Mormon Doctrine Allows For Universal Exaltation And Progress - Even For Telestial/Terrestrial Inhabitants

[Stone holm]

And why can't our bodies change later?

I'd presume the 'bodies celestial' is more figurative anyway. How can someone be given a perfect body that has inbuilt imperfections that hold them back.

"Perfect body" hm? I assume that one dresses differently for Hawaii in the summer, than for Alaska in the winter. I believe that it was Brigham Young who said that a person from a lower kingdom would be destroyed faster than hellfire in the Celestial Kingdom, or something like that. Beings who live on a sphere like the Sun probably have radically different bodies than people who live in an environment similar to the Earth -- does that mean that bodies designed to live on Earth are imperfect?

[Calm]

Personally I think the kingdoms are divided by awareness, not location, just as we are unaware of the spirits that are around us, in many ways even unaware of our very own spirits. As we progress, we become more aware, our ability to see is "quickened" (whatever that means) and the world becomes filled with more and more colours and light so to speak and we are probably able to discern the darkness as well more effectively.

Edited July 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

I tend to think of the Temple as some kind of tour through history and the various Kingdoms rather than necessarily evidencing the actual passage. We are resurrected unto a specific Kingdom, there is nothing that prevents a Celestial being from taking a tour of the lower Kingdoms, what is problematic is for a being resurrected to a lower status touring the higher Kingdoms. Also, I do not buy into the idea that a translated being is the same as a resurrected being with regards to their bodily status. Adam's initial body type was intended as a temporary status geared for the Garden -- I am not certain it is correct to identify the Garden as Terrestrial Kingdom. It had a separate room in the older Temples -- not that that necessarily means anything.

The temple endowment is theclarification of the pkan of salvation. Very specific wording also clarifies such things as this lone and dreary wrld we now live on is in fact the "Telestial Kingdom".

[Stone holm]

Personally I think the kingdoms are divided by awareness, not location, just as we are unaware of the spirits that are around us, in many ways even unaware of our very own spirits. As we progress, we become more aware, our ability to see is "quickened" (whatever that means) and the world becomes filled with more and more colours and light so to speak and we are probably able to discern the darkness as well more effectively.

Interesting comment and concept, I have heard that as to the difference between "Paradise" and "Spirit Prison." Unfortunately, not sure that it really works after the final judgment given the repeated references to the Earth being converted into a Celestial Kingdom.

[Questing Beast]

"Perfect body" hm? I assume that one dresses differently for Hawaii in the summer, than for Alaska in the winter. I believe that it was Brigham Young who said that a person from a lower kingdom would be destroyed faster than hellfire in the Celestial Kingdom, or something like that. Beings who live on a sphere like the Sun probably have radically different bodies than people who live in an environment similar to the Earth -- does that mean that bodies designed to live on Earth are imperfect?

Of course immortals are perfect. That's what "immortality" Is. So the idea of not being able to go anywhere in the universe is plain limited thinking. The comparison to sun, moon and stars, I am convinced, is a reference to intellect. There are intelligences that approach the all-encompassing knowledge of "God" about the world/universe, or the existence of creation, and there are, I am sure, intelligences that do not even apprehend such concepts. In the afterlife (which is only called that from this perspective of mortality), all souls mingle freely. Immortals share that common trait....

[Stone holm]

Of course immortals are perfect. That's what "immortality" Is. So the idea of not being able to go anywhere in the universe is plain limited thinking. The comparison to sun, moon and stars, I am convinced, is a reference to intellect. There are intelligences that approach the all-encompassing knowledge of "God" about the world/universe, or the existence of creation, and there are, I am sure, intelligences that do not even apprehend such concepts. In the afterlife (which is only called that from this perspective of mortality), all souls mingle freely. Immortals share that common trait....

Disagree. You can have immortality without perfection. Enduring forever does not mean you are perfect.

[Questing Beast]

Do you have a reference to show that? I can't think of one offhand. Immortality as it relates to the world of creation, the world of humans, is a combination of "being" and knowledge. It is the knowledge which is imperfect in comprehensiveness. Only "God" possesses perfect comprehensive knowledge about Existence. We immortals are all about learning as much as we can about the world of humans, because that's what we are. And those of higher intellect necessarily learn more about our world. But as I said above, each one of us, no matter what our intellect "level", know the same things in different ways, because no two of us are exactly alike. There is no such thing as a "cookie cutter" perfection, but there is perfection in individual "glory". Each one of us is a "kingdom of glory", unique and fascinating.

The world of humans has no power to destroy or damage an immortal, so the soul by its very existence is perfect already. But we always have more to learn....

[Stone holm]

Do you have a reference to show that? I can't think of one offhand. Immortality as it relates to the world of creation, the world of humans, is a combination of "being" and knowledge. It is the knowledge which is imperfect in comprehensiveness. Only "God" possesses perfect comprehensive knowledge about Existence. We immortals are all about learning as much as we can about the world of humans, because that's what we are. And those of higher intellect necessarily learn more about our world. But as I said above, each one of us, no matter what our intellect "level", know the same things in different ways, because no two of us are exactly alike. There is no such thing as a "cookie cutter" perfection, but there is perfection in individual "glory". Each one of us is a "kingdom of glory", unique and fascinating.

The world of humans has no power to destroy or damage an immortal, so the soul by its very existence is perfect already. But we always have more to learn....

Yep. Spencer W. Kimball recounts the encounter between Cain and an early Church leader in either his Miracle of Forgiveness or his Faith Precedes A Miracle. Cain was not described as anything perfected.

[canard78]

"Perfect body" hm? I assume that one dresses differently for Hawaii in the summer, than for Alaska in the winter. I believe that it was Brigham Young who said that a person from a lower kingdom would be destroyed faster than hellfire in the Celestial Kingdom, or something like that. Beings who live on a sphere like the Sun probably have radically different bodies than people who live in an environment similar to the Earth -- does that mean that bodies designed to live on Earth are imperfect?

Brigham Young was a progressive and inspirational leader of people. The quotes I like best from him are usually on the theme of human interaction.

His ability to expound on the 'mysteries' however seem less reliable.

If you really believe in a physical limitation that stops one from passage from Terrestrial to Celestial, how do you reconcile having to draw a line between 'just made it' and 'almost made it.'

With billions of children there will be many clustered around the cut-off line with no perceptible difference but a single choice on a given day separating them and giving them permanent physical characteristics that either allow or deny access to the CK. Given we believe in such a just God, how do you reconcile that?

And how will you feel if you are 69.99999th 'percentile' and therefore Terrestrial (but only just) while your neighbour is 70.00001th 'percentile' and Celestial. No significant difference between your life choices. But a very significant difference in eternities. One losing all family relationships and consigned to a lesser kingdom and the other granted the opportunity to progress towards godhood (even if his 70th percentile position means he'll have to work towards it for 1million years first)? The 69th percentile guy on the other hand is pretty much at the end of the development curve.

We have situations like this all the time in our world. Sports, college, jobs, promotions, research, elections. We have them because we have imperfect systems and therefore imperfect outcomes. God is not imperfect. The 'no progress' conclusion leads to imperfections.

Edited July 10, 2013 by canard78

[Stone holm]

Brigham Young was a progressive and inspirational leader of people. The quotes I like best from him are usually on the theme of human interaction.

His ability to expound on the 'mysteries' however seem less reliable.

If you really believe in a physical limitation that stops one from passage from Terrestrial to Celestial, how do you reconcile having to draw a line between 'just made it' and 'almost made it.'

With billions of children there will be many clustered around the cut-off line with no perceptible difference but a single choice on a given day separating them and giving them permanent physical characteristics that either allow or deny access to the CK. Given we believe in such a just God, how do you reconcile that?

And how will you feel if you are 69.99999th 'percentile' and therefore Terrestrial (but only just) while your neighbour is 70.00001th 'percentile' and Celestial. No significant difference between your life choices. But a very significant difference in eternities. One losing all family relationships and consigned to a lesser kingdom and the other granted the opportunity to progress towards godhood (even if his 70th percentile position means he'll have to work towards it for 1million years first)? The 69th percentile guy on the other hand is pretty much at the end of the development curve.

We have situations like this all the time in our world. Sports, college, jobs, promotions, research, elections. We have them because we have imperfect systems and therefore imperfect outcomes. God is not imperfect. The 'no progress' conclusion leads to imperfections.

I am hearing more and more Temple and mid level leaders suggesting that you do not lose. All family connections even though you do not make or the family member does not make the CK. Not sure how they think that works. So are you suggesting that family connections pop in and out of existence?

[Questing Beast]

I suggest that "family" as we know it in this world is a construct that most clearly illustrates what we come to value most about existence; each other. The concept that you might/could/will lose it is terrible leverage to hold against somebody, a fear tactic that I don't for one second believe has anything to do with "God". "God" does not use fear, men use fear. When a family states that they will be together in the afterlife, who has the authority to deny this? Who has the authority to "patent" the process and limit it to one religious persuasion? How do you prove that everyone else is screwed if they don't ultimately accept Mormon temple ordinances?

As I suggested above, the analogy of sun, moon and stars includes the firmament in which they all exist together. The implication is that "family", the immortal associations we treasure, endure in the same environment or medium, just as the infinitely variable lights in the heavens endure in the same context of infinite space. The "separation" is one of enlightenment, knowledge, intellect, not physical locality or nature.

All immortals are of the same nature, and cannot be harmed or destroyed by the physical world of humans we inhabit. It is a ludicrous concept, imho, to assume that some magnetic force keeps terrestrials on their "moon" and prevents them from going to the "sun" where their more lofty siblings and parents reside. What's going to happen? Is the terrestrial going to simply vaporize for his/her pains? Or is the "sun" or CK simply removed forever from their purview? "Nuh uh, you can't either find us, 'cause we're hidden, hahahah!" There is no scripture support for such a concept. All (the few that there are) scriptures addressing the worlds to come for the resurrected point to separate heavenly bodies having different glories in full view of each other, worlds without end....

Edited July 10, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

I suggest that "family" as we know it in this world is a construct that most clearly illustrates what we come to value most about existence; each other. The concept that you might/could/will lose it is terrible leverage to hold against somebody, a fear tactic that I don't for one second believe has anything to do with "God". "God" does not use fear, men use fear. When a family states that they will be together in the afterlife, who has the authority to deny this? Who has the authority to "patent" the process and limit it to one religious persuasion? How do you prove that everyone else is screwed if they don't ultimately accept Mormon temple ordinances?

As I suggested above, the analogy of sun, moon and stars includes the firmament in which they all exist together. The implication is that "family", the immortal associations we treasure, endure in the same environment or medium, just as the infinitely variable lights in the heavens endure in the same context of infinite space. The "separation" is one of enlightenment, knowledge, intellect, not physical locality or nature.

All immortals are of the same nature, and cannot be harmed or destroyed by the physical world of humans we inhabit. It is a ludicrous concept, imho, to assume that some magnetic force keeps terrestrials on their "moon" and prevents them from going to the "sun" where their more lofty siblings and parents reside. What's going to happen? Is the terrestrial going to simply vaporize for his/her pains? Or is the "sun" or CK simply removed forever from their purview? "Nuh uh, you can't either find us, 'cause we're hidden, hahahah!" There is no scripture support for such a concept. All (the few that there are) scriptures addressing the worlds to come for the resurrected point to separate heavenly bodies having different glories in full view of each other, worlds without end....

Well if God does not use fear, then perhaps somebody should let the people who print Scriptures know about that....

[Rob Osborn]

The idea that God would banish his children from his presence for eternity just because they were a little more rebellious in mortality and it took longer for them to repent is a doxtrine that should be the farthest thing from mormonism. Sadly though, we embrace it and use it as a fear tactic to scare our children and brothers and sisters into the CK mold

[thesometimesaint]

Even one unrepented of sin, no matter how small we may think it is, is enough to keep us out of God's presence for eternity. God can not look upon sin with the least degree of tolerance. Christ to upon himself all of our sins, no matter how small, or large. What is required of us is to repent.

Our placement in the various kingdoms is a measure of the type of person we have become, not the sin(s) we have committed.

[Questing Beast]

I absolutely believe in 24/7 repentance as the only sign or fruit that I am not lying to myself, which is the core tenet of my religious faith....

[stemelbow]

I personally enjoy the idea that we will be able to progress after our mortality no matter what degree of salvation we are granted. but it's a tough thing to square with the teachings that are spoken and discussed each Sunday. I can only hope I guess. It's hard to square the notion with the idea that God continues to mourn for those that are lost. If there is nothing but opportunity for any old murder who finds himself in the Telestial realm, then it can't be so bad that God would weep for that one--particulary since he well knows that most of us won't be attaining a celestial glory based on our mortal faith and such.

Its hard to take seriously, as well, the proclamation that the Church is true and only through it's authorized ordinances can we be exalted. There's nothing to stop us if we decide not to go the temple, for instance. We'll end up in a great place with nothing but opportunity ahead of us either way.

There are too many things that just don't seem to add up if unlimited progress were possible for all. Then again, if unlimited progress were not possible for all, then that itself is a miserable thought.

[Stone holm]

The idea that God would banish his children from his presence for eternity just because they were a little more rebellious in mortality and it took longer for them to repent is a doxtrine that should be the farthest thing from mormonism. Sadly though, we embrace it and use it as a fear tactic to scare our children and brothers and sisters into the CK mold

Define "a little more rebellious".

[Spammer]

If I was still LDS, made it to the Celestial Kindgom and was exalted, I would want to be like the father of the Prodigal Son. Even in the next world, if one of my children sought to return to me I would welcome him with open arms and tears of joy and seek to heal him. I have no desire to believe in a God who would exclude a repentant child, just because the repentant disposition did not develop during the period of the mortal test. I would never test my children's love in the first place. I don't care if they love me; I love them. If they seek to return and be healed, I'll open the door. I will always allow mercy to trump justice when the prodigal seeks to return. That is the kind of God I believe in, the God of boundless love and mercy. This is a God who excludes no one and assigns no one to lower kingdoms (hell); we only exclude ourselves and assign ourselves to our fates. We distance ourselves from God; He does not distance HImself from us. The opposite, Western, view, contradicts the teaching that God is love. IMO.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Spammer

[Questing Beast]

@Spammer: that's how I view "God" also. "Kingdoms of glory" is figurative, and in no way separates us from the love of "God", and our relationship increases forever....

[Spammer]

@Spammer: that's how I view "God" also. "Kingdoms of glory" is figurative, and in no way separates us from the love of "God", and our relationship increases forever....

Questing, it's the only thing that makes sense. I quoted Isaac the Syrian in another thread. Here's another series of quotes that speak directly to this issue:

Regarding love, mercy and justice:

"This is the aim of Love. Love’s chastisement is for correction, but it does not aim at retribution…But the man who considers God an avenger, presuming that he bears witness to His justice, the same accuses Him of being bereft of goodness. Far be it, that vengeance could ever be found in that Fountain of love and Ocean brimming with goodness! The aim of His design is the correction of men."

"Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful."

"God is not One who requites evil, but He is One who sets evil right."

"That we should think that Gehenna is not also full of love and mingled with compassion would be an insult to our God. By saying He will deliver us to suffering without purpose, we most surely sin. We blaspheme also if we say that He will act with spite or with a vengeful purpose, as if He had a need to avenge Himself."

"Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good’, He says ‘to the evil and to the impious.’ How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers?…How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth?…Where, then, is God's justice, for while we are sinners Christ died for us!"

"God’s recompense to sinners is that, instead of a just recompense, God rewards them with resurrection."

Regarding the the lowest kingdom (hell) and those "within" it (in Eastern Christian thought hell is not a place; it's a condition of the soul):

"That is what the torment of Gehenna is in my opinion: remorse. But love inebriates the souls of the sons and daughters of heaven by its delectability."

"Even in the matter of afflictions — the judgment of Gehenna, say — there bides a hidden mystery, whereby the Maker has taken as a starting point our patent willfulness, using even Gehenna as a way of bringing to perfection His greater dispensation. If the world to come proves entirely the realm of mercy, love, and goodness, how then a final state that claims requital for its measure?"

"As for me I say that those who are tormented in Gehenna are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in Gehenna are deprived of God’s love."

Edited July 10, 2013 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

If I was still LDS, made it to the Celestial Kindgom and was exalted, I would want to be like the father of the Prodigal Son. Even in the next world, if one of my children sought to return to me I would welcome him with open arms and tears of joy and seek to heal him. I have no desire to believe in a God who would exclude a repentant child, just because the repentant disposition did not develop during the period of the mortal test. I would never test my children's love in the first place. I don't care if they love me; I love them. If they seek to return and be healed, I'll open the door. I will always allow mercy to trump justice when the prodigal seeks to return. That is the kind of God I believe in, the God of boundless love and mercy. This is a God who excludes no one and assigns no one to lower kingdoms (hell); we only exclude ourselves and assign ourselves to our fates. We distance ourselves from God; He does not distance HImself from us. The opposite, Western, view, contradicts the teaching that God is love. IMO.

There is no indication that the prodigal son received that which belonged to the loyal son.

True we do it to ourselves. It is equally true that God will force no man to Heaven.

[Spammer]

There is no indication that the prodigal son received that which belonged to the loyal son.

True we do it to ourselves. It is equally true that God will force no man to Heaven.

Agreed, on both points, though I'll add that not only did the father welcome the prodigal son home (heaven), he also gave him a ring and a robe to wear, signifying the restoration of sonship, if not that which belonged to the loyal son. The point is that both sons were now at home with the father and in each other's presence, a family restored. Together, under the same roof. There is no exclusion on the part of the father. The son came home and is now in heaven with his Father.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed, on both points, though I'll add that not only did the father welcome the prodigal son home (heaven), he also gave him a ring and a robe to wear, signifying the restoration of sonship, if not that which belonged to the loyal son. The point is that both sons were now at home with the father and in each other's presence, a family restored. Together, under the same roof. There is no exclusion on the part of the father. The son came home and is now in heaven with his Father.

In my fathers' house there are many mansions. I don't believe it is necessary to literally be under the same roof to be family. I left my parents home 43 years ago. I will always be their son even though they are no longer on this side of the veil.

[Spammer]

In my fathers' house there are many mansions. I don't believe it is necessary to literally be under the same roof to be family. I left my parents home 43 years ago. I will always be their son even though they are no longer on this side of the veil.

I agree with you. I'm only saying that on the other side, I'll always welcome a prodigal son home. He'll always be welcome under my roof. That's the kind of loving God I believe in. There is no "sorry, you're too late, you didn't repent soon enough according to my timeline, so you have to live in some other house and I won't visit you." The only ones who will continue to be separated from God in the next world are those who continue to exclude themselves.

[Rob Osborn]

Define "a little more rebellious".

Well, in LDS doctrine, if one delays his repentance until after death then he cannot reach the celestial kingdom. That is the definition of a little more rebellious.