Can A Mainstream Christian Make It To The Celestial Kingdom

[rhinomelon]

But the nice part about all this, is that from what I understand of Ev (or even Catholic) expectations of Heaven, what amounts to the Terrestrial Kingdom is what they expect to enter as a reward for having accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.

I could not disagree more. Hence my comment earlier about the Celestial Kingdom being the only one worth having. Mainstream Christians of all stripes look to heaven as finally being in the presence of God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Cutting the Father out of the equation simply kills that hope. Heaven is not heaven without the Father (or the Son or the Spirit, for that matter). Catholics even have a specific term for that hope: the beatific vision. Try telling a Catholic that a lower kingdom is "just what you wanted", even though that lower kingdom completely eradicates the possibility of the beatific vision. Not going to get a happy response...

The result of this is that LDS attempt to figure out what "mainstream" Christian beliefs really are. It's hard to find total agreement amongs them. Which branch of Christian thought, Calvinism, reformed Calvinism, fundamentalist, charismatic, evangelical, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc., etc., etc. contains all of the doctrine of Christ? Do all these branches have significant amounts of the doctrines and creeds of men mixed in? And how do we determine what is totally of Christ?

I can sympathize with the problem, but I do think that mainstream Christianity has a great deal more unity than LDS give it credit for. Central issues like the nature of God, of Christ, afterlife, etc., are all generally agreed upon. Just look at the first few councils, for example. There is a body of general Christian teaching that the various traditions tap into, a body that the LDS church has largely completely rejected. But I think that complaining about the disunity of mainstream Christianity is more a cop out anyway, at least with LDS. Just my opinion.

Take care, everyone

[BCSpace]

I thought Jesus got to decide on everyone. I'm going to let him make the choices.

That would be contrary to scripture (1 Cor 6:2)

In fact, everyone is going to heaven I've decided.

All except the sons and daughters of Perdition will receive a degree of glory.

If by the same judgement you mete out you will be judged I'm now a shoo-in.

But you also have to judge righteously (John 7:24) which I would say does not happen when you overemphasize mercy.

[BCSpace]

Only the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is restricted to worthy, endowed LDS

Where is your justification for this? The only verses you quoted had to do with eternal marriage. The verses I previously quoted show that only LDS receive either the Celestial or Terrestial.

[BCSpace]

Except for the priesthood/saving ordinances item, the above statement could be (and often is) applied to LDS from the mainstream Christian side of the fence. And yet LDS seem to take great offense at this.

I take no offense whatsoever. Any church that does not claim salvational exclusivity cannot possibly be true.

[flameburns623]

I know everyone responding is doing their best to stay within the parameters of Rhinomelon's original post but there is one element that I don't think Rhino nor anyone else has noticed: the LDS doctrine provides for a rather unique intermediary state between this life and final glory. So, if an Evangelical Christian passes from this life, they are going to have some rather startling evidence directly before them that Joseph Smith was in fact a Prophet. Because, without being too glib about it, Evangelicals and pretty everyone else who is not LDS, are going to open their eyes to find missionaries standing before them saying something like:

"Hi, and welcome to Spirit Prison. We're your neighbors from Paradise and we're with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We'd like to stop by some time and have a friendly discussion with you about faith; would you happen to be interested?"

Now, imagine somebody who is at all acquainted with LDS doctrine coming to the afterlife with something like that right in their face. They don't after to be a dedicated anti-Mormon, just someone who understands what Evangelical Christianity teaches about the afterlife contrasted with what Mormonism teaches. The conclusion is going to be pretty inescapable, in my humble opinion, that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of 'inside track' on the matter of afterlife.

It's the same principle that lurks behind any irrefutable discovery of some sort of BoM archaeological site. Very few Evangelicals are going to need to have their arms twisted to begin to give serious credence of Mormonism if suddenly an entire Nephite city is discovered and determined beyond reasonable doubt to be Bountiful of BoM fame. Just one city, heck even just one encampment, with solid links to the BoM--no speculative archaeology exclusively by LDS pundits and not seriously credited by non-Mormon experts in the field--would radically change the arguments for and against the LDS Church. At that point, no matter what one thinks about the literary quality of the BoM, one would be confronted squarely with the fact that Joseph Smith somehow acquired knowledge of a culture of people he could not have known about by any ordinary means. His account of how he discovered what he know would suddenly gain new currency, even if we went decades before any further progress were made in finding other BoM sites.

The same principle applies even more resoundingly to Evangelicals passing into the next life and finding themselves in a Mormon version of the same: they are going to know at that juncture that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet on some level, and the vast majority of Evangelicals are at that point going to work on doing whatever 'work' they need to accomplish to qualify for exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom.

My thoughts on this.

[gmormon]

I know everyone responding is doing their best to stay within the parameters of Rhinomelon's original post but there is one element that I don't think Rhino nor anyone else has noticed: the LDS doctrine provides for a rather unique intermediary state between this life and final glory. So, if an Evangelical Christian passes from this life, they are going to have some rather startling evidence directly before them that Joseph Smith was in fact a Prophet. Because, without being too glib about it, Evangelicals and pretty everyone else who is not LDS, are going to open their eyes to find missionaries standing before them saying something like:

"Hi, and welcome to Spirit Prison. We're your neighbors from Paradise and we're with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We'd like to stop by some time and have a friendly discussion with you about faith; would you happen to be interested?"

Now, imagine somebody who is at all acquainted with LDS doctrine coming to the afterlife with something like that right in their faith. They don't after to be a dedicated anti-Mormon, just someone who understands what Evangelical Christianity teaches about the afterlife contrasted with what Mormonism teaches. The conclusion is going to be pretty inescapable, in my humble opinion, that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of 'inside track' on the matter of afterlife.

It's the same principle that lurks behind any irrefutable discovery of some sort of BoM archaeological site. Very few Evangelicals are going to need to have their arms twisted to begin to give serious credence of Mormonism if suddenly an entire Nephite city is discovered and determined beyond reasonable doubt to be Bountiful of BoM fame. Just one city, heck even just one encampment, with solid links to the BoM--no speculative archaeology exclusively by LDS pundits and not seriously credited by non-Mormon experts in the field--would radically change the arguments for and against the LDS Church. At that point, no matter what one thinks about the literary quality of the BoM, one would be confronted squarely with the fact that Joseph Smith somehow acquired knowledge of a culture of people he could not have known about by any ordinary means. His account of how he discovered what he know would suddenly gain new currency, even if we went decades before any further progress were made in finding other BoM sites.

The same principle applies even more resoundingly to Evangelicals passing into the next life and finding themselves in a Mormon version of the same: they are going to know at that juncture that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet on some level, and the vast majority of Evangelicals are at that point going to work on doing whatever 'work' they need to accomplish to qualify for exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom.

My thoughts on this.

I like your thoghts

[jwhitlock]

I could not disagree more. Hence my comment earlier about the Celestial Kingdom being the only one worth having. Mainstream Christians of all stripes look to heaven as finally being in the presence of God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Cutting the Father out of the equation simply kills that hope. Heaven is not heaven without the Father (or the Son or the Spirit, for that matter). Catholics even have a specific term for that hope: the beatific vision. Try telling a Catholic that a lower kingdom is "just what you wanted", even though that lower kingdom completely eradicates the possibility of the beatific vision. Not going to get a happy response...

We had this discussion when it was discussed on another thread and didn't come to a resolution on it - at least in my mind.

I can sympathize with the problem, but I do think that mainstream Christianity has a great deal more unity than LDS give it credit for. Central issues like the nature of God, of Christ, afterlife, etc., are all generally agreed upon. Just look at the first few councils, for example. There is a body of general Christian teaching that the various traditions tap into, a body that the LDS church has largely completely rejected. But I think that complaining about the disunity of mainstream Christianity is more a cop out anyway, at least with LDS. Just my opinion.

I think I'll start another thread on this topic in particular - concerning the level of agreement in Christianity about some of the various basic doctrines.

[jwhitlock]

Some of my thoughts in response:

I know everyone responding is doing their best to stay within the parameters of Rhinomelon's original post but there is one element that I don't think Rhino nor anyone else has noticed: the LDS doctrine provides for a rather unique intermediary state between this life and final glory. So, if an Evangelical Christian passes from this life, they are going to have some rather startling evidence directly before them that Joseph Smith was in fact a Prophet. Because, without being too glib about it, Evangelicals and pretty everyone else who is not LDS, are going to open their eyes to find missionaries standing before them saying something like:

"Hi, and welcome to Spirit Prison. We're your neighbors from Paradise and we're with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We'd like to stop by some time and have a friendly discussion with you about faith; would you happen to be interested?"

Now, imagine somebody who is at all acquainted with LDS doctrine coming to the afterlife with something like that right in their face. They don't after to be a dedicated anti-Mormon, just someone who understands what Evangelical Christianity teaches about the afterlife contrasted with what Mormonism teaches. The conclusion is going to be pretty inescapable, in my humble opinion, that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of 'inside track' on the matter of afterlife.

I'm not sure that it's going to be that blunt. I've had too much experience here with people we were teaching starting to feel the Spirit - and then pulling out of the discussions because they understood very well where it was all leading. Since the spirit world before the resurrection is still part of this temporal judgment / testing time, there still has to be agency and opposition, to a great extent.

Having said that, I think that once the judgment occurs, everyone will have had a fair and thorough chance to decide where they want to be. The results will probably be very surprising.

It's the same principle that lurks behind any irrefutable discovery of some sort of BoM archaeological site. Very few Evangelicals are going to need to have their arms twisted to begin to give serious credence of Mormonism if suddenly an entire Nephite city is discovered and determined beyond reasonable doubt to be Bountiful of BoM fame. Just one city, heck even just one encampment, with solid links to the BoM--no speculative archaeology exclusively by LDS pundits and not seriously credited by non-Mormon experts in the field--would radically change the arguments for and against the LDS Church. At that point, no matter what one thinks about the literary quality of the BoM, one would be confronted squarely with the fact that Joseph Smith somehow acquired knowledge of a culture of people he could not have known about by any ordinary means. His account of how he discovered what he know would suddenly gain new currency, even if we went decades before any further progress were made in finding other BoM sites.

I'm not sure I agree. There's been some pretty interesting stuff from an archaeological standpoint that's come up, but it doesn't appear to have had much effect at all on most people. In the end, belief or non-belief in Mormonism is not made by tangible evidences, whose real purpose is to support spiritual evidence.

For instance, I consider the tree of life discovery to be, at the minimum, very strong indirect evidence for the BofM. Personally, I think it goes further than that, but others differ in their opinions. Even when faced with direct evidence, I think most people will fall back on their preconceptions and still try to find ways to discount that evidence.

The same principle applies even more resoundingly to Evangelicals passing into the next life and finding themselves in a Mormon version of the same: they are going to know at that juncture that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet on some level, and the vast majority of Evangelicals are at that point going to work on doing whatever 'work' they need to accomplish to qualify for exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom.

I think it will probably be more of a confirmation of previously held beliefs. For instance, atheists will suddenly need to rethink their position on an afterlife - that will be blindingly obvious. But it won't necessarily lead to Mormonism. Mainstream Christians will have a belief in the afterlife confirmed - but it may not necessarily lead to Mormonism. LDS will have a belief in the afterlife confirmed - and will then be able to look for additional confirmation of LDS doctrines and find it. There will still be quite a bit of choice that remains to be made.

[Zoroaster]

I agree to a point. We are saved by Christ's atonement. Not by accepting Moses, Isaiah, Elijiah, Peter, James, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, ect as prophets. However we also accept Christ through accepting Christ's servants and we reject Christ also by rejecting his servants

John 13:20: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (see also Matthew 10:40; Luke 9:48; D&C 39:5; D&C 84:36-38, 89; 99:2; 112:20)

Luke 10:16: "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So can one truely accept Christ but reject say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Moses, or any particular prophet that was called by Christ? The answer is no. To truely accept Christ means to accept Christ's entire program and who he calls. We can't pick and choose those parts of Christ's program we accept and those that we reject.

But do you have to fully accept Christ in every possible sense to gain exhaltation? I hope not. Because I reject Christ everyday when I sin. And I reject his prophets everyday when I don't fully implement their counsel. We don't have to be in perfect obedience to gain exaltation. With that in mind I think not believing the words of a particular prophet is a relatively small thing if that person embraces Christ in every other way.

If I, a sinner in so many ways, can gain exaltation despite my disobedience, hardheartedness, and tacit rejection of the prophets, than surely someone else, who holds to Christ's words far better than me and who treats their neighbor with far more charity, but also rejects one of many prophets (though more explicitly than I do) can make it as well.

[The Nehor]

How do you know that the LDS will somehow have proof? How will the fact that there are dead Mormons in heaven alter the situation. All people will know is that there is life after death. I imagine there are Jehovah's Witness missionaries there and many others trying to share the truth. Until the Second Coming anyways.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Okay, take two. I already deleted my earlier attempt at a poll (one of the fringe benefits of the spambuster job).

I hope this question is self-explanatory. It's kind of using Drew's idea, just for the other side of the equation. LDS only, please (sorry, flameburns). Can I, as a Protestant, or SteubieU as a Catholic, make it to the Celestial Kingdom without rejecting those beliefs that the LDS church believes are corrupt and/or apostate? In other words, do I have to become LDS (in this life or the next) in order to live in the only heaven worth having?

Take care, everyone

Yes, read D&C 137. Heck it is so short I will post...

THE

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 137

A vision given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, January 21, 1836. HC 2: 380â??381. The occasion was the administration of the ordinances of the endowment as far as they had then been revealed.

1â??6, The Prophet sees his brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom; 7â??9, The doctrine of salvation for the dead is revealed; 10, All children are saved in the celestial kingdom.

1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Someday you will see the truth of it...you have a good heart. I think had you not been exposed to so many lies (about the Church) you would have already accepted it. You're a good man.

Pa Pa

[Zoroaster]

I know everyone responding is doing their best to stay within the parameters of Rhinomelon's original post but there is one element that I don't think Rhino nor anyone else has noticed: the LDS doctrine provides for a rather unique intermediary state between this life and final glory. So, if an Evangelical Christian passes from this life, they are going to have some rather startling evidence directly before them that Joseph Smith was in fact a Prophet. Because, without being too glib about it, Evangelicals and pretty everyone else who is not LDS, are going to open their eyes to find missionaries standing before them saying something like:

"Hi, and welcome to Spirit Prison. We're your neighbors from Paradise and we're with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We'd like to stop by some time and have a friendly discussion with you about faith; would you happen to be interested?"

Now, imagine somebody who is at all acquainted with LDS doctrine coming to the afterlife with something like that right in their face. They don't after to be a dedicated anti-Mormon, just someone who understands what Evangelical Christianity teaches about the afterlife contrasted with what Mormonism teaches. The conclusion is going to be pretty inescapable, in my humble opinion, that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of 'inside track' on the matter of afterlife.

It's the same principle that lurks behind any irrefutable discovery of some sort of BoM archaeological site. Very few Evangelicals are going to need to have their arms twisted to begin to give serious credence of Mormonism if suddenly an entire Nephite city is discovered and determined beyond reasonable doubt to be Bountiful of BoM fame. Just one city, heck even just one encampment, with solid links to the BoM--no speculative archaeology exclusively by LDS pundits and not seriously credited by non-Mormon experts in the field--would radically change the arguments for and against the LDS Church. At that point, no matter what one thinks about the literary quality of the BoM, one would be confronted squarely with the fact that Joseph Smith somehow acquired knowledge of a culture of people he could not have known about by any ordinary means. His account of how he discovered what he know would suddenly gain new currency, even if we went decades before any further progress were made in finding other BoM sites.

The same principle applies even more resoundingly to Evangelicals passing into the next life and finding themselves in a Mormon version of the same: they are going to know at that juncture that Joseph Smith must have been a prophet on some level, and the vast majority of Evangelicals are at that point going to work on doing whatever 'work' they need to accomplish to qualify for exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom.

My thoughts on this.

I think you've pointed out why this thread isn't exactly equivalent to the "can a Mormon gain salvation" threads that were directed at the Christian community a few days ago.

I would, however like to clarify a few of the points you talked about in your post.

First of all, spirit paradise and prison aren't divided into Mormons and non-Mormons. It is official LDS doctrine that spirit paradise houses the righteous and spirit prison houses the unrighteous. So righteous Christians (and even non-Christians) who have done their best in this life will "wake up" in spirit paradise. Many Mormons are under the impression that those who haven't been baptized by proper authority go to spirit prison, but that is false.

That means that there will be teaching going on in both spirit prison and spirit paradise, and that teaching will be directed at all those who need some reeducation, which will be all of us. Those teaching those truths will not be representatives from the "LDS church" as it doesn't exist in heaven. I think the truths that are taught will, for the most part, be equally new to Mormons and non-Mormons, since even in LDS doctrine, the relationship between members of the Godhead and the true nature of God are far beyond our mortal comprehension.

In short, I don't think it will be a situation where when we all die the Mormons feel immediately vindicated and everyone else suddenly knows that the Mormons were right all along. We'll all be in a fairly similar boat.

[Son]

I take no offense whatsoever. Any church that does not claim salvational exclusivity cannot possibly be true.

Any organized church that claims exclusive salvation can definitely not be true......No group or organization has a monopoly on God or Salvation. One does not need to ever be a member of a religion in order to be saved.

[Paul Ray]

Any organized church that claims exclusive salvation can definitely not be true......No group or organization has a monopoly on God or Salvation. One does not need to ever be a member of a religion in order to be saved.

A church is a group of people.

Do you agree?

If so, the only true church of Christ is the church with Christ as a member.

Any church without Christ is not his church.

[Zoroaster]

I take no offense whatsoever. Any church that does not claim salvational exclusivity cannot possibly be true.

You're far too focused on the church. The church is just an earthly organization set up by God so he can efficiently diseminate information to help his children understand his Gospel, grow closer to Christ, and to administer ordinances. The gospel brings salvation, the ordinances bring salvation, and above all Christ brings salvation, but the church has no importance outside its role in bringing us to those things.

And the LDS church obviously doesn't not claim salvation exclusivity. The vast majority of those in the celestial kingdom will never have heard of the LDS church in life and will never be members of it. Baptisms for the dead contain no language making that person a member of the church and they are not listed as members of the church on records. They don't become LDS yet they can receive exhaltation if they accept it.

[BCSpace]

I hope this question is self-explanatory. It's kind of using Drew's idea, just for the other side of the equation. LDS only, please (sorry, flameburns). Can I, as a Protestant, or SteubieU as a Catholic, make it to the Celestial Kingdom without rejecting those beliefs that the LDS church believes are corrupt and/or apostate? In other words, do I have to become LDS (in this life or the next) in order to live in the only heaven worth having?

Take care, everyone

Yes, read D&C 137. Heck it is so short I will post...

How does D&C 137 illicit a yes? All it says is that some (or all of certain sub cateories) will accept. By so doing, one rejects the corrupt/ apostate doctrines by definition.

[BCSpace]

I take no offense whatsoever. Any church that does not claim salvational exclusivity cannot possibly be true.

Any organized church that claims exclusive salvation can definitely not be true......No group or organization has a monopoly on God or Salvation.

The only way that can happen is for God to be a liar and a respctor of persons. For example....

If God tells one group of people about His nature and requirements for salvation and then turns around and tells a different group of people some contrary things about His nature and salvation, then God has lied and/or is a respector of persons.

One does not need to ever be a member of a religion in order to be saved.

Even the Bible says otherwise and requires a Church organization. (Ephesians 4:11-14)

[BCSpace]

I take no offense whatsoever. Any church that does not claim salvational exclusivity cannot possibly be true.

I take no offense whatsoever. Any church that does not claim salvational exclusivity cannot possibly be true.

You're far too focused on the church.

Since that is how the salvational doctrines are taught and the saving ordinances are administered (as you have described), I don't think so.

but the church has no importance outside its role in bringing us to those things.

Yet you have illustrated that there can be no salvation without the Church.

And the LDS church obviously doesn't not claim salvation exclusivity.

It does as I have described in this very thread. One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory without becoming LDS.

The vast majority of those in the celestial kingdom will never have heard of the LDS church in life

True

and will never be members of it.

Not true. If they are not members of it, if they do not accept it in this life or the next (as you have just illustrated) they cannot enter.

Baptisms for the dead contain no language making that person a member of the church and they are not listed as members of the church on records.

That would be the early Church you speak of which is simply a branch of the heavenly Church where they will be recorded as members in thebook of life.

They don't become LDS yet they can receive exhaltation if they accept it.

'LDS' is simply a descriptive term here as it applies to this dispensation. I could substitute Church of the Firstborn and still be correct as they mean exactly the same thing.

[Paul Ray]

One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory without becoming LDS.

I agree with this statement, in one sense, but it might be more helpful to other if we rephrased it a little.

I would rather say it kinda something like this:

One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory if they reject teachings taught by LDS.

I think that makes the point a little more clear because rejection implies that a person at least knows about the teachings, otherwise they couldn't reject them.

LDS teachings are basically the teachings of God, and we can't receive all of God's glory while we are rejecting God's teachings.

[T-Shirt]

It does as I have described in this very thread. One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory without becoming LDS.

Do you think, then, that baptism is required for Terrestrial glory?

T-Shirt

[Zoroaster]

That would be the early Church you speak of which is simply a branch of the heavenly Church where they will be recorded as members in thebook of life.

No I'm speaking of the church today. I'm saying that when we perform a proxy baptism for someone who has passed away we record that the ordinance was done but we don't list them as members of the church. So there you have millions of people who could accept the gospel and gain exaltation without ever becoming "LDS".

Of course with this sentence:

'LDS' is simply a descriptive term here as it applies to this dispensation. I could substitute Church of the Firstborn and still be correct as they mean exactly the same thing.

you've defined some rather interesting terms. If you define an LDS person as anyone who has received the necessary ordinances for salvation then of course no one will receive salvation who isn't "LDS". But that's just circular reasoning.

I still maintain that using normal definitions there certainly is salvation outside of the church since I clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of exalted beings will have never heard of the LDS church, never stepped foot inside of one, and will never become a member of it. They will all have to receive baptism performed by proper authority but that clearly does not make one a member of the LDS church. However, if you insist on defining all baptized people as technically part of "the church" or somehow having received their salvation through the church then I grudgingly agree, when using those unusual terms.

[The Nehor]

I still maintain that using normal definitions there certainly is salvation outside of the church since I clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of exalted beings will have never heard of the LDS church, never stepped foot inside of one, and will never become a member of it. They will all have to receive baptism performed by proper authority but that clearly does not make one a member of the LDS church. However, if you insist on defining all baptized people as technically part of "the church" or somehow having received their salvation through the church then I grudgingly agree, when using those unusual terms.

Wow, you must think a lot of people are going to be exalted after they die. Outside of young children I don't believe that there are that many who will be exalted because of proxy ordinances.

[BCSpace]

One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory without becoming LDS.

I agree with this statement, in one sense, but it might be more helpful to other if we rephrased it a little.

I would rather say it kinda something like this:

One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory if they reject teachings taught by LDS.

I can handle that seeing as how D&C proclaims the LDS Church to be the only true Church.

Do you think, then, that baptism is required for Terrestrial glory?

Definitely. It's part and parcel of receiving the testimony of Jesus. And if you receive it not in the flesh but receive it afterwards (D&C 76:74), it's the Terrestial for you.

'LDS' is simply a descriptive term here as it applies to this dispensation. I could substitute Church of the Firstborn and still be correct as they mean exactly the same thing.

you've defined some rather interesting terms. If you define an LDS person as anyone who has received the necessary ordinances for salvation then of course no one will receive salvation who isn't "LDS". But that's just circular reasoning.

It's not if you understand that the earthly Church and the Heavenly Church are the same Church.

[Zoroaster]

I agree with this statement, in one sense, but it might be more helpful to other if we rephrased it a little.

I would rather say it kinda something like this:

One cannot attain the Celestial or Terrestial glory if they reject teachings taught by LDS.

I think that makes the point a little more clear because rejection implies that a person at least knows about the teachings, otherwise they couldn't reject them.

LDS teachings are basically the teachings of God, and we can't receive all of God's glory while we are rejecting God's teachings.

Look if you can't make it into the Celestial Kingdom while rejecting teachings taught by the LDS church then we are all jacked. I'm a faithful member of the church but I break the commandments all the time and I'm not even close to having a full, perfect understanding of God, or really any significant component of the gospel.

Now we believe that progression is eternal. By the time we get to the judgment we still won't have a perfect understanding of all truth correct? We will still be progressing at that point. If that's the case then when standing for judgment we will understand a lot of truth but we will still hold some mistaken beliefs, grasp some ideas only dimly, and thus be imperfect beings and yet still enter the Celestial Kingdom. Thus you can hold mistaken beliefs and feasibly reject some current LDS teachings (which make up only a small percentage of all truth that there is to learn) and yet go the the Celestial Kingdom. Now it may be true that you can't receive Exhaltation until you're a perfected being and thus accept all LDS doctrines, but my understanding is that the Judgment comes before we reach perfection.

Please show me where this is incorrect.

[Zoroaster]

Wow, you must think a lot of people are going to be exalted after they die. Outside of young children I don't believe that there are that many who will be exalted because of proxy ordinances.

That depends on how you define alot but I tend to think most of those who are exalted will have done so through proxy ordinances. When you think that in history some 50% of children died between birth and the age of 5, the young children alone makes up billions of people, many times more than have ever been members of the organized church. And when you think of the tens of billions of people who have lived and died without ever having contact with the church in life, even if a small percentage of them, say 1%, enter the Celestial Kingdom that's still far more individuals than have ever been members of the LDS church, or likely will be before the second coming.