Are There Kingdoms Above the Celestial?

[Average Joe]

I am thinking that as we progress in eternity we will always be reaching new heights and that perhaps we could think that new heights can equate to higher kingdoms - but I do not think it will be in terms of personal achievement or covenants or individual anything but in acting as one (especially our wives and husbands) with others.

 

Joseph Smith stated:

 

"whatever principle of intelligence we attain in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection, And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (Doctrine and Covenants 130:18-19).

 

Joseph also stated: 

 

“It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave." Chapter 47: Exaltation", Gospel Principles, pp. 275–80.

 

To which I'll add Brother Brigham to the mix [although many discount his pronouncements as heretical]:

 

"Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:286

 

These 3 statement seem to suggest there's something to eternal progression in the eternities - progression beyond using the earth and our white stones as a Urim and Thummim.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Average Joe

[f1lbr]

I think we need to separate the usage of Gods (or gods) and the reality of being exalted and/or in the Celestial Kingdom. We can take Adam/Michael as a simple and easy example. We know he helped create the earth and is therefore one of the "gods" spoken of. But he was not exalted or in the Celestial Kingdom, but had need to come to earth, get a body, and work out his exaltation, the same as all. Christ is another example -- and even a stronger one -- he was, without question, the God of the Old Testament, the God who created the world, etc., and yet he also had to come to earth to gain a body, etc., in order to achieve a fully exalted state.

 

I think it must therefore likely be understood that qualifying, at least in scriptural uses in some cases, as a "god", is not equivalent to having attained Celestial glory.

 

"or in the Celestial Kingdom" Doesn't the temple instruct otherwise?  Or when Jehovah and Michael returned to report that wasn't in the Celestial Kingdom?  And if they had the ability to return and report in the Celestial kingdom wouldn't that also mandate that they had already received in some measure Celestial glory?

 

Not that I'm particularly disagreeing with you.  I think that there is an important distinction to "God" and "god".  But back to the subject of exaltation and hierarchy and gods...

 

 

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said. (TPJS Section 6, p347, emphasis added)

 

According to Joseph Smith, God an exalted being will take a higher exaltation as Christ takes His place becoming exalted himself.  What does this mean? I don't entirely know.  A literal interpretation would suggest that there are grades or levels of exaltation.  A less literal interpretation might mean that the "higher" exaltation is having a greater domain or dominion or some other such thing.

 

Also, although BY and some other early brethren certainly favored the "eternally progressing" godhood, it should also be pointed out that later authorities took a more conservative view that God does not "progress eternally" in knowledge, only in dominion.

 

Irregardless if we set aside a purely monotheistic, or perhaps more accurately a mono-polytheism where we believe in multiple literal gods, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but only believe in one Godhead, and instead entertain the notion of multiple or an infinite chain or hierarchy of Gods then it would seem apparent that, per the OP's quote, there are indeed at least dominions greater to that which we will initially achieve once exalted.  As whose would undoubtedly all be "Celestial", it may be that the term "kingdom" may not be referring to a higher kingdom of glory but rather a higher kingdom of dominion.

[The Folk Prophet]

"or in the Celestial Kingdom" Doesn't the temple instruct otherwise?  Or when Jehovah and Michael returned to report that wasn't in the Celestial Kingdom?  And if they had the ability to return and report in the Celestial kingdom wouldn't that also mandate that they had already received in some measure Celestial glory?

 

No. A) The temple film is instruction and symbolic and doesn't represent a literal reality. B) We were all with Heavenly Father in the pre-existence. Does that mean we were all in the Celestial Kingdom? Then what was the point of coming to earth? We have no idea how or if returning and reporting was actually part of the creation of the earth. It is instructive as to our accountability and the hierarchy of things, but it's a stretch to take it as literal. There is so much symbolism in the temple. I recommend consideration of it that way for increased understanding. I could wax on about it, of course, but we keep those things, relatively speaking, unspoken as best we can outside the temple due to their sacred nature.

 

As I said - the Celestial Kingdom is a state in which God dwells wherever He is or whoever He is with or whoever is with Him.

 

Not that I'm particularly disagreeing with you.  I think that there is an important distinction to "God" and "god".

 

As a side note: I do not. God is a god. And when and if we become gods we will be God to someone. The only difference is that one is a title and one is a description.

 

According to Joseph Smith, God an exalted being will take a higher exaltation as Christ takes His place becoming exalted himself.  What does this mean? I don't entirely know.  A literal interpretation would suggest that there are grades or levels of exaltation.  A less literal interpretation might mean that the "higher" exaltation is having a greater domain or dominion or some other such thing.

 

The second. God has all power and all knowledge. He can't get more power and more knowledge. So an increase of His kingdom is, A) the only thing that makes logical sense and B) what is described in D&C 32 - "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever" - and in other scriptures - "worlds without end". The other description of exaltation is simply "a fulness". I fail to see how we can receive a fulness, but then get more fulness later.

 

Also, although BY and some other early brethren certainly favored the "eternally progressing" godhood, it should also be pointed out that later authorities took a more conservative view that God does not "progress eternally" in knowledge, only in dominion.

 

Isn't continuing revelation great?

 

Irregardless if we set aside a purely monotheistic, or perhaps more accurately a mono-polytheism where we believe in multiple literal gods, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but only believe in one Godhead, and instead entertain the notion of multiple or an infinite chain or hierarchy of Gods then it would seem apparent that, per the OP's quote, there are indeed at least dominions greater to that which we will initially achieve once exalted.  As whose would undoubtedly all be "Celestial", it may be that the term "kingdom" may not be referring to a higher kingdom of glory but rather a higher kingdom of dominion.

 

Yeah...except there seems to be an implication in the OP of like...I dunno...stages...that strikes me as flawed. Like you're at the Gold stage of glory but then when you get to 900 trillion celestialized offspring you reach the Diamond level? I don't think so.

[f1lbr]

No. A) The temple film is instruction and symbolic and doesn't represent a literal reality. B) We were all with Heavenly Father in the pre-existence. Does that mean we were all in the Celestial Kingdom? Then what was the point of coming to earth? We have no idea how or if returning and reporting was actually part of the creation of the earth. It is instructive as to our accountability and the hierarchy of things, but it's a stretch to take it as literal. There is so much symbolism in the temple. I recommend consideration of it that way for increased understanding. I could wax on about it, of course, but we keep those things, relatively speaking, unspoken as best we can outside the temple due to their sacred nature.

 

The primary exception that I have with your comment is that it "doesn't represent a literal reality".  I disagree a bit with that statement.  It does represent a literal reality.  It does not literally represent reality.  Some aspects are certainly figurative.  But that does not necessarily mean all aspects are figurative.  Taken too far with that argument, one might begin to argue that the whole GoE thing was figurative.

 

Certainly there are figurative elements in the temple ceremony.  But I'm cautious not to throw everything into the figurative category.  Since there are no authoritative statements on which elements in the endowment are literal and which are figurative, then my interpretation of Michael being in the "literal" presence of the Father is as valid as any interpretation otherwise.  Since we are taught over and over again by prophets that we were in the presence of the Father in the premortal existence and have never been taught that those statements are figurative instead of literal, it's easier for me to accept the literal interpretation.  How that would obviate the need for a mortal existence, though, is not clear to me.

 

But then, this really isn't germane to the actual conversation...

 

As a side note: I do not. God is a god. And when and if we become gods we will be God to someone. The only difference is that one is a title and one is a description.

 

Allow me to clarify, then.  By God I mean the God or Godhead which are relevant and worshipful to us.  By god, I refer to all others who have obtained likewise exaltation who are not relevant to us. I do not differentiate between exalted beings in terms of glory, power or intelligence.

 

The second. God has all power and all knowledge. He can't get more power and more knowledge. So an increase of His kingdom is, A) the only thing that makes logical sense and B) what is described in D&C 32 - "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever" - and in other scriptures - "worlds without end". The other description of exaltation is simply "a fulness". I fail to see how we can receive a fulness, but then get more fulness later.

 

Clearly.  I point out both interpretations in order to clarify that later prophets and apostles took the latter interpretation.

 

Isn't continuing revelation great?

 

What would we do without it?   :)

 

Yeah...except there seems to be an implication in the OP of like...I dunno...stages...that strikes me as flawed. Like you're at the Gold stage of glory but then when you get to 900 trillion celestialized offspring you reach the Diamond level? I don't think so.

Again, I agree. I agree with McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith on this that God grows in dominion not in intelligence. Since intelligence is glory, then I also agree that God does not grow in glory. Thus I interpret the OP's scripture when referencing the "higher kingdoms" as kingdoms of dominion not kingdoms of glory.

I think overall we're in agreement.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

The primary exception that I have with your comment is that it "doesn't represent a literal reality".  I disagree a bit with that statement.  It does represent a literal reality.  It does not literally represent reality.  Some aspects are certainly figurative.  But that does not necessarily mean all aspects are figurative.  Taken too far with that argument, one might begin to argue that the whole GoE thing was figurative.

 

Certainly there are figurative elements in the temple ceremony.  But I'm cautious not to throw everything into the figurative category.  Since there are no authoritative statements on which elements in the endowment are literal and which are figurative, then my interpretation of Michael being in the "literal" presence of the Father is as valid as any interpretation otherwise.  Since we are taught over and over again by prophets that we were in the presence of the Father in the premortal existence and have never been taught that those statements are figurative instead of literal, it's easier for me to accept the literal interpretation.  How that would obviate the need for a mortal existence, though, is not clear to me.

 

My point is not that the temple ceremony is all figurative (obviously) or all literal (obviously), but rather that the intention or point of the temple ceremony is not to teach us the literal reality of things. Maybe some. Probably not. Most things therein that are literal, I would dare bet, are in the scriptures. The point is that I don't think we are meant to learn from the temple ceremony that Satan has a wavy hair-do. Or that God, Jesus and Michael walk back and forth to speak to each other. They may. Or they may just appear. Or they may not (in the case of Elohim and Jesus) need to speak at all, being all knowing. We don't really know. The point is that the endowment isn't mean to teach us that literal thing -- I think, hopefully, obviously.

 

But I agree that we do seem to generally be in agreement.

[Vort]

I agree with f1lbr's distinction. The endowment presentation most certainly represents literal reality (is there any other kind?), but it does not represent reality in a literal manner. I can't say for certain which parts are not literal, but I suspect that the "tree of life" and the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" are not literal woody trees that produce fruit that you are supposed to pick off the branches and eat. I mean, maybe that's true, but it sounds pretty figurative to me. But I have no doubt that they represent something very real and very important indeed.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Vort

[Traveler]

Hmmmmmmmm here is a thought - if there is a kingdom greater than Celestial - the first step that must be taken to get there would be the consideration that such a thing is possible.  If you cannot even imagine it - you cannot achieve it.  Poor me, I am still trying to imagine what the Celestial Kingdom is.

[Average Joe]

Hmmmmmmmm here is a thought - if there is a kingdom greater than Celestial - the first step that must be taken to get there would be the consideration that such a thing is possible.  If you cannot even imagine it - you cannot achieve it.  Poor me, I am still trying to imagine what the Celestial Kingdom is.

 

Well, we haven't exactly achieved Zion ether.

 

We have been told what it would take to achieve becoming like our Heavenly Father, and yet, exactly how much have we been told about the Celestial Kingdom in scripture? About as much as we know about the city of Enoch. In reality - nothing.