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".

>1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water, This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.

I realized today that when I used the word "demons" I was thinking of evil spirits of all varieties, including human beings that work evil from the spirit world. But others believe the word "demon" only applies to non-human spirits such as fallen angels or perhaps evil deities of some sort. In the Bible, Jesus refers to the "unclean spirit" [or spirits] that possessed the man who called himself Legion because he was tormented by so many evil spirits. > [Jesus said] “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” And Jesus > asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we > are many.” And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the > country. Now a great herd of swine was feeding there on the > hillside; and they [the spirits] begged him, “Send us to the swine, let us enter > them.” So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and > entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed > down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. (Mark > 5:9-13) But elsewhere, Jesus heals various people possessed by "demons." > That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; > and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. I'd like to know more about how various Christian denominations and other religions view those who do evil in the spiritual realm, and especially: do they believe that the term "demons" includes evil spirits who were once human beings. Rather than personal opinions, a good answer will provide the perspectives of several religions or experts. I would not rule out spiritualists in the latter category.

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?

Some Christian traditions and theologians suggest that there might be an opportunity for repentance and salvation after death. Others reject this view and argue that Scripture teaches salvation must be received in this life. What are the key biblical arguments against the idea of a post-mortem chance for salvation? In particular, which passages are commonly cited to show that the opportunity for repentance ends at death?

By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

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

Will the people, who end up in heaven, gain additional glory for each soul that profits from their writings? For example, St. Augustine wrote many good books. Now he is in heaven. To this very day, people read his books and have spiritual benefits. Does St. Augustine receive additional beatitude in heaven for each soul that profits from his books? I want a Catholic answer.

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 Luke 20:36, Jesus says: *“Those who are worthy of the resurrection from the dead into glory become immortal, like the angels, who never die nor marry.” (TPT)* And in Matthew 22:30 He adds: *“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (ESV)* Some translations use the wording “become like angels.” Does this mean that believers will be transformed into the same form as angels — perhaps even having wings — or is Jesus only referring to other aspects of angelic existence (such as immortality and not marrying) rather than physical form?

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

I figured in heaven it’s a totally different reality than the life we have here on earth. So, I believe in heaven race, color, creed, nationality, and ethnicity will not exist in heaven. Plus, it’s heaven—-paradise—-a place of bliss for believers of Christ. Plus, we get new heavenly, immortal bodies. I don’t want them to be subject to race and color or nationality again in heaven. God forbid. So I am hoping that in heaven I will not be black ever again. Don’t ask why I just want this. I know marriage isn’t in heaven, but if romantic love or divine love for people in heaven which includes romantic love is in heaven then I am all for it. I want to see my crush in heaven with me even if he did marry in this earth. I know in heaven he will love me too. I just hope heaven won’t be disappointing lol. Other than that I hope I won’t be black in heaven, because it just doesn’t define me as a soul or person.

Have you ever thought why you live? And the Bible says you have the free will to choose life or death (that can mean being with God or separated from Him) But have you ever thought of “did I ever choose to live?” Of course before you are made, you have no “yes, I want to live” or “no, I don’t want to live”. But let’s say that this world is a “testing ground” for the true life to come as it is held in traditional belief (that is having eternal life in heaven or hell). My question is, why can’t I choose death? And by that, I mean non-existence. Like not in heaven, nor hell. Just nothing. If I have free will, why do I not have that option?

John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel. What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

Quoting from [this site](https://carm.org/annihilationism/what-is-soul-sleep/) : > Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious. What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep?

Let's say that a Christian serial killer has murdered many people who happened to not be Christians. Would God be just by sending the Christian serial killer to Heaven, while sending his victims to Hell? I am looking for answers from the perspective of Christians who believe that Hell exists (non-universalists).

A popular (Eastern Orthodox) view of afterlife proclaims that God's presence is akin to torture for an unbeliever (Hell) and akin to bliss for a believer (Heaven). It claims that Heaven and Hell are different responses to presence of God, rather than 2 different places. This brings me to my question. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective can unbelievers change their attitude towards God in the afterlife, and thus turn their Hell into Heaven?

Let's say that someone with DID (dissociative identity disorder) has 2 alters: an atheist and a faithful Christian. Where would that person go? To Heaven? To Hell? To some third place? This question is pretty important as it is estimated that 1.5% of the global population (or 121 million people) suffer from DID, many of whom are faithful Christians.

How could a loving and just God condemn people to eternal conscious torment, a punishment that seems disproportionate to any finite sins committed in a limited human lifetime? If God desires all to be saved, why would He create souls knowing they would end up suffering forever, and why make salvation dependent on beliefs that many people never have a fair chance to accept? How can eternal damnation be reconciled with perfect divine justice when humans have such limited knowledge, varied cultural contexts, and finite lifespans to make the right choices? What kind of loving parent would allow their children to suffer eternally when they have the power to save them, and how could any finite sins warrant infinite punishment?