No Progression Between Kingdoms!

[Hermes]

This thread has progressed far beyond page three. Your "substance" (if you want to call it that) has already been thoroughly dealt with. Now you resort to merely restating your position.

exactly. think of it as encouragement, not chastisement, zer.~hermes

I agree with Mike its time to move the thread along, if you don't have anything more to contribute then sit the rest of the thread out.Nemesis

jinx~hermes

[zerinus]

This thread has progressed far beyond page three. Your "substance" (if you want to call it that) has already been thoroughly dealt with. Now you resort to merely restating your position.

It hasn't been "comprehensively replied to". The "replying to" it was done here, which is too nonsensical to be worth replying to.

zerinus

[Mike Reed]

It hasn't been "comprehensively replied to". The "replying to" it was done here, which is too nonsensical to be worth replying to.

zerinus

Sigh... This is getting tiring. At the course of our exchange, you insisted that the official position of the Church is that there is no advancement through the kindgoms, and then proceeded to tell me that I should take your word for it because you are Mormon (and I am just an ex-Mormon). I then informed you that other Mormons on the forum (as well as several mormons that we previously quoted) dissagreed that your view represents official doctrine; therefore, you needed to have more credentials than just being "mormon" in order for me to take your word for it.

You Replied: The credentials is simple. There is nothing revealed about transmigration between kingdoms, period. By "revealed" I mean in the standard works of the Church. That is the source of Church doctrine. An obscure quote from Hyrum Smith or Franklin D. Richards or anyone else for that matter does not cut it. That is the official position of the Church regarding any doctrine.

I responded: Scripture is subject to interpretation, and there is nothing in LDS Scripture that diffinitively settles the matter. Besides... The LDS Church doesn't accept sola scriptura--that all religious truth is found in closed canon scripture. As a "Mormon" you should know that.

You Replied: Actually, it does. Have a look at this article in my Blog. You wouldn't want to miss my Blog, would you?

I resonded: It does what? I made two statements: 1) "there is nothing in LDS Scripture that diffinitively settles the matter" and 2) "The LDS Church doesn't accept sola scriptura--that all religious truth is found in closed canon scripture." Which question do you think your blog contradicts? If the first one, then by all means... give a passages that "definitively settles the matter." If the second, cut and paste relevant quotes [from your blog] that you think undermines my statement of fact, AND THEN proceed to contradict statement one. Because, after all... if your position is that the Church strictly believes sola scriptura, and if it is official doctrine that there is no progression through the kingdoms (as you claim), then there should be a definitive passage [in scripture] proving it [that there is no Kingdom advancement], which cannot be interpreted otherwise. You will also need to provide a passage [in scripture] that definitively teaches all religious truth is found in a closed canon of scripture. I await your response...

You replied: Frankly, I don't think you are interested in knowing anything about anything, and I am not interested in telling you about them. Have a nice day.

And you have done little more than reassert your position ever since. As for you saying that what I posted is "nonsensical" to you... Maybe my words inserted in brackets above will help.

But back to the specific issue that Moderators and others here are criticizing you for:

Rob Osborn wrote:

I never said anything about "after the final judgment". What I was stating is that this earth according to the temple is the "Telestial Kingdom" right now. When Christ comes again the earth will pass away as by fire and then be quickened into the "Terrestrial Kingdom". At the end of the millennium the earth will pass away again as by fire and then be quickened by the Father and become the "Celestial Kingdom". We as part of the plan will thus progress through the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms in order to enter the celestial kingdom.

It is thus true that the church teaches as official doctrine that eternal progression (progression between kingdoms) is not only possible but is required. The temple endowment is as solid as canonized scripture in defining doctrine. Therefore, contrary to what the church officially says about eternal progression, the practice of it in the temple leaves no doubt in the endowed mind that eternal progression as explained in the endowment ceremony is an "official" position of the church teachings and doctrines.

Personally, I believe that since the temple endowment ceremony is the last revealed doctrine on the matter concerning the definitions of the various kingdoms, that it stands as the truest account of the plan of salvation we have.

The implications are thus obvious- there will be no telestial or terrestrial kingdoms after the earth becomes celestial. All those who fail to make it to the celestial in the end will die the second death according to our canonized scriptures! That there is official doctrine. Now, how one wants to divide and discuss the meaning of the three glories within the celestial kingdom- who knows? It may mean that there is a glory of telestial level, one of terrestrial level and the highest of celestial level- who knows? But our canonized scriptures teach that there will only be two places in the end for man to dwell- either with Satan or with God in the Celestial kingdom in one degree of glory or another. The temple also agrees with this point.

Rather than argue over "eternal progression" we should debate on the validity of three separate kingdoms as separate "places" after judgment, of the which I do not beleive in.

You then replied:

Then you do not understand the endowment ceremony. That is not what it means.

This is not an appropriate response to the lengthy post Rob has written. In fact, your flippant dismissal comes off as being equivalent to a kid plugging his ears and saying, "I am right, you are wrong!"

[zerinus]

Sigh... This is getting tiring. . . .

I agree.

zerinus

[Mike Reed]

I agree.

zerinus

Do you agree with the Moderators? If you do, post something of substance or leave this thread. If you don't agree with them... well, that is between you and the moderators, I suppose.

[SteveO]

Torment can do amazing things for the souls of men, especially when they have a program for that escape! It is thus my opinion that almost all will repent of their sins through the gospel obedience in the spirit world and escape that torment.

I disagree with you here. Satan and his followers are "tormented," are they not? They exsist by knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and with a full understanding of all things spiritual. But their torment and knowledge don't change their natures does it? I've always wondered when I was younger why the spirits of Satan wouldn't just try to make the best of a bad situation and try to do good. After all, isn't the Holy Ghost without a body, and I'm sure he isn't tormented. Surely the evil of Satan's followers is not forced on them, nor are they compelled to be so. They must be taking those actions of their own free will (ironic no?). Anyways, to accept progression between kingdoms would-I think-is to also accept the notion that Satan and his followers would eventually be forgiven. It's always a possibility, but the concept is a tough pill to swallow.

More evidence is in the BoM, when the Nefites rebel against God with "their eyes opened." They were suffering so much because of their wickedness that they desired death. But Mormon tells us it was not real repentence, but rather the sorrowing of the damned. Jaradites are another good example.

I think maybe there is a notion that once the next life comes around, people will believe because there is proof god exsists etc. But seeing isn't believing as Lamen and Lemuel show and other such examples from the scriptures. Even in spirit prison, a person must exercise faith to accept the message taught to them and the ordinances performed for them in the temple. I'm saying that if a person doesn't exercise faith here, he or she won't be more inclined to do so in the next life. I stand by the scriptures I quoted, as Alma tells us that an angel of the Lord revealed those things to him. No offense, but I'm actually surprised that some members are actually second guessing what the prophets "really meant" when they said the things they said. Remember, we shouldn't be making statements like that about the BoM, as it has plain and precious truths. It would negate the whole purpose of the BoM if we have to interpret what the prophets were really trying to say.

[Rob Osborn]

I disagree with you here. Satan and his followers are "tormented," are they not? They exsist by knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and with a full understanding of all things spiritual. But their torment and knowledge don't change their natures does it? I've always wondered when I was younger why the spirits of Satan wouldn't just try to make the best of a bad situation and try to do good. After all, isn't the Holy Ghost without a body, and I'm sure he isn't tormented. Surely the evil of Satan's followers is not forced on them, nor are they compelled to be so. They must be taking those actions of their own free will (ironic no?). Anyways, to accept progression between kingdoms would-I think-is to also accept the notion that Satan and his followers would eventually be forgiven. It's always a possibility, but the concept is a tough pill to swallow.

More evidence is in the BoM, when the Nefites rebel against God with "their eyes opened." They were suffering so much because of their wickedness that they desired death. But Mormon tells us it was not real repentence, but rather the sorrowing of the damned. Jaradites are another good example.

I think maybe there is a notion that once the next life comes around, people will believe because there is proof god exsists etc. But seeing isn't believing as Lamen and Lemuel show and other such examples from the scriptures. Even in spirit prison, a person must exercise faith to accept the message taught to them and the ordinances performed for them in the temple. I'm saying that if a person doesn't exercise faith here, he or she won't be more inclined to do so in the next life. I stand by the scriptures I quoted, as Alma tells us that an angel of the Lord revealed those things to him. No offense, but I'm actually surprised that some members are actually second guessing what the prophets "really meant" when they said the things they said. Remember, we shouldn't be making statements like that about the BoM, as it has plain and precious truths. It would negate the whole purpose of the BoM if we have to interpret what the prophets were really trying to say.

Let me start with this verse-

23 Therefore, blessed are they who will repent and hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; for these are they that shall be saved.

24 And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for agrace, according to their works.

25 And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord;

26 Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery, fulfilling the words which say: They that have done good shall have everlasting life; and they that have done evil shall have everlasting damnation. And thus it is. Amen.

(Book of Mormon | Helaman 12:23 - 26)

It appears that the majority of men will repent by the end according to this passage and that only "some" will be cast off because of their lack of repentance. I am thinking of another scripture that deals with the torment of the spirits who drowned int he flood-

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And That which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 7:38 - 39)

This sounds to me like the spirit prison is bad enogh that the torment causes one to change and repent. This is also seen in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where the rich man pays no mind to the begger and they both die and the begger finds peace and rest but the rich man finds himself in torment and suddenly wants to have a change of heart. The same can be said of Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon. they all experienced temporarily that prison set up for them if they do not change their ways. Almost instantly they make a 180 degree change because of that torment.

The scriptures speak of most people being saved except for the few sons of perdition. Those who are saved will all have to accept the gospel and repent from all of their sins. This tells me that since there won't be a whole whord of sons of perdition, that the spirit prison does a good job of convincing the tormented there that repenatnce and acceptance of the gospel is a good thing. I tend to think that being in a place of torment and knowing there is an out can and will be a powerful motivating force for the disobedient to "want" to change. They will not like what their previous actions did for them. I suppose that some will just remain dead to good works as if death didn't mean anything to them and they will thus go on to suffer for as long as they do not repent, but I believe that number will be very few indeed. It would be like not wanting anything to do with what is right and good- the things of Christ.

The 1/3 hosts that followed Satan are in a different situation than us who kept our first estate. For this reason alone, I would tend to say that the majority of us- the 2/3, will stand by the decisions we made when we agreed to follow Christ in the pre-mortal life.

As for the fate of those who follow Satan including Satan himself, I am not sure. We do know and have been told that their suffering and torment will end at some point. How and under what circumstances I am not sure, but we do know that their suffering will not be forever literally.

[usedbookdealer]

Let me start with this verse-

23 Therefore, blessed are they who will repent and hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; for these are they that shall be saved.

24 And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for agrace, according to their works.

25 And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord;

26 Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery, fulfilling the words which say: They that have done good shall have everlasting life; and they that have done evil shall have everlasting damnation. And thus it is. Amen.

(Book of Mormon | Helaman 12:23 - 26)

It appears that the majority of men will repent by the end according to this passage and that only "some" will be cast off because of their lack of repentance. I am thinking of another scripture that deals with the torment of the spirits who drowned int he flood-

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And That which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 7:38 - 39)

This sounds to me like the spirit prison is bad enogh that the torment causes one to change and repent. This is also seen in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where the rich man pays no mind to the begger and they both die and the begger finds peace and rest but the rich man finds himself in torment and suddenly wants to have a change of heart. The same can be said of Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon. they all experienced temporarily that prison set up for them if they do not change their ways. Almost instantly they make a 180 degree change because of that torment.

The scriptures speak of most people being saved except for the few sons of perdition. Those who are saved will all have to accept the gospel and repent from all of their sins. This tells me that since there won't be a whole whord of sons of perdition, that the spirit prison does a good job of convincing the tormented there that repenatnce and acceptance of the gospel is a good thing. I tend to think that being in a place of torment and knowing there is an out can and will be a powerful motivating force for the disobedient to "want" to change. They will not like what their previous actions did for them. I suppose that some will just remain dead to good works as if death didn't mean anything to them and they will thus go on to suffer for as long as they do not repent, but I believe that number will be very few indeed. It would be like not wanting anything to do with what is right and good- the things of Christ.

The 1/3 hosts that followed Satan are in a different situation than us who kept our first estate. For this reason alone, I would tend to say that the majority of us- the 2/3, will stand by the decisions we made when we agreed to follow Christ in the pre-mortal life.

As for the fate of those who follow Satan including Satan himself, I am not sure. We do know and have been told that their suffering and torment will end at some point. How and under what circumstances I am not sure, but we do know that their suffering will not be forever literally.

----------

there has to be an eternal nexus of evil/opposition in the universe(anti-kolob)

maybe sop's go there to continue on with anti-God the Grandfather.

satan and judas aren't perdition?

[Brade]

I put this together a while ago and thought it'd be useful in this discussion. I've arranged the material into three sections as follows: Scriptures, statements by authorities in favor of kingdom progression, statement by authorities against kingdom progression, and letters from the first presidency. I hope this is helpful.

Scriptures:

(DC 19: 5-12)

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

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. Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it!

For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Whereforeâ??Eternal punishment is Godâ??s punishment. Endless punishment is Godâ??s punishmentâ?¦

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the research ba81!

Nice work.

And very helpful.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Shadowolf]

According to the Doctrine and Covenants, those entering the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are considered "saved":

D&C 76

:

88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them;

for they shall be heirs of salvation

.

89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the

glory of the telestial,

which surpasses all understanding;

zerinus

We are all saved by the Grace of the Atonement, however damned does not equal not saved (except sons of perdition)

Damnation is a condition of Not Being Able to Progress according to our chuch website:

GS Damnation

The state of being stopped in oneâ??s progress and denied access to the presence of God and his glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

I found this definition at the LDS website:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

I am new at this, sorry if I wasn't able do to the attachement the right way

Thanks

Shadowolf

[Jeff K.]

Add my kudos, a very interesting mix of opinions and positions. Great research!

[zerinus]

I put this together a while ago and thought it'd be useful in this discussion. I've arranged the material into three sections as follows: Scriptures, statements by authorities in favor of kingdom progression, statement by authorities against kingdom progression, and letters from the first presidency. I hope this is helpful. . . .

Ineresting quotes. Just to add a few comments, on the scriptural front, Lightbearer has given one additional qute in post #8 (D&C 76:109-112) which is relevant, and you can add to your list. With regard to the other quotes, it is interesting to observe that those who advocate progression between the kingdoms seem to be a lot less convinced than those who express the opposite opinion! They make it clear that they are just guessing. They are expressing a personal opinion, which they seem to admit may not be true. On the other hand, those who express belief in no progression between kingdoms, seem to be more convinced that their opinion is the right one.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

On the other hand, those who express belief in no progression between kingdoms, seem to be more convinced that their opinion is the right one.

zerinus

Although I agree with your observation, I am hesitant to equate comparitive degrees of forcefulness in stating a position with the relative correctness thereof.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

We are all saved by the Grace of the Atonement, however damned does not equal not saved (except sons of perdition)

Damnation is a condition of Not Being Able to Progress according to our chuch website:

GS Damnation

The state of being stopped in oneâ??s progress and denied access to the presence of God and his glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

I found this definition at the LDS website:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

I am new at this, sorry if I wasn't able do to the attachement the right way

Thanks

Shadowolf

Thanks! I see your point. You are right. Words can be understood several different ways.

zerinus

[zerinus]

Although I agree with your observation, I am hesitant to equate comparitive degrees of forcefulness in stating a position with the relative correctness thereof.

True; except that the scriptural quotes given (see the ones given by Lightbearer) seem to lean more strongly against advancement between the kingdoms than in favor of it.

zerinus

[Rob Osborn]

We are all saved by the Grace of the Atonement, however damned does not equal not saved (except sons of perdition)

Damnation is a condition of Not Being Able to Progress according to our chuch website:

GS Damnation

The state of being stopped in oneâ??s progress and denied access to the presence of God and his glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

I found this definition at the LDS website:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=w...hecked&bw=1

I am new at this, sorry if I wasn't able do to the attachement the right way

Thanks

Shadowolf

Just to add-

I did a comprhensive study on this subject a few years ago and found out something interesting. I found a paper written by Grant Underwood called "Saved or Damned: Tracing a Persistant Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought". It is a very well written paper with a lot of good research. In the paper he shows how according to early Mormon thought the whole saved or damned dichotomy was alive and well in Mormonism. Our revealed scriptures in the newly transalted Book of Mormon even supported this strict dichotomy. He then shows how over the several following decades and after the death of a lot of the early church leaders including Joseph Smith, that this saved or damned dichotomy was discarded in favor of a more universal approach to salvation with differring degrees of it. As part of that change, certain words had to take on different meanings. words like "damnation" had to take on a broader meaning in order to fit a more universal view into the salvation of souls.

Whereas I did not agree with his paper on many points, I did come to recognize from gis paper a very simple and yet complex problem we have in the church. that problem being that we have thus changed the meaning and original intent of much of what Joseph Smith himself translated and what he revealed from vision into scripture. Much of the strict dichotomy- saved or damned doctrine has now undergone changes from its original intent and are either discarded or replaced with more modern views. In all of the views of the prophets in the scriptures, Christ spent the most time in a specific dialogue about "either being saved into heaven or damned into hell".

One would therefor think that the true author of the saved damned dichotomy (Christ) would have the end-all say in the matter. So why is it that we have not adhered to Christs teachings and clarifications on the matter? It is because as mentioned in Grant's paper, and from what I gathered, we want so much to distance ourselves from the rest of protestant Christianity that we are willing to change our own doctrine to fit an ideal according to our own opinions.

The point I am making here is that we have two different understandings in mormonism in regards to our own doctrine. We have the first understanding- that of the first early saints in the Nauvoo period who believed in the literal saved or damned dichotomy- heaven or hell, and we have the second group which is modern day where the saved or damned dichotomy Christ spoke of has been wholy discarded in favor of a universal approach where even the wicked are saved from hell in the end. In order to make this shoe fit with our revealed scriptures we had to go and rewrite the definitions into the scriptures on certain words. We did this of our own dischord though and therefore the definitions we have given to words like damnation are therefore not true and out of harmony with the revealed word of God.

We should therefore look carefully at words like damnation and ascertain ourselves the true meaning on the subject-

The clue- Christ and the early saints had it dead spot on!

[Shadowolf]

Thanks! I see your point. You are right. Words can be understood several different ways.

zerinus

My brohter and I have been talking about this for a while and he poited out that my understanding of DC 19 as it pertains to this issue may be erroneos

1 The souls in the Terrestial and Telestial are damned because they are stopped in their progress (by definition)

2 There is no such thing as Eternal damnation (DC 19)

I may be wrong in using this scripture, it talks about the concept of "hell" when the souls are in the spirit prison, they will not suffer forever but their suffering will come to an end at the judgement day. At which point they will receive a Glory, which is not punishment, a Glory is reward for keeping their first state and keeping at least some commandmets even if not completely valiant as the souls in the Celestial

3 Thus we see that Shadowolf is still searching for an answer, until we are given more light and knowlegde...

Still, in the context of our eternal lives, a no passing grade in our few years in this lifetime sure has a great effect in our eternity. I can't see so many souls not being able to progress. Eternity is a very long time to be stuck in a leseer Glory.

Thanks

Sahdowolf

[Garden Girl]

Just to add-

I did a comprhensive study on this subject a few years ago and found out something interesting. I found a paper written by Grant Underwood called "Saved or Damned: Tracing a Persistant Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought". It is a very well written paper with a lot of good research. In the paper he shows how according to early Mormon thought the whole saved or damned dichotomy was alive and well in Mormonism. Our revealed scriptures in the newly transalted Book of Mormon even supported this strict dichotomy. He then shows how over the several following decades and after the death of a lot of the early church leaders including Joseph Smith, that this saved or damned dichotomy was discarded in favor of a more universal approach to salvation with differring degrees of it. As part of that change, certain words had to take on different meanings. words like "damnation" had to take on a broader meaning in order to fit a more universal view into the salvation of souls.

I don't understand, Rob. The 76th section of D&C was given to Joseph and Sidney in Feb 1832... revealing the doctrine of the degrees of glory... which differed greatly from the general "heaven or hell" "saved or damned" thinking of the churches of the day... we may argue or speculate, as in this thread, as to whether a person will be able to advance from one kingdom of glory to the next, but the core doctrine as revealed to Joseph and Sidney is still intact... and the Church has taken no official position otherwise... Am I missing what you are saying?

Garden Girl

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

I'm not wedded to my belief that there is no progression between kingdoms. I just await a good reason to believe otherwise.

[Jason]

If the case for progression between kingdoms and against progression seem about equally likely to you then the safest course is to believe there will be no progression between the kingdoms.

If you act as if there will be no progression then you won't be unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong, the same can't be said for believing in progression between kingdoms and acting accordingly.

[Shadowolf]

Just to add-

I did a comprhensive study on this subject a few years ago and found out something interesting. I found a paper written by Grant Underwood called "Saved or Damned: Tracing a Persistant Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought". It is a very well written paper with a lot of good research. In the paper he shows how according to early Mormon thought the whole saved or damned dichotomy was alive and well in Mormonism. Our revealed scriptures in the newly transalted Book of Mormon even supported this strict dichotomy. He then shows how over the several following decades and after the death of a lot of the early church leaders including Joseph Smith, that this saved or damned dichotomy was discarded in favor of a more universal approach to salvation with differring degrees of it. As part of that change, certain words had to take on different meanings. words like "damnation" had to take on a broader meaning in order to fit a more universal view into the salvation of souls.

Whereas I did not agree with his paper on many points, I did come to recognize from gis paper a very simple and yet complex problem we have in the church. that problem being that we have thus changed the meaning and original intent of much of what Joseph Smith himself translated and what he revealed from vision into scripture. Much of the strict dichotomy- saved or damned doctrine has now undergone changes from its original intent and are either discarded or replaced with more modern views. In all of the views of the prophets in the scriptures, Christ spent the most time in a specific dialogue about "either being saved into heaven or damned into hell".

One would therefor think that the true author of the saved damned dichotomy (Christ) would have the end-all say in the matter. So why is it that we have not adhered to Christs teachings and clarifications on the matter? It is because as mentioned in Grant's paper, and from what I gathered, we want so much to distance ourselves from the rest of protestant Christianity that we are willing to change our own doctrine to fit an ideal according to our own opinions.

The point I am making here is that we have two different understandings in mormonism in regards to our own doctrine. We have the first understanding- that of the first early saints in the Nauvoo period who believed in the literal saved or damned dichotomy- heaven or hell, and we have the second group which is modern day where the saved or damned dichotomy Christ spoke of has been wholy discarded in favor of a universal approach where even the wicked are saved from hell in the end. In order to make this shoe fit with our revealed scriptures we had to go and rewrite the definitions into the scriptures on certain words. We did this of our own dischord though and therefore the definitions we have given to words like damnation are therefore not true and out of harmony with the revealed word of God.

We should therefore look carefully at words like damnation and ascertain ourselves the true meaning on the subject-

The clue- Christ and the early saints had it dead spot on!

I know Grant Underwood. He used to teach Institute at Cal Poly Pomona while I attended there, and we used to be in the same stake but I am sure he probably doesn't remember me. He is a good guy.

Do you have a link to his paper?? I should would like to read it

If this dichotomy was so engrained early in the church, how do you explain D&C 76??? The prophet Joseph sure believed it after all it was a revelation and it clearly states the degrees of glory. Also do you think the leaders would change the definition of damnation in the church website if it is wrong?? As much as like Grant Underwood I would lean more toward the church website and DC 76, if in fact that is what Grant is saying... if you have a link to his paper I would really appreciate it

Thanks

Shadowolf

[Rob Osborn]

I don't understand, Rob. The 76th section of D&C was given to Joseph and Sidney in Feb 1832... revealing the doctrine of the degrees of glory... which differed greatly from the general "heaven or hell" "saved or damned" thinking of the churches of the day... we may argue or speculate, as in this thread, as to whether a person will be able to advance from one kingdom of glory to the next, but the core doctrine as revealed to Joseph and Sidney is still intact... and the Church has taken no official position otherwise... Am I missing what you are saying?

Garden Girl

The same argument could be given to the Book of Mormon which has a strong heaven or hell, saved or damned thinking in it. Does section 76 contradict the Book of Mormon in regards to the plan of salvation and the use of the word damnation?

The core of my last post had to do with Grant Underwood's paper in defining what "damnation" isn't. I should have explained more. In a foot note on page 2 he says that besides the sons of perdition "all the rest of humanity will in a sense be both "saved" and "damned". The underlying principle in the paper is correctly identifying the definition of both saved and damned. The paper also speaks of moving away from the old tradition of heaven and hell in the protestant sense of two locations because of the revelation of section 76.

The problem however is quite obvious in that section 76 was written after the translation of the Book of Mormon which supposedly contained the "fulness of the gospel". For this and other reasons, the revelation now found in section 76 of the D&C was not openly part of their doctrine in the early church nor was it accepted as doctrine until years and years later. You see, the Book of Mormon teachings are very much indeed protestant style "saved or damned", heaven of hell teachings. Moving away from this saved or damned dichotomy left the intermediate saints with one of two options- either disregard the BoM as "the fulness of the gospel", or re-invent, so to say, the meaning of words and definitions to fit their "interpretation" of section 76 so that the BoM was still considered a valid doctrine.

Problems in scripture usually arise out of misinterpretation of scripture rather than the scriptures being wrong themselves. In order for the BoM to still be correct under their interpretation, a clever definition was given to the whole "saved or damned" dichotomy. Under the new interpretation, damnation would not necessarily mean "condemnation to hell" but rather anything short of Celestial exaltation. By a long stretch this appears to work. Where it fails dramatically though is that the BoM text does not call for any saved person to be called "damned", and that if one is truly saved, he is saved into the place where the Father and Son reside- the Celestial Kingdom. The pinnacle of the BoM is the teachings of Christ in the America's as found recorded in 3rd Nephi. There Christ firmly establishes as "his doctrine" the strict dichotomy of either being saved in the Kingdom of heaven through repentance and baptism or being forever damned to hell through the general lack of obedience to the saving gospel.

The implications are thus obvious- either Christ was wrong, or the BoM was not transalted correctly! If the BoM was not translated correctly, the problems for LDS theology are paramount to say the least! There is one other alternative here, and it is what I propose-

The BoM is correct in its saved or damned dichotomy where if one is saved he is saved into the celestial kingdom and if one is damned it means that he is condemned to hell. This means that section 76 is either not recorded correctly or it is not corretly interpreted or a little of both! I will not go into all of that here as I have previously done so in this post as one can look back and see. But what I would like to bring up is that the whole saved or damned dichotomy was very much a part of the prohet Joseph Smiths revelations after section 76 was written thereby validating both that the church did not need to move away from the dichotomy teaching, and also that Joseph Smith himself understood later on in his life after he revealed section 76 that the doctrines of Christ regarding the saved and the damned as is explained in the BoM is absolutley true! What this meant later on in Josephs life was that he understood that at no time ever would man escape the damnation of hell without showing strict obedience to the gospel.

As it all relates to section 76, one should be able to draw his or her own conclusions that there certainly must be a general misunderstanding in correctly understanding what the angels in section 76 was trying to teach us! What I mean is that section 76 does not mean what we generally think it to mean because if it did mean what we think it to mean then the whole doctrine of salvation as presented by Christ in the book of Mormon is wrong! I leave you with Christ's very words-

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear brecord of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 11:31 - 34)

[Mike Reed]

I did a comprhensive study on this subject a few years ago and found out something interesting. I found a paper written by Grant Underwood called "Saved or Damned: Tracing a Persistant Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought".

For those who are interested, here is a link to that article: http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfSRC/25.3Underwood.pdf

It is a very well written paper with a lot of good research. In the paper he shows how according to early Mormon thought the whole saved or damned dichotomy was alive and well in Mormonism. Our revealed scriptures in the newly transalted Book of Mormon even supported this strict dichotomy. He then shows how over the several following decades and after the death of a lot of the early church leaders including Joseph Smith, that this saved or damned dichotomy was discarded in favor of a more universal approach to salvation with differring degrees of it. As part of that change, certain words had to take on different meanings. words like "damnation" had to take on a broader meaning in order to fit a more universal view into the salvation of souls.

Asael Smith and Joseph Smith Sr. had universalist leanings--believing the heterodox idea that everyone will eventually be saved. Regarding the dichotomy you say Underwood promotes in his article... I reject the notion that it was as black an white in Joseph Smith Jr's mind when the Church was first organized, because he too was a universalist. D&C 19 was written a month before the Church was officially organized, and it reveals the strong implication that even the damned may eventually be able to escape eternal torment. The Prophet's later revelation about the three degrees of glory--likely (in part) inspired by Speculative Freemasonry as he worked on his translation of the Bible--provided some of the mechanics for how this escape from damnation can be achieved. This is my theory for now. One day I may write a paper on this topic, and really dig deep to research it... and who knows? I may change my mind then. But for now, I remain convinced that Joseph Smith Jr (like his father and grandfather) had universalist leanings. His dear brother reportedly believed in progression through the kingdoms, and I have no reason to believe that Hyrumâ??s teaching would have been in direct conflict with what his dear brother Joseph believed.

[Brade]

True; except that the scriptural quotes given (see the ones given by Lightbearer) seem to lean more strongly against advancement between the kingdoms than in favor of it.

zerinus

That may be true but I think the response of the office of the first presidency to the direct question being considered here in this thread indicates that your view is just as much not "official doctrine" as the opposing view.