Progression in the Next Life?

[nicolasconnault]

It is interesting to see posters state, "I think..."

I hate to be really blunt but, I don't really care what people think, other than the prophets and the scriptures. Why don't we just state what the prophets have said on the topic.

"The position of the First Presidency on progression from one kingdom to a higher glory after the resurrection and judgment is that the Lord has not revealed this knowledge to mankind. Speculation and supposition on this topic is inappropriate."

(Memorandum from the First Presidency through the Church Correlation Department to Church curriculum writers, 2001)

Brilliant, thanks!

[FutureTwitBlog]

Oh, you understand just fine. You may not like the idea, for some reason, but you can certainly wrap your head around it.

The only people who will be penalized for not being baptized will be those who hear the gospel and refuse to be baptized or accept a baptism that was performed for them by proxy, and if they later regret having refused to be baptized, when they still had the opportunity to accept it, they will then only have themselves to blame.

I probably do understand the idea just fine, as you've pointed out, but I don't agree with it. It doesn't seem very just to me. Here's an analogy:

Lets say that a father comes to his son one day and says, "Son, you've been really a good kid and have served me and your fellow man faithfully for many years. However, when you were 6 years old, I asked you whether you wanted to stick you hand in a glass of water. I told you at the time that sticking your hand in this glass of water was an essential part of receiving your inheritance when I died and that you wouldn't have another chance to stick your hand in that water, only right then at that exact moment in time. You said no and didn't stick your hand in the water and angered me greatly. Well, now your 45, I'm about to die, and I would just like to that I am leaving you nothing. Yep, that's right, you get none of my inheritance. It doesn't matter that you've been a good kid since, equal to the other kids in the family in every way, and have grown a lot since then. No, because you refused back then, I won't forgive or forget; so you get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir." Doesn't this seem like a ridiculous story? Yet, this is the type of behavior that we're basically projecting onto God.

So, no, I don't like the idea of the afterlife like this, any more than I suspect that you like defending an idea of the afterlife that is like this. It just doesn't seem either reasonable or just to me.

[FutureTwitBlog]

In the end all of the saved will be found upon this planet while all the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (hell). In the end there will only be two places- either the Celestial world (our world) or outer darkness. The telestial and terrestrial kingdoms will not exist anymore having both past away by fire. So, in reality all of the saved will be advancing in the ranks on the celestial world. Think about it-

In order to be saved from hell one must repent and be baptized. there is no other name or means that salvation comes to the children of men. Once baptized one meets the requirements of entrance back into the kingdom of heaven as a son or daughter of God. In the end, all that can be saved will be saved into the celestial kingdom of heaven. There will be no other place where the saved will go.

The temple teaches us these truths. The temple endowment is the "plan of salvation" in it's clearest presentation. It was given after all testimony of the prophets in the scriptures. In the temple we progress from the telestial kingdom to the terrestrial kingdom and then from there into salvation in the celestial kingdom. So, is there progression between kingdoms? Well, if you believe the temple endowment then one must accept the reality of progression between kingdoms. Does thatr progression happen after the millennium? No, it happens before. This earth right now is the "telestial kingdom" and the earth during the millennium is the "terrestrial kingdom".

If God was really this big of a &!$%, then I would prefer to live in the lake of fire and brimstone, thank you very much.

[FutureTwitBlog]

It is interesting to see posters state, "I think..."

I hate to be really blunt but, I don't really care what people think, other than the prophets and the scriptures. Why don't we just state what the prophets have said on the topic.

"The position of the First Presidency on progression from one kingdom to a higher glory after the resurrection and judgment is that the Lord has not revealed this knowledge to mankind. Speculation and supposition on this topic is inappropriate."

(Memorandum from the First Presidency through the Church Correlation Department to Church curriculum writers, 2001)

This post was an opportunity for people to express their thoughts and beliefs on a doctrinal topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I can look up what the church teaches on my own. I was curious to see what other people thought. After all, some of us do like to speculate about different areas of naturalism and philosophy in life, even those not addressed in general conference.

If you don't enjoy or care about such speculations, feel free to not participate.

[FutureTwitBlog]

I love my wife, but tied to one woman for all eternity doesn't sound like heaven to me.

I think I would prefer to spend 50-75 years with a woman, and then move on. With an eternity at hand, after I have been with 250 million different women, I can start over again.

Trust me, there are a lot of women in the world that you do NOT want to be in a relationship with. I just got out of a relationship with such a woman -- not a good experience.

If you've found someone who can stand to be around you for 50 years straight, she's a keeper.

[nicolasconnault]

I probably do understand the idea just fine, as you've pointed out, but I don't agree with it. It doesn't seem very just to me. Here's an analogy:

Lets say that a father comes to his son one day and says, "Son, you've been really a good kid and have served me and your fellow man faithfully for many years. However, when you were 6 years old, I asked you whether you wanted to stick you hand in a glass of water. I told you at the time that sticking your hand in this glass of water was an essential part of receiving your inheritance when I died and that you wouldn't have another chance to stick your hand in that water, only right then at that exact moment in time. You said no and didn't stick your hand in the water and angered me greatly. Well, now your 45, I'm about to die, and I would just like to that I am leaving you nothing. Yep, that's right, you get none of my inheritance. It doesn't matter that you've been a good kid since, equal to the other kids in the family in every way, and have grown a lot since then. No, because you refused back then, I won't forgive or forget; so you get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir." Doesn't this seem like a ridiculous story? Yet, this is the type of behavior that we're basically projecting onto God.

So, no, I don't like the idea of the afterlife like this, any more than I suspect that you like defending an idea of the afterlife that is like this. It just doesn't seem either reasonable or just to me.

Your analogy is pretty weak. Why did you pick a 6-year-old, who is obviously too young to realise what he was missing out on? I think you're well aware that anyone who rejects baptism by the time the final judgment comes will have received plenty of understanding, experience and knowledge, and will reject it in full knowledge of eternal consequences. This has nothing to do with God not forgiving us for making a little faux-pas, this is about us choosing to wilfully and knowingly reject the blessings of salvation, of which baptism is only one requirement.

BTW I didn't miss you little Willy Wonka quote

[cinepro]

No one is denied the opportunity to be Celestial - but many apparently fail to take it during the time when circumstances make it possible to become Celestial.

I don't understand what the word "time" means to an eternal being.

[staccato]

I love my wife, but tied to one woman for all eternity doesn't sound like heaven to me.

I think I would prefer to spend 50-75 years with a woman, and then move on. With an eternity at hand, after I have been with 250 million different women, I can start over again.

I am the same way with my spouse. Can one really not tire of a person for an eternity? An eternity? This is why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around something that lasts forever. Even after 20 trillion years one is going to get tired of the same people, the same things, the same direction.

And I really disbelieve that 80 years on the blip of eternity is going to make all of the difference.

[Rob Osborn]

No, this planet is not as one of the stars. It's still just a planet, with no glory at all.

Read the D&C section that describes the glory of the Telestial worlds, particularly the part where Joseph said they surpass our understanding.

There are many similarities between our current state and the Telestial state, as well as the Terrestrial and Celestial state, but we're not glorified beings yet, Rob, and this particular planet hasn't been given any glory yet, either.

Well I disagree. We are as the stars in glory right now. Glory means light and truth. If this earth has no glory then it has no light and truth. All things God creates have some degree of glory- some more than others. We ourselves have some glory right now.

[nicolasconnault]

I am the same way with my spouse. Can one really not tire of a person for an eternity? An eternity? This is why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around something that lasts forever. Even after 20 trillion years one is going to get tired of the same people, the same things, the same direction.

And I really disbelieve that 80 years on the blip of eternity is going to make all of the difference.

If you are one with your spouse, you can't possibly get "tired" of her. I can't envisage anything else than eternity with my wife, I just wouldn't be complete without her.

[Rob Osborn]

I am the same way with my spouse. Can one really not tire of a person for an eternity? An eternity? This is why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around something that lasts forever. Even after 20 trillion years one is going to get tired of the same people, the same things, the same direction.

And I really disbelieve that 80 years on the blip of eternity is going to make all of the difference.

It is possible to endlessly keep enjoying something as long as it has possibilities of growth, change or enhancment. I believe that we will be able to eat forever and that we will never get tired of trying new things or the same things from time to time over and over again. Will we ever get to a point to where eating food isn't enjoyable? I doubt it. As this applies to a spouse, is it possible to ever get to a point to where one would just get tired of a partner that literally becomes a part of you? I doubt it. The experiences we will enjoy with our spouse at our side in eternity will create an ever increasing bond of strength and continual happiness that the longer we continue to exist the greater tha connection will become. Some things just get finer with age, and that is what a spouse will do for us in the eternities- just get better and better and better. We will never get to a point to where all possibilities will get exhausted and no more growth or connection is possible. As long as there is the possibility of a greater bond, the strive to achieve it will always compliment the success creating a never ending sequence of continual happiness.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't understand what the word "time" means to an eternal being.

Time for us is measured because we "age". In this sense, time is not measured to God because he doesn't age. But, as it applies to the sequence of natural events then yes, time applies to all things, God himself cannot escape this.

[Alan]

I am joining this discussion late. In my view there is room in LDS theology for reincarnation. I personally feel this has occured in the past, as there seems to be some fairly convincing evidence out there. Some early chirch leaders - inc. Joseph Smith, appear to be supportive of the doctrine. However, in my view it is not automatic and always a choice. Perhaps those in the telestial kingdom would be offered a choice at some time to try again. Just a thought.

[charity's child]

If God was really this big of a &!$%, then I would prefer to live in the lake of fire and brimstone, thank you very much.

don't worry, he has it backwards. the lake of fire and brimstone will pass away into the kingdoms of glory (and outer darkness).

[charity's child]

I am the same way with my spouse. Can one really not tire of a person for an eternity? An eternity? This is why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around something that lasts forever. Even after 20 trillion years one is going to get tired of the same people, the same things, the same direction.

And I really disbelieve that 80 years on the blip of eternity is going to make all of the difference.

part of the problem is that we keep talking about eternity as if it were time related. We talk about eternity as if it were billions of years. I believe that God is a 4th dimensional being, which means instead of talking about billions of years we are talking about someone who moves through those years the way we move through 3 dimensions. It's a completely different construct and we can barely glimpse it since we are finite people with finite brains.

Besides, if you can't continue to grow and develop enough to keep up with your wife, go ahead and get left in the dust. I'm sure she doesn't need you that much anyway.

[charity's child]

If you are one with your spouse, you can't possibly get "tired" of her. I can't envisage anything else than eternity with my wife, I just wouldn't be complete without her.

tell your wife I said she and I are both lucky. We have husbands worth keeping.

[charity's child]

I am joining this discussion late. In my view there is room in LDS theology for reincarnation. I personally feel this has occured in the past, as there seems to be some fairly convincing evidence out there. Some early chirch leaders - inc. Joseph Smith, appear to be supportive of the doctrine. However, in my view it is not automatic and always a choice. Perhaps those in the telestial kingdom would be offered a choice at some time to try again. Just a thought.

I've had similar thoughts. They would then have the opportunity to make the same choice again at a later time.

But just in case there isn't that second chance, I'm going to make the most of the chance I have. Maybe that's why we aren't told anything about it. As humans, how many of us would put off repentance until next time? And would we run out of next times?

[charity's child]

I probably do understand the idea just fine, as you've pointed out, but I don't agree with it. It doesn't seem very just to me. Here's an analogy:

Lets say that a father comes to his son one day and says, "Son, you've been really a good kid and have served me and your fellow man faithfully for many years. However, when you were 6 years old, I asked you whether you wanted to stick you hand in a glass of water. I told you at the time that sticking your hand in this glass of water was an essential part of receiving your inheritance when I died and that you wouldn't have another chance to stick your hand in that water, only right then at that exact moment in time. You said no and didn't stick your hand in the water and angered me greatly. Well, now your 45, I'm about to die, and I would just like to that I am leaving you nothing. Yep, that's right, you get none of my inheritance. It doesn't matter that you've been a good kid since, equal to the other kids in the family in every way, and have grown a lot since then. No, because you refused back then, I won't forgive or forget; so you get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir." Doesn't this seem like a ridiculous story? Yet, this is the type of behavior that we're basically projecting onto God.

So, no, I don't like the idea of the afterlife like this, any more than I suspect that you like defending an idea of the afterlife that is like this. It just doesn't seem either reasonable or just to me.

Okay, what if the father asked his son to drink a shot of some liquid that tasted awful? And the son refused, saying it's silly, I won't do it, besides it tastes bad, and dad said you don't understand. That shot is a vaccination. I won't leave you all my money when I die because you won't survive me by more than a week.

There are greater laws at work than we understand. And we won't learn what those laws are until we get there. Yes, once we are out in the greater world and see the plague that exists, we will want the vaccination. But you can't be vaccinated once you have the disease.

Face it, we do not understand what the eternities will be like. We are finite beings incapable of comprehension on that magnitude. God does understand them and he's giving us the path to follow to be able to succeed both here and there. He doesn't explain that the "vaccination" is a vaccination because that would mean explaining all the incomprehendible laws and truths and realities. But he does tell us what is necessary. And if we choose not to follow, we will have limitations on what we can do and where we can go.

It's not to say we won't ever find a way to get through those things, but we don't want to count on that.

I do think you need to wrap your head around the idea that we won't have "endless time" to regret our choices here. We will have endless non-time, which is a very different thing. And maybe to those of us not condemned to outer darkness, the eternities will seem like eighty years or so and then there will be another level of life. I agree with CS Lewis. "Farther up and farther out" (or was that farther in?)

[katherine the great]

I am the same way with my spouse. Can one really not tire of a person for an eternity? An eternity? This is why I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around something that lasts forever. Even after 20 trillion years one is going to get tired of the same people, the same things, the same direction.

I disagree. We are supposed to become "one" with our spouse. Heck! We're supposed to become "one" with fellow believers. If we are not "one", we are not His. The day we tire irrevocably of our spouse is the day we tire of ourselves.

[mercyngrace]

Here's a question:

If spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fulness of joy (D&C 93:33 & D&C 138:17) and fulness of joy is to be in the presence of God (Psalms 16:11), how can a being be resurrected and unable to enter God's presence?

Either the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are pre-resurrected states or these descriptions refer to glories within the Celestial kingdom (D&C 131).

[Jason]

I don't understand what the word "time" means to an eternal being.

We're eternal beings now - we just aren't completely aware of the fact.

[Jason]

I am joining this discussion late. In my view there is room in LDS theology for reincarnation. I personally feel this has occured in the past, as there seems to be some fairly convincing evidence out there. Some early chirch leaders - inc. Joseph Smith, appear to be supportive of the doctrine. However, in my view it is not automatic and always a choice. Perhaps those in the telestial kingdom would be offered a choice at some time to try again. Just a thought.

I disagree. I find no room or support for reincarnation in LDS theology.

[Jason]

I disagree. We are supposed to become "one" with our spouse. Heck! We're supposed to become "one" with fellow believers. If we are not "one", we are not His. The day we tire irrevocably of our spouse is the day we tire of ourselves.

Quoted for truth. If you can't imagine staying with the same person through eternity, how can you imagine being yourself through the same time period and not finding it unendurable?

[Ahab]

Well I disagree.

Okay, but you're right and I'm wrong and you will always be wrong on this issue unless or until your ideas agree with mine on this issue.

We are as the stars in glory right now.

Nope, and this planet isn't either.

Glory means light and truth.

Nope, and I think that's where you are getting off on the wrong track.

The glory of God is intellienge, and intelligence is light and truth, so while it can truthfully be said that the glory of God is light and truth, it wouldn't be right to say we have the same degree of glory as the Holy Spirit does at this moment, or that our planet does either, even though the Holy Spirit can enlighten our minds with a "portion" of His intelligence, or the intelligence of Jesus Christ, or the intelligence of our Father in heaven

If this earth has no glory then it has no light and truth.

Well, it may have been a stretch on my part to say we or our planet have no glory at all, at this moment, but it certainly doesn't have a fullness of the glory of either the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ or our Father in heaven, right now. At best, it only has a "portion" of their glory, and not until the Earth is cleansed and sanctified from all unrighteousness will it receive a fullness of either the glory of the Holy Spirit, or Jesus Christ, or our Father in heaven.

All things God creates have some degree of glory- some more than others. We ourselves have some glory right now.

Yes, to a point, but neither we nor our planet has the fulness of either Telestial glory, or Terrestrial glory, or Celestial glory, right now.

We'll all have to progress a little more before any of that will happen.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay, but you're right and I'm wrong and you will always be wrong on this issue unless or until your ideas agree with mine on this issue.

Nope, and this planet isn't either.

Nope, and I think that's where you are getting off on the wrong track.

The glory of God is intellienge, and intelligence is light and truth, so while it can truthfully be said that the glory of God is light and truth, it wouldn't be right to say we have the same degree of glory as the Holy Spirit does at this moment, or that our planet does either, even though the Holy Spirit can enlighten our minds with a "portion" of His intelligence, or the intelligence of Jesus Christ, or the intelligence of our Father in heaven

Well, it may have been a stretch on my part to say we or our planet have no glory at all, at this moment, but it certainly doesn't have a fullness of the glory of either the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ or our Father in heaven, right now. At best, it only has a "portion" of their glory, and not until the Earth is cleansed and sanctified from all unrighteousness will it receive a fullness of either the glory of the Holy Spirit, or Jesus Christ, or our Father in heaven.

Yes, to a point, but neither we nor our planet has the fulness of either Telestial glory, or Terrestrial glory, or Celestial glory, right now.

We'll all have to progress a little more before any of that will happen.

This is the telestial kingdom having the presence of the Holy Ghost which is the glory of this earthly kingdom. It is as the stars because we have so little light and truth. When Christ comes in his glory the earth will along with it's inhabitants will be quickened to that glory. That glory is that of the terrestrial kingdom- the presence of the son. After the millennium it will be quickened once again to enjoy the presence of the Father which then will be the celestial glory.