angels and gods

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My line of questioning was not to immediately determine whose definition is correct.  My line of questioning was to understand what your definitions were to begin with.  And you haven't differentiated between the two.

It seems incomprehensible to me that you would choose to have a disagreement without knowing what you're disagreeing with.

Thanks Carb. It seems incomprehensible that you are unable to see what I have differentiated

Remember you are the one that said I was describing a Terrestrial state without providing anything to confirm why you suggested such.

The irony comes, "It seems incomprehensible to me that you would choose to have a disagreement without knowing what you're disagreeing with."

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My line of questioning was not to immediately determine whose definition is correct.  My line of questioning was to understand what your definitions were to begin with.  And you haven't differentiated between the two.

It seems incomprehensible to me that you would choose to have a disagreement without knowing what you're disagreeing with.

I don't think either of you know what your arguing about. 

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Exaltation is all about eternal increase and eternal progression. I feel like our desire to progress combined with works will be what gets us there (and of course through Christ). "Valiance" is not a measurable thing on others, rather, we should focus wholly on how valiant are we and what can we do to become MORE valiant no matter how good we think we currently are. We stop progressing as soon as we say we are good enough... and if I may say, at that point we damn ourselves and prevent us from receiving exaltation.

In line with this thought; although separate from the OP (sorry @Edspringer), a common statement being said lately from visiting GAs and stake president is the question, "Is the father worthy enough to bless his baby, stand in the circle of baby being blessed, baptize his son/daughter, to participate in priesthood ordinances." He might not be worthy of a temple recommend but is he worthy to perform priesthood ordinances (at least ordinances that do not require one to be a worthy temple recommend holder).

The notion is progression. As I began my statement last time, "I would not be surprised..." if a similar question is presented with the Father. Is my son/daughter "valiant" enough for the celestial kingdom (not a Terrestrial being) but not for exaltation. This appears to be so, and then again, I don't know, but thoughts that I entertain to try to understand God's mercy and justice. As you stated, this then turns right back to me, what am I doing to be valiant in my testimony of Christ? What am I doing to put away the natural man? What am I doing to put away all ungodliness. If I do one thing each day to separate myself from the natural man, put away all ungodliness, then the ultimate result is that I will become "valiant in my testimony of Christ."

Edited June 1, 2017 by Anddenex

[askandanswer]

Maybe the angels and gods are something like an honour god, standing along the path that leads to the pearly gates to honour and welcome those who have qualified for the highest degree of glory?

[Fether]

Maybe Baal will be there?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Fether said:

I don't think either of you know what your arguing about.

I think that you don't think that we don't think we don't know what we're arguing about or not thinking about what we think we're arguing about.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Thanks Carb. It seems incomprehensible that you are unable to see what I have differentiated

Remember you are the one that said I was describing a Terrestrial state without providing anything to confirm why you suggested such.

The irony comes, "It seems incomprehensible to me that you would choose to have a disagreement without knowing what you're disagreeing with."

I see this sequence of events.

1. You made a statement basically stating that "these non-valiant behaviors are what qualify someone for the lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom."
2. I pointed out an error in your reasoning, citing scripture.
3. You said that you were talking about something else.
4. I asked what you were talking about.  This was honest curiosity because I thought I was possibly missing something.
5. You stated what you were talking about again with no differentiation.
6. Believing you were trying to differentiate them, I asked you to point out the differences.  This was not an argument.  It was a question.  I was trying to simply understand what you were saying.
7. You said that we can't define any of this.
8. How is it you gave a definition (via examples) and then state that you can't define any of this?

Edited June 1, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

How are we out of luck? 

How do we exercise our agency to choose exaltation if we do not know what it is we need to do?

It's not that complicated. We are commanded to obey the commandments, repent, take upon ourselves the ordinances of the gospel, and endure to the end in order to gain exaltation. We are also told that those who are valiant in the testimony of Jesus will gain exaltation. The correlation seems pretty straightforward to me.

12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Please do your best to define what the Lord means by "valiant in the testimony of Christ"? I would love to hear it, as your personal interpretation is just as good as anyone else.

Actually, there are those whose personal interpretation holds significant more weight than "anyone else's". For example:

 

"To be valiant, we need to focus on the power of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice to overcome death and, through our repentance, to cleanse us from sin, and we need to follow the doctrine of Christ." - Quentin L. Cook

 

"TO BE VALIANT IN A TESTIMONY of Jesus means that we accept the divine mission of Jesus Christ, embrace His gospel, and do His works. It also means we accept the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith and his successors and follow their counsel.

[...]

"They are courageous in defending truth and righteousness. These are members of the Church who magnify their callings in the Church (see D&C 84:33), pay their tithes and offerings, live morally clean lives, sustain their Church leaders by word and action, keep the Sabbath as a holy day, and obey all the commandments of God." - Ezra Taft Benson

 

"The great cornerstone of valiance in the cause of righteousness is obedience to the whole law of the whole gospel.

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him”; it is to deny ourselves “of all ungodliness,” and “love God” with all our “might, mind and strength.” (Moro. 10:32.)

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to believe in Christ and his gospel with unshakable conviction. It is to know of the verity and divinity of the Lord’s work on earth.

"But this is not all. It is more than believing and knowing. We must be doers of the word and not hearers only. It is more than lip service; it is not simply confessing with the mouth the divine Sonship of the Savior. It is obedience and conformity and personal righteousness. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21.)

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to “press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.” It is to “endure to the end.” (2 Ne. 31:20.) It is to live our religion, to practice what we preach, to keep the commandments. It is the manifestation of “pure religion” in the lives of men; it is visiting “the fatherless and widows in their affliction” and keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27.)

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to bridle our passions, control our appetites, and rise above carnal and evil things. It is to overcome the world as did he who is our prototype and who himself was the most valiant of all our Father’s children. It is to be morally clean, to pay our tithes and offerings, to honor the Sabbath day, to pray with full purpose of heart, to lay our all upon the altar if called upon to do so.

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father." - Bruce R. McKonkie

 

Etc., etc., etc.

 

A claim that "valiant" (or, rather, how we may be valiant) has not been clearly defined by the church and its doctrine strikes me as spurious. 

 

Oh...and also: "Members of the Church who have testimonies and who live clean and upright lives, but who are not courageous and valiant, do not gain the celestial kingdom. Theirs is a terrestrial inheritance." - Bruce R. McKonkie

[Anddenex]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do we exercise our agency to choose exaltation if we do not know what it is we need to do?

It's not that complicated. We are commanded to obey the commandments, repent, take upon ourselves the ordinances of the gospel, and endure to the end in order to gain exaltation. We are also told that those who are valiant in the testimony of Jesus will gain exaltation. The correlation seems pretty straightforward to me.

Actually, there are those whose personal interpretation holds significant more weight than "anyone else's". For example:

 

"To be valiant, we need to focus on the power of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice to overcome death and, through our repentance, to cleanse us from sin, and we need to follow the doctrine of Christ." - Quentin L. Cook

 

"TO BE VALIANT IN A TESTIMONY of Jesus means that we accept the divine mission of Jesus Christ, embrace His gospel, and do His works. It also means we accept the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith and his successors and follow their counsel.

[...]

"They are courageous in defending truth and righteousness. These are members of the Church who magnify their callings in the Church (see D&C 84:33), pay their tithes and offerings, live morally clean lives, sustain their Church leaders by word and action, keep the Sabbath as a holy day, and obey all the commandments of God." - Ezra Taft Benson

 

"The great cornerstone of valiance in the cause of righteousness is obedience to the whole law of the whole gospel.

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him”; it is to deny ourselves “of all ungodliness,” and “love God” with all our “might, mind and strength.” (Moro. 10:32.)

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to believe in Christ and his gospel with unshakable conviction. It is to know of the verity and divinity of the Lord’s work on earth.

"But this is not all. It is more than believing and knowing. We must be doers of the word and not hearers only. It is more than lip service; it is not simply confessing with the mouth the divine Sonship of the Savior. It is obedience and conformity and personal righteousness. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21.)

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to “press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.” It is to “endure to the end.” (2 Ne. 31:20.) It is to live our religion, to practice what we preach, to keep the commandments. It is the manifestation of “pure religion” in the lives of men; it is visiting “the fatherless and widows in their affliction” and keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27.)

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to bridle our passions, control our appetites, and rise above carnal and evil things. It is to overcome the world as did he who is our prototype and who himself was the most valiant of all our Father’s children. It is to be morally clean, to pay our tithes and offerings, to honor the Sabbath day, to pray with full purpose of heart, to lay our all upon the altar if called upon to do so.

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father." - Bruce R. McKonkie

 

Etc., etc., etc.

 

A claim that "valiant" (or, rather, how we may be valiant) has not been clearly defined by the church and its doctrine strikes me as spurious. 

 

Oh...and also: "Members of the Church who have testimonies and who live clean and upright lives, but who are not courageous and valiant, do not gain the celestial kingdom. Theirs is a terrestrial inheritance." - Bruce R. McKonkie

No one said the notion of exaltation was complicated

The OPs question wasn't pertaining to "exaltation" it was pertaining to the lower kingdoms, and what determined the standing of those. As I said your definition of valiance (for these individuals because they are still valiant to a degree because they are still with the Father -- in his presence) is just a good as anyone else pertaining to these brothers and sisters, and it is still unanswered.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

No one said the notion of exaltation was complicated

The OPs question wasn't pertaining to "exaltation" it was pertaining to the lower kingdoms, and what determined the standing of those. As I said your definition of valiance (for these individuals because they are still valiant to a degree because they are still with the Father -- in his presence) is just a good as anyone else pertaining to these brothers and sisters, and it is still unanswered.

You asked a question, I answered it.

[Anddenex]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I see this sequence of events.

1. You made a statement basically stating that "these non-valiant behaviors are what qualify someone for the lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom."
2. I pointed out an error in your reasoning, citing scripture.
3. You said that you were talking about something else.
4. I asked what you were talking about.  This was honest curiosity because I thought I was possibly missing something.
5. You stated what you were talking about again with no differentiation.
6. Believing you were trying to differentiate them, I asked you to point out the differences.  This was not an argument.  It was a question.  I was trying to simply understand what you were saying.
7. You said that we can't define any of this.
8. How is it you gave a definition (via examples) and then state that you can't define any of this?

Go back and reread, I provided three different options Carb (one of exalted, one of lower kingdom, and one of Terrestial, all which are different -- and citing scripture), until you do, no further discussing is needed. #2 -- you pointed out an error from your own reasoning, citing scripture -- big difference.

As to number 8, easy, I gave an idea (not a definition), a thought by which I "would not be surprised" if this were the case. I understood I was speculating from the start, and openly shared this multiple times.

[Anddenex]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You asked a question, I answered it.

If you say so, then it must be so.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If you say so, then it must be so.

Huh?

You're confusing me. Are you just being antagonistic or are you saying you didn't ask a question or that I didn't answer it? Or...something else? What am I missing here?

Edited June 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Anddenex,

I want to re-iterate that I'm not trying to be argumentative here.  I'm just trying to get to the bottom of a riddle.  I do apologize for being a little frustrated -- spawning the "incomprehensible" remark.  But, well, I was frustrated.

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Go back and reread, I provided three different options Carb (one of exalted, one of lower kingdom, and one of Terrestial, all which are different -- and citing scripture), until you do, no further discussing is needed.

OK.

22 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Oath & Covenant for one reason. Those who receive servants, receive Son, and receive the Father. These are members of the Church who have taken upon themselves the covenants to receive the Father, but have been less diligent in their covenants. They still receive the servants, they still pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They partake of his life and death (on occassion). They live lives that are not Telestial. I can't see any reason why they would be Terrestial beings. I can see how they would not be exalted.

As a note: I am not presenting any thing that I have felt witnessed as true via the Spirit. These are thoughts I have according to the mercies of God, which in my opinion, do not rob justice. I could be totally wrong. I could be correct.

EDIT: An example of "not valiant" in my opinion are those members who have received all covenants, but have left the gospel, but remain honorable Christians with a different church, these are Terrestial beings.

I noticed this "EDIT".  Check the time stamps.  I missed this edit because it probably came a second after I typed my response.  Note that my response doesn't include the edit.

This is actually what I was asking about.  You've answered it.  Thank you.

I'd point out the parable of the 10 virgins refers to the non-valiant souls as being about half of the active LDS population.  I know I could find a reference for that.  I'm just kinda out of time.

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

#2 -- you pointed out an error from your own reasoning, citing scripture

I'm not following.

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

As to number 8, easy, I gave an idea (not a definition), a thought by which I "would not be surprised" if this were the case. I understood I was speculating from the start, and openly shared this multiple times.

I have no problem with speculating.  I do it all the time as well.  But when doing do on a public forum, I want others to try to poke holes in my theories.  I try to defend that position to see if it actually holds water.  If I find I can defend it quite well, then it is probably a reasonable idea.  If I cannot, then it is probably a bad idea, and that's the end of it.

You don't seem to want to defend it at all.  OK.  That's your prerogative.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 5/30/2017 at 5:53 PM, Edspringer said:

Hi, everyone. It’s been a while!

Pondering D&C 131, I was reading the part that refers to three distinct levels or degrees within the Celestial Kingdom and was speculating about the two lowest degrees therein and their inhabitants.

Then I proceeded to the next section. Reading D&C 132:19, I stopped in the following part: “[…] and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever”.

So I’d like to get some insights from you whether this ‘angels and gods’ could possibly be the inhabitants of the first two degrees of the CK or not. I’d appreciate any comments on the subject.

I'm not sure how one can view something akin to:

"To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father." - Bruce R. McKonkie

...and then claim that one can be partially valiant...just enough to gain the Celestial Kingdom but not exaltation.

We don't know anything about the theoretical two lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom but I don't buy for a second they are for those who have attained the highest kingdom...but not quite. That just makes no sense. Either one is obedient or one is not. If one is then exaltation is there's. If one is not then they don't qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, and a myriad of doctrinal teachings and ideas support that.

If one can have apathy concerning the commandments of God and still attain the Celestial Kingdom then the entire gospel, as I know it, falls apart into meaninglessness.

And, practically speaking, they have no meaning either. God's will for us is for our exaltation. Period. Anything else is damnation.

Edited June 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Huh?

You're confusing me. Are you just being antagonistic or are you saying you didn't ask a question or that I didn't answer it? Or...something else. What am I missing here?

Interesting, our feelings are mutual. Let me restate myself, "The OPs question wasn't pertaining to "exaltation" it was pertaining to the lower kingdoms, and what determined the standing of those. As I said your definition of valiance (for these individuals because they are still valiant to a degree because they are still with the Father -- in his presence) is just a good as anyone else pertaining to these brothers and sisters, and it is still unanswered."

Did you answer the question? No, it is still unanswered.

By which you responded with, "You asked a question, I answered it." Who is being an antagonist?

[Anddenex]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Anddenex,

You don't seem to want to defend it at all.  OK.  That's your prerogative.

This, I believe, is the disconnect (frustration on my end) as I felt I was defending it (with comparisons), but was continually being told I wasn't providing anything. This is what I find interesting about the celestial kingdom. All people living lives in this kingdom enjoy the presence of the Father, correct? Then some "valiance" must be adhered to in order to endure the Father's presence, meaning they are still covered through the blood of the lamb, they are made perfect in Christ to endure God's presence but do not receive of his fullness.

-------------------------------------------------

We know at least one definition for a lower kingdom, D&C 131: 1-4. This is the only clarification we have regarding a lower kingdom and we don't even know which one. I remember growing up being told, the lowest is for angels, and the second is for arch-angels. I went believing this, because this was taught in Sunday school at Church. I now understand, there doesn't appear to be any support that I can find.

The Folk Prophet's last quote from Bruce R. McConkie is intriguing. At face value, it is cut and dry. The quote states that all members of the Church will either be Terrestrial or Celestial (exalted), no lower kingdom, "Members of the Church who have testimonies and who live clean and upright lives, but who are not courageous and valiant, do not gain the celestial kingdom. Theirs is a terrestrial inheritance." If a member, not valiant, there is no lower kingdom for you, you are Terrestrial beings if not courageous and valiant. In light of D&C 131: 1-4, is there conflict?

--------------------------------------------------

Ten Virgins, are you referring to the 50% as Terrestrial or lower Kingdom? I am understanding Terrestrial because that is my current understanding.

--------------------------------------------------

I guess for me, I am having a hard time seeing how a member, who is less courageous and valiant, but all together live good lives, are not blinded by the craftiness of men, but are simply just lazy would be Terrestrial beings? As an earthly father, my sons who are still good, but less courageous and valiant as my older son -- I wouldn't cast them out. Would a perfect being cast them out? Thus, my initial thought, "I would not be surprised...." But don't know.

Does that clarify the examples given and thoughts?

EDIT: Again, I could be totally wrong, and I am OK with this, because God's will and judgement -- well -- I am not going to argue with.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

48 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Interesting, our feelings are mutual. Let me restate myself, "The OPs question wasn't pertaining to "exaltation" it was pertaining to the lower kingdoms, and what determined the standing of those. As I said your definition of valiance (for these individuals because they are still valiant to a degree because they are still with the Father -- in his presence) is just a good as anyone else pertaining to these brothers and sisters, and it is still unanswered."

Did you answer the question? No, it is still unanswered.

By which you responded with, "You asked a question, I answered it." Who is being an antagonist?

I made a general statement. You asked a question. I answered it. You're assumption that this has to tie into the OP seems to be the problem. I'm not antagonistic. I just think the idea that we can't explicitly define "valiant" is problematic, said so, and then answered a question related to that.

As to valiance regarding the theoretical lower degrees in the Celestial Kingdom, my view is that they don't exist, and so any argument I made related to valiance therein wouldn't exactly make sense to me because it doesn't make sense in the first place that they exist.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As to valiance regarding the theoretical lower degrees in the Celestial Kingdom, my view is that they don't exist, and so any argument I made related to valiance therein wouldn't exactly make sense to me because it doesn't make sense in the first place that they exist.

True.

[The Folk Prophet]

Another thought related. D&C 132 states that to not following the law given concerning the covenant of eternal marriage equates to death (see vs. 25). Obviously this means spiritual death, not physical, as the condition for being saved from physical death is to have passed one's first estate. Spiritual death is, as we know, equates to not being in God's presence.

Just a thought.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Another thought related. D&C 132 states that to not following the law given concerning the covenant of eternal marriage equates to death (see vs. 25). Obviously this means spiritual death, not physical, as the condition for being saved from physical death is to have passed one's first estate. Spiritual death is, as we know, equates to not being in God's presence.

Just a thought.

Which brings to mind a preceding thought that helps keep D&C 132 in context: D&C 78:7 says, “For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.” D&C 88:2 says that the “sanctified [are] them of the celestial world.” So he who receives His will (88:1) as required and performs it becomes sanctified and joins those of the celestial world.

Then D&C 121:8 and 29 introduce the condition of "valiance" as it pertains to exaltation within the celestial kingdom, as follows: “All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.” For the first time in the D&C the idea of a post-mortal exaltation is introduced in verse 8 (all the other references pertain to mortal conditions and attitudes, and D&C 76 describes the best that "not-valiance" not "valiance" brings).

D&C 132 then provides a fuller description of exaltation as the “continuation of the lives” and “eternal lives” beginning in verses 17 and 19, and in more detail in verses 24 and 55. Verses 20-25 are about the requirement to keep the law of celestial marriage in order to receive exaltation (“this glory” in verse 21), which renders verse 25 as simply describing those who are not exalted by juxtaposing “the deaths” (or non-continuation of the lives, without celestial marriage) with continuing “the lives” through eternal increase by keeping the law of celestial marriage.

This is an example of using the same principle in two spheres. Baptism represents the principle of strait gate as it pertains to the celestial kingdom; celestial marriage drills things down to represent the principle of the strait gate as it pertains to exaltation.

[Edspringer]

23 hours ago, Anddenex said:

In line with this thought; although separate from the OP (sorry @Edspringer),

Just chill out!!

[Edspringer]

23 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Maybe the angels and gods are something like an honour god, standing along the path that leads to the pearly gates to honour and welcome those who have qualified for the highest degree of glory?

That's a way to see it and I appreciate your line of thinking.

"pass by the angels and the gods which are set there..." sounds to me like they are guardians of some sort, or even lower beings (lower than the exalted beings) who were assign to be there to receive the ones who will be exalted in the highest degree of the CK. Just a thought.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Edspringer said:

That's a way to see it and I appreciate your line of thinking.

"pass by the angels and the gods which are set there..." sounds to me like they are guardians of some sort, or even lower beings (lower than the exalted beings) who were assign to be there to receive the ones who will be exalted in the highest degree of the CK. Just a thought.

These three degrees in the celestial kingdom could then be: a) the angles, or the pre-mortal spirits still dwelling in the presence of their Father(s); b) the gods, or the translated beings not yet resurrected but promised exaltation, including all those living in the City of Zion; and c) exalted resurrected beings.

[Edspringer]

On 2017-6-2 at 10:23 AM, CV75 said:

These three degrees in the celestial kingdom could then be: a) the angles, or the pre-mortal spirits still dwelling in the presence of their Father(s); b) the gods, or the translated beings not yet resurrected but promised exaltation, including all those living in the City of Zion; and c) exalted resurrected beings.

Interesting. Thanx for sharing your thoughts