No Progression Between Kingdoms!

[consiglieri]

How is it that Mormons have become so adamant there is no progression between kingdoms when James E. Talmage specifically holds out for the possibility in his landmark Articles of Faith, p. 409?

It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God's plan of eternal progression, advancement within each of the three specified kingdoms will be provided for; though as to possible progress from one kingdom to another the scriptures make no positive affirmation. Eternal advancement along different lines is conceivable. We may conclude that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God's living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[robuchan]

How is it that Mormons have become so adamant there is no progression between kingdoms when James E. Talmage specifically holds out for the possibility in his landmark Articles of Faith, p. 409?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't know the answer, but I'll bet you $1,000 this is not directly answered by a prophet or apostle in GC or in an offical church publication over the next 10 years.

[consiglieri]

I don't know the answer, but I'll bet you $1,000 this is not directly answered by a prophet or apostle in GC or in an offical church publication over the next 10 years.

Though spotty at best, my recollection is that whenever the issue is addressed by general authorities, it is dogmatically asserted that there is no progression between kingdoms.

Talmage is usually not referenced in such discourses.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[urroner]

The problem with progression between the kingdoms is the attitude "I can do whatever here, pay for it later and make it to the CK." I sure wouldn't want to teach my kids that, true or not.

[consiglieri]

The problem with progression between the kingdoms is the attitude "I can do whatever here, pay for it later and make it to the CK." I sure wouldn't want to teach my kids that, true or not.

I think that has a lot to do with a decreased emphasis on this teaching.

It is reminscent of the Lord's esoteric definition of "eternal damnation," which he tells us in the D&C is revealed only to his disciples.

Are you suggesting that the leadership of God's Church might teach something that is not true to its members because it is deemed "best for them"?

Careful. I think I hear the hinges squeaking on the lid of Pandora's box.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

Are you suggesting that the leadership of God's Church might teach something that is not true to its members because it is deemed "best for them"?

Careful. I think I hear the hinges squeaking on the lid of Pandora's box.

--Consiglieri

How is that any different than what God Himself does?

D&C 19

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my nameâ??s glory.

Emphasis added

Would it be much different to say that "no progression between the kingdoms is taught that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men"?

While probably true, teaching "progression between the kingdoms" would be supremely bad salesmanship.

[Black Moclips]

How is it that Mormons have become so adamant there is no progression between kingdoms when James E. Talmage specifically holds out for the possibility in his landmark Articles of Faith, p. 409?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well the scriptures indicate that there are kingdoms higher than the Celestial (see D&C 130), so I would hope most members believe in progression between kingdoms. Though I suspect they only apply that belief to themselves when they make the Celestial. I personally believe there will be opportunities for everyone to achieve all goals, should they desire to. I think the principles of "inter kingdom progression" and "multiple probations" , both of which can be found in writings of early church leaders, are today discounted and denied because no one understands them and there haven't been subsequent revelations about it. I think there is also fear that people will become lazy and complacent if they think they get second chances and can progress after this life. But for me personally, eternal progression (for everyone) and multiple mortal probations, are they only ways the great plan of happiness makes sense.

[Lightbearer]

How is it that Mormons have become so adamant there is no progression between kingdoms when James E. Talmage specifically holds out for the possibility in his landmark Articles of Faith, p. 409?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I do not believe that is what Elder Talmage is teaching here... it is true enough that there may be progression within each Kingdom, however I think the following precludes the idea of a progression between Kingdoms:

(D&C 76:109-112) "But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore; And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever; For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared; And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

Also the following:

(D&C 131:1-4) "IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

Also the following:

(D&C 132:15-17) "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

How many times are we going to second guess the scriptures and the modern living prophets and apostles? In light of the above I do not think I can believe in progression between kingdoms and only a limited progression within kingdoms.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The blog New Cool Thang has covered this pretty well, actually. http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/cate...al-progression/

[smac97]

How is it that Mormons have become so adamant there is no progression between kingdoms when James E. Talmage specifically holds out for the possibility in his landmark Articles of Faith, p. 409?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In my experience, this is a rare topic of discussion amongst Mormons. So I'm not sure we can legitimately say there is a consensus on it, or that Mormons are "adamant" about that consensus.

According to this source, "Bruce R. McConkie (in Seven Deadly Heresies), Spencer W. Kimball (in Miracle of Forgiveness), and Joseph Fielding Smith (in Doctrines of Salvation) have stated that once someone is within a kingdom of glory, that person remains within that kingdom for all eternity; no one can advance out of a kingdom."

On the other hand, this website includes some quotes from GAs (Brigham Young, as quoted by Wilford Woodruff; J. Reuben Clark, James E. Talmage, Lorenzo Snow, B. H. Roberts) suggesting that there might be progression between kingdoms.

That said, the above website (the last link) quotes a First Presidency letter as follows:

â??The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point.â?

-Secretary to the First Presidency in a 1952 letter; and again in 1965

-Smac

[zerinus]

How is it that Mormons have become so adamant there is no progression between kingdoms when James E. Talmage specifically holds out for the possibility in his landmark Articles of Faith, p. 409?

I am not sure that they are so "adamant". Although I do not have official sources to quote from, the unofficial information I have is that the present attitude of the leadership of the Church on the subject is that we do not know. The knowledge about that has not been revealed.

It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God's plan of eternal progression, advancement within each of the three specified kingdoms will be provided for; though as to possible progress from one kingdom to another the scriptures make no positive affirmation. Eternal advancement along different lines is conceivable. We may conclude that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God's living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.

The problem with that quote is that "eternal progression" itself is not a scriptural doctrine. The expression does not occur in LDS scripture; and I have yet to find anywhere in LDS literature an accurate, theological, scripture based definition of "eternal progression".

zerinus

[zerinus]

In my experience, this is a rare topic of discussion amongst Mormons. So I'm not sure we can legitimately say there is a consensus on it, or that Mormons are "adamant" about that consensus.

According to this source, "Bruce R. McConkie (in Seven Deadly Heresies), Spencer W. Kimball (in Miracle of Forgiveness), and Joseph Fielding Smith (in Doctrines of Salvation) have stated that once someone is within a kingdom of glory, that person remains within that kingdom for all eternity; no one can advance out of a kingdom."

On the other hand, this website includes some quotes from GAs (Brigham Young, as quoted by Wilford Woodruff; J. Reuben Clark, James E. Talmage, Lorenzo Snow, B. H. Roberts) suggesting that there might be progression between kingdoms.

That said, the above website (the last link) quotes a First Presidency letter as follows:

-Smac

Thank you for your comments. I hadn't got this far down the thread before giving my previous reply. One of the points I had tried to make was more fully addressed by your post.

zerinus

[smac97]

The problem with that quote is that "eternal progression" itself is not a scriptural doctrine. The expression does not occur in LDS scripture; and I have yet to find anywhere in LDS literature an accurate, theological, scripture based definition of "eternal progression".

"Eternal progression" has an entry in the "Topical Guide" of the LDS scriptures (it directs readers to other entries (Eternal Life; Exaltation; Family, Eternal; Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father)).

There are hundreds of references to it on the Church's website.

So while the specific term is not found in scripture, I think the term refers to a broad concept that is found in scripture. In lots of places.

-Smac

[cinepro]

So can people move backwards between the kingdoms? If someone in the Terrestrial kingdom thinks the party looks better in the Telestial, can they request a downgrade?

[zerinus]

"Eternal progression" has an entry in the "Topical Guide" of the LDS scriptures (it directs readers to other entries (Eternal Life; Exaltation; Family, Eternal; Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father)).

There are hundreds of references to it on the Church's website.

So while the specific term is not found in scripture, I think the term refers to a broad concept that is found in scripture. In lots of places.

-Smac

Thank you! I was aware of that. I clicked on your first link, and it given nothing under "eternal progression" in the Topical Guide. It simply refers you to the following entries: "Eternal Life; Exaltation; Family, Eternal; Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father". So what exactly the accurate definition of "eternal progression"? Is it eternal life? is it exaltation? Is it eternal families? . . . If it is any of those, then why not just call it that? Why invent a new name for it? The problem with "eternal progression" firstly is that it is not itself a scriptural expression; and secondly, the word "progression" has a specific meaning that is not suggested by any of the scriptural expressions that Topical Guide links to. Strictly speaking, "eternal progression" is a meaningless expression that has no definitive scriptural interpretation.

As for the other references to it in LDS literature, it is used in the same way. Everybody uses it, but nobody defines exactly what it means.

zerinus

[Mudcat]

So can people move backwards between the kingdoms? If someone in the Terrestrial kingdom thinks the party looks better in the Telestial, can they request a downgrade?

I think there was a dance step named after this concept..... 'The Telectric Slide' maybe.

*pardon the drive by, I couldn't resist*

[smac97]

So can people move backwards between the kingdoms?

I've always been curious about the concept of a "fallen angel." Lucifer clearly "moved backwards" from being a "Son of the Morning" to, through rebellion against God, "Perdition."

If someone in the Terrestrial kingdom thinks the party looks better in the Telestial, can they request a downgrade?

Ah. I thought you were posing a serious inquiry.

My mistake.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Reality: No one has any idea what they're talking about in regards to the kingdoms.

We are talking about a level of existence very, very different from everything we know now. Our thoughts about it are probably on the same level of what a cat thinks a human reading is doing. God has revealed a few tidbits, mostly entry requirements. He also discussed eternal family relationships (which we have only the smallest idea of what that means). If you want to understand the afterlife, you need the visions of eternity. When you get that, come back and tell all.

I suspect though that if you do get back you'll end up using metaphor and weak analogies to try to describe it. We already get that in scripture so we should just go there.

[smac97]

Thank you! I was aware of that. I clicked on your first link, and it given nothing under "eternal progression" in the Topical Guide. It simply refers you to the following entries: "Eternal Life; Exaltation; Family, Eternal; Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father".

"Eternal Progression" is a broad concept. That does not mean it is not a scriptural concept.

So what exactly the accurate definition of "eternal progression"? Is it eternal life? is it exaltation? Is it eternal families? . . .

Yes. Eternal Progression encompasses these things.

If it is any of those, then why not just call it that? Why invent a new name for it?

For the same reason we refer to the "Plan of Salvation." Both are umbrella terms used to describe broad categories of concepts.

The problem with "eternal progression" firstly is that it is not itself a scriptural expression;

Well, I suppose we should be cautious about such things. But this particular phrase does not seem problematic on that score.

and secondly, the word "progression" has a specific meaning that is not suggested by any of the scriptural expressions that Topical Guide links to.

With respect, I disagree. "Progression" is a perfect descriptor for the journey from our current sinful state to a state of salvation and perfection. "Eternal" is also apt, for it elevates this "progression" above the mundane plane on which we now exist.

Strictly speaking, "eternal progression" is a meaningless expression that has no definitive scriptural interpretation.

So if a term cannot be defined with exacting precision, it cannot be defined at all?

I don't think that's right. This article is worth quoting:

The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his King Follett discourse. It is based on the proposition that "there is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationaryâ??they must increase or decrease" (Young, JD 1:350).

Progression takes many forms. In one sense, eternal progression refers to everything that people learn and experience by their choices as they progress from premortal life, to mortality, to postmortal spirit life, and to a resurrected state in the presence of God. Personal progression is possible in each of these states, but not the same kind of progression. Progression apparently occurred in the premortal life, for most spirits there chose to follow Christ and some were noble and great, while others chose to follow Lucifer. Entering mortality affords opportunities for further progression. Obtaining a physical body is a crucial step, enabling a person to experience physical sensations of all kinds and to progress in knowledge and understanding, all of which will rise with the person in the Resurrection (D&C 130:18). Brigham Young taught that even in mortality, "We are in eternity" (JD 10:22), and the object of this existence is "to learn to enjoy more, and to increase in knowledge and experience" (JD 14:228). "When we have learned to live according to the full value of the life we now possess, we are prepared for further advancement in the scale of eternal progressionâ??for a more glorious and exalted sphere" (JD 9:168).

As for the other references to it in LDS literature, it is used in the same way. Everybody uses it, but nobody defines exactly what it means.

I think it is used in ways analogous to "Plan of Salvation" or "Plan of Redemption." These terms lack precise definitions, largely because they are not intended to be precise terms.

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe there is progress between kingdoms because of Eternal Progression. Yes there probably are those that progress to point where they would have qualified for a higher kingdom, but those in the higher kingdoms are also Eternally progressing. So those in the lesser kingdoms will never catch up with those in the higher kingdoms. Their relative position would remain the same. If those in a higher kingdom are progressing at a faster rate then those in the lesser kingdoms while progressing they would slowly lose relative position. At least that's my speculation.

[consiglieri]

So can people move backwards between the kingdoms? If someone in the Terrestrial kingdom thinks the party looks better in the Telestial, can they request a downgrade?

I understand banning is always an option.

Smac--Seriously, though, thanks for the quote from the 1st Presidency Secretary!

That hit the nail on the head, I think.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

"Eternal Progression" is a broad concept. That does not mean it is not a scriptural concept.

I remain to be convinced!

Yes. Eternal Progression encompasses these things.

Yet none of those things include or suggest the concept of â??progressionâ?.

For the same reason we refer to the "Plan of Salvation." Both are umbrella terms used to describe broad categories of concepts.

â??Plan of salvationâ? is very much a scriptural expression. It occurs three times in the Book of Mormon, and once in the Book of Moses (Jarom 1:2; Alma 24:14; 42:5; Moses 6:62). And the â??plan of redemptionâ? occurs 17 times in the Book of Mormon.

With respect, I disagree. "Progression" is a perfect descriptor for the journey from our current sinful state to a state of salvation and perfection. "Eternal" is also apt, for it elevates this "progression" above the mundane plane on which we now exist.

You may think so, and every Church member may think so; but that does not automatically make it so. If a scriptural basis does not exist for it, then it becomes an indefensible concept.

So if a term cannot be defined with exacting precision, it cannot be defined at all?

By â??definedâ? I mean theologically defined, which ultimately means scripturally defined.

I think it is used in ways analogous to "Plan of Salvation" or "Plan of Redemption." These terms lack precise definitions, largely because they are not intended to be precise terms.

Those are very much scriptural terms; see above. Their meanings become defined by the scriptural contexts in which they occur. Not so with â??eternal progressionâ?.

zerinus

[Cold Steel]

I don't pretend to know what will happen after death regarding progression. The revelations tell us that there will be various resurrections as far as degree is concerned, and that where those who gain eternal life are, we can never come, worlds without end. But that doesn't mean that there aren't avenues for exaltation somewhere down the line. We'll never catch up with those who received celestial resurrections immediately, but there's nothing saying that we won't eventually arrive where they were.

These are deep waters and we shouldn't sooth ourselves by adopting this kind of theology because it may be totally wrong. And even if right, I imagine such a road, if it even exists, is a rocky one. Whatever our potential will be, it is thickly veiled and there is nothing in the scriptures to justify us in any way holding back here in doing the will of God.

On the other hand, I don't care for any religion that would teach the eternal torture of human beings. Nothing done on the Earth, no matter how reprehensible, would make a person deserving of eternal torment just as there's nothing we can do on Earth to merit eternal life. I suspect that no person, having experienced hell for any length of time, would soft pedal it. Many will have to endure it throughout the entire Millennium. I suspect it's every bit as unpleasant as many people think it is, perhaps worse, yet it will eventually end and death and hell will be no more. Even the sons of perdition may eventually return to their native element, ending their suffering.

[consiglieri]

On the other hand, I don't care for any religion that would teach the eternal torture of human beings.

Here you make an important point.

I cannot count how many times an unending hell has forced its way through the back door of LDS theology with Mormons saying that those who do not make it to the Celestial Kingdom will always suffer regret.

I tend to think they will get over it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[smac97]

"Progression" is a perfect descriptor for the journey from our current sinful state to a state of salvation and perfection. "Eternal" is also apt, for it elevates this "progression" above the mundane plane on which we now exist.

You may think so, and every Church member may think so; but that does not automatically make it so. If a scriptural basis does not exist for it, then it becomes an indefensible concept.

There is no scriptural basis for exaltation?

What is wrong with describing the journey from a sinful state to a perfected state as "progress?"

What are you saying here?

-Smac