One doctrine that has been consistently taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that, if people had accepted the gospel but didn't have the opportunity in this life, they will still be saved and be able to receive all the blessings of the gospel. This general idea goes back to at the latest Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom, where he was surprised to see his brother who died before the restoration of the church. D&C 137 > 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my > brother Alvin, that has long since slept; > > 6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that > 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. > > 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; > > 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who > would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that > kingdom; > > 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, > according to the desire of their hearts. Now, the covenant of marriage is seen as vitally important to receive the highest blessings in the celestial kingdom (D&C 131 ). LDS perform proxy sealings in the temple for those who were married in life but not in the "new and everlasting covenant" that is eternal marriage. With regard to those that, for some reason or another, did not have the opportunity to marry in this life, no proxy marriages are (kind of obviously) performed. Yet it has been consistently taught since at least Lorenzo Snow that there will be opportunity for those eventually (in the millenium I suppose) to be married. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-9-sacred-family-relationships?lang=eng&id=p8#p8 > People who have no opportunity of marrying in this life, if they die > in the Lord, will have means furnished them by which they can secure > all the blessings necessary for persons in the married condition. The > Lord is merciful and kind, and He is not unjust. There is no injustice > in Him; yet we could scarcely look upon it as being just when a woman > or a man dies without having had the opportunity of marrying if it > could not be remedied in the other life. There would be injustice in > that, and we know that the Lord is not an unjust being. My sister > Eliza R. Snow, I believe, was just as good a woman as any Latter-day > Saint woman that ever lived, and she lived in an unmarried state until > she was beyond the condition of raising a family. … I cannot for one > moment imagine that she will lose a single thing on that account. It > will be made up to her in the other life, and she will have just as > great a kingdom as she would have had if she had had the opportunity > in this life of raising a family. (Quote from 1899, shortly after becoming president of the church in 1898) Was Lorenzo Snow the first to formulate the doctrine this way? Surely all the building blocks were already there even in Joseph Smith's time. Please correct me if I am wrong in this, but I assume none of the standard works go into this topic, so what we have here is an example of doctrine defined by "the modern-day prophets consistently taught it".

### Question During discussions of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's golden plates, I often hear about "The Kinderhook Plates". What are these plates, what is their connection to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and what is their significance?

I recently learned that Song of Solomon, which is included in Jewish and Christian Old Testament canons, is not considered divinely inspired by the Latter Day Saints (colloquially known as Mormons). As it is described on the LDS website : > A book in the Old Testament. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the Song of Solomon is not an inspired writing. However, it is included in the "Scripture" section of that same website, as well as included in LDS Bibles. **My question is, if Song of Solomon is not counted as inspired by Mormons, how *do* they use it?** I don't mean "how" in an incredulous way here - I mean: What is it used for? In practice, in what ways is it treated differently from the divinely inspired Scriptures? This reminds me somewhat of Protestant attitudes towards the Apocryphal works (Tobit, Ben Sirach etc.), which are not considered inspired but may be considered instructive or historically valuable. However, it is different in some important respects: Protestants do not list these books among Scripture and very seldom print them in our Bibles.

Moses 8:25-30 >25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart. > >26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life. > >27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. > >29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. > >30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth. VERSUS Genesis 6:6-13 >6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. > >7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. > >8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. > >9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. > >10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. > >12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. > >13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. My question is why was the wordage changed around who was "repented". In Moses it makes it seem like because of Noah's sorrow and the dangers against his life God who was already angry at the world flooded the earth because of Noah's faith. Whereas in Genesis, it seemed to be Gods decision to flood and the earth and Noah was an innocent bystander who God decides to save. But the Pearl of Great Price being a collection of extras a retranslations of the bible maybe the mormons decided Genesis was incorrect. Or do these two sections go hand in hand. Let me know your thoughts from an LDS perspective and outside perspective.

Brigham Young taught in April 1852 (as recorded in contemporary journals) that “Adam is Michael or God ... and all the God that we have any thing to do with” (see Wilford Woodruff journal entry dated 1852‑04‑09). Later LDS leaders publicly denounced what they called the “Adam‑God theory” (e.g., Spencer W. Kimball, 1976; Bruce R. McConkie, 1980). In modern discussion, it is often claimed that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith. Some historians also note that Brigham appears to have believed this attribution, whether or not the transmission can be demonstrated in surviving documents. Question: *What extant primary sources (sermons, diaries, minutes, letters, temple instruction notes, etc.) from Joseph Smith’s lifetime (before June 1844) explicitly teach or clearly imply that Adam is God the Father / the father of human spirits (“the God with whom we have to do”)?* If there are no surviving Joseph‑era documents that state this directly, what are the earliest post‑1844 primary sources that attribute this teaching to Joseph Smith, and what exactly do they say (with dates and provenance)? Please: - Cite primary sources with date and repository (JSP, diaries, archives, etc.). - Distinguish this claim from narrower teachings such as “Adam is Michael” or “Adam is the Ancient of Days,” which might not the same as directly saying Adam being God the Father. I do realize that the Encyclopaedia Judaica shows evidence otherwise and connects them as do other sources, but I'm looking for additional more direct LDS quotes. - Focus on documenting the historical record rather than arguing whether the doctrine is true.

Sometimes, when I talk with LDS missionaries about passages in scripture, they'll reject some verses I have memorized because they are NLT or NIV, not KJV. I had tried memorizing the KJV first in the past, but I got discouraged really quickly. It was hard for me to remember the older versions of words (thee/thou/ye), older grammatical conventions, slightly devolved word definitions. I gave up and decided to stick with the NLT. But recently, I encountered another pair of missionaries, prompting me again to re-evaluate my NLT decision. Sometime in the past I dismissed the NKJV to be just as difficult to memorize as the KJV, but after giving it another look... I can't imagine why. Surprisingly, the NJKV seems to fall on the easier side of the memory-difficulty spectrum😄. I was very relieved and happy when I discovered this, so I'm more than comfortable with switching over... but only if it would be useful for discussions with Latter Day Saints. What is the LDS perspective on the NJKV? Is there an official stance? Crucially, a stance that *most missionaries* would know about and reiterate? On a practical level, would the NJKV be a safe choice to memorize and recall for discussions? Or would it become just as futile as an NLT when there are word/phrasing differences? **Edit:** Thanks to Hold To The Rod for clarifying to me that Latter Day Saints are not actually KJV-only. My mistake!

When reading this [*Wikipedia* article on Sealing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealing_(Mormonism)) there is this paragraph: > The union of a sealed couple is regarded as valid only if both individuals have kept their religious covenants and followed Christ's teachings. **Just as deceased individuals may refuse any temple ordinance (such as a sealing) done by proxy on their behalf**, couples, parents, and children who were sealed to each other in life may refuse to accept a sealing of which they were a part. **No one will be sealed to any one with whom they do not want to be sealed.** I also read this about [Baptism (by proxy) for the dead](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/baptisms-for-the-dead) : > Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. **Each individual has agency, or the right to choose**. The validity of a proxy baptism depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church. With the LDS church having practices where my descendants *may* in the future convert into the LDS church, and who then potentially want to baptize me by proxy (after my death) in a temple ordinance, how should I express my desire so that my future descendants will respect my wish *not* to be baptized into the LDS church (or sealed to them) by proxy? Hence the question: **How do individuals who refuse, notify the church so that living members do not attempt to perform temple ordinance on their behalf, after they pass away?** Will noting the wish in their Last Will and Testament be sufficient, or do they need to do something more, such as filling out a form?

I was looking at this mormon.org page that mentions that "The current prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Thomas S. Monson." 1. Does the LDS church assert that doctrinal statements made by the current Prophet are either "inspired", "infallible", or both? 2. Has the Prophet made any statements about (near)future events that Mormons expect to happen? (I am separating "inspired" and "infallible" because I am not sure how they are interpreted in this context.)

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman . Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1 ). This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent. Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?

In Mormon theology, it is taught that Jesus Christ’s atonement guarantees the universal, physical resurrection of all humankind. When Jesus physically died on the cross his mortal suffering ceased and his spirit departed from his body. On the third day after his death his spirit re-inhabited his body and he was thereby the first to be resurrected, receiving a perfected, immortal, physical body. Mormon theology holds that all who have ever lived on earth will one day be resurrected. Following resurrection, individuals are subject to judgment by Jesus Christ as part of the Final Judgment. Mormon cosmology describes three possible post-mortem eternal realms, and that the assignment to one of these kingdoms is to be determined at the Final Judgment. These realms are called the the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial kingdom. (Joseph Smith articulated this conception of the afterlife primarily on the basis of a vision he reportedly experienced with Sidney Rigdon in 1832. This doctrinal exposition is canonized within the Latter-day Saint scriptural corpus as section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.) We can succinctly describe these different realms: * The celestial kingdom is reserved for those who have lived righteously, accepted the fullness of Jesus Christ’s teachings and respected all holy covenants. \* * The terrestrial kingdom is an intermediate kingdom. It includes individuals considered honorable in their conduct yet who, during mortality, rejected the "fullness of the gospel." This rejection is explicitly attributed not to inherent malice but to external deception, characterized as being "blinded by the craftiness of men." It also includes individuals who repudiated "the testimony of Jesus in the flesh" (i.e., during their mortal lives), and accepted that testimony in the post-mortal spirit world. In the terrestrial kingdom we also find individuals who did accept the gospel testimony during their earthly lives. but failed to demonstrate sufficient commitment or zeal. * The telestial kingdom constitutes the lowest of the three degrees of glory. Its inhabitants are described as including those who, during mortal life, “received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus.” It also includes "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers and cloakers". We also find murderers, and idolaters in this realm. * A small subset of individuals will not be assigned to any of these realms. Though they will be resurrected, they will be in realm or state of “outer darkness”. Those described as “sons of perdition” are traditionally portrayed as residing in this state, dwelling in company with Satan and his attendant spirits. Many ex-Mormons have reported profound existential anxiety and genuine dreaded angst at the prospect of being assigned to a different eternal dwelling place than loved ones. It is not clear to me – however – whether all Latter Day Saint movements view these assignments as eternal, or whether individuals from lower realms universally (among Mormons) are denied communication with individuals from higher-order higher-status realms. Does the LDS Church or any other Latter Day Saint movement teach a notion of possible social mobility between these realms, in the afterlife? To make it concrete: if one’s parents were assigned to the terrestrial kingdom, one’s siblings to the celestial kingdom, and one’s cousins to the telestial kingdom, according to Mormon theology, will there be any possibility of those relatives ever meeting again? Does the answer differ to this question depending on which Latter-day Saint tradition one considers? To my knowledge, the dogma of hierarchical visitation is accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ([D&C 88:22-24](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng&id=22-24#22) and [D&C 76:86-88](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng&id=86-88#85)) , but the Community of Christ has largely moved away from the literal, detailed cosmology of D&C 76 and D&C 88. --- \* "All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory" – Joseph Smith

### Background Mormons believe that the Hebrew Bible was corrupted and had lost many important prophecies and doctrines pointing towards Mormon theology, which were eventually restored by Joseph Smith such as “Genesis 50:33”: > 33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. ### Question Did Jesus and the apostles leave the church with a defective Old Testament which lacked important Mormon teachings? Why didn’t Jesus and/or the apostles fix these supposed corruptions in the Hebrew Bible and provide the new church with an accurate reading of the text?

This image of an ex-Mormon woman published by the Wall Street Journal has caused a stir since the garments are supposed to be a secret: Why are Mormon Temple clothes protected as a secret?

Speaking from a mormon mentality. But not necessarily a member. Looking for ideas from all Christian denominations. The mormons preach in the pearl of great price, that in the pre earth life, all of humanity gathered to discuss the plan of salvation with god. Lucifer and Jesus came forward and shared their thoughts. Lucifers plan was ultimately shot down and it is said he became prideful and was cast out. Some of the other angels followed him etc etc. My question is this. If "all good things come from god" as said by mormon prophets, then how was an angel in heaven able to experience pride and turn away from god before being subject to the "natural man" state of temptation? And second, if in order for God's plan to work, Adam and eve had to partake of the apple and give into sin, then SATAN HAD TO BE PART OF THE PLAN. Therefore God orchestrated it. Which in turn makes god responsible for creating something evil right? Asking for answers from all views. Against mormonism for mormonism, whatver your thoughts are.

How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven. Does "killing" refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way? > And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18 Does the LDS Church hold to this position today? If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma? > Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “**The LORD also has put away your sin**; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV > > And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that **he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed**, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son. Alma 24:10

The text is from Luke 23:43, > And He/Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be > with Me in Paradise. The following are the words of Joseph Smith: > There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits. (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, page 309) Under Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website the following summary is given: > When Jesus was on the cross, a thief who also was being crucified said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The Lord replied, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits (source ). Notice the words, "The Prophet Joseph Smith "explained" that this is a mistranslation? How does he know it's a mistranslation? It's not a mistranslation according to Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Here is what he has to say on the matter. > "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σημερον μετ' εμου εση εν τω > παραδεισω). > > However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it." (source ) I am not aware that Joseph Smith knows any Greek so maybe the LDS can explain how Smith came up with how Jesus should have said, "the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits?"

In studying the 1830 publication alongside the 1966 publication, I've discovered a lot of changes in words and phrases. If a Book is purported to be inspired by God (such as the Bible) is it not logical to expect it to not need "improvements?" Does not the existence of these changes demonstrate that indeed neither the original 1830 version nor the 1966 version are inspired or God breathed? And if one does believe that God can change his revelation to man, how then can we know and trust that it won't change again and again like shifting sand? Isn't God by nature immutable? And therefore shouldn't his word to us also be unchanging?

I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events. What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

### Background "Alma" is a name given to a book in the Book of Mormon and two male BoM characters (father and son ), one of whom is the namesake of the book. "Alma" is also a Hebrew noun (עלמה) meaning "young woman", sometimes translated as "female virgin". In semitic languages, female words have a gender indicator of a trailing "a/ah" . Like many semitic nouns "alma"/עלמה has a male gendered counterpart "elem"/עלם which means "young man". It derives from a common Semetic root referring to time, eternity, endurance, and youth. ### Question As a native Hebrew speaker, it is very odd to hear about a male named "Alma" since that word is morphologically female. What reasons do Latter Day Saint scholars of the Book of Mormon and semitic languages give for males being given an apparently female name? What is the Latter Day Saint belief about this name?