Symmachus wrote:Does Utah Mormonism not teach that this will happen
at some stage? I thought that was the whole "judgement bar of Christ" business in Alma. That's of course early Mormonism, and later Utah period (and Nauvoo presumably) Mormonism just adds an extra layer, an extra layer which once was clearly expressed but now is muddied by confusion and/or an indifference that serves the modern Church's desire to be accepted.
Beyond the speculative fancy of deep-doctrine hobbyists, I rarely heard anything about Joseph Smith being a judge but certainly in seminary and institute I was taught that Christ would be my judge, and if memory serves there was something about the apostles of this generation having a say in the whole process. But Richard G. Scott (presumably still lucid)
certainly is under the impression that Jesus is our final judge.
Thank you for all of this, consul. Yes, it is an extra layer. Christ is the ultimate judge in Mormonism. And, one presumes that Joseph Smith, whatever his involvement in this process may be, is acting in accordance with the will of Christ. Does this mean that Joseph Smith is dispensable? I don't think so. And this is where it makes a difference: if one rejects or does not accept the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, as head of the final dispensation, one will lose exaltation. Now, again, one supposes this is because Jesus demands that people accept Joseph as such. But, still, this makes Joseph Smith highly significant in the process, if only in a passive sense. But is it only passive? I don't think so. He actively judges those who lived in the last dispensation.
It is, as you say, true that one will rarely hear of Joseph Smith being a judge. But, now that I have had time to reflect on it, I have heard this on occasion. I just never internalized it.
As you know, the entire concept of doctrine in Mormonism is slippery. Depending on time and place, one might hear that one thing is or is not "Mormon doctrine." So, can we say that this doctrine of the priesthood is not, in fact, doctrine because it is not in the discussions or Sunday School lessons? Maybe. Maybe functionally speaking, something ceases to be doctrine once it is ignored long enough. Bring it up sometime down the road, and one will be branded as an apostate. This could be the case with the doctrine I am discussing.
But, I don't think so. One might argue that the insertion of Brigham Young's statement into the endowment is actually a strengthening of the doctrine for endowed members. And this is consistent with the nature of the endowment. The endowment is as much about tying you to the Church as *the* kingdom of God through your covenants as it has anything to do with your individual salvation. Naturally, you are being reminded of your relationship to the priesthood on both sides of the veil throughout the endowment ritual. It is not a mistake that the first presidency of the earliest Christian Church plays a central role in forging the bond between Adam, Eve, and God in the endowment drama.
So, I am not sure how moribund this whole doctrine is. Look at mentalgymnast here popping in to tell me this sounds like good doctrine. I doubt he would do this if I were saying anything offensive or bizarre. No, I think it is implicit throughout the LDS Church but most strongly manifested in the endowment.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist