Lesser Kingdom Families?

[Mark Beesley]

What is the scriptural support for the following quote from the Gospel Fundamentals manual:

"The people who live [in the Terrestrial kingdom] will not be part of an Eternal family but will live separately, without families."

Keep in mind that by the time the Millennium ends, temple work will have been completed for virtually everyone. What scriptures preclude a husband and wife, sealed by proxy in the temple but inheriting a Terrestrial glory, from bearing children who would be adopted by Father in Heaven?

Keep in mind also that the scriptures are not free of word play, particularly D&C 19  in which the Lord explains that eternal punishment describes the source and nature of the punishment, not the duration.

God is a god of love.  He has declared that it is not good for man to be alone. Why would that be any different in lesser kingdoms of glory?

Joseph Smith taught that the same sociality that we enjoy here will exist in the hereafter. Why couldn't lesser glorified parents have children and send them off for a better life and education than they could offer? We do the same thing here on earth.

It would provide an answer for the many questions about why people are born here on earth in such wildly different circumstances.

Frankly, I think we as Latter-day Saints have been far too strict in coloring an eternal world  in terms of exclusion rather than inclusion.

 

[JLHPROF]

Really?  Pretty simple scripturally.

• D&C 131:1 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.

No celestial glory, no eternal increase (posterity)

• D&C 132:15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
  16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
  17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
  18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

No temple sealing, no eternal marriage.

No spouse and no children outside of the Celestial Kingdom.  Seems pretty clear cut.

Quote

Why would that be any different in lesser kingdoms of glory?

Because those in those kingdoms did not abide a law sufficient to receive that blessing.  ALL blessings are connected to a corresponding law.

Now personally, I don't think that this prevents some time in the unending eternities to follow Terrestrial people becoming prepared to receive a Celestial law and gain back this blessing.  But as long as they remain Terrestrial in nature some blessings will be unavoidably denied to them.

 

[bluebell]

The scriptures teach that only those who are exalted will become joint-heirs with Christ, which enables them to inherit all that the Father has.  Perhaps that inheritance is essential to gaining certain blessings, eternal families being one such.

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

"The people who live [in the Terrestrial kingdom] will not be part of an Eternal family but will live separately, without families."

They will not be an eternal family and an exalted couple and cannot have eternal increase and become Gods in the lower kingdom, but I can't see how they would not still know each other there and associate with each other to some degree.

Edited January 20, 2017 by JAHS

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

What is the scriptural support for the following quote from the Gospel Fundamentals manual:

"The people who live [in the Terrestrial kingdom] will not be part of an Eternal family but will live separately, without families."

Keep in mind that by the time the Millennium ends, temple work will have been completed for virtually everyone. What scriptures preclude a husband and wife, sealed by proxy in the temple but inheriting a Terrestrial glory, from bearing children who would be adopted by Father in Heaven?

Keep in mind also that the scriptures are not free of word play, particularly D&C 19  in which the Lord explains that eternal punishment describes the source and nature of the punishment, not the duration.

God is a god of love.  He has declared that it is not good for man to be alone. Why would that be any different in lesser kingdoms of glory?

Joseph Smith taught that the same sociality that we enjoy here will exist in the hereafter. Why couldn't lesser glorified parents have children and send them off for a better life and education than they could offer? We do the same thing here on earth.

It would provide an answer for the many questions about why people are born here on earth in such wildly different circumstances.

Frankly, I think we as Latter-day Saints have been far too strict in coloring an eternal world  in terms of exclusion rather than inclusion.

 

They will have immortality, but not eternal life, which is “God’s life” or life in God’s presence https://www.lds.org/topics/eternal-life?lang=eng

The scriptural support describing this definition of eternal life, is found throughout the canon, but as it relates to family life, in terms of a “fullness” of glory through family sealing (continuation of the seeds), see D&C 132:24. It is conditional upon the various requirements included in that same section.

The phrase “singly and separately” in verse 17 is used to describe those who are saved without exaltation. To me this indicates that while they may enjoy many associations with former earthly family members, they do not live with them (especially those who are in God’s presence) which would be the “fullness” of family life.

Yes, the work will be done for all by the Millennium’s end, and the Atonement is sufficient for all to leave the spirit world as exalted resurrected persons should they choose. According to D&C 131:1-4, they cannot have an increase unless they are exalted, whatever is meant by the two lesser heavens or degrees. It seems that prevents any increase that can be taken away and adopted, or sending an increase off for a better life and education.

A short duration of punishment does not mean a short duration of glory. Once we are quickened, we have taken full advantage of the infinite and eternal sacrifice to the extent we are willing. I believe the Atonement is sufficient for all God's children, regardless of birth circumstances, to obtain a quickening by the celestial glory, through grace, prior to the resurrection. All are invited to come unto Christ. Those who do and are exalted are those who are willing to receive it on the terms outlined in D&C 76, 131 and 132. In this way, God shows His perfect love for us and also His perfect integrity by not taking back the agency He gave us.

Lesser kingdoms of glory are choices that are not a fulness, and are not “good” in an exalted sense. Otherwise the Father would live there too.

[Tacenda]

I hope the missionaries explain this LDS view to prospective converts.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the missionaries explain this LDS view to prospective converts.

As a selling point?  Or a reason not to join?
Not sure I follow you here.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As a selling point?  Or a reason not to join?
Not sure I follow you here.

Because this is a concern for those that can't make it to the temple for one reason or another.

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the missionaries explain this LDS view to prospective converts.

This seems a bit vague,  what LDS view are your referring to?

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

What is the scriptural support for the following quote from the Gospel Fundamentals manual:

"The people who live [in the Terrestrial kingdom] will not be part of an Eternal family but will live separately, without families."

Keep in mind that by the time the Millennium ends, temple work will have been completed for virtually everyone. What scriptures preclude a husband and wife, sealed by proxy in the temple but inheriting a Terrestrial glory, from bearing children who would be adopted by Father in Heaven?

Keep in mind also that the scriptures are not free of word play, particularly D&C 19  in which the Lord explains that eternal punishment describes the source and nature of the punishment, not the duration.

God is a god of love.  He has declared that it is not good for man to be alone. Why would that be any different in lesser kingdoms of glory?

Joseph Smith taught that the same sociality that we enjoy here will exist in the hereafter. Why couldn't lesser glorified parents have children and send them off for a better life and education than they could offer? We do the same thing here on earth.

It would provide an answer for the many questions about why people are born here on earth in such wildly different circumstances.

Frankly, I think we as Latter-day Saints have been far too strict in coloring an eternal world  in terms of exclusion rather than inclusion.

 

I like your question, Mark.

If you were relying on biblical and Book of Mormon scriptures I don't think you would find a justification. There's a disparity between the gospel generosity of eternal families...for a few of God's children, and the concept of continued sociality as we now enjoy. Any degree of glory would be pretty miserable for anyone who is left alone. I'm also curious if there would be some kind of Terrestial Kingdom police making sure loved ones remain separated.

I agree wholeheartedly with your final statement. The gospel teaching about eternal families only appears to be loving and generous for those who qualify when it's really stripping anyone in the other kingdoms of any meaningful relationship for eternity. Kind of sounds like hell to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the missionaries explain this LDS view to prospective converts.

I get what you're saying. A huge selling point for the church is that families "can" be together forever. It sounds very comforting and wonderful. I hope people join knowing it "can" happen but that there is no guarantee that it "will" happen.

I remember teaching a family on my mission I was sure would love the idea of eternal families. The father became very stern and said something to the effect of "are you telling me your religion believes God will separate families?" I hadn't thought of it that way. In fact I didn't think of it again for many years. But he had a point. The principle can either be viewed as God being gracious and loving enough to let some families remain together or it can be viewed as God separating families for eternity.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because this is a concern for those that can't make it to the temple for one reason or another.

That's not a concern.
There is a 1000 year long period to accomplish all temple work.  If they accept the corresponding law, the blessing will be made available to them.
NOBODY misses out on blessings without rejecting them by choice.

[Sky]

Well, if there are no family formations in the lesser kingdoms, I hope there will at least be visitation rights!  Eternity is a long time with no family or friend associations!  That is punishment indeed!

Didn't Joseph Smith once say that if we knew how great the Telestial kingdom was, we'd kill ourselves to get there?  

All three kingdoms are described as kingdoms of glory.  How bad can they be, really?  

Obviously, the Celestial is the only one where the Father and the Son both reside, so that is where we want to be, too!  

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Sky said:

Well, if there are no family formations in the lesser kingdoms, I hope there will at least be visitation rights!  Eternity is a long time with no family or friend associations!  That is punishment indeed!

Didn't Joseph Smith once say that if we knew how great the Telestial kingdom was, we'd kill ourselves to get there?

All three kingdoms are described as kingdoms of glory.  How bad can they be, really?

Obviously, the Celestial is the only one where the Father and the Son both reside, so that is where we want to be, too!

Well, this is all true.
I have no doubt association will be possible.  But that's a long way from a family construct. 
However, this world is Telestial and we have a veil over our memories of our premortal families.  Who is to say a similar veil won't exist in eternity?

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, this is all true.
I have no doubt association will be possible.  But that's a long way from a family construct. 
However, this world is Telestial and we have a veil over our memories of our premortal families.  Who is to say a similar veil won't exist in eternity?

But lets be honest, we really don't know how families will be constructed in the celestial kingdom either. Just husband and wife visiting their mortal offspring? Surely the entire nuclear family won't be together. How could it be?  So if families in the celestial kingdom are still able to visit and associate with each other while not living as a nuclear family, then how can visitations and associations in lower kingdoms prohibit families from interacting and loving, and being a part of each other's eternity?

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get what you're saying. A huge selling point for the church is that families "can" be together forever. It sounds very comforting and wonderful. I hope people join knowing it "can" happen but that there is no guarantee that it "will" happen.

I remember teaching a family on my mission I was sure would love the idea of eternal families. The father became very stern and said something to the effect of "are you telling me your religion believes God will separate families?" I hadn't thought of it that way. In fact I didn't think of it again for many years. But he had a point. The principle can either be viewed as God being gracious and loving enough to let some families remain together or it can be viewed as God separating families for eternity.

Had he never been to a wedding where the officiator said "till death do you part" at the end?  The idea that God separates families at death is fairly common.

Besides that, I don't understand how anyone could be confused by the teachings of the church (of all churches) that we only get certain blessings when we obey God.

The only blessing that God offers that is a 'will' and not a 'can' is resurrection.  Every other blessing is conditional, right?  Why would this blessing be different?  I'm sincerely asking because I honestly don't see the issue.

[Lemuel]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Didn't Joseph Smith once say that if we knew how great the Telestial kingdom was, we'd kill ourselves to get there?  

 

 

Nope, he didn't.  And it's not like you'd go to TelestiaLand immediately, anyway.

[Oliblish]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Had he never been to a wedding where the officiator said "till death do you part" at the end?  The idea that God separates families at death is fairly common.

Besides that, I don't understand how anyone could be confused by the teachings of the church (of all churches) that we only get certain blessings when we obey God.

The only blessing that God offers that is a 'will' and not a 'can' is resurrection.  Every other blessing is conditional, right?  Why would this blessing be different?  I'm sincerely asking because I honestly don't see the issue.

Any married couple can be separated at death whether they are sealed or not.  If one spouse dies and the other lives, they are separated (until the other partner follows in death).  I think that the understanding of most people have when they hear "till death do us part" at a wedding.  I don't think most would understand it to mean that God prevents them from being together in the next life if they so choose.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But lets be honest, we really don't know how families will be constructed in the celestial kingdom either. Just husband and wife visiting their mortal offspring? Surely the entire nuclear family won't be together. How could it be?  So if families in the celestial kingdom are still able to visit and associate with each other while not living as a nuclear family, then how can visitations and associations in lower kingdoms prohibit families from interacting and loving, and being a part of each other's eternity?

 

I think it's a scare tactic to keep LDS people from going off course or from not being sealed in the temple. I wonder what happens to those people that are single but have taken their endowments out. I guess they will be in a lower level in the CK.  And, I believe many other faiths believe they'll be with their loved ones in heaven, their religion doesn't take that belief away.

ETA: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/receive-the-temple-blessings?lang=eng 

"Mother, responding to a prompting, said, “Kenneth, they have been sealed in the temple. They know that their children will be with them in the eternities if they live righteously. But you and I will not have our five sons because we have not made those covenants.”

Edited January 20, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

I believe that God who may put into what one calls "lesser kingdoms"  will see that this does not mean a lesser people.  We will see our love ones..or visit as the case may be..but they are not forgotten nor is there a veil that takes the memory of our mortality..what purpose would that be?  But for those who do not want to increase..nor have those illusive worlds and planets..this will be a reward for living honestly and loving without the thought of such great rewards.  I certainly don't want to create more worlds and children to take on the task that is said to be already mine...but I don't condemn others if they do.  But I don't see punishment in the the realm of separating families..it would take away the very core and reason for any kingdom.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Any married couple can be separated at death whether they are sealed or not.  If one spouse dies and the other lives, they are separated (until the other partner follows in death).  I think that the understanding of most people have when they hear "till death do us part" at a wedding.  I don't think most would understand it to mean that God prevents them from being together in the next life if they so choose.

As far as I know (I've asked quite a few but definitely not all) no Christian denomination teaches that a couple will be married in heaven except for LDS. 

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Any married couple can be separated at death whether they are sealed or not.  If one spouse dies and the other lives, they are separated (until the other partner follows in death).  I think that the understanding of most people have when they hear "till death do us part" at a wedding.  I don't think most would understand it to mean that God prevents them from being together in the next life if they so choose.

Just yesterday, on the 19th anniversary of the death of my husband, I was reminded again of the last stanza of a poem that I had wrote for him as a tribute.

"And after I have walked this earthly time, and my own winter day is done..

I will find you, Shane, in the brightest light, in our Season in the Sun"

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as I know (I've asked quite a few but definitely not all) no Christian denomination teaches that a couple will be married in heaven except for LDS. 

That has largely been my experience too, largely, I suspect, due to the bible teachings about there being no marriage in the next life. But I have met some who could not conceive of why God would separate a family. 

[omni]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

As far as I know (I've asked quite a few but definitely not all) no Christian denomination teaches that a couple will be married in heaven except for LDS. 

This is odd because on my mission our Christian investigators told us all the time that they too believed they would be with their families (as a family) in heaven.  

I'm not sure if this was their church's official doctrine or personal beliefs, but it would be a little wierd for a church to teach you couldn't be with your family in heaven.  

Any traditional Christians here who could enlighten us?

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, omni said:

This is odd because on my mission our Christian investigators told us all the time that they too believed they would be with their families (as a family) in heaven.  

I'm not sure if this was their church's official doctrine or personal beliefs, but it would be a little wierd for a church to teach you couldn't be with your family in heaven.  

Any traditional Christians here who could enlighten us?

John Piper is a traditional Calvinist Christian, and he says the following about marriage:  

1.  That the family of God grows not by propagation through sexual intercourse, but by regeneration through faith in Christ;

2.  That relationships in Christ are more permanent, and more precious, than relationships in families;

3.  That marriage is temporary, and finally gives way to the relationship to which it was pointing all along: Christ and the church — the way a picture is no longer needed when you see face to face;

4.  And that faithfulness to Christ defines the value of life; all other relationships get their final significance from this. No family relationship is ultimate; relationship to Christ is.

And John MacArthur is another traditional Calvinist Christian who agrees:

"Marriage and other business of this life can sometimes intrude on more important matters of eternal concern. Paul writes, “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32–34). So if you can remain single, do. Concentrate on the things of the Lord, because marriage is only a temporary provision."

“If you’re already married, however, this does not mean you should become indifferent to your marriage. Scrip­ture elevates the importance of marriage and commands husbands and wives to seek to honor God through the marriage relationship. This passage simply underscores the temporal nature of marriage. While married couples are heirs together of the grace of this life (1 Peter 3:7), the institution of marriage is passing away. There are higher eternal values.”

Edited January 20, 2017 by Okrahomer