Degrees Of Glory

[sgallan]

When you advocate the Devil’s position do you realize you are destined for nothing but failure???

Well I don't believe in the devil. But I am not a fan of any gods either, so it all looks pretty much the same, as most gods act a lot like what I envision the devil to be.....

[Snow]

Originally posted by huma17@Dec 20 2005, 10:25 AM

Sure, Snow.  How very noble of you not to respond with intelligent remarks, but to rather call me a hack and run off...

←

I've seen enough of your inane apologetics to know that they don't merit the continued time required to either read them or repond to them. Maybe if you stop trying to twist and bend the truth I read what you write in the future.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 20 2005, 11:32 AM

Well done, huma17.

Those who know the truth can recognize others who know it too.

←

Glory be. Huma has Ray to support him. So Ray, you believe that when Second - "President Joseph F. Smith (Journal of Discourses 20:28-29) said:

"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. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.'

that he did really mean you should be sealed to more than one wife. He only meant that you should believe that you should be sealed to more than one wife.

... and if that is the kind of silly nonsense you believe Ray, why do you suppose that JFS didn't say that instead?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 20 2005, 02:24 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 18 2005, 03:40 PM

I am the board's officially designated Devil's Advocate.

←

When you advocate the Devil’s position do you realize you are destined for nothing but failure???

←

Have you ever drank monkey blood from a mason jar?

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 20 2005, 08:46 PM

I've seen enough of your inane apologetics to know that they don't merit the continued time required to either read them or repond to them. Maybe if you stop trying to twist and bend the truth I read what you write in the future.

←

Unfortunetely, I haven't bent nor twisted anything, but have merely pointed out the obvious, which you fail to acknowledge. You simply choose to take only parts of quotes and use them for your arguement, while refusing to address the rest.

I guess schools out.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 20 2005, 08:53 PM

that he did really mean you should be sealed to more than one wife. He only meant that you should believe that you should be sealed to more than one wife.

... and if that is the kind of silly nonsense you believe Ray, why do you suppose that JFS didn't say that instead?

←

Seeing as I have not stated this, I am puzzled as to why you keep refering to a mere belief. We must accept plural marriage as part of the New and Everlasting covenant, and of the Lord. If you do not, then you are damned. Also, if one is commanded to practice it, then they must. However, all have not/were not commanded to do so.

[Snow]

Do us a favor and stop talking to me until you have something more coherent and less deceptive to say.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 20 2005, 11:18 PM

Do us a favor and stop talking to me until you have something more coherent and less deceptive to say.

←

Who's 'us'? If you don't want me talking to you, then leave this thread alone. I'm sorry the obvious is coherent to you...

[LionHeart]

Okay Huma, let me get all of this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that the obedience of the law of plural marriage was clearly for the elders; and the fact that they were living it was atoning for those who weren't; like the Saviours atonement. You then stated that you could not attain to certain blessings unless you abide by certain laws. Clear this up for me. you must choose which one of your stories you are going to stand by.

Which is it?

The elders are to live plural marriage so that we don't have to. And we receive the blessings for it just the same? Because the elders lived it for us?

Or, the elders are to live it and the general membership just forfeits the blessings by choosing not to live it?

Do you have any references to a revelation that says the law of plural marriage is like the atonement?

You say that the quote I gave was clearly referring to the elders. There was no such clarity. It simply said "We". It did not say who the "WE" was. You just assumed that. But it clearly told me that you are not up to speed with the history of the Church, because if you were, you would have known that he was not referring to only the elders.

When the Church practiced plural marriage, every worthy member was instructed to live plural marriage; wether they were an elder or merely general membership. If they were worthy, they were expected to live it. You are right when you say that it's not for everyone. A person must be worthy. And when he attains to that point, he is expected to obey the law or his progress will be stopped. But as you pointed out, even those who are not worthy must accept it in their faith.

I am curious to know where these ideas of yours are coming from though. Are they yours, or did someone else teach you them?

One thing people must realize is that it's very easy to get someone to believe something that they want to believe. It's the things which they don't want to believe that is the problem. However, truth is truth, no matter how strong someone's beliefs are against it, truth remains the same.

[huma17]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 20 2005, 11:47 PM

Okay Huma, let me get all of this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong. You say that the obedience of the law of plural marriage was clearly for the elders; and the fact that they were living it was atoning for those who weren't; like the Saviours atonement. You then stated that you could not attain to certain blessings unless you abide by certain laws. Clear this up for me. you must choose which one of your stories you are going to stand by.

Which is it?

←

I don't think you are fully understanding what I have been trying to get across. I don't know where you got the idea that the elders of the church would practice plural marriage for and in behalf of the members? I didn't say that plural marriage was only for the elders either. I also made it clear that Patriarchal Marriage was a higher law and came with higher blessings with obedience to it. You cannot expect to receive those further rewards by only living a lower law. If one doesn't live it, then yes, they do forfeit those rewards.

Do you have any references to a revelation that says the law of plural marriage is like the atonement?

My reference to the Atonement was an analogy, not meant to be the same in every way. My analogy was to show that there are laws/doctrines of the Gospel that we must accept, but not neccessarily participate in.

You say that the quote I gave was clearly referring to the elders. There was no such clarity. It simply said "We". It did not say who the "WE" was. You just assumed that. But it clearly told me that you are not up to speed with the history of the Church, because if you were, you would have known that he was not referring to only the elders.

I don't know how you don't see it? He was speaking with the elders, and giving an account of what occured amungst them.

When the Church practiced plural marriage, every worthy member was instructed to live plural marriage; wether they were an elder or merely general membership. If they were worthy, they were expected to live it. You are right when you say that it's not for everyone. A person must be worthy. And when he attains to that point, he is expected to obey the law or his progress will be stopped. But as you pointed out, even those who are not worthy must accept it in their faith.

You have yet to show me where every member was commanded to do so. I do recall the Lord stating that he will call who he will to obey this, but never did he command all.

I am curious to know where these ideas of yours are coming from though. Are they yours, or did someone else teach you them?

I am only seeing what I see.

[Snow]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 20 2005, 09:47 PM

I am curious to know where these ideas of yours are coming from though. Are they yours, or did someone else teach you them?

←

This whole conversation came about because I said that the Brethren used to teach/believe that the new and everlasting covenant was considered plural marriage. Huma then said I was promoting falsehood. So I posted what the Brethren actually taught - for example Joseph F. Smith above who clearly states that a man that marries but one wife cannot receive a fullness... but only a part of a fullness. See also the quote on page 4 of this thread where W. Woodruff reports that Brigham Young says that if a man only has one wife, that wife will be taken from him in heaven and given to a polygmist.

I don't care what he personally believes. It just his deception about what the brethren used to teach that bothers me.

Say - I wonder what he thinks about the idea of Mormon women marrying two men at the same time.

[glindakc]

so... how does plural marriage have to do with the degrees of glory? help me - i got lost somewhere in these 6 pages of arguing.

[Guest sugarbay]

Let's see, didn't I read somewhere that contention is of the devil?....Hmmmm. Oh that we could be like Enoch and be of one mind. Wasn't that what the Gospel Doctrine class was about Sunday? Perhaps this is why the anon. "they" say never to discuss politics or religion. But since LDS people have the truth and scripture to back it up why is there this dissention? One does not go to a Dalmation breeder to learn about Cocker Spaniels. Go to the doppler...the scriptures. B)

[Jason]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 21 2005, 10:10 AM

so... how does plural marriage have to do with the degrees of glory? help me - i got lost somewhere in these 6 pages of arguing.

←

D&C 131 & 132 as well as early LDS prophets taught that without being a polygamist in this life, you cannot attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

That's the argument. Some don't believe that this is what was taught, inspite of comments clearly indicating that it was so.

[Ray]

Snow,

For some reason you are still having trouble understanding exactly what Joseph Fielding Smith meant when he said what he said, and even though I believe huma17 has already done a fine job of explaining what President Smith said, I will try once more to help you.

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.

In other words, some people suppose it is possible for a one man with one wife sealed to him for eternity to become exalted just as much as one man with more than one wife, even though the man with more than one wife would have all of the advantages that can come from having more than one wife sealed to him for eternity.

I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised.

In other words, it is not possible for a one man with one wife sealed to him for eternity to become exalted just as much as one man with more than one wife, because the man with more than one wife would have all of the advantages that can come from having more than one wife sealed to him for eternity, and the man with only one wife would have no way to gain the additional blessings that can come from having more than one wife sealed to him for eternity.

The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it.

In other words, a man who is sealed to one wife partially fulfills the celestial law of marriage, and a man who is sealed to one wife will receive the blessings that can come from his partial fulfillment of that law, which can come in no other way, but a man who only partially fulfills the law has only begun to fulfill the whole law, and therefore the man who fully fulfills the whole law by being sealed to more than one wife will receive more and even all of the blessings that can come from being sealed to more than one wife for eternity.

Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.'

In other words, whoever thinks he can obtain the fullness of the blessings that can come from the law of celestial marriage by only being sealed to one wife for eternity has deceived himself into thinking that more than one wife would not give him more blessings than he would ever be able to receive by being sealed to only one wife.

And btw, at this time in history, I believe our Lord has revealed that He does not want a man to have more than one wife, at least not while both wives are living upon the Earth, but that does not mean our Lord may not choose to command a man to have more than one wife in the future, at which time that man would receive the additional blessings that can come from having more than one wife sealed to him for eternity.

[Ray]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 21 2005, 09:10 AM

so... how does plural marriage have to do with the degrees of glory? help me - i got lost somewhere in these 6 pages of arguing.

←

Heh, some of us were discussing how we believe a man can be blessed to a higher degree by having more than one good wife sealed to him for all of eternity.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 16 2005, 07:16 PM

my question just is, who here exactly believes #1 as in there are not any degrees within the celestial kingdom?

←

I will answer your question here with official doctrine. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, you may know for certain that person is an apostate.

In D&C 76, we learn that there are three degrees of glory in heaven. The celestial, the terrestrial, and the telestial. That section gives a detailed description of those who are worthy of these kingdoms.

Now, in D&C 131: 1-4 we learn that there are three degrees of glory within the celestial glory. This being the case, it might be reasonable to assume that there are degrees within the other two as well.

This is where the argument started, because in section D&C 131 verse 2, it says "And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]"

In the early days of the Church, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage was taught to be plural marriage.

[glindakc]

thank you VERY much. that's exactly what i thought. case closed.

lol

[LionHeart]

Huma17

I see what you are saying. But like I said before, it is clear that you have not studied the history of the Church in depth. If you had, you would realize that plural marriage was not only for the elders of the Church, but for every worthy member; whether they were an elder or not. It was also the hopes of the leaders (however mostly vain hope) that all of the members attain to the point of being worthy for it; but not for the sole purpose of living that law, but for all of the blessings that come with being worthy.

It is clear to me that snow has done his research on such matters.

So perhaps you should do a little studying, and when you are done, if you feel it necessary, we can discuss it further.

And on another note, you likened the law of plural marriage to the atonement of Jesus Christ, and pointed out that we don't need to atone for our sins because the Saviour did that for us.

Before anything can be likened to the atonement, one must first understand the atonement. According to LDS belief the Atonement of Jesus Christ is as follows:

Firstly, there is a big difference between redemption, salvation, and exaltation. Although the term "salvation" is used to describe a wide variety of circumstances, it has a specific place in LDS doctrine.

Now, the term "atoned for our sins" comes from other Christian denominations; meaning that Jesus payed the price for our sins; granting us salvation. So any good we do in this life is out of thankfulness for that atonement, but not required of us. All we need do is believe Jesus is our Saviour.

When Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, his actions condemned the entire human race to certain suffering of death; as he and Eve were in an immortal state before eating the fruit.

When Jesus died on the cross, he payed the price for redemption, so we would not have to pay the price for the actions of Adam. Although we will still die, The Saviours atonement grants us a resurrection; without which, salvation and exaltation would be impossible. Those who are the most faithful in keeping their second estate will take part in the first resurrection. All else must wait until the second resurrection; which does not happen until the "winding up scene", at which point, this world's time will be over. But everyone who was ever born will receive a resurrection through the Saviours atonement.

Now, The LDS belief does agree with the other Christian denominations to a point when they say that all we need do is believe that Jesus is our Saviour and we will be saved; although the understanding of it is slightly different. According to LDS doctrine, If we will accept that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, we will be saved into one of the three degrees of glory. Those who do not receive the opportunity to accept it in this lifetime, will be given the opportunity in the next, through proxy baptisms.

So, depending on our faithfulness, we will earn a place in one of those three degrees. This is our level of exaltation. If we are faithful enough, we will make it to the celestial glory; however, there are three degrees within the celestial glory as well. "And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]"

So by this we can conclude that there are no freebies. The Saviour's atonement did not have anything to do with our actions, but the actions of Adam. It opens the door for us and allows us to choose to walk through; however we must still make that choice and back it up by our actions.

So this should help us to understand that having the elders live plural marriage would have nothing to do with our individual exaltation.

Our redemption was granted by the Saviour, through his atonement. Our salvation and exaltation are left up to us.

[Snow]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 21 2005, 08:10 AM

so... how does plural marriage have to do with the degrees of glory? help me - i got lost somewhere in these 6 pages of arguing.

←

Up until the early 1900's the Church (or many of the Brethren) taught that you could not attain the highest degree of celestial glory unless you were a polygamist.

[Ray]

Originally posted by LionHeart+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LionHeart)</div>

In the early days of the Church, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage was taught to be plural marriage.

That is not quite right.

The ‘new and everlasting covenant of marriage’ was taught to be exactly what those words say it is, a ‘covenant of eternal marriage’, with either:

one man sealed to one woman as husband and wife for eternity

or

one man sealed to more than one woman as husband and wives for eternity.

Or in other words, the ‘new and everlasting covenant of marriage’ was not said to be EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED to a marriage of one man and more than one woman, because the ‘new and everlasting covenant of marriage’ was ALSO understood to include the marriage of one man and only one woman.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

Up until the early 1900's the Church (or many of the Brethren) taught that you could not attain the highest degree of celestial glory unless you were a polygamist.

That is right, with the understanding that “up until the early 1900’s”, in this dispensation and during the restoration of the Church, our Lord authorized men to be sealed to more than one woman as husband and wife for eternity, saying that any man (and woman) who accepted and entered into that covenant would be eligible to receive more blessings (or more exaltation) than a man who would marry only one woman.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 22 2005, 11:37 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-LionHeart

In the early days of the Church, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage was taught to be plural marriage.

That is not quite right.

The ‘new and everlasting covenant of marriage’ was taught to be exactly what those words say it is, a ‘covenant of eternal marriage’, with either:

one man sealed to one woman as husband and wife for eternity

or

one man sealed to more than one woman as husband and wives for eternity.

Or in other words, the ‘new and everlasting covenant of marriage’ was not said to be EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED to a marriage of one man and more than one woman, because the ‘new and everlasting covenant of marriage’ was ALSO understood to include the marriage of one man and only one woman.

Actually, it is quite right. The new and everlasting covenant was plural marriage. The early LDS leadership taught that having only one wife was about as useful as being single.

That said, where most LDS believe that living prophets trump dead ones, the living prophets have re-defined what the "new and everlasting covenant" means.

So you've really got nothing to worry about.

[glindakc]

is exaltation the highest degree, or just the celestial kingdom?

[Guest sugarbay]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 22 2005, 12:19 PM

is exaltation the highest degree, or just the celestial kingdom?

←

Highest degree of CK. The proverbial 7th heaven?

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 22 2005, 01:19 PM

is exaltation the highest degree, or just the celestial kingdom?

←

Exaltation is all degrees; even in the lower kingdoms. If you are in a place that is higher than any one soul, you are exalted higher than that person.