Criteria For Celestial Kingdom Inheritance

[The Nehor]

Using your example, are you suggesting this man will not be able to enter the CK because he wasn't convinced - while in this mortality - that the LDS baptism was necessary? I know many great, Christian people who refuse this offer and most likely will to their dying day. Are they therefore precluded from entering?

For the most part yes.

[ERayR]

Recently, I had an exchange with an atheist on a Christian apologetics site re: the LDS stance on who will and who won’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom. This atheist’s position was that should he continue on his current trajectory during this mortality (i.e., staying away from Church affiliation after having severed ties several years ago as an adult), he will not be found in the Celestial Kingdom according to LDS doctrine. He bolstered this position by quoting from lds.org where it states -

Generally speaking, individuals in the terrestrial kingdom will be honorable

people “who were blinded by the craftiness of men” (D&C 76:75). This

group will include members of the Church who were “not valiant in the testimony

of Jesus”(D&C 76:79). It will also include those who rejected the opportunity to

receive the gospel in mortality but who later received it in the post-mortal spirit

world (see D&C 76:73-74).

Is this really all there is to it? Can we discern from an individual’s actions/inactions which kingdom he will inherit (in this case, the Terrestrial) should he continue on the course he’s on?

My understanding is that if this is where he is really and truly comfortable then this is where he will be. No one will be forced beyond where they will be content.

[ERayR]

Using your example, are you suggesting this man will not be able to enter the CK because he wasn't convinced - while in this mortality - that the LDS baptism was necessary?

No the reason is he would not be comfortable spending the rest of eternity with a bunch of Mormons. Life is not a pass/fail. It is where we sort and sift ourselves to where we are most comfortable.

[The Nehor]

No the reason is he would not be comfortable spending the rest of eternity with a bunch of Mormons.

Wait!!!!! That is what the Celestial Kingdom is like?!?!?

I may need to go home and rethink my life.

[ERayR]

Wait!!!!! That is what the Celestial Kingdom is like?!?!?

I may need to go home and rethink my life.

From Men in Black - Only the best of the best of the best.

[Vanguard]

First of all, if it is a law of God that a person must be baptized properly and by the proper authority to enter the celestial order of heaven.... if that is God's law... then if someone doesn't get baptized property and by the proper authority that person will not enter into the celestial order of heaven. Plain and simple, whatever the reason why the person didn't get baptized properly and by the proper authority.

Now we know there's a little more complexiity to it than that, because we know it doesn't apply to people who are younger than 8 years old, and we also know the timing plays an important factor, but after all is said and done if it is true that a person hasn't been baptized properly and by the proper authority, after having the opportunity to do it, then that preson will not be entering into the celestial order of heaven. And the reason why not is because it is God's law that a person must be to enter that order of heaven.

They still have the opportunity to change their mind until the deadline on their day of judgment. If they haven't been by then they will have been told the law and they will have had the opportunity to accept it. And if they don't it will be because they refused to comply with God's law.

But there is no such thing as someone not getting baptized. Please indicate where it is taught that there are persons who will never get baptized? Baptism distinguishes no one if all get it and everyone gets it excepting young children. As such, it is not an example of a "litmus behavior" that would distinguish those who move on and those who don't. Now, whether or not it contributes to tranforming the individual into a creature who can enter the CK is another matter all together. But who is to say who is "transformed" and who is not?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Vanguard

[BCSpace]

Those who enter the Celestial Kingdom are those who have faith in Christ, repent, are baptised, receive the Holy Spirit, and endure to the end.

That's it.

Well, not really. It has to be the correct baptism by the correct authority and that means one is or has become a member of the LDS Church (or ancient equivalent as the case may be) in mortality or accepted in the afterlife without having first rejected it in mortality before one can inherit either the Celestial or Terrestrial glories. That's what receiving the testimony of Jesus is all about. Notice in D&C 76:99-101 the distinction made; that members of other churches find themselves in the Telestial not having received the testimony of Jesus.

[Ahab]

But there is no such thing as someone not getting baptized. Please indicate where it is taught that there are persons who will never get baptized?

I'm not going to go chasing a red herring. How about you backing up your own claim that everyone will get baptized. I was simply stating that if that is a condition to entrance into the celestial order of heaven, then a person will need to meet that condition to enter. And I also didn't say that is the only condition a person would need to meet to enter that order of heaven.

Plain and simple, if a person doesn't do what is necessary to enter, they won't enter.

[Questing Beast]

Using your example, are you suggesting this man will not be able to enter the CK because he wasn't convinced - while in this mortality - that the LDS baptism was necessary? I know many great, Christian people who refuse this offer and most likely will to their dying day. Are they therefore precluded from entering?

My response to this question is to point out that none of us knows anyone else, really. We think we do because of lengthy association, but we do not know anybody the way "God" does. We also don't know the immensity of "God's work", his Creation is Infinite, and we are only a tiny immeasurable portion of that Infinite Creation, so "salvation", or even more so, "Exaltation" are quite beyond our comprehension. We like to think that because we assert "direct ongoing revelation" from GtF, that we somehow know things about the afterlife, but actually we don't KNOW anything, we believe many things, most of them inconsistent or even contradictory with many things said as "doctrine" from the pulpit.

Here's the simplest formula for knowing who gets into the "CK": you must either die before the "age of accountability", or accept baptism. That's all your part is. Being baptized, btw, is not the same thing as "accepting baptism", and only GtF decides if an individual does that or not....

[Vanguard]

I'm not going to go chasing a red herring. How about you backing up your own claim that everyone will get baptized. I was simply stating that if that is a condition to entrance into the celestial order of heaven, then a person will need to meet that condition to enter. And I also didn't say that is the only condition a person would need to meet to enter that order of heaven.

Plain and simple, if a person doesn't do what is necessary to enter, they won't enter.

No I agree, don't go chasing your own red herring. ;0 How about you backing up your own claim that not everyone (excerpting children and the mentally disabled) will get baptized? Are we really that far off with our positions? Anybody? Am I wrong to state that every adult will be baptized before the "final destination" is reconciled? Even if your position were true about not everyone getting baptized, you would still have to describe for me what the "rejected opportunity" actually looks like? Again, my position is that there is no universal behavior that would allow another to discern another individual's final destination.

Any takers?

[jim_mason]

I believe it is safe to say that Temple work will performed for everyone who ever lived on the earth. Given that, just because work is performed does not mean it is accepted by the deceased. There is really one behavior of which there is no forgiveness. As stated by another, we can forecast on a trajectory based on present up-to-date information, but that forecast isn't binding on God.

[Bikeemikey]

I believe it is safe to say that Temple work will performed for everyone who ever lived on the earth. Given that, just because work is performed does not mean it is accepted by the deceased. There is really one behavior of which there is no forgiveness. As stated by another, we can forecast on a trajectory based on present up-to-date information, but that forecast isn't binding on God.

We can't forecast - the whole intention of mercy and the atonement is to disrupt pre-existing trajectories and break bonds causation places on the future due to the past.

As such we can't forecast anything - god might be able to - but he will be doing it with data sets not currently available to us.

Moreover, I am uncertain that the atonement and mercy even confirm to any kind of causation - the acceptance of the atonement is in part the decision to step away from the past. Without a causation pathway those living under the promise of the atonement may not be able to have future decisions even modestly predictable.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Vanguard]

We can't forecast - the whole intention of mercy and the atonement is to disrupt pre-existing trajectories and break bonds causation places on the future due to the past.

As such we can't forecast anything - god might be able to - but he will be doing it with data sets not currently available to us.

Moreover, I am uncertain that the atonement and mercy even confirm to any kind of causation - the acceptance of the atonement is in part the decision to step away from the past. Without a causation pathway those living under the promise of the atonement may not be able to have future decisions even modestly predictable.

Nicely stated. My wife recently spoke of a fellow YW Pres counselor (my wife was the president) who stood before the entirety of the young women's program during Sunday School and explained that based on a list of horrific behaviors of her former brother-in-law (had been married to her sister) she was certain this gentleman was consigned to outter darkness. Though scurrilous to its core, it does serves to illustrate that, collectively, our Mormon language breeds too much of this belief that we can indeed know the final outcome of another based on a set of "litmus" behaviors we have witnessed. Your final sentence nailed it perfectly. Our "data set" available to us is simply far too limited to speak conclusively about another's destination. I'm surprised we wander into this divination as often as we do.

But doesn't this position require a reworking of our public discourse? Our scriptures are replete with "litmus behaviors" that determine this or that about another's destination. As an example, D&C 84 has some pretty strong language about those who would turn away from the priesthood. I know lots of men who have done so. What does this say about them?

Edited June 29, 2013 by Vanguard

[thatjimguy]

I've had a roommate who was very digilent with his duties, yet he felt that he still might not make it. If he cant make it, I wonder what chance thete is for amyone else.

[Vanguard]

I've had a roommate who was very digilent with his duties, yet he felt that he still might not make it. If he cant make it, I wonder what chance thete is for amyone else.

There is no way for you to know that as you are not aware of his capacty and therefore do not ultimately know what he is really capable and not capable of doing. Your statement, and I do this too, is exactly the opposite side of the same coin (i.e., positive judgments made of another individual based on their positive behaviors and what you think it "means" when someone does what they do). Does that make sense?

[thatjimguy]

He just talked about how he didn;t feel like he did enough. And I'm like, "Dude, what DON'T you do?" I am worried that this guy has overguilt syndrome. Can you get OCD on the church?

[Vanguard]

He just talked about how he didn;t feel like he did enough. And I'm like, "Dude, what DON'T you do?" I am worried that this guy has overguilt syndrome. Can you get OCD on the church?

I would imagine one can struggle with symtpoms of OCD from just about anything including Mormonism. Most importantly though, what internal conversation might he be having between him and his God that would render him perpetually feeling guilty for not doing enough? I imagine there is a balance to strike somewhere though I do not want to be a part of the collective voice that continually says a good Latter-Day Saint should be seen doing this, and this, and this. And vice-versa, a fallen individual didn't do this, and this, and this. Good grief.

[jim_mason]

We can't forecast - the whole intention of mercy and the atonement is to disrupt pre-existing trajectories and break bonds causation places on the future due to the past.

As such we can't forecast anything - god might be able to - but he will be doing it with data sets not currently available to us.

Moreover, I am uncertain that the atonement and mercy even confirm to any kind of causation - the acceptance of the atonement is in part the decision to step away from the past. Without a causation pathway those living under the promise of the atonement may not be able to have future decisions even modestly predictable.

But we can and in some cases we must in righteousness. We have a whole litiny of "If, then" statements in the Gospel. We most certainly can rightly say "If you continue on X path, you likely face Y outcome." As I posted our limited knowledge is not binding on God. But it would completely unwise to go about life or the Gospel without consideration to trajectory one is on.

People should not attempt to place final judgment on another, as that is Gods judgment.

[Vanguard]

But we can and in some cases we must in righteousness. We have a whole litiny of "If, then" statements in the Gospel. We most certainly can rightly say "If you continue on X path, you likely face Y outcome." As I posted our limited knowledge is not binding on God. But it would completely unwise to go about life or the Gospel without consideration to trajectory one is on.

People should not attempt to place final judgment on another, as that is Gods judgment.

But warning of Y outcome does not have to be a judgment re: kingdom qualification. It is simply to say, for example, if one continues using illicit drugs he will more likely end up in jail or dead in the street. I have my opinions about the wisdom of certain actions in this life. I believe it is expected of us to warn our fellow man and expecially our loved ones of the potential consequences. It is not, however, a judgment about whether they rob themselves of the fullness of God's blessing in the hereafter. I could never bring myself to believe and much less say to another - "If you don't kick your drug habit you won't be in the CK". And most of this litany of "if - then" statements within the Gospel is simply counsel on providential living (i.e., WoW, sexual abstinence, being financially frugal, and so on). These are not necessarily markers for where a person will finally come to rest in the afterlife and in fact, there is no way to tell anyway.

[Vanguard]

And so referring back to my OP, I essentially made the argument to the atheist poster that any mandate found in scripture or given from modern prophets must first go through the "prism" of each invidual's capacity to fulfill said mandate. In other words, all Gospel standards are ideals and our "realities" approximate those ideals but never completely hit the mark in this life including the principle of repentence. To turn things on its head a bit, the Gospel is not only from Christ alone but in its fullest sense is for Christ alone as he is the only one capable of hitting the mark on every point. Conversely, he is also the only one who literally would experience the eternal calamities for not hitting "all of the ideals".

Any agreement? Disagreement? If you agree, is there any authoritative source that says as much? If you disagree, then we have more to talk about...

[Questing Beast]

To imagine "God" not doing a perfect job of saving "his" own Creation is inconceivable, unless there is something to be valued in imperfection, as a gauge to measure perfection and give it full appreciation. We already know imperfection is the core trait of the mortal world. Perhaps the contrast is for our benefit, so that when we are delivered from this place, we will be grateful for the perfection that "God" Is, and has gifted to us....

[Bikeemikey]

To imagine "God" not doing a perfect job of saving "his" own Creation is inconceivable, unless there is something to be valued in imperfection, as a gauge to measure perfection and give it full appreciation. We already know imperfection is the core trait of the mortal world. Perhaps the contrast is for our benefit, so that when we are delivered from this place, we will be grateful for the perfection that "God" Is, and has gifted to us....

God can do the most perfect job that can be done - that doesn't mean it will perfect in the sense everyone will be saved.

[Vanguard]

To imagine "God" not doing a perfect job of saving "his" own Creation is inconceivable, unless there is something to be valued in imperfection, as a gauge to measure perfection and give it full appreciation. We already know imperfection is the core trait of the mortal world. Perhaps the contrast is for our benefit, so that when we are delivered from this place, we will be grateful for the perfection that "God" Is, and has gifted to us....

I can actually imagine scenarios where some of his offspring are not saved. Universal salvation was never my contention. My stance is only that we cannot know who will be "saved" and who will not. We only have our theoretical contructs to pontificate on (i.e., those who deny the atoning power of Christ in their lives will not be saved, and so on). We have absolutely no idea what it "looks" like however. We have attempted to understand and define in action words what being saved or not saved looks like (i.e., "My children are all sealed for time and all eternity in the temple", "If he doesn't go to the Bishop and repent he won't be in the CK", "Once he stopped honoring his priesthood by leaving the Church he forfeited his birthright in the highest degree" and on and on and on). None of those statements are necessarily true or better said, we cannot know if they are for that individual.

Though I appreciate the general sentiment of your post, I am curious how you would justify this position through scripture? The atheist I opened up with contended that it was all well and good for me to take the stance I took but argued that it simply my opinion. He claimed I did not have something authoritative to back it up with and summarily dismissed me as he already knew the answer.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Vanguard

[Questing Beast]

God can do the most perfect job that can be done - that doesn't mean it will perfect in the sense everyone will be saved.

I accept that there are "venues" where not every soul is "saved", i.e. "gets it" yet. But to assume that such a scenario has an end with souls damned for all eternity is to make "God" a monster....

[Questing Beast]

I can actually imagine scenarios where some of his offspring are not saved.

And in the next instant I can imagine scenarios where all of "God's" creations are saved. So both conditions must exist simultaneously outside of spacetime.

Universal salvation was never my contention. My stance is only that we cannot know who will be "saved" and who will not.

The existence of souls that cannot be "saved" is the problematic part, not whether or not the individual souls know that they are going to be saved or damned. "God" being to blame for causing souls to exist that will wind up forever miserable is the unacceptable part.

We only have our theoretical constructs to pontificate on (i.e., those who deny the atoning power of Christ in their lives will not be saved, and so on). We have absolutely no idea what it "looks" like however. We have attempted to understand and define in action words what being saved or not saved looks like (i.e., "My children are all sealed for time and all eternity in the temple", "If he doesn't go to the Bishop and repent he won't be in the CK", "Once he stopped honoring his priesthood by leaving the Church he forfeited his birthright in the highest degree" and on and on and on). None of those statements are necessarily true or better said, we cannot know if they are for that individual.

All true imho. Mormonism's constructs are no more verified by exclusive evidence than any other religion's paradigm.

Though I appreciate the general sentiment of your post, I am curious how you would justify this position through scripture?

Scripture is viewed through the "lens" of personal religion. Any passages I offered as "justification" for my sentiments/views would be agreeable only to another pov that largely agreed with mine. JS's religion-making was essentially founded on Protestant assertions, and morphed into a unique blend of familiar Judeo-Christian themes. My original beef, even as a child, was with Jesus Christ. All of my life I have been unconvinced of the necessity for such a thing as the horror of the atonement: it always seemed to me that God could do all the saving if such was required, and not be compelled to put anyone through such a thing as the atonement. To have to do it that way makes "God" less than all powerful: and if "God" IS all powerful, and simply chooses to "save" where such is not required, to amuse himself, or just because, then I have a problem with that! I would never do it that way.

The atheist I opened up with contended that it was all well and good for me to take the stance I took but argued that it simply my opinion. He claimed I did not have something authoritative to back it up with and summarily dismissed me as he already knew the answer.

He was right to point out that everything you believe is your opinion. You can't show what you believe to be exclusively true. No religionist can do that. An atheist is just an extreme pov that I largely share without being extreme. It is too easy to "shoot beyond the mark", and atheism is as extreme a pov as you can hold. I don't accept that there really are atheists, there are in fact only ignorant people who think that they are right; but none of them can prove that there is no "God". We have existence, inarguably we exist and so does the world. What we actually are, and what the world actually is, is arguable, but not existence itself. Existence requires explanation, a Cause. That Necessary Cause Is "God" in my pov. YMMV applies here! I have found that using the word "God" to explain existence is offensive to self-avowed atheists, merely because of the implied dogmatic connotations that arise in their minds; most people are raised around religion of some kind, and those early inculcated concepts, once deemed offensive, are not easily swept out of the way to make room for different/new concepts regarding "God"....

Edited July 2, 2013 by Questing Beast