Deborah Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 The point is that one can be exalted in the celestial kingdom without needing to be married. Exaltation is the highest degree and one must be sealed to a spouse. One can be in the CK without being exalted. What D&C 132:17 says about those who aren't married: "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."
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Why yes, I have, thank you! And you understand that there is a difference between being in the CK and being exalted, right?Edit: OK Deborah- we are both thinking the same way! I will bow out again for a while Edited June 16, 2011 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Rob:There is nothing particularly wrong with encouraging members of the Church to get married. Most eventually do. For those that through no fault of their own don't get married. God has provided a way for them to be married. For those that choose not to be married there is no such guarantee.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Mola,You wrote:You know, if I were to have introduced what you are saying as the LDS view, I would have been subjected to scorn and vitriol for misrepresenting Mormon doctrine.I don't know that it is the the LDS view. It was my view. I really don't think that if some one who is married, doesn't want to be married in the end and the live a good life and do all that they are supposed to, I doubt God will force them to be married and to accept something they don't want. I can't imagine such a situation but I am looking at this hypothetically. And you are correct that you probably would have been ridiculed if you tried to pass this off as LDS doctrine. As I said "I don't know that it is the the LDS view". I don't think there is anything official on the matter. I should point out that this hypothetical only applies to those that would qualify for for the fulness of God's rewards but they don't want it. This does not apply to those that don't qualify for something but still want it. IE some one that makes it to the telestial kingdom but they want to be exalted in teh CK. In a certain sense, and I am looking at this through the prism that a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, that the judgments we receive are just and they are what we want, because of the choices we made in this life. I hope that makes sense."An eternal marriage should be the goal of every Latter-day Saint" (Gospel Principles, 222). "He commands us to receive certain ordinances.... 5. We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next" (278). It should be, they are right, that does not mean that every one wants it."We believe that every man holding the holy Priesthood should be married, with the very few exceptions of those who through infirmities of mind or body are not fit for marriage. Every man is a worse man in proportion as he is unfit for the married state. We hold that no man who is marriageable is fully living his religion who remains unmarried. He is doing a wrong to himself by retarding his progress, by narrowing his experiences, and to society by the undesirable example that he sets to others, as well as he, himself, being a dangerous factor in the community."--Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (1986), 275. Again, they should be."We want you to know that the position of the Church has never changed regarding the importance of celestial marriage. It is a commandment of God."--Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1988, 51. I agree, it is a command, but not everyone obeys all commands. Edited June 16, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
staccato Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Exaltation is the highest degree and one must be sealed to a spouse. One can be in the CK without being exalted. What D&C 132:17 says about those who aren't married: "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."So the celestial kingdom status is no longer an exalted status? You live in the presence of God and this is not an exalted status? Edited June 16, 2011 by staccato 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 So the celestial kingdom status is no longer an exalted status? You live in the presence of God and this is not an exalted status?The 2 are not mutually exclusive. IOW just because you are in the CK does not mean you are exalted. Only in the highest degree is one exalted. In the other 2 degrees can you be in the CK but you are not exalted. And living in the presence of God is not the definition of exaltation.
LeSellers Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 First, strike that "rep point", it was an accident.So the celestial kingdom status is no longer an exalted status? You live in the presence of God and this is not an exalted status?Second, "Celestial Kindgom Status" has never, ipso facto, been "exalted status". Exaltation is the highest degree of the Celstial Kingdom—there are two others that are not "exalted"."Living in the presence of God" is not, definitionally, "exalted". "Exalted" is having eternal increase. This is basic LDS doctrine. It is a bit startling that you do not know this.Lehi 1
Ahab Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Technically, the term "exalted" refers to being lifted up, and while anywhere higher than the bottom is a higher place than the lowest of places, we (LDS) tend to use the word "exalted" only for those who are as high as we can get.It's not a technically correct usage of the term "exalted", but Mormon culture, as that term is usually understood by most Mormons, has never been perfect.
Deborah Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) It's not a technically correct usage of the term "exalted", but Mormon culture, as that term is usually understood by most Mormons, has never been perfect.It's the term used in scripture: What D&C 132:17 says about those who aren't married: "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."Exaltation is simply as others have pointed out eternal increase (meaning posterity), which one who remains single even in the CK cannot have. Edited June 16, 2011 by Deborah
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 It's the term used in scripture: What D&C 132:17 says about those who aren't married: "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."Exaltation is simply as others have pointed out eternal increase (meaning posterity), which one who remains single even in the CK cannot have.One interesting aspect about this verse is that is states they are saved. For some reason that never occurred to me.So in some regards this is a lot like the EV view that there are different rewards for those past being saved.
Ahab Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 It's the term used in scripture: What D&C 132:17 says about those who aren't married: "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."Exaltation is simply as others have pointed out eternal increase (meaning posterity), which one who remains single even in the CK cannot have.Yes, and as used in that scripture without exaltation = in other words, without being lifted up to the highest place or condition possible.Technically, though, as defined in most dictionaries and as understood by most people, other than "Mormons", "exalted" simply refers to being lifted up, without necessarily being in the highest place or condition.
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 It should be, they are right, that does not mean that every one wants it.Yep, that's true.Not everyone wants to keep the commandments. I would suggest that marital intimacy is among the great joys of life- but if somebody doesn't like that, who's forcing them to do it the right way?I presume of course that those hypothetical people who do not want to get married are also remaining chaste, because that of course is a whole different thing. And if we are referring to gay people, that is a whole other discussion in itself- beyond the scope of this thread- we have had so many of those!No one is forcing anyone to do anything.And they have until the time of the resurrection to change their minds, or if you don't mind the word, "repent".
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 And you are correct that you probably would have been ridiculed if you tried to pass this off as LDS doctrine. Please state precisely what you mean by "this" doctrine. I can't figure out what you are talking about- much less Mr B. I think it would be wise for you to allow him to state precisely what he means before you go off defending what you think he means.That we supposedly force people to be married?
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 One interesting aspect about this verse is that is states they are saved. For some reason that never occurred to me.So in some regards this is a lot like the EV view that there are different rewards for those past being saved.EV's often talk about "different crowns of glory" or "jewels in the crown". I have been over this with Calvary Chapel pastors.But that is not to imply they believe in anything like exaltation, or I think anything even like theosis. Could be wrong.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Please state precisely what you mean by "this" doctrine. I can't figure out what you are talking about- much less Mr B. I think it would be wise for you to allow him to state precisely what he means before you go off defending what you think he means.That we supposedly force people to be married?Oh, "this doctrine" refers to those that qualify for exaltation but don't wish to remain married. I don't think God will force them to stay together. That is according to my hypothetical. So IOW they don't really want exaltation even though they qualify for it. Edited June 16, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Calm Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) never mind, started reading at the wrong place Edited June 16, 2011 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Oh, "this doctrine" refers to those that qualify for exaltation but don't wish to remain married. I don't think God will force them to stay together. That is according to my hypothetical.Thanks for the clarification - now I can see why I was confused.Well first, if you are never married (sealed) you would not "qualify for exaltation"- so there are no unmarried people in the category "qualifies for exaltation". Secondly, if you are sealed to a spouse with whom you just cannot stay- abusive, or you just can't stand them etc- you can get a civil divorce which does not affect your sealing. So you are still sealed to that person- would not have to be miserable for eternity- because presumably you both could repent in the eternities and work things out. After all you loved them once.But if you cannot work things out- you did the best you could in this life and married a real jerk- God is not going to hold that against you- and there will be other opportunities in the Millenium.Even if you get a cancellation of sealing and never find anyone else, imo, as long as you are doing the best you can, our Father is not going to hold it against you that you did the very best that you can do. Remember "saved by grace, after all that you can do"?So as I suspected, I still don't know what "doctrine" Rob would have been ridiculed for stating. Unless he meant ridiculed because he didn't understand it- and that is a different case.When a member doesn't understand doctrine and asks a reasonable question, it is a totally different thing from a critic saying "AHA- you guys believe THIS and THIS is ridiculous because...." when it isn't even our belief to start with.That's how this whole thread got started. You should not criticize something you do not understand, or you end up looking like a fool. But at least that is always an option. But I think Rob has grown more subtle in his questioning, which is a lot more acceptable for everyone than ridiculing first and then getting ridiculed back. 2
LeSellers Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Oh, "this doctrine" refers to those that qualify for exaltation but don't wish to remain married. I don't think God will force them to stay together. That is according to my hypothetical. So IOW they don't really want exaltation even though they qualify for it.Well first, if you are never married (sealed) you would not "qualify for exaltation"- so there are no unmarried people in the category "qualifies for exaltation".I believe Mola Ram Suda Ram would have better expressed his thought had he said, ".. those that otherwise qualify for exaltation but don't wish to remain married...". At least that how I read it.Lehi Edited June 16, 2011 by LeSellers
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 So as I suspected, I still don't know what "doctrine" Rob would have been ridiculed for stating. Unless he meant ridiculed because he didn't understand it- and that is a different case.I think you get it. It will be nice when Rob comes back. I am sure he will answer your question.And since it is not an official doctrine, at least I don't believe it is, I doubt he can answer any better than I can. Perhaps he had a different idea in mind when he responded to me.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 I believe Mola Ram Suda Ram would have better expressed his thought had he said, ".. those that otherwise qualify for exaltation but don't wish to remain married...". At least that how I read it.LehiThis is exactly correct. Sorry, but you think I could write better considering that English is the only language I know. Oh well, I play a mean guitar solo.
Ahab Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) EV's often talk about "different crowns of glory" or "jewels in the crown". I have been over this with Calvary Chapel pastors.But that is not to imply they believe in anything like exaltation, or I think anything even like theosis. Could be wrong.Yes, that's my impression as well. They believe they can be kings and priests, too, (or queens and priestesses if female), but they don't believe they will ever have the same "nature' as God.The kind of exaltation we are talking about is to become equal with God, in both power and degree or glory... since what is God's will also belong to all who are exalted. Edited June 16, 2011 by Ahab
thesometimesaint Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Ahab:I believe the Scriptures tell us that we will be like God. I liken it to this life in that I have a father and he will always be my father. I am a father and will always be a father. My sons are fathers now, and they will always be fathers with the same powers and authorities that I have. Though we are separate and dinstinct individuals.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) I believe Mola Ram Suda Ram would have better expressed his thought had he said, ".. those that otherwise qualify for exaltation but don't wish to remain married...". At least that how I read it.LehiI cannot conceive of how a righteous and pure individual — one who would "qualify for exaltation" — would not want to be or remain married to a spouse who likewise qualifies for exaltation. To use Brigham Young's phrasing, such an individual would be "as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God." Edited June 16, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Scott Lloyd:While I love my wife and want to be with for eternity there are or will be countles individuals who meet the qualifications for the highest degree in the Celestial kingdom. But that does not mean I(or anyone else) would want to be married to them. I truly believe that it is a matter of choice.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Scott Lloyd:While I love my wife and want to be with for eternity there are or will be countles individuals who meet the qualifications for the highest degree in the Celestial kingdom. But that does not mean I(or anyone else) would want to be married to them. I truly believe that it is a matter of choice.I have not denied that it is a matter of choice. I'm only saying that, pertaining to a righteous, glorified, pure, perfected, celestial, exalted being, what's not to love? Edited June 16, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts