you will enter the presence of the Father (or CK).

    2. Your endowment allows you to enter the presence of the Father (or CK). It also enables you to be exalted.

    I prefer the first.

    On a related topic, Extreme Dorito stated that “we do vicarious ordinance work for everyone who has ever lived.” In fact, we do not. My handicapped son has not been baptized and, according to the Salt Lake temple matron in the late 80s, never will be, even vicariously. That’s fine. The atonement of Christ covers that, and he will enter the CK. But he won’t be endowed vicariously either. Does the atonement of Christ somehow confer upon him knowledge of the key words, signs, and tokens necessary to be exalted?

  83. Two anecdotes relating to parent-child sealings:

    1. My gggrandmother got her sealing to my gggrandfather canceled by D.Fletcher’s ancestor by simply writing him a letter saying, “I cannot live with that man in this life or the life to come.” Several decades later, as her children approached the veil, they were concerned about their “unsealed” status, so they went to see Pres. McKay to ask him to reinstate the sealing of their parents, so the children would be part of that great chain of sealings. He refused, simply saying, “Let’s wait until the millennium, when everybody can be heard on the issue.” So they died in what they perceived as an unsealed state (that is, unsealed to their parents).

    2. When my first sealing was canceled, the letter from the First Presidency informing me of that fact, took a moment to explicitly state that this action did not affect the status of my children, all of whom were born in the covenant.

    Which leads me back to Robinn’s comment about sealings being meaningless. I tend to that view myself, at least as it concerns parent/child sealings. I haven’t seen or heard any doctrinal teachings which express any value to such sealings, except for the obviously fallacious view that gets propounded now and again about us all living together in Ensign-cover families of one father, one mother, and 5-8 stairstep children (presumably eternally stuck at ages 3-17 for the benefit of the family).

  84. D. Fletcher says:

    There is something… unformed, about the whole sealing process. I’ve always thought that the notion that I would be sealed to my grandparents to be, not logical in any sense. Will entire family lines with every single generation represented all live together? And in our resurrected state, we’ll all… be the same age? It does seem more likely that the sealing is more a mortal system, set to keep track of which spirits were born into which families.

    As to marital partners in the next life, it seems, most of us are going to be dating again.

  85. Robinn: “sealings are meaningless anyway.”


    Where on earth are you getting that idea from, Robinn?? Certainly not from the Church or its doctrines in any way.

    Maybe it is. At the end of a “sealing,” the “sealer” pronounces that the blessings are conditioned upon the faithfulness of the couple. So in a way, the couple is the one that “seals” themselves up through the power of the Holy Spirit (D&C 132). The whole ceremony is contingent upon that one thing.

    The fulness of the priesthood, on the other hand, is much like the “sealing” that joe-blow member gets in the temple, but the conditional language is removed, and the washing of feet accompanies it. So in essence, one can “make sure” their election to the blessings of the CK by attaining the fulness of the Holy Ghost, the fulness of the priesthood (the latter symbolizes the former via holy unction), or both.

    In fact, I believe all ceremonies are conditional pending the faithfulness of the recipient until ratified by the power of the HG.

  86. Two points:

    1. Last Lemming wrote: “My handicapped son has not been baptized and, according to the Salt Lake temple matron in the late 80s, never will be, even vicariously. That’s fine. The atonement of Christ covers that, and he will enter the CK. But he won’t be endowed vicariously either. Does the atonement of Christ somehow confer upon him knowledge of the key words, signs, and tokens necessary to be exalted?”

    I think every person that enters the Celestial Kingdom will have been baptized. Therefore a child that dies before the age of accountability will have to accept baptism during the millennium. My thought has always been that they will be resurrected as a child at the beginning of the millennium but not in a final glorified state. Then live a full life during which they will be baptized, find a spouse and be sealed. Then “die” and be perfected in their final glorified body at the end of a normal life span.

    Am I the only one that thinks that?

    2. Many posts are talking about getting married in the CK. . . I’ve always believed all those unions will take place during the millennium and where we land in the CK, or otherwise, won’t come until it’s all said and done (the end of the millennium, Satan loosed, the final battle. . etc).

    A just and loving Heavenly Father will decide, and we will not doubt be in COMPLETE agreement on where we end up.

  87. Steve Evans says:

    LL, interesting question — what of children and those not capable of making informed choices? We have to take comfort that they will be saved, and enter the Father’s kingdom…

    A couple of quotes:

    The Prophet Joseph Smith said he was frequently asked the question, “ ‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc?’ I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house, and I will go and prepare a place for you.’ House here named should have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too” (History of the Church, 6:184).

    Howard W. Hunter, 1995: “What are the ordinances that are performed in temples?

    In response, we often first explain the ordinance known as baptism for the dead…The endowment is another ordinance performed in our temples…Another temple ordinance is that of celestial marriage, where wife is sealed to husband and husband sealed to wife for eternity. All of these priesthood temple ordinances are essential for the salvation and exaltation of our Father in Heaven’s children.”

  88. Steve, it is my understanding that you do not do proxywork for children that died before 8 years old…and thought I don’t understand how, they all get the free pass according to popular thought.

  89. Re: comments 64, 66, 70, etc.

    You don’t need to go to second, third, etc. hand sources to learn that even the telestial kingdom will be wonderful:

    From D&C 76:

    89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;

    90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

  90. Jennifer R. says:

    If it’s only the top tier of the Celestial Kingdom that allows couples (and maybe families?) to live together, how can the other kingdoms be equally as wonderful?

    And if spouses don’t want to live together but qualify for exaltation in every other way, do they get to pick new spouses?

  91. …only the top tier of the Celestial Kingdom that allows couples (and maybe families?) to live together…

    I’m not so sure this is correct.

  92. Jennifer R. says:

    I’ve always heard exactation=only the top of the three levels of the Celestial Kingdom. Even if not, how can peole say that the other kingdoms are also “heaven” and “they’ll be so happy there” when they’ll be apart from their families forever and ever? I never did quite get that.

  93. I agree that axaltation – top level of the Celestial kingdom. I just think that you can be sealed without being exalted.

  94. I think we will be happy wherever we go. Although I won’t be happy with limitless children. I want to rest for eternity and I think I will be happy that way and that’s what I’m going to do.

  95. Jennifer R. says:

    I guess I don’t see why people assume they’ll be happy wherever they go. Obviously, some kingdoms will be more interesting or involved than others. Most of teh world’s population won’t be with their spouses in the CK, and yet they’re supposed to be happy? I guess the exception would be if someone didn’t like their spouse on earth, they’d be glad for the separat6iom

  96. I don’t think I’d be happy in the Celestial Kingdom either. The scriptures say the earth will be as a sea of glass, and I just don’t think there’s any way I’d be happy if I didn’t have real green, grass under my feet. If the Terrestrial Kingdom has real grass, I’m there.

  97. The ambiguities surrounding the topics of sealings and families in the hereafter are fascinating. Those ambiguities can be fodder for coercion in marital relationships. As an example, I have seen wives feel absolutely trapped in abusive relationships but afraid to defend themselves for fear of some sort of vague eternal jeopardy, fear of bringing on consequences of which they are uninformed. After all, women (even women leaders) are not given the GHI. At the same time, men leaders have it and can quote from it and use it against women, if they so choose.

    Such ambiguities, coupled with one group’s access to information that is denied to the other group, can set the stage for coercion.

    As an aside–who is worse off in heaven: the straight serial killer or the gay law-abiding citizen?

  98. Last Lemming says:

    I just think that you can be sealed without being exalted.

    I would put it differently. I think that you can live together with your spouse without being exalted. What you cannot do without being exalted is create spirit children of your own, something that we are led to believe involves both spouses (let’s not get into how). Whether unexalted couples can still be “sealed” depends on whether “sealed” implies procreative powers or just the opportunity to live together.

  99. Steve Evans says:

    Laurie, there are no serial killers in heaven.

  100. Jennifer R. says:

    Last Lemming, when you say “live together” and “spouse” are you saying marriage is extended beyond the grave to anyone, sealed or not? Wow! And where does that stop? If someone has been married four times and sealed to two wives, and only one of the wives is exalted, and the guy’s exalted too…

    I’ve never, ever hear tha anyone but married couples–sealed in the temple and worthy of the highest level of the highest kingdom– would be exalted…

  101. I don’t necessarily think that non-exalted couples will not raise spirit childred. I am obviously basing my perspective on ideas about exaltation that are no longer discussed very often.

  102. …that is to say those who are sealed, yet not exalted may yet raise spirit offspring.

  103. J., there’s a vocabulary problem here; many current Latter-day Saints would consider living in the Celestial Kingdom and being able to raise spirit offspring to be almost the definition of exaltation.

  104. True. I’m limiting exaltation to that highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

  105. WHAT? Steve informs me that there are no serial killers in Heaven??

    Good Baptists would disagree, of course–Acts 2:38. All you have to do is believe.

    Do Mormons believe in unforgivable sins–any aside from denying the Holy Ghost?

  106. Steve Evans says:

    Laurie, I have just had a revelation that there are no serial killers in heaven. Please update your D&C as necessary.

  107. Last Lemming says:

    I’ve never, ever hear tha anyone but married couples–sealed in the temple and worthy of the highest level of the highest kingdom– would be exalted…

    I don’t believe I said otherwise.

    many current Latter-day Saints would consider living in the Celestial Kingdom and being able to raise spirit offspring to be almost the definition of exaltation.

    While not an exhaustive list of the characteristics of exaltation, this is close enough to my position for purposes of this discussion. To me, the procreative aspect is the salient characteristic.

    I guess I don’t see why people assume they’ll be happy wherever they go. Obviously, some kingdoms will be more interesting or involved than others.

    Not so obvious to me. Assuming that Harvard is the greatest institution of higher learning and that the most interesting and involved stuff goes on there, but you want to be a nurse or a firefighter, don’t you think you could be happy somewhwere other than Harvard?

  108. I suspect much of this discussion is moot because the kingdoms probably aren’t places but rather states of being to begin with. Unless you are ready to believe that there will be an immortal planet of the Terrestrials somewhere in the universe…

  109. many current Latter-day Saints would consider living in the Celestial Kingdom and being able to raise spirit offspring to be almost the definition of exaltation.

    Someone please explain to me how resurrected couples procreate and beget “spirit children”. The idea goes completely against logic and the Mormon notion of multiplying “after their kind”

  110. Geoff, either way, there’d better be a lot of baby-sitting in the highest kingdom of glory.

  111. D. Fletcher says:

    The idea of “spirit children” also seems to be the antithesis of a mortal purpose, to come to this earth prior to salvation/exaltation. Why don’t we all just wait and have our children in the next world? Much safer place, it seems to me.

  112. Steve: Laurie, there are no serial killers in heaven.

    This is a matter of how one defines heaven. We Mormons insist on thinking like Protestants sometimes I think. One thing to keep in mind is that we believe there is no such thing as immaterial matter (D&C 131:7). Further we believe all will have physically resurrected bodies. But those resurrected bodies have to live somewhere in the universe. Obviously resurrected bodies are not floating around in space so they uost be on literal planets. Uh oh. That brings up the absurd notion of eternally living on a planet with a bunch of Telestial or Terrestrial folks (see my above link).

    Anyway, while you ponder that let me mention that serial killers have to end up somewhere in their resurrected bodies (after they pay for all their own sins in hell of course – see section 19). Even after they pay for all their own sins they will be Telestial-natured beings and thus must be somewhere Telestial after this life. Since that place is not here it is in the heavens somewhere so by that definition serial killers will be in some place “in the heavens” eventually. Of course they will not be terrestrial of celestial people. (BTW – how do we know that serial killers from the eternities past are not here with us in this world? Weren’t we free to choose there too?)

    Again, I think it is short sited to see the Telestial through Celestial designations as anything but descriptions of people and their natures rather than planets or places.

  113. either way, there’d better be a lot of baby-sitting in the highest kingdom of glory.

    I guess it depends on what you mean by baby-sitting. If you mean the figurative way God babysits all of us then if we ever get to become like him I’m with you…

  114. Hugh (#83) Thank you for some anecdotal insight into parent-child sealings.
    I think, of course, procreative powers are limited to the highest degree within the Celestial Kingdom. Isn’t that what exaltation is all about? And couldn’t that be why there are restrictions on the use of our procreative powers here on earth (i.e. you-know-what)? The act of procreation is use of the creative powers of our Father in Heaven. Keeping the law of chastity here allows us to possibly have that benefit in the afterlife. No exaltation = no procreative functioning. Perhaps everyone else just be uninterested in marital relations – I don’t think Heavenly Father would create any set up of frustration or temptation. We’ll be satisfied with our situation – like Brave New World? And Laurie, what is GHI (#97)??

  115. ” Married but childless couples”

    We prefer the term “childfree”.

    People who want children but can’t have them are “childless”.

    People who don’t want children and don’t have them are “Childfree”

    People who don’t want children and do have them, are called “irresponsible”

  116. As further evidence that Telestial through Celestial designations are states of being rather than planets or places let me again remind y’all that this world is a Telestial world. Yet we know that Celestial-natured beings can live here. Jesus Christ lived here after all. Further, I believe that the “noble and great ones” that Abraham saw in vision (Abr 3) were also beings of Celestial natures based on progress before this world (Jesus stood among them after all). So if Telestial through Celestial beings can live together on this world who says they can’t in the future (worlds without end)?

  117. My impression was that the “noble and great ones” were all those born into LDS families in the final dispensation.

  118. Geoff, I just don’t think they can all live together. I wish I were a scriptorian with a photographic memory, but “I’m sure I’ve read somewhere” that the telestial beings will not be able to visit the terrestrial and celestial worlds, however, the terrestrial beings can visit the telestial, and the celestial beings can visit all. Also, the crystal like world of the celstial kingdom will act as a urim and thummin (sp??) to view what’s going on in other places. If we’re all there together, this wouldn’t be necessary. And isn’t Earth going to receive its glory and actually BECOME the Celstial Kingdom? Am I just imagining this? Anyone know the refs to this doctrine?

  119. Miranda, I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that there are more valiant spirits than others, but this kind of thinking can be worrisome (I won’t deny it’s because it makes me a teeny bit defensive), in that it basically says that “my kids aren’t as good or righteous as your kids,” – not because of choices they’ve made, but because they are innately inferior. My 3 -year old daughter had a 3-year old friend at church. The other girl was wild and disrespectful, while my daughter was obedient and reverent. I always thought to myself, “My little girl is so sweet, yet in my heart I know she’s not as ‘good’ as her friend. Why is this dangerous? BEcause it gets paretns into thinking their own kids aren’t as noble or good as their neighbors’ kids, and it can in turn reflect on how that child is untimately treated by their families and their friends who ARE born to LDS families. I think it could have long-term self esteem issues attached to it too, e.g., I’m inferior from the get-go, so what does it matter what I do? My spirit just isn’t ever going to be as good as someone else’s.” While I know this isn’t the way it should be, I’m just trying to express that it could lead to self-worth issues on a number of levels. I hope I haven’t offended you with my viewpoints.

  120. Miranda PJ – There are, no doubt, noble and great ones born into the restored church in the last days. That doesn’t mean all of them were (hence Abraham and other prophets at least).

    meems –
    “And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.” (D&C 76:112)

    First, it is commonly understood that there is a difference between being celestial and being God (see section 131). So this verse does not say that Celestial people don’t live on the same planet as telestial people — it says that telestial-natured people will not live where God lives, worlds without end. The other thing it does not say is that people that are Telestial natured at the end of this life must remain telestial natured, worlds without end.

  121. Also, the crystal like world of the celstial kingdom will act as a urim and thummin (sp??) to view what’s going on in other places.

    See here for the scriptural references on this sea of glass thing. It seems pretty clear to me that this is purely figurative language probably meant to be a description of the knowledge we will have if we join in a closer relationship with God and become more like Him in the eternities to come.

  122. meems and Geoff, I appreciate your clarification and my statement was overly broad. What I meant to say was something like this: “my understanding is that all those who find their way into the church in the last days were among the ‘great and noble spirits'” What I stated was the inverse, which is exclusionary.

    My basic point, Geoff, is that I understand it that all of us were among the great and noble spirits seen by Abraham. Are all of us Celestial by nature?

  123. I just want to agree wholeheartedly with Geoff J. and point out, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, that the solution he suggests fully resolves all of the concerns expressed here and elsewhere about our future happiness.

    Our concern about the effect that our environment has on our happiness presupposes that, in reality, there is a relationship between our happiness and our environment – a relationship, I will insist, that is absolutely illusory. The Celestial Kingdom is not a place outside us, it’s a place within us. Sounds like a cheesy refrigerator magnet, but I don’t believe that we have any reason to believe it’s not true.

    We know that, because of his great love, Jesus is a man of great sorrows and acquainted with grief, as is God the Father. But that sorrow does not preclude Joy, and we often overlook the eternal peace and joy that always was and always will be a part of Christ. Basically, Jesus Christ was in the CK his whole life. As such, the goal to enter into the CK and the goal to be like Christ are literally the same.

  124. My basic point, Geoff, is that I understand it that all of us were among the great and noble spirits seen by Abraham.

    That is a pleasant interpretation (for those born in the church at least) but I see no reason to think it is univerally the case that people born under the covenant now were among the noble and great ones Abraham saw. I think all of our experience with folks born under the covenant works against this theory as well… (In other words, Laman and Lemuel were born “under the covenant” and I find it hard to believe they had develpoed noble and great characters prior to arriving here.)

  125. “I understand it that all of us were among the great and noble spirits seen by Abraham”

    Isn’t this a Mormon myth? I’ve never seen anything more concrete than “you are a choice generation.” Frankly, it sounds very much like wishful thinking to me.

  126. What Ned said.

  127. Ned, it’s pretty clear to me that this idea is well-grounded in Saturday’s Warrior chapter 6 verse 3.

  128. #108 Geoff, that is really intriguing. I DID assume there was a planet of the Terrestrials, just under the Celestial one, like the drawings. With little bridges between for people to visit lower kingdoms.

    I assumed it was a nice place, with nice people, and quiet, not too fancy, where I could rest. Comfortably. And maybe even go up after I was rested up. And visit my husband and his other wives.

    Now I will ponder states of being.

  129. I’ve only just joined this thread, but already I can tell that Geoff J. should be writing church manuals for correlation. Your ideas are a breath of fresh air. I need to go and smoke something first to fully understand them, but I want to say this:

    Thang-Boy, you rock!

  130. Oh, and Thang-Boy:

    “The Mormon Afterlife” would make a great research review at Archipelago.

  131. Goeff, J, and NFlanders, I’ve heard too many fathers give their children blessings saying, “You were among the great and noble spirits…” to be terribly impressed by the notion that anyone was among the “great and noble” spririts. It’s not that it’s nice that we were all “great and noble.” It’s that the notion of “great and noble” is trivial in the first place.

  132. I’ve heard too many fathers give their children blessings saying, “You were among the great and noble spirits…” to be terribly impressed by the notion that anyone was among the “great and noble” spririts.

    What I wonder is: how do you know that? What if you’re blessing the next Gaius Caligula or Adolf Hitler or some other future schlameel?

    It’s not that it’s nice that we were all “great and noble.” It’s that the notion of “great and noble” is trivial in the first place.

    I’ve concluded that most everyone in church thinks that their kids were “great and noble.” Makes you wonder if there were any who weren’t great and noble… I probably wasn’t.

    Off the subject a bit: It puzzles me why fathers bless their babies by calling upon God as if to pray, and then after stating all that “your name will be known” stuff, they then switch to the second-person singular and speak to the baby directly. I mean, we’re not talking to the baby, we’re praying to God. When I blessed my two chit-lins, I started addressing God and finished that way, petitioning God for this and that upon each child. Does speaking to God and then switching lanes to speak to the baby strike anyone else as strange?

  133. This and that:

    meems: (answering for Laurie, who’s taking a nap): GHI = General Handbook of Instructions, the administrative rulebook for the church, which is now issued only to bishoprics and stake presidencies under tight security procedures. OTOH, I believe it can be found on the Internet.

    Steve: Since there’s no death in heaven, obviously there are no serial killers there. sheesh!
    Of course, that doesn’t mean that mortal serial killers aren’t resurrected to a kingdom of glory — which is the only definition I can give to your Protestant term “heaven.” As I read the D&C, the only people not in heaven are the Sons of Perdition. (Wonder if there are any Daughters of Perdition. I’ve never heard of any.)

    Geoff: I truly resonate to your idea of post-resurrection states of being rather than physical locations. That’s worthy of more pondering. Since we don’t preach “eternal progression” anymore, I guess we can’t determine whether a state of being constitutes a prison or an opportunity.

    Lotsapeople: I think we don’t have the foggiest notion of what constitutes exaltation, and the rhetoric of raising up spirit children and peopling earthe really seems to me to go back to polygamous days, and to have only rhetorical value. I don’t really believe (as Joseph F. Smith used to teach) that sub-Celestial beings are resurrected without sexual organs. I think the afterlife is more complex and more interesting than we can begin to imagine, but I also think that there’s not a shred of revealed truth beyond the 76th Section to guide us.

    David J: YAYY!!! I hate the common practice of mingling prayer and patriarchal bleassings in the course of blessing babies. I wish more people would remember that the blessing is a prayer, not an ego-gratification trip.

  134. Hugh,
    You’ve just let out the secret of the TK Smoothies. Darn you!

  135. Frank the Fish n' Chip Man says:

    On the subject of baby blessings, I once gave such a blessing and was told by one person that it was the nicest they’d ever heard. Why? Because it was short. The Lord knows what I desire for my children. The Ward don’t need to hear it for 5 minutes.

  136. D. Fletcher says:

    The fact that their are Sons of Perdition, but no Daughters of Perdition, is exactly what I needed to prove my case that men will indeed be worse off than women in heaven! Women are… simply better than us.


  137. Why? Because it was short.

    Amen. I wish that practice would go for General Conference. Those prayers are terrible.

  138. David,
    Shouldn’t you be in a car right now headed for Baltimore?

  139. “My impression was that the “noble and great ones” were all those born into LDS families in the final dispensation.”

    Oops. I guess I wasn’t so noble and great.

    And by that definition, neither were many members of the early latter church.

    Gotta love Mormon Myths.

  140. D’oh. And then I see your clarification, after my snarkiness. I’ve been reading too much Snarkernacle for my own good.

    Sorry, Miranda.

    With less snarkiness, I do think that the particular myth in question is perpetuated because a lot of Mormons have a need to feel special. I hesitate to say superior, but it is an attitude much too prevelant in a people who are aiming towards building Zion.

  141. Miranda: It’s that the notion of “great and noble” is trivial in the first place.

    You’re going to have to take that opinion up with God and Abraham I guess… God seemed thought it was important enough to show it to Abraham (and later Joseph) and Abraham thought it was important enough to record it. I’m not sure how you could justify dismissing it as trivial.

  142. Mark Butler says:

    David J, what you describe is standard practice – a blessing is not a prayer, it is supposed to be given through the authority of the priesthood holder directly rather than as a petition to God, so nearly all blessings start out by addressing the person by name and continue that way. Baby blessings are unusual because the child does not formally have a name until it is given in the blessing. After the name is given, it is normal to switch to the conventional form of address.

    If blessings were prayers, there would be no reason to require priesthood authority, as all action undertaken would be on God’s direct authority, rather than that of the delegated discretion that the Priesthood represents. Scriptural examples of this ideal are numerous.

  143. “Assuming that Harvard is the greatest institution of higher learning and that the most interesting and involved stuff goes on there, but you want to be a nurse or a firefighter, don’t you think you could be happy somewhwere other than Harvard?”

    Best Explaination of the 3 degrees I have ever heard.

    “People who don’t want children and don’t have them are “Childfree”

    People who don’t want children and do have them, are called “irresponsible””

    Best argument for the pursuit of filthy lucre I have ever heard.

  144. Now that I’ve heard from a higher power and revised my D&C…

    Speaking of the GHI: I cannot find the General Handbook of Instruction on the internet, although there are 79 hits for it.

    I became aware of it when in my pre-Hugh life, my husband at the time was on the High Council. Ted was given a copy of the GHI and had it at home. I found it. Of course I read it with great interest.

    Notice that it was available to me by marriage.

    Shortly afterwards, as newly called Stake RS President, I was given the RS portion, but had no access to the rest–no official access, that is. I was visiting another ward where my friend, the State Primary President, attended. As she and I discussed the GHI, she realized she had not been given her portion–the Primary portion, and asked the ward second counselor to the bishopric to let her see it because she had a question. He refused, stating that women were not permitted to see it. My tactful intervention did not help.

    This is when I first became aware of the political nature of the GHI with regard to power and gender in the Church, and how it can be used to diminish women. There are many more positions for men than for women in the church; the chances are far greater that a man will be given the GHI than a woman will. This inbalance significantly places women at a disadvantage, when they are in vulnerable situations.

  145. Laurie, the copy on the internet is missing a few pages and was pretty obviously put together by someone pissed off over the September 6 (if I remember correctly, there’s an index entry for Boyd K. Packer indicating page 666 and saying something to the effect that he interferes in the business of local wards).

    It’s hosted in several places that are out of the reach of the Church’s legal arm. I don’t buy into the “man behind the curtain” bullshit, so I’ll post the link here while it lasts for all who care to see (man and woman alike!)

  146. WOW, DKL! Folks are revising all kinds of things these days–first, I’m instructed to update my D&C and now we have the updated reindexed GHI! :-)

    I’m amazed that you found this; it had eluded my search.

    I cannot attest to its accuracy.


  147. Last Lemming says:

    someone pissed off over the September 6

    Someone pissed off at Microsoft too. Internet Explorer is “not welcome” at that site.

    Can’t be all bad, I guess.


  1. explorations says:

    Will there be marrying in heaven?

    BCC’s latest poll also touches on the issue of marriage after death.

%d bloggers like this: