Elder Oaks - three degrees of glory

[laronius]

Elder Oaks' talk got me wondering about the lesser kingdoms of glory when he spoke about inheriting a kingdom according to the laws we are willing to abide. Does this mean that the commandment to obey the same laws as the celestial kingdom will still exist for them but with the realization that they won't obey them all, in other words they still sin, or are there few laws that exist for them but they are expected to obey them or is there some other state of "law abiding" altogether that exists in those kingdoms?

[Vort]

No. Laws are according to kingdoms. The celestial law exists only in the celestial kingdom, among those who inherit that kingdom. There is, for example, no eternal marriage outside the law of the celestial kingdom. It does not exist among the non-exalted, for that is the meaning of exaltation.

We think of "sin" as something written on a list of do-nots, or perhaps something lacking from our personal list of should-dos. We are wrong. Sin is not the mere transgression of something someone said (even God). Sin means doing something false, something that transgresses the basic, fundamental moral physics of the universe itself. By "transgresses", I don't mean doing something impossible, because that is (by definition) impossible. Rather, to commit Moral Action A and then expect that the result will be Consequence B is sin. The consequence of Moral Action A is always Consequence A, never Consequence B. Choosing to commit Moral Action A, knowing full well that the consequence will be Consequence A (assumed to be something negative or destructive), is also sin, sin of a greater magnitude, the sinning of the damned.

Those who live in terrestrial glory do so exactly because they abide a terrestrial law. Those who dwell in telestial conditions are allowed to do so because they obey telestial law. Those who will not conform to law are left to abide in a kingdom of no glory whatsoever, because being utterly lawless, they are incapable of receiving any glory to any degree. And the celestial will abide a celestial law, with the exalted receiving God's own fulness.

[zil2]

A study of D&C 88, especially the first 50 verses, may help.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

Elder Oaks' talk got me wondering about the lesser kingdoms of glory when he spoke about inheriting a kingdom according to the laws we are willing to abide. Does this mean that the commandment to obey the same laws as the celestial kingdom will still exist for them but with the realization that they won't obey them all, in other words they still sin, or are there few laws that exist for them but they are expected to obey them or is there some other state of "law abiding" altogether that exists in those kingdoms?

One way to look at this, I think, is in terms of stewardship. The celestial stewardship is the business of creating life (in addition to maintaining and using), terrestrial stewardship is the business of maintaining life (in addition to using), telestial stewardship is limited to the business of using life. Each kingdom's limits and opportunities are ours, according to our agency's alignment with God's ideal. The celestial scope (especially exaltation) is perfectly aligned, terrestrial somewhat, and telestial less so.

He used the word "comfortable," which tends to eliminate striving for improvement at that point.

Adam and Eve lived the terrestrial law in Eden; after the Fall their wayward posterity lived the telestial kingdom, and in the resurrection Adam and Eve are exalted.

I think it is very interesting that President Oaks framed his remarks in this fashion, as if to say, "If you don't want to be part of pursuing the ideal, you can go someplace else more comfortable, but respect our mission. God still loves you and prepares a place for you." As if the Church is going to spend less time and energy addressing the demands of detractors and more wherewithal proactively building Zion (as Elder Bednar pointed out in terms of those in the "last wagon").

[Carborendum]

If the exact, logical wording of D&C 88 is not sufficient, I'd propose a different perspective.

It is not about "obeying laws" or "breaking laws."   It is a matter of being.  It is a matter of mindset.  It is a matter of faith (in the sense that Joseph Smith spoke about it in Lectures.

We spend so much time thinking about laws, rules, obedience, etc.  And to be sure, that is very important -- no doubt.  How much time do we think about repentance?

The Telestial law:         We obey because we're forced to.

The Terrestrial law:      We obey because we know the rules and we want to be obedient.

The Celestial law:        We obey because we've internalized eternal principles, and obedience is just a by-product of who we have become through the love of God and the love of all mankind.

[MrShorty]

I don't know if any of this will make sense, but I'll share my reaction to Pres. Oaks' description of the degrees of glory.

tl:dr -- it begins to feel very universalist to me. It has been often observed that the early saints were reluctant to accept "the Vision" (D&C 76) because, to them, it was too universalist. To some degree, Pres. Oaks is showing ways that we can interpret this in a universalist sense. Read on if you want to try to make sense of my thinking (don't worry, I'm not sure it makes sense to me, so no shame if it doesn't make sense).

At the facetious, tongue in cheek level, I envisioned Garth Brooks talking to God about preferring his Friends in Low Places or Randy Travis talking about spending eternity with a Better Class of Loser. Or any number of other country songs singing about an active choice to live a (stereotypical) lower-class lifestyle over a (stereotypical) upper class lifestyle.

Elder Holland famously said (if memory serves as part of an interview with PBS/NPR):

Quote

I don’t know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven; I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me (emphasis mine).

I don't know how intentional Elder Holland was in choosing "my" over "a" in this statement, but I think we all generally assume that he was speaking of Patricia, Matthew, Mary Alice, and David. Since my wife and children have left the church, I have sometimes tried to imagine "sad heaven" type scenarios. For now, let's just say I'm not sure if I won't be happier living alone in a cottage in the same neighborhood as my wife and children than I would be living in a mansion with someone who married me (and I married her) just for my (her) righteousness so we could live in a big house on a hill. (I acknowledge a certain caricaturieness (word??), but I think it helps make the point.)

The way Pres. Oaks talks here, wherever I end up in the next life, it's where I will happiest. So, by definition (or tautology or circular reasoning, I'm not sure which), I am assured to end up in "heaven," (because "heaven" is where I will be happiest). Maybe "heaven" for me is not Celestial (though, I don't know that I can say that out loud in our high demand religion that wants everyone to aspire to the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom). Of course, that is the common criticism of universalism -- people who aren't aspiring to the highest aren't always inspired to keep all the rules and laws and commandments with exactness.

I don't know, friends. The universalist inside of me likes what Pres. Oaks said. The part of me that grew up in a high demand religion that insisted I should aspire to nothing less than everything the Father has is less comfortable with what he said.

[mikbone]

26 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I have sometimes tried to imagine "sad heaven" type scenarios. For now, let's just say I'm not sure if I won't be happier living alone in a cottage in the same neighborhood as my wife and children than I would be living in a mansion with someone who married me (and I married her) just for my (her) righteousness so we could live in a big house on a hill.

 

[zil2]

17 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe "heaven" for me is not Celestial (though, I don't know that I can say that out loud in our high demand religion that wants everyone to aspire to the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom).

A few years ago, I stopped making all the assumptions that a lifetime in the Church tends to instill: that everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that everyone wants an eternal marriage, that everyone wants an eternal family, that everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc.  I also stopped assuming that every Sunday School Answer™ leads to every Sunday School Promise™ for everyone in observable time.  In my teaching, I stopped presenting things as if all those assumptions were true and all those promises were as mechanically obtained as Church culture had always suggested.  I think the assumptions and promises hindered the progress of those who struggled with them.  These days, I testify of Christ - his love, of his desire and ability to help, and that life is better with him than without him even when life doesn't seem good.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if any of this will make sense, but I'll share my reaction to Pres. Oaks' description of the degrees of glory.

tl:dr -- it begins to feel very universalist to me. It has been often observed that the early saints were reluctant to accept "the Vision" (D&C 76) because, to them, it was too universalist. To some degree, Pres. Oaks is showing ways that we can interpret this in a universalist sense. Read on if you want to try to make sense of my thinking (don't worry, I'm not sure it makes sense to me, so no shame if it doesn't make sense).

At the facetious, tongue in cheek level, I envisioned Garth Brooks talking to God about preferring his Friends in Low Places or Randy Travis talking about spending eternity with a Better Class of Loser. Or any number of other country songs singing about an active choice to live a (stereotypical) lower-class lifestyle over a (stereotypical) upper class lifestyle.

Elder Holland famously said (if memory serves as part of an interview with PBS/NPR):

I don't know how intentional Elder Holland was in choosing "my" over "a" in this statement, but I think we all generally assume that he was speaking of Patricia, Matthew, Mary Alice, and David. Since my wife and children have left the church, I have sometimes tried to imagine "sad heaven" type scenarios. For now, let's just say I'm not sure if I won't be happier living alone in a cottage in the same neighborhood as my wife and children than I would be living in a mansion with someone who married me (and I married her) just for my (her) righteousness so we could live in a big house on a hill. (I acknowledge a certain caricaturieness (word??), but I think it helps make the point.)

The way Pres. Oaks talks here, wherever I end up in the next life, it's where I will happiest. So, by definition (or tautology or circular reasoning, I'm not sure which), I am assured to end up in "heaven," (because "heaven" is where I will be happiest). Maybe "heaven" for me is not Celestial (though, I don't know that I can say that out loud in our high demand religion that wants everyone to aspire to the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom). Of course, that is the common criticism of universalism -- people who aren't aspiring to the highest aren't always inspired to keep all the rules and laws and commandments with exactness.

I don't know, friends. The universalist inside of me likes what Pres. Oaks said. The part of me that grew up in a high demand religion that insisted I should aspire to nothing less than everything the Father has is less comfortable with what he said.

I see the two views as compatible in that Christ invites us to be one with Him (John 17, and is that not something to put first?), but many parables show that we do not place that vision foremost. Jesus uses the phrase “may” and “might” constantly with regards to our receiving His blessings, because He leaves the choice to us. Our Church must put it first just as Christ does in His Intercessory Prayer.

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, zil2 said:

A few years ago, I stopped making all the assumptions that a lifetime in the Church tends to instill: that everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that everyone wants an eternal marriage, that everyone wants an eternal family, that everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc.  I also stopped assuming that every Sunday School Answer™ leads to every Sunday School Promise™ for everyone in observable time.  In my teaching, I stopped presenting things as if all those assumptions were true and all those promises were as mechanically obtained as Church culture had always suggested.  I think the assumptions and promises hindered the progress of those who struggled with them.  These days, I testify of Christ - his love, of his desire and ability to help, and that life is better with him than without him even when life doesn't seem good.

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.

I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

[zil2]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.

I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

I think I'm not saying things right.  It's not that I don't believe in or teach the ideal.  It is that I don't assume everyone in my class is wanting the ideal at that instant and so I don't speak as if they do.  I might encourage them to pursue the ideal, but I don't assume they already want it.  Because to someone struggling, speaking to them as if they weren't can just cause more pain or make them think they'll never be good enough, that there's nothing in the lesson for them, that they probably shouldn't bother with Church because the lessons are never "for them", or whatever.  Instead, I focus on the Savior - if anyone will help them want the ideal, it's him, and he'll do it as they are ready.  Whether you wish you had never existed, or whether you hope to one day live in an eternal family with your spouse and children in the kingdom of God, Christ will help you to overcome whatever you need to overcome.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

I think I'm not saying things right.  It's not that I don't believe in or teach the ideal.  It is that I don't assume everyone in my class is wanting the ideal at that instant and so I don't speak as if they do.  I might encourage them to pursue the ideal, but I don't assume they already want it.  Because to someone struggling, speaking to them as if they weren't can just cause more pain or make them think they'll never be good enough, that there's nothing in the lesson for them, that they probably shouldn't bother with Church because the lessons are never "for them", or whatever.  Instead, I focus on the Savior - if anyone will help them want the ideal, it's him, and he'll do it as they are ready.  Whether you wish you had never existed, or whether you hope to one day live in an eternal family with your spouse and children in the kingdom of God, Christ will help you to overcome whatever you need to overcome.

I think you’re fine in what and how you said it, I was referring to the alternate assumptions that I carry because of my own background. Our assumptions still have us testifying of Christ as we discuss the ideals in our lesson topics. What I think happens sometimes is that teachers simply read and parrot the material, which thoughtlessness gets in the way of the Spirit and meeting the needs of the students.

[Vort]

And now President Nelson is all in on Think Celestial. D'oh!

[laronius]

I appreciate everyone's comments so far. As I have pondered in this topic and everyone's remarks two related thoughts come to mind. The first is that it's easy to just assume that what we view as the law here in mortality will be the same in the next life. But some of the most serious laws here like not murdering won't really exist in the next life. The other related thought was that there is still much we don't know about the next life. Likewise we don't really know the full effect of time spent in hell for those required to do so. How much of a change really takes place there? But I do appreciate everyone's comments and it is interesting to think about.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.

I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

 

I don't know if everyone ever wanted all those things.   I think MUCH of our choices that come in this life are a result of our choices in the pre-mortal life or pre-mortal existence.

By knowing what WE would have chosen if we had full range, the Lord knows what our true desires were.  This life is a time for ourselves to prove to ourselves what we want and will do.  The Lord already knows us better than we know ourselves. 

Much of the position we find ourselves in during this life is because WE chose to put ourselves there previously.  We wanted to learn lessons about ourselves, or to have opportunities, or other reasons while we experience this mortal realm.

I think there were those that were unsure and didn't care which kingdom they went to as long as they were able to live in heaven.  They didn't favor losing agency, but they really didn't want to have to fight for the responsibilities that would come with a greater reward.  There were others who wanted to have the glories of heaven, but perhaps didn't want the responsibilities that their Father and Mother had later in eternity.  There were those who sought to be just like their Father or Mother. 

I think there was a great range of what was desired and what we wanted to be when we grew up.  Some felt in a way strongly opposed to what was taught or seen and rebelled.  Between those that rebelled and those that sought to be exactly like their Parents is a wide range of desire and emotion.  I feel that those born into the church today were those who desired to be born as members of the Church.  They are born into the Church because that was what they desired in the pre-existence, along with all the blessings that come with it.  Whether or not their heart truly desired that, however, is something that each and everyone one of them will find out in this life for themselves.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I don't know if everyone ever wanted all those things.   I think MUCH of our choices that come in this life are a result of our choices in the pre-mortal life or pre-mortal existence.

By knowing what WE would have chosen if we had full range, the Lord knows what our true desires were.  This life is a time for ourselves to prove to ourselves what we want and will do.  The Lord already knows us better than we know ourselves. 

Much of the position we find ourselves in during this life is because WE chose to put ourselves there previously.  We wanted to learn lessons about ourselves, or to have opportunities, or other reasons while we experience this mortal realm.

I think there were those that were unsure and didn't care which kingdom they went to as long as they were able to live in heaven.  They didn't favor losing agency, but they really didn't want to have to fight for the responsibilities that would come with a greater reward.  There were others who wanted to have the glories of heaven, but perhaps didn't want the responsibilities that their Father and Mother had later in eternity.  There were those who sought to be just like their Father or Mother. 

I think there was a great range of what was desired and what we wanted to be when we grew up.  Some felt in a way strongly opposed to what was taught or seen and rebelled.  Between those that rebelled and those that sought to be exactly like their Parents is a wide range of desire and emotion.  I feel that those born into the church today were those who desired to be born as members of the Church.  They are born into the Church because that was what they desired in the pre-existence, along with all the blessings that come with it.  Whether or not their heart truly desired that, however, is something that each and everyone one of them will find out in this life for themselves.

This makes a good deal of sense and explains why people leave the Church, especially when BIC: they had lesser desires all along and the Lord provided a way to accommodate them if they would not come around to better desires while in this life. Paraphrasing Abraham 3:25, “…we will prove them herewith, to see if they will [come to desire] all things whatsoever the Lord their God [desires of] them.” The bolded conditional conjunction indicates nothing was written, or known, in stone.

I can accept that someone like me did not want to be born into the Church, and that most of the human population throughout the ages did and does not want to be BIC, but my patriarchal blessing suggests that my premortal desires were consistent with God’s. Since all patriarchal blessings make this same or similar pronouncement, are the patriarchal blessings of those BIC who leave the Church mistaken?

[zil2]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

my patriarchal blessing suggests that my premortal desires were consistent with God’s. Since all patriarchal blessings make this same or similar pronouncement,

I don't think mine says anything like this. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, zil2 said:

I don't think mine says anything like this. 

It may not, in which case you can only surmise what your pre-mortal desires were. But to the point that was made that less-than celestial desires in pre-mortality play out in this life (i.e., the person who did not desire celestial glory as a pre-mortal spirit, and who was BIC in this life, and leaves the Church because, consistent with their pre-mortal character, they do not want celestial glory), are the patriarchal blessings mistaken which said such Indviduals desired to follow God's will as a pre-mortal spirit? Sometimes this is phrased in different ways, in terms of valiant, desiring to preach the Gospel, enumeration of spiritual gifts and callings to build God's kingdom, etc.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, laronius said:

I appreciate everyone's comments so far. As I have pondered in this topic and everyone's remarks two related thoughts come to mind. The first is that it's easy to just assume that what we view as the law here in mortality will be the same in the next life. But some of the most serious laws here like not murdering won't really exist in the next life. The other related thought was that there is still much we don't know about the next life. Likewise we don't really know the full effect of time spent in hell for those required to do so. How much of a change really takes place there? But I do appreciate everyone's comments and it is interesting to think about.

I think this I why President Nelson emphasized the need to "think celestial" in this world's probation. A person who thinks celestial does not murder or even desire to murder (even better, put, he does not get angry with his brother, have contempt and deride him, or condemn him) and is thus prepared for the celestial law in that kingdom, where the law is to love everyone and foster life. I think this is one way in which the celestial inhabitants minister, or bring sustenance and life, to those in the terrestrial world who cannot steward it themselves (D&C 76: 87).

[zil2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

... are the patriarchal blessings mistaken which said such Indviduals desired to follow God's will as a pre-mortal spirit? ...

In the end, all things will be known.  In the meantime, I'm not about to second guess a Patriarch.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

In the end, all things will be known.  In the meantime, I'm not about to second guess a Patriarch.

I don't either -- it was more a rhetorical question to point out why I don't subscribe to what was shared by another poster, as much sense as it might make initially.

Edited October 2, 2023 by CV75

[estradling75]

There are lots of valid ways to look at how things will be judged in the hereafter

Here is one of mine

Outer darkness... Unclean, sinful, evil.  Christ could redeem them but they do not want to be redeem... they would rather suffer.  (Or Suffering is more comfortable for them then being with God.

Telesital...  They were unclean, sinful, evil... But their Suffering was enough to convince them to accept Christ and become clean able to abide some light.  They will no longer do evil or sinful because they do not want to suffering.  But the absence of evil is not the presence of good...  They are largely neutral and this is where they are the most comfortable.

Terrestrial...   Good people, noble, honorable, people, but not Valiant... there is only so far that they would go/endure to do the right/good thing.  (this is where they are the most comfortable.

Celestial... Those who like there Lord and Savior are willing to sacrifice and endure all things for the good of other.  This is a hard sale..  It is so much easier to be at a lower level, but this is the level that God is on... and the level we need to be comfortable on if we are going to inherit all that he offers us.

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

This makes a good deal of sense and explains why people leave the Church, especially when BIC: they had lesser desires all along and the Lord provided a way to accommodate them if they would not come around to better desires while in this life. Paraphrasing Abraham 3:25, “…we will prove them herewith, to see if they will [come to desire] all things whatsoever the Lord their God [desires of] them.” The bolded conditional conjunction indicates nothing was written, or known, in stone.

I can accept that someone like me did not want to be born into the Church, and that most of the human population throughout the ages did and does not want to be BIC, but my patriarchal blessing suggests that my premortal desires were consistent with God’s. Since all patriarchal blessings make this same or similar pronouncement, are the patriarchal blessings of those BIC who leave the Church mistaken?

 

No, they are not mistaken.  You would be foreordained, or given the opportunity to have certain blessings in this life predicated upon your righteousness.

A poor example (though it can be somewhat related in the same way) of something that could be like it in this life...a kid goes to college to earn their degree.  They desire at the time to get a Law Degree eventually.  The college will not deny them such a degree as long as they work and study hard to attain it.  You could even say that as they are accepted into their major they are already predicted that they will be able to obtain this degree as long as they continue to work towards it.

The college is going to plan that they will succeed and offer to help along the way.  They will provide counselors, study halls, study areas, TA's, and many other tools.  If all goes right, the kid WILL get their degree, and then, if all goes right, they will get their Law Degree if they stick with it. 

We have a class of 200 students in this particular college.  All of them feel that this is what they want to do on the day they start college classes.  Expectations are that they will be the next graduates of Pre-Law. 

However, as time goes on some of them find out they have no desire to study or work.  They flunk all their classes.  They COULD have gotten the degree, but due to their own choices have lost the opportunity (at least temporarily) unless they go through their suspension (or probation if it wasn't quite that bad) and the penalties assigned and then re-enter (delayed from the rest of the class due to having to get the requisite scores and other items to overcome the probation or suspension).  Most choose not to and they never get their degree.

There are others who find out that they aren't really interested in the major.  They want to study other avenues.  Perhaps they want to study Art, or Music, or Physics, or some other area.  They change majors and graduate with a degree in that area instead.

You have those that work hard and graduate.  Just as they were offered the opportunity, they graduate with a Bachelors.  Now they need to take the LSAT and apply for Law School.  There is probably space for all of them if they only wish to try, but some of them get discouraged because they don't have the grades or test score to get into the Law School they wanted to go to.  Others push onwards and get into Law School.  Some of them get into the one they wanted, others get into schools that may not be as renowned, but it's a spot.

In Law School some find that this really isn't what they imagined it would be and drop out.  Others continue and eventually graduate with their Law Degree.

All of them were seen as being able to get the degree when they first entered the college.  They were planned on being able to get them and were forecast as the incoming class of Lawyers (or future Lawyers).  They were all give the opportunities.  Along the way many of them decided to follow different paths.

It's not the best parallel, but I think it kind of shows the idea.  We are promised every blessing if WE choose to do certain things.  Most of the time in patriarchal blessings, the promises are based upon us also doing certain things (normally worded in a way that says these blessings are predicated upon your faithfulness or something to that effect).  We are not forced to do these things or follow the gospel if we do not wish to in this life.  We have the opportunities as promised in the Church and in our blessings, but we are not going to be forced to take them.

-------------------------------------

As an aside on the topic as well, I think those born into the church CHOSE this due to their desires in the pre-mortal existence.  There are also those that may have wanted this as well but did not get to be born into the Church.  Some of these may be our ancestors.  Someone had to be there to ensure the next generation.  They would have their desires known by the Lord.  There are others that were probably promised that even if they were not born in the Church, the Church would come to them and if they had the true desire in their heart, they would be able to join into the Church in this life and have all the blessings those born into the church also have.

When I was younger (so decades ago), there was a push for Latter-day Saint Families to have as many children as possible.  One reason was so that those who WANTED to be born in the Church, or as many as wanted to be born in the church, could have that opportunity.  Even with as many members as we had, there probably was no where close to enough children born to equal out to how many wanted to be Born in the church or wished the blessings of the gospel.  One reason Missionary work is probably so important, to help those who have the desires in their heart to be able to find the gospel and join with the Saints and have all the blessings the Lord offers while still in this life. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

No, they are not mistaken.  You would be foreordained, or given the opportunity to have certain blessings in this life predicated upon your righteousness.

A poor example (though it can be somewhat related in the same way) of something that could be like it in this life...a kid goes to college to earn their degree.  They desire at the time to get a Law Degree eventually.  The college will not deny them such a degree as long as they work and study hard to attain it.  You could even say that as they are accepted into their major they are already predicted that they will be able to obtain this degree as long as they continue to work towards it.

The college is going to plan that they will succeed and offer to help along the way.  They will provide counselors, study halls, study areas, TA's, and many other tools.  If all goes right, the kid WILL get their degree, and then, if all goes right, they will get their Law Degree if they stick with it. 

We have a class of 200 students in this particular college.  All of them feel that this is what they want to do on the day they start college classes.  Expectations are that they will be the next graduates of Pre-Law. 

However, as time goes on some of them find out they have no desire to study or work.  They flunk all their classes.  They COULD have gotten the degree, but due to their own choices have lost the opportunity (at least temporarily) unless they go through their suspension (or probation if it wasn't quite that bad) and the penalties assigned and then re-enter (delayed from the rest of the class due to having to get the requisite scores and other items to overcome the probation or suspension).  Most choose not to and they never get their degree.

There are others who find out that they aren't really interested in the major.  They want to study other avenues.  Perhaps they want to study Art, or Music, or Physics, or some other area.  They change majors and graduate with a degree in that area instead.

You have those that work hard and graduate.  Just as they were offered the opportunity, they graduate with a Bachelors.  Now they need to take the LSAT and apply for Law School.  There is probably space for all of them if they only wish to try, but some of them get discouraged because they don't have the grades or test score to get into the Law School they wanted to go to.  Others push onwards and get into Law School.  Some of them get into the one they wanted, others get into schools that may not be as renowned, but it's a spot.

In Law School some find that this really isn't what they imagined it would be and drop out.  Others continue and eventually graduate with their Law Degree.

All of them were seen as being able to get the degree when they first entered the college.  They were planned on being able to get them and were forecast as the incoming class of Lawyers (or future Lawyers).  They were all give the opportunities.  Along the way many of them decided to follow different paths.

It's not the best parallel, but I think it kind of shows the idea.  We are promised every blessing if WE choose to do certain things.  Most of the time in patriarchal blessings, the promises are based upon us also doing certain things (normally worded in a way that says these blessings are predicated upon your faithfulness or something to that effect).  We are not forced to do these things or follow the gospel if we do not wish to in this life.  We have the opportunities as promised in the Church and in our blessings, but we are not going to be forced to take them.

-------------------------------------

As an aside on the topic as well, I think those born into the church CHOSE this due to their desires in the pre-mortal existence.  There are also those that may have wanted this as well but did not get to be born into the Church.  Some of these may be our ancestors.  Someone had to be there to ensure the next generation.  They would have their desires known by the Lord.  There are others that were probably promised that even if they were not born in the Church, the Church would come to them and if they had the true desire in their heart, they would be able to join into the Church in this life and have all the blessings those born into the church also have.

When I was younger (so decades ago), there was a push for Latter-day Saint Families to have as many children as possible.  One reason was so that those who WANTED to be born in the Church, or as many as wanted to be born in the church, could have that opportunity.  Even with as many members as we had, there probably was no where close to enough children born to equal out to how many wanted to be Born in the church or wished the blessings of the gospel.  One reason Missionary work is probably so important, to help those who have the desires in their heart to be able to find the gospel and join with the Saints and have all the blessings the Lord offers while still in this life. 

This is a great analogy, but we don’t have a kid spending his own time, money and energy seeking to attend or attending college that never had or doesn’t have a desire to learn. To me, that is more analogous to the desires of any spirit (and all spirits) in the first estate choosing to come into the second estate (desiring what Heavenly Father has). What is not malleable is that indispensable, incipient desire to become like God [or a lawyer] and do what it takes to enter the second estate [college]. 

My rhetorical question about patriarchal blessings was meant to show that whatever transpires in this life, and whatever lesser desires one might cultivate in this life instead of godhood, it all began with a desire to be just like Heavenly Father: any spirit coming to earth had that desire. The variations in spiritual intelligence and talent only meets a corresponding degree of foreordination and opposition, so all things are equal in the probationary aspect of mortality. The Lord is more intelligent than they all and so He sets the balance and atones for any disruptions.

Three cheers for big families! However the earthly generations were organized beforehand, the Lord had a plan for them all to be one (Spirit of Elijah, and also Acts 17: 26-28).

[MrShorty]

@JohnsonJones The parallel I see in your law school analogy from the post I made earlier is that those who drop out of law school for whatever reason haven't settled for something lesser. They may go on to be doctors or teachers or sales people or business owners or plumbers or mechanics (gasp trades?) or some other career. It isn't (or shouldn't be) something "lesser" to take on a different career. Lawyer might be the "celestial" career, but terrestial (teacher, maybe?) or telestial (dcotor or trade) are also acceptable careers. The key is to choose which career you will be happiest in.

As I tried to explain earlier, what strikes me when Pres. Oaks (and others) describe this version of the 3 kingdoms is that they appear to line up horizontally (all kingdoms are equally desirable) rather than vertically (kingdoms ranked as most desirable to least desirable). The key is finding the kingdom where you will be happiest.