Baptism required for all kingdoms

[zil2]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is a kingdom of glory less than the telestial in which people abide. I speaking of “the resurrection from the dead, or the redemption of the soul,” which is our “spirit and body” (D&C 88:15-16),” we learn in verse 24, “And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.”

Do you need to revise that first sentence?  The cited scripture (and everything I know) makes it clear that less than telestial is a kingdom, but not of glory.  (Or am I misunderstanding something, or....?)

[CV75]

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

Do you need to revise that first sentence?  The cited scripture (and everything I know) makes it clear that less than telestial is a kingdom, but not of glory.  (Or am I misunderstanding something, or....?)

For me, "no glory" is "less glory" than the telestial, yet "not a kingdom of glory" is still a "kingdom." Just different wording / semantics which to me mean the same thing.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

For me, "no glory" is "less glory" than the telestial, yet "not a kingdom of glory" is still a "kingdom." Just different wording / semantics which to me mean the same thing.

IMO, without this explanation, no one is going to interpret it this way.  "He has less milk than I do."  The listener is guaranteed to assume "He" has some volume of milk.

[Carborendum]

51 minutes ago, zil2 said:

IMO, without this explanation, no one is going to interpret it this way.  "He has less milk than I do."  The listener is guaranteed to assume "He" has some volume of milk.

I think the problem is that people tend to want to blunt the severity of hell (either for themselves, or for their loved ones whom they see are wandering off into the mists of darkness).  So, we make ourselves comfortable by saying that "hell isn't so bad."

The very idea that hell really is that bad is the deterrent.  To cushion the blow basically removes the deterrent, and encourages them to continue down the wrong path.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I think the problem is that people tend to want to blunt the severity of hell (either for themselves, or for their loved ones whom they see are wandering off into the mists of darkness).  So, we make ourselves comfortable by saying that "hell isn't so bad."

The very idea that hell really is that bad is the deterrent.  To cushion the blow basically removes the deterrent, and encourages them to continue down the wrong path.

It is interesting....  [Klaw has just placed his paws on my hands. Pretty sure he wants me to quit typing. Now he's draped across my left arm, head on my left hand, both front legs across my right hand.  Pretty sure he's saying, "Take a hint, Meowmy."]  ...anyway, it's interesting that they are all kingdoms.  Hell is a kingdom.  Living in a kingdom isn't exactly the same as living in a republic...  IMO, given who will rule that kingdom (and I'm honestly not sure if it's Satan or Cain), one should really, really not want to end up there...  [Meanwhile, excuse me, I must submit to King Klaw.]

[Vort]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

yet "not a kingdom of glory" is still a "kingdom."

Yes, but it's not a kingdom of glory. No glory, which is to say (I assume), no intelligence. Zero. It is a kingdom, but contrary to your assertion, is not a kingdom of glory. Thus, it is called "outer darkness", for there is no faint glimmer of intelligence illuminating that space. It is a kingdom of death.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, but it's not a kingdom of glory. No glory, which is to say (I assume), no intelligence. Zero. It is a kingdom, but contrary to your assertion, is not a kingdom of glory. Thus, it is called "outer darkness", for there is no faint glimmer of intelligence illuminating that space. It is a kingdom of death.

Correct it is not a kingdom of glory and it has no glory. Which semantically is correctly less than the telestial glory.

As I noted, it is not a kingdom of glory. It has no glory, but the kingdom still exists. Souls still abide there, and they still possess a measure of intelligence in order to understand their condemnation (D&C 76:48).

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Correct it is not a kingdom of glory and it has no glory. Which semantically is correctly less than the telestial glory.

As I noted, it is not a kingdom of glory. It has no glory, but the kingdom still exists. Souls still abide there, and they still possess a measure of intelligence in order to understand their condemnation (D&C 76:48).

Actually...

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

There is a kingdom of glory less than the telestial in which people abide.

In fact, there is not a kingdom of glory less than the telestial.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I think the problem is that people tend to want to blunt the severity of hell (either for themselves, or for their loved ones whom they see are wandering off into the mists of darkness).  So, we make ourselves comfortable by saying that "hell isn't so bad."

The very idea that hell really is that bad is the deterrent.  To cushion the blow basically removes the deterrent, and encourages them to continue down the wrong path.

To be clear, my desire is not to blunt anything, especially the severity of that which has not been revealed except to sons of perdition (D&C 76:43-48). Semantics can be cleared up and interpreted correctly with a few brief and impartial exchanges. Such discussion using different terms reaches more people than a relatively small group that speaks exactly the same language in exactly the same way -- even in Zion where we are of one mind and one heart, but not necessarily one language and culture (in this world at this stage, anyway!).

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

In fact, there is not a kingdom of glory less than the telestial.

My thoughts as well, but I’m certainly no expert. 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Actually...

In fact, there is not a kingdom of glory less than the telestial.

Elder Packer had a great talk about the difference between fact and truth.

From D&C 88:

24 And he who cannot abide the law of a ^atelestial ^bkingdom cannot abide a telestial ^cglory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

So, here we have "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory," which in my mind renders it a lesser kingdom than the telestial. The only differentiation between kingdoms is their glory (or lack thereof, in full or in degrees), and whatever countless attributes and qualities thereof this basic measure yields.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Elder Packer had a great talk about the difference between fact and truth.

From D&C 88:

24 And he who cannot abide the law of a ^atelestial ^bkingdom cannot abide a telestial ^cglory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

So, here we have "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory," which in my mind renders it a lesser kingdom than the telestial. The only differentiation between kingdoms is their glory (or lack thereof, in full or in degrees), and whatever countless attributes and qualities thereof this basic measure yields.

I don't understand your confusion. No one is suggesting that there is not a "kingdom of no glory". The existence of just such a kingdom is our clear doctrine. What people are objecting to is your assertion that "There is a kingdom of glory less than the telestial in which people abide." This is untrue. If you accidentally misspoke, just say so. Not a big deal.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Vort

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, but it's not a kingdom of glory. No glory, which is to say (I assume), no intelligence. Zero. It is a kingdom, but contrary to your assertion, is not a kingdom of glory. Thus, it is called "outer darkness", for there is no faint glimmer of intelligence illuminating that space. It is a kingdom of death.

"Outer darkness" is just another name for this kingdom for the sons of perdition. "Heaven" can be used for the other kingdoms.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I don't understand your confusion. No one is suggesting that there is not a "kingdom" of no glory. That's our clear doctrine. What people are objecting to is your assertion that "There is a kingdom of glory less than the telestial in which people abide." This is untrue. If you accidentally misspoke, just say so. Not a big deal.

I did not accidentally misspeak. The glory of outer darkness is less than the glory of the telestial kingdom. It has to be, for there is no glory there. But souls still abide there, so there has to be something for them to comprehend. 

[Vort]

Just now, CV75 said:

I did not accidentally misspeak. The glory of outer darkness is less than the glory of the telestial kingdom. It has to be, for there is no glory there. But souls still abide there, so there has to be something for them to comprehend. 

The glory of God, we are told, is intelligence. There is no glory, no intelligence, in that kingdom of no glory (note that modifier) which we sometimes call "outer darkness". So it seems to me that your statement is false by definition. The kingdom of darkness is not a kingdom of glory. It is a kingdom utterly bereft of all glory, all light, all knowledge. It is the abode of those who look upon a noonday sun and proclaim it dark.

Not sure why you are intent on calling it a "kingdom of glory". I'm sure you have a deeper point, but I don't see it. Anyway, I've said my piece, stated my objections, and outlined how I understand things. I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion, so for my part, I'll just leave it there.

[Carborendum]

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure why you are intent on calling it a "kingdom of glory". I'm sure you have a deeper point, but I don't see it.

No, there is no "deeper" point.  As far as I can tell, he's saying that there are four kingdoms.  And if we were to measure them, Outer Darkness would have a glory rating of zero.

It's a bit like saying that a merchant that went bankrupt is still a merchant who doesn't sell anything.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, there is no "deeper" point.  As far as I can tell, he's saying that there are four kingdoms.  And if we were to measure them, Outer Darkness would have a glory rating of zero.

It's a bit like saying that a merchant that went bankrupt is still a merchant who doesn't sell anything.

It's the same logic musicians use to call themselves "employed".

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The glory of God, we are told, is intelligence. There is no glory, no intelligence, in that kingdom of no glory (note that modifier) which we sometimes call "outer darkness". So it seems to me that your statement is false by definition. The kingdom of darkness is not a kingdom of glory. It is a kingdom utterly bereft of all glory, all light, all knowledge. It is the abode of those who look upon a noonday sun and proclaim it dark.

Not sure why you are intent on calling it a "kingdom of glory". I'm sure you have a deeper point, but I don't see it. Anyway, I've said my piece, stated my objections, and outlined how I understand things. I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion, so for my part, I'll just leave it there.

You used the word "assume" earlier in relation to intelligence ("The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" -- D&C 93:36), and with this assumption use a strict and exclusive definitional alignment between "intelligence" and "glory." These semantics are necessary for your working model.

And yet, "no glory" is still less than a "little bit of glory," and sons of perdition exist to comprehend it, so both they, "no glory" and "outer darkness" all exist.

From D&C 93:30, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence [light and truth per verse 36] also; otherwise there is no existence." If there is no glory (or by your definition, intelligence, or light and truth) in the existing kingdom of outer darkness where the sons of perdition exist, then "intelligence" of some other kind than that associated with God's glory, light and truth must also exist, meaning there is more than one context and use of the term "intelligence" than just God's glory, light and truth. It seems to me, contrary to your assumption, there is more than one kind of intelligence, specifically for this discussion, one that is not God's, and exists outside His kingdoms of light (hence the name, "outer darkness."). It is a matter of semantics, context and perspective.

My original post equated "a kingdom of glory less than the telestial" with "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.” Outer darkness is less than the telestial in two senses: (1) its glory (the intelligence which exists there which is not the glory of God) makes it less, and (2) "no glory" is still less than a "little bit of glory."

I initially and now continue to call it a "kingdom of glory" for discussion purposes, without which the questions and challenges would not have come up and the points I'm making presented.

Edited August 18, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, there is no "deeper" point.  As far as I can tell, he's saying that there are four kingdoms.  And if we were to measure them, Outer Darkness would have a glory rating of zero.

It's a bit like saying that a merchant that went bankrupt is still a merchant who doesn't sell anything.

That is a good point: a merchant that doesn't sell anything is still a merchant, just as "wells without water" in 2 Peter 2:17 are still wells and "clouds they are without water" in Jude 1:12 are still clouds. These are a certain kind of gospel teacher.

And more precisely, I am calling outer darkness a kingdom.

Edited August 18, 2023 by CV75

[laronius]

Perhaps a brief tangent, from the current tangent: My understanding was that sons of perdition are to be resurrected but this kind of appears to leave the other possibility open.

D&C 76:37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; 38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. 39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, laronius said:

Perhaps a brief tangent, from the current tangent: My understanding was that sons of perdition are to be resurrected but this kind of appears to leave the other possibility open.

D&C 76:37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; 38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath. 39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

My take on the "second death" part of this verse is that it is spiritual separation from God after the first death or separation is redeemed in and by the resurrection and we are brought back into His presence to be judged (or ruled) in a kingdom. -- see Death, Spiritual (churchofjesuschrist.org). The second death for sons of perdition is outer darkness, complete and utter personal separation from God after the resurrection. Every other kingdom has some degree of God's ministration or glory, however small that may be (See D&C 76: 85-88).

The light of Christ has some functions that are non-relational or transactional, and objective or impersonal (as in the existence and operation of things that do not act but are acted upon) throughout all existence.

Not a tangent at all, in my opinion !

Edited August 19, 2023 by CV75

[zil2]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

Another interpretation of this verse could be that they are resurrected, but not through the glory of the Lamb, but by some other method - perhaps required as they have rejected glory.  What that other method could be, I have no idea.

(Though, admittedly, one has to wonder, if outer darkness is complete separation from God, and God is the source of light, life, truth, and intelligence, will it be possible for anyone to remain alive for long in said outer darkness, or will they wither away like a plant deprived of water?  And yes, I know the scriptural definition of resurrection, but I still wonder.)

[askandanswer]

This discussion raises questions for me about the need for, or purpose of resurrection. Surely given how wicked and resistant to truth those in outer darkness will be, there is reson to suppose that we would all be better off if they were left unresurrected. Why allow the continuation of evil when it could be discontinued? But we are taught that all will be resurrected, even those who will end up in outer darkness. If there is a choice between to resurrect or not to resurrect, God has made a choice that these totally evil beings will be resurrected. From the fairly limited vantage point we have at present, its hard to see how their resurrection is something that will benefit the rest of us. If there is no such choice, and these evil beings are resurrected bcause God has no choice, ie, it's something He "has to do" do (maybe in order to remain consistent with some sort of universal law to which even God is subject, such as the law of justice) then that would be an intereting little insight into how this version of the Plan of Salvation has been shaped by laws to which God is subject. rather than being shaped entirely by His own ideas and preferences.  

[laronius]

10 hours ago, zil2 said:

Another interpretation of this verse could be that they are resurrected, but not through the glory of the Lamb, but by some other method - perhaps required as they have rejected glory.  What that other method could be, I have no idea.

(Though, admittedly, one has to wonder, if outer darkness is complete separation from God, and God is the source of light, life, truth, and intelligence, will it be possible for anyone to remain alive for long in said outer darkness, or will they wither away like a plant deprived of water?  And yes, I know the scriptural definition of resurrection, but I still wonder.)

That is one theory that I heard once upon a time, that separated from God's life sustaining light those in outer darkness essentially de-evolve back into their original state as intelligences. Of course, we don't know because God has specifically withheld the "end" of these individual's state.

But if this is correct, what of those that have been resurrected? Maybe this is why God said it was better if they had never been born. Perhaps they are stuck there.

[zil2]

8 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This discussion raises questions for me about the need for, or purpose of resurrection. Surely given how wicked and resistant to truth those in outer darkness will be, there is reson to suppose that we would all be better off if they were left unresurrected. Why allow the continuation of evil when it could be discontinued? But we are taught that all will be resurrected, even those who will end up in outer darkness. If there is a choice between to resurrect or not to resurrect, God has made a choice that these totally evil beings will be resurrected. From the fairly limited vantage point we have at present, its hard to see how their resurrection is something that will benefit the rest of us. If there is no such choice, and these evil beings are resurrected bcause God has no choice, ie, it's something He "has to do" do (maybe in order to remain consistent with some sort of universal law to which even God is subject, such as the law of justice) then that would be an intereting little insight into how this version of the Plan of Salvation has been shaped by laws to which God is subject. rather than being shaped entirely by His own ideas and preferences.  

It appears that resurrection is a free gift given to all who kept their first estate (didn't rebel and go with Satan in the pre-mortal war).  I expect that is why even those who choose to reject all else God offers will be resurrected.

My dad theorized that resurrection is an ordinance and thus one could theoretically refuse it, but that (as described in D&C 138:50) no one will because having a body is so much better than not having one (and perhaps refusing is akin to sin and leaves one subject to the pains of the unrepentant damned in spirit prison).  He also thought that immortality is something one learns how to be (as opposed to a magical consequence of resurrection - one will have to choose to live by the laws which enable immortality rather than just being able to, I dunno, cut one's head off and then magically reattach it, laughing the whole time).  But then, Dad was just Dad, and everyone should take that as nothing more than one person's speculations.