Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If. Exactly.

I am skeptical that there are three degrees therein. I don't deny there are, of course. (I don't believe that it is my place or right to interpret scripture individual of the prophets and apostles like some people do). But it doesn't make sense to me. Since there is very, very little said on the matter, I think's it's acceptable to take an "I'm not so sure" attitude in the matter.

Here's the deal:

To make it to the Celestial Kingdom we must obey the Father in all things, and upon failure in that regard, repent. So who, exactly, obeys the Father in all things but then says, "Nope. I choose disobedience" when it comes to marriage? And if said individual consciously and purposefully chose disobedience, their failure and unwillingness to repent, unwillingness to submit to the will of the Father, unwillingness to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit, etc., would hardly qualify them for Celestial glory, now, would it? And we know that if they cannot get married by choice that the opportunity will be given them. So who, exactly, is it that fits this impossible scenario of being both humble, obedient, willing to submit to the Father in all things, and also prideful, disobedient, and unwilling to submit to the Father in all things?

That's my simple thought on the matter.

My personal thought on the matter is that without entering marriage we can't even be saved at the great day of judgment. It's the only way we become "perfect". Now, whether there are degrees within the CK, I'm not for sure, although, to make it even to the lowest one still must be married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Someone once suggested that there is progression from one degree to another within the celestial kingdom, so that all can eventually be exalted according a training schedule (so to speak). Some are newcomers and others have been there awhile. The lowest may be for those celestial spirits who have not been resurrected, but they will be once they are given parents, mates and children; the next for translated beings in the same condition; the highest for resurrected people.

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If. Exactly.

I am skeptical that there are three degrees therein. I don't deny there are, of course. (I don't believe that it is my place or right to interpret scripture individual of the prophets and apostles like some people do). But it doesn't make sense to me. Since there is very, very little said on the matter, I think's it's acceptable to take an "I'm not so sure" attitude in the matter.

Here's the deal:

To make it to the Celestial Kingdom we must obey the Father in all things, and upon failure in that regard, repent. So who, exactly, obeys the Father in all things but then says, "Nope. I choose disobedience" when it comes to marriage? And if said individual consciously and purposefully chose disobedience, their failure and unwillingness to repent, unwillingness to submit to the will of the Father, unwillingness to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit, etc., would hardly qualify them for Celestial glory, now, would it? And we know that if they cannot get married by choice that the opportunity will be given them. So who, exactly, is it that fits this impossible scenario of being both humble, obedient, willing to submit to the Father in all things, and also prideful, disobedient, and unwilling to submit to the Father in all things?

That's my simple thought on the matter.

I used if purposely; however, Doctrine and Covenants 131: 1 appears to specify this as truth, "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees." What those three degrees are hasn't been revealed. We have individuals that specify who are in these three degrees the highest degree being exaltation.

Now, as pertaining to the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial kingdoms, one could argue that these are the degrees within the Celestial kingdom. Again -- All speculation though. I am not revealing anything here as truth, or the way things really are.

So who, exactly, is it that fits this impossible scenario of being both humble, obedient, willing to submit to the Father in all things, and also prideful, disobedient, and unwilling to submit to the Father in all things?

I am not sure what you are trying to reference here; although, if I am understanding you correctly are you referring to "Son of Perdition"?

I think the rich young man who at first said to the Lord, "Master, all these have I observed from my youth." Then when asked if he would give up his riches, he turned and walked away because he had great riches and did not want to loose them. I would not call this rich man a "son of perdition."

I have a friend who has family members who are single not because they haven't had the opportunity but because they have no desire to be married, but they obey in all other things. I would not call them daughters' of perdition. I would not consider them Terrestrial countenances either.

I would consider them within a degree of Celestial kingdom, but not exalted -- living as God lives, as they personally rejected a commandment and saving covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure what you are trying to reference here; although, if I am understanding you correctly are you referring to "Son of Perdition"?

No. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

I'm saying that for someone to make it to the Celestial Kingdom but not be exalted is an impossibility as far as what we have revealed about the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

I'm saying that for someone to make it to the Celestial Kingdom but not be exalted is an impossibility as far as what we have revealed about the two.

OK, my first interpretation was correct, the last paragraph caused me to think of son of perdition. Understood now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I have a friend who has family members who are single not because they haven't had the opportunity but because they have no desire to be married, but they obey in all other things. I would not call them daughters' of perdition. I would not consider them Terrestrial countenances either.

I would consider them within a degree of Celestial kingdom, but not exalted -- living as God lives, as they personally rejected a commandment and saving covenant.

It's of course, not our place to judge individuals. But as we can read in D&C 132 concerning those who choose not to accept eternal marriage when they have it (vs 4, 6):

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Of course the lower degrees of the could be considered "damned". So there's that. But the not "permitted to enter my glory" thing's pretty clear related to rejecting marriage.

And then we have D&C 88: 21-22

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

And in 76 (55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62) concerning the celestial glory:

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

And the correlating verses concerning those entering into eternal marriage from D&C 132:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because 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, and the angels are subject unto them.

So I ask again. Who rejects the fulness but then gets the fulness?

Honestly I don't have any problem with the idea that the Celestial Kingdom might have 3 divisions in it. I have a problem, however, with the idea that those who might attain it are those who were unwilling to do as the Lord has commanded them.

I'm not sure how you pulled perdition into the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Another once suggested in this case,  the "celestial kingdom" meant the "heavenly kingdoms" and these three mentioned are the telestial. terrestrial and celestial kingdoms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's of course, not our place to judge individuals. But as we can read in D&C 132 concerning those who choose not to accept eternal marriage when they have it (vs 4, 6):

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Of course the lower degrees of the could be considered "damned". So there's that. But the not "permitted to enter my glory" thing's pretty clear related to rejecting marriage.

And then we have D&C 88: 21-22

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

And in 76 (55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62) concerning the celestial glory:

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

And the correlating verses concerning those entering into eternal marriage from D&C 132:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because 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, and the angels are subject unto them.

So I ask again. Who rejects the fulness but then gets the fulness?

Honestly I don't have any problem with the idea that the Celestial Kingdom might have 3 divisions in it. I have a problem, however, with the idea that those who might attain it are those who were unwilling to do as the Lord has commanded them.

I'm not sure how you pulled perdition into the matter.

My mind focuses upon God's glory and then defines it by saying in the next verse "fullness." Only those in the highest degree of glory within the Celestial kingdom obtain a "fullness" of glory.

Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation mentioned how a parent may save his/her child to obtain the Celestial kingdom, but will not obtain a fullness. His comment was in response to saying parents can save their children from Brigham Young. They obtain the glory of the Celestial kingdom to dwell with the Father but do not receive of his fullness.

I'm not sure how you pulled perdition into the matter.

The last statement previously made me think of sons of perdition. That is simply just my mind and how I interpreted it, which is why I wanted clarification because it didn't seem to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CV75 said:

Another once suggested in this case,  the "celestial kingdom" meant the "heavenly kingdoms" and these three mentioned are the telestial. terrestrial and celestial kingdoms. 

Another? Or me? ;)

Actually... @Vort has suggested the same I think.

Of course I am not adamant that such is the case. But it is one explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation mentioned how a parent may save his/her child to obtain the Celestial kingdom, but will not obtain a fullness.

This concept rejects agency and is found nowhere in canon.

5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

response to saying parents can save their children from Brigham Young.

Huh? Save their children from Brigham Young? Like...he was the Krampus or some such? :D

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

They obtain the glory of the Celestial kingdom to dwell with the Father but do not receive of his fullness.

How would you explain this within the scope of agency?

I know...kind of a tangent topic. But what are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Can you prove me wrong just using scriptures then?

 

It's maddening that they just aren't willing to listen to reason. 

 

Maybe if you posted your personal interpretation again and again throughout various threads it would eventually make a difference.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This concept rejects agency and is found nowhere in canon.

Huh? Save their children from Brigham Young? Like...he was the Krampus or some such? :D

How would you explain this within the scope of agency?

I know...kind of a tangent topic. But what are your thoughts?

We would find disagreement regarding rejecting agency, but find agreement it is nowhere in canon. It was JFS's response to the teaching of Brigham Young that a parent through their willingness could save their children -- exalted. When I was EQP this was a teaching that was starting to gain momentum in smaller groups.

Huh? Save their children from Brigham Young? Like...he was the Krampus or some such?

Hahaha, reminds me of bad lip reading. :D

How would you explain this within the scope of agency? I know...kind of a tangent topic. But what are your thoughts?

Some use the scripture of the prodigal son for this teaching. You are familiar enough with this parable so I won't go any further. A distinction between the prodigal and the righteous son is the prodigal is given a fatted calf while the Father says to the other son he has given him "all" he has.

The son still wanted to be with the Father even if it meant servant. I understand others have a different interpretation, and I am fine with that also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

It's maddening that they just aren't willing to listen to reason. 

 

Maybe if you posted your personal interpretation again and again throughout various threads it would eventually make a difference.... 

 

and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Another once suggested in this case,  the "celestial kingdom" meant the "heavenly kingdoms" and these three mentioned are the telestial. terrestrial and celestial kingdoms. 

Well, it is interesting that you used that word.  That seems to be the pivot point of the argument.

Quote

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

D&C 131

So, does "celestial glory" simply mean afterlife or final destination?  What other scriptures do we see this language about differing levels of glory?

Quote

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

1 Cor 15

Now, unless this reference has been misused by, oh, I don't know, EVERY MEMBER OF THE CHURCH FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ALIVE!!! then D&C131:1 is saying that in the "Celestial Kingdom" there are three degrees.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

We would find disagreement regarding rejecting agency,

Explain?

Actually let me explain my view and then we'll see if we really disagree.

The principle of agency is that we are accountable for our own choices and not for the sins (or righteousness) of our parents.

I mean it's about as plain as it can get being part of the Articles of Faith, which I'll quote here, not for you as I'm sure you're entirely familiar, but for anyone else who's interested:

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

But the reverse de facto reality is often ignored for some reason: We believe that men will be rewarded for their own faithfulness, and not for Adam's righteousness.

Agency is the principle that we are free to choose for ourselves death or life, salvation or damnation, this kingdom or that. From 2 Nephi 2:

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

If a parent is able to save their children despite their children's choices then the children are being acted upon. Hence agency is rejected with this principle.

Of course I understand that one might argue that being in the Celestial Kingdom but not exalted is a form of captivity and death, and whereas eternal progeny is impossible I accept that from a certain perspective that could be considered correct. But it goes contrary to the plain teaching that spiritual death equates to separation from God. So I don't really buy it.

Plus, just on the matter of pure equity, fairness, justice, whatever you call it, does it really make sense that for the sheer luck of having been born to parents who remain faithful that one gets to be with God forever while another, having the bad luck of having been born to unfaithful parents does not get to be with God even though both of these individuals made the same poor choices in their lives? (On a side note, I also understand that, perhaps, being born to said parents (faithful or not) may be a result of pre-earth faithfulness...which may have merit...but that seems like a mighty stretch to take all the way to Celestialized or not based on the agency of our parents).

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

When I was EQP this was a teaching that was starting to gain momentum in smaller groups.

This has been a teaching that's had traction ever since it was first preached.

Here's the latest I've heard on it from a living authority:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/faithful-parents-and-wayward-children-sustaining-hope-while-overcoming-misunderstanding?lang=eng&_r=1

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

A distinction between the prodigal and the righteous son is the prodigal is given a fatted calf while the Father says to the other son he has given him "all" he has.

The principle of repentance teaches us that if the prodigal son eventually and ultimately fully  repents, it will be as if there was no sin at all...and "all" that the father has would be his as well.

Yes?

5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I understand others have a different interpretation, and I am fine with that also.

I'm only okay with interpretations that don't contradict other plain gospel principles, such as agency and repentance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now, unless this reference has been misused by, oh, I don't know, EVERY MEMBER OF THE CHURCH FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ALIVE!!!

That would be the idea, yes. And I certainly don't have a problem with anyone rejecting that possibility.

When push comes to shove it does not matter. We understand that the degrees of glory exist for the sake of equity...as in not all evil is equal. Whether less-than-exalted means lower Celestial or Terrestrial doesn't have any real meaning without further revelation. Either way it's less that what we seek and less than what the Lord would have us receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Explain?

If a parent is able to save their children despite their children's choices then the children are being acted upon. Hence agency is rejected with this principle.

Of course I understand that one might argue that being in the Celestial Kingdom but not exalted is a form of captivity and death, and whereas eternal progeny is impossible I accept that from a certain perspective that could be considered correct. But it goes contrary to the plain teaching that spiritual death equates to separation from God. So I don't really buy it.

Plus, just on the matter of pure equity, fairness, justice, whatever you call it, does it really make sense that for the sheer luck of having been born to parents who remain faithful that one gets to be with God forever while another, having the bad luck of having been born to unfaithful parents does not get to be with God even though both of these individuals made the same poor choices in their lives? (On a side note, I also understand that, perhaps, being born to said parents (faithful or not) may be a result of pre-earth faithfulness...which may have merit...but that seems like a mighty stretch to take all the way to Celestialized or not based on the agency of our parents).

This has been a teaching that's had traction ever since it was first preached.

Here's the latest I've heard on it from a living authority:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/faithful-parents-and-wayward-children-sustaining-hope-while-overcoming-misunderstanding?lang=eng&_r=1

The principle of repentance teaches us that if the prodigal son eventually and ultimately fully  repents, it will be as if there was no sin at all...and "all" that the father has would be his as well.

Yes?

I'm only okay with interpretations that don't contradict other plain gospel principles, such as agency and repentance.

Before I explain, let me clarify. I, personally, do not believe in this, but I also accept that this principle is and has been taught by leaders of the Church. If I were to accept any it would be JSF's teaching not BYs.

If a parent is able to save their children despite their children's choices then the children are being acted upon. Hence agency is rejected with this principle.

Only if they are "forced" into the Celestial kingdom. If due to "covenant" and part of a covenant principle a choice is given they are not acted upon. They are given a choice to act. One person who taught this said it is part of the temple covenant. 

Of course I understand that one might argue that being in the Celestial Kingdom but not exalted is a form of captivity and death, and whereas eternal progeny is impossible I accept that from a certain perspective that could be considered correct.

This is why I accept JSF over BY. I personally think the prodigal son can highlight this well, and at the same time as you mention if the prodigal had time to fully repent (did not deny the HG) then he eventually would receive all the Father hath. Thus, it leaves it open.

Plus, just on the matter of pure equity, fairness, justice, whatever you call it, does it really make sense that for the sheer luck of having been born to parents who remain faithful that one gets to be with God forever while another, having the bad luck of having been born to unfaithful parents does not get to be with God even though both of these individuals made the same poor choices in their lives?

This is a reason, at this moment, I reject it but am aware of what has been taught by previous Church leaders; although, when I think of Joseph Smith who served God to his fullest, whose sons were not raised by him because of the calling he received from the Father. I would have no argument with the Father in terms of "fairness" regarding Joseph Smith's life and his son's choices, and his sons/daughters given the option -- a choice -- to be with them in the Celestial kingdom.

I also think the idea of -- those who lived without but would have accepted it -- may also have access to this position within covenant, which means in a sense all have this promise according to the choice of their children. The same spirit inhabits us when we leave this earth life.

Also, we don't know what covenants were made in our pre-mortal life. There may be covenants we have totally forgotten that apply this teaching.

I'm only okay with interpretations that don't contradict other plain gospel principles, such as agency and repentance.

I would add, interpretations that currently don't contradict our [minimal] understanding of plain gospel principles of agency and repentance. I think we both agree that we both have had times where we were sure of something, a gospel principle, only to have that principle be given to us in more detail that then clears our understanding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now