Degrees Within the Celestial Kingdom

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recall reading (but I can't remember where) that fundamentalists teach that various degrees within the CK will be achieved based on the number of plural wives a man has and that exaltation is reserved specifically for men with 7 or more wives.

I'm wondering what value the idea of 3 degrees within the CK holds if no one knows anything about it.

Did Swedenborg write about the degrees within the Celestial  kingdom?  I remember reading that Joseph may have been influenced by his writings which are pretty close to what we believe regarding some details.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts here regarding this (influences including Swedenborg's). Do some believe he was inspired to know about the kingdoms?

Here's something on this that I found interesting:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76

Quote from it:

At this point, one might ask, if the notion of heavenly “degrees of glory” was not uncommon in Joseph Smith’s day, why focus so much on the question of Swedenborg’s influence? [8] Two responses seem relevant. First, the Prophet apparently mentioned Swedenborg by name during an 1839 conversation with Edward Hunter, a student of Swedenborg-ianism who later became a Latter-day Saint. Hunter had established a seminary dedicated to the free exchange of religious ideas, and when Joseph Smith stopped at this Nantmeal Seminary in Pennsylvania during a return trip from Washington DC, Hunter reported this exchange: “I asked him if he was acquainted with the Sweadenburgers. His answer I verially believe. ‘Emanuel Sweadenburg had a view of the world to come but for daily food he perished.’” [9] If accurately remembered, this remark generates a whole range of questions.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by JulieM

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 

One is single men and one is single women?

One was baptized and kept the covenant and the other received their endowment and kept it?

Some distinction that would make no sense if it were explained to us?

Who knows?

 

One is for Republicans; the other for Democrats.  Each will believe that they have attained the middle degree of the celestial kingdom, while the other guys were assigned to the lowest. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Either that or we don't need to know it yet. What good would knowledge of that do us right now? Our goal is the highest level of the Celestial kingdom.

What good is that knowledge? About as worthwhile as knowing about Telestial and Terrestrial, I guess. If we don't need to know about division in the CK, why mention it at all?

Quote

Darren- Or ready? Or God doesn't care? Or that we'll misuse the knowledge? Or what we have is complete on the topic until a set time comes to reveal more?

Who knows?

 You're right. We have no idea. We don't know how complete or incomplete our understanding is. We have a couple of pieces to a 500 piece puzzle. Without the rest of the pieces, what good are the 10 (or however many) pieces we have? Wouldn't small pieces of a larger picture likely confuse our understanding? Wouldn't we focus totally on those few pieces we have and extrapolate meaning that could be totally incorrect? I guess I don't see the value in that kind of approach to God teaching his children. It's like saying the answer to everything is 42 without and explanation about what that means.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Did Swedenborg write about the degrees within the Celestial  kingdom?  I remember reading that Joseph may have been influenced by his writings which are pretty close to what we believe regarding some details.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts here regarding this (influences including Swedenborg's). Do some believe he was inspired to know about the kingdoms?

Here's something on this that I found interesting:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76

Quote from it:

At this point, one might ask, if the notion of heavenly “degrees of glory” was not uncommon in Joseph Smith’s day, why focus so much on the question of Swedenborg’s influence? [8] Two responses seem relevant. First, the Prophet apparently mentioned Swedenborg by name during an 1839 conversation with Edward Hunter, a student of Swedenborg-ianism who later became a Latter-day Saint. Hunter had established a seminary dedicated to the free exchange of religious ideas, and when Joseph Smith stopped at this Nantmeal Seminary in Pennsylvania during a return trip from Washington DC, Hunter reported this exchange: “I asked him if he was acquainted with the Sweadenburgers. His answer I verially believe. ‘Emanuel Sweadenburg had a view of the world to come but for daily food he perished.’” [9] If accurately remembered, this remark generates a whole range of questions.

 

 

If I remember correctly Swedenborg taught about degrees of glory but not degrees within the degrees.

Here is some info from FAIR. http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Three_degrees_of_glory/Swedenborg

ETA- I don't agree with FAIR's treatment of this but that would be for a different thread but I'll just mention the three arguments against Joseph borrowing from Swedenborg.

Quote

1. a common source for both Swedenborg and Joseph
2. no early charge that Joseph had borrowed from Swedenborg
3. the "similarities" are superficial, while there are many deep differences.

1- Basically argues that Swedenborg wasn't original in the idea of 3 heavens. But just because it isn't original doesn't mean Joseph didn't borrow or learn from Swedenborg. And just because he may have borrowed from Swedenborg doesn't mean he didn't also borrow or learn from the Bible or other sources as well. No one is claiming Joseph borrowed exclusively from Swedenborg or that he copied him exactly.

2- This argument states that because Joseph's contemporaries also knew the writings of Swedenborg, the lack of comparison at the time proves they didn't see a similarity. This is a fallacy as well. B cannot notice a similarity because A didn't notice it first. Sketchy argument.

3- "Superficial" arguments like 3 heavens. Is that really superficial? It seems superficial like the difference between 1 being or 2 beings appearing to Joseph in the first vision.

Edited March 30, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Either that or we don't need to know it yet. What good would knowledge of that do us right now? Our goal is the highest level of the Celestial kingdom.

What good is that knowledge? About as worthwhile as knowing about Telestial and Terrestrial, I guess. If we don't need to know about division in the CK, why mention it at all?

Because it is an incentive for us to strive to do all we can and be what we need to be in order to obtain that highest level of the kingdom. We do need know what our final goal is and what might happen to us if we don't do what is required to meet that goal in this life. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Because it is an incentive for us to strive to do all we can and be what we need to be in order to obtain that highest level of the kingdom. We do need know what our final goal is and what might happen to us if we don't do what is required to meet that goal in this life. 

Yeah. It's even more important than a college education in determining what we are going to be when we grow up.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I remember correctly Swedenborg taught about degrees of glory but not degrees within the degrees.

That makes me think of:

• Paul saw the third heavens, and I more....
  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. I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them.

AND

• "I know one who was caught up to the seventh heaven and saw and heard things not lawful for me to utter."

[Darren10]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What good is that knowledge? About as worthwhile as knowing about Telestial and Terrestrial, I guess. If we don't need to know about division in the CK, why mention it at all?

 You're right. We have no idea. We don't know how complete or incomplete our understanding is. We have a couple of pieces to a 500 piece puzzle. Without the rest of the pieces, what good are the 10 (or however many) pieces we have? Wouldn't small pieces of a larger picture likely confuse our understanding? Wouldn't we focus totally on those few pieces we have and extrapolate meaning that could be totally incorrect? I guess I don't see the value in that kind of approach to God teaching his children. It's like saying the answer to everything is 42 without and explanation about what that means.

"We have a couple of pieces to a 500 piece puzzle. Without the rest of the pieces, what good are the 10 (or however many) pieces we have?" - Those ten point directly to where we need to go by what we need to do. More pieces as needed to enhance what we need to do.

You seem to focus on specific details of things that really are not important. If god wants us all exalted and you want to be exalted, why so caught up on how much we know regarding anything less than exaltation? Why do you need to know so bad if there is progression of glory between lower than exalted states of existence when the way to exaltation has been provided directly to you in clear instruction? Not that you shouldn't wonder about such things but if it leads you to doubt the Church's overall doctrine, ergo, the ultimate vision of the puzzle, why insist you get more knowledge/pieces when doing so will likely be a reason for you to doubt more?

 

[Darren10]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Because it is an incentive for us to strive to do all we can and be what we need to be in order to obtain that highest level of the kingdom. We do need know what our final goal is and what might happen to us if we don't do what is required to meet that goal in this life. 

Good answer. And speaking for myself I think if I knew how great the lower kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom would be, or if I can indeed keep progressing in glory after entering into one of those kingdom levels until I reach exaltation, I would be tempted to settle for those instead of what God want, which is the highest kingdom and nothing less. *Perhaps* one reason we don't have more knowledge regarding the lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Darren10

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"We have a couple of pieces to a 500 piece puzzle. Without the rest of the pieces, what good are the 10 (or however many) pieces we have?" - Those ten point directly to where we need to go by what we need to do. More pieces as needed to enhance what we need to do.

You seem to focus on specific details of things that really are not important. If god wants us all exalted and you want to be exalted, why so caught up on how much we know regarding anything less than exaltation? Why do you need to know so bad if there is progression of glory between lower than exalted states of existence when the way to exaltation has been provided directly to you in clear instruction? Not that you shouldn't wonder about such things but if it leads you to doubt the Church's overall doctrine, ergo, the ultimate vision of the puzzle, why insist you get more knowledge/pieces when doing so will likely be a reason for you to doubt more?

 

Because I'm not convinced we have an accurate understanding of things in the church.

I challenge you to try the puzzle experiment. Have someone provide you 5-10 pieces of a large puzzle which you've never seen and isn't easily recognizable to you. Take those 5-10 pieces and see how accurate your understanding is of the big picture. You might get lucky and nail it perfectly...but I doubt it. More likely you will make assumptions to the best of your ability. This is natural, even if not very accurate. Now imagine that you have the responsibility to teach everyone else about the big picture based on those pieces. Will you be confident or will you be humble in your claims of understanding?

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Good answer. And speaking for myself I think if I knew how great the lower kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom would be, or if I can indeed keep progressing in glory after entering into one of those kingdom levels until I reach exaltation, I would be tempted to settle for those instead of what God want, which is the highest kingdom and nothing less. *Perhaps* one reason we don't have more knowledge regarding the lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom.

This is an interesting idea. Does God really want us all to have the highest degree in the highest kingdom and nothing else? Or does he recognize that as different beings some of us will be happier with different levels of glory? Or maybe it will take some people more time to adjust and prepare for higher degrees which makes me think God wants us to seek and achieve what will make us the most happy eternally. That may not be exactly the same thing for everyone. Just a thought.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What good is that knowledge? About as worthwhile as knowing about Telestial and Terrestrial, I guess. If we don't need to know about division in the CK, why mention it at all?

To dispel the false sectarian idea of heaven vs hell with a razor's edge dividing it.  Look how many problems that doctrine has brought during its passage through medieval times.
 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Those that don't want it get exactly what they want. IE; If someone really doesn't want to be with you. Why would you want to force them to be with you?

'cause they're my kids, and they'll have to get over it.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Good answer. And speaking for myself I think if I knew how great the lower kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom would be, or if I can indeed keep progressing in glory after entering into one of those kingdom levels until I reach exaltation, I would be tempted to settle for those instead of what God want, which is the highest kingdom and nothing less. *Perhaps* one reason we don't have more knowledge regarding the lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom.

Interesting admission from you, there.

In another thread I talk a bit about how eternal life is the kind of life our Father has and is also the best life possible for all of us. And in the Church we focus on teaching how to attain that kind of life while describing what that kind of life involves.

It might still be kind of interesting to know how other people will live an inferior life and why they wouldn't want the best life that is possible, though.  Not because we might be tempted to live an inferior life but to find out why an inferior life would be appealing to someone.

We know inferior lives aren't all bad, with some good things about most of them, they're just not the best kind of life we can possibly have.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To dispel the false sectarian idea of heaven vs hell with a razor's edge dividing it.  Look how many problems that doctrine has brought during its passage through medieval times.
 

Fair point.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is an interesting idea. Does God really want us all to have the highest degree in the highest kingdom and nothing else? Or does he recognize that as different beings some of us will be happier with different levels of glory? Or maybe it will take some people more time to adjust and prepare for higher degrees which makes me think God wants us to seek and achieve what will make us the most happy eternally. That may not be exactly the same thing for everyone. Just a thought.

We all have our agency to choose to live our lives how we want and believe what we want, but Yes God really does want us in the highest kingdom with him and apparently in the premortal life we all agreed we we wanted to come to earth and work out our salvation with that goal in mind, to be with Him again. Having said that, there are people who would be happy and better suited for the lower kingdoms. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Did Swedenborg write about the degrees within the Celestial  kingdom?  I remember reading that Joseph may have been influenced by his writings which are pretty close to what we believe regarding some details.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts here regarding this (influences including Swedenborg's). Do some believe he was inspired to know about the kingdoms?

Here's something on this that I found interesting:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76

Quote from it:

At this point, one might ask, if the notion of heavenly “degrees of glory” was not uncommon in Joseph Smith’s day, why focus so much on the question of Swedenborg’s influence? [8] Two responses seem relevant. First, the Prophet apparently mentioned Swedenborg by name during an 1839 conversation with Edward Hunter, a student of Swedenborg-ianism who later became a Latter-day Saint. Hunter had established a seminary dedicated to the free exchange of religious ideas, and when Joseph Smith stopped at this Nantmeal Seminary in Pennsylvania during a return trip from Washington DC, Hunter reported this exchange: “I asked him if he was acquainted with the Sweadenburgers. His answer I verially believe. ‘Emanuel Sweadenburg had a view of the world to come but for daily food he perished.’” [9] If accurately remembered, this remark generates a whole range of questions.

 

 

My mother was of the firm opinion Swedenborg had received his own vision.  It has been too long since I read him (my teens) for me to declare an opinion, but I believe there were many receiving true visions at the time which they interpreted with greater or lesser success and I don't see why he couldn't be one of them.  I don't believe Joseph received a vision simply because he went and asked.  I think it was a time many were asking and ready and preparing.  And it opened the windows of heaven with the sun shining brightest on Joseph Smith for his time.  But he wasn't the only conduit.  Many others received inspiration to help them do what they needed to do.  Joseph Smith stood on others' shoulders to see to greater heights.  Hopefully some of us at least are trying to do the same (without going astray through pride or looking past the mark).

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

One is for Republicans; the other for Democrats.  Each will believe that they have attained the middle degree of the celestial kingdom, while the other guys were assigned to the lowest. 

And if given the choice between having everyone in the highest degree of glory or one in the middle with their opponents in the lowest, they would choose being in the middle.

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I challenge you to try the puzzle experiment. Have someone provide you 5-10 pieces of a large puzzle which you've never seen and isn't easily recognizable to you. Take those 5-10 pieces and see how accurate your understanding is of the big picture. You might get lucky and nail it perfectly...but I doubt it. More likely you will make assumptions to the best of your ability. This is natural, even if not very accurate. Now imagine that you have the responsibility to teach everyone else about the big picture based on those pieces. Will you be confident or will you be humble in your claims of understanding?

This is a really good thought experiment to illustrate "seeing through a glass darkly." 

It isn't just the Church or doctrine. Think of all of the scientific or historical facts we think we fully grasp, with all of their implications, and how things really are. 

When I taught science, I had an activity where I gave students prepared sealed packages made of toilet paper tubes, with tiny objects of varying density, materials, and shapes (e.g., tiny rubber pellets, jacks, marbles, BBs, lead pellets, paper clips, etc.). By shaking, listening, rolling, etc., they were supposed to draw the number, size, shape, and composition of the objects in the tube. I compared this to the tests we do with instruments to determine, as best we can, the structure of the atom and subatomic particles. Just as we don't get to check a master answer key in science, I didn't tell them at the end what the objects really were (this really frustrated some students, who wanted to know what they were!). I had them brainstorm other tests we could do, without opening the tubes, if we had infinite resources (some ideas were X-rays, using magnetism, ultrasound, etc.). 

We now are up to what, over 200 "elementary particles" in quantum physics? How elementary can these particles be if there are hundreds of different types? I think, like some theoretical physicists, that quantum mechanics is good as far as it goes, but that it isn't close to the final and definitive answer for "how things work" and what things are like at the elementary level. I lean now more towards hyperspace theory, where the geometry of the higher dimensional universe (up to 26 dimensions; we can only perceive 3 spatial and one time dimension) explains forces and phenomena --- not strings or increasingly bizarre posited quantum particles. The unified field theory Einstein tried to discover, where the complicated equations for light, gravity, electromagnetic waves, and the strong/weak nuclear forces are explained by one simple equation --- unite in 10 and 26 dimensional math. 

At any rate, I think the best we can do scientifically now is also akin to your thought experiment with the puzzle.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

And if given the choice between having everyone in the highest degree of glory or one in the middle with their opponents in the lowest, they would choose being in the middle.

Is that the "swing kingdom" (like the handful of "swing states")?  

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I thought those two areas were reserved for those who were pretty faithful but never got married.  They become eternal servants to those who make it higher.  I'd probably rather end up in Terrestrial or Telestial. 

They are wonderful levels of eternal glory.  However, being an angel ministering to a god doesn't seem so shabby either. I fully expect that such angels take full part in the creation of worlds, and other complex actions.  The word "angel" means "messenger" and seems like an interesting job in a huge universe (multiverse).  None of us will ever get bored, except the Sons of Perdition.

[VideoGameJunkie]

1st level baptized and receive Holy Ghost. Middle level initiatories and temple endowment but not married. Top level and worthy of exaltation sealed to spouse in temple.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What good is that knowledge? About as worthwhile as knowing about Telestial and Terrestrial, I guess. If we don't need to know about division in the CK, why mention it at all?

Any particle of knowledge is good because with some desire and effort it induces faith, which induces more knowledge and so forth (Alma 32). It is importnt to recognize that knowledge is as much about what we become as what we keep in our memory banks, and is only one item on the long list of godly attributes.

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because I'm not convinced we have an accurate understanding of things in the church.

But as a Church we understand more “now” than we did “then,” and individually and collectively we recognize the principle of line upon line / precept upon precept, and also the promise that “the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.” I suppose a contributor to realizing that is how we react to the information we do have, which is a function of the “fundamental principles of our religion” and the keys.

I think the terms of conviction (and conversion also) with regards to a godly understanding of "things" are best informed by that which is received through the “fundamental principles of our religion” and the keys.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

1st level baptized and receive Holy Ghost. Middle level initiatories and temple endowment but not married. Top level and worthy of exaltation sealed to spouse in temple.

Excellent analogy.

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

1st level baptized and receive Holy Ghost. Middle level initiatories and temple endowment but not married. Top level and worthy of exaltation sealed to spouse in temple.

The oddest thing is that this theorizes a group of people (large enough to have a "kingdom" of their own) who have the faith to get baptized and receive the Holy Ghost, but even knowing all they know decide "Nope, don't care to get married or make Temple covenants, so I'll just spend eternity in this lower kingdom, thankyouverymuch."

That just seems...odd.