49 replies to this topic

[StupidFatHobbit]

If I understand correctly, it is a Mormon teaching that this world is part of the telestial kingdom.   And if I understand correctly, Mormons aspire to advance not one but TWO levels up, within the span of one short lifetime!  So here we have precedent for advancement from one kingdom to another.  

These different kingdoms you have - are they not degrees of separation from God?  And if so, anything less than full reunion is an unnatural condition and therefore is subject to being healed.  

Didn't Joseph Smith teach that without your ancestors you cannot be exalted?  In other words, heaven isn't heaven until you are all there.  What, are we going to just get a celestial lobotomy and forget about our loser Uncle BillyBob so that we can be in heavenly bliss forever?  If we love him, how can we be at peace knowing he suffers forever?    

Put yourself in God's shoes (we are the same species after all, aren't we?).   God loves us immensely, right?  Okay, then can you imagine God being content that most of his children can never return to him, but instead suffer eternally to one degree or another?  Just as you wouldn't walk away and leave your children in a burning building, neither would God.  You may not know the mechanism by which it will happen (and I'm not going to tell you), but God is a pretty smart guy and I bet he's already figured out a way.  

SFH

[yaanufs]

Quote

That has been put to rest for decades.   It is one of the few things that has been resoundingly rejected.   Even BY rejected it. 

I'm not so sure it has been resoundingly rejected.  Sure I've read an article or two distancing the church from such teachings.  They seem to be more in the mould of President Hinckley distancing himself from difficult LDS doctrine when asked.  Rather than articles written from a point of doctrinal authority.

Still, as humans we always tend to big up the stuff we agree with and justify in our minds the things we disagree with.

Quote

I'm always a little taken back by anyone who is unaware that the "less valiant" folklore has been rejected....and I find your question rather disturbing in itself since the Church does not track members by skin color and I'm wondering why you would.

Why are you disturbed?  I'm merely pointing out an obvious conclusion to the whole children are the elect of God principle.  I think it is ironic that the whole doctrine basically suggests blacks in Africa have more elect children born to them than your typical LDS family.

I'm just not convinced your suggestion that the doctrine on blacks has been withdrawn.  Sure it may not be PC to mention such things in the modern world, much like it is not PC to mention polygamy either.  Both are still issues for the church to deal with though.  We either considered blacks different to the people of the rest of the world or we didn't.  To pretend BY didn't seems a bit extreme, because if he didn't (or if God didn't) he would have had a revelation that blacks were to have equal rights in the p'hood.

The fact is he didn't therefore he maintained that blacks were somehow not as good in the eyes of God, for whatever reason.

Quote

Your question rests on the belief that "the elect" all reside in SLC.

Of course it doesn't rest on that.  It was clearly a simplification designed to get a rise out of someone.  To pretend my whole point rests on that issue is a bit foolish.

[Zeta-Flux]

stn9,

Quote

Now, note that if you read just these three verses literally and with no further context or doctrinal understanding, one can mistakely claim that no provision is made for them to be exalted, for it categoricaly states they will not be married but will remain single "without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity...."

Oh, I'm pretty sure that even if you add the context, and further doctrinal understanding, this is the correct understanding.  One has to really try to twist things to read it any other way.  I'll demonstrate this further as I reply to the rest of your post.

Quote

However, we know that there is a condition not mentioned in 132: proxy temple ordinances.

Okay.  There are a few things wrong with this.  First, God has never promised that proxy temple ordinances will be for those who have been resurrected.  These proxy ordinances are specifically for those in the spirit world, who did not have a chance to accept them.  To suppose that the ordinances can be extended after the resurrection is to go past what revelation says on the subject.  Second, what God says in D&C 132 specifically prohibits these angels from receiving such proxy sealings.  They will remain separately and singlely, without exaltation, through all eternity.

(On the topic of children, I believe that they are actually married [not by proxy] once they have grown up, in their resurrected condition.  I also believe they are never appointed angels.)

Quote

When someone as described in verse 15 dies and is able to and does in fact accept the ordinances that have been performed by proxy for them, then in God's eyes they are treated as they if they were married for eternity while alive.

And hence they are not appointed angels, because they *did* abide God's law (contrary to what these angels did--see verse 17).

Quote

When non-temple sealed couples who are dead hear the gospel preached unto them in spirit prison, and when they receive the gospel gladly, and when their ordinances are performed for them by proxy, they no longer meet the requirements eternal singlehood as outlined in D&C 132:15-17 becasue they have then obeyed God's law of marriage.

Of course they don't meet the qualifications of those who are made angels.  They have the gospel presented to them, and they ACCEPT it.  They abide by God's law.  Those who are appointed angels do not abide by God's law (see verse 17 again).  My point was that if someone is appointed an angel, then they cannot be enlarged after that.  Those who are still in the spirit world have not yet been appointed angels, and can still repent.

Quote

You have interjected your own understanding or interpretation of D&C 132 by saying that it refers to a time after the final judgement�?¢â?¬â?that once you are judged you cannot change.

If you really believe that this is interjecting my own understanding (which, frankly, everyone does when they try to interpret scripture) let me put it another way.  Instead of referring to the time after the final judgement, I will refer to the time after someone has been appointed an angel.  Once someone is appointed an angel, all the restrictions of D&C 132:15-17 apply.

Quote

To be technical, once you are resurrected you are judged; you will receive a body of glory that corresponds with the kingdom you will inherit. Thus, if you lived before the Second Coming and are NOT resurrected in the morning of the first resurrection, you would have to conclude that you will be an angel and never have the chance to be exalted.

I agree.  The point is that by the end of the morning of the first resurrection, such a person has had a chance to either reject or accept the fulness of the gospel.  (Note:  The morning of the first resurrection is not yet done.  Nor will it be done when the Savior comes to the earth.  It will not be done until the end of the world.  Also, according to Alma, it doesn't matter if there are multiple times for resurrection.  Everyone gets a chance to accept the gospel before that happens.)  After that proxy ordinances are done.  The Lord has finished His work upon the earth.

Quote

So, for instance, what happens to a man or woman who is married in mortality by some earthly government or religion, who dies of cancer 6 days before the Second Coming, and who with a few hundred years of teaching and learning and obedience in the spirit world accpets the Gospel? What is the cutoff date for a Celestial resurrection for those who lived before the Second Coming? Is it 200 years into the Millenium? Is it the instant before the earth is celestialized? You have said it is when the final judgment starts, or I guess technically the last possible instant before it starts.

I did not say it is when the final judgement starts.    What I said was that after someone has been judged, and been appointed an angel, THEN it is everlastingly too late for exaltation (according to D&C 132).  As I understand it, this judgement only comes AFTER someone has been given a chance (according to God's justice) to accept the ordinances.

Quote

Then there is the issue of when a person who fits the conditions of 132:15-18�?¢â?¬â?one who neither marries in mortality by the correct authority nor accepts the doctrine of proxy ordinances after this life. When are they resurrected? You have seemed to imply that such individuals could be in either the first or second resurrection, and will go into either the Terrestrial or Telestial kindoms, or outer darkness. But what if D&C 132:14-18 refers to only the second resurrection? Or only to those of the second and those who have been resurrected into the Terrestrial but then choose to reject the doctrines and ordinances? It is not clear from the passage itself; we have to superimpose a pre-conceived idea upon the text.

You have significantly misunderstood what I was saying.  All I said (and I did NOT imply anything about when resurrections are, or when certain classes of people are resurrected, or anything like that) is that once someone has been judged and appointed an angel, then they cannot after that point receive exaltation.  Of course I agree with you that that won't happen until they have been given a chance to receive it.  But if they don't, then that is that.

Quote

I see nothing in 132 that prevents progression from any and all kingdoms after the resurrection.

Neither do I!!!  These specific verses say nothing about whether or not someone in the telestial kingdom can eventually end up in the celestial kingdom.  However, what I do see is something the prevents progression from salvation without exaltation to salvation with exaltation.  God says that it just doesn't happen, forever and ever, through all eternity, etc...

Quote

I think that to categorically declare that there is no progression between kingdoms, based on an undeclared but generally accepted notion that the resurrection�?¢â?¬â?to any kingdom other than the highest heaven or degree of the celestial kingdom�?¢â?¬â?makes your future permanent, fixed, and unalterable for all eternity, is the real error.

Good thing I didn't say this then.    Of course, I feel that to try and twist what God says in D&C 132 to try and imply that those who are appointed angels can somehow become exalted is also a "real error."

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[juliann]

yaanufs, on Mar 7 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

I'm not so sure it has been resoundingly rejected.  Sure I've read an article or two distancing the church from such teachings.  They seem to be more in the mould of President Hinckley distancing himself from difficult LDS doctrine when asked.  Rather than articles written from a point of doctrinal authority.

Then you know very little about Mormonism and have no business pontificating about it.  

Here is the earliest one:  

Quote

When asked "if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven," he answers, "no, they were not, there were no neutral [spirits] in heaven at the time of the rebellion, all took sides.... All spirits are  pure that came from the presence of God. (Journal History, 25 December 1869 citing "Wilford Woodruff's Journal.")

And I'll let you find the official statement put out last century.  In other words,  you are dead wrong on this one.

Quote

Still, as humans we always tend to big up the stuff we agree with and justify in our minds the things we disagree with.

I hope you are not saying that you are bringing up this inaccurate information because you agree with it.

Quote

I think it is ironic that the whole doctrine basically suggests blacks in Africa have more elect children born to them than your typical LDS family.

I think that your bringing up skin color is offensive at best...there is another label but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.   The "whole doctrine" always has "suggested" that everyone has the door open.    Everyone is everyone...from aborignes to the kings...from the beginning to the end of time.  I think you need to let that sink in a little more.    If you want to single people out by race or skin color I think the place will have a lot of Asians...the Chinese are trying to limit their population.

Quote

I'm just not convinced your suggestion that the doctrine on blacks has been withdrawn.  Sure it may not be PC to mention such things in the modern world, much like it is not PC to mention polygamy either.

It isn't my suggestion.   It is in black and white and available to all.  Again, that you do not seem to have any desire to research this is disturbing.   I have no problem with the LDS "doctrine" on "blacks" because it is no longer any different than the doctrine on whites.   I have no problem with polygamy and mention it quite often....my greatgrandmother was a third wife and it is actually quite a conversation piece.  I will never stop bringing it up and people will never stop being interested in such an unusual thing.   You certainly have a lot of preconcieved ideas.

Quote

Quote

Your question rests on the belief that "the elect" all reside in SLC.

Of course it doesn't rest on that.  It was clearly a simplification designed to get a rise out of someone.  To pretend my whole point rests on that issue is a bit foolish.

Your whole point does rest on it because your whole point is to compare races with the "elect"...neither of which you seem to have completely accurate information on.

[stn9]

If I misunderstood your reason for citing 132 in the first place, I apologize. I agree that ultimately a person who rejects God's law�?¢â?¬â?specifically the celestial law�?¢â?¬â?will know nothing concerning it (again, Alma 12:9-11) and thus not be able to be exalted; I likewise agree that all will be given a fair chance to accept the gospel before they lose the right/ability/privelege of being exalted. I also happen to believe that that fair chance does not have to come before the resurrection. If I am wrong on that point it won't bother me too much; I'm not, personally speaking, aiming low.

On a secondary point, D&C 132 could be taken to mean that such people as outlined in 15-18 will remain single for eternity, but that as soon as they accept Gods's law and abide by it they are no longer classified as meeting that damnation requirement; again, no reference is herein made to time frame, whether post- or pre-resurrection. I think paralell exists in the view of "eternal punishment"�?¢â?¬â?it's eternal because it will always exist and not because a given sinner will be punished for ever (we know they won't, SoP excepted). Likewise, as long as the requirements go unmet they will be single�?¢â?¬â?that is an eternal law; but does that passage say they will never be able to comply or merely that those who do not comply will be single? Do you see hte distinction I am trying to make?


DISCLAIMER: The following is speculative babbling!!!!
(That's for any over-zealous TBMs who may think me apostate)

Eternal punishment is God's punishment�?¢â?¬â?not a punishment that God is personally suffering, but a punishment that he enforces; "Eternal singleness" perhaps is "God's singleness"�?¢â?¬â?not a state of marriage that he himself is experiencing, but a state which he enforces. Both punishment and singleness have an end, though they are eternal and there will always be individuals who are going through both of these conditions. Wouldn't that blow a few minds if true.

Some related things to consider: "There is never a time when the spirit is too old to approach God. All are within the reach of pardoning mercy, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, which hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in the world to come" (TPJS, 190). Was Joseph saying that there is no cut off short of cutting yourself off? Is "the world to come" a reference to only the spirit world? Is "spirit here limited to pre-mortal and disembodied spirits? If it includes tabernacled spirits, does it only include mortal beings? Could it mean resurrected beings as well? Could it mean, "You will never be too old�?¢â?¬â?even 10 billion years old�?¢â?¬â?too repent?"

I look forward to learning all the answers just as fast as they come and as I am able to comprehend.

[Moxy]

Wow...this thread is a bunch of CLUSTER #$%$##.
How about keeping the Lords plan simple.
We come down here to learn and progress.  If we fail we get to repeat that lesson untill we prove ourselves worthy to progress.  We ALL progress to Godhood.
Woweeee....Simple, complete and the only person you hurt if you fail...is yourself.....Yea...that is indeeds Gods plan...

Or you can have it the Mormon way...Which this thread proves is a bunch of confused nonsense......

[Moxy]

StupidFatHobbit, on Mar 7 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

If I understand correctly, it is a Mormon teaching that this world is part of the telestial kingdom.   And if I understand correctly, Mormons aspire to advance not one but TWO levels up, within the span of one short lifetime!  So here we have precedent for advancement from one kingdom to another.  

These different kingdoms you have - are they not degrees of separation from God?  And if so, anything less than full reunion is an unnatural condition and therefore is subject to being healed.  

Didn't Joseph Smith teach that without your ancestors you cannot be exalted?  In other words, heaven isn't heaven until you are all there.  What, are we going to just get a celestial lobotomy and forget about our loser Uncle BillyBob so that we can be in heavenly bliss forever?  If we love him, how can we be at peace knowing he suffers forever?    

Put yourself in God's shoes (we are the same species after all, aren't we?).   God loves us immensely, right?  Okay, then can you imagine God being content that most of his children can never return to him, but instead suffer eternally to one degree or another?  Just as you wouldn't walk away and leave your children in a burning building, neither would God.  You may not know the mechanism by which it will happen (and I'm not going to tell you), but God is a pretty smart guy and I bet he's already figured out a way.  

SFH

EXACTLY!!!  You get a cookie my friend.  We as Mormons make our lives and our teachings way tooooo complicated even for our own consumption.
Gods plan is simple.  The Mormon plan is anything but simple.

[calmoriah]

juliann, on Mar 7 2005, 12:49 PM, said:

It has never made sense to me that God would kill off all of his top spirits as children and leave the goof-offs to run the most important event in our eternal existence.

It's not scriptural either.

Scripture (especially PoGP) often makes reference to the noble spirits among the adults.

[yaanufs]

juliann, on Mar 7 2005, 01:45 PM, said:

Then you know very little about Mormonism and have no business pontificating about it.  

Your derogatory comments cannot be hidden behind a pathetic little smiley.

I'm not interested in going through your post line upon line.  The fact remains that LDS doctrine involved distingishing between African blacks and the rest of the world.  Much as you might like to pretend that it wasn't such an issue, it was for many.

Wilford Woodruff's quote is meaningless.  It does not address the issue on why the blacks were refused the priesthood, it just states every spirit that comes here is pure.  But within that purity there is clearly grading and levels of purity.  Else how do we have noble and great ones?

Feel free to call me a racist if it makes you feel better.

TBH I am a bit intolerant, race has little to do with it though.  I find there are idiots in every race and people who jump up and down trying to put others down in a debate and trying to take the moral high ground without bothering to back up their position, prefering to "leave it as an exercise to the reader" tend to stand out to me and usualy I find myself feeling less than tolerant towards them.

Perhaps you could spend less time posting negative comments about my person and more time posting your opinion on why you hold your views.  Please feel free to resist the urge to resort to lame comments if it becomes apparent that a person might hold a different view than yourself.  It doesn't help to get across your meaningful information when it is bracketed in silly insults and little digs specifically made to make you feel more superior.

[enummaelish]

Quote

That's for any over-zealous TBMs who may think me apostate

Well, I�?¢â?¬â?¢m a pretty zealous TBM, and far from apostate, I think your views make considerable sense.  While I believe that ultimately God wants each of us to primarily direct our focus to the here and now, I believe the issue of eternal progression is far from trivial.  Sincere thanks for all of the extra information, especially on the Hyrum Smith quote.

Quote

It has never made sense to me that God would kill off all of his top spirits as children and leave the goof-offs to run the most important event in our eternal existence.

Really, nobody can say it quite like Juliann.