The "third heaven" in scripture and its meaning.

[Rob Osborn]

Brought up in another thread was the mention of the three degrees of glory. I wanted to, at the request, to rehash this argument. Typically, the "third heaven" in LDS doctrine speaks of the celestial kingdom alluding to there being two other heavens or degrees of glory. Whereas I agree with all of this its the context that bothers me be ause there is clearly an alternate way of seeing this issue that makes more sense. Paul being caught up to the third heaven was in reference to his seeing vision of the heaven where God dwells. The reality is that the "heaven" spoken of was a literal physical placement in the heavens different than our own. The perspective here is that we too have a heaven, or a view of the heavens that is different. The scriptures speak of a "new heaven" that will come. So, in this light, we are truly in the first heaven now. This heaven will pass away and we shall get a second heaven when the millennium begins. That second heaven will also pass away and finally a third heaven will appear when the earth is brought to that place in yonder heavens where God lives and this earth literally becomes that third heaven or brought into that kingdom of heaven.

The contextual hiccup we have is tending to believe that any and all reference to "heaven" deals with a future eternal state. But, from Gods perspective "heaven" is a term dealing more with placement in the universe and its relative laws and blessings associated with that particular heaven or placement. This is why, in the temple, our current state is the telestial kingdom. When combined with its literal placement in the heavens it could thus be stated to be the telestial heaven or first heaven.  God speaks of many heavens-

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. (Moses 1:37-38)

[JohnsonJones]

Now, I don't believe the same way you do, but I did come across some interesting things from history that I wonder if you either got ideas from them, or if it is coincidental.

Now if I recall, you believe that this is the telestial glory or world spoken of.  That when the millennium comes, that would be a terrestrial world, and then the heaven thereafter would be the Celestial world.

In that same accord, if I remember, you have mentioned (or am I mistaken) the idea that many of those that  may not be successful in being righteous in this life may have a chance to come back as a telestial being, aka...reborn again in this world to go through the telestial glory again until they are able to advance.

Now, this is where it gets interesting.  Have you ever heard of the Christian Gnostics (not to be confused with the Modern Christian Gnostics, though I think there is some overlap, I'm more familiar with the Christian Gnostics from the 1st - 3rd century and not the current ones)?

Now, this particular sect is considered heretical by Christians these days.  However, historically, they weren't really heretical in consideration until after the 3rd to 4th century.  That in actuality sort of corresponds to what LDS may think of as the Great Apostasy.

Of interests, the Gnostics (as I'll refer the Christian Gnostics in the rest of this thread, though they are specifically one branch or sort of the idea in Gnosticism and not Gnosticism in it's whole) believed in both the body and spirit, that these two things were separate.  That the way to salvation was via Knowledge, not just blind faith.  Their secret knowledge, however, was in the resurrection.

The felt there was a literal resurrection of the body and a resurrection of the spirit, however, these two things were separate (in a way, similar to the ideas of the LDS church in regards to salvation from physical death and salvation from spiritual death).  One of the interesting ideas is that some felt they believed in reincarnation.  What this means is something similar to what I think  you've espoused previously.  That this life, and indeed this world was the time to prepare, and it was how they would get better and closer.  Those that did not successfully become righteous would thus again come back or by physically resurrected (or reborn) to try to attain that.

In this, the world could be seen as a telestial/terrestrial world, but if they can attain the spiritual resurrection it is in the final heaven. 

Interestingly enough, this was somewhat of a popular idea during the first century, and somewhat through the second, but eventually was vanquished/done away/destroyed later as they were eventually considered heretics by the major Christian theology that got a foothold later on.

In some ways, other theories and ideas that we glean were believed by the Gnostics are actually things that the LDS also have in their faith.  IS this something that you've heard about previously or had any influence on your own ideas.

[Vort]

It's a marvelous day for a ride!

[JohnsonJones]

I little odd there Vort.  Hopefully Rob still returns and discusses this subject, because it would be fascinating to see his insights on this.  I am actually genuinely curious, as this goes FAR beyond what Rob has talked about. 

To be clear, what I'm about to say is NOT doctrine and denied as anything remotely like doctrine by the LDS church.  However, it is a fascinating study.

There is some who think that many of the early thoughts by Brigham Young and others were in part based upon many of the ideas of the Christian Gnostics.  In this way, if Rob got his ideas from them, it could be seen as a direct relation to the ideas of early LDS theology.

Now, the Adam-God theory is NOT considered anything LDS today, and obviously NOT LDS doctrine.  That said, there is some conjecture upon it.  I might do some more in my personal thread into thoughts I have on it, but in this I'll relate the part that corresponds to what I think are startling parallels to what I think Rob has discussed.

Brigham Young postulated an idea that Adam originally was a literal son of the Father, and in fact such has been utilized by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. Mckonkie when using the genealogy of Christ going back to Adam (Luke 3:38).  He also postulated that Adam was originally a Celestial being that needed to descend to this Telestial station in order to have children.

He considered that it was possibly Adam who's genetics were part of the Lord's physical make up, and hence for the Lord's mortal body, was his actual physical father.

Additonally, the Lord stated in his mortal ministry, he did nothing but what his father did (John 5:18-20).  If we utilize that in lieu of the above thought, it would indicate that Adam had previously also laid down his life and taken it up again.

Next we have traditional interpretations of heaven, where the first heaven is referring to the sky above our heads.  The second heaven is referring to the sky in which the stars reside (or which we know is now as Outer Space).

The third heaven is literally the realm of the Lord, or what we normally think about when we call heaven.  This would indicate that if the Celestial Kingdom is heaven, it indeed would be THE heaven.

Then, as we have discussed recently in another thread the Word Celestial literally means heaven, while the word Terrestrial would be Earth.  AS far as I know, there is no correlation of the Word Telestial traditionally outside Mormonism.  Viewing it as that though, and the idea that the Terrestrial then may refer to a perfected Earth, the idea of the Gnostics could have a very real bearing upon the ideas that Rob has put forth.

In this that there is only the Earth and heaven, where men are on Earth, but ultimately seek to obtain heaven.

From what we know of the Christian Gnostics, this could be a VERY Christian Gnostic idea or parallel. 

It goes beyond that though and one could utilize it in different ways.  For example, in a different manner than what Rob has presented, there are other plausbilities that could be interesting to see his take upon.  Once again, remember what I'm talking about is officially NOT LDS doctrine as per LDS statements in our modern time.  It is decidedly disavowed, but it is an interesting topic to explore.

There has been statements that one who goes to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom is at an end, they cannot progress any further.  However, those that enter the Celestial Kingdom can progress.  Now, if they are not in the highest degree of glory because they are not married for eternity, they are relegated to the second degree of the Celestial Glory.  In theory, they could still advance.

Pushing off of the idea that Adam was a Celestial being, Brigham Young could also have seen other possibilities.  Have you ever wondered if anyone else may have come back to earth.  Perhaps those who had physical bodies already in heaven but were servants and did bidding (hence had physical bodies, as may be hinted at  by other LDS writings, ceremonies, etc and could thus actually interact with others physically) could return to this earth, undergo it's challenges again, but this time perhaps find someone to be eternally married to and thus progress to a higher degree.  In regards to Adam having done this, it was seen as the Lord also doing this possibly (a little known item I believe from Joseph Fielding or Joseph F. actually postulated the idea of it being a Father, Son, and Grandson dynamic between Adam, the Lord, and the Father, with the Father being the Grandfather, and the Lord actually being Adam's father, but then coming down and being Adam's son...hard to present it as it was written).

I suppose that also speaks of the reincarnation aspect...and which is perhaps a parallel that some may see between the early LDS leaders and Christian Gnostics.

Now, if we go off of Rob's Osborn's ideas as I understand it, that means that that this Second degree of the Celestial Kingdom is actually the Terrestrial setting (as in the millennium type setting, with the lowest being our earth in general now days with how it's inhabitants act).  This means that a Terrestrial being could return and possibly work on attaining the Celestial glory or reward.

As I said, this is NOT something I actually believe, but in studying history, I found some very fascinating parallels of what I've heard Rob Osborn talk about.  In fact, when reading them it brought him to mind.  I'd be absolutely interested in hearing his insights on these things and his relation to LDS doctrine and theology.

Of more interest, as I touched upon above, if one believes there was an apostasy or a great apostasy, the Christian Gnostics would be one (of several) ideas for those who would be the original followers of the original Gospel.  Their "secret" could be very similar to how we LDS have so called "secrets" in our religion.  They were all eliminated (thus fulfilling that part of the church apostatizing in the theology part), and there have been direct parallels made occasionally by a few scholars of religious doctrinal similarities between their beliefs that we've discovered (and as such, are probably in accurate in some parts as they were gone for a long time and what we have done is more a reconstruction of what we think they believed) and the LDs beliefs.

Hopefully Rob responds, as this is something I'd be interested to hear his opinions on and perhaps pick his  mind on.

[Rob Osborn]

I definitely dont believe in reincarnation. I do however believe that pretty much everyone fails in mortality on  gaining a celestial status. It is for this very reason why the millennium exists so that man can properly advance and learn to be celestial grade. As was said in this last conference-

To put this issue in context, may I remind all of us that we live in a fallen world and for now we are a fallen people. We are in the telestial kingdom; that is spelled with a t, not a c. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, here in mortality perfection is still “pending.” (Jeffery R. Holland, "Be ye therefore perfect- eventually)https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/be-ye-therefore-perfect-eventually?lang=eng

[Rob Osborn]

Under the current teachings of tge church the third heaven refers to tge celestial kingdom alluding to the second heaven being the future eternal terrestrial kingdom and the first heaven being the future eternal telestial kingdom. This is incorrect in some degree. Whereas the first and second heavens are indeed the telestial and terrestrial the timing of them are not correct. In Revelations it speaks of the "first heaven" passing away and a new heaven or a second heaven coming into existance.

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Rev. 21:1)

We can read in the D&C that this correlates with Christs second coming as it relates to no more sea-

22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.
23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land; (D&C 133:22-23)

This second heaven too will pass away according to D&C 29-

22 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you that when the thousand years are ended, and men again begin to deny their God, then will I spare the earth but for a little season;
23 And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.
24 For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea;

It is at this point the third heaven begins. The first and second heavens are both passed away and are not part of the eternal nature of our progress at that point having served their purposes.

 

[JohnsonJones]

These are good scriptures to bring up and I'll read them and contemplate on what you stated. 

When you see the terrestrial world, for those who already passed on, do you see them coming back with terrestrial bodies during that time period, or how do you see it?

If they come back, would that be a form of reincarnation?

If they do not, then in what manner are they perfected, if I understand this portion of your post correctly.

20 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I definitely dont believe in reincarnation. I do however believe that pretty much everyone fails in mortality on  gaining a celestial status. It is for this very reason why the millennium exists so that man can properly advance and learn to be celestial grade. As was said in this last conference-

In otherwords, during the millennium you have those that passed away and those that will be "twinkled" (I think that's the popular term).  How do you see them able to properly advance to learn to be the celestial grade.

PS: Sorry if after you respond I don't respond soon, I may be off of the forums for a few days.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

These are good scriptures to bring up and I'll read them and contemplate on what you stated. 

When you see the terrestrial world, for those who already passed on, do you see them coming back with terrestrial bodies during that time period, or how do you see it?

If they come back, would that be a form of reincarnation?

If they do not, then in what manner are they perfected, if I understand this portion of your post correctly.

In otherwords, during the millennium you have those that passed away and those that will be "twinkled" (I think that's the popular term).  How do you see them able to properly advance to learn to be the celestial grade.

PS: Sorry if after you respond I don't respond soon, I may be off of the forums for a few days.

Those who are on the earth during the millennium will have terrestrial bodies as that will be the glory of the earth and thus the glory by which they are quickened. They are on the earth to help in the building of the kingdom and in that process learn the ways of perfection.

Reincarnation is defined as coming back as someone else. I do not believe in reincarnation. I believe in being quickened and in resurrection wherein both cases one comes back as their same person.

 

[Traveler]

 

There are a lot of problems we face in this thread.  One problem is how ancient terms get translated into English and then understood in our modern culture.  The problem with the English word heaven is that it is used for more than one ancient idea.  In scripture reference to “creation” we are told that the G-ds created the earth (singular) and the heavens (plural).  We are left to understand that the heavens are (or make up) the ferment.  Anciently this meant the sky and the things that appear in the sky. 

Many experts (scholars) in ancient languages and culture agree that the singular ancient “heaven” that corresponds to this earth is the solar system.  This would mean that multiple heavens are other solar systems.  This is a rather interesting concept when applied to modern knowledge of our solar system. And that our galaxy is comprised of billions of solar systems and that our super cluster is comprised of millions of galaxies.   A new heaven would mean a change to our solar system or as some believe that the earth is moved to a different star (I personally am not a proponent of this move to a different solar system idea).

This ancient concept of multiple heavens is also reflected in ancient calendars.  It was also believed that the sun, moon and a few stars were associated to the heavens of earth and would arise in the east through one of 6 “gates” and set in the west to one of 6 other gates.  These gates were considered openings to 6 heavens or 6 levels of heaven.  These gates comprise the solar months of every ancient calendar.  The Enoch calendar is of particular because it was the covenant calendar used in ancient Israel (and by the Jews at the time of Jesus).   But this leads us to a very interesting ancient idea.  This is the idea of the 7th heaven.  This is a heaven different that the heaven utilized by our sun, moon and planets – or as often voiced in scripture “The Stars”.   The 7th heaven is where the “Kingdom” of G-d” resides.  Interestingly this 7th heaven of G-d’s residence and kingdom is an ancient global concept that has possible reference to Stonehenge to the pyramids of Egypt as well as Mesoamerica.

There is another concept of heaven and this is the concept of the “Kingdom” of heaven.  Because just about everybody lives in a society void of a king (especially the ancient Near Eastern Kingdom) few have much understanding of what a kingdom is, how a kingdom is defined and how laws and citizen (cast system) apply.  To make this discussion short – in the pre-existence Kingdom of heaven – the spirits citizens were divided into 3 classes.  This is pointed out in Abraham chapter 3 and Alma chapter 13.  One class is called “noble and great”.  We see the same 3 classes symbolically represented in the 3 sons of Noah.  The term “Gentile” comes from this class expression.

It is not really a stretch that in the resurrection that the Kingdom of heaven (that kingdom presided over by the Suzerain G-d the Father) also has 3 classes of citizens - each class connected to a member of the G-dhead.  These citizens are differentiated by the covenant law that they abide and live by.  Not hard to understand.  We find this symbolism in many places – such as the parable of the talents.

As we have learned by sad experience – many apply the knowledge symbolically given is scripture in a number of different creative ways.  I understand that some may not like my understanding – and I would be glad to discuss various possibilities – but as I have said – those that rely on scripture only seem to have the greatest variance of ideas.  Which is kind of a red flag that someone has really considered what the symbolism really references. 

 

The Traveler

Edited November 3, 2017 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

There are a lot of problems we face in this thread.  One problem is how ancient terms get translated into English and then understood in our modern culture.  The problem with the English word heaven is that it is used for more than one ancient idea.  In scripture reference to “creation” we are told that the G-ds created the earth (singular) and the heavens (plural).  We are left to understand that the heavens are (or make up) the ferment.  Anciently this meant the sky and the things that appear in the sky. 

Many experts (scholars) in ancient languages and culture agree that the singular ancient “heaven” that corresponds to this earth is the solar system.  This would mean that multiple heavens are other solar systems.  This is a rather interesting concept when applied to modern knowledge of our solar system. And that our galaxy is comprised of billions of solar systems and that our super cluster is comprised of millions of galaxies.   A new heaven would mean a change to our solar system or as some believe that the earth is moved to a different star (I personally am not a proponent of this move to a different solar system idea).

This ancient concept of multiple heavens is also reflected in ancient calendars.  It was also believed that the sun, moon and a few stars were associated to the heavens of earth and would arise in the east through one of 6 “gates” and set in the west to one of 6 other gates.  These gates were considered openings to 6 heavens or 6 levels of heaven.  These gates comprise the solar months of every ancient calendar.  The Enoch calendar is of particular because it was the covenant calendar used in ancient Israel (and by the Jews at the time of Jesus).   But this leads us to a very interesting ancient idea.  This is the idea of the 7th heaven.  This is a heaven different that the heaven utilized by our sun, moon and planets – or as often voiced in scripture “The Stars”.   The 7th heaven is where the “Kingdom” of G-d” resides.  Interestingly this 7th heaven of G-d’s residence and kingdom is an ancient global concept that has possible reference to Stonehenge to the pyramids of Egypt as well as Mesoamerica.

There is another concept of heaven and this is the concept of the “Kingdom” of heaven.  Because just about everybody lives in a society void of a king (especially the ancient Near Eastern Kingdom) few have much understanding of what a kingdom is, how a kingdom is defined and how laws and citizen (cast system) apply.  To make this discussion short – in the pre-existence Kingdom of heaven – the spirits citizens were divided into 3 classes.  This is pointed out in Abraham chapter 3 and Alma chapter 13.  One class is called “noble and great”.  We see the same 3 classes symbolically represented in the 3 sons of Noah.  The term “Gentile” comes from this class expression.

It is not really a stretch that in the resurrection that the Kingdom of heaven (that kingdom presided over by the Suzerain G-d the Father) also has 3 classes of citizens - each class connected to a member of the G-dhead.  These citizens are differentiated by the covenant law that they abide and live by.  Not hard to understand.  We find this symbolism in many places – such as the parable of the talents.

As we have learned by sad experience – many apply the knowledge symbolically given is scripture in a number of different creative ways.  I understand that some may not like my understanding – and I would be glad to discuss various possibilities – but as I have said – those that rely on scripture only seem to have the greatest variance of ideas.  Which is kind of a red flag that someone has really considered what the symbolism really references. 

 

The Traveler

You make a few good points with defining heaven. I dont find much logic in a final assembly to glory that is associated with the three members of the Godhead. In the end all of the Godhead should be the same glory. Our doctrine falls apart somewhat at this point because you have Christ, whose glory is celestial, being sent to the terrestrial because the inhabitants can somehow abide that glory but not the Father. But how? Both the Father and Son have the same glory at that point and sit on the throne together. I also find it interesting that properly understood, the three kingdoms, should represent three heavens but yet the "kingdom of heaven" is singular. This only adds up if the telestial and terrestrial kigdoms are in fact separate heavens but are not part of, or associated with, the future singular "kingdom of heaven". These two lower heavens- the telestial and terrestrial, are the first and second heavens respectfully and the celestial is the third heaven. But, the first and second heavens pass away, they have an end. Symbolicly, its a progression, in the first heaven is the Holy Ghost- that gift the righteous now have. In the second heaven we will enjoy our Lord Jesus Christ during the millennium. Then, finally we will progress to the third heaven where both the Father and Son are together and the Son will go no more out. There wont be a terrestrial kingdom at that point as it would be pointless seeings how Christ has celestial glory along with all he saved also have celestial glory having progressed with Christ.

Also, speaking of symbols, the endowment ceremony represents a progression of man through three kingdoms in order to be saved. Thats precisely what we are doing now- we are in the first heaven now just as the scriptures and endowment teach which will advance us into the second, and eventually into the third heaven. This precisely has to do with our placement in the universe. The "fall" was literal in that the earth fell from Gods presence or location into where we now reside. Before the fall the scriptures tell us that the earth had not yet received its reckoning of time.

13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning. (Abraham 5:13)

I take this to mean we hadnt come into our first heaven, or location we are now in yet as it is the sun and our revolution around it that gives us our reckoning. If the earth was after the time of Kolob it would mean that the earths physical placement before the fall was where God dwells.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[laronius]

On 11/1/2017 at 12:40 PM, Rob Osborn said:

The contextual hiccup we have is tending to believe that any and all reference to "heaven" deals with a future eternal state. But, from Gods perspective "heaven" is a term dealing more with placement in the universe and its relative laws and blessings associated with that particular heaven or placement. This is why, in the temple, our current state is the telestial kingdom. When combined with its literal placement in the heavens it could thus be stated to be the telestial heaven or first heaven.  God speaks of many heavens-

I guess I don't understand why it has to be an either or. Why can't it be a future eternal state as well as a literal placement in the universe? I do think that the scriptures make it pretty clear though that once a person dies there is no more "work" they can do to prepare for judgment. This of course doesn't mean that progression ceases, simply that at that point we are judged according the light we had in this life (though I have a feeling our premortal lives factor in as well). I don't think that all progression has to take place in this sphere. Indeed Christ progressed to the level of being a God before coming to this earth. Likewise Abraham and perhaps others have already entered into their glory. We also know there is a spirit prison and a spirit paradise that all spirits go to upon death. So I guess these are places where a prejudgment has taken place and yet conformity to law has not been completely accomplished.

[zil]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

But how?

The same way mortals could fail to recognize him / survive his presence when he came to earth - a resurrected being is able to suppress their glory.  A GA commented on this in some talk / devotional I listened to.

Alternately, every mortal who saw the resurrected Christ was transfigured, but it doesn't appear that way as it was never mentioned, and other transfigurations were mentioned and the people who were changed knew they had been changed.

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Both the Father and Son have the same glory at that point and sit on the throne together.

Scriptures indicate this isn't a future event, that it already happened - Christ has all the glory the Father had.

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You make a few good points with defining heaven. I dont find much logic in a final assembly to glory that is associated with the three members of the Godhead. In the end all of the Godhead should be the same glory. Our doctrine falls apart somewhat at this point because you have Christ, whose glory is celestial, being sent to the terrestrial because the inhabitants can somehow abide that glory but not the Father. But how? Both the Father and Son have the same glory at that point and sit on the throne together. I also find it interesting that properly understood, the three kingdoms, should represent three heavens but yet the "kingdom of heaven" is singular. This only adds up if the telestial and terrestrial kigdoms are in fact separate heavens but are not part of, or associated with, the future singular "kingdom of heaven". These two lower heavens- the telestial and terrestrial, are the first and second heavens respectfully and the celestial is the third heaven. But, the first and second heavens pass away, they have an end. Symbolicly, its a progression, in the first heaven is the Holy Ghost- that gift the righteous now have. In the second heaven we will enjoy our Lord Jesus Christ during the millennium. Then, finally we will progress to the third heaven where both the Father and Son are together and the Son will go no more out. There wont be a terrestrial kingdom at that point as it would be pointless seeings how Christ has celestial glory along with all he saved also have celestial glory having progressed with Christ.

Also, speaking of symbols, the endowment ceremony represents a progression of man through three kingdoms in order to be saved. Thats precisely what we are doing now- we are in the first heaven now just as the scriptures and endowment teach which will advance us into the second, and eventually into the third heaven. This precisely has to do with our placement in the universe. The "fall" was literal in that the earth fell from Gods presence or location into where we now reside. Before the fall the scriptures tell us that the earth had not yet received its reckoning of time.

13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning. (Abraham 5:13)

I take this to mean we hadnt come into our first heaven, or location we are now in yet as it is the sun and our revolution around it that gives us our reckoning. If the earth was after the time of Kolob it would mean that the earths physical placement before the fall was where God dwells.

 

It would seem that your problem with logic of scriptural symbolism of “Kingdom” is that you do not understand the ancient definition of a “Kingdom” and more specifically the kingdoms of the near east – which includes ancient Egypt.  If you like I can give you several references – however, I am currently not at home and do not have access to my library.  I will be returning to my home next week.

Two ancient term are of interest.  These are the terms of “mediator” and “advocate”.  Anciently a Kingdom could have multiple realms.  Each realm could also be referred to as a kingdom because the title of the governor is “king”.  But the realm king was the mediator and advocate of the citizens of his realm with the supreme Suzerain that is the king of all realms.  But the king of the realm and the supreme Suzerain king were considered as “one” king.  Either may say – I am the King and beside me there is no other king.  Or as at the trail of Jesus the Jews said they had no king but Cezar.  Really? Who then was Herod?  Herod was king but was a “vassal” king under the authority of Cezar.

Jesus made it very clear that he was a vassal king under the authority of the Father.  He also said that he and the Father are “One”.  If one understands the ancient Near Eastern Suzerain – Vassal treaty, they would realize that this oneness is misrepresented in the Traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Your reference to logic based in scripture may seem valid but I contend that it is because you are using a modern interpretation of a kingdom – based mostly in the kingdoms of the Middle or Dark Ages.  I see this as very problematic because of the “Paganaizing” of Christianity because of the loss of Apostles and the changes in law (kingdoms) brought about because of the Great Apostasy.

The correct understanding of Kingdoms has reference to many symbolic terms in scripture – such as “mercy” and what a “stranger” is and what is meant by a “foreigner” – this even gives light to terms in the Book of Mormon such as “curious workmanship”.  

In our current government, there is a very big difference between an “elected official” and a “bureaucrat” but someone only familiar with ancient Kingdoms may find the terms difficult to understand logically.  I am not sure how I can explain some things without explaining dozens and dozens of other things.  I attempted to say that not all citizens of an ancient Kingdom were equal.  There were 3 primary classes in each kingdom or realm.  The laws of the kingdom applied differently to each class and could be applied differently in each realm.  We sort of have some idea when we say – those with greater power have greater responsibility.  Or that the crimes of a higher official are more damaging to a kingdom (the order of things) than that of someone of lessor responsibility.   But you are likely more familiar with our democracy where all are considered “equal” under the law – something that does not seem to apply to the LDS concept of place of glory in the resurrection. 

As any reader can see – this idea of ancient Kingdoms can have broad applications that can create many and varied logical conundrums for those of us in the postmodern era.   In essence, I am not trying to fault your logic – just what you are basing your logic on.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, laronius said:

I guess I don't understand why it has to be an either or. Why can't it be a future eternal state as well as a literal placement in the universe? I do think that the scriptures make it pretty clear though that once a person dies there is no more "work" they can do to prepare for judgment. This of course doesn't mean that progression ceases, simply that at that point we are judged according the light we had in this life (though I have a feeling our premortal lives factor in as well). I don't think that all progression has to take place in this sphere. Indeed Christ progressed to the level of being a God before coming to this earth. Likewise Abraham and perhaps others have already entered into their glory. We also know there is a spirit prison and a spirit paradise that all spirits go to upon death. So I guess these are places where a prejudgment has taken place and yet conformity to law has not been completely accomplished.

We are judged somewhat at death as it decides whether we go to hell or paradise. But it certainly cant be the case that mortality is the entire test as to our eternal reward. Pretty much no one besides Christ and maybe a few handful of people are up to celestial grade at the time of their death. Christ saya that during the millennium he will perfect the kingdom. This means we will and must further progress towards perfection before judgement.

 

[Guest]

On 11/1/2017 at 10:42 PM, JohnsonJones said:

There is some who think that many of the early thoughts by Brigham Young and others were in part based upon many of the ideas of the Christian Gnostics.  In this way, if Rob got his ideas from them, it could be seen as a direct relation to the ideas of early LDS theology.

 

The Gnostics actually had a lot more in common with present-day Calvinist Protestantism than Mormonism.  If I recall correctly from my reading of the early Christian fathers, they believed in stuff like works play zero role in salvation, baptism is not necessary for salvation, "once saved always saved", and that matter (physical bodies) are evil and corrupt, among other things (their ideas about the nature of God were wildly off-base and are very different from any form of modern Christianity).  The idea of predestination also apparently originated with the Gnostics and was later borrowed by St. Augustine (who, if I may speak frankly, introduced all sorts of other wrong ideas into Christianity, including the lovely idea that unbaptized babies burn for eternity, which has since been rejected to some extent by both Protestants and Catholics), who failed to make the idea take hold in Catholicism.  Martin Luther then studied the works of St. Augustine, dug up many of the aforementioned Gnostic ideas, and reintroduced them into Protestantism.

If there are correct ideas in Gnostic teachings, they were almost certainly borrowed from Mormonism's correct forbearers: the first century Christians.

Edited November 4, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 2:00 PM, DoctorLemon said:

The Gnostics actually had a lot more in common with present-day Calvinist Protestantism than Mormonism.  If I recall correctly from my reading of the early Christian fathers, they believed in stuff like works play zero role in salvation, baptism is not necessary for salvation, "once saved always saved", and that matter (physical bodies) are evil and corrupt, among other things (their ideas about the nature of God were wildly off-base and are very different from any form of modern Christianity).  The idea of predestination also apparently originated with the Gnostics and was later borrowed by St. Augustine (who, if I may speak frankly, introduced all sorts of other wrong ideas into Christianity, including the lovely idea that unbaptized babies burn for eternity, which has since been rejected to some extent by both Protestants and Catholics), who failed to make the idea take hold in Catholicism.  Martin Luther then studied the works of St. Augustine, dug up many of the aforementioned Gnostic ideas, and reintroduced them into Protestantism.

If there are correct ideas in Gnostic teachings, they were almost certainly borrowed from Mormonism's correct forbearers: the first century Christians.

There are many different understandings and thoughts on how Christian Gnostics (not to be confused with other Gnostics) believed and felt.  The Christian Gnostics also believed in a physical and spiritual death as well as a resurrection from both physical and spiritual deaths. 

The pre-destination is slightly different from Calvinism, though I'm sure some Calvinist may feel differently.  There's is more akin to what the LDS feel is fore-ordination, but in some ways more confusing...from what I understand.

It's more of, the Lord is knows what is going to happen.  Therefore, the Lord knew whether you'd join him or despise him.  In a more LDS idea, he foreordained those to leadership in the gospel due to his knowledge of who would actually accept the gospel.   He did not foreordain those who he knew would not accept the gospel.  However, a key difference I see is how I interpret the Christian Gnostic idea of physical death and resurrection.  It seems they did believe in a form of reincarnation, in that the individual, if not perfected in this life, would be brought back again to perfect themselves...however, this resurrection could eventually lead to a perfection of body and soul.  The physical resurrection was something guaranteed to all, not just those who were pre-ordained.

One major difference, and why I think it is related to Mormonism at times is because MANY Protestant sects (I think there are some though) do not believe in a physical resurrection like the Christian Gnostics.  They believe in a spiritual resurrection, where our spirits go to heaven or hell.  That said, there are Gnostic ideas that are in modern Christianity as well.

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 1:32 PM, Rob Osborn said:

We are judged somewhat at death as it decides whether we go to hell or paradise. But it certainly cant be the case that mortality is the entire test as to our eternal reward. Pretty much no one besides Christ and maybe a few handful of people are up to celestial grade at the time of their death. Christ saya that during the millennium he will perfect the kingdom. This means we will and must further progress towards perfection before judgement.

 

I think there are many in the LDS faith that believe that after death we continue to go line upon line, precept upon precept until we attain perfection.  I personally do not know how this will operate if it is true, but there are examples of it given I believe.

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:16 PM, Traveler said:

There is another concept of heaven and this is the concept of the “Kingdom” of heaven.  Because just about everybody lives in a society void of a king (especially the ancient Near Eastern Kingdom) few have much understanding of what a kingdom is, how a kingdom is defined and how laws and citizen (cast system) apply.  To make this discussion short – in the pre-existence Kingdom of heaven – the spirits citizens were divided into 3 classes.  This is pointed out in Abraham chapter 3 and Alma chapter 13.  One class is called “noble and great”.  We see the same 3 classes symbolically represented in the 3 sons of Noah.  The term “Gentile” comes from this class expression.

I would be interested if you could expand on this idea that you present here, specifically about the 3 classes in the pre-existence and the 3 classes in regards to the term Gentile.

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I would be interested if you could expand on this idea that you present here, specifically about the 3 classes in the pre-existence and the 3 classes in regards to the term Gentile.

A kingdom has classes.  We learn from scripture (Abraham chapter 3 as an example) that there are classes in heaven.  The term in Abraham chapter 3 that is given to the highest class is “noble and great”.  G-d said that “these” he would make his rulers.   In ancient kingdoms, these rulers would be the bureaucratic class and would serve the Suzerain on many official levels and would be those that served in various official capacities – such as judges, lawyers, teachers, priests, police and other such things.  This class had “power” to act in the name of the Suzerain that was given to them by the Suzerain and helped the Suzerain rule the kingdom.  The son of Noah that represents this class of humanity was Shem.  As part of his class or position he was given the priesthood – so this class was also known as the children of the Suzerain (G-d).  Shem was charged with administering or a minister to the citizens.

The second class is the general class of citizens.  These are known as citizens and are under covenant or law as citizens.  This covenant included the right to own land and be protected by the Suzerain.  In the pre-existence, this would be all those that are loyal and covenant with G-d but are not the noble and great class.  The son of Noah that comes to represent this class is Japheth.  The descendants of Japheth were called Gentiles and this is the first place in scripture this term is used.  The term "Gentile" was used to discribe one class of humanity.

We are told that heaven was divided and a third part of heaven rebelled against G-d in the pre-existence.  Ancient societies (from where this scripture comes) did not have a modern understanding of mathematics – in particular, fractions.  Thus, this did not mean one of 3 were rebellious.  What is meant is that there were 3 parts and one of the parts was cast out for rebellion.  The third class are those that have broken the law.  The son of Noah that represents this class of humanity was Ham.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

A kingdom has classes.

Technically, a kingdom has phyla, and a phylum has classes.

[Vort]

Taxonomy humor: It's classified.

[eVa]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Taxonomy humor: It's classified.

You are a genus!!  

[Vort]

1 hour ago, eVa said:

You are a genus!!  

Runs in the family.

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

A kingdom has classes.  We learn from scripture (Abraham chapter 3 as an example) that there are classes in heaven.  The term in Abraham chapter 3 that is given to the highest class is “noble and great”.  G-d said that “these” he would make his rulers.   In ancient kingdoms, these rulers would be the bureaucratic class and would serve the Suzerain on many official levels and would be those that served in various official capacities – such as judges, lawyers, teachers, priests, police and other such things.  This class had “power” to act in the name of the Suzerain that was given to them by the Suzerain and helped the Suzerain rule the kingdom.  The son of Noah that represents this class of humanity was Shem.  As part of his class or position he was given the priesthood – so this class was also known as the children of the Suzerain (G-d).  Shem was charged with administering or a minister to the citizens.

The second class is the general class of citizens.  These are known as citizens and are under covenant or law as citizens.  This covenant included the right to own land and be protected by the Suzerain.  In the pre-existence, this would be all those that are loyal and covenant with G-d but are not the noble and great class.  The son of Noah that comes to represent this class is Japheth.  The descendants of Japheth were called Gentiles and this is the first place in scripture this term is used.  The term "Gentile" was used to discribe one class of humanity.

We are told that heaven was divided and a third part of heaven rebelled against G-d in the pre-existence.  Ancient societies (from where this scripture comes) did not have a modern understanding of mathematics – in particular, fractions.  Thus, this did not mean one of 3 were rebellious.  What is meant is that there were 3 parts and one of the parts was cast out for rebellion.  The third class are those that have broken the law.  The son of Noah that represents this class of humanity was Ham.

 

The Traveler

Interesting.  So, in relation to our modern world, would you then say that the classes would be similar to a Member the LDS church, someone who is not a Member of the LDS church...and those who didn't even get to come to Earth?

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Interesting.  So, in relation to our modern world, would you then say that the classes would be similar to a Member the LDS church, someone who is not a Member of the LDS church...and those who didn't even get to come to Earth?

 

I believe there are some interesting terms in scripture that will help and I believe that this applies across all we are taught in gospel principles.   The terms I am thinking about are holy, whole, perfect and complete.  Some other words – Saints, the covenant children of G-d, the fullness of the gospel and the order of the priesthood.  These are those that love others as themselves – that will sacrifice themselves for a greater good.  The operative word is sacrifice – willing to sacrifice.  In scripture, these terms often refer to the “valiant” that are loyal to their covenants – sometimes called the “Church of the first borne”.    

I believe these are the first class or what were spoken of in the pre-existence as the noble and great.  Here in mortality they are called “Zion”, the Saints of G-d and the pure in heart.  I believe the same class exist across the entire spectrum of the pre-existence, mortality and the resurrection. 

I believe the second class are the good people of all churches (including LDS) and religions – even atheists.  They are honest and interested in getting along with each other and living a good life – but they are not valiant in the service of others and are unwilling to sacrifice that which they have worked so hard to achieve – they will help the poor on occasions but they are more interested in their personal goals and improving themselves and their lot.

I believe the final class are those that are a law unto themselves – They do not want to make any personal sacrifices and they really do not care what happens to others as long as they are able to survive or achieve.  They will only serve others if they get something out of it.  In scripture, the are called adulters, murders and liars.  They are champions of survival and find some way to get through whatever regardless of what cost others must bear.   Religion is only meaningful to them when it is all about their salvation and what blessings and rewards they get.  They only love those that love them.  Justice to them is revenge and payback to those that have wronged them and reward for those that benefit them – forgiveness is only for those that will serve them and make their life better – they have no sorrow for whatever ill befalls those that are not their dedicated friends – and a friend is someone that accepts them and whatever they do and will lie for them if needed.

Anyway this is my take – it seems to be a cross section of classes of what humanity is.

 

The Traveler