If we assume the definition of crime to be “that which is against the law/lore/rules or divine will” and if your joint assertion is so, by logical deduction only be three reasons for that situation, i.e. the utter absence of crime, to present itself as having come in to existence as a functioning system.

The first possibility is that there are NO such laws/lore/rules or divine will in heaven in heaven.
In this case, there is no crime because there is nothing to be broken and nothing is illegal or forbidden.
In such a heaven all are free to do exactly as they please.
As Aleister Crowley famously put it “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” odd in such a case that “the great beast” should be prophet of heaven?
The result would of course be total chaos for undoubtedly one man’s lawless way of living would impinge upon that same privileged being extended to another and with no laws to restrain them both would feel entitled to enforce their own privileges over those of the other.
Anarchy would ensue.

The second possibility is that there is no crime in heaven because in the hereafter, crime is simply an impossibility.
There are laws, rules etc and they physically CANNOT be broken.
Without enforcement, the rules are imposed directly upon the will of the citizenry, and compliance is obligatory. As is the case in hive based insect colonies where chemical messages from the queen compel obedience from the drones and workers.
This paints heaven as a place of imposed utter compliance with a set pattern of living with no free will whatsoever.
Such a place would have no need of ethics or morals for both require the ability to choose in order to follow them or for either to have any meaning. In this heaven, they would be unnecessary no choice equates to no sin.
This heaven would be a benign totalitarianism filled with obedient unthinking slaves, without desires, passions or ambitions, freewill or independent thought perpetually existing in a state of blissful somnambulism.
That does not sound like heaven to me, certainly no one I would wish to participate or be imprisoned in.

The third alternative is of course that there will be no crime because there will be no need for it.
It is truly stated that all crime is committed for reason of gain or passion and in heaven if all is provided gain ceases to be a motive.
If all is provided where is the motivation to do or achieve anything? Where are spiritual progress and the ability to continue self-improvement throughout eternity? All are effectively robbed of this and instead condemned to an infinity of endless boredom without remission or relief.

Likewise if all negative passions are removed (either by the loss of physicality or the exorcism of all those possessing negative passion to Hell) where is drive, assertiveness, righteous anger, outrage, indignation and justice? All of these are negative passion put to positive ends, robbed of these we are compliant sheep, existing in passivity without excitement, fervour or point.

The possibility of evil and crime, the ability and permission to chose not to do wrong are essential to the continued growth and perfection of the human spirit. If for the greater good, heaven permits these possibilities then it has to acknowledge the need for rules and the enforcement of those rules against those who will inevitably decide to exorcise that freedom of choice to a socially unacceptable level.

When there is no evil to resist or to fight against good is a meaningless concept.

Just a thought,

My best,

-Ned Scarisbrick

The “different Jesus” issue is obviously one that has been discussed for many years between LDS and Evangelicals. You will have no doubt read “Offenders for a word” by Daniel Peterson. In that book he lists a lot of the Historical facts about Jesus and says we believe all of that, therefore we believe in the same Jesus. I actually did find this helpful and it showed me that we do believe in the same Historical Jesus, however we absolutely believe in a different theological Jesus. The Jesus I believe in has always been God and did not earn that, nor did He ever need to receive grace. The Jesus I believe in created everything that has been created by the word of His power, and so on.

So on this issue I will carry on standing with your church leader and magazine and disagree with you, as the theological Jesus’s that we believe in, could hardly be more different. However historically yes we believe the same person existed. However its the theological aspects of Jesus that save people from their sin, and so the focus and purpose of this ministry carries on.

My point on the ordained (or appointed) issue was not so much receiving power, but more that this was not the bestowing of any priesthood offices as stated by the LDS Church, as these are no longer in operation. If the purpose of an old testament role has been fulfilled so therefore is the need for the office. Will there still be Police Officers in heaven? No because there will be no crime, so why still have Police Officers? Jesus is a high Priest forever, His sacrifice is eternally sufficient, therefore people whose role it was to carry out sacrifice for sin are no longer needed. To recreate the role and make it into something entirely different to what it was is hardly the marks of a true restoration.

Yes in the full sense you are right that Mcconkie got this one a little wrong in terms of LDS Theology. It would have been better if Mcconkie said there is no “exaltation” outside of the LDS Church, I imagine you would agree with that, many of your Prophets over the years seem too. However exaltation is being in the presence of God eternally, so therefore the issues with that are still massive. Jesus said no one comes to the Father but through ME, I agree with Him. I imagine you will say that too, I would be happy to go much further into this if you would like. As I think the differences between coming to the Father through Jesus, or coming through Jesus and a Church are massive, the 2nd says that Jesus alone is not sufficient.

Thanks a lot for commenting Ned, obviously we disagree here but I appreciate your manner in the podcast and your response and I hope I don’t come over is in anyway being contentious. thanks a lot

edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith,

and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the

measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: that we henceforth be

no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of

doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie

in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him

in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

One last comment,

“If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

It seems to me that Bobby has construed this comment to be understood in a very literal fashion. Let me say that “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce R. McConkie in NOT official doctrine of the Church. I think that Bobby knows this but if he does not then I want to make this point clear. Sound bite phrases like the one have generated confusion when taken our of context. So, what is the proper context? It is my view that brother McConkie was trying to explain that the fullness of the gospel was lost from the earth due to the great apostasy that took place after new testament times. So, the fullness needed to be restored. The Lord chose Joseph Smith to perform this work in preparation for His second coming that will usher in the millennial era when Christ personally reigns on the earth for a thousand years before the final judgment. You may not agree with the need for a restoration but this is the position of the Church. “There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” A shock phrase to some and personally I’m not fond of it. To some it puts limits on who the Lord can and cannot save. To me it means that you come unto Him in His way. We can’t demand that He accept our own way. Make sense? I also not fond of some of Paul’s statements particular in Galatians where he talks about those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envying’s, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. From a very literal view this scripture gives little hope in anyone going to heaven. The basic problem I have with these kinds of presentations about gospel concepts, doctrines and principles is that cherry picking quotes to promote a preconceived agenda can cloud and distort the truth. I strive very hard to promote the truth regardless of the consequences and I’m quick to apologize when I am wrong on any issue. Opinions and our level of understanding may change over time but the truth will always cut it’s own path.

-Ned Scarisbrick