A Hierarchical Heaven.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have to say, this idea that our degree of heaven being that degree to which we are able to 'abide' heaven, that degree to which we can 'stand' proximity to the divine, has some resonance for me. Love, being an ecstasy of equal parts joy and pain, is a thing in it's divine intensity which it requires virtue to perceive, virtue to contain, virtue to appreciate to it's fullest extent. There are those among us in the world, for example, who think love to be weakness, love to be foolish, a temporary madness, or love to be no more than a sentimental expression of a selfish desire to be 'wanted'. I do not think such as these would like to be too close to God, or choose that for themselves. And there are some of course, worse than this, who would hate to be in the presence of such a terrible degree of love, at all. 

 

Nevertheless, none of these considerations seem to me to have much to do with which faith, which world-view, one thinks to be truth. We all seem to have some capacity for love, unless we choose to kill it within ourselves, and I am not yet convinced that one's religion, while it may (or may not) be of assistance in building our capacity to love and be loved, is actually the decisive factor. We may or may not be vindicated in our faith, and we may or may not feel some sense of satisfaction at that, but such a small emotion will not, I think, make or break our experience of Heaven.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks for your comments.

 

I think you are ready to move onto bigger topics.

 

One aspect of the gospel in which you might go deeper in your faith is that of having an understanding, appreciation and testimony in the need for covenants.   Hebrews 8; " 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."

 

Once one has a testimony for the need for covenants both as a group and as an individual then one understands the need for the Priesthood.  If there is a need for the Priesthood then there is a need for the organization of the body of Christ, the church, which contains the correct authority and instruction to carry out such covenants.  The first few covenants being baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost followed by many more.  With those covenants ones capacity to love is greater as well as ones capacity to understand spiritual things.  That is the next thing to ponder.

 

Similar to the ceremony of marriage, there is a special relationship established between God and the individual making the covenant with the correct authority.  There is a type of teamwork that is not found without the covenant. That is how the capacity to love and understand is expanded while being under the covenant.   Read through the many parables given about stewards and servants, these are examples of special relationships with the Lord done with authority.

[Traveler]

Let me rephrase the question.  I didn't ask if there would be no evil.  You stated "eternal conflict between "good" and "evil"".  Is the conflict eternal for any given person or is there an end to the conflict at some point ?

 

When we sing in church, "We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er" we are singing about a false ideal?

 

Again I think you are mixing symbolism - the conflict is not just good and evil but a conflict of justice as a result of the fall.

[Traveler]

I have to say, this idea that our degree of heaven being that degree to which we are able to 'abide' heaven, that degree to which we can 'stand' proximity to the divine, has some resonance for me. Love, being an ecstasy of equal parts joy and pain, is a thing in it's divine intensity which it requires virtue to perceive, virtue to contain, virtue to appreciate to it's fullest extent. There are those among us in the world, for example, who think love to be weakness, love to be foolish, a temporary madness, or love to be no more than a sentimental expression of a selfish desire to be 'wanted'. I do not think such as these would like to be too close to God, or choose that for themselves. And there are some of course, worse than this, who would hate to be in the presence of such a terrible degree of love, at all. 

 

Nevertheless, none of these considerations seem to me to have much to do with which faith, which world-view, one thinks to be truth. We all seem to have some capacity for love, unless we choose to kill it within ourselves, and I am not yet convinced that one's religion, while it may (or may not) be of assistance in building our capacity to love and be loved, is actually the decisive factor. We may or may not be vindicated in our faith, and we may or may not feel some sense of satisfaction at that, but such a small emotion will not, I think, make or break our experience of Heaven.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Obviously (at least to me) is that individuals "love" different "things".  Love of itself is single dimensional and not a sufficient answer to explain anything. Anciently religion was not a concept - rather, the idea was a way or a path.  As a scientist and engineer as well as a devout believer in "good" or "right" (as in righteousness) it seem, from my perspective, that any religious theology that resists truth will result in taking other wise, well meaning individuals, down paths of various increments of ignorance.

[spamlds]

Perhaps I can help with the explanation of our heavenly "cosmology."  All this comes from Doctrine and Covenants 76, but I'm just paraphrasing.  I'm going to reverse the traditional order of explanation for clarity.

 

Sons of Perdition:  This is what the Protestants would consider the eternal hell of the afterlife.  It is a kingdom of no spiritual light.  It is such a bad place to dwell in that the fullness of the suffering of its inhabitants is not completely revealed.  People who go there are those who received the witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Savior, yet chose to oppose him, his work, and his Church.  They are the ones who, if it was in their power to do so, would crucify Jesus all over again.  They are "vessels of wrath."  These are the only ones who do not ever enter a kingdom of any glory in eternity.

 

Telestial Kingdom:  These are the "natural man" whose lives are wholly consumed with worldliness.  They are unrepentant sinners who reject the offering of Christ's atonement after it has been presented to them, either in the flesh or in the spirit world prior to the resurrection.  Interestingly, it is also the place of sectarian partisans who claimed to be teachers of truth, but led people astray. This kingdom is composed of a myriad of degrees of varying glory, commensurate to the degree of light these souls chose to receive and obey.  Paul described them as like the light of the stars in heaven, all of which vary in magnitude. 

 

Terrestrial Kingdom: These are the "honorable men (and women) of the earth.  It includes people of all faiths or even those of no faith who lived honest lives of virtue and obedience to God's commandments.  However, their vision was limited by the false doctrines and philosophies of men.  They rejected revealed authority and the gospel ordinances that would have admitted them into the Celestial Kingdom.  This kingdom also is home to Mormons who are not faithful to the covenants they made and were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus.

 

Celestial Kingdom:  This kingdom is the eternal place of rest for anyone in any dispensation who believed and accepted Jesus Christ's atonement, repented of their sins, and kept the gospel covenants that were administered by proper, revealed authority.  Mormons represent only the saints of this last dispensation.  There have been many dispensations headed by other prophets prior to Joseph Smith.  Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and others.  The believers who followed these prophets, accepted their testimony, and received gospel ordinances by those in authority are also in the Celestial Kingdom.  They are not "Mormons" per se, but Mormons are their modern counterparts.  The Celestial Kingdom is also the eternal abode of anyone who dies before reaching the age of accountability.  Thus children who die are heirs of the Celestial Kingdom, having been called home by their merciful Creator before having arrived at the age of understanding, regardless of the religion of their parents.  Those who are mentally disabled or otherwise unaccountable in this life also inherit Celestial glory.  

 

The Celestial Kingdom has, within itself, three degrees of glory.  Entrance into the highest of these requires a man and woman to be sealed in an eternal marriage in the temples.  This ordinance has been in the world throughout history, except for periods of apostasy when there were no legal administrators to perform it.  Sealed couples who obtain exaltation in the highest degree of glory are the "Church of the Firstborn" mentioned in the scriptures.

 

I hope this helps.  As you can see, the Celestial Kingdom is not just for Mormons.  Many Mormons won't make it there because of disobedience and breaking their covenants.  Many who lived in other dispensations will be there as well as anyone who was unaccountable.  Because the gospel is preached to the spirits who die (See John 5:25, 1 Peter 3:18, 4:6) and because baptism for the dead is possible (1 Corinthians 15:29) many who did not hear the gospel in life will accept it and be able to receive the ordinances to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Again I think you are mixing symbolism - the conflict is not just good and evil but a conflict of justice as a result of the fall.

Ok, then, will justice be satisfied or will there be "eternal conflict"?

[Urstadt]

I have to say, this idea that our degree of heaven being that degree to which we are able to 'abide' heaven, that degree to which we can 'stand' proximity to the divine, has some resonance for me. Love, being an ecstasy of equal parts joy and pain, is a thing in it's divine intensity which it requires virtue to perceive, virtue to contain, virtue to appreciate to it's fullest extent. There are those among us in the world, for example, who think love to be weakness, love to be foolish, a temporary madness, or love to be no more than a sentimental expression of a selfish desire to be 'wanted'. I do not think such as these would like to be too close to God, or choose that for themselves. And there are some of course, worse than this, who would hate to be in the presence of such a terrible degree of love, at all.

Nevertheless, none of these considerations seem to me to have much to do with which faith, which world-view, one thinks to be truth. We all seem to have some capacity for love, unless we choose to kill it within ourselves, and I am not yet convinced that one's religion, while it may (or may not) be of assistance in building our capacity to love and be loved, is actually the decisive factor. We may or may not be vindicated in our faith, and we may or may not feel some sense of satisfaction at that, but such a small emotion will not, I think, make or break our experience of Heaven.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Excellent. I very much agree with your sentiments regarding love and virtue. One could argue that without virtue there can be no love.

I appreciated your points about love and faith regarding abiding a particular glory. I also must admit that I have wondered in the past how a religion can be the deciding factor on such matters.

Another point I'd like to add to Seminarysnoozer's great response to your post is that of law. When you read D&C 88:20-32, law is mentioned. People will decide which glory they can abide based on which law they chose to live on earth: a celestial, terrestrial, or telestial law. And, they will likely choose that law based on their personal degree of faith.

In order for us to live by Heavenly Father's law, we must know it. He could choose any medium He wanted to inform us of His law, but he chose to have His church, led by a prophet of his choosing, be the meduim through which he informed us. I know you know this, I apologize for digressing. Please, bear with me.

With love comes the principle of agape: loving people enough to not enable them to escape their consequences. What my baseball coaches sometimes called tough love. But, agape requires love and love requires virtue. Law also requires virtue, as does living by it require virtue.

It is virtuous for Heavenly Father to have law, and it is virtuous of Him to exercise justice and mercy according to that law. Justice is where agape comes in.

Now let's consider seminarysnoozer's point about covenants and authority. We covenant with Him to abide by His law. The priesthood is required to fulfill many of the saving ordinances that His law requires. A church is needed (de facto Heavenly Father's decree) to administer that law and the authority to perform the ordinances required of the law. Those who make and keep their covenants to abide this law will be able to abide a celestial law. Their spirits will be capable of abiding it (similar to how a hand with an oven glove is capable of abiding a 400 degree oven). Those who don't abide it here will be unable to abide it in the hereafter.

So, you are intuitive, and impressively so, to pick up on love and faith in this debate. The additional piece is law.

I really hope this provides a puzzle piece or two for you. Let me know if I can explain anything a little differently.

[bytebear]

I think it's important to note that the difference between Terrestrial glory and Celestial glory is that one must not just believe, but convenant with God.   You must make an outward sign of your committment, and be numbered amongst God's people. 

[Traveler]

Ok, then, will justice be satisfied or will there be "eternal conflict"?

 

The conflict of justice is temporary and thus resolved in the eternal situations – otherwise there is no justice.  But evil will always exist and will always be a possibility and will forever remain in opposition to good.  Do you believe that evil will no longer exist – will become impossible or will somehow no longer oppose good?

[2ndRateMind]

As for law; well, being a liberal sort of fellow, I am not entirely sure about this aspect of so many religions. I resent any attempt to fence me, or anyone else, in. In fact, I have a lot of sympathy with AE Housman on this one:

 

The laws of God, the laws of man

  He may keep that will and can

Not I; let God and man decree

  Laws for themselves, and not for me,

And if my ways are not as theirs

   Let them mind their own affairs.

Their deeds I judge and much condemn

  Yet when did I make laws for them?

Please yourselves say I, and they

  Need only look the other way...

 

AE Housman, Last Poems, XII

 

I do not think I have quite understood why the kind of virtue required to appreciate love is the same kind of virtue necessary to refrain from eating pork, or forego blood transfusions, or visit Mecca at least once during your lifetime, or abstain from homosexual sex. Indeed, I am very suspicious of religious laws in all their forms; so often they seem to have been created by an establishment for the perpetuation of that establishment, and have little obviously in common with Jesus great commandments to 'Love God!' and 'Love each other!' All the Law and Prophets, He informs us, hang on these two commandments, and yet frequently these religious laws have taken on, through tradition rather than merit, a role in people's lives which, to my mind at least, they do nothing to deserve insofar as they seem entirely irrelevant to Jesus' two necessary loves.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 29, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Urstadt]

I do not think I have quite understood why the kind of virtue required to appreciate love is the same kind of virtue necessary to refrain from eating pork, or forego blood transfusions, or visit Mecca at least once during your lifetime, or abstain from homosexual sex. Indeed, I am very suspicious of religious laws in all their forms; so often they seem to have been created by an establishment for the perpetuation of that establishment, and have little obviously in common with Jesus great commandments to 'Love God!' and 'Love each other!' All the Law and Prophets, He informs us, hang on these two commandments, and yet frequently these religious laws have taken on, through tradition rather than merit, a role in people's lives which, to my mind at least, they do nothing to deserve insofar as they seem entirely irrelevant to Jesus' two necessary loves.

I agree. There are some laws out there that make me scratch my head, too.

I was intrigued by you stating that you fail to see the how the virtue to appreciate love connects to/is the same as the virtue to abide by law. I think the answer is rather simple, for me at least.

I abide law because I love God.

John 14:15 - "If ye love me, keep my commandments" could potentially read as, "If ye love me, abide by my law." So, if the first great commandment is to love God, then along with that comes a mighty commandment to abide His law ("keep my commandments.")

My wife asks me constantly to do little things that are seemingly insignificant, and seemingly have nothing to do with my commitment to love her. However, I do them because I do love her.

This brings back our prior discussion from a previous thread: morals emerging in, and becoming sensible because of, relationships. We can also say that law becomes sensible because of relationships. And, in particular, law becomes sensible to us because of our relationship with Heavenly Father. I close with an example:

On the surface, I see very little reason why Heavenly Father as asked us to abstain from tea. It makes no sense to me. There are as many (claimed) health benefits as health risks. Maybe more benefits. Without the relational context between myself and Heavenly Father, it does make no sense to follow that commandment (law), and therefore, I do have a right to be suspicious. However, once the context of my relationship with Heavenly Father is brought back into the picture, then it makes sense. He loves me and would only command something He believed to be in my best interest. Because I love Him, I want to obey. I can receive an answer from Him in prayer confirming what He does and does not want me to do. He and I have a relationship. We work together and I trust in His guidance.

[Urstadt]

Deleted... moving to a separate thread.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Urstadt

[2ndRateMind]

I agree. There are some laws out there that make me scratch my head, too.

I was intrigued by you stating that you fail to see the how the virtue to appreciate love connects to/is the same as the virtue to abide by law. I think the answer is rather simple, for me at least.

I abide law because I love God.

...

 

Uh huh. I thought you might say something like that. I have heard the same sort of arguments from Orthodox Jews. The problem is, this kind of thinking might potentially justify the observation of any law, however detrimental to one's own, or other people's, interests it might be. Many Muslims, for example, want Sharia globally instituted because they love God.

 

At some point, I suggest, we must evaluate each law according to moral criteria; we ought not follow blindly other people's revelations, (perhaps more pertinent to other times, places and peoples) but decide for ourselves whether any particular law deserves our allegiance. The law must be a good law, either self-evidently like 'Thou shalt not kill', or empirically, or democratically, or pragmatically, or in respect of some other consideration. Whatever the case, we should be able to justify the law to ourselves and to others, because if we can't articulate why it is good, there is a reasonable chance it might not be good, and therefore not God's, and we have abdicated our responsibility as moral agents, and will doubtless have to answer for our neglect come Judgement Day.

 

In other words, any virtue I might own that makes me love God, and His goodness, is the same contrary virtue that makes me question law. Truly, I am a goat, not a sheep! Or so it seems to me.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 29, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

Perhaps I can help with the explanation of our heavenly "cosmology."  

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

I hope this helps.  

 

Thanks. Indeed it does.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The conflict of justice is temporary and thus resolved in the eternal situations – otherwise there is no justice.  But evil will always exist and will always be a possibility and will forever remain in opposition to good.  Do you believe that evil will no longer exist – will become impossible or will somehow no longer oppose good?

Like I said in the first response to your statement, I am not questioning whether evil will always exist, just questioning the use of the word "conflict" as something that is eternal for any given individual.

 

Lets say it the other way around, can evil withstand the presence of God?

 

That is not a question regarding its existence or its opposition.  Can there not be something that exists and opposes God but not be in His presence, therefore, there is no conflict?  If they don't exist in the same place then there is no conflict.  When things are in their proper place then there is no conflict but when things are placed out of their proper place then there is conflict, like our pure spirits being placed in a fallen world.  The final judgement is the placing of everything in its proper place, 'the conflict is o'er', after Christ fully overcomes the fallen, opposing, world. 

 

Do you believe it is possible for an individual who receives a Celestial glory to sin?    If a Celestial being sins, then did God make a correct judgement about that person?   How can God make an incorrect final judgement?  If a Celestial being cannot sin then it is not a possibility, any more than God could sin.  So, for a Celestial being evil is not a possibility.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Seminarysnoozer

[Urstadt]

Uh-huh... The problem is, this kind of thinking might potentially justify the observation of any law...

Because you're looking at it solely through the Post-Cartesian lense of dualism (the Cartesian anxiety, as it is called for a reason) and ontological individualism. Both philosophies are destined for the kind of nihilistic relativism you claim you are trying to avoid, but the irony, with all due respect, kind Sir, is that the Cartesian anxiety actually perpetuates it!

This nihilistic relativism you fear is only avoidable through a relational ontology.

Thank you for time these past several days.

[Traveler]

....

 

Lets say it the other way around, can evil withstand the presence of God?

 

....

 

If you would define the limits and boundaries of the presence of G-d perhaps we can conclude the place (if perhaps unbounded and out side such limits and boundaries) where evil resides.  However, I prefer to think that evil is bound and limited because of the presents of G-d - not the other way around.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If you would define the limits and boundaries of the presence of G-d perhaps we can conclude the place (if perhaps unbounded and out side such limits and boundaries) where evil resides.  However, I prefer to think that evil is bound and limited because of the presents of G-d - not the other way around.

This is a discussion in relation to your use of the words "eternal conflict".  A separation of any kind, no matter who or what is limited, would suggest no conflict. 

My question was rhetorical (as you like to say) as evil does not attempt to be where God is, it does the opposite, draws people away from God.

There is no limit to God but there is a limit to evil and Satan.  Moses 4; "20 And I, the Lord God, said unto the serpent: Because thou hast done this thou shalt be cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life;

 21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

God "put" emnity between Satan and man.  He is in control of its "limits".  It was done for the specific purpose of the second estate test, to see if man would do the things God asks.  After the second estate test there is no use for such emnity.  The emnity will be overcome by Christ, thus doing away with the so-called "eternal conflict".  So, that is why I ask what you mean by "eternal conflict".  For any one person is the conflict eternal?  Or are you simply refering to the eternal round of God with each cycle of 'second estate' tests (or something else).

[Pa Pa]

"Degrees of goodness"...this is the language they used? Come on.

[spamlds]

If you would define the limits and boundaries of the presence of G-d perhaps we can conclude the place (if perhaps unbounded and out side such limits and boundaries) where evil resides.  However, I prefer to think that evil is bound and limited because of the presents of G-d - not the other way around.

 

I like that description.  The description of the Celestial Kingdom brings to mind this passage of Isaiah:

 

14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;

16 He shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall besure.

17 Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off.

 

The Celestial Kingdom's glory is called "everlasting burnings" and "devouring fire" by Isaiah.  Who will dwell in this place?  Those who walk righteously, speak uprightly, despise oppression, live honestly, and avoids the appearance of evil.

 

In the non-canonical (although Jude quotes from it in the New Testament) Ethiopian Book of Enoch, it describes Heaven in this manner:

 

¹ The book of the words of righteousness, and of the reprimand of the eternal Watchers in accordance ² with the command of the Holy Great One in that vision. I saw in my sleep what I will now say with a tongue of flesh and with the breath of my mouth: which the Great One has given to men to ³ converse therewith and understand with the heart. As He has created and given to man the power of understanding the word of wisdom, so hath He created me also and given me the power of reprimanding ⁴ the Watchers, the children of heaven. I wrote out your petition, and in my vision it appeared thus, that your petition will not be granted unto you throughout all the days of eternity, and that judgement ⁵ has been finally passed upon you: yea (your petition) will not be granted unto you. And from henceforth you shall not ascend into heaven unto all eternity, and in bonds of the earth the decree ⁶ has gone forth to bind you for all the days of the world. And (that) previously you shall have seen the destruction of your beloved sons and ye shall have no pleasure in them, but they shall fall before ⁷ you by the sword. And your petition on their behalf shall not be granted, nor yet on your own: even though you weep and pray and speak all the words contained in the writing which I have ⁸written. And the vision was shown to me thus: Behold, in the vision clouds invited me and a mist summoned me, and the course of the stars and the lightnings sped and hastened me, and the winds in ⁹ the vision caused me to fly and lifted me upward, and bore me into heaven. And I went in till I drew nigh to a wall which is built of crystals and surrounded by tongues of fire: and it began to affright ¹⁰ me. And I went into the tongues of fire and drew nigh to a large house which was built of crystals: and the walls of the house were like a tesselated floor (made) of crystals, and its groundwork was ¹¹ of crystal. Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and the lightnings, and between them were ¹² fiery cherubim, and their heaven was (clear as) water. A flaming fire surrounded the walls, and its ¹³ portals blazed with fire. And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire and cold as ice: there ¹⁴ were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold upon me. And as I quaked ¹⁵ and trembled, I fell upon my face. And I beheld a vision, And lo! there was a second house, greater ¹⁶ than the former, and the entire portal stood open before me, and it was built of flames of fire. And in every respect it so excelled in splendour and magnificence and extent that I cannot describe to ¹⁷you its splendour and its extent. And its floor was of fire, and above it were lightnings and the path ¹⁸ of the stars, and its ceiling also was flaming fire. And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and there was the vision of ¹⁹ cherubim. And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so that I could not look ²⁰ thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and ²¹ was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason ²² of the magnificence and glory and no flesh could behold Him. The flaming fire was round about Him, and a great fire stood before Him, and none around could draw nigh Him: ten thousand times ²³ ten thousand (stood) before Him, yet He needed no counselor. And the most holy ones who were ²⁴ nigh to Him did not leave by night nor depart from Him. And until then I had been prostrate on my face, trembling: and the Lord called me with His own mouth, and said to me: ' Come hither, ²⁵ Enoch, and hear my word.' And one of the holy ones came to me and waked me, and He made me rise up and approach the door: and I bowed my face downwards.  (http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM)

 

Look how many times "fire" is used as a description of the glory of heaven in that passage!  The idea of God's glory is such that the wicked fear to enter into it lest they be consumed by it.  The righteous will be able to endure that level of glory because they will be "like him" (1 John 3:2).  The spiritual dross is consumed by the fire while the spiritual "gold" endures the flames of glory. The wicked are limited by their ability to endure God's glory.  The righteous do not have those limitations.

Edited September 4, 2014 by spamlds

[Seminarysnoozer]

Look how many times "fire" is used as a description of the glory of heaven in that passage!  The idea of God's glory is such that the wicked fear to enter into it lest they be consumed by it.  The righteous will be able to endure that level of glory because they will be "like him" (1 John 3:2).  The spiritual dross is consumed by the fire while the spiritual "gold" endures the flames of glory. The wicked are limited by their ability to endure God's glory.  The righteous do not have those limitations.

Thats why I cant understand why Traveler spoke of "eternal conflict".  If the wicked can't enter, there is no conflict.

[Traveler]

Thats why I cant understand why Traveler spoke of "eternal conflict".  If the wicked can't enter, there is no conflict.

 

Do you believe there has ever been conflict between good and evil?  Please think about this carefully and the rhetorical logic necessary for such conflict to have ever existed before you answer.   Then consider Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

 

One other point - you seem to have difficulty differentiating between evil and those that choose evil rather than good.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Do you believe there has ever been conflict between good and evil?  Please think about this carefully and the rhetorical logic necessary for such conflict to have ever existed before you answer.   Then consider Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

 

One other point - you seem to have difficulty differentiating between evil and those that choose evil rather than good.

You stated earlier "The conflict of justice is temporary and thus resolved in the eternal situations – otherwise there is no justice.  But evil will always exist and will always be a possibility and will forever remain in opposition to good.  Do you believe that evil will no longer exist – will become impossible or will somehow no longer oppose good?"

 

I am not talking about evil existing or not existing.  I already agreed to the fact that there is an eternal round in which the same things happen over and over again and as Brigham Young stated once, there is never a time in which a new world is going in which the same things we are going through the other worlds are also going through, it is one eternal round.  So, lets put that asside.  I am not arguing the point that evil doesn't exist, yes it will always.  The point I am at odds with your statement is the thought that evil "will always be a possibility."  My question is, for whom will it always be a possibility?  And just because it is in opposition does not mean there is a conflict, those are two different words with different meanings.

 

If evil cannot affect the Celestial Realm then there is no conflict with evil there.  Tell me how evil is a possibility in the Celestial Realm.  This is why I asked you early on, are you talking about the conflict in a general sense or for an individual and then you proceeded to talk about symbolism and not answer the question.  I am saying for a given individual who enters unto Christ' rest, enters spirit Paradise and then into the Celestial Kingdom, there is no more conflict; "we are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er, Happy are we!"   That is pure happiness eternal = no conflict.

 

Did we have evil before we gained knowledge of good and evil?  If you say yes, then I have no idea what you are talking about, if you say no, well then there you go - a time with no conflict existed for that person.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

You stated earlier "The conflict of justice is temporary and thus resolved in the eternal situations – otherwise there is no justice.  But evil will always exist and will always be a possibility and will forever remain in opposition to good.  Do you believe that evil will no longer exist – will become impossible or will somehow no longer oppose good?"

 

I am not talking about evil existing or not existing.  I already agreed to the fact that there is an eternal round in which the same things happen over and over again and as Brigham Young stated once, there is never a time in which a new world is going in which the same things we are going through the other worlds are also going through, it is one eternal round.  So, lets put that asside.  I am not arguing the point that evil doesn't exist, yes it will always.  The point I am at odds with your statement is the thought that evil "will always be a possibility."  My question is, for whom will it always be a possibility?  And just because it is in opposition does not mean there is a conflict, those are two different words with different meanings.

 

If evil cannot affect the Celestial Realm then there is no conflict with evil there.  Tell me how evil is a possibility in the Celestial Realm.  This is why I asked you early on, are you talking about the conflict in a general sense or for an individual and then you proceeded to talk about symbolism and not answer the question.  I am saying for a given individual who enters unto Christ' rest, enters spirit Paradise and then into the Celestial Kingdom, there is no more conflict; "we are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er, Happy are we!"   That is pure happiness eternal = no conflict.

 

Did we have evil before we gained knowledge of good and evil?  If you say yes, then I have no idea what you are talking about, if you say no, well then there you go - a time with no conflict existed for that person.

 

What in your mind is agency?  Will Celestial individuals have agency?  I submit that without the possibility of evil there is no agency.  To be honest it appears to me that your understanding of Celestial glory is quite similar to Satan's - a place where evil (a choice of agency) is not possible.  Again it seems to me that Satan's plan was to end the choice of evil - and that G-d's plan was to teach his children how to eternally deal, through agency, with the conflict between good and evil.

[garryw]

Considering how quickly early church leaders amassed wives, they may have thought the one with the most wives wins.  

 

 

 

 I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What in your mind is agency?  Will Celestial individuals have agency?  I submit that without the possibility of evil there is no agency.  To be honest it appears to me that your understanding of Celestial glory is quite similar to Satan's - a place where evil (a choice of agency) is not possible.  Again it seems to me that Satan's plan was to end the choice of evil - and that G-d's plan was to teach his children how to eternally deal, through agency, with the conflict between good and evil.

No, Lucifers plan was to get to that point without going through the second estate test.  Why risk it? was his argument, why not receive our inheritence without any price to pay or any understanding of its value.  He wasn't even paying attention to the need to be agents unto ourselves.   Lucifer's plan was a lie, it couldn't happen that way.  It was attractive because it was the end without having to be tested or pay any price for it.  He wanted his cut right then and there without having to work any harder, he rebelled.  Because he rebelled, he was cut off and then he became Satan.  When he made the argument in the War in Heaven, he thought he was still "in" the program to reach the same goals as everyone else, to be like God.  Lucifers plan resulted in captivity, God's plan resulted in liberty.  Now he wants everyone else to be captive like he is, miserable, by taking away the agency that was given to us in this life.  Liberty and agency are two different things. In the Celestial Kingdom, those people will be free from the captivity of evil, there will be no more conflict for them, thus being free.  A kite without a string can't fly, once the decision is made to use a string or not, the kite either flies or it stays on the ground.

 

Agency is as it is described on LDS.org; "

What Is Agency?

Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without agency, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, we are “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” ( 2 Nephi 2:27)."

 

The choice is the opposing choices; liberty and eternal life vs. captivity and death.  Through the agency we have in mortality we will make that ultimate choice.  Once that choice is made and finalized we don't make that choice again.  Once a person receives eternal life and has already made the choice the agency has given them, you are saying they are going to faced with that decision over and over again?  I dont think so.

 

Let me ask you this, once Celestial glory is assigned, could it be that God judged in error, that a person there would later decide not to have eternal life?  That would make God an unjust God.  So, it would not be a possibility for anyone in the Celestial Kingdom to choose anything but that which they have already chosen and received.  They would be on that path permanently.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Seminarysnoozer