Repentance after death

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

I can see what you are saying, except that, as inexplicable as it may seem, one mans reward is another man's punishment, and vice-versa. To me, putting a telestial being into the celestial kingdom would be one of the worst forms of punishment, if not THE worst form of punishment--the fires of hell may be eternal in a manner of speaking, but they are not all consuming  or annihilating as is intense glory of God, . Putting a telestial being into the telestial kingdom is their greatest reward. If so, then justice and mercy demand the later.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I accept this -- it is scriptural after all.  But...it's also semantics.

I believe we don't really understand the afterlife and pretending we do is moderately foolish of any of us.

All we know for sure is that God's will for us is to strive for the Celestial Glory, and that only there will we have a "fulness of joy".

Beyond that how wounded we'll feel post "suffering in hell" or not (beyond perhaps being individual -- and so mass application fails), is unknown.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Things do not remain static in the eternities. 

You say that like you know. But you don't.

4 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

who, without doubt, are sent to instruct and encourage them to continue on their journey of eternal progression.

If it's really "without a doubt" then how can we not all agree perfectly.

I don't read it that way at all, and find the idea illogical. If all kingdoms have "eternal progression" then we're back to Rob's "everyone ends up Celestial".

That's not what eternal progression even means. God is not growing smarter all the time. He's not learning more. He's not getting more powerful. He already has a "fulness" of those things. Eternal progression is his honor, majesty, and influence as he continues to create worlds and spiritual progeny. Something we have been explicitly told those in the Tel and Terr kingdoms will not have.

No...I don't buy that those there have any form of "eternal progression". So it is not, "without a doubt" after all.

 

[estradling75]

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe.

It really is a semantics game. To remit is to refrain from exacting a punishment or debt payment. And yet...not receiving a "fulness" is, from a certain point of view, a punishment and a price (debt) to be paid.

Think of it analogous to physical resurrection -- lets say, for example, that the Celestial being has all their limbs, Terrestrial are missing their left arms, and Telestial are missing both their arms -- I know...silly...but go with it for a sec...

So that's what they "earned" by their works. Say it's related to their "work". The hard worker who used both their hands in labor gets both, the semi-lazy gets one arm, and the super lazy none...because they showed themselves worthy/unworthy of those tools.

Would anyone, reasonably, accept the idea that having no arms as your "reward" for your works (oh...sure...the "reward" is they have a resurrected body at all...so they have legs, feet, mouth, etc...that's the "glory" part...but they don't have a "fulness" because they were not worthy of it)...would anyone accept the idea that this wasn't a punishment to them?

Punishment and reward, once again, semantically speaking, are similar to salvation/damnation. Only a fullness of reward counts as no punishment whatsoever and only a fullness of punishment counts as no reward whatsoever. The states between perdition and Celestial glory are not a fullness of reward, and so they are partial punishment/as in partial damnation. They "cannot" this or "cannot" that.

Remission, by definition, tends to mean removal of punishment. A "full" remission of sin implies "full" reward.

Indeed...  semantics...  your argument makes sense as written.  However if you changed "Reward" to "Earned" your argument becomes much harder to follow and accept.  A simple semantic change.

For me I tend toward the "No Suffering" in Heaven idea (which includes the Telestial Kingdom)  It is very hard to separate "Punishment" from "Suffering" (and a lesser extent "Damnation" from "Suffering").  I feel that in Heaven we are going to have maximum "Personal" Joy, but there is also a maximum "Objective" Joy (aka Exaltation).  Our goal in mortally is to match our "Personal" maximum with the "Objective" maximum.  So if it motivates us toward the Objective the Idea that we might be suffering a bit in Heaven becomes a teaching tool.  (Just like the idea of Endless and Eternal Punishment is a motivational expression per the scriptures).

However once we get there I think/feel we are going to be quite happy were we are no matter which Glory we get.  We will not "suffer" jealously or envy for those in a higher Glory, instead we will see the "weight" Glory that they are cheerfully enduring and say "No thank you that is not for me"

Or to use your missing arms analogy.. If we have a Telestial Glory we find that we have two arms.  We see that those with Higher glory have four or six arms.  We ask about gaining another set of arms or two.  We are told sure more arms can be attached, but to use said arms they have to crack open our skulls and perform brain surgery to fundamentally alter our personality so that we can use the new arms just as naturally as we use our current arms.  Upon pondering this for however long we need to we respond.  "You know its really not worth it I'll stay with just two"

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

Learning how to be intelligently curious and willing to explorer is learning how to learn.  Studying a subject because you were told to - in order to get a "good" grade will not result in new technology.

Thank you for defining your terms.  That is a definition I can get behind.  And I agree that it is an important part of the lifelong learning process.  

What I disagree with is that "anything else is a waste of time."  There are some facts and figures that one needs to learn that does nothing for curiosity.  They are necessary building blocks for being able to deduce additional facts.  And it is these additional facts that are the breakthroughs.

In other words.  I believe education to be an iterative process.  One learns facts, one becomes curious, one learns new facts, one had additional curiosity, etc. Giving someone curiosity and then saying learning any "facts and figures" is useless is basically giving someone a fortune in cash and telling them to go live on a deserted island with no communication or transportation to the outside world.

Quote

Perhaps you have heard about slim mold – and its ability to intelligently solve difficult engineering transportation (supply chain) problems even though the organism does not have a brain?  You talked about ionization energy and oxygen’s electron affinity.  Wonderful concepts – but did you know that 4,000 years ago the ancient Egyptians came up with a harmonic process of catalogizing matter into various “harmonic” elements.  For a long time, their efforts were considered nonsense until some smart engineers realized that these ancient scientists understood basic elements better than most college students today being taught about ionization energy and these ancients without being taught about ionization energy.  These ancients also calculated wave lengths of light (color) using the same harmonic principles that were not duplicated in or modern era until we invented lasers – I have a theory of how they came up with this most interesting mathematical and scientific system of ratios.  Obviously, they learned something different than what is being taught in our educational system - and they made it work.

No, I hadn't heard of any of that.  And while I agree that is all fascinating, I fear this may be a rabbit hole again.  Is this about learning how to learn?  If so, expound.

Quote

When I worked for Boeing – an engineer came up with the concept of the “supercritical wing” for subsonic aircraft.  He discovered this concept studying why paper airplanes fly trying to win a paper airplane flight contest – even though the concept of a supercritical wing had already been developed for supersonic and transonic craft.  I very much doubt this was something he learned while studying engineering in school.  Most likely he was discouraged from playing with paper airplanes at school.

Ok.  And?

Quote

I mentioned another principle engineer I use to work with – we were trying to solve a problem of how to get empty automated transportation vehicles to the area of the plant they were needed.  The problem was the empty vehicles pick up loads and take the loads to the next step in the manufacturing process.   So empty vehicles are mostly ending up where they are not needed.  Where the empty vehicles are needed changed dynamically minute to minute during the day and from day to day.  Together we developed a priority scheme based on loads needing vehicles based on individual loads and their accumulations at various tools, locations and zones in the factory – then we also created a priority scheme for vehicles to find loads based on where the individual now empty vehicles were located by tool, location and zones in the factory – then we came up with a scheme to create scheduling based on merging the two priorities.   Our initial application performed so well our application has become an example in artificial intelligence (published in trade and educational journals - 20 years ago that has not been improved yet) but it will when someone realizes that thinking about it and improving it is possible and that the answer is not just to learn how we did it.  

Ok.  And?

Quote

I believe the same principles of intelligent engineering apply to intelligent religion.  For example, keeping the Sabbath holy is not just understanding how it has been done for so many thousands of years.  But more about the principles of what we are trying to accomplish by keeping a Sabbath day holy and that thinking, praying and trying out some ideas of how we can improve keeping a Sabbath day holy.  Just 100 years ago there was no Super Bowl or worship block system for the saints – so we can learn if these “New” things have a desired impact or if there is a way to deal with Super Bowls and block schedules that we must discover on our own.  We should not be told, taught or commanded in everything – we should learn some things by our own intelligent intuitive – things beyond what are told and taught.  Please note that I used the term “beyond” not “instead of”.

Ok.  And?

Quote

One last thing I will tell you about myself – I am dyslexic.  This means that I see and organize the world differently than most others.  For most this is a learning disability – for me it has been a blessing except at times when I attempt to explain repeating patterns that I see like fractals showing up in different complex systems.  I have great difficulty not realizing others do not see “things” that appear obvious and needing no explanation.   I have learned (sometimes) to be patient but on many occasions that is not enough – so I realize that things obvious to me are rabbit holes to others.

Like all the above Ok.  And?

If that is your explanation for why I'm consistently asking "What does this have to do with..." then I'd politely ask you to consider that the patterns you see may actually be in incorrect logical order.  Therefore, when people politely ask you to clarify, then at least make an attempt to clarify the steps in the logic process.  Instead, what I've read from you is additional analogies that make additional rabbit holes that also follow unothodox thinking.  Concentrate on the step-by-step logic train that gets you to your conclusions or perspectives.

I've known several dislexics in my life.  One of them told me that if he reads a word, he can either see individual letters backwards or the entire word backwards.  One trick he uses is that he will take his finger or other pointing object and move it physically from left to right to keep his eyes oriented on the object which will guide him in reading the words.  By focusing on his pointer, the letters tend to orient themselves in the right direction and he can read.

If you could treat some conversations this way and use the step-by-step logic process as your "pointer" this may aid in communication.  Just as with reading, there is a correct order to the letters regardless of what you yourself perceive.  It is left to right. You might see a different logic pattern in your brain, but to communicate it to others, it must follow the proper sequence. 

Use your understanding of programming and processes with explanations of your ideas.  If... then.  Given A and B,  thus C exists, therefore D.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Guest

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 12:33 AM, wenglund said:

I am not addressing this question to Rob since that would be futile, but is anyone else here believe that there is only one degree of condemnation and punishment in the hereafter?  In other words, do you believe the condemnation and punishment of Mother Teresa for not accepting the fullness of the gospel (assuming that is the case) but doing good continually, will be the same as someone like Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the death/murder of 20 to 25 million people?

Also, is there anyone here (not including Rob) who doesn't believe that damnation prevents or limits people from progressing?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quote

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Also, I differ from Mckonkie on some aspects of Damnation.  Damnation is NOT a Dam, but it is a condemnation to eternal exclusion from the Lord and his kingdom.  ONLY Sons of Perdition have eternal Damnation, and those who have to pay for their sins (in my thought, at least until they accept the Lord and his atonement at which point they will be sanctified and saved in the Telestial Kingdom) will eventually also be saved in the Kingdom of our Lord (albeit the lowest degree of salvation).

Only those in the Celestial Glory are able to have eternal exaltation, and it is silent on whether they can advance between degrees in the Celestial Kingdom or not.  My opinion is that there MAY be a way for one to advance between various levels of the Celestial Glory, but that is speculation, rather than anything stated in the scriptures that I know of. 

Those who are in lower degrees are STILL in the Kingdom of the Lord and hence not separated from him.  This is not a condemnation, but a degree of glory (and this is where my and Mckonkie disagree, as he sees it also as a damnation, but I see it as them being glorified, but as the Lord says, there are many mansions in his house).  I believe they will be content with where they have gone as they will understand why they are there and have the all the happiness they could.  Those who have bodies telestial or terrestrial have bodies for those kingdoms, and it is made according to their attitude and demeanor.  I believe it will still be a choice of theirs and ours in the hereafter, and to a degree, WE will be our greatest judge on where we end up in accordance with what will give us the most joy and happiness.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 12:33 AM, wenglund said:

I am not addressing this question to Rob since that would be futile, but is anyone else here believe that there is only one degree of condemnation and punishment in the hereafter?  In other words, do you believe the condemnation and punishment of Mother Teresa for not accepting the fullness of the gospel (assuming that is the case) but doing good continually, will be the same as someone like Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the death/murder of 20 to 25 million people?

Also, is there anyone here (not including Rob) who doesn't believe that damnation prevents or limits people from progressing?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Quote

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Also, I differ from Mckonkie on some aspects of Damnation.  Damnation is NOT a Dam, but it is a condemnation to eternal exclusion from the Lord and his kingdom.  ONLY Sons of Perdition have eternal Damnation, and those who have to pay for their sins (in my thought, at least until they accept the Lord and his atonement at which point they will be sanctified and saved in the Telestial Kingdom) will eventually also be saved in the Kingdom of our Lord (albeit the lowest degree of salvation).

Only those in the Celestial Glory are able to have eternal exaltation, and it is silent on whether they can advance between degrees in the Celestial Kingdom or not.  My opinion is that there MAY be a way for one to advance between various levels of the Celestial Glory, but that is speculation, rather than anything stated in the scriptures that I know of.  On the otherhand, it is not silent on whether one can advance between different kingdoms or not (the scriptures imply one that is in the telestial glory remains as such and the same applies to that of the terrestrial, however, even within each kingdom are different degrees just like the Celestial has three degrees...and as such, there may also be advancement between those.  We know that the telestial glory differs from individual to individual like the stars in the sky differ in glory and light one from another).

Those who are in lower degrees are STILL in the Kingdom of the Lord and hence not separated from him.  This is not a condemnation, but a degree of glory (and this is where my and Mckonkie disagree, as he sees it also as a damnation, but I see it as them being glorified, but as the Lord says, there are many mansions in his house).  I believe they will be content with where they have gone as they will understand why they are there and have the all the happiness they could.  Those who have bodies telestial or terrestrial have bodies for those kingdoms, and it is made according to their attitude and demeanor.  I believe it will still be a choice of theirs and ours in the hereafter, and to a degree, WE will be our greatest judge on where we end up in accordance with what will give us the most joy and happiness.

Edited April 27, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

For me I tend toward the "No Suffering" in Heaven idea (which includes the Telestial Kingdom)  It is very hard to separate "Punishment" from "Suffering" (and a lesser extent "Damnation" from "Suffering"). 

This is probably the root of where differences of views (excluding outlier extremities like Rob) come into play. I believe that those who fail to achieve that which they set out to achieve, that which they cheered for, fought for, hoped for, and anticipated in the pre-existence as they joined the Savior in opposition to Satan... I think those who when they wake up to who THEY REALLY ARE, will regret that...for all time.

Now whether we term regret "suffering"... *shrug*  I don't believe it will be walking on spikes, burning in complete pain, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, Chinese water torture, agony, for all time. But regret? Sorrow? Sure.

Alma 11:

40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works.

42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.

43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

 

Now I'll grant here that whether the "remain as though there had been no redemption made" might be in strict reference to only unil they rise from the dead to stand before God. But that's not how it reads to me. They remain that way except for their resurrection -- and that reads to me after the resurrection and related to their judgment.

Alma further clarifies in chapter 12:

12 And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised from this mortality to a state of immortality, and being brought before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works.

13 Then if our hearts have been hardened, yea, if we have hardened our hearts against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemned.

14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

15 But this cannot be; we must come forth and stand before him in his glory, and in his power, and in his might, majesty, and dominion, and acknowledge to our everlasting shame that all his judgments are just; that he is just in all his works, and that he is merciful unto the children of men, and that he has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance.

 

Now I'll also grant that this MAY be only referring to those souls who become sons of perdition. But, golly, that seems like an awful mighty stretch to me. Particularly when we have been told by our living prophets and apostles that to become a son of perdition one must be in the state of looking at the sun in bright daylight and denying it is there. That doesn't sound to me like those described in Alma 11 and 12, specifically ch 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

 

That doesn't sound anything like those who we have been told will qualify to be sons of perdition -- those who truly KNOW the truth but turn against it anyhow. It sounds more to me like those who didn't accept the lesser portion of the word and were nowhere near a sure knowledge, and never came close to being able to receive a sure knowledge because they received lesser portions until they knew nothing.

So either the usage in Alma concerning those who will not have the redemption apply and those who will burn in the lake of fire and brimstone is not, in this case, specific to only the sons of perdition, or else the things we have been taught concerning those who will qualify to be sons of perdition is mistaken.

Either way -- we're left at just way I say....

Maybe.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Those who are in lower degrees are STILL in the Kingdom of the Lord and hence not separated from him. 

But D&C 76:112 specifically says otherwise.

[The Folk Prophet]

Pulled up this quote for reference:

"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition.  What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin?  He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him.  He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it, he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy.  This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me, he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood.  He gets the spirit of the devil-the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life-the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance; they make open war, like the devil, and awful is the consequence." — Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 357-58

[anatess2]

I interrupt this robust discussion for a brief intermission.

 

A little child, the son of a minister, went to bury his dead pet robin.  He put the robin in a box and dug a hole in the ground.  He offers a prayer for the peaceful demise of the sweet robin just like he heard his father do many times over.  "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and in the hole he goes.  Amen."

[estradling75]

52 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is probably the root of where differences of views (excluding outlier extremities like Rob) come into play. I believe that those who fail to achieve that which they set out to achieve, that which they cheered for, fought for, hoped for, and anticipated in the pre-existence as they joined the Savior in opposition to Satan... I think those who when they wake up to who THEY REALLY ARE, will regret that...for all time.

You seem to be correct on where the root of our disagreement is.  And I am not so sold on my point of view as to say that lesser Glories would never look to the higher glories and wonder "IF only."

On more pressing issues we appear to agree. God wants us to receive the Highest Degree of Glory/Happiness, and he does not want us to "Settle" for less or procrastinate in trying for it

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You say that like you know. But you don't.

If it's really "without a doubt" then how can we not all agree perfectly.

I don't read it that way at all, and find the idea illogical. If all kingdoms have "eternal progression" then we're back to Rob's "everyone ends up Celestial".

That's not what eternal progression even means. God is not growing smarter all the time. He's not learning more. He's not getting more powerful. He already has a "fulness" of those things. Eternal progression is his honor, majesty, and influence as he continues to create worlds and spiritual progeny. Something we have been explicitly told those in the Tel and Terr kingdoms will not have.

No...I don't buy that those there have any form of "eternal progression". So it is not, "without a doubt" after all.

 

I believe you are correct that we really don't know entirely or for sure, but I think we may have beneficial glimpses into the afterlife. One might be that in mathematical terms, it is conceivable that there are parallel planes, ordinated one above the other, each extending for eternity indicative of progression, yet never intersecting.

Who knows? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 27, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Also, I differ from Mckonkie on some aspects of Damnation.  Damnation is NOT a Dam, but it is a condemnation to eternal exclusion from the Lord and his kingdom. 

Isn't eternal exclusion logically a means of preventing or limiting a person from progressing into God's presence and becoming even as he is? If so, then reasonably speaking dmnation is a dam.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Those who are in lower degrees are STILL in the Kingdom of the Lord and hence not separated from him.  

I agree in part. The kingdoms of the resurrection are God the Father's kingdoms, to be inherited by the the Son and those who receive the same, though only the Celestial kingdom is his dwelling place or the place of His presence--not unlike His church on earth is His kingdom, though not the place of his presence. 

This is of necessity because, in part, the lower kingdoms of glory, like the earthly kingdoms, cannot abide the intense glory of the Father, and would be consumed as if by fire were they brought into His presence--the exceptions being by way of transfiguration. 

Instead, as indicated in D&C 76 (as pointed out by TFP), those of the terrestrial kingdom (on earth or resurrected glory) receive the presence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, while those in the telestial kingdom (on earth or resurrected glory) receive only the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Since the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are all God, then in one respect all the kingdoms of resurrected heaven are the kingdoms of God and have the presence of God, though not all have the presence of God the Father, nor the Son.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 27, 2018 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I believe you are correct that we really don't know entirely or for sure, but I think we may have beneficial glimpses into the afterlife. One might be that in mathematical terms, it is conceivable that there are parallel planes, ordinated one above the other, each extending for eternity indicative of progression, yet never intersecting.

Who knows? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure any "glimpse" into the afterlife we have naturally promote such a speculation.

How does "stretching into eternity" indicate "progression"?

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Isn't eternal exclusion logically a means of preventing or limiting a person from progressing into God's presence and becoming even as he is? If so, then reasonably speaking dmnation is a dam.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the entire problem with comparing dam and damn is not that we're trying to imply that to damn is to "stop" something from progression - that seems easy, but rather that we're using "dam" as if it means, strictly, to stop from progression. Obviously there are semantics at play, once again, meaning it depends on what one means by "progression". But a dam is specific to water and to dam is specific to water. And dams do not necessarily stop water from "progressing", they typically slow water. And, more importantly, something built to keep one thing from moving to another place other than water is called a WALL.

To damn is to condemn. The legal means to condemn is typically death or jail. Jails are build of walls and are the means whereby someone is condemned and/or "stopped" from going elsewhere. A dam is really just a wall for water.

The comparison of dam and damn is, as you have repeatedly said, not much of a stretch.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I agree in part. The kingdoms of the resurrection are God the Father's kingdoms, to be inherited by the the Son and those who receive the same, though only the Celestial kingdom is his dwelling place or the place of His presence--not unlike His church on earth is His kingdom, though not the place of his presence. 

This is of necessity because, in part, the lower kingdoms of glory, like the earthly kingdoms, cannot abide the intense glory of the Father, and would be consumed as if by fire were they brought into His presence--the exceptions being by way of transfiguration. 

Instead, as indicated in D&C 76 (as pointed out by TFP), those of the terrestrial kingdom (on earth or resurrected glory) receive the presence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, while those in the telestial kingdom (on earth or resurrected glory) receive only the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think it's entirely accurate to include the Telestial and Terrestrial glories in "the kingdom of God".

Certainly when we see teachings such as, "seek ye first the kingdom of God" we are not meant to presume seeking the Telestial glory.

Of course I understand that in the broadest sense it is all part of God's "kingdom". I just want to point out that the idea of being saved in the kingdom of God typically means the Celestial.

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure any "glimpse" into the afterlife we have naturally promote such a speculation.

How does "stretching into eternity" indicate "progression"?

At a bear minimum, "stretching into  eternity" indicates progression in time.

But, my graphic had each parallel plane or line inclined at an angle, indicating progression in things

Granted, there are some things we know that the lower kingdoms will not eternally progress in, thus negating the prospect of intersecting with the highest kingdom, and that is progression  maritally and through offspring, if not inheritance of all that is the Father's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it's entirely accurate to include the Telestial and Terrestrial glories in "the kingdom of God".

Certainly when we see teachings such as, "seek ye first the kingdom of God" we are not meant to presume seeking the Telestial glory.

Of course I understand that in the broadest sense it is all part of God's "kingdom". I just want to point out that the idea of being saved in the kingdom of God typically means the Celestial.

Perhaps here again it is a matter of semantics or multiple meanings of "kingdom of God."

I added the following to the post to which you were responding likely while you were typing up the response: "Since the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are all God, then in one respect all the kingdoms of resurrected heaven are the kingdoms of God and have the presence of God, though not all have the presence of God the Father, nor the Son."

It seems to me that all the semantic challenges underscore your point about us not really knowing fully or for certain about the afterlife., which ought to give great pause to dogmatism--speaking of which, Rob has been conspicuously silent. Has he left the building or been escorted out?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, wenglund said:

At a bear minimum, "stretching into  eternity" indicates progression in time.

But, my graphic had each parallel plane or line inclined at an angle, indicating progression in things

Granted, there are some things we know that the lower kingdoms will not eternally progress in, thus negating the prospect of intersecting with the highest kingdom, and that is progression  maritally and through offspring, if not inheritance of all that is the Father's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

D&C 132 is pretty clear on the limitations of those who do not attain exaltation. Those who do recieve an inheritance of: 

• thrones
• kingdoms
• principalities,
• powers
• dominions
• all heights and depths
• pass by the angels, and the gods
• exaltation and glory in all things which glory shall be:
  • a fulness
  • a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
• They have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue;
• then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them.
• Then shall they be gods, because they have all power
• The angels are subject unto them.

And vs 21 is the kicker:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

and vs 22 even more explicit:

For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

So...if we take it that those who, having not received Christ in the world (by which we can include spirit prison for at least those who had no opportunity in life), "cannot attain" thrones, kingdoms, principalities, powers, dominions, etc. are, indeed, able to progress...what, exactly, are they progressing to attain?

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It seems to me that all the semantic challenges underscore your point about us not really knowing fully or for certain about the afterlife., which ought to give great pause to dogmatism--

Triple thumbs up. This ^^^ is what I'm getting at.

We have dogma and we have speculation. The dogma we have on these things is fairly sparse, and even what we have by way of canonization is unclear in many ways. All else is speculative.

[askandanswer]

I'm a little bit curious about what exactly it is that prevents further progression. I wander if it is more to do with a set of rules built into the system and therefore administered by a rulemaker, or is it more to do with an inherent quality of being human. Or, more likely, some sort of combination. Perhaps the rules of the system are such that a bad person will "naturally" feel bad when they are in a place they don't deserve to be. But what of the person who wants the best for themselves, regardless of whether or not they deserve it? I'm thinking of a man sentenced to life in prison, but through a bureacratic error, suddenly finds himself free, out on the streets. Will he, upon realising the error, conclude that he doesn't deserve his new freedom, and turn himself back in? I think not. I think he will enjoy his newfound freedom and make the most of his new circumstances. This, to me, weakens the argument that there is an element of self-selection or self judgement in who gets into the celestial kingdom. If it is not our own judgement that keeps us out, then our being kept out is likely to be the result of a decision maker acting in accordance with the rules of the system. And if their is a point at which a person's position, destination and direction are permanently influenced by sinful conduct, that would seem to suggest that there are limits to the infinite atonment and that perhaps it is not quite as infinite as some would like.

[zil]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 But what of the person who wants the best for themselves, regardless of whether or not they deserve it?

Despite what TV and movies would have us believe, I think the telestial and terrestrial have a very different definition of "the best for themselves" than, a celestial being.  Such a person would know that what he wants is not to be found in the celestial kingdom (and he can't use his old, mortal methods for extracting what he wants from them).  Personally, I think this was part of Satan's game - he knew full well that the Father's plan wouldn't yield what he (Satan) wanted, so he tried changing the plan.

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If it is not our own judgement that keeps us out, then our being kept out is likely to be the result of a decision maker acting in accordance with the rules of the system. And if their is a point at which a person's position, destination and direction are permanently influenced by sinful conduct, that would seem to suggest that there are limits to the infinite atonment and that perhaps it is not quite as infinite as some would like.

The consequences of sin last for eternity (without a redeemer), and therefore are infinite.  Because of Christ's Atonement, he has the power to redeem all who accept him (infinite number, if needed) and the effects of his redemption are eternal.  Further, He is infinite and eternal, thus, the sacrifice was infinite and eternal.  That He will not turn a tree into a dog or a dog into a human does not mean He lacks capacity - it means that a tree is a tree and a dog is a dog - eternally.  I suppose you could say Christ's power to redeem is limited by his respect for our agency, in that he cannot force a telestial being to become terrestrial, but that seems to be the only limit from my perspective.

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm a little bit curious about what exactly it is that prevents further progression. I wander if it is more to do with a set of rules built into the system and therefore administered by a rulemaker, or is it more to do with an inherent quality of being human. Or, more likely, some sort of combination. Perhaps the rules of the system are such that a bad person will "naturally" feel bad when they are in a place they don't deserve to be.

There are places I don't like to be.  There are other places I would not want to be under certain circumstances.  And there are yet other places where I do like to be (sometimes under certain circumstances).  This isn't because someone else has wired my brain like or dislike a place.  It's simply a natural consequence of every decision I've ever made for all eternity.

It isn't hard to imagine that someone whose thoughts and deeds are filthy (not necessarily by mortal standards, but by celestial standards) would not want to be around people who knew at a glance his every thought and deed and found them filthy.  On the other hand, he might well want to be around people who didn't think them filthy at all.

There are many activities which, if I had to do them (at all, frequently, more frequently), I would think myself in hell - just imagining the tedium, drudgery, difficulty, or whatever of them would make me cringe.  And, there are other things that I think I would enjoy doing for a very long time (these generally will not earn you a living).  I see no reason why this concept would not hold true for beings of different glories.  The celestial could not be satisfied doing telestial stuff.  The telestial would think the celestial stuff is too difficult or whatever.

I believe that progress will be stopped by everything that can stop it.  As I've suggested above, the natures we have refined for all eternity will define whether we're a "good enough" sort of person, or a "never stop" sort of person.  We also know that all will say God's ways are just - we will agree to our fates.  I tend to think that part of that is not just begrudging acceptance of unwanted limitation, but coming to understand and agree that our assigned kingdom is indeed where we wish to spend the remainder of our existence.  We learn there are laws to each kingdom and that the inhabitants of them will be people who have chosen to live the corresponding law - thus the law will define the bounds or limits of those in a given kingdom.  And there are places which suggest that our resurrected bodies will be different between glories, and I suspect all but the exalted with have limited capacity because of the type of body they have.  In other words, I think the resurrection will set each person's limits into figurative stone, never to change, for all eternity.

I know a lot of people struggle with the whole "the rest of eternity is a really long time; it seems so unfair" business, but you must remember we've already experienced eternity.  Our mortal selves don't remember it, but we will.  The idea that half of eternity isn't long enough to figure out what we want from the rest of eternity seems very mortal and irrational.  Exactly how much more time do you need to make up your mind.  Personally, I think this won't be a problem for anyone because we've all been spending eternity choosing to stay within / reach toward our respective limits - the resurrection will just be the point at which we say, "Yeah, I'm not changing".  To quote Zane Grey, "Habit of years is strong as life itself."  And we've got an eternity of years cementing our habits.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm a little bit curious about what exactly it is that prevents further progression. I wander if it is more to do with a set of rules built into the system and therefore administered by a rulemaker, or is it more to do with an inherent quality of being human. Or, more likely, some sort of combination. Perhaps the rules of the system are such that a bad person will "naturally" feel bad when they are in a place they don't deserve to be. But what of the person who wants the best for themselves, regardless of whether or not they deserve it? I'm thinking of a man sentenced to life in prison, but through a bureacratic error, suddenly finds himself free, out on the streets. Will he, upon realising the error, conclude that he doesn't deserve his new freedom, and turn himself back in? I think not. I think he will enjoy his newfound freedom and make the most of his new circumstances. This, to me, weakens the argument that there is an element of self-selection or self judgement in who gets into the celestial kingdom. If it is not our own judgement that keeps us out, then our being kept out is likely to be the result of a decision maker acting in accordance with the rules of the system. And if their is a point at which a person's position, destination and direction are permanently influenced by sinful conduct, that would seem to suggest that there are limits to the infinite atonment and that perhaps it is not quite as infinite as some would like.

Let's test your analogy a bit, shall we?  

Let us suppose that the prison consisted of a vast mountain range with plenty of game for hunting, lakes stocked with plenty of fish, cells that were more like comfortable cabins  on lakes and streams, with refrigerators constantly stocked with your favorite food and beverages, big screen TV's with your most beloved sports and entertainment, and ample leisure time to spend doing all the recreational things you want. It is just that you are confined to the mountain range.

Then consider that freedom represents responsibility (something easily forgotten these days), that consists of Home Teaching each other and those in prison 24/7?

You really think there wouldn't be quite a few people who would prefer prison over freedom, and self-select to go there?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 28, 2018 by wenglund

[askandanswer]

Thank you both, they are insighful and thought provoking posts.