Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[JohnsonJones]

Well, if one wants a more Scriptural basis rather than the History of the church or the Teachings of Joseph Smith (which are both excellent readings) or the journal of discourses (can get long and hard to search through at times), the best reference to this is found  D&C 132 I believe in verses 15,16 and 17

Quote

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 

[Vort]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

Well, if one wants a more Scriptural basis rather than the History of the church or the Teachings of Joseph Smith (which are both excellent readings) or the journal of discourses (can get long and hard to search through at times), the best reference to this is found  D&C 132 I believe in verses 15,16 and 17

Those scriptures support the traditional interpretation only if you think the traditional interpretation is supported. That is, they will only convince those already convinced.

Yes, I'm happy to go with references from History of the Church or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (which is mostly taken from HotC). I realize that HotC is not exactly bullet-proof, but if Joseph was as explicit in teaching a three-tiered celestial kingdom as you say he was, then such references should be easy to find.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It was an extrapolation on Joseph Smiths teachings that those who were not married in mortality were the second degree, or the servants of those who did attain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.  Their logic was that these individuals could not obtain a celestial marriage, hence their logic was that they could only be servants in the second degree, (but still crowned with power to do all things, but not the power to have offspring) in the Celestial Kingdom.  It may be flawed as we know what later revelation brought about with the priesthood, but the ideas they based it upon still are there.

This idea in regards to the three degrees of glory and the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom are still in LDS teachings, and as per the LDS site (and not in the historical essays which I could say may be suspect, as being done in the world rather than the church's esteem, these are done on the definitions of things in regards to our understanding on LDS topics) it mentions this idea.

Kingdoms of Glory

Inserting the portion of the Celestial Kingdom here, bolding is NOT in the original transcript, but my doing for the quote.

The terrestrial and telestial entries are BELOW that portion that is under the Celestial Kingdom entry.

 

I am well aware of the common interpretation of D&C 131.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To be fair, we have absolutely no revelation given on the meaning of D&C 131 whatsoever. No exposition or explanation beyond what's there. A few thoughts like the one given above...but they are obscure and, certainly, not revealed, accepted, canonized doctrine of any sort.

What we do know: Exaltation is the goal. Anything less is not a fullness of glory. Period.

So talking about things in terms of being in the Celestial Kingdom but not being exalted as if that's acceptable is equivalent to the idea that going to the Terrestrial Kingdom is acceptable. Obviously "acceptable" is a relative term. But without a doubt, God's goal for us all is exaltation.

Whereas I'll grant that there is a bit of theoretical cold logic to the idea that perhaps children who die young only qualified for that level of glory in the pre-existence and are thereby denied marriage (whereas there is NO sense to the idea that they simply chose that), there is nothing anywhere in the teachings of the church that suggests this is the case. It's a very strange speculation, imo, not to mention extremely and ridiculously harsh to the poor parents who have lost small children. It fits, to me, right in there with the non-LDS Christian idea that people who died without baptism are bound for hell. And we know what Mormon thought of those who would think such things. I believe terms such as, "in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity" and the like were freely used.

On a side note: I've seen it posited (I think by @Vort) that D&C 131 may be using the term "celestial" more generically than the named "Celestial Kingdom", and is simply a term meaning heavenly or the like. Read that way: "In the [heavenly] glory there are three heavens or degrees;", it could be referring to the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial kingdoms within the "celestial" glory. This is only "an" interpretation, and certainly not common. And I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that it's more than a theory (though I do believe, given the lack of further revelation on the matter, that it's as likely as there being actual 3 degrees in the Celestial Kingdom itself). And, of course, it doesn't make any sense that someone who refused to obey one of God's commandments would qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, but just not the highest degree. How does that work out, logically, to anyone? I'll obey all the commandments but this one, but that's acceptable somehow? Oh...and I might add...the one I refuse to obey is the core of the gospel, the key to everything, and the center of what God is. But that's okay. You can just blow that off and still be in the highest kingdom?

That is senseless. If we are humble enough to qualify for the Celestial Glory then how is it that we're too prideful to accept that one command? The idea is at odds with itself.

The phrasing of 131:4’s the other (singular) suggests there is only one other place to go than the highest degree. If we are to speak of 131:1 in terms of the “three heavens or degrees” as taught in D&C 76, this would identify the highest mentioned in 131:2 as the “Celestial” in D&C 76. The same terms laid out in 131:2 also pertain to the terms of exaltation in D&C 132, so “Celestial” and “highest” and “exaltation” would be the same heaven or degree.

This would make the other refer to a heaven or degree of “non-exaltation,” or either of the two other kingdoms from D&C 76 (the Telestial and the Terrestrial). Because of this, I too have thought that the term “celestial kingdom” in D&C 131:1 is a more general concept, leaving D&C 132:16-17 to refer to 131:4, or the same Telestial and the Terrestrial heavens or degrees where the inhabitants “are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. …therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

But in D&C 131:1-4, the singular term the other describing the two non-exalted heavens or degrees could also refer to 1) two glorious designations where males and females are separate but equal in celestial glory but without anyone sealed to them as a spouse or descendant, and they serve accordingly (making gender still a practical eternal attribute regardless of inability to have an increase); 2) two glorious places where one is the base camp for the beasts living in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity (77:3) and the other for the sons and daughters of God that are to have no increase, regardless of how they relate one to another without being sealed as spouses.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Vort said:

Those scriptures support the traditional interpretation only if you think the traditional interpretation is supported. That is, they will only convince those already convinced.

Yes, I'm happy to go with references from History of the Church or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (which is mostly taken from HotC). I realize that HotC is not exactly bullet-proof, but if Joseph was as explicit in teaching a three-tiered celestial kingdom as you say he was, then such references should be easy to find.

I'm not certain why you think that as this is talking about the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation.  Where do you think the Angels reside?  The Telestial Kingdom?

132 references to Angels, NOT Terrestrial or Telestial beings.

Section 132 is one that is problematic at times as anti-Mormons latch onto it fervently in one of their condemnations of the LDS Church as it also talks about polygamy.  I talk about polygamy and various aspects on these boards at times, but in regards to section 132 and Joseph Smith's teachings in regards to it, these can be VERY touchy subjects. (or one could say sensitive).  Many may take it in the wrong way (I'm not anti-Mormon or anti-LDS by any means, but when discussing this stuff, some may take it very offensively).  The references in some of these documents refer directly to Joseph's actions in references in regards to plural marriage.  I'll think about it and whether to go into detail, though I may end up PMing you when I have more time as some of this stuff may be taken rather poorly, even from those who are very strong members otherwise.

However, you are correct, it is rather easy to find on your own, if you are searching for it.  The biggest problem is that anti-Mormons also enjoy latching onto some of these stories and statements and portray them in a very negative light.  If one does not already accept the idea of three degrees in the celestial kingdom, following their logic on these stories, and thus then out of the church is a very easy thing to do.  Most of this focuses on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, their teachings on the subject, and their actions in that regards (Actually Brigham Young was VERY talkative on this subject in many of his recorded talks, along with some other interesting subjects which are misunderstood.  Another prime example is the Adam Theory which, as understood by many and even explained by anti-Mormons and some FLDS is disavowed as a doctrine for the LDS church, but still taught in certain religious classes and discussed by General Authorities in it's actual meanings (which is nothing like what people explain or understand it as).

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The phrasing of 131:4’s the other (singular) suggests there is only one other place to go than the highest degree. If we are to speak of 131:1 in terms of the “three heavens or degrees” as taught in D&C 76, this would identify the highest mentioned in 131:2 as the “Celestial” in D&C 76. The same terms laid out in 131:2 also pertain to the terms of exaltation in D&C 132, so “Celestial” and “highest” and “exaltation” would be the same heaven or degree.

 

This would make the other refer to a heaven or degree of “non-exaltation,” or either of the two other kingdoms from D&C 76 (the Telestial and the Terrestrial). Because of this, I too have thought that the term “celestial kingdom” in D&C 131:1 is a more general concept, leaving D&C 132:16-17 to refer to 131:4, or the same Telestial and the Terrestrial heavens or degrees where the inhabitants “are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. …therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

But in D&C 131:1-4, the singular term the other describing the two non-exalted heavens or degrees could also refer to 1) two glorious designations where males and females are separate but equal in celestial glory but without anyone sealed to them as a spouse or descendant, and they serve accordingly (making gender still a practical eternal attribute regardless of inability to have an increase); 2) two glorious places where one is the base camp for the beasts living in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity (77:3) and the other for the sons and daughters of God that are to have no increase, regardless of how they relate one to another without being sealed as spouses.

 

The LDS church in all it's apostles and prophets have always referred to the three degrees in the celestial kingdom as different than the three degrees of glory.  It is very explicit in that it is discussing the CELESTIAL kingdom, and NOT the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms.  Reading into 131 to be discussing all degrees of glory when Joseph was WELL aware of the differences, is in my mind, probably reading into it something different than it explicitly states (and one reason why it STATES the Celestial rather than the degrees of glory in general).  He would NOT mistake the three degrees of glory and group them into the Celestial Glory, which is itself, different than that of the Terrestrial or Telestial.  To assume Joseph would do such a thing seems to render a thought that Joseph Smith did not comprehend the differences and mistakenly stated the Celestial Kingdom when he meant the three Kingdoms instead.  If it were the three Kingdoms he would have stated the Kingdom of Heaven is divided rather than the Celestial Kingdom.  The fact that he states it is the Celestial Kingdom is very specific in what he is addressing.

It puzzles me HOW and why such a teaching that goes contrary to the traditions of the church, the teachings that have come out in general conferences about the degrees of glory and such are even grabbing hold of anyone's opinion.

HOWEVER, in the end, it is not necessary to understand these in context of salvation or exaltation.  What is important is to follow the commandments, love the Lord and endure to the end.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The LDS church in all it's apostles and prophets have always referred to the three degrees in the celestial kingdom as different than the three degrees of glory. 

Right. And they also have, and continue to, call Apr 6 the revealed birth of Jesus. But it has come to light that that part of the scripture was not part of the original revelation. So as much as I'll accept that "we" (the LDS) believe that there are three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom, and I don't have a problem with that necessarily, I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that the interpretation is and has been correct, particularly where the understanding doesn't really matter as to our lives. As I explained when I first brought it up, however, there are logical problems (based on what we do know...which isn't very much) with the idea of eternally un-exalted celestial beings.

There are, every now and again, teachings that are common that don't make sense. Sometimes its because we don't understand the fullness yet. Sometimes it's because they are mistaken.

Another example of this is the teaching that faithful parents who teach their kids right and are sealed will magically make the tendrils of something eventually bring those kids back into righteousness. A nice comfort to those who have kids who have gone astray...but an idea that is totally at odds with agency.

Fortunately, I have yet to come across an idea that doesn't make sense with other gospel principles that is imperative to understand in order for us to obey and follow Christ.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It puzzles me HOW and why such a teaching that goes contrary to the traditions of the church, the teachings that have come out in general conferences about the degrees of glory and such are even grabbing hold of anyone's opinion.

The answer to this, by the way, relates to things not making sense.

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not certain why you think that as this is talking about the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation.  Where do you think the Angels reside?  The Telestial Kingdom?

132 references to Angels, NOT Terrestrial or Telestial beings.

Why can't angels be terrestrial or telestial beings?

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

132 references to Angels, NOT Terrestrial or Telestial beings.

Are you talking about Section 131?

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, you are correct, it is rather easy to find on your own, if you are searching for it.

Great. Can you point out some of these easy-to-find instances of Joseph Smith explaining about the three-tiered celestial kingdom?

[JohnsonJones]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Another example of this is the teaching that faithful parents who teach their kids right and are sealed will magically make the tendrils of something eventually bring those kids back into righteousness. A nice comfort to those who have kids who have gone astray...but an idea that is totally at odds with agency.

You are correct of course.  On this particular thing, I know the sources of it.  There is a lesser known one by Joseph F. Smith (which had a LOT of things in some subjects, but ironically ONLY one of them made it into the Doctrine and Covenants, that being the revelation on the Spirit World).

The more popular and accessible one, and the one that I feel is actually normally utilized as the source document is found in Doctrines of Salvation  Give me a minute or two and I can give you the exact quote.  I have to look it up manually as I don't know an online reference for it.  It may also take me a minute to type it out.  The particular volume is Volume II of that (and I believe it is also addressed in his Answers to Gospel Questions).  These volumes were particularly popular during the latter half of the twentieth century, but not so much into the 21st century that I've seen.  This is also the same volume where we get other Mormon traditions and ideas such as that of Families ONLY being sealed as a unit in the Celestial Kingdom rather than other Kingdoms (there isn't much reference that the sealing bonds done are not still enforce outside the Celestial kingdom, only that of Celestial Marriage is in regards to that of the Celestial Kingdom, but the sealings of those to their children is not specified.  It is in Doctrines of Salvation that it is specified that family sealing bonds are ONLY in effect in the Celestial Kingdom itself, which is another LDS/Mormon tradition).

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Are you talking about Section 131?

Great. Can you point out some of these easy-to-find instances of Joseph Smith explaining about the three-tiered celestial kingdom?

yes, but Definitely NOT here and not in this discussion.  There are plain things discussed, but if one discards that section 131 is talking about the Celestial kingdom and instead feels it is the Kingdom of heaven, many of those items could be seen the same as anti-Mormons see them, which is NOT useful for an uplifting discussion.

Give me a second in regards to Folk Prophet's item though, I'm looking it up in the book right now.

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Reading into 131 to be discussing all degrees of glory when Joseph was WELL aware of the differences, is in my mind, probably reading into it something different than it explicitly states (and one reason why it STATES the Celestial rather than the degrees of glory in general).  He would NOT mistake the three degrees of glory and group them into the Celestial Glory, which is itself, different than that of the Terrestrial or Telestial.  To assume Joseph would do such a thing seems to render a thought that Joseph Smith did not comprehend the differences and mistakenly stated the Celestial Kingdom when he meant the three Kingdoms instead.  If it were the three Kingdoms he would have stated the Kingdom of Heaven is divided rather than the Celestial Kingdom.  The fact that he states it is the Celestial Kingdom is very specific in what he is addressing.

No one thinks that Joseph Smith got it wrong. But Joseph did not say "celestial kingdom" in Section 131; rather, he speaks of the "celestial glory". From Section 131: "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees".

Edited April 5, 2017 by Vort

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

yes, but Definitely NOT here and not in this discussion.  There are plain things discussed, but if one discards that section 131 is talking about the Celestial kingdom and instead feels it is the Kingdom of heaven, many of those items could be seen the same as anti-Mormons see them, which is NOT useful for an uplifting discussion.

So in other words -- and not to put too fine a point on this -- the doctrine of a three-tiered celestial kingdom is perfectly obvious to all those who already accept it to be true.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The more popular and accessible one, and the one that I feel is actually normally utilized as the source document is found in Doctrines of Salvation 

Speaking only for myself: I read and enjoyed Doctrines of Salvation, but I would never mistake it for authoritative scripture. "Proving" to me that Section 131 refers to the celestial kingdom by quoting DoS is like "proving" to me that man will never reach the moon by quoting JFieldingS. My respect for the source notwithstanding, it does not constitute proof.

[JohnsonJones]

Doctrines of Salvation has a LOT of the Mormon traditions and ideas that are held today (for example, just in the little section I'm going to list, it also discusses the idea that those who miss things in this life can have all those blessing in the next (this is a step beyond Josephs revelation on Alvin where that brother obtained the Celestial Kingdom).  It talks specifically that woman who are faithful in this life, but do not have the opportunity to be married will have that opportunity in the next.  It is from this line of thinking where people draw upon the infant idea or little children also having that opportunity, despite the fact that this is actually NOT expounded in the volume (and even stronger, that men who refuse to marry are actually condemned very strongly in it).

However, in regards to the faithful children, it is found on page 90- 92 of which I'll paraphrase some of it together...

Quote

Those born under the covenant, throughout all eternity, are the children of their parents.  Nothing except the unpardonable sin, or sin unto death, can break this tie.  If children do not sin as John says, "unto death," the parents may still feel after them and eventually bring them back near to them again....

...But Children born under the covenant, who drift away, are still the children of their parents; and their parents have a claim upon them; and if the children have not sinned away all their rights, the parents may be able to bring them through repentence, into the celestial kingdom, but NOT to receive the exaltation.  Of course, if children sin too grievously, they will have to enter the telestial kingdom, or they may even become sons of perdition.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by JohnsonJones
cleaning up the typing mistakes I made in typing up the quote.

[JohnsonJones]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Speaking only for myself: I read and enjoyed Doctrines of Salvation, but I would never mistake it for authoritative scripture. "Proving" to me that Section 131 refers to the celestial kingdom by quoting DoS is like "proving" to me that man will never reach the moon by quoting JFieldingS. My respect for the source notwithstanding, it does not constitute proof.

If you do not accept the obvious in regards to Joseph Smith's phrasing, I cannot help you.  It is very specific WHY he is talking about the Celestial kingdom.  If it were different he would  NOT specify the Celestial Kingdom.  It is made very clear in the Doctrine and Covenants the differences between the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial.  They are NOT confused about the differences, nor are they ever grouped as the same kingdom.  Joseph Smith would not make that mistake, and if he stated it was the Celestial glory, than he was talking about the Celestial glory, not the Terrestrial, and not the Telestial.

However, if one rejects that doctrine (and it is doctrine and is taught as such), even after referring to more clear teachings on it, what more can I say?

In regards to Doctrines of Salvation, you are correct.  It is NOT specifically doctrine, but you will find most of the Mormon culture and traditions that many consider doctrine (but are not) are descended from the items found in those volumes (which is interesting to see how they've evolved, the children who die but have the opportunity to receive all blessings including Celestial Marriage is one that is a descended tradition from those books, as in it is extrapolated from those teachings into something different later on in LDS culture).

You can also find many traditions of our LDS culture also descended from another set of works he wrote called Answers to Gospel questions. 

One interesting things about Doctrines of Salvation.  My copy was NOT written by Joseph Fielding Smith, it was instead compiled by Bruce R.  McKonkie.  This is a fascinating thing since it is likely he may have crafted some of the way they were quoted to reflect his own personal ideas on them.  That these than became Mormon traditions speaks volumes about the influence Bruce R. Mckonkie has had on the evolution of our modern church's culture.

Another thing of interest is that some of the volumes I have of Joseph F. Smith were compiled by Bruce R. McKonkie's son, Joseph McKonkie.  The same would probably apply in his case as well.

I don't think he addressed the Moon in the DoS though...he addressed a lot of other items.  I could be mistaken, but don't recall that specifically being a topic of discussion.

Edited April 5, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I cannot help you. 

Oh...woe is Vort.

[person0]

 

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

So in other words -- and not to put too fine a point on this -- the doctrine of a three-tiered celestial kingdom is perfectly obvious to all those who already accept it to be true.

I really agree with you most of the time based on what I have read of your posts so far.  However, in this instance, if we need a doctrinal source, I hope that we can look to General Conference and the Ensign as sufficient as they are published/sanctioned by the church.  Here is something I found:

Quote

"We do not know much about who will inherit two of the three degrees within the celestial kingdom. However, much has been said about the highest level in the celestial kingdom, or exaltation, because that is where the Father wants all of His children to live."

- Elder B. Renato Maldonado  (April 2005 General Conference)

Here is a quote from an official church statement pertaining to our understanding of the celestial kingdom:

Quote

"From another revelation to the Prophet Joseph, we learn that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom. To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we must enter into “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory."

(KINGDOMS OF GLORY)

I think the Church's position on this is clear.

Edited April 5, 2017 by person0

[wenglund]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

No one thinks that Joseph Smith got it wrong. But Joseph did not say "celestial kingdom" in Section 131; rather, he speaks of the "celestial glory". From Section 131: "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees".

To your way of thinking, is there celestial glory in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms?

Thanks, -Wade Englund=

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Oh...woe is Vort.

I doubt it, I'm not going to be any more clear or explicit than the prophets have already been (or section 131 and 132 already are) on the topic.  I'm no Brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff.  I'm definitely no Joseph Smith, if one wants to believe when he writes Celestial he actually means the Terrestrial or Telestial, what can I say in that instance more than I have already, or that others have not stated?

However, it is not necessary for salvation to know all things (or even this thing).  It can be illuminating but as I said, it is more important to be obedient and follow the Lord than knowledge on this.

It is highly possible Vort is far more obedient and faithful than I, in which case, there is no woe to him, more like I'm the one in trouble.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The LDS church in all it's apostles and prophets have always referred to the three degrees in the celestial kingdom as different than the three degrees of glory.  It is very explicit in that it is discussing the CELESTIAL kingdom, and NOT the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms.  Reading into 131 to be discussing all degrees of glory when Joseph was WELL aware of the differences, is in my mind, probably reading into it something different than it explicitly states (and one reason why it STATES the Celestial rather than the degrees of glory in general).  He would NOT mistake the three degrees of glory and group them into the Celestial Glory, which is itself, different than that of the Terrestrial or Telestial.  To assume Joseph would do such a thing seems to render a thought that Joseph Smith did not comprehend the differences and mistakenly stated the Celestial Kingdom when he meant the three Kingdoms instead.  If it were the three Kingdoms he would have stated the Kingdom of Heaven is divided rather than the Celestial Kingdom.  The fact that he states it is the Celestial Kingdom is very specific in what he is addressing.

It puzzles me HOW and why such a teaching that goes contrary to the traditions of the church, the teachings that have come out in general conferences about the degrees of glory and such are even grabbing hold of anyone's opinion.

HOWEVER, in the end, it is not necessary to understand these in context of salvation or exaltation.  What is important is to follow the commandments, love the Lord and endure to the end.

Explicitness is in the mind of the beholder, and we really don’t know what Joseph meant in D&C 131, though I trust he was making no mistake in his mind, whatever it was he meant by the phrase. Elder Ballard referred to that Section the last general conference to emphasize the necessity of temple marriage however the verses are interpreted (which gets to your point about keeping the covenants).

I think the “traditions” of the Church are not necessarily doctrinally etched in stone, and the distinction between or merger of tradition and doctrine is also in the eye of the beholder. So I see discussions like these as worthwhile within the parameters of a godly walk and conversation. I believe the lack of further detail in D&C 131, which prompts discussions like these, can try our patience and faith in a good way. I don’t think anyone is trying to oppose the fundamental principles of our religion.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

I think the Church's position on this is clear.

No doubt. But that is beyond the point. The idea here is that, in this instance, whereas there is no further revelation on the matter, that the church position may have been interpolated incorrectly. As this matter is non-essential, I think it reasonable to have an open mind on the matter. In other words, the philosophy that there are, indeed, three divisions to the Celestial Kingdom itself may well be correct. But it may not be. Maybe. Shrug.

Is there any harm, in this matter, in having the opinion that it is, ultimately, unknown?

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, wenglund said:

To your way of thinking, is there celestial glory in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms?

Thanks, -Wade Englund=

This question makes no sense.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

No doubt. But that is beyond the point. The idea here is that, in this instance, whereas there is no further revelation on the matter, that the church position may have been interpolated incorrectly. As this matter is non-essential, I think it reasonable to have an open mind on the matter. In other words, the philosophy that there are, indeed, three divisions to the Celestial Kingdom itself may well be correct. But it may not be. Maybe. Shrug.

Is there any harm, in this matter, in having the opinion that it is, ultimately, unknown?

No, there isn't any harm. 

There have been opinions previously that were not in accordance with our modern beliefs (and one reason I bring up that Bruce R. Mckonkie was the compiler of Doctrines of Salvation, or at least my copies...he is particularly famous for one of his statements that later proved to be incorrect in regards to modern revelation).