Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)/Archive 4

Scope of the article

Request for discussion: I think certain parts of this article might best be spun-off into new articles. For example:

• I think there should be articles entitled "Endowment (Mormonism)", and "Sealing (Mormonism)". The "Endowment (Mormonism)" article could be the home of discussions about the Endowment ceremony, and all such material in this article would be moved to that article, leaving only a link and a summary explanation.

• I think there should be a separate article entitled "Temple (Mormonism)" that discusses what temples mean in the context of Mormonism, and includes discussions on how Mormons view the Temple in Jerusalem and the prophesied temple(s) in "Zion" (Jackson County, Mo.)? This article could also explain what the purpose of the Kirtland temple was, because historically, we know that endowments and sealings were not performed there. <<<Note: You can disregard this suggestion because I've changed my mind on thisCOGDEN 00:20, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)>>>

Comments? COGDEN 19:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To your first proposal, I think this is premature given the fact that many of us are upset with the current contents of the article (we think it contains too much sacred information and think a lot of the material should be discarded). AFAIK, we never came to a consenses on what to do with the objectionable material. Some of us wanted the offending material removed, others said we need it. Visorstuff said he was working on a revision that would be less objectionable, but I haven't seen it (he did add a great deal, however).

I share your concern with sacred information, as I am a Temple Recommend holder myself; but I think that creation of an Endowment (Mormonism) site would actually help us sort out what is objectionable and what is not. I don't think that most Mormons would be offended by the inclusion in this article of pretty much everything else that goes on in the temple, other than the Endowment ceremony. The hard questions about what to include about the Endowment ceremony could be localized in a more narrowly-focused Endowment (Mormonism) article.COGDEN 02:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As to your second proposal, wouldn't "Temple (Mormonism)" be redundant? I think it'd be interesting stuff, but perhaps it needs a different title. It sounds like you want to discuss LDS temple history and prophesy. Perhaps a title that includes those words? AFAIK, the Church is planning to build a temple in Jackson County, Mo, but I don't know if they've made an official announcement yet.

My thought is that Temple (Mormonism) would explain what temples are in the context of Mormonism (including non-LDS and pre-Nauvoo Mormonism, and on Mormon views on pre-Mormon temples such as the Temple in Jerusalem), whereas this article would be specifically about LDS temples, which all function pretty much alike. These topics would not fit comfortably within the present article. Thus, Temple (Mormonism) would be about Temples in the context of Mormonism, and be much broader in scope.COGDEN 02:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, I think a list of temples with construction dates and important events surrounding them would be gnarly (and photos of each one!), but probably not too interesting for the casual reader. Plus, I'm generally opposed to lists in the 'pedia—IMHO it has too many useless ones ("List of people with brown hair and blue eyes", "List of people who have visited a dentist and family doctor on the same day", "List of people who were married in Deleware", "List of dogs with the letter "K" in their names", etc.). —Frecklefoot 15:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nearly done with my revisions. Should have something this weekend. Much shorter article. Will include a link to a list of temples around the globe. Visorstuff 17:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

After your revisions, I'm thinking about separating out the arguably objectionable content (or content that, if expanded upon, could eventually become objectionable, and putting it in the Endowment (Mormonism) article.COGDEN 02:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the only page needed is a Changes to LDS Temple Ceremonies page. This page is good enough, when all my edits are complete, to give a good overview. The purpose of the page is to give an overview of LDS temples and what they are for and what goes on inside. The controversial material could be disucssed in a more academic way on a page about changes. This page will give a good overview of the Endowment from an LDS perspective -- and gives reasons why it does not need further development. The page is about a long as it can be, so a new page will need to be made if a new direction is wanted. That's my $0.02. Visorstuff 06:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we need more than just a Changes page. The Endowment is an interesting enough subject that it should have its own article. At the same time, there is so much more to temples than the Endowment. Therefore, I am wary about making this page too Endowment-heavy. This page should focus on temples as a whole, and just contain a basic overview of all the numerous things that happen in them, many of which are Wikipedia articles in their own right. I also agree with Visorstuff that this page needs more historical material.COGDEN 06:56, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed that new pages were created. I think the main purpose of keeping the page all together was to keep the controversy in one place - plus there is not enough publicly-available and accurate information out there on the endowment to have it's own page. When it has its own page, we open it up to more controversy and the copyright issues, etc. from previous discussions have to start all over again, creating a bigger mess. Please review all the archives of this talk page and then tell us if you still feel the same about those pages. I would have liked more discussion and imput from other contributors on this before the new pages added. Interested to see what Frecklefoot and BoNoMoJo have to say about this. In addition, because the changes radically alter how my major edits were going to be presented, I will hold off on putting any more of my edits until this is decided. Visorstuff 08:06, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We know from experience that the new pages will eventually be created, at some point, as Wikipedia grows. The existence of an Endowment (Mormonism) page will hopefully funnel all the controversy about the Endowment ceremony into one place. Controversies regarding the Endowment ceremony belong in an Endowment article. This article, on the other hand, should contain a simple and relatively sterilized summary of what occurs in temples, along the lines of your (Visorstuff) most recent edits. The information that you and others have most recently deleted will inevitably crop up again, and I'd rather have it crop up elsewhere than on this page, which should be more like an "Introduction" to LDS temples, rather than an exposé on the Endowment ceremony.COGDEN 20:07, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that a new page would be created by others. There is not enough real, legal, and accurate information to justify it. I've spent the last month reading everything the church or church leaders have said on the subject of the endowment and began to put together what is available legally and without controversy. I think by creating a new page we've just opened a new can of worms. Now it is inevitable that the new page will focus not only on mentioned changes, but also illegally published material and dissafected and inaccurate accounts of the ceremony. We'll have to go through this whole excercise again. My purpose was not to sterilize, but keep short, accurate and in one place. The whole first two pages of the archive dealt with keeping the material accurate and relevant. I personally don't believe that detailed information about the Endowment is relevant to anyone until they begin to prepare to go to the temple for themselves - unless you think relevancy includes pure curiousity. I think that I'm done with the major edits for a while now - it's not worth finishing to me until we get to this point again with the other pages. I don't want to duplicate my work a million times. I'll hold on to what I have and save it until then. Someone else take lead for a bit, I'll add in and correct the doctrine/policy where I can. Visorstuff 07:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ugg. I don't have the bandwidth for yet another controversy. I normally agree with what Visorstuff has to say, but having an article just on the endowment may help filter the controversy into a more specific forum. Making this article more general may be a Good Thing. For example, if a casual reader wants to know what LDS temples are for, a concise article which just gives a brief overview of what they are used would be preferable to deluging them with tomes of information of questionable value.

I don't want to create any enemies here, but I think the seperate artcile might be a good course of action, though I'm disappointed that it impacts Visorstuff's rewrite which he's been working on (I'm assuming Visorstuff's a "he"). If we can keep the information in that article relevant and useful, instead of apocryphal, that would be even better. —Frecklefoot 19:41, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good - that is the consensus and I'm supportive. Even the Encyclopedia of Mormonism has an endowment entry, although it is very vague. Not quite sure where to go from here, however, as the change has altered how my edits would appear. Any suggestions? Visorstuff 17:09, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about this: create all the sub-articles which are planned to be created (i.e. are any other sub-articles planned for the temple?). Then trim down the current information in this article to be a brief overview (or maybe even just a mention or list) of ceremonies performed in temples. Then fix the linked articles to make them pretty. Off the cuff, just my initial thoughts. :-) —Frecklefoot 19:39, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I want to apologize to Visorstuff for interfering with (his/her) edits, but I thought the edits were on a good track, and should be continued here or on the Endowment (Mormonism) page. Perhaps we can move some of the relevant Archive discussions on the intellectual property issues over there to Talk:Endowment (Mormonism). BTW, I don't think those IP/privacy issues have been resolved yet, but does anyone think they apply to any other aspect of the Temple than the Endowment? Has the sealing ceremony changed?COGDEN 00:20, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all - I do appreciate the direct feedback. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong at times. Or that I need to change my thinking for a time. By the way I am male.

I think there was some closure on the IP issues - the consensus was to steer clear of any possible copyright infringement, but still provide relevant descriptions of what the temple is about/ceremonies in the temple. I agree some of the background information should be duplicated on the other page. You want to move it?

I personally don't want to get into how/if the sealing ordinance has changed, as that is a whole other can of worms about the standardization of temple ordinances and would be tooooo long and boring for this forum. On the other hand, it may get a more lively discussion going. The LDS version of a civil wedding ordinance has changed very little since it was first published in the D&C in the 1800s (obviously not in current editions, but is in the History of the Church). I think it is important to note that there is a BIG difference between sealing and the temple marriage ceremony or sealing of parents to children. The sealing authority is given or delegated to very few men (some general authority seventy have this power) on the earth (in fact, it is one of the three or four differences between an area authority seventy and a general authority seventy). Any priesthood ordinance they do under this authority is considered a sealing ordinance and is bound in the eternities (that didn't have the right emphasis, but I hope you know what I mean - any ordinance belonging to the authority). This is different than the delegated authority to perform priesthood ordinances (such as baptism, confirmation, ordinations and the sacrament) that are bound in the eternities (that delegation comes from those who have priesthood keys). Those who hold this (sealing) authority can also do other ordinances that others cannot, such as restore temple and priesthood blessings to re-baptized members, etc. It is also why I support the Eternal Marriage title rather than Sealing (Mormonism).

Not sure if I mentioned this before, but a few different types washings and annointing ordinances were done in the Kirtland Temple, so although it is part of the Endowment, it should be kept seperate, as it may include more than just the initiatory ordinances. Visorstuff 01:03, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In that case, maybe there should be some sort of a "Washing and Anointing" article. If so, what would we call it? I brainstormed some possible names: Washing and Anointing (Mormonism), Washing and Anointing, Washings and Anointings, or First Anointing (as distinguished from Second Anointing, which I believe was historically (maybe still is?) considered an extension of the Endowment, but not part of the Endowment proper).COGDEN 17:29, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Most of it is technically part of the endowment, and I don't think there are any fully reliable recent accounts of other washing, etc. ordinances, including the washing of the feet and ordinances you mentioned. We'll confuse everyone with additional pages of information that is not known by people or accurately portrayed. I don't think anyone alive today that has experienced will discuss. It simply does not happen. That being said, we can discuss from a historical POV within this article. Visorstuff 21:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Copyright/right of privacy issues

Summary of the discussion

Most of us realize that material is available on the subject of this article and that the temple rituals are not that earth shattering in presentation or content. However, they are sacred to the people who have experienced them and are not discussed, as members who experience it are told that it can only be understood by revelation on a personal level. A member of the Church that attends the temple may see something symbolically one time and literal another or understand something very different each time. Therefore, from a Latter-day Saint point-of-view the way it is presented is essential and can only be fully understood in that setting.

All of us should want a description included in this article. It is important with all the information out there to provide an accurate description in this educational forum. At the very least we should want a legal and accurate description based on publicly available information. This discussion began with the thoughts about how detailed the description should be due to legal and/or moral considerations. These considerations include the following legal and moral issues:

1. Does the Church have an intellectual property right in any of the temple ceremonies?
   1. What form does this intellectual property right take?
   2. Is it copyrighted?
      1. What is the proof of the copyright?
      2. What is the extent of the copyright?
2. Does the Church have a right to privacy over this information?
   1. Is publicizing this information violate the Church's right?
      1. Does such a right continue even when the information is already in the public?
3. Is this the sort of information that should be protected by law?
4. Even if the information is not protected by law, is it moral to publicize it?

All of the legal and moral issues may or may not be relevant or persuasive, but there are a number of legal issues that could come into play and should give wikipedians pause to consider how detailed the article should be. The goal of this discussion is to produce a comprehensive, accurate, legal, moral and NPOV description of temple ceremonies. Summary contributors: Visorstuff, —B

A couple of observations and comments about the discussion - I am trying to sum up the arguments to this point as it is getting hard to navigate (I hope I didn't miss anything in the summary [above], if so, please edit my text directly) . . . I am working on a revision to the current description form and will include it later this week. Visorstuff

Some questions and responses

Q: Which, if any, versions of the temple ceremony are protected by copyright?

A: The copyright term for new corporate works in the US is 99 years. See the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. So, the early church writings, ceremonies, rituals and oaths are no longer covered by copyright but are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced by anyone without copyright infringement. Works until the mid 1920s are also no longer covered by copyright because those terms expired.

A: Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., a 2 June 2003 Supreme Court decision, said that trademark law is trumped by copyright law for public domain works, so trademark law cannot be used to prevent the reproduction of those public domain works.

---

This summary of some of the copyright and trademark responses from Archive1: main discussion by JamesDay 17:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Q: To the extent that it's possible, please explain why these matters are secret and how the secrecy evolved. That may assist those not of the faith to understand the issue better. JamesDay 08:54, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A: James, you asked about why LDS members don't talk about what goes on in the temple. In compiling publicly available information about temple ceremonies I came across the following:

But be assured, brethren, there are but few, very few of the Elders of Israel, [and members of the church]now on earth, who know the meaning of the word endowment [the primary temple ordinance]. To know, they must experience.... - Discourses of Brigham Young, p.416

As stated before, you can read the ceremony, but unless one actually experiences one can never understand. It is a very personal, one-on-one experience with God that should be understood through prayer and very real personal revelation. It is considered one of the most sacred things a Mormon experiences, and most beleieve that the most sacred things should only be discussed in sacred places, such as temples as to not make them sound or seem commonplace or ordinary. -Visorstuff

Q: Who first created the activities in the church? Who created the Book of Mormon and other works? Are they the literal word of God? If they are, has God legally assigned the intellectual property rights exclusively to the church? To its members? To others? To all of us, in the hope that we may convert? When did God first create them, particularly the copyrighted items, in a tangible form? If they aren't Gods work, from what time do they date and how did the chain of intellectual property progress to the current day? Was it clearly assigned to the church or did the church simply continue to use it, without an explicit grant of rights? JamesDay 09:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A: I will attempt to answer these questions to the best of my knowledge. Others, please jump in to fill in any gaps. :^)

1. The LDS never claimed that the ordinances are secret but rather sacred and that public disclosure of the details of the ordinances diminishes their personal and spiritual value.
2. The temple and its functions were introduced by Joseph Smith early in Church history (actually, somewhat into Smith's leadership of the Church, but early in terms of the history of the Church as a whole).
3. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from ancient records given him. The records were written by ancient prophets, much like books in the Old Testament of the Bible were. So, they are the "literal word of God" as much as any books of the Old Testament are. The Pearl of Great Price contains Smith's translation of other ancient records which came from another source and are not part of the Book of Mormon. The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of records of various revelations that Smith and other latter-day prophets received over the course of time which pertain to certain aspects of the Church and its organization.
4. The Church claims the "works" were given via revelation to Church leaders and, while the literal word of God, were not physically recorded by Him, but by those he communicated with (or "inspired"). AFAIK, the Church retains the copyright on all these works, which is perfectly legal. For example, if you told me a story and I wrote it down and published it, I'd have the copyright, though the story (verbally) came from you. If you wrote down the story yourself, you'd have the copyright. The situation is similar here. God didn't "assign" or "designate" the IP to anyone (what are you expecting? A signed document from Him?). The Church leaders recorded the material and published it. Therefore, the Church retains the copyright.

The other questions I can't answer, and, in fact, I think you were getting sarcastic. :-S I know the above answers are very POV, but since this is a Talk page, I can be as POV as I like. :^) —Frecklefoot 15:50, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, including for expanding on my question to cover the other documents. No sarcasm intended, but do remember that it's not my religion, so I don't know what the core beliefs are and how they evolved, or how the church believes the intellectual property rights arrived - in short, I don't know very well what you might find insulting or offensive when discussing your religion.

Thanks for clarifying that you were not intending to be sarcastic because I wondered if your entire post was intended to be sarcastic. —B 22:59, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

A: One example on intellectual property is an account I read some years ago of a church which asserted that God took over the body of a scribe and did the writing directly. In that situation, it's arguable that the scribe no more did the creating than a pen did, so some other way of getting at intellectual property rights assignment might be needed. Though there may already be precedents saying that churches own the intellectual property rights of their version of God.

A: James, it sounds like you don't know what the Book of Mormon is comprised of or where it came from. Taking a look at Origin of the Book of Mormon would help as would looking at the text of the Book of Mormon available at the Church's web site (http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents). But, in brief, the Book of Mormon is a record of some of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent. They came over from Jerusalem about 600 B.C. It is a religious history, so dates and politics, for the most part, are omitted. However dates can be inferred from the references to time they do give. Joseph Smith was given some of these records which they had preserved on plates "which had the appearance of gold." He then translated them through divine inspiration. The resulting record was published as the Book of Mormon (Mormon was the name of the ancient prophet who compiled the records). The name of the book gave the LDS their nickname ("the Mormons"), though it is quite erroneous--we don't worship Mormon, we worship Jesus Christ.

So, yes, the Book of Mormon was always regarded as religious scripture. The harrasment the Church endured came well after the publish of the book. If you really are researching the Church, I encourage you to get your information from the Church's web site (www.lds.org) as it has volumes of information on the Church, including its founding. It also has all the scriptures available online, which is, of course, the best source of information regarding our doctrine. Peace. :^) —Frecklefoot 16:03, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Q: Were the sacred writings always regarded as sacred in that way or, perhaps, was it in response to some of the harassment received in the early days of the church (yes, I've been doing a little homework on the early evolution of the church, but I remain very unaware of how church members regard such things)? JamesDay 22:17, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Q: Thanks for those responses. I've seen some writing suggesting that there are diffrences between early published versions of the works of the church and the current works. Are there such discrepancies and if so, do they have any theological or other significance? I'm trying to sort out here whether the use of early, no longer copyrighted, writings of the church would be problematic in some way. JamesDay 17:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A: By "works," I'm going to guess you mean temple ceremony. Other changes in the Mormon 'standard works' or 'scriptures' are relatively minor - see Book of Mormon Controversies. There are changes between earlier versions of the temple ceremonies and the current one (by my calculation there are six or seven versions: Nauvoo version, Endowment house version, the first written temple version which was the first copyrighted one written down in the St. George Temple, A version modified by Wilford Woodruff and another one done during the early 1920s, the first temple film in the 1960s, and then the 1990 version). Most of these have minor changes that shorten the amount of time taken during the lecture/instruction portion of the Endwoment.

Although I am familiar with the changes, I'm not as familiar with the earlier versions as I could be, and I don't think they are significantly different doctrinally. The major changes were to make the ceremony shorter to get more work done, or to put it to a new medium (such as sound recording and film) and items that were not seen as essential were removed to save on time, so more people could get more temple work completed.

The problem with using earlier works is that depending on which version you use, some in the church may not immediately recognize the ceremony as the language has been updated (modernized from the northeast/british dialects spoken in New York/Ohio/Missouri/Illinois/Utah by Mormons), removal of various sections that were un-essential and so forth (the Nauvoo version had much more lecture, break time, etc., and lasted between 6-12 hours, the current version is under two hours). The general idea is the same, but usinig an older version may not be an accurate portrayal of the current ceremony and could be confusing. I am working on taking what is already there and combining it with publicly-taught and available information. What we have is a good start. Perhaps we can create a "differences" section if you'd like to discuss the various versions. Visorstuff 19:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A: James, if you are referring to the differences in The Book of Mormon from the first version to the current one, the changes are relatively minor. Most of the changes were for punctuation and I think one or two words. The punctutation changes are understandable since the translation was spoken and they had to insert punctuation where they thought it was appropriate. Back in the 1800's, it'd be easy to miss a few things.

However, this applies to only the English version of the book. AFAIK, the other language versions have gone throw numerous revisions over the years, just because of the difficulty of translating into another tongue. The English version is considered the most correct, while the others are trying to brought up to par with it in regards to meaning and doctrine. Plus, they are adding new languages all the time. —Frecklefoot 20:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Q: Thanks for your responses. I was really meaning all works (including such things as the way continuous revelation has changed practice and is used to attack the church - guess some people don't understand that religions can change and that a deity can adjust things if necessary). I like the idea of adding more about the history of such a significant Christian (IMO) church but suppose I'll misrepresent current text or the current view or preference of at least one of the Mormon churches at some point... I trust that you (collectively) will at least let me know if I don't accurately describe the current LDS views. Don't expect a fast set of edits though - I believe in treading slowly on potentially controversial ground. Jamesday 16:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Major Additions

I've added in some additions to give more background into temples. Some doctrinal items may be somewhat controversial as to what Mormons commonly beleive and what is stated in scripture, however I think it is appropriate in this setting to explain as it typically makes more sense to non-LDS. This is the first step into clarifying of temple ceremonies as previously discussed. I'd like some feedback. -Visorstuff 20:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most of it looks good to me. I don't agree with one portion, however:

"most Latter-day Saints associate Spirit Prison and outer darkness or hell as the same place - they associate outer darkness and the place where Lucifer and his followers will be assigned after the final judgment, which has not been given a name in the LDS canon, but was given a name (Gnolom) by the Joseph Smith. The spirit prison is divided into two parts - which may or may not be geographical. The two parts are called paradise and outer darkness or hell – see Alma 40:13-14, D&C 138.). As such, Latter-day Saints believe that Christ went to the Righteous spirits in prison and organized a great missionary force to teach the gospel to the dead (see D&C 138, 1 Peter 3:18-4:6), who will likely be baptized in a temple and have a chance to accept or reject that baptism."

I don't regard Sprit Prison and Outer Darkness as the same place. Spirit Prison is just a place to wait to be taught the gospel--sort of a spiritual bus depot. On the other hand, Outer Darkness is a place of damnation and punishment (not a place of torture, but eternal seperation from the presense of God). It is the place where the "damned" will be assigned after the Final Judgement (I agree with that).

The two parts of the Spirit World (pre-Final Judgement) are Spirit Prison and Paradise. Those in paradise teach those who are in prison. Those in prison may cross over into paradise if they accept the gospel and their temple work is done for them.

I didn't look at your references (didn't have time, but thanks for providing them), but I will later. Does anyone else have views on this?

Overall, looks good. I made a few, minor changes, but for the most part I didn't see any errors. —Frecklefoot 22:10, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I tried to reorganize my thoughts in the spirit prison paragraph. See changes on main page.

According to church publications, one of the reasons why Section 138 was added to the D&C was to clarify that the post mortal spirit world is called spirit prison (138: 16 "the bands of death", 138:50 "looked on their long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage," 138:29 Christ went to prison, but only to the unrighteous to organize missionary work). A careful re-reading of Alma 40 and other passages state that when we die if we are righteous we go to paradice, or if we are wicked, we go to outer darkness (also see Mormon Doctrine p551 for spirit world correlation). There is nowhere that equates the final place of satan and his angels and sons of perdition as "outer darkness," although most Mormons use the term to describe it. It's never made it out of our vocabulary and will continue to stay a misconception for many more years. Joseph Smith is the only one who named what most mormons call 'outer darkness' - by calling it Gnolom or Gnolaum (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p361 or Mormon Doctrine p316). That is the only place I can find the name of the place reserved for those who do not inherit a kingdom of glory. The bottom line is that within Spirit Prison there are two divisions: Spirit Paradise and Outer Darkness or hell. All three are part of the same "spiritual bus depot."

As you know, there are many things that members of the church take for granted and are not accurate or are speculative. As Mormons we think that because others have the same speculation that it must be right (which often it probably is) Another speculation that comes to mind is about the three divisions in the premortal life. Are they three equally divided divisions comprising of exactly 33% a piece or three "parts" of unequal numbers of people? It is commonly thought one-third (33%), the D&C just says "a third part." So if God continues to have children does this mean 1/3 turn away from him? We just speculate...Church scholars admit they have no idea and there are actually three leading schools of thought. However, I digress - that is a topic for another time.

Hope this helps, let me know your thoughts, perhaps this should be explained better in the article. -Visorstuff 22:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your further explanation. But that still doesn't really jibe with my thinking. If what you say is accurate, it would signficanlty alter my understanding of eternal progression. Let me see if I understand what you are saying: everyone dies and goes to Spirit Prison. Baptized members go to Paradise within Prison and teach those in hell? Everyone who has not been baptized goes to hell and waits for the gospel to be taught them and for their work to be done (and then, of course, they have the choice to accept or reject it).

My understanding has always been that the post-mortal life is comprised of Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise (but we don't know if that division is physical or not). They are both part of the same post-mortal existence. In Prison, those spirits are taught the gospel and can progress to Paradise if/when their work is done and they accept the message (golly, I wonder if other types of proseletizing goes on there?).

Outer Darkness (hell) is strictly for Satan, his "third" and Sons of Perdition. Outer Darkness is actually pretty hard to get into for any of us--most people will inherit some degree of glory (after all, we all fought for the Plan of Salvation in the pre-mortal existence). Those consigned to Outer Darkness will only go there after the Final Judgement. Until then, they wait in Spirit Prison.

Anyway, that is the view I've had of the post-mortal world. I'm not trying to start a fight here: I just want to get this sorted out. I wonder what B has to say about this? Thanks for all your valuable contributions to the article, Visorstuff. Hopefully we can reach a consensus soon. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What you have been taught and stated as your "understanding" above is accurate, except for the names of the various places. That is the only major difference into what I'm meaning. My changes typically makes less sense to us Mormons (because of our faulty teaching traditions) and more sense to non-LDS. It shouldn't significanly alter your beliefs, just change the names.

Again. Same concepts, just different names. Here are the changes really. May want to check out some of my references - specifically Alma 40, D&C 76 and D&C 138.

What is commonly believed vs. scriptural teaching

• Spririt World = Spirit World or Spirit Prison (no bodies is a prison)
• Paradise = Paradise
• Spirit Prison = Outer Darkness or Hell
• Outer Darkness = Everlasting punishment (D&C 76:44), Gnolom, Gnolaum.

Check out some of the more recent manuals (gospel doctrine, Temples, etc. and they won't even put up the old spherical plan of salvation chart we used growing up. It doesn't exist in any new manuals for the same reason - it's semi-accurate. Maybe I'm being too picky with the exactness of stated doctrine versus what is commonly beleived in the church, but I think in these type of settings it's important to get it as close to perfect as we can. Let me know what you think. If you think this is a better discussion here for reference or via email let me know. Visorstuff 17:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)