Exaltation and Eternal Life

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

The big difference is that we will be resurrected, with bodies of flesh and bone. Paul spoke of different types of bodies; Joseph Smith's revelations extended this metaphor to a very concrete physical reality. We are resurrected with a physical body capable of enduring and prospering in a celestial glory OR a terrestrial glory OR a telestial glory (OR, for those who are lost, no glory).

Yes, all are cleansed from sin, except for those who remain filthy still. All will, indeed must, confess Jesus as the Christ to receive his cleansing blood. Thus they are saved. Though we think of baptism as an ordinance for celestial glory, my understanding is that baptism is a minimal prerequisite for any glory, because all glories are of the kingdom of God, and baptism is the gateway. But salvation in a kingdom of glory is not the same as exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Only some of the saved will be worthy of "a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." There can be no reasonable doubt that this, the difference between salvation and exaltation, is the firmly established doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

The big difference is that we will be resurrected, with bodies of flesh and bone. Paul spoke of different types of bodies; Joseph Smith's revelations extended this metaphor to a very concrete physical reality. We are resurrected with a physical body capable of enduring and prospering in a celestial glory OR a terrestrial glory OR a telestial glory (OR, for those who are lost, no glory).

Yes, all are cleansed from sin, except for those who remain filthy still. All will, indeed must, confess Jesus as the Christ to receive his cleansing blood. Thus they are saved. Though we think of baptism as an ordinance for celestial glory, my understanding is that baptism is a minimal prerequisite for any glory, because all glories are of the kingdom of God, and baptism is the gateway. But salvation in a kingdom of glory is not the same as exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Only some of the saved will be worthy of "a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." There can be no reasonable doubt that this, the difference between salvation and exaltation, is the firmly established doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If you are meaning the difference between being saved in the celestial kingdom and being exalted in tge celestial kingdom I agree.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you are meaning the difference between being saved in the celestial kingdom and being exalted in tge celestial kingdom I agree.

So the common LDS belief is that there are (1) three degrees of glory and (2) three "levels" in the celestial degree of glory. TFP's and my combination of these two ideas is to reject the three-part nature of the celestial kingdom and assign all scriptural variance in description to the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Rob Osborn's resolution is to reject the existence of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms and call everything "the celestial kingdom", assigning all variances within that term.

Other than nomenclature—which in this case I think is a very big deal—I'm not sure there is much conceptual difference between the two views. But I do believe the nomenclature issue is indeed very important.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm not sure there is much conceptual difference between the two views.

Except for the ways in which they're almost the exact opposite of each other.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

So the common LDS belief is that there are (1) three degrees of glory and (2) three "levels" in the celestial degree of glory. TFP's and my combination of these two ideas is to reject the three-part nature of the celestial kingdom and assign all scriptural variance in description to the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Rob Osborn's resolution is to reject the existence of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms and call everything "the celestial kingdom", assigning all variances within that term.

Other than nomenclature—which in this case I think is a very big deal—I'm not sure there is much conceptual difference between the two views. But I do believe the nomenclature issue is indeed very important.

Im principle based, and in principle, regarding the validity of doctrine in the Book of Mormon, there is one heaven and one hell in the end we are will end up in. 

Theres way too many contadictions and paradoxes when you start making heaven three different worlds.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Except for the ways in which they're almost the exact opposite of each other.

Well, yeah, besides that, I mean.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im principle based, and in principle, regarding the validity of doctrine in the Book of Mormon, there is one heaven and one hell in the end we are will end up in. 

Theres way too many contadictions and paradoxes when you start making heaven three different worlds.

Yet the prophets teach as they teach, despite the perceived contradictions and paradoxes.

When you observe that a thing is contradictory or paradoxical, there are at least two possibilities: (1) The thing is false; (2) the thing is not contradictory or paradoxical, and it's only your own ignorance that makes you think they are. I would strongly suggest that you investigate Possibility #2 more diligently.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Vort said:

I would strongly suggest that you investigate Possibility #2 more diligently.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm beating a sleeping horse? Or maybe that's a saddled dog that I'm not letting lie?

I think the horse needs to be hooves up with flies buzzing around it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Vort said:

I'm beating a sleeping horse?

We can hope.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yet the prophets teach as they teach, despite the perceived contradictions and paradoxes.

When you observe that a thing is contradictory or paradoxical, there are at least two possibilities: (1) The thing is false; (2) the thing is not contradictory or paradoxical, and it's only your own ignorance that makes you think they are. I would strongly suggest that you investigate Possibility #2 more diligently.

It is contradictory and paradoxial though. This board is a testament of that! This isnt something I just came up with one night. This has developed over 40 years since my childhood and inquiring about it and studying it out. I think the hardest part for LDS to realize is that not that what I say may be correct but that what I say is contrary to what prophets have taught. Its like we are incapable of studying things out ourselves.

The Book of Mormon lays out the priciples of Christs gospel very very well. A principle is defined as a fundamental truth that lays the foundation for a set of beliefs. Accordingly, we cant go and change the principle later on because it no longer fits our paradigm. But yet, thats exactly what we have done and its created quite a mash of things. As we were discussing earlier, the definitions of "saved" and "damned", as laid out in the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, are used in very well defined terms and meaning that establishes a set of principles that all of Christs teachings regarding salvation are built upon. I did an extensive resarch years ago to understand how Joseph Smith understood the words. I wasnt at all surprised that in every sense he used them the same, never deviated. The problem, or contradiction, is rather paramount. We have since changed the principles established by Christ in the NT and BoM. I can show, and have done so many times in the past, where once one understands the correct principles as set forth by Christ in the Book of Mormon and New Testament, the inevitable conclusion is that our doctrine of salvation in our day has contradictions and paradoxes. I even traced where I think the problem arose, in my opinion, to the very two words that have created the issue- the words "saved" and "damned". 

[Colirio]

The doctrines set forth by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the degrees of glory are simple to understand. Primary children can easily explain them. There is no pretended mystery. 

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks 

April 1995 General Conference

"In their final judgment, the children of God will be assigned to a kingdom of glory for which their obedience has qualified them. In his letters to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul described these places. He told of a vision in which he was “caught up to the third heaven” and “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, he described “celestial bodies,” “bodies terrestrial” (1 Cor. 15:40), and “bodies telestial” (JST, 1 Cor. 15:40), each pertaining to a different degree of glory. He likened these different glories to the sun, to the moon, and to different stars (see 1 Cor. 15:41).

We learn from modern revelation that these three different degrees of glory have a special relationship to the three different members of the Godhead.

The lowest degree is the telestial domain of those who “received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets” (D&C 76:101) and who have had to suffer for their wickedness. But even this degree has a glory that “surpasses all understanding” (D&C 76:89). Its occupants receive the Holy Spirit and the administering of angels, for even those who have been wicked will ultimately be “heirs of [this degree of] salvation” (D&C 76:88).

The next higher degree of glory, the terrestrial, “excels in all things the glory of the telestial, even in glory, and in power, and in might, and in dominion” (D&C 76:91). The terrestrial is the abode of those who were the “honorable men of the earth” (D&C 76:75). Its most distinguishing feature is that those who qualify for terrestrial glory “receive of the presence of the Son” (D&C 76:77). Concepts familiar to all Christians might liken this higher kingdom to heaven because it has the presence of the Son.

In contrast to traditional Christianity, we join with Paul in affirming the existence of a third or higher heaven. Modern revelation describes it as the celestial kingdom—the abode of those “whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God” (D&C 76:70). Those who qualify for this kingdom of glory “shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever” (D&C 76:62). Those who have met the highest requirements for this kingdom, including faithfulness to covenants made in a temple of God and marriage for eternity, will be exalted to the godlike state referred to as the “fulness” of the Father or eternal life (D&C 76:56, 94; see also D&C 131; D&C 132:19–20). (This destiny of eternal life or God’s life should be familiar to all who have studied the ancient Christian doctrine of and belief in deification or apotheosis.) For us, eternal life is not a mystical union with an incomprehensible spirit-god. Eternal life is family life with a loving Father in Heaven and with our progenitors and our posterity."

 

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Colirio said:

The doctrines set forth by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the degrees of glory are simple to understand. Primary children can easily explain them. There is no pretended mystery. 

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks 

April 1995 General Conference

"In their final judgment, the children of God will be assigned to a kingdom of glory for which their obedience has qualified them. In his letters to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul described these places. He told of a vision in which he was “caught up to the third heaven” and “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, he described “celestial bodies,” “bodies terrestrial” (1 Cor. 15:40), and “bodies telestial” (JST, 1 Cor. 15:40), each pertaining to a different degree of glory. He likened these different glories to the sun, to the moon, and to different stars (see 1 Cor. 15:41).

We learn from modern revelation that these three different degrees of glory have a special relationship to the three different members of the Godhead.

The lowest degree is the telestial domain of those who “received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets” (D&C 76:101) and who have had to suffer for their wickedness. But even this degree has a glory that “surpasses all understanding” (D&C 76:89). Its occupants receive the Holy Spirit and the administering of angels, for even those who have been wicked will ultimately be “heirs of [this degree of] salvation” (D&C 76:88).

The next higher degree of glory, the terrestrial, “excels in all things the glory of the telestial, even in glory, and in power, and in might, and in dominion” (D&C 76:91). The terrestrial is the abode of those who were the “honorable men of the earth” (D&C 76:75). Its most distinguishing feature is that those who qualify for terrestrial glory “receive of the presence of the Son” (D&C 76:77). Concepts familiar to all Christians might liken this higher kingdom to heaven because it has the presence of the Son.

In contrast to traditional Christianity, we join with Paul in affirming the existence of a third or higher heaven. Modern revelation describes it as the celestial kingdom—the abode of those “whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God” (D&C 76:70). Those who qualify for this kingdom of glory “shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever” (D&C 76:62). Those who have met the highest requirements for this kingdom, including faithfulness to covenants made in a temple of God and marriage for eternity, will be exalted to the godlike state referred to as the “fulness” of the Father or eternal life (D&C 76:56, 94; see also D&C 131; D&C 132:19–20). (This destiny of eternal life or God’s life should be familiar to all who have studied the ancient Christian doctrine of and belief in deification or apotheosis.) For us, eternal life is not a mystical union with an incomprehensible spirit-god. Eternal life is family life with a loving Father in Heaven and with our progenitors and our posterity."

 

I will point out just a few points. Describing the telestial, a kingdom of salvation, it mentions they receive not the gospel. This is a direct contradiction to Christs teachings that one must receive the gospel in order to be saved from hell eternally. The other point I might mention is that all of those saved from the eternal hell receive "eternal life". Things to think about.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

1 hour ago, Vort said:

When you observe that a thing is contradictory or paradoxical, there are at least two possibilities: (1) The thing is false; (2) the thing is not contradictory or paradoxical, and it's only your own ignorance that makes you think they are. I would strongly suggest that you investigate Possibility #2 more diligently.

It is contradictory and paradoxial though.

Well, okay, then.

[wenglund]

To the binary mind, it would be contradictory and paradoxical to say that there is one ice-cream and three ice-creams. 

 

Not a problem for the nuanced thinkers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

To the binary mind, it would be contradictory and paradoxical to say that there is one ice-cream and three ice-creams. 

 

Not a problem for the nuanced thinkers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The trinity explained!

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The trinity explained!

Actually...yeah.

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The trinity explained!

Yes, and the Celestial kingdom explained , if not also heaven-with its three kingdoms and degrees of glory .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, wenglund said:

Yes, and the Celestial kingdom explained , if not also heaven.

Despite the joke, this is fascinatingly fascinating.

Might offer an insight into @Vort's query as to how we can be "one" but be divided in the Celestial kingdom.

My sister also suggested King David as a potential lower Celestial candidate in that he repented, but had fallen from his exaltation. I haven't researched that enough to draw a conclusion, but it's interesting.

[Vort]

Such illustrations were common in Italy for describing Catholic theological "mysteries" such as the nature of the Trinity. Such "mysteries" cannot be known by mortal man. I have always appreciated McConkie's insight that we have no such "mysteries" in our Church. The "mysteries of Godliness" cannot be known by carnal man, but can always be known by the Spirit.

I believe what I believe about the celestial kingdom, and I believe it for reasons that appear sufficient to me. Unlike Rob Osborn, I do not preach my interpretation as revealed truth or even as the only possible logical choice, but only as a model that makes more sense to me than other models. I personally do not find a photograph of Neapolitan ice cream sufficiently convincing evidence to persuade me that the celestial kingdom does or can consist of three levels.

As for David, adjudging his status has been a Mormon (intentional usage) pastime since the Restoration. As with Judas Iscariot, I do not have any special insight into his case. He was guilty of base treachery, so he has never appealed to me as a great Old Testament prophet-king. But he is revered by Jews to this day. The Lord said that David had fallen from his exaltation, which doesn't sound to me like something you can gain back. Cuckolding your faithful captain and then having him murdered to hide your adultery does not strike me as something you can easily, or perhaps ever, come back from.

While we're talking about the eternal abodes of historical scriptural figures, I have long doubted Judas Iscariot's position as one cast forever into outer darkness. True, Christ himself refers to Judas Iscariot as "the son of perdition" and one who is lost (which is implicit in the name Perdition). But then, Jesus referred to Pharisees as "child[ren] of hell", and I don't think he was commenting on their eternally damned state. Remember that Amulek denounced Zeezrom as a child of hell, yet Zeezrom later repented and became a strong and righteous man. I tend to assume that Jesus meant either that Judas Iscariot, like David, was "lost" to him in the sense that he had forfeited his exaltation, or perhaps simply that Iscariot was "lost" to the work. Guilt-driven suicide does not strike me as the act of someone like Cain.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im principle based, and in principle, regarding the validity of doctrine in the Book of Mormon, there is one heaven and one hell in the end we are will end up in. 

Theres way too many contadictions and paradoxes when you start making heaven three different worlds.

What about the New testament though???

John 14:2-4

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.

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Such illustrations were common in Italy for describing Catholic theological "mysteries" such as the nature of the Trinity.

I wasn't suggesting the three divisions in the Celestial would be a mystery like the Catholic Trinity. I meany they may be one int he same way we understand the Father, the Son and the Holy ghost to be one in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

I personally do not find a photograph of Neapolitan ice cream sufficiently convincing evidence to persuade me that the celestial kingdom does or can consist of three levels.

The train of thought was as I mention above, not that the ice-cream was insightful.

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Cuckolding your faithful captain and then having him murdered to hide your adultery does not strike me as something you can easily, or perhaps ever, come back from.

Right. No exaltation. But Celestialization? (Assuming full repentance, and that there are, indeed, non exalted celestial beings).

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Guilt-driven suicide does not strike me as the act of someone like Cain.

Interesting.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The train of thought was as I mention above, not that the ice-cream was insightful.

Oh, come on. Surely you at least got a chuckle out of it. I was chuckling when I wrote it, very proud of my clever sarcasm.

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right. No exaltation. But Celestialization? (Assuming full repentance, and that there are, indeed, non exalted celestial beings).

Hmmm. Well, if pigs had wings, I suppose I might have to pick buckshot out of my bacon. So assuming that a treacherous murderer could repent and become worthy of celestial glory, but somehow not worthy of being sealed to another to actually, you know, take advantage of eternal life—well then sure, I suppose David could be there. Why not? If we're making up the rules as we go along, we can probably include any specific condition we want to. it's retconning the gospel.

This is probably coming across as cuttingly sarcastic, which is not really my intent. I am interested in understanding the scriptures and the doctrines of the Restoration, but not really so much in speculating or otherwise playing What If. I do not know exactly what it means when the Lord tells us that David has "fallen from his exaltation" and that the Lord "gave [David's wives and lesser wives] unto another". I'm quite sure it means something, but whether it means that David was given the opportunity to receive a different exaltation or the more traditional view that David simply forfeited his exaltation in eternity, I can't say for sure. For the moment, I'm happy to stick with the traditional interpretation, having no compelling reason to think otherwise.

[Rob Osborn]

26 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

What about the New testament though???

John 14:2-4

 

I do believe in degrees of glory within the one celestial world/kingdom. Unlike some who think I have a binary mind with no nuance I laugh. My train of thought is well beyond the simpleness of relating ice cream to heaven. The scriptures, specifically in mentioning the state of the saved or the damned, is strictly a dichotomy. Christ mentions in his parables all of these strict dichotomies- the sheep and the goats, right hand or the left, the wheat and the tares, etc. There are principles of absolute truth here if, and I might suggest a big IF, we are willing to understand that as for salvation, its really black or white. Some might chide at me and poke fun at such a "binary" approach but the fact is its Christs teaching. He has no third hand, no other "third" option. We either obey and follow Christ and reap salvation or, just like the devil, we are left to our own without any salvation.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Oh, come on. Surely you at least got a chuckle out of it. I was chuckling when I wrote it, very proud of my clever sarcasm.

I...um....I........well...................um.................

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

it's retconning the gospel.

That is what we seem to be engaged in here.

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm quite sure it means something,

It means don't cockold and murder people.

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Oh, come on. Surely you at least got a chuckle out of it. I was chuckling when I wrote it, very proud of my clever sarcasm.

Hmmm. Well, if pigs had wings, I suppose I might have to pick buckshot out of my bacon. So assuming that a treacherous murderer could repent and become worthy of celestial glory, but somehow not worthy of being sealed to another to actually, you know, take advantage of eternal life—well then sure, I suppose David could be there. Why not? If we're making up the rules as we go along, we can probably include any specific condition we want to. it's retconning the gospel.

This is probably coming across as cuttingly sarcastic, which is not really my intent. I am interested in understanding the scriptures and the doctrines of the Restoration, but not really so much in speculating or otherwise playing What If. I do not know exactly what it means when the Lord tells us that David has "fallen from his exaltation" and that the Lord "gave [David's wives and lesser wives] unto another". I'm quite sure it means something, but whether it means that David was given the opportunity to receive a different exaltation or the more traditional view that David simply forfeited his exaltation in eternity, I can't say for sure. For the moment, I'm happy to stick with the traditional interpretation, having no compelling reason to think otherwise.

David committed the unpardonable sin. Not only did he fall from his exaltation, he is left without the salvation of his soul and in hell he shall reap his reward.