Degrees Of Glory

[glindakc]

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of te priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

-D&C 131:1-4

I have heard two interpretations on this.

1. The 3 heavens or degrees are the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms - there are no degrees within. You may only enter into the celestial kingdom if you are married in the temple or die and accept your baptism for the dead in the spirit world.

2. There are 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom - you may still enter into it if you are not married, but if you are trying your hardest to stay on the right track. of course, this is heavenly father's judgement, but if we give our best and obey his commandments and are baptised, we can enter into the celestial kingdom.

I have always learned the second way, however, in my daddy's ward (he was just called bishop of a new singles ward, which i always attend to support him, although im 14 =] ) a brother teaching the gospel doctorine class taught #1 and this has caused a lot of talk in the ward. i was just wondering, what are your guys' takes on this?

in the above scripture, verse #1, i looked at the footnote for celstial glory, and it points to D&C 76:70:

"these are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is of the sun, even the glory of God..."

so this is obviously pointing 3 within the celestial kingdom, or #2.

however, i looked in the topical guide under Celestial Glory, which pointed me towared looking under 'Heaven', which is general, specifying all three degrees. so this would be supporting #1.

i talked about this to my friends' dad, who is the local mission president, who also is the nephew of Bruce R. McConkie. he said that his uncle taught him way #2. and we all know Bruce R. McConkie. He's pretty awesum.

what do you guys think about this? i find that this is a fun topis to discuss.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 15 2005, 04:56 PM

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of te priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

-D&C 131:1-4...

2. There are 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom - you may still enter into it if you are not married, but if you are trying your hardest to stay on the right track. of course, this is heavenly father's judgement, but if we give our best and obey his commandments and are baptised, we can enter into the celestial kingdom.

Hi glindakc - I am not LDS but this subject was talked about recently. As far as I understand most members would agree with #2. Here's the thread I was talking about:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5679

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 15 2005, 03:56 PM

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of te priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

-D&C 131:1-4

I have heard two interpretations on this.

←

What it used to mean (for the first 75-85 years of the Church's existence) was that you could not obtain full exaltation without being a polygamist. Obviously when plural marriage was stopped, the Church had to change it's interpretation. Elder Talmage was the primary force behind the new interpretation.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 15 2005, 08:37 PM

What it used to mean (for the first 75-85 years of the Church's existence) was that you could not obtain full exaltation without being a polygamist. Obviously when plural marriage was stopped, the Church had to change it's interpretation. Elder Talmage was the primary force behind the new interpretation.

←

Please, Snow, do not try to corrupt this youngster. It never, I'll say it again - NEVER - meant that, period. Nice try, though. No change in interpretation either - quite fooling yourself, and stop trying to fool the innocent.

[huma17]

glindakc -

There are three degrees within the Celestial Kingdom - the teacher was mistaken. If you study further, it states that one who does not enter into marriage will be as the angels in the CK (heaven) - you definately cannot be an angel in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 15 2005, 08:45 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 15 2005, 08:37 PM

What it used to mean (for the first 75-85 years of the Church's existence) was that you could not obtain full exaltation without being a polygamist. Obviously when plural marriage was stopped, the Church had to change it's interpretation. Elder Talmage was the primary force behind the new interpretation.

←

Please, Snow, do not try to corrupt this youngster. It never, I'll say it again - NEVER - meant that, period. Nice try, though. No change in interpretation either - quite fooling yourself, and stop trying to fool the innocent.

←

Question: How long do you think it might take for me to prove you wrong and make you look silly and foolish?

Note: I'm guessing 7 minutes tops but don't let that dissuade you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 15 2005, 09:03 PM-->

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 15 2005, 08:45 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 15 2005, 08:37 PM

What it used to mean (for the first 75-85 years of the Church's existence) was that you could not obtain full exaltation without being a polygamist. Obviously when plural marriage was stopped, the Church had to change it's interpretation. Elder Talmage was the primary force behind the new interpretation.

←

Please, Snow, do not try to corrupt this youngster. It never, I'll say it again - NEVER - meant that, period. Nice try, though. No change in interpretation either - quite fooling yourself, and stop trying to fool the innocent.

←

Question: How long do you think it might take for me to prove you wrong and make you look silly and foolish?

Note: I'm guessing 7 minutes tops but don't let that dissuade you.

←

Whoops. Let's make that 3 minutes (which includes the 45 second interuption from my wife).

Well Huma, are you ready to git school'd?

[LionHeart]

Actually, I believe both 1 and 2 are right. There are three degrees of glory: the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial; however, there are also glories within. You can enter into the lesser glory of the celestial if you do not live the law of celestial marriage but you cannot enter into the higher ones. And snow is definately right. In the earlier teachings of the Church, the law of Celestial marriage, or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, was polygamy. I have in my posession, a set of the journal of discourses and I too can prove it.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 15 2005, 11:03 PM-->

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 15 2005, 08:45 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 15 2005, 08:37 PM

What it used to mean (for the first 75-85 years of the Church's existence) was that you could not obtain full exaltation without being a polygamist. Obviously when plural marriage was stopped, the Church had to change it's interpretation. Elder Talmage was the primary force behind the new interpretation.

←

Please, Snow, do not try to corrupt this youngster. It never, I'll say it again - NEVER - meant that, period. Nice try, though. No change in interpretation either - quite fooling yourself, and stop trying to fool the innocent.

←

Question: How long do you think it might take for me to prove you wrong and make you look silly and foolish?

Note: I'm guessing 7 minutes tops but don't let that dissuade you.

←

Now now Snow. Obviously this poster doesn't know jack about the Church's history. Go easy on him. He's clearly been thourghly brainwashed by the new and revised "official" history of the church.

My guess is that this poor sap probably believes that the Manifesto of 1890 was a "revelation" too. Course, there are those of us who know better.... B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 15 2005, 10:43 PM

Now now Snow.  Obviously this poster doesn't know jack about the Church's history.  Go easy on him.  He's clearly been thourghly brainwashed by the new and revised "official" history of the church. 

My guess is that this poor sap probably believes that the Manifesto of 1890 was a "revelation" too.  Course, there are those of us who know better.... B)

←

I'll grant that you generally know your material but you put such a mean spirit on it. The best scholarship on it comes from inside the LDS community and is part of The New Mormon History as it is known.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 15 2005, 11:12 PM

Question: How long do you think it might take for me to prove you wrong and make you look silly and foolish?

Note: I'm guessing 7 minutes tops but don't let that dissuade you.

←

Whoops. Let's make that 3 minutes (which includes the 45 second interuption from my wife).

Well Huma, are you ready to git school'd?

←

Waiting for school...

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 12:43 AM

Now now Snow.  Obviously this poster doesn't know jack about the Church's history.  Go easy on him.  He's clearly been thourghly brainwashed by the new and revised "official" history of the church. 

My guess is that this poor sap probably believes that the Manifesto of 1890 was a "revelation" too.  Course, there are those of us who know better.... B)

←

Sure Jason, let's see your version...I'm soooooooooo in the dark about things.

[jiggypoo]

I belive the seperation of glories in the Heaven of God may not be as physical as we think. I believe it has to do with knowledge and with an endowment of power to act on that knowledge. Just my thinking about the Glories of God and the Righteous.

PS - I don't have scripture to back this up. It is just a thought that comes to me now and then.

[Jason]

Originally posted by huma17+Dec 16 2005, 09:02 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Dec 16 2005, 12:43 AM

Now now Snow.  Obviously this poster doesn't know jack about the Church's history.  Go easy on him.  He's clearly been thourghly brainwashed by the new and revised "official" history of the church. 

My guess is that this poor sap probably believes that the Manifesto of 1890 was a "revelation" too.  Course, there are those of us who know better.... B)

←

Sure Jason, let's see your version...I'm soooooooooo in the dark about things.

←

It's not my version. I don't give a rat's butt. It's your church bud, not mine.

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind.  In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one.  I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. . . . The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part. . . . But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it.  Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself.  He cannot do it. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28)

Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God to renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation.  Vain and delusive hope!  Unless the Saints apostatize, such an action on their part is impossible.  By doing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the celestial glory in their own faces. . . . To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son. . . . So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory. (George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 20, no.9, (may 1885): 136)

Would you like to know more?

How about which LDS Apostles were married polygamously after the 1890 manifesto?

[LionHeart]

I belive the seperation of glories in the Heaven of God may not be as physical as we think. I believe it has to do with knowledge and with an endowment of power to act on that knowledge. Just my thinking about the Glories of God and the Righteous.

PS - I don't have scripture to back this up. It is just a thought that comes to me now and then.

So basically your saying that the heavens may be like a community where everyone still lives in the same community, however their degree of knowledge and power is the thing that sets them apart. Just like the beggar can live in the same neighborhood as the CEO of a large successful company.

This is an interesting idea and something to keep in mind.

It brings to mind a book called "Ye Are Gods" written by a woman named Annalee Skarin. Although I didn't agree with everything written in that book, it does make one realize that we have alot more potential in this life than we might think. The sky is the limit.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 10:47 AM

It's not my version.  I don't give a rat's butt.  It's your church bud, not mine.

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind.  In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one.  I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. . . . The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part. . . . But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it.  Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself.  He cannot do it. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28)

Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God to renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation.  Vain and delusive hope!  Unless the Saints apostatize, such an action on their part is impossible.  By doing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the celestial glory in their own faces. . . . To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son. . . . So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory. (George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 20, no.9, (may 1885): 136)

Would you like to know more?

How about which LDS Apostles were married polygamously after the 1890 manifesto?

←

If you really didn't care, then why would you even make any remarks, regarding this topic, about me, especially such opinionated ones as 'doesn't know jack', 'thoroughly brainwashed', and 'this poor sap'?

Yes, I've seen these quotes, and many more, regarding plural marriage. However, you fail to see that they are given to explain how important it is to accept plural marraige as a law ordained of the Lord. One must accept it as a celestial law in order to receive the highest glory, not necessarily having to practice it (only if the Lord requires it of them, which is not automatic). You see, there were many who did not believe - nor accept - plural marriage as being ordained by G-d - they were in error. They did not accept it at all, which is to be damned. You must accept it as a law, not perform it, to enter into the highest heaven.

Yes, I know plural marriage was practiced after the manifesto. I did not comment on your remark before, because it was obvious were you stood on the matter, and it would do no good to converse with someone that merely believes a prophet of G-d followed Man over the Lord in regards to this topic.

[jiggypoo]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 16 2005, 10:51 AM

I belive the seperation of glories in the Heaven of God may not be as physical as we think. I believe it has to do with knowledge and with an endowment of power to act on that knowledge. Just my thinking about the Glories of God and the Righteous.

PS - I don't have scripture to back this up. It is just a thought that comes to me now and then.

So basically your saying that the heavens may be like a community where everyone still lives in the same community, however their degree of knowledge and power is the thing that sets them apart. Just like the beggar can live in the same neighborhood as the CEO of a large successful company.

This is an interesting idea and something to keep in mind.

It brings to mind a book called "Ye Are Gods" written by a woman named Annalee Skarin. Although I didn't agree with everything written in that book, it does make one realize that we have alot more potential in this life than we might think. The sky is the limit.

←

Yea...I see it as a possibility. Its conjecture on my part, but none the less something to consider.

[Jason]

huma17,

If you really didn't care, then why would you even make any remarks, regarding this topic, about me, especially such opinionated ones as 'doesn't know jack', 'thoroughly brainwashed', and 'this poor sap'?

I was on one last night. Sorry about that.

When I made those particular comments, I basically figured that you didn't know what you were talking about. Im still not convinced that you're as informed as you now claim.

Yes, I've seen these quotes, and many more, regarding plural marriage. However, you fail to see that they are given to explain how important it is to accept plural marraige as a law ordained of the Lord. One must accept it as a celestial law in order to receive the highest glory, not necessarily having to practice it (only if the Lord requires it of them, which is not automatic). You see, there were many who did not believe - nor accept - plural marriage as being ordained by G-d - they were in error. They did not accept it at all, which is to be damned. You must accept it as a law, not perform it, to enter into the highest heaven.

See, this is why I don't buy into your claim as being one who is in the know. Those two specific quotes mandate the practice of polygamy, not simply the belief.

That type of apologetic reasoning is what has given a bad name to FARMS and FAIR alike. Anyone who actually reads what your prophets taught will have no problem finding the gigantic holes in the reasoning of apologists such as yourself.

Yes, I know plural marriage was practiced after the manifesto. I did not comment on your remark before, because it was obvious were you stood on the matter, and it would do no good to converse with someone that merely believes a prophet of G-d followed Man over the Lord in regards to this topic.

Then you realize that most of the 12 married polgyamously after the 1890 "revelation". You also realize that nobody was punished until after the second "manifesto" of 1904. It was President John Taylor's son, John W., who was a member of the 12, who got the boot when he took a plural wife after 1904.

Now why do you suppose that he continued to practice polygamy? Do you think it was sex? A desire for a harem? If belief alone is sufficent for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, why take the risk?

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 12:35 PM

I was on one last night.  Sorry about that.

Accepted.

See, this is why I don't buy into your claim as being one who is in the know.  Those two specific quotes mandate the practice of polygamy, not simply the belief.

However, I feel what is said is rather easy to see, and doesn't require any twist. I've never considered myself an 'apologist' - in the sense of trying to explain difficult doctrine - but rather one who points out the obvious (at least to me). Let me show you what I mean.

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind.  In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one.  I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false

OK, we have some who think plural marriage was not essential to exaltation. That is a mistake, because it is stated that plural marriage is bound to marriage, meaning you cannot have the new and everlasting law of marriage be G-ds law without having plural marriage as part of his law as well. Plural marriage is ordained of the Lord, just as modern revealation to his prophet is. I am neither a prophet, nor have I been commanded to take more than one wife. You must accept plural marriage as essential to the exaltation of Mankind, not specifically for every man to participate in. They must accept this as truth, or be damned. Also, it states that those who believe that they will have the same glory, or blessings, as those who are in plural marriage are wrong. It doesn't state that they will not receive exaltation at all. Patriarchal marriage is a higher marriage - such as the Apostles are higher than the bishops - yet one is not automatically required to attain to that level for exaltation, just as I do not have to be an apostle.

The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part. . . . But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it.  Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself.  He cannot do it. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28)

Correct, it is only the beginning. One must fulfill his end of the bargain, as layed out by the Lord for these blessings to occur. If you read section 132 of D&C, it goes over it in detail. You must be sealed by the authority of G-d for the marriage to be observed by the Lord after this life - however, that is only the beginning. The couple must not transgress the laws of that marriage, or the Lord is no longer bound.

Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God to renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation.  Vain and delusive hope!  Unless the Saints apostatize, such an action on their part is impossible.  By doing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the celestial glory in their own faces. . . . To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son. . . . So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory. (George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 20, no.9, (may 1885): 136)

The law of plural marriage is ordained of the Lord, and denying it closes the door to the CK, because you are denying his law - if you deny part, then you deny all, and cannot return the Father and his glory. The law of plural marriage is part of the Restored Gospel, and all that has been revealed is essential for the highest of salvation - you cannot deny it and hope to attain the highest glory. It does not state that you must perform plural marriage, only that the law is essential to the Gospel.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@Dec 16 2005, 12:35 PM

Then you realize that most of the 12 married polgyamously after the 1890 "revelation".  You also realize that nobody was punished until after the second "manifesto" of 1904.  It was President John Taylor's son, John W., who was a member of the 12, who got the boot when he took a plural wife after 1904. 

Now why do you suppose that he continued to practice polygamy?  Do you think it was sex?  A desire for a harem?  If belief alone is sufficent for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, why take the risk?

←

I am aware that those who were already married in a plural marriage stayed in that state after 1890. They were already commanded to do so, and were already married. The manifesto was for no furthur marriages, so it didn't apply to them.

Now, I am aware that there is evidence of plural sealings after 1890, but I haven't looked into it enough to know if they did so with the blessings of the Lord. Just as wayward members practiced Blood Atonement, they did so in error, and was not ordained of the Lord.

[Jason]

Ah, and the truth is brought to light!

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 16 2005, 01:18 PM

I am aware that those who were already married in a plural marriage stayed in that state after 1890.  They were already commanded to do so, and were already married.  The manifesto was for no furthur marriages, so it didn't apply to them.

That's not what I said. For some reason, I sense that what I write and what you read are two different things.

More than half of the Quorum of Twelve married a plural wife after the 1890 manifesto. And there's a good probability that Wilford Woodruff himself took a plural wife after 1890.

The manifesto is not a revelation. It's a political document contrived to get the US government off the backs of Salt Lake. It was never intended to do away with polygamy, but only fool the politicians in Washington into thinking they were gonna end it all.

Perhaps Snow and I could offer our suggestions for further readings if you'd be interested?

[Ray]

Jason,

Men continue to “take plural wives” now, if they marry again after their current wife dies. Perhaps the marriages you’re talking about are more of the same thing, but if not, they will have to answer to the Lord for anything they did which was wrong.

[Jason]

huma17,

Somehow I missed your post #19. I'll come back to that later.

[Guest funkyfool416]

oh well honestly this subject doesnt interest me...if your good...you go to heaven. If your bad...then you go to hell. And you are all immature it was hilarious to read your arguments back and forth i must say i was quite entertained.

[Ray]

Heh, thanks for your post, fool. It was very enlightening. :)