June Ensign - Life After Death

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would think that eternal separation from God would be a kind of eternal condemnation, no matter how nice a place you were residing in. It's referred to as "spiritual death" in our literature. That would be reserved for the denizens of the lower kingdoms. This is eternal condemnation as a result of finite mistakes, which seems unbalanced.

 

Spiritual death is defined in the Church reference work Guide to the Scriptures as

Quote

Separation from God and his influences; to die as to things pertaining to righteousness. Lucifer and a third part of the hosts of heaven suffered a spiritual death when they were cast out of heaven (D&C 29:36–37).

Under that definition, then, those who inherit a lower kingdom of glory would not suffer spiritual death, as they would still be subject to God's "influences" (see above).

 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure I'd put it exactly like that. I don't hold to a personal or human-like God, and I see the "fatherhood" of God as metaphorical.

I don't hold to a "human-like God," either.  The very word "anthropomorphic" is somewhat problematic to me.  That is to say, God is not like us as much as we are like Him.  For me, that is an important distinction.  God is complete and perfect and far, far above our ability to comprehend in anything but the most rudimentary sense.  We are finite and flawed and sinful, but we are hopefully growing.  In other words, God has none of our flaws, and we have only small portions of His attributes.  This is why comparing God to a human father has some serious limitations.  Much better to go the other way and compare a human father to God, recognizing that the former, for all his flaws and defects  and limitations of intellect and experience, may nevertheless develop some godly attributes that will make him a better person.

In any event, critiquing God by imputing human foibles onto Him will simply not work in an LDS construct.  Ever.

Quote

I realize it's not metaphorical in the minds of most members of the church. But when I think of what it means to be a good parent, I don't see that completely lining up with the behaviors normally attributed to God in mainstream LDS teachings.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  "Mainstream LDS teachings" about the rule and attributes of a good father are, by my reckoning, quite good.  LDS fathers are taught to provide for their families, to be attentive and kind to wife and children in word and in deed, to avoid abuse of any kind, to be a good example, and so on.  I have no idea what "teachings" the LDS Church provides about fatherhood that may be construed as objectively bad or problematic.

Quote

Part of that is because the ideal father is a construct that has changed over the years,

I don't think the ideal has changed very much.  Some notions about corporal punishment have changed, yes.  And I think those changes are for the better.  But LDS teachings about "the ideal father" have, in my view, been rather constant.

Quote

and of course the attributes of God are constantly being redefined as well.

In the LDS paradigm?  I will have to disagree with you there.  What "attributes of God" have been "redefined?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 6, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Quote

I think the only people who experience "eternal spiritual death" are those in Outer Darkness.  

That's not what the church teaches. I suppose you and I are both a bit unorthodox here. 

First, I'm not very often characterized as "unorthodox."  It's a rather refreshing experience.

Second, I do not think I am "unorthodox" in suggesting that "only people who experience "eternal spiritual death" are those in Outer Darkness."  As Scott Lloyd explains here, "Spiritual death is defined in the Church reference work Guide to the Scriptures as 'Separation from God and his influences; to die as to things pertaining to righteousness. Lucifer and a third part of the hosts of heaven suffered a spiritual death when they were cast out of heaven (D&C 29:36–37).'" 

Lucifer and his cohorts end up in Outer Darkness, and everyone in the kingdoms of glory will have at least some measure of interaction, either with the Father (Celestial), the Son (Terrestrial) or the Spirit (Telestial).  This seems to line up with what I said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't hold to a "human-like God," either.  The very word "anthropomorphic" is somewhat problematic to me.  That is to say, God is not like us as much as we are like Him.  For me, that is an important distinction.  God is complete and perfect and far, far above our ability to comprehend in anything but the most rudimentary sense.  We are finite and flawed and sinful, but we are hopefully growing.  In other words, God has none of our flaws, and we have only small portions of His attributes.  This is why comparing God to a human father has some serious limitations.  Much better to go the other way and compare a human father to God, recognizing that the former, for all his flaws and defects  and limitations of intellect and experience, may nevertheless develop some godly attributes that will make him a better person.

In any event, critiquing God by imputing human foibles onto Him will simply not work in an LDS construct.  Ever.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  "Mainstream LDS teachings" about the rule and attributes of a good father are, by my reckoning, quite good.  LDS fathers are taught to provide for their families, to be attentive and kind to wife and children in word and in deed, to avoid abuse of any kind, to be a good example, and so on.  I have no idea what "teachings" the LDS Church provides about fatherhood that may be construed as objectively bad or problematic.

I don't think the ideal has changed very much.  Some notions about corporate punishment have changed, yes.  And I think those changes are for the better.  But LDS teachings about "the ideal father" have, in my view, been rather constant.

In the LDS paradigm?  I will have to disagree with you there.  What "attributes of God" have been "redefined?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you meant to write corporal punishment. ( You may have been victimized by an errant auto-correct function.)

And I agree that changes in notions about corporal punishment are for the better. I think it's deplorable that, for so long, otherwise good and decent people have thought there is anything praiseworthy about administering a physical beating to a child.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I would think that eternal separation from God would be a kind of eternal condemnation, no matter how nice a place you were residing in. It's referred to as "spiritual death" in our literature. That would be reserved for the denizens of the lower kingdoms. This is eternal condemnation as a result of finite mistakes, which seems unbalanced.

There has been some speculation of progression between kingdoms. If that were possible, then the problem of eternal condemnation would disappear. IMO, that doctrinal innovation, if it were also to include "outer darkness" would make the most logical sense to me, given what I would assume the goals of the plan of salvation are, and given my own ideas about parenthood.

Please understand that I'm approaching this as a thought experiment. I'm rolling it around on my tongue, like a piece of hard candy. I'm not suggesting that anything has to be one way or another. I have no idea if there is even consciousness after death.

Yes, I get that last part.

"Spiritual death" refers to outer darkness.  It has been said that even those who go to the telestial kingdom would commit suicide to get there if they could see it.  In fact, I see it as what most people call "heaven"- except Catholics.

All the pop stuff you see about "Angels" fits perfectly I think, the description we have as "ministering servants", running around and helping mortals on missions from the unseen "boss".  "It's a Wonderful Life"  "Heaven can wait"  & scores of others

Just my opinion, if you have authoritative evidence contrary to that, I would like to see it

Pretty amazing that the OP did not link the article.  I am too lazy to look it up.

Edited June 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't hold to a "human-like God," either.  The very word "anthropomorphic" is somewhat problematic to me.  That is to say, God is not like us as much as we are like Him.  For me, that is an important distinction.  God is complete and perfect and far, far above our ability to comprehend in anything but the most rudimentary sense.  We are finite and flawed and sinful, but we are hopefully growing.  In other words, God has none of our flaws, and we have only small portions of His attributes.  This is why comparing God to a human father has some serious limitations.  Much better to go the other way and compare a human father to God, recognizing that the former, for all his flaws and defects  and limitations of intellect and experience, may nevertheless develop some godly attributes that will make him a better person.

God is an exalted man, right? In LDS theology humans and God are the same species. 

But I would consider the mainstream Christian idea of God to be "human-like" as well, just not physically. 

 

Quote

In any event, critiquing God by imputing human foibles onto Him will simply not work in an LDS construct.  Ever.

Why not? If we're not allowed to make any judgments about God at all, we can say nothing about God for good or ill.

Quote

I'm not sure I understand your point.  "Mainstream LDS teachings" about the rule and attributes of a good father are, by my reckoning, quite good.  LDS fathers are taught to provide for their families, to be attentive and kind to wife and children in word and in deed, to avoid abuse of any kind, to be a good example, and so on.  I have no idea what "teachings" the LDS Church provides about fatherhood that may be construed as objectively bad or problematic.

Are LDS parents taught to leave their children to raise themselves, or to impute eternal punishments for finite offenses, or even offenses of thought?

 

Quote

I don't think the ideal has changed very much.  Some notions about corporal punishment have changed, yes.  And I think those changes are for the better.  But LDS teachings about "the ideal father" have, in my view, been rather constant.

What was the ideal father in 1880? 1980? IMO this ideal has changed a great deal, both inside and outside the church.

Quote

In the LDS paradigm?  I will have to disagree with you there.  What "attributes of God" have been "redefined?"

Thanks,

-Smac

It's been all over the map. At one point God had no body. At another time it seems to me that Jesus was more of a mode of God than a separate being.  At another time God was identical to Adam. My perception was that God was thought of as more vengeful in the early Utah period, what with all the rhetoric about asking God to take vengeance upon the enemies of the saints. 

God is usually portrayed in much more gentle terms today. I suppose it depends upon which traditions and sources that church leaders are drawing upon at any given time. 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, I'm not very often characterized as "unorthodox."  It's a rather refreshing experience.

Second, I do not think I am "unorthodox" in suggesting that "only people who experience "eternal spiritual death" are those in Outer Darkness."  As Scott Lloyd explains here, "Spiritual death is defined in the Church reference work Guide to the Scriptures as 'Separation from God and his influences; to die as to things pertaining to righteousness. Lucifer and a third part of the hosts of heaven suffered a spiritual death when they were cast out of heaven (D&C 29:36–37).'" 

Lucifer and his cohorts end up in Outer Darkness, and everyone in the kingdoms of glory will have at least some measure of interaction, either with the Father (Celestial), the Son (Terrestrial) or the Spirit (Telestial).  This seems to line up with what I said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Glad I could be of service. But this is how spiritual death is normally defined:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/death-spiritual.p1?lang=eng

Quote

Spiritual death is separation from God. The scriptures teach of two sources of spiritual death. The first source is the Fall, and the second is our own disobedience.

 

One thing I like about this board is that the discussions here seem to spark some interesting and novel doctrinal innovations. 

 

[The Nehor]

Wait, we live after we die?

[mfbukowski]

D&C 76

 Regarding the sons of perdition

Quote

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

Spiritual death only applies to sons of perdition

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't hold to a "human-like God," either.  The very word "anthropomorphic" is somewhat problematic to me.  That is to say, God is not like us as much as we are like Him.  For me, that is an important distinction.  God is complete and perfect and far, far above our ability to comprehend in anything but the most rudimentary sense.  We are finite and flawed and sinful, but we are hopefully growing.  In other words, God has none of our flaws, and we have only small portions of His attributes.  This is why comparing God to a human father has some serious limitations.  Much better to go the other way and compare a human father to God, recognizing that the former, for all his flaws and defects  and limitations of intellect and experience, may nevertheless develop some godly attributes that will make him a better person.

In any event, critiquing God by imputing human foibles onto Him will simply not work in an LDS construct.  Ever.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  "Mainstream LDS teachings" about the rule and attributes of a good father are, by my reckoning, quite good.  LDS fathers are taught to provide for their families, to be attentive and kind to wife and children in word and in deed, to avoid abuse of any kind, to be a good example, and so on.  I have no idea what "teachings" the LDS Church provides about fatherhood that may be construed as objectively bad or problematic.

I don't think the ideal has changed very much.  Some notions about corporal punishment have changed, yes.  And I think those changes are for the better.  But LDS teachings about "the ideal father" have, in my view, been rather constant.

In the LDS paradigm?  I will have to disagree with you there.  What "attributes of God" have been "redefined?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Just as a note between us personally, I suspect you might think that I hold to a "human-like God" as noted above, but that would be a wrong characterization.  I agree completely with your view of God.  I see mankind as Theomorphic, not God as Anthromorphic.  Note the tile of my blog site below

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Broker said:

This month's Ensign has an article about life after death that ends with this:

"What will people do in the other kingdoms?

Those in other kingdoms will be angels, which “are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory” (D&C 132:16). They will not be married or have spirit offspring (see D&C 131:1–4; 132:16–17)."

I'm not sure the Church currently teaches this as doctrine, so I was a bit surprised to see it in an Ensign article. I know past Church leaders have made such statements, but current Church leaders seem to be (wisely) staying away from teaching doctrines that are not fully understood. (e.g. "As God once was...." or doctrinal reasons for withholding the priesthood). 

The scriptures cited in the article are about marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, but say nothing directly about couples that may not qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, but have been sealed in the temple (perhaps vicariously).

I find it difficult to accept that Church leaders can constantly, and with increasing volume, teach about the importance of marriage (and not just to Church members, but to all people) on one hand, while on the other hand believing that most of those marriages won't last beyond death because people won't qualify for the Celestial Kingdom. No where have I seen current Church leaders warn people that God will tear their marriages apart unless they join the Church. I think they don't teach that, because it's a doctrine we don't completely understand.

Opinions ?

 

 

You get what you ask for.

What other church/religion marry their members for eternity?

They ASK for "til death do we part"

Sorry- they get what they ask for.    What are we supposed to do - hold signs on street corners saying "WARNING! YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOT FOR ETERNITY" when people have ALREADY made covenants AND ARE SEEMINGLY SATISFIED, that marriage lasts "til death do we part"?

Obviously they don't care!  You can write your own vows- who even thinks of vowing to be together forever as if they wanted that??

Edited June 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

God is an exalted man, right? In LDS theology humans and God are the same species. 

But I would consider the mainstream Christian idea of God to be "human-like" as well, just not physically. 

 

Why not? If we're not allowed to make any judgments about God at all, we can say nothing about God for good or ill.

Are LDS parents taught to leave their children to raise themselves, or to impute eternal punishments for finite offenses, or even offenses of thought?

 

What was the ideal father in 1880? 1980? IMO this ideal has changed a great deal, both inside and outside the church.

It's been all over the map. At one point God had no body. At another time it seems to me that Jesus was more of a mode of God than a separate being.  At another time God was identical to Adam. My perception was that God was thought of as more vengeful in the early Utah period, what with all the rhetoric about asking God to take vengeance upon the enemies of the saints. 

God is usually portrayed in much more gentle terms today. I suppose it depends upon which traditions and sources that church leaders are drawing upon at any given time. 

Interesting.  Do you think today in and outside the LDS religion, we perceive God as a more gentle and loving being than even 4 or 5 generations ago?   On the whole, I don't see Joseph as portraying God as extremely vengeful...(other than swords/angels)..but perhaps this idea has changed the thinking of what we notice from one generation to another.

 

[Eek!]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church does not teach the concept of progression between kingdoms.  However, I am not sure we can definitively say that such a concept is precluded in the Gospel.  

If the Earth is a Telestial world (don't ask me to cite the reference), and if the inhabitants of this world can rightly aspire to move up not one but two kingdoms higher, then there is progression between kingdoms under some circumstances, even if it's not overtly taught by the LDS Church. 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eek!

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Eek! said:

If the Earth is a Telestial world (don't ask me to cite the reference), and if the inhabitants of this world can rightly aspire to move up not one but two kingdoms higher, then there is progression between kingdoms under some circumstances, even if it's not overtly taught by the LDS Church. 

I always thought this was the plan...I was taught this.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Eek! said:

If the Earth is a Telestial world (don't ask me to cite the reference), and if the inhabitants of this world can rightly aspire to move up not one but two kingdoms higher, then there is progression between kingdoms under some circumstances, even if it's not overtly taught by the LDS Church. 

That is not what is meant. So far we have moved from Celestial to Terrestrial and then to Telestial and then the Earth reverses course and goes back. Some of us will go with. Those who go all the way up will live a Celestial Law in a Telestial World. Not progress, just a change of state to match what they are. The question is if you can change what you are after the ressurection and desire a higher state. I suspect the answer is yes but cannot substantiate it.

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Interesting.  Do you think today in and outside the LDS religion, we perceive God as a more gentle and loving being than even 4 or 5 generations ago?   On the whole, I don't see Joseph as portraying God as extremely vengeful...(other than swords/angels)..but perhaps this idea has changed the thinking of what we notice from one generation to another.

 

I doubt it. I think we have a greater understanding of God then they did back in Joseph's day though probably not greater then Joseph who met him.

The vengeful and angry God of the Old Testament is almost always counterbalanced even there with an indulgent loving father type if people would just behave. They generally do not.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Eek! said:

If the Earth is a Telestial world (don't ask me to cite the reference),

It is, but that it not synoymous with the Telestial Kingdom, the third and lowest kingdom of glory which will be populated by resurrected persons after the Final Judgment.

Consider this excerpt from the New Testament Student Manual:

Quote

As part of the Fall of Adam, the earth fell from a terrestrial (paradisiacal) state to a telestial state. When Christ returns and wickedness is destroyed, “Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and … the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory” (Articles of Faith 1:10). After the thousand years of Christ’s reign, the earth will be transformed yet again. The Prophet Joseph Smith described this change: “This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God and crowned with celestial glory” (Teachings: Joseph Smith, 258; see D&C 29:22–25; 88:18–20, 25–26).

And this excerpt from the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide:

Quote

“This earth was created in a new or paradisiacal state; then, incident to Adam’s transgression, it fell to its present telestial state. At the Second Coming of our Lord, it will be renewed, regenerated, refreshed, transfigured,become again a new earth, a paradisiacal earth.Its millennial status will be a return to its pristine state of beauty and glory, the state that existed before the fall” (Mormon Doctrine,795–96).

And this excerpt from the Old Testament Teacher Resource Manual:

Quote

At the Savior’s Second Coming, this world will return to its paradisiacal glory, ending its telestial state (see Isaiah 11:6–9; Articles of Faith 1:10).

Also consider the description of the Telestial Kingdom as found in D&C 76:89-90: "And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding; And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it."

We can and do know the "glory" of this fallen "telestial" world because we live in it.  In contrast, the Telestial Kingdom has a glory to it "which surpasses all understanding."  So we cannot conflate these two things.

Quote

and if the inhabitants of this world can rightly aspire to move up not one but two kingdoms higher,

You are equivocating here.  You are conflating the status of this earth as being "telestial" with a very different and future kingdom of glory.

Quote

then there is progression between kingdoms under some circumstances, even if it's not overtly taught by the LDS Church. 

With respect, I think you are incorrect here.  "Progression between kingdoms" has always been a reference to progression from one kingdom to another after a person has been sent to one of those kingdoms.  

And the Church does not teach the concept of "progression between kingdoms," overtly or implicitly or any other -ly.  There has been some speculation about it, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 6, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is, but that it not synoymous with the Telestial Kingdom, the third and lowest kingdom of glory which will be populated by resurrected persons after the Final Judgment.

Consider this excerpt from the New Testament Student Manual:

And this excerpt from the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide:

And this excerpt from the Old Testament Teacher Resource Manual:

Also consider the description of the Telestial Kingdom as found in D&C 76:89-90: "And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding; And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it."

We can and do know the "glory" of this fallen "telestial" world because we live in it.  In contrast, the Telestial Kingdom has a glory to it "which surpasses all understanding."  So we cannot conflate these two things.

You are equivocating here.  You are conflating the status of this earth as being "telestial" with a very different and future kingdom of glory.

With respect, I think you are incorrect here.  "Progression between kingdoms" has always been a reference to progression from one kingdom to another after a person has been sent to one of those kingdoms.  

And the Church does not teach the concept of "progression between kingdoms," overtly or implicitly or any other -ly.  There has been some speculation about it, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smacthe

If there is no progression, how does God plan on getting his children home?  I had always believed that the Line upon Line and knowledge was key to this progression..tha.t is after we had paid a price.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure I'd put it exactly like that. I don't hold to a personal or human-like God, and I see the "fatherhood" of God as metaphorical. I realize it's not metaphorical in the minds of most members of the church. But when I think of what it means to be a good parent, I don't see that completely lining up with the behaviors normally attributed to God in mainstream LDS teachings. Part of that is because the ideal father is a construct that has changed over the years, and of course the attributes of God are constantly being redefined as well. No surprise then that the ideals of fatherhood and Godhood are not perfectly aligned. They are two moving targets that will continue to evolve over time. I suppose that's what I was trying to point out. 

The problem is that ANY characterization of the nature of God, made by a puny human brain HAS to be "metaphorical" so there is no difference between "Metaphorical" and "literal" in this context.

He is our Father.  Beyond that, we have not the words or the concepts to go farther.

I agree that you are mixing the contents of metaphors, and the problem is semantic.  It is similar to a category error or a virtus dormitiva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

"Virtus dormitiva" 

Quote

A calque translation of Latin, virtus dormitiva, coined by Molière in The Imaginary Invalid. In the play, he lampoons a group of physicians providing an explanation in macaronicLatin of the sleep-inducing properties of opium as stemming from its "virtus dormitiva" 

 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are equivocating here.  You are conflating the status of this earth as being "telestial" with a very different and future kingdom of glory.

  

Seems to me that a "Celestial world" would be within the Celestial kingdom, and a "Terrestrial world" would be within the Terrestrial kingdom, and likewise a "Telestial world" would be within the Telestial kingdom.   If not, then why use the same word, which has a very specific connotation? 

Is there such thing as a place that is not part of a Kingdom?  If not, then evidently this Earth is part of the Telestial kingdom. 

Sorry I haven't mastered the art of multi-quoting yet.  Smac97 also wrote:

"With respect, I think you are incorrect here.  "Progression between kingdoms" has always been a reference to progression from one kingdom to another after a person has been sent to one of those kingdoms. [emphasis smac's]"

Actually that's exactly the point I was trying (obviously not too clearly!) to make.  We have already been sent to one of those kindgoms.  Our ability to progress from a Telestial world/kingdom (this Earth) to a higher world/kingdom (assuming we do well) is a concrete example that progression between kingdoms is clearly the path, and assuming the term "Eternal Progression" means what it says, then it's probably not limited to the relatively short time we spend here.

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Eek!

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Glad I could be of service. But this is how spiritual death is normally defined:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/death-spiritual.p1?lang=eng

 

One thing I like about this board is that the discussions here seem to spark some interesting and novel doctrinal innovations. 

 

What about the definition I provided from Guide to the Scriptures? Is that not a "normal" definition of spiritual death? You do realize, do you not, that Guide to the Scriptures is a standard study aid that is bound with all non-English language editions of the scriptures and that it is condensed from the Bible Dictionary and Topical Guide? Separation from God and his influence seems to make the most sense in an eternal context. Adam and Eve were not spiritually dead after the Fall because they called upon God and received His blessings and influence through the Holy Ghost, even though they no longer enjoyed His physical presence. Thus, they were no more spiritually dead than are you or I. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Eek! said:

Seems to me that a "Celestial world" would be within the Celestial kingdom, and a "Terrestrial world" would be within the Terrestrial kingdom, and likewise a "Telestial world" would be within the Telestial kingdom.   If not, then why use the same word, which has a very specific connotation? 

Is there such thing as a place that is not part of a Kingdom?  If not, then evidently this Earth is part of the Telestial kingdom. 

Sorry I haven't mastered the art of multi-quoting yet.  Smac97 also wrote:

"With respect, I think you are incorrect here.  "Progression between kingdoms" has always been a reference to progression from one kingdom to another after a person has been sent to one of those kingdoms. [emphasis smac's]"

Actually that's exactly the point I was trying (obviously not too clearly!) to make.  We have already been sent to one of those kindgoms.  Our ability to progress from a Telestial world/kingdom (this Earth) to a higher world/kingdom (assuming we do well) is a concrete example that progression between kingdoms is clearly the path, and assuming the term "Eternal Progression" means what it says, then it's probably not limited to the relatively short time we spend here.

Smac is right.  This is the telestial "world" not the telestial kingdom

Earth will be the celestial kingdom when glorified.

D&C 88

 

Quote

 

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descendedbelow all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

 14 Now, verily I say unto you, that through theredemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead.

 15 And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.

 16 And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

 17 And the redemption of the soul is through him thatquickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.

 18 Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from allunrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestialglory;

 19 For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;

 20 That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom maypossess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.

 

 

Note verse 10 where it speaks of earth now having not the glory of the sun, now (celestial), not the moon, (terestrial) but of the telestial.  That is because we are now in a "telestial world"

Now look at verse 18 referring to the earth, and how it will also be redeemed and "sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory" and the presence of God the Father that those who inherit the celestial kingdom that celestial bodies may possess it.

Edited June 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If at the resurrection we are resurrected with a body which is celestial, terestrial or telestial, how can we just change kingdoms?

Do we change our bodies??

Makes no sense to me.  So I could be in the celestial kingdom in a telestial body??

Nope.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

If there is no progression, how does God plan on getting his children home?  I had always believed that the Line upon Line and knowledge was key to this progression..tha.t is after we had paid a price.

Define home?  There is no progression from one kingdom to the next after the resurrection.  If that was not the case than we would not need to repent.  Just inherit the Telestial Kingdom and then progress out of it to the Celestial.  I think the appeal of this idea that we can progress is one of not really wanting to be held accountable for the decisions we make here.   There may be growth within a kingdom.  Perhaps those in the Telestial can progress to a higher level in the Telestial but any idea that one can move to the next kingdom is based on wishful thinking.  The scriptures not only do not support it but strongly go against it.

[smac97]

On 6/6/2016 at 4:23 PM, Jeanne said:

If there is no progression, how does God plan on getting his children home? 

Eternal Progression is not a compulsory thing.  Only those who choose to progress will do so.

The plan involving the return of all of God's children was presented by . . . the other guy.

Quote

I had always believed that the Line upon Line and knowledge was key to this progression..tha.t is after we had paid a price.

I think this is best answered in 2 Nephi 28:30:

Quote

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

"Line upon line" is very much a gospel precept, but it does not override individual agency.  We are given information in "line upon line," but that really only benefits those who "hearken" unto these precepts, who "lend an ear" and "learn wisdom" and "receiveth" this information. 

Thanks,

-Smac