angels and gods

[wenglund]

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.

For what it is worth, as posted on another thread, there are some reasonable questions raised about the notion of "three distinct levels or degrees within the Celestial Kingdom." Several LDS commentators discuss this in relation to D&C Sunday School lesson #20 (about 15 minutes in): 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

I take exception to the interpretation that D&C 131:1 merely refers to the "heavenly realm".  My reasoning is simply based on what is actually written.

Quote

In the ^acelestial glory there are three ^bheavens or degrees;

D&C 131:1

Footnote to "celestial" takes us to two other locations:

1. D&C 76:70
2. Topical Guide "Celestial Glory"

Quote

These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

D&C 76:70

This is clearly talking about the Celestial Kingdom as opposed to the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms.  It refers to the glory of the sun twice AND calls it the "glory of God" (capitalized) and the "highest of all".  The footnote to "highest" takes us to TG: God, perfection of.

I don't see how this reference to the term "celestial glory" can credibly be considered a reference to "heavenly realms" (i.e. a generic reference to ANY kingdom of glory).

Then we have the topical guide references:

Quote

glory of the celestial is one, 1 Cor. 15:40.
such an one caught up to the third heaven, 2 Cor. 12:2.
they whose bodies are celestial, D&C 76:70.
we saw the glory of the celestial, D&C 76:92.
give unto you a place in the celestial world, D&C 78:7.
eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom, D&C 88:4.
it may be prepared for the celestial glory, D&C 88:18.
not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory, D&C 88:22.
begotten through me are partakers of the glory, D&C 93:22.
be crowned with celestial glory, D&C 101:65.
In the celestial glory there are three heavens, D&C 131:1. (self-reference)
glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds, D&C 132:19.
I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, D&C 137:1.
eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory, Moses 6:59.
whose brightness and glory defy all description, JS—H 1:17.

Every D&C reference indicates that this meaning is that of the Celestial Kingdom itself, not just "heavenly realms".  The only ones that carry any level of ambiguity are the two Pauline references.  Sectarians insist that this is merely talking about mortality vs eternity.  Those who believe the Section 131 reference is talking about the generic "heavenly realms" would also take the same interpretation. If this is correct, why does the JST entry add the Telestial to it?

Quote

40 Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another.

JST 1 Cor 15:40

If there is credibility to the sectarian interpretation, what was Joseph thinking?

The "third heaven" reference also carries a footnote to the same TG list I've quoted above.

If either of these references mean "generic heven" explain why in Seminary and the Missionary mastery scriptures ALWAYS use this reference to explain that the three degrees of glory were taught in Biblical times.  Basically, those who argue these scriptures are NOT talking about the three kingdoms are agreeing with sectarians on this.

• In the D&C Sunday School Manual, it mentions the "highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom" four times.
• Gospel Principles Ch 46 refers to the "highest degree..." citing Section 131.
• The New Testament Seminary Manual refers to the "highest degree..." when discussing 1 Cor.
• The New Testament Seminary Manual indicates that the "third heaven" refers to the Celestial Kingdom.
• The D&C Student Manual speaks of the "highest degree..." in Section 131.
• The D&C Seminary Manual does the same.

It seems pretty obvious that general authorities are fairly united in the belief that D&C 131 "celestial glory" refers to the Celestial Kingdom.  Are our manuals all wrong?  Are the LDS edition of the scriptures all marked incorrectly with false footnotes, cross-references, and TG entries?

If there is some other argument for not believing in the "three degrees", let's talk about those.  But the reference to D&C 131 as the reason for casting doubt on such a belief?  I'm not seeing it.

And my real question is: Why would you NOT believe in it?  We know that whatever kingdom we're in, there is some progress within a kingdom.  Wouldn't that already imply levels or degrees anyway?  It would seem an infinite number of degrees for an eternity to obtain the glory like unto God.  Line upon line -- precept upon precept.  There would just be a categorizing of three for our mortal minds to not get too overwhelmed.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

@Carborendum there are good reasons to take D&C 131 at face value...but I do not believe the others uses of the word in other scriptures reasons you give is valid. If every other reference in the scriptures uses a word one way it does not prove that is what another reference meant. The best idea you give is that the leadership of the church has understood D&C 131 to mean 3 separate parts to the celestial kingdom. The footnote idea isn't meaningful because there are a myriad of places where footnotes tie together because of certain words where the meaning of said words is different.

However, I think it's probably the best course to just accept that it means what it seems to mean, generally speaking. Even in my speculation on the matter I tend towards the idea that I'm probably wrong. That being said, I think what I think for a reason. I don't have time to explain it in detail right now, but if I have time later today or tomorrow I'll dig into it.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And my real question is: Why would you NOT believe in it? 

In essence, and keeping it simple, this is why I tend to think as I do on the matter:

We only know of one factor related to the differences in the theoretical Celestial Kingdom degrees: Marriage.

We know that the faithful will not be denied any blessings.

Only the faithful inherit the Celestial Kingdom, only those who humble themselves and are willing to submit to God's will in all things.

So it simply does not make sense that someone who is willing to submit to God's will in all things, and then being offered one of those things (marriage) would deny it. The idea that one would implies they aren't, after all, willing to submit to God's will in all things.

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 We know that whatever kingdom we're in, there is some progress within a kingdom.  Wouldn't that already imply levels or degrees anyway?  It would seem an infinite number of degrees for an eternity to obtain the glory like unto God.  Line upon line -- precept upon precept.  There would just be a categorizing of three for our mortal minds to not get too overwhelmed.

If this is all it means that would be fine and make sense. There are 2 concepts that imply to me that there's more to it than that. 1. Those who do not enter into eternal marriage remain eternally separate and single for ever per D&C 132. 2. D&C 131 specifies a concrete difference between the highest level and the other two. Taking these two ideas together, it does not read to me that it's simply talking about the steps we'll all go through to eventually get to exaltation.

[Guest]

On 6/4/2017 at 9:20 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

@Carborendum there are good reasons to take D&C 131 at face value...but I do not believe the others uses of the word in other scriptures reasons you give is valid. If every other reference in the scriptures uses a word one way it does not prove that is what another reference meant.

While your statement may be true, I don't see any good examples of it (where a cross reference clearly uses a word or term in a manner different than the original verse we studied).  Could you provide some?  You mentioned a "myriad of verses"?

Additionally, when EVERY (or even nearly every) cross reference uses it to mean one thing, then what is the likelihood that it is meant to be different in the original verse?

I see most cross references as showing another verse where a term is used where it is more clear what it is supposed to mean.  That then helps us understand what it means in the original verse.

Like I said, if you can show me some good examples where this is not the case, I'd like to read them.

On 6/4/2017 at 9:20 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

The best idea you give is that the leadership of the church has understood D&C 131 to mean 3 separate parts to the celestial kingdom.

Well, that should also indicate that 131 or not, they believe the primary issue -- there are three separate parts.

22 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We only know of one factor related to the differences in the theoretical Celestial Kingdom degrees: Marriage.

We know that the faithful will not be denied any blessings...

(Yes I also read the deleted part, but for brevity...)

Like we keep hearing when we discuss this issue:  WE DON'T KNOW what the differences are.  WE DON'T KNOW why they are different.  WE DON'T KNOW what qualifications are within the lower levels.

WE DON'T KNOW.

With so much we don't know, what is the motivation to believe the minority opinion -- especially when the GAs apparently all believe in the majority opinion?

Edited June 5, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

WE DON'T KNOW

Except for the marriage thing.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In essence, and keeping it simple, this is why I tend to think as I do on the matter:

We only know of one factor related to the differences in the theoretical Celestial Kingdom degrees: Marriage.

We know that the faithful will not be denied any blessings.

Only the faithful inherit the Celestial Kingdom, only those who humble themselves and are willing to submit to God's will in all things.

So it simply does not make sense that someone who is willing to submit to God's will in all things, and then being offered one of those things (marriage) would deny it. The idea that one would implies they aren't, after all, willing to submit to God's will in all things.

If this is all it means that would be fine and make sense. There are 2 concepts that imply to me that there's more to it than that. 1. Those who do not enter into eternal marriage remain eternally separate and single for ever per D&C 132. 2. D&C 131 specifies a concrete difference between the highest level and the other two. Taking these two ideas together, it does not read to me that it's simply talking about the steps we'll all go through to eventually get to exaltation.

In D&C 76, “all things” is used only in reference to what is received by the heir of the celestial kingdom: verses 7, 55, 59, 60, etc. Note in verses 91-93 it is also used relative to the kingdoms. So I think “all things” refers to the laws, bounds and conditions of the respective kingdom as taught in D&C 88.

D&C 132 described the laws, bounds and conditions of exaltation or the third degree of the celestial kingdom. Verses 19, 20, 29 use “all things” in the same way as D&C 76. D&C 88 also. D&C 131 does not use the term.

In Mosiah 3:19, teaches that a saint is “willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him…”

[brotherofJared]

On 6/5/2017 at 11:05 AM, Carborendum said:

While your statement may be true, I don't see any good examples of it (where a cross reference clearly uses a word or term in a manner different than the original verse we studied).  Could you provide some?  You mentioned a "myriad of verses"?

Additionally, when EVERY (or even nearly every) cross reference uses it to mean one thing, then what is the likelihood that it is meant to be different in the original verse?

I see most cross references as showing another verse where a term is used where it is more clear what it is supposed to mean.  That then helps us understand what it means in the original verse.

Like I said, if you can show me some good examples where this is not the case, I'd like to read them.

Well, that should also indicate that 131 or not, they believe the primary issue -- there are three separate parts.

(Yes I also read the deleted part, but for brevity...)

Like we keep hearing when we discuss this issue:  WE DON'T KNOW what the differences are.  WE DON'T KNOW why they are different.  WE DON'T KNOW what qualifications are within the lower levels.

WE DON'T KNOW.

With so much we don't know, what is the motivation to believe the minority opinion -- especially when the GAs apparently all believe in the majority opinion?

Well, if we understand the kingdom of God to be the Celestial Kingdom, which I do, then we know of one other requirement to enter that kingdom. I believe it is easy to see at least two groups of people in that kingdom. Those who can continue the seed and those who can't. This issue does not exist in any of the other degrees of glory. One cannot advance from not being married to being married no matter how many eons of progress they might have available to them. I'm completely misunderstanding this idea of advancing within a kingdom. I don't even know what that is or how one might reach the glory of God through it.

What gets to me is the obvious influence, in the absence of Joseph Smith, of previous Christian ideas of one Heaven to take over the Celestial Kingdom and who can dwell there... Well, it just occurred to me that Joseph teaching that sealed families can reach through the eternities to save one's family might be part of justifying how everyone can eventually end up in the Celestial Kingdom. But there still appears to be a little religious syncretism going on here.

Question: What is the value of know who would fit in these other heavens or degrees? Is it to influence people to get married in the temple, not to bypass it? Is it to get our children out on a mission (seeing as they must get their endowments before that mission)?