Is this a true statement according to Church Doctrine?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The covenant to walk in the way, which we and all the children who die made premaritally, is acknowledged and kept by them in their various attributes (“as a child”, Mosiah 3:16-21).

So why do the rest of us need to repeat it, even if we die before exposure to the Gospel in mortality in your view?

Forgotten doesn’t work for me because why wouldn’t children by the age of 8 have also forgotten?

Compromised….why would we need to relearn them rather than just repent?

Edited August 31, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

Just now, Calm said:

So why do the rest of us need to repeat it, even if we die before exposure to the Gospel in mortality in your view?

Because as D&C 93 says, "that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers..." (v. 39; v. 38 provides good in contrast considering the discussion of the state of innocent children).

[Calm]

Quote

but they have a wonderful head start (D&C 130:18, attained pre-mortality, retained through the veil and kept with them after death

Do you mean retained in the spirit or unconscious through the veil because it’s pretty obvious that the 5 years I taught in primary weren’t consciously aware of many of the principles?

Quote

Because as D&C 93 says, "that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers..." (v. 39; v. 38 provides good in contrast considering the discussion of the state of innocent children).

This feels like very inefficient way of learning unless our brain and/or spirit, all of our being not only needs knowledge, but actually needs certain patterns written on them like a processor uses hardwiring on wafers with printed digital circuits in a specific pattern as well as the right ‘soft’ programming that can be altered at will.  Maybe only certain spiritual ‘neural’ (whatever determines behaviour of our spirits) pathways can give us awareness at a celestial level and those pathways will only be ‘written’ in our spiritual ‘brain’ by actual experience, similar to establishing habits by strengthening neural pathways by repeating desired behaviors .  Sinning alters those pathways, destroys the neurons and/or whatever is the spiritual equivalent that knowledge is stored on—symbolically described as losing light and truth—and therefore we must experience the learning to create those pathways again.

I can see this as a possible explanation of why those who are capable of sinning have to relearn truth as opposed to just remembering what they knew before birth.

Edited September 1, 2025 by Calm

[manol]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think I like what you are saying, but I also think I am not sure what you are saying . .🙃 When you use the word "separation," to what are you referring?

I am in favor of a circle of inclusion which encompasses everyone, and excludes no one. I realize this probably seems unrealistic and/or impractical for a variety of reasons. For instance we would have to do some pretty insane things, including (but not limited to) love our enemies, bless them that curse us, and forgive without keeping score. 

 

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

When you talk about "people being treated unfairly" to what are you referring? Thanks, my friend. 

Imo an example of a separation-based paradigm resulting in “people being treated unfairly” would be your experience with that new LDS bishop. Evidently to him you are “one of them” rather than “one of us”.  Imo this is an example of a separation-based paradigm bumping into its limitations, and requiring one of its adherents (in this case the new bishop) to be less than Christ-like towards you and your wife.  I cannot imagine this actually feels good to his soul, BUT (evidently) his higher loyalty is to his religion. 

And, imo, we would be out of place to hold that against him.  This is where he is right now on his journey.  Imo this (along with pretty much everything else) is primarily a learning experience for everyone involved. 

Edited September 1, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, manol said:

BUT (evidently) his higher loyalty is to his religion. 

Not necessarily.  He may believe like some evangelicals I have known and respected that’s it’s better for that person to be clear about where a person is situated faithwise so they aren’t confused about what they should be doing when it comes to faith and accepting Christ.  I had one friend who told me he would see himself failing in his duty to and love for me if he prayed with me as he believed it was important I understood that in his view I was not a Christian so I would be more likely to forsake my current beliefs and turn to God (his view obviously, not mine).  My friend did not draw the line to keep me out, to protect his faith, or even make it look more appealing.  It was not about loyalty to his religion (at least beyond his belief he had it right enough and I was wrong). He said those things to me because he wanted me saved, not damned for eternity.  He cared about my happiness, about me as an individual and friend.  He could have kept his mouth shut and not risk something he valued from what I saw, our friendship.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I am in favor of a circle of inclusion which encompasses everyone, and excludes no one. I realize this probably seems unrealistic and/or impractical for a variety of reasons. For instance we would have to do some pretty insane things, including (but not limited to) love our enemies, bless them that curse us, and forgive without keeping score. 

 

Imo an example of a separation-based paradigm resulting in “people being treated unfairly” would be your experience with that new LDS bishop. Evidently to him you are “one of them” rather than “one of us”.  Imo this is an example of a separation-based paradigm bumping into its limitations, and requiring one of its adherents (in this case the new bishop) to be less than Christ-like towards you and your wife.  I cannot imagine this actually feels good to his soul, BUT (evidently) his higher loyalty is to his religion. 

And, imo, we would be out of place to hold that against him.  This is where he is right now on his journey.  Imo this (along with pretty much everything else) is primarily a learning experience for everyone involved. 

I agree about the bishop in the sense that we should not hold anything against him. I also like your term "a separation-based paradigm." I often use the term "a distancing mechanism." I think we may mean close to the same thing. I do find it interesting, however, that he (the bishop) has never spoken to us about our faith and our reasons for not joining the LDS church. The day he came over to our home to speak with us with his two counselors about our new status in the ward is the first and only time he has ever spoken to us beyond "Good morning" or "How is the rain situation where you live?" when we see him at the grocery store. 

Edited September 1, 2025 by Navidad
Clarification

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The way the post was written, it wasn't clear what you thought was a fact.

I don’t think you are reading what I’m writing. I responded to Calms post. I referred to the fact she shared. If you have something substantive to contribute let me know. 

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not necessarily.  

Agreed.  I do not know what his motivations are.

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

He may believe like some evangelicals I have known and respected that’s it’s better for that person to be clear about where a person is situated faithwise so they aren’t confused about what they should be doing when it comes to faith and accepting Christ.  I had one friend who told me he would see himself failing in his duty to and love for me if he prayed with me as he believed it was important I understood that in his view I was not a Christian so I would be more likely to forsake my current beliefs and turn to God (his view obviously, not mine).  My friend did not draw the line to keep me out, to protect his faith, or even make it look more appealing.  It was not about loyalty to his religion (at least beyond his belief he had it right enough and I was wrong). He said those things to me because he wanted me saved, not damned for eternity.  He cared about my happiness, about me as an individual and friend.  He could have kept his mouth shut and not risk something he valued from what I saw, our friendship.

It sounds to me like your friend has a separation-based paradigm, in that he fears you will be permanent separated from him and from God unless you are saved (or something along those lines).  And it sounds to me like both of you are handling the situation very well.

But the more he cares about your happiness, about what happens to you, the more of a toll his belief in permanent separation takes on him. 

Now just for the sake of exploring a hypothetical, suppose neither of you believed the end-game will be permanent separation, and therefore neither of you fear in the slightest for the soul of the other.  Wouldn't that bring peace to both of you, since obviously you care about his happiness as well? 

Edited September 1, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, manol said:

Now just for the sake of exploring a hypothetical, suppose neither of you believed the end-game will be permanent separation, and therefore neither of you fear in the slightest for the soul of the other.  Wouldn't that bring peace to both of you, since obviously you care about his happiness as well? 

I have plenty of peace already.  I don’t know about my friend, but he seems to have trusted in God that all would be as it should be, so he may have had peace even if it seems like he shouldn’t have to others given some of his beliefs. (I haven’t talked to him in quite a few years, he was an online friend.)

I admit I prefer my more universalist view where even if I believe the Church is God’s authorized vehicle for needed ordinances in mortality, I am hardly exclusive in the afterlife given I believe everyone is likely to end up in the Celestial kingdom as one big glorious family, though it may take eons for those who are more selfish and lacking of care for others or who have embraced evil in mortality to get there.  Proxy ordinances providing opportunities for all certainly is solid doctrine and leaders have stated there is no official church position on progression between kingdoms even if some leaders were more than certain there is not, so I see my view as essentially universal as well as faithful to the Restored Gospel.

 Of course, I don’t know what to do with Satan and the third part or the Sons of Perdition as I can’t comprehend someone freely choosing evil and hate in an eternal and fully knowledgeable state; it’s much easier to see evil behaviour resulting from somehow being damaged by our fallen condition, a damage that will be healed in the next life just as depression and other mental illness will be.  I do accept the possibility I am wrong here, limited in my understanding of others and making assumptions about humanity in general based on very few people I know well.  I also accept LDS doctrine teaches the reality of a Satan and he is not just a symbol of our fallen natures we need to overcome.  But no one has ever told me I had to reconcile Satan and his followers to my wholehearted acceptance of the Atonement teaching before I could consider myself a faithful member, so I am quite comfortable leaving him and those like him an open question to be answered after death.  It’s nothing I need to deal with now.     

And I try to be sure to be clear on what are my interpretations of doctrine vs the teachings from the pulpit and manuals when discussing faith and doctrine and beliefs with others, so I don’t think I am confusing anyone about actual church teachings.

Edited September 1, 2025 by Calm

[let’s roll]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

At least we could get rid of that chosen generation and saving the best spirits for the last days thing. The best amongst us are the stillborn and those who die young. We are all the failures who barely qualified to come at all.

For those accountable in mortality, this life may indeed be spiritual repechage.  The winners have already been crowned.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean retained in the spirit or unconscious through the veil because it’s pretty obvious that the 5 years I taught in primary weren’t consciously aware of many of the principles?

This feels like very inefficient way of learning unless our brain and/or spirit, all of our being not only needs knowledge, but actually needs certain patterns written on them like a processor uses hardwiring on wafers with printed digital circuits in a specific pattern as well as the right ‘soft’ programming that can be altered at will.  Maybe only certain spiritual ‘neural’ (whatever determines behaviour of our spirits) pathways can give us awareness at a celestial level and those pathways will only be ‘written’ in our spiritual ‘brain’ by actual experience, similar to establishing habits by strengthening neural pathways by repeating desired behaviors .  Sinning alters those pathways, destroys the neurons and/or whatever is the spiritual equivalent that knowledge is stored on—symbolically described as losing light and truth—and therefore we must experience the learning to create those pathways again.

I can see this as a possible explanation of why those who are capable of sinning have to relearn truth as opposed to just remembering what they knew before birth.

Yes, I mean retained in the spirit, and that a principle of intelligence is as much a divine attribute as it is something we can articulate.

The whole plan of happiness can be considered inefficient, and as you point out, of necessity, or as a matter of eternal law. Jesus, I would say was the most efficient learner imaginable in this world, and needed 33 years to continue from grace to grace unto the fulness… and who knows how long in pre-mortality to become the “Spirit of truth,” more intelligent than all other spirits. As you point out, as He developed each grace, He repeated them flawlessly in every imaginable circumstance. I believe His work in the Garden of Gethsemane presented those circumstances which He did not personally face in His daily life prior to and subsequent to that.

[GoCeltics]

On 8/29/2025 at 3:32 PM, JVW said:

From what I understand baptism is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom (exaltation) and be in the presence of the Father forever. Baptism is not required in order to be in the presence of the Son forever, only repentance and faith in the Lord.

Which kingdom do the presence of the Father and Jesus reside?

[GoCeltics]

On 8/29/2025 at 11:28 AM, teddyaware said:

As to the other part of your question: from a Latter-Day Saint perspective, Doctrine and Covenants 138 makes it clear that entry into the lower kingdoms of heavenly glory is only made possible by obeying the gospel message declared by God’s duly authorized prophets who are assigned to teach and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the spirits of the dead who are sojourning in the spirit world. It will come as a surprise to many Latter-Day Saints to hear that entry into the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of glory is made possible only if the spirits of the dead accept and follow the counsel of the Lord’s prophets in the spirit world, but Doctrine and Covenants 138 leaves no room for doubt on this matter.

Why do you exclude the two lower kingdoms of the celestial glory?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think you are reading what I’m writing. I responded to Calms post. I referred to the fact she shared. If you have something substantive to contribute let me know. 

Yes, you responded to a post sharing a ChatGPT "rough estimate" followed by the poster's assumption. No fact was claimed. You referred to “this fact,” which why I interjected with the substantive clarification that the article you linked is a satire which uses logical fallacies as part of its approach.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Why do you exclude the two lower kingdoms of the celestial glory?

Because if bowing the knee in humble acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior is required for entry into either of the two the lower two kingdoms of heavenly glory, it then goes without saying that the same conformity to eternal law is required for entry into one of the three degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom.

As an aside, it may be surprising to some but there is next to nothing that can be found anywhere in the scriptures or in writings of the latter-day prophets and apostles that explains the nature of the three degrees of glory within in the celestial kingdom and how they differentiate from each other. All we actually have on the subject is the following disclosures found in Doctrine and Covenants Sections 131 and 129.

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 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. (Doctrine and Covenants 131)

and…

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory. (Doctrine and Covenants 129)

Based on the very limited information that can be gleaned from the above passages, the best I can deduce on the matter is that those who obtain the highest degree of glory within the celestial kingdom are the sealed and eternally married heavenly kings and queens. The next degree is obtained by those who are worthy of a celestial glory, but who, for undisclosed reasons, did not enter into the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, and are therefore single. And the last degree of glory within the celestial kingdom appears to be a glorious temporary condition obtained by the most righteous spirits of the dead, for they are permitted to leave the precincts of paradise and enter the celestial glory while they await the even greater glory they will receive in the resurrection.

The above reasoning represents my best attempt to flesh out the differences between the three degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom, but my perspective is subject to change when further light and knowledge on is given on the subject.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2025 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, you responded to a post sharing a ChatGPT "rough estimate" followed by the poster's assumption. No fact was claimed. You referred to “this fact,” which why I interjected with the substantive clarification that the article you linked is a satire which uses logical fallacies as part of its approach.

lol. Sorry you aren’t getting 20 wives in heaven. I stand by the following statement ad factually true: 

Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As an aside, it may be surprising to some but there is next to nothing that can be found anywhere in the scriptures or in writings of the latter-day prophets and apostles that explains the nature of the three degrees of glory within in the celestial kingdom and how they differentiate from each other. All we actually have on the subject is the following disclosures found in Doctrine and Covenants Sections 131 and 129.

Some believe the idea of three degrees in the Celestial kingdom is a misinterpretation based on the inconsistent use of “celestial” as referring to heaven as a whole as opposed to one kingdom alone, thus the three degrees of celestial glory are the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial.  That would explain why we know next to nothing.

Given there is apparently only one reference to the idea of three levels in the CK itself and that is in William Clayton’s journal, it actually makes more sense that celestial was still being used at the time like the general population and they were not yet using Mormonese with its unique definitions.

a discussion:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/18/is-the-celestial-kingdom-divided-into-three-subdegrees/

I think most of the CC commentator’s points are decent except for the “huge coincidence” of having three levels in the CK as well as three levels in heaven over all. That would not be a coincidence, but likely based on why we have the division of three in many things, something of an administrative structure.  There is also the symbolism of three. 

If there is progression within and between the kingdoms, even if we start out with sharp, clear divisions between the kingdoms, over eons seems like such divisions will blur if all are eventually working for the same purpose as God, the immortality and eternal life of humanity.

———

D&C 131 wasn’t a revelation like 132 given by Joseph or spoken of by him in a sermon as I understand, but derived from one person’s incomplete notes (as is mentioned by “Clark” in the comments).

Edited September 1, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

lol. Sorry you aren’t getting 20 wives in heaven. I stand by the following statement ad factually true: 

Rough estimate: 45% to 60% of all humans in history likely died before the age of 8.

You aren't either so stop projecting  

You'll have to show how that statement is factually true whether you stand by it or not -- thank you. Hint; estimates are not facts. I invite you to look up the difference.

[Calm]

Another commentary on it providing quite a bit of background:

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-131/

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

You aren't either so stop projecting  

You'll have to show how that statement is factually true whether you stand by it or not -- thank you. Hint; estimates are not facts. I invite you to look up the difference.

What is your point here, CV?  I am not understanding the purpose of your focus.

As far as I can tell Seeking was simply continuing with examining a similar implication to the one I brought up, pointing out someone else who had seen an inconsistency between assumptions and likely actual numbers, implications that arise based on the awareness that not only do males die in larger numbers than females in infancy at least naturally and the awareness that a very significant percentage of humanity has died before the age of accountability such*** that based on archaeological findings as well as recorded history (high infant mortality rates didn’t start to drop significantly until not that long ago and they still are quite high in some areas, 1 in 8 children die before the age of 5 in Somalia for example).  That a high number of humans have died before accountability is a fact even if we do not have a precise measure for it and must rely on ballpark figures/rough estimates.

****I was pointing out that not needing the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins to receive the Celestial Kingdom appears to be as much as a rule for humanity as needing baptism rather than the exception it has typically been presented as in my experience.  It’s not arguing from the margins when it’s possible a majority of humanity died before developing accountability.

I assume you aren’t arguing we really can’t know if the mortality rate is as high as estimated above, so we shouldn’t use it as a reason to reexamine our assumptions and speculations about the afterlife that we might want to reexamine some of our assumptions  (like the Celestial Kingdom is going to be packed with women sprinkled with a few men here and there).  If you are, you should likely quote my comments rather than Seeking since I started that part of the discussion

Edited September 1, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is your point here, CV?  I am not understanding the purpose of your focus.

As far as I can tell Seeking was simply continuing with examining a similar implication to the one I brought up, pointing out someone else who had seen an inconsistency between assumptions and likely actual numbers, implications that arise based on the awareness that not only do males die in larger numbers than females in infancy at least naturally and the awareness that a very significant percentage of humanity has died before the age of accountability such*** that based on archaeological findings as well as recorded history (high infant mortality rates didn’t start to drop significantly until not that long ago and they still are quite high in some areas, 1 in 8 children die before the age of 5 in Somalia for example).  That a high number of humans have died before accountability is a fact even if we do not have a precise measure for it and must rely on ballpark figures/rough estimates.

****I was pointing out that not needing the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins to receive the Celestial Kingdom appears to be as much as a rule for humanity as needing baptism rather than the exception it has typically been presented as in my experience.  It’s not arguing from the margins when it’s possible a majority of humanity died before developing accountability.

I assume you aren’t arguing we really can’t know if the mortality rate is significant enough that we might want to reexamine some of our assumptions about the afterlife (like the Celestial Kingdom is going to be packed with women sprinkled with a few men here and there).  If you are, you should likely quote my comments rather than Seeking since I started that part of the discussion.

I was pointing out that the article he linked to is a satire with attendant issues as to fact and logical fallacy.

I can't say I've ever heard the assumption like the one you shared here was ever taught as Church doctrine.

Has anyone here heard the assumption that all mortal life forms are some expression of humanity as it was organized as spirits, enabling the complete flexing of the requisite distribution of the two genders in the afterlife -- that any non-human is just an abnormality of mortal replication?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You'll have to show how that statement is factually true whether you stand by it or not

😳I’d say it’s as factually true as any statement can be about the deep past. Especially the way it was stated. I was just being conversational about it. But if we are being pedantic grammar Nazi level weirdos about it, then according to the best philosophers there are no facts without shared assumptions. Everyone is boot strapping it at some level. BTW you must be fun at parties!

Edited September 1, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

😳I’d say it’s as factually true as any statement can be about the deep past. Especially the way it was stated. I was just being conversational about it. But if we are being pedantic grammar Nazi level weirdos about it, then according to the best philosophers there are no facts without shared assumptions. Everyone is boot strapping it at some level. BTW you must be fun at parties!

That is awfully qualified!

[manol]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Some believe the idea of three degrees in the Celestial kingdom is a misinterpretation based on the inconsistent use of “celestial” as referring to heaven as a whole as opposed to one kingdom alone, thus the three degrees of celestial glory are the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial.  That would explain why we know next to nothing...

If there is progression within and between the kingdoms, even if we start out with sharp, clear divisions between the kingdoms, over eons seems like such divisions will blur if all are eventually working for the same purpose as God, the immortality and eternal life of humanity.  [emphasis manol's]

Back when I was active LDS, my view of "eternal progression" was one of ever-increasing separation as the more-rapidly-advancing individuals outpaced the rest of us and left us behind, and then the most-rapidly-advancing of those would outpace the other elites and leave them behind, and so on... like a race wherein the fastest runners are always increasing their separation from the slower ones. 

Then I started reading the accounts of more and more near-death experiencers, and those whose NDE's went the farthest (all the way to a merging with God) described experiencing what might be called "oneness" rather than ever-increasing separation.   And "oneness" isn't really the right word because it implies a loss of identity; apparently it's more like this:  Rather than losing one's individuality, one gains "everything". 

Anyway there seem to be indications here and there within the LDS canon that arguably apply to the bolded part above: At the Celestial level time as we know it apparently does not exist, so by implication "outpacing" one another in a way that increases separation might not be a thing; also, we cannot be "saved" (and I think Joseph meant "exalted") without our deceased family members, which would ultimately include everyone because we're all part of the same family, both biologically and spiritually.

(In the spirit of giving heightened credibility to that which is "established in the mouths of two or more witnesses", I am drawn to instances of parallel ideas appearing in both the LDS canon and the accounts of near-death experiencers.) 

 

Edited September 1, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

can't say I've ever heard the assumption like the one you shared here was ever taught as Church doctrine.

Not as church doctrine, just as speculation by some church members trying to explain plural marriage in the eternities.  I thought it clear I was referring to assumptions made by people and not doctrine.