Progress between Kingdoms (a speculative poll)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is progression within each Kingdom so relative position can change, but there will never come a time when a person within one Kingdom can advance/regress to another Kingdom.

He wants to share with everyone,. It is we who choose what we will accept from him. Now isthe time to prepare to meet God. If we decide to not meet his demands there is nothing he will do. It isn't punishment, everyone is given the same opportunity in this life or the next. It is who choose.

Accepting the Atonement is what we are doing. Just depends on how much of that Atonement we want. IE: God offers us a Banana Split Sunday. But we only want just one scoop of ice cream. God isn't going to force us to take the whole Banana Split Sunday.

Just an observation: without progression between the post-resurrection kingdoms, and without the “final state” of the inseparably connected spirit and element, ideas such as Adam-God haven’t legs to stand on. A father of spirits could not regress into a paradisiacal adam (his spirit would not be separated from his celestial body to be reintroduced into a paradisiacal one), nor could a potentially disobedient adam progress back to his exalted sphere after mortal death and subsequent self-resurrection.

But perhaps a more common implication: the “final state” where there is no progress from lower to higher eternal kingdoms of glory accentuates the miracle of the infinite and eternal Atonement that was deemed by Jesus as “finished” while yet in this world. The miracle is offering an eternity of potential within a set period of time (mortality and spirit world). This is truly how time and eternity, heaven and earth, are brought together.

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This!

And I will add, we need to remember the parable of the prodigal son. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+15%3A11-32&version=NI

And not be the sibling that is angry about their brother's/sister's great homecoming or ability to be forgiven and join their family again.

It was and will be a grand homecoming for nearly everyone born on this earth. Even the Prodigal Son welcomed by his loving father. What didn't happen was his getting his brother's inheritance. 

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is progression within each Kingdom so relative position can change, but there will never come a time when a person within one Kingdom can advance/regress to another Kingdom.

The error here is in the idea that a "kingdom" is a fixed unchanging location, like a country or state.
If it were the idea that a frenchman could be prevented from ever crossing the border into Spain might hold some weight.

But have we forgotten what the Celestial Kingdom for us is?  It's THIS earth.
Have we forgotten that the Telestial Kingdom is "as numerous as the stars" and that "there is no space without a kingdom".

Celestial Kingdom
D&C 88:17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth 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 all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
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 may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.

This earth is currently Telestial.  In the Millennial time with the presence of Christ it will be Terrestrial.  After the final judgement it will become Celestial and receive the presence of the Father.

Telestial Kingdom
D&C 88:36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

A Kingdom is a group of people who abide a certain level of law and receive the commensurate blessings (glory).
Abide more law, gain more knowledge, receive more glory.

Edited January 8, 2017 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The error here is in the idea that a "kingdom" is a fixed unchanging location, like a country or state.
If it were the idea that a frenchman could be prevented from ever crossing the border into spain might hold some wait.
***
Abide more law, gain more knowledge, receive more glory.

But a kingdom is fixed, and resurrected people can abide and gain only to the degree they are able:

While these verses in Section 88 might be construed to mean that, once a lesser law is kept the one doing the abiding discovers that same law entails a provision that permits advancement ahead to a higher law, and so on unto perfection (verses 34 and 58), the problem is that one cannot abide any other condition than that which he was quickened into, as these “courses are fixed” (verse 44). “Courses” includes the “fulness” of the various degrees of glory as described in D&C 76, and kingdom-specific "bounds and conditions." Light is shared from higher to lower kingdoms (verse 43) in line with the “ministration” principle from Section 76, and following the same fixed course, bounds and conditions.

It would seem that while this earth becomes the celestial kingdom, other planets become the locale of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms where their respective inhabitants abide, as described in verses 46 to 60. The Lord visits many celestial kingdoms in their turn, no doubt. But the glorification in verse 60 is also according to the degree found in a planet’s fixed course, and God’s majesty is found in any degree of glory.

Without progression between the post-resurrection kingdoms, and without the “final state” of the inseparably connected spirit and element, ideas such as Adam-God haven’t legs to stand on. A father of spirits could not regress into a paradisiacal adam (his spirit would not be separated from his celestial body to be breathed into into a paradisiacal one), nor could a potentially disobedient adam progress back to his exalted sphere after mortal death and subsequent self-resurrection.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So let's start with the low hanging fruit.  Rev Testament wrote:

Quote

I find the presentation here to be unnecessarily confusing. D & C says:

 1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

 4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Those in the terrestrial kingdom cannot have an increase to the celestial. Those in the telestial cannot have an increase to the celestial, and there is nothing to show once one is judged and is in the celestial kingdom, they can progress to become Elohim, etc. These things are only possible in probation (including the spirit worlds) - not while "out of the world/s."

So here is the problem with Section 131. It isn't a revelation. These four verses were taken from William Clayton's personal journal, where he briefly described something said by Joseph Smith to Benjamin F. Johnson and his wife, in their home, on May 16, 1843. It was first published as part of the serialization of Clayton's journal in the Deseret News on September 24, 1856. It was turned into a text for the D&C in 1876 by Orson Pratt - and Orson Pratt is the one who added the material in brackets as an interpretive comment. Part of the challenge we face in this section are that the interpretive comment added by Orson Pratt was intended as a reference to polygamy. This is where the idea was formalized that in the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom (instead of the earlier potential infinite regress of sub-kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom), the highest degree was reserved for those who were polygamous. And understood in this context, the idea of increase is about that polygamy. That is, there is a natural limitation on the size of your kingdom/posterity in the Celestial Kingdom without it. So, when you adopt polygamy, there is no barrier to eternally growing your kingdom. This sort of explanation also makes more sense when we understand how this section was trying to change the doctrinal understanding of the Church at the time (since this idea of three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom was new to the Church).

So, in response to this, we have to clarify hat it means to "have an increase", what the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" refers to in this particular context, and, what is meant by "celestial glory".

This of course assumes a certain interpretation of what Clayton wrote that the Church has generally followed. There are many members (like myself) who believe that this reading is in error. That this should in fact refer to the three degrees of glory (and not to subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom). But, it was a useful way of ending the earlier organization of the Celestial Kingdom, and helping to end the practice of sealings of adoption (a practice which wouldn't be completely abolished until 1894 when we started allowing people to be sealed vicariously to their own dead ancestors).

At any rate, the real problem that we face here is that our doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom and our understanding of its organization are both issues that have changed significantly since the first revelations were given about them. And this makes it something of a challenge when we start dealing with this topic and all of the statements made about it - since any attempt to simply flatten the issue and make all of the statements (and even all of the passages of scripture) of equal value are going to result only in misunderstanding and not enlightenment.

Ben McGuire

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Are we sure there are 3 levels in the Celestial Kingdom? Is that true doctrine?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are we sure there are 3 levels in the Celestial Kingdom? Is that true doctrine?

It's certainly the recognized position of the Church today.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are we sure there are 3 levels in the Celestial Kingdom? Is that true doctrine?

Where “celestial” can mean “heavenly” in general or the specific kingdom from D&C 76, both the celestial-terrestrial-celestial concept and the three levels in one kingdom (and why not more, according to D&C 88?) are functionally true.

As to what is taught in the Institute manual: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-122-131/section-131-keys-to-exaltation?lang=eng

“The Lord has not revealed to the Church who will live in two of the three degrees in the celestial kingdom. Any discussion on this topic is speculation. More has been revealed about the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, or exaltation. That is where the Father would have all of His children live if they keep His commandments. In Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–70 the Lord outlines the requirements to obtain the highest degree in the celestial kingdom.”

The increase part pertains to offspring: “Those who comply with the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and endure to the end gain the right to become eternal parents. The Prophet Joseph Smith, as he spoke verses 1–4 to William Clayton, stated: “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” (History of the Church, 5:391; see also Smith, Teachings, pp. 300–301.)”

Edited January 8, 2017 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are we sure there are 3 levels in the Celestial Kingdom? Is that true doctrine?

Joseph Smith referred to seven heavens.

Paul ascended into the third heavens, and he could understand the three principal rounds of Jacob's ladder-the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms, where Paul saw and heard things which were not lawful for him to utter.'  But, he explained, 'Paul has seen the third heavens, and I more.'  On another occasion he said of himself, 'I know one who was caught up to the seventh heaven and saw and heard things not lawful for me to utter.'  (Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and the Seer [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1960], 112)

"there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom." (D&C 88:37) 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 1/7/2017 at 3:36 PM, thesometimesaint said:

If Eternal Progression is real. Then by the time they have learned enough to be in the next higher Kingdom. The one's already in that higher Kingdom have moved on. it is like moving into a house where the previous residents are no longer there.

 

On 1/7/2017 at 3:41 PM, Calm said:

There is nothing to indicate that people will all learn at the same speed and level and thus always stay in the same relative position to those who took the step before them.   Perhaps like in mortality, people can catch up by putting their heart and mind more fully into the work...and who knows,if the Atonement can reset us spiritually in terms of past sins, perhaps it or something like it can connect with us when we are ready to provide a flow of knowledge and wisdom that essentially puts us truly as one with God and not as someone who is just always barely keeping up the pace, getting glimpses of God as he passes over the next hill.

Part of the challenge for me is that I think that we have altogether too much of a temporal mind set when we get to this part of the discussion. We want to ground all of these ideas in concepts that we are familiar with. And on top of this, we want to make our mortality as sort of the basis for the future, when in fact it seems to me that in mortality we look at virtually none of our existence (if we assume an eternal existence extending backward as well as forward). So, most of what we have to say about this idea of the speed of progression, or placing progression on some sort of scale, seems to me to have little value. After all, we could suggest that if the same sorts of principles we understand today were involved, we could use time dilation to become an equalizer of sorts - where those who are more advanced simply have more motion, providing more time (relatively speaking) to those who are not so far along.

Rather, I think, these things simply won't fit the understandings that we have today. And, more than likely, all that we have (whether its speculation or revelation) isn't really some sort of perfect knowledge, but rather is given to us according to our knowledge and understanding so that we can move towards something better. And this is why there are fewer doctrines of the Church that have changed more, or evolved more than has our notion of the Celestial Kigndom.

Ben McGuire

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are we sure there are 3 levels in the Celestial Kingdom? Is that true doctrine?

Potentially, they are:

Elohim

YHWH

El Elyon,

 but this is not a revealed "statement"

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is a race. Not between us and God, but a race with ourselves. Some will say to themselves this is good enough I don't want any more. Some will want more, but not the fullness. Some will want the fullness. God is just honoring our wishes. 

   In a way that is how, the bolded part. I feel. What I mean to say is that I have no desire to be a God. I personally would as lief be a hermit, a recluse. In this life, a hermit or recluse does no harm, but yet does no good for humanity. And my belief is that it is what we do for others that will tip the scales one way or another after we have received all of our ordinances.

   I do have a great desire to be with my wife for eternity and if I do make it to the Celestial Kingdom it will be by holding on to her apron strings, skirts, or whatever she is wearing. What I do also want is to do what God wants me too. To be what He wants me to be. Whatever comes with the territory I will accept because I believe that whatever He has in mind for me is something that is beyond my wildest dreams. I confess that I do not have wild dreams in any event.

   I personally do not believe that there will be progression between Kingdoms. I do not see the scriptural support for it, but in a nod to Tacenda's mention of the Prodigal Son, I would have no problem with it if it were to be so.

 

Glenn

[cdowis]

Someone has probably already mentioned this, but I think there is a inseparable barrier between those who reside in the telestial and the abildity to aend to the celestial kingdom -- "Where I am, they cannot come."

Those in the Terrestial Kingdom will never be able to ascend to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, they will be as guardian angels, because in the resurrection they will not receive the power to reproduce.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Someone has probably already mentioned this, but I think there is a inseparable barrier between those who reside in the telestial and the abildity to aend to the celestial kingdom -- "Where I am, they cannot come."

Those in the Terrestial Kingdom will never be able to ascend to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, they will be as guardian angels, because in the resurrection they will not receive the power to reproduce.

Except that is only one interpretation of that verse.
The alternative is that they will never be able to be with Heavenly Father.
Not that they can never enter a Celestial Kingdom.

Remember, the Celestial Kingdom is this earth.  The Father resides in a different location.
I quote again:

D&C 88:17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth 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 all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
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 may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except that is only one interpretation of that verse.
The alternative is that they will never be able to be with Heavenly Father.
Not that they can never enter a Celestial Kingdom.

Remember, the Celestial Kingdom is this earth.  The Father resides in a different location.
I quote again:

D&C 88:17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth 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 all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
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 may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.

Doesn't verse 19 negate "Not that they can never enter a Celestial Kingdom?" If a Celestial Kingdom is one that is "even with the presence of God the Father," then the verse Cdowis quoted would preclude them from ever attaining a Celestial Kingdom.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Doesn't verse 19 negate "Not that they can never enter a Celestial Kingdom?" If a Celestial Kingdom is one that is "even with the presence of God the Father," then the verse Cdowis quoted would preclude them from ever attaining a Celestial Kingdom.

Glenn

This is based on the assumption that God never progresses beyond a Celestial kingdom.
In fact, "Where I am, they cannot come" shows eternal progression perfectly.

If we are going on the assumption of finite spheres, with no transition between and no progression beyond we are left in the following situation:
Here is the all the information and knowledge that can ever exist in a finite Celestial Kingdom, based on the idea that there is nothing beyond it

If eternity is without end/infinite and the Celestial Kingdom has finite bounds (or the Terrestrial, or the Telestial), then it is impossible not to eventually have read this book and infinite number of times.  In short, how can you have a finite kingdom and knowledge (where there is nothing knew for God to learn nor for us either eventually) AND infinite existence.

Pure hell.
 

 

[cdowis]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except that is only one interpretation of that verse.

I forget where I read this, but it was a very authoritative source.

The alternative is that they will never be able to be with Heavenly Father.
Not that they can never enter a Celestial Kingdom.

Huh?

Remember, the Celestial Kingdom is this earth. 

I have an excellent memory of such things.

The Father resides in a different location.

I do not remember that, so I will assume that you are mistaken.
I quote again:

D&C 88:17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth 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 all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;

I remember that
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;

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

OK, now what?  So far I can still continue to assume that your statement is not scriptural.  Perhaps you left out a verse or sentence somewhere.

Sorry.

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Part of the challenge for me is that I think that we have altogether too much of a temporal mind set when we get to this part of the discussion. We want to ground all of these ideas in concepts that we are familiar with. And on top of this, we want to make our mortality as sort of the basis for the future, when in fact it seems to me that in mortality we look at virtually none of our existence (if we assume an eternal existence extending backward as well as forward). So, most of what we have to say about this idea of the speed of progression, or placing progression on some sort of scale, seems to me to have little value. After all, we could suggest that if the same sorts of principles we understand today were involved, we could use time dilation to become an equalizer of sorts - where those who are more advanced simply have more motion, providing more time (relatively speaking) to those who are not so far along.

Rather, I think, these things simply won't fit the understandings that we have today. And, more than likely, all that we have (whether its speculation or revelation) isn't really some sort of perfect knowledge, but rather is given to us according to our knowledge and understanding so that we can move towards something better. And this is why there are fewer doctrines of the Church that have changed more, or evolved more than has our notion of the Celestial Kigndom.

Ben McGuire

Yes, there may be challenges. Yet the constant (and which seems to be a kernel of truth in other scriptures) in the cannon, whether this quatrain from D&C 131 is revelation or doctrine, compromised or pure, about 3 degrees of kingdoms of 3 degrees within one kingdom is: there is no progression between them.

Edited January 9, 2017 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

CV75:

The reality is that your reading clearly disagrees with a the readings of many other general authorities. And that, I think, is the clearest indicator that this is not a settled doctrinal issue for the Church. And I certainly feel in good company when I disagree with you. More to the point, Joseph Smith had a lot to say in 1843 and 1844 that is now formally rejected by the Church. Included in this is a great deal about the Celestial Kingdom - including his idea that those who die never change - that there are a host of tiny thrones in the Celestial Kingdom on which sit infants who died in their infancy - and they never change from that infancy for eternity. This idea (that Joseph taught) was part of the basis for the idea that there could be no change after our mortality. But clearly we have rejected this idea, we allow them to grow up, to be married, and so on. And certainly the sealing policies that Joseph Smith set up - to create the connective tissue in the Celestial Kingdom through adoption, has been rejected by the Church for well over a century. The entire connective tissue built in this way was largely dismantled after that change was made, replaced by something that was not only better for us (as we came to understand the purpose of our work for the dead), but something that also didn't create a hierarchical structure in the Celestial Kingdom where who you were sealed to was far more important to your place in that kingdom than any consideration for your own willingness to subject yourself to the will of God.

So we will have to simply agree to disagree. I think, to quote one of the most vocal proponents of the idea that there is no eternal progression between kingdoms, Elder McConkie once said, of another topic (that he was very vocal about): "As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them." Our greatest concerns with these questions remains in all of the cracks that are typical of doctrines that have this kind of history and are poorly defined or explained. We have the clear teachings that it is the sealing power that ties us to the Celestial Kingdom (us, our spouses, our children). From another journal entry made by William Clayton about something Joseph Smith said: "When a seal is put upon the father and mother it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father." And then we have all of those who die as infants (a particular problem where Joseph Fielding Smith had to effectively invent sources to contradict what Joseph Smith taught in the KFD so that they would agree with his theology). And then we go even further to the other discussions this spawned - the questions about when life begins (Brigham Young believed it was before birth, but quite some time after conception - so what do we do there with the resurrection then? Are there even smaller thrones?).

No matter how we look at this, our doctrinal position is clearly incomplete. Our theology of the Celestial Kingdom has evolved, and contains some things that are new, and some things that are remnants of past belief - things which can be understood by looking backwards into the past, but have little context in today's teachings. These kinds of issues are what help create change in our doctrine - and point to a need for change. And, as I noted pretty early on, I think that individuals who believe this idea of permanent barriers (like yourself) also have a distinct set of views about God, and that these views tend to flow from those hidden assumptions as much as anything else.

At any rate, feel free to have the last word. I probably will not respond again on this topic.

Ben McGuire

[rodheadlee]

On 1/7/2017 at 11:43 PM, Tacenda said:

No offence, but after reading only two pages, I was a little upset at this thought process. I must not really be much of a LDS anymore. I'm so far removed from this belief of these kingdoms and loved ones separated.

Did you read the whole story? I thought it had a great ending, probably not doctrinal though.

[Gray]

On 1/6/2017 at 4:49 PM, pogi said:

It is suggested that most Mormons believe in the absolute foreknowledge of God.  In that context, it does make sense. 

However, if one's actions can ever be improved upon, is there ever a time to decide with finality?  

To take this even further - to say that a persons actions can be ever improved upon, is not to say that they will be ever improved upon.

Any judgement of finality suggests that the Lord must have the foreknowledge to know if the individual will improve over time or not. Else final judgement would not be perfectly just and merciful.  

Something to think about.

Hmm, sounds like Calvinism. 

In any case, if the possibility for improvement exists, then it will inevitably happen. That's a given assuming we exist eternally, right?

Edited January 9, 2017 by Gray

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Hmm, sounds like Calvinism. 

Here is the difference:

Quote

Consequently divine foreknowledge, however it is finally defined, is not predestination. What God foresees is not, for that reason, divinely caused, even though it is in some sense known (Talmage, p. 317). Divine foreknowledge is the background of foreordination. But, again, foreordination is not pre-causation. Rather, "foreordination is a conditional bestowal of a role, a responsibility, or a blessing which, likewise, foresees but does not fix the outcome" (Maxwell, p. 71). http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Foreknowledge_of_God

 

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

In any case, if the possibility for improvement exists, then it will inevitably happen. That's a given assuming we exist eternally, right?

Without subjecting ourselves to improvement, the possibility does not exist.  If the after-life is anything like earth life, there will be those who become stagnant, or even regress.  People limit their own potential for whatever reason.    

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is the difference:

Fair enough. Of course given the absolute foreknowledge of God, we could just skip the trial period altogether, right?  Half joking. 

 

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Without subjecting ourselves to improvement, the possibility does not exist.  If the after-life is anything like earth life, there will be those who become stagnant, or even regress.  People limit their own potential for whatever reason.    

I was making a mathematical argument. Any probability, no matter how remote, becomes a certainty given an infinite amount of time. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Fair enough. Of course given the absolute foreknowledge of God, we could just skip the trial period altogether, right?  Half joking. 

Right, but I think this period is more for our growth than anything else.  We are forged and purged in the fiery furnace of life. It would be like giving a newborn infant the position of head surgeon of a hospital because we have foreknowledge that he will someday become so.  

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I was making a mathematical argument. Any probability, no matter how remote, becomes a certainty given an infinite amount of time. 

Without knowing all of the variables in the equation of eternity, we can't decide eternal probabilities.  God does know all of the variables in the equation of eternity and therefore can decide such probabilities, which is why he is the judge. Perhaps there are unknown variables which eliminate any probability beyond a certain point.  Otherwise you are right, and any final judgement would not be perfectly just and merciful if any probability existed. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

CV75:

The reality is that your reading clearly disagrees with a the readings of many other general authorities. And that, I think, is the clearest indicator that this is not a settled doctrinal issue for the Church. And I certainly feel in good company when I disagree with you. More to the point, Joseph Smith had a lot to say in 1843 and 1844 that is now formally rejected by the Church. Included in this is a great deal about the Celestial Kingdom - including his idea that those who die never change - that there are a host of tiny thrones in the Celestial Kingdom on which sit infants who died in their infancy - and they never change from that infancy for eternity. This idea (that Joseph taught) was part of the basis for the idea that there could be no change after our mortality. But clearly we have rejected this idea, we allow them to grow up, to be married, and so on. And certainly the sealing policies that Joseph Smith set up - to create the connective tissue in the Celestial Kingdom through adoption, has been rejected by the Church for well over a century. The entire connective tissue built in this way was largely dismantled after that change was made, replaced by something that was not only better for us (as we came to understand the purpose of our work for the dead), but something that also didn't create a hierarchical structure in the Celestial Kingdom where who you were sealed to was far more important to your place in that kingdom than any consideration for your own willingness to subject yourself to the will of God.

So we will have to simply agree to disagree. I think, to quote one of the most vocal proponents of the idea that there is no eternal progression between kingdoms, Elder McConkie once said, of another topic (that he was very vocal about): "As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them." Our greatest concerns with these questions remains in all of the cracks that are typical of doctrines that have this kind of history and are poorly defined or explained. We have the clear teachings that it is the sealing power that ties us to the Celestial Kingdom (us, our spouses, our children). From another journal entry made by William Clayton about something Joseph Smith said: "When a seal is put upon the father and mother it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father." And then we have all of those who die as infants (a particular problem where Joseph Fielding Smith had to effectively invent sources to contradict what Joseph Smith taught in the KFD so that they would agree with his theology). And then we go even further to the other discussions this spawned - the questions about when life begins (Brigham Young believed it was before birth, but quite some time after conception - so what do we do there with the resurrection then? Are there even smaller thrones?).

No matter how we look at this, our doctrinal position is clearly incomplete. Our theology of the Celestial Kingdom has evolved, and contains some things that are new, and some things that are remnants of past belief - things which can be understood by looking backwards into the past, but have little context in today's teachings. These kinds of issues are what help create change in our doctrine - and point to a need for change. And, as I noted pretty early on, I think that individuals who believe this idea of permanent barriers (like yourself) also have a distinct set of views about God, and that these views tend to flow from those hidden assumptions as much as anything else.

Of course it isn’t settled – this whole thread is based on the premise that we are speculating. Any “disagreement” is in that vein.

I read D&C 131 in multiple ways, as much of canon can be. Which version disagrees with many other general authorities and you? (It would be helpful to reply to my post in question—thank you)

Up here Posted 18 hours ago I quoted an institute manual on the subject and comment on just two ways of looking at it.

In some ways the infants, as any of us, do not change. And of course practices and policies may change; some doctrines may be said to change or evolve; the fundamental doctrines (“principles of our religion”) do not.

Changes in sealing policies happen(ed) – the constant is that connective tissue for resurrection and life in the Celestial Kingdom is established on earth. If one believes the policy design is but a function of the times and cultures we live in, then the connective tissue (however it is to be manifest in the last day in common for all God’s children), is still authoritatively established by keys prior to the resurrection. Are we not all eventually “sealed together” in some fashion?

A crack you didn’t mention was the one where saints resurrected before the Millennium do with a telestrial glory (because that is the earth’s glory), and then in the Millennium they are advanced to a terrestrial magnitude (because the earth has a paradisiacal glory, and for the same reason those resurrected in the Millennium do so with a terrestrial glory), and once the earth is given its celestial glory everyone raised up (by that time all the spirit world would have gone left or right) will become celestial beings, except the sons of perdition, giving us a true heaven and hell! The idea is that the earth progresses in glory as a type for us (but alas, there is still no progression out of hell)

I think there have been discussions about the other cracks you mentioned, but usually not introduced as this one was up front, for the purpose of speculating. I say anything goes except speculation about the offending prophets’ intentions

How is it you take my view of God to be “distinctive,” by which you said is that of  “a strict disciplinarian,” which I do not, as I explained in my response to you here? Posted Saturday at 02:36 PM Here we have someone who sees God is a nurturing parent: bringing us along in this life and the spirit world, wisely and respectfully accommodating our agency, and ministering to us whatever we need to continue life in the hereafter, following a plan (including a requisite timeline in opposition to eternity) that took each spirit child’s needs into consideration from the beginning.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At any rate, feel free to have the last word. I probably will not respond again on this topic.

Does that mean you're not paying attention to what I just wrote, and that you actually had the last word?