Poll on The Plan of Salvation/ Kingdom of Heaven

[The Folk Prophet]

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It seems apparent that previous dispensations simply weren't ready to receive knowledge of the three degrees of glory as we have been.  

Because we want to presume what they did and did not know based on a limited record? That logic is backwards to me. What qualifies people as ready? Their righteousness? Would you argue that no group of people in the Book of Mormon were as righteous as we are now? So why weren't they ready, assuming this to be true?

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Even in the Joseph Smith era, the Saints had problems with this doctrine.  It seemed we were almost not ready to receive such a doctrine.  But we were blessed with this additional knowledge by the grace of God.

Why? Does @Rob Osborn's apparent rejection of common views dictate that the whole is not ready? Where is the line drawn. 50% of the people? 80%? 100%? How many need to be ready?

As you can see...I have a problem with this "group" revelation relative to righteousness philosophy. I know that it happens and is truth. But I do not think it is a useful means to determine who knew what when, if that makes sense. God can judge these things. We cannot.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Alma gives signs that the Nephites were not aware of this doctrine since he didn't even know of multiple resurrections.

I don't see the logic here. Why is it requisite to know of the multiple resurrections in order to know that there are degrees of glory?

On a side note: I consider the saved/damned dichotomy the best understanding of the plan of salvation. It is truth that is not negated in any way by taking the damnation side of it and expanding it to include details. There are two states, ultimately -- exalted and not. That is the message that matters. That is the understanding that the most correct of any book gives accurately. The degrees of damnation are bonus knowledge. They help us better understand God's overall plan. But that does not take away from the fact that there is only one complete salvation and that anything else is damnation at some level.

Another relative side note/question for consideration: How many times in the Book of Mormon are people commanded not to write knowledge that was given them?

Edited June 2, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because we want to presume what they did and did not know based on a limited record? That logic is backwards to me. 

I'm "presuming" that when a prophet of a dispensation does not know a doctrine, that the group of people of that generation probably don't know that doctrine.  No, that does not preclude individuals from having separate revelations of bits and pieces tailored to each individual.

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What qualifies people as ready? Their righteousness? Would you argue that no group of people in the Book of Mormon were as righteous as we are now? So why weren't they ready, assuming this to be true?

What qualifies them is not a part of my comments.  My "presumption" again, is that if the Lord did not reveal it to a generation / dispensation, then they weren't ready to receive it.  An alternate explanation may be that it was simply not a part of that dispensation's covenants (basically a need-to-know policy).  But that's an alternate explanation.  You can posit yours.

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why? Does @Rob Osborn's apparent rejection of common views dictate that the whole is not ready? Where is the line drawn. 50% of the people? 80%? 100%? How many need to be ready?

I believe you've completely misread me.  My statement had nothing to do with Rob.  It was in the Sunday School manual.  Many of that era were shocked at that doctrine and were murmuring about it.  It was not an interpretation.  It was a historical observation.

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't see the logic here. Why is it requisite to know of the multiple resurrections in order to know that there are degrees of glory?

That's because you got the sequence backwards.  If you know of the three degrees of glory doctrine, part of that doctrine is the multiple resurrections doctrine.  If he didn't know the latter, he probably didn't know the former.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

My "presumption" again, is that if the Lord did not reveal it to a generation / dispensation, then they weren't ready to receive it.

I don't find this logic valid. Them not being ready for it is one reason why it might not be revealed. It is not the only potential.

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

An alternate explanation may be that it was simply not a part of that dispensation's covenants (basically a need-to-know policy).  But that's an alternate explanation.  You can posit yours.

I, frankly, think they did know about the differing degrees of glory. (Edit: "They" being a very loosely used term here, of course.)

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe you've completely misread me.  My statement had nothing to do with Rob.  It was in the Sunday School manual.  Many of that era were shocked at that doctrine and were murmuring about it.  It was not an interpretation.  It was a historical observation.

I was only using Rob as a random example. My point was just trying to discuss the idea that (per my first response in this post) that presuming a people isn't ready for something based on their having it or not isn't valid logic when there are a whole host of other reasons (some we can postulate on if we cared too, some we could not because the Lord's ways are His own) that might be true. I don't think I was very clear in my efforts in to get my thinking across in the previous post.

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's because you got the sequence backwards. 

What sequence do you mean and how do I have it backwards?

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 If you know of the three degrees of glory doctrine, part of that doctrine is the multiple resurrections doctrine.

I don't see this. I can teach my child, for example, very easily that there are three degrees of glory without every mentioning the multiple resurrections and their order. What you seem to be suggesting is that if you then asked my child about the resurrections and they said they didn't know what you meant that you would conclude that I had never taught them of the three degrees of glory.

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If he didn't know the latter, he probably didn't know the former.

Once again, I don't follow how this is probable at all. It's based on the fact that Joseph Smith's revelation on the matter included the complete idea(s). But that does not mean the Lord revealed it in the same manner to others if and when He so did.

Edited June 2, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, frankly, think they did know about the differing degrees of glory. (Edit: "They" being a very loosely used term here, of course.)

Moriancumr, one of the mightiest prophets of any dispensation, did not know the basic fact that God is corporeal until God literally revealed himself in the (appearance of) flesh to him. Given such a level of ignorance of a most basic truth held by one of such powerful spiritual gifts and great knowledge of God's spirit, I see no reason to think that other ancients (or we today) are not equally ignorant of the basic fundamentals of God and his truth. So the fact that the Saints of this dispensation have received knowledge of the degrees of glory doesn't indicate to me that everyone else -- or ANYONE else -- among the Saints of past dispensations must have received it, too.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Moriancumr, one of the mightiest prophets of any dispensation, did not know the basic fact that God is corporeal until God literally revealed himself in the (appearance of) flesh to him. Given such a level of ignorance of a most basic truth held by one of such powerful spiritual gifts and great knowledge of God's spirit, I see no reason to think that other ancients (or we today) are not equally ignorant of the basic fundamentals of God and his truth.

Everyone starts out ignorant. The point is that it WAS revealed to Him.

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

So the fact that the Saints of this dispensation have received knowledge of the degrees of glory doesn't indicate to me that everyone else -- or ANYONE else -- among the Saints of past dispensations must have received it, too.

This is not the point I was making. Did it come across that way? I didn't mean it to. I do not believe that the prophets of the Book of Mormon knew anything because we know it today. I do not believe they all knew everything. I believe some of them had the heavens opened to them and were shown more truths than we have as common knowledge today. I simply do not believe that the things God had them write or not write for our consumption in the Book of Mormon is proof one way or another of what they (individually) did or did not know. I do not think that when people make blanket statements that the Book of Mormon prophets did not know about the three degrees of glory (or any other given thing) that they have a leg to stand on.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't find this logic valid. Them not being ready for it is one reason why it might not be revealed. It is not the only potential.

I thought I'd already stated that I agree with that.  I state now (in case it was not clear before) that I believe this was the reason based on my personal study and impression within the context.  I believe it to be valid.  I never stated it to be the only possibility.

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, frankly, think they did know about the differing degrees of glory. (Edit: "They" being a very loosely used term here, of course.)

Agree to disagree. (parallel point by @Vort above).

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I was only using Rob as a random example. My point was just trying to discuss the idea that (per my first response in this post) that presuming a people isn't ready for something based on their having it or not isn't valid logic when there are a whole host of other reasons (some we can postulate on if we cared too, some we could not because the Lord's ways are His own) that might be true. I don't think I was very clear in my efforts in to get my thinking across in the previous post.

I've re-read my posts to see what could have possibly elicited this response and I got an ah-ha moment.  I overused pronouns without their proper antecedents.  So, let me clarify and possibly correct myself.

In our Sunday School class last week discussing this topic, the teacher stated as historical fact that the Saints of Joseph's day were shocked (negatively) to hear of this doctrine of multiple levels of heaven.  Many rejected the doctrine outright.  Many others murmured at the doctrine.

He made it sound like this information was out of the manual.  But I just read it.  It isn't there.  So, I'm not sure where he got that information.  Again, I keep hearing false doctrine and false history from our Sunday School teacher.  I haven't been able to verify this.  So, maybe that was not the case.

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What sequence do you mean and how do I have it backwards?

You asked how knowing A would mean B.  I had stated knowing B would mean A.  I believe I described this in the next portion of my response which you've addressed as well.

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't see this. I can teach my child, for example, very easily that there are three degrees of glory without every mentioning the multiple resurrections and their order. What you seem to be suggesting is that if you then if you asked my child about the resurrections and they said they didn't know what you meant that you would conclude that I had never taught them of the three degrees of glory.

Once again, I don't follow how this is probable at all. It's based on the fact that Joseph Smith's revelation on the matter included the complete idea(s). But that does not mean the Lord revealed it in the same manner to others if and when He so did.

My statement bolded the word "probably" because I readily admit that, yes, he could have known it as you describe.  But the way we are familiar with it, I see it as part-and-parcel of the same doctrine.  So, I just don't see one being revealed without the other.  But that's just me.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Guest

[Colirio]

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentioned the names of the glories and referenced briefly baptism for the dead. Nowhere else in the Bible or Book of Mormon does it mention where they were given the tenants of these teachings, but it is obvious they had some information concerning those doctrines beyond what is in our current standard works. 

 

Just like we can't assume that past dispensations had all the teachings we have today, it would also be hasty on our part to assume that they didn't have certain teachings due to not having referenced such. 

 

I believe this is what TFP is saying, and if so, I agree. 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Colirio said:

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentioned the names of the glories and referenced briefly baptism for the dead. Nowhere else in the Bible or Book of Mormon does it mention where they were given the tenants of these teachings, but it is obvious they had some information concerning those doctrines beyond what is in our current standard works. 

 

Just like we can't assume that past dispensations had all the teachings we have today, it would also be hasty on our part to assume that they didn't have certain teachings due to not having referenced such. 

 

I believe this is what TFP is saying, and if so, I agree. 

Especially where we see them often commanded to not write something.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Colirio said:

Just like we can't assume that past dispensations had all the teachings we have today, it would also be hasty on our part to assume that they didn't have certain teachings due to not having referenced such. 

Yes, I believe this to be a decent argument.  I agree with that statement and that logic.  And it is prefectly logical to be neutral on this point of speculation.  And I make no bones that it is speculation.  But there are a couple of problems.

1) You can't claim neutrality and then take a side.  True neutrality on an issue like this means "I don't know."  Not taking one side over the other.
2) I'm taking a side based on some study and logic and openly stating it is a personal interpretation and opinion.  And I'm getting resistance to this idea because "we don't know."  That doesn't really wash.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I believe this to be a decent argument.  I agree with that statement and that logic.  And it is prefectly logical to be neutral on this point of speculation.  And I make no bones that it is speculation.  But there are a couple of problems.

1) You can't claim neutrality and then take a side.  True neutrality on an issue like this means "I don't know."  Not taking one side over the other.
2) I'm taking a side based on some study and logic and openly stating it is a personal interpretation and opinion.  And I'm getting resistance to this idea because "we don't know."  That doesn't really wash.

I'm taking a side based on the fact that there are some (one at least) who are arguing that the Book or Mormon contradicts our understanding and beliefs.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) You can't claim neutrality and then take a side.

Oh...and.... Yes you can. I, for example, am fully neutral on the potential that the Celestial Kingdom has three degrees. I am still on the side of the opinion that it probably doesn't and the meaning of "celestial" in D&C 131 is a generic "heavenly". I take that side in a discussion. I am neutral as to the truth and the outcome of views based on said discussion. Because I believe it doesn't matter I may have an opinion that takes a side and still remain, ultimately, neutral. I would never claim that my view is right in this regard, has any validity, or holds any weight beyond my concept of logic. That's my neutrality. But I still have an opinion.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm taking a side based on the fact that there are some (one at least) who are arguing that the Book or Mormon contradicts our understanding and beliefs.

Well, I'm not the one making that argument.  I believe that the position I've taken explains why he's reading the points he's reading WITHOUT coming to the erroneous conclusions he's making.  You're offering other explanations as to the same thing.

So, we may differ on our reasoning.  But we're coming to the same conclusion: i.e. that the BoM and our current understanding are actually in harmony.

[Colirio]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Especially where we see them often commanded to not write something.

True! And not to mention:

 

Words of Mormon 1:5

5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredthpart of the things of my people.

 

Ether 15:33

33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

 

Helaman 3:14

14 But behold, a hundredth partof the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.

 

3 Nephi 26:6-7

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredthpart of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

 

3 Nephi 5:8

8 And there had many things transpired which, in the eyes of some, would be great and marvelous; nevertheless, they cannot all be written in this book; yea, this book cannot contain even a hundredth part of what was done among so many people in the space of twenty and five years;

 

Jacob 3:13

13 And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Oh...and.... Yes you can. I, for example, am fully neutral on the potential that the Celestial Kingdom has three degrees. I am still on the side of the opinion that it probably doesn't and the meaning of "celestial" in D&C 131 is a generic "heavenly". I take that side in a discussion. I am neutral as to the truth and the outcome of views based on said discussion. Because I believe it doesn't matter I may have an opinion that takes a side and still remain, ultimately, neutral. I would never claim that my view is right in this regard, has any validity, or holds any weight beyond my concept of logic. That's my neutrality. But I still have an opinion.

On that, I think you're splitting hairs and getting into semantics.

It is one thing to "admit" that we don't know, and therefore admit that one's opinions are opinions.  It is another to say,"Your side is wrong because we're supposed to be neutral.  My side is ok because I'm neutral."

My position stated on a related thread was "I TEND to believe".  All my posts here have also been carefully worded to reflect this same sentiment.  But I still tend to believe that way while admitting what is known is limited.  Based on your comment quoted here, I now understand that you're doing the same thing.  But that's not the way it sounded throughout this thread.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Colirio said:

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentioned the names of the glories and referenced briefly baptism for the dead. Nowhere else in the Bible or Book of Mormon does it mention where they were given the tenants of these teachings, but it is obvious they had some information concerning those doctrines beyond what is in our current standard works.

I don't think that's at all obvious. A hundred generations of "traditional Christians" have read Paul's words without ever thinking of multiple heavens or degrees of glory. In context, Paul does not seem to be referencing a multi-tiered heaven at all; rather, he's just saying that there are carnal things and there are spiritual things, things from down low and things from up high, earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial. He draws a dichotomy -- one that appears to my limited understanding to be based on the popular Greek philosophies of his time rather than strictly on the gospel as revealed by Jesus -- to illustrate how God's doings differ from man's doings.

I believe Section 76 and other such revelations to be an expansion on the wording that Paul gave, using that as a taking-off point for greater eternal insights. I do not know if Paul himself understood the doctrine of the degrees of glory as we understand them today. I personally do not believe that was his intent in his writing (assuming our Corinthians account is an accurate rendition of his epistle). Our present understanding of the degrees of glory is based 100% on the revelations of Joseph Smith and 0% on Paul's epistles.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Especially where we see them often commanded to not write something.

It is one thing to NOT write something that was revealed.  It is another thing to state a lack of knowledge on a particular topic.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Guest

[MrShorty]

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In our Sunday School class last week discussing this topic, the teacher stated as historical fact that the Saints of Joseph's day were shocked (negatively) to hear of this doctrine of multiple levels of heaven.  Many rejected the doctrine outright.  Many others murmured at the doctrine.

He made it sound like this information was out of the manual.  But I just read it.  It isn't there.  So, I'm not sure where he got that information.  Again, I keep hearing false doctrine and false history from our Sunday School teacher.  I haven't been able to verify this.  So, maybe that was not the case.

Trying not to detract too much from the rest of the discussion, but perhaps your instructor got this from the "Revelations in Context" resource that the Church released to supplement the Gospel Doctrine manual: https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng This document does suggest that many members of the Church at that time did not accept "The Vision" and many spoke against it.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Trying not to detract too much from the rest of the discussion, but perhaps your instructor got this from the "Revelations in Context" resource that the Church released to supplement the Gospel Doctrine manual: https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng This document does suggest that many members of the Church at that time did not accept "The Vision" and many spoke against it.

There we go.  I guess he didn't pull it out of his Book of Personal Revelation after all.  Thank you.

[Traveler]

 

It is interesting to me the scale that we use to determine if a doctrine is true or false.  So, I would ask a question of those posting.  Can we say any doctrine is false that leads someone (anyone) to believe in Christ and to love and be obedient to his commandments?  And by the same “token” can we say any doctrine is true while it leads someone down some strange paths away from Christ?

And so, I wonder if Satan is a liar – not by things that he says but by what he does?

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is one thing to "admit" that we don't know, and therefore admit that one's opinions are opinions.  It is another to say,"Your side is wrong because we're supposed to be neutral.  My side is ok because I'm neutral."

I suppose that depends on whether we're "supposed" to be neutral or not.

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Based on your comment quoted here, I now understand that you're doing the same thing.  But that's not the way it sounded throughout this thread.

Why don't my "I don't see...", "I don't follow...", "I don't understand...", "I am of the opinion...", "I'm pretty sure...", and "I think..." phrases count?

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I suppose that depends on whether we're "supposed" to be neutral or not.

Why don't my "I don't see...", "I don't follow...", "I don't understand...", "I am of the opinion...", "I'm pretty sure...", and "I think..." phrases count?

Fair point.  It was just an overall "feeling" to me.  But I suppose you did sprinkle those in as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is one thing to NOT write something that was revealed.  It is another thing to state a lack of knowledge on a particular topic.

It's something else entirely to presume that a stated lack of knowledge on a subject means it was never revealed to said person thereafter.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

It was just an overall "feeling" to me.

Story of my online life.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Can we say any doctrine is false that leads someone (anyone) to believe in Christ and to love and be obedient to his commandments?  And by the same “token” can we say any doctrine is true while it leads someone down some strange paths away from Christ?

No.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's something else entirely to presume that a stated lack of knowledge on a subject means it was never revealed to said person thereafter.

True, but I don't think I said that.  Admittedly, that may easily follow.  But I never really went there in my line of thinking.  My point was that at that point in those chapters, he did not know.