Degrees Within the Celestial Kingdom

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe I could have forgone the immersion path and had a Sun Crest Grape poured over my head for my baptism??? 

Glenn

 

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Organizing order from chaos and wanting everything in its proper place are tell tale signs of NOT being sticklers for details, ya think?

Sticklers they are. Very big on stickling.

 

 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeah, that's why we repeat the sacrament prayer if we change even one word.

Being a stickler means being a stickler about more then a few things. Once a week on Sunday and a few ordinances does not a stickler make. If God was a stickler in general we would all be damned over details.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Being a stickler means being a stickler about more then a few things. Once a week on Sunday and a few ordinances does not a stickler make. If God was a stickler in general we would all be damned over details.

 

 

stick·ler

1. a person who insists on a certain quality or type of behavior.
   "a stickler for details"

   perfectionist, purist, hard-liner "If you're not perfectly without sin then you're not coming back to live in my house"

[probablyHagoth7]

On 3/30/2017 at 10:22 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

So do we ignore this in favor of speculation?

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

1. Precisely what does it mean to be "as the angels which are in heaven"?

2. And to whom does that outcome apply? Only people like those in the scenario he was asked to comment on? Everyone?

And how does one begin to explore/answer such questions without at least some element of initial speculation?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

 

 

stick·ler

1. a person who insists on a certain quality or type of behavior.
   "a stickler for details"

   perfectionist, purist, hard-liner "If you're not perfectly without sin then you're not coming back to live in my house"

You said a stickler for details. Now the goalposts of your statement shift to a stickler in general? The former I do not believe at all. The latter is sort of true but it would be more correct to just call his commandments strict. The word stickler has rhetorical and cultural debris all over it. Calling someone a stickler, for example, is not a compliment. The word is not a neutral descriptive; it is a pejorative.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

1. Precisely what does it mean to be "as the angels which are in heaven"?

2. And to whom does that outcome apply? Only people like those in the scenario he was asked to comment on? Everyone?

And how does one begin to explore/answer such questions without at least some element of initial speculation?

Also, Jesus was dealing with a heckler. I do not believe Jesus would lie but he probably was not attempting to forthrightly teach advanced doctrine to a fool trying to trip him up with the ancient equivalent of the trick question: "Can God microwave a burrito so hot not even he could eat it?"

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

1. Precisely what does it mean to be "as the angels which are in heaven"?

Well angels only means messengers.

But the connotation applied where marriage is concerned is that they will remain servants to those who are exalted to rule and reign.
" neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels"

Pretty clear that those who remain as servants/messengers are single.
 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You said a stickler for details. Now the goalposts of your statement shift to a stickler in general? The former I do not believe at all. The latter is sort of true but it would be more correct to just call his commandments strict. The word stickler has rhetorical and cultural debris all over it. Calling someone a stickler, for example, is not a compliment. The word is not a neutral descriptive; it is a pejorative.

I didn't attach any negative thoughts to the word and I was unaware that some people can't think of the word without attaching negative baggage to it.

My point in the first place was simply that our Father and our Lord are strict (good word) on details and in favor of using things like procedures and rules and laws and ordinances, etc. Like wanting EVERYBODY to receive the ordinance of baptism, for example, with no exceptions.

Whereas Satan has an "anything goes, whatever" attitude and couldn't care less about rules or laws or ordinances, etc.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Being a stickler means being a stickler about more then a few things. Once a week on Sunday and a few ordinances does not a stickler make. If God was a stickler in general we would all be damned over details.

God seems to have been pretty good about the details He is a "stickler" for. Drives some people crazy when God lays out such fine details about the wording of a prayer and the ordinances etc. to obtain salvation/exaltation but still leaves us to dot a lot of i;s and cross a lot of t's and to decide if an o is an "o" or a "zero." I got your point, I think.

Glenn

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even so, the lower two levels of the Celestial Kingdom are not exaltation yet still dwell with God. So...perhaps God doesn't desire/require exaltation for all children knowing that some would be happier without it.

Perhaps but doctrinally-speaking, let's look at this using scripture as the founding basis. Do you honestly think God is OK with, or just as OK with, people gaining snything less than exaltation? Scripturally-speaking, is gaining something less than exaltation a source of happiness? Of course a person who choses to reject eternal perfection will not be happy dwelling in the presence of an eternally perfect being. The former will be limited in potential and eternal growth whereas the latter will always increase in growth and has no limits so I can see how the misery of the forever non-perfect being will grow in the presence of an eternally perfect being. So, if you are suggesting that God may be content with anyone not achieving exaltation because forcing exaltation upon a non-willing being would be miserable for that being, I reject that. I fully accept the idea that God, in His mercy, will provide a place more suitable for less-than-perfect creatures but this would not make Him happy in the fullest sense of what "happy" means. I've absolutely no recollection of any scripture that would lead me to conclude otherwise. 

[Darren10]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even so, the lower two levels of the Celestial Kingdom are not exaltation yet still dwell with God. So...perhaps God doesn't desire/require exaltation for all children knowing that some would be happier without it.

As for your point that lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom are non-exalted levels of glory yet dwell in God's presence, I would suggest, based on scripture, that said angels do not dwell in God's presence as would the exalted gods in the Celestial Kingdom. Also, perhaps they are not angels who appear as heavenly messengers to mortals but convey messages by some other means than some sort of divine apparition. Ergo, an eternal source of some degree of misery knowing had they done "just a little more" that they would be one with the Father and a god for him or herself. Ergo, there's a degree of Hell they experience by never being fully with the Father and, by definition, experiencing a personal Hell, one does not experience full happiness. Does God want this for anyone? Granted it may be for the best that other levels of glory, less than exaltation, should be provided, but is that what God wants for anyone to shoot for and achieve?  

Edited April 1, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well angels only means messengers.

But the connotation applied where marriage is concerned is that they will remain servants to those who are exalted to rule and reign.
" neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels"

Pretty clear that those who remain as servants/messengers are single.
 

An angel is simply someone who carries a message. There is no mention of marital status as a messenger. IE; Peter was a messenger. He was married.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

As for your point that lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom are non-exalted levels of glory uet dwell in God's presence, I would suggest, based on scripture, that said angels do not dwell in God's presence as would the exalted gods in the Celestial Kingdom. Also, perhaps they are not angels who appear as heavenly messengers to mortals but convey messages by some other means than some sort of divine apparition. Ergo, an eternal source of some degree of misery knowing had they done "just a little more" that they would be one with the Father and a god for him or herself. Ergo, there's a degree of Hell they experience by never being fully with the Father and, by definition, experiencing a personal Hell, one does not experience full happiness. Does God want this for anyone? Granted. It may be for the best that other levels of glory, less than exaltation, should be provided, but is thatwhat Gid wants for anyone to shoot for and achieve?  

Can you provide scriptural reference that indicates that angels in the lower levels of the celestial kingdom do not dwell with God?

ETA- it's hard for me to imagine that there is any level of misery in the celestial kingdom.

Edited April 1, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you provide scriptural reference that indicates that angels in the lower levels of the celestial kingdom do not dwell with God?

ETA- it's hard for me to imagine that there is any level of misery in the celestial kingdom.

I've never heard that either.  D&C 132 seems to indicate that they will exist as servants for those in the highest.  That would require interaction.  I've never liked the idea that each kingdom requires a separate location.  They are functions of glory as much as anything. 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you provide scriptural reference that indicates that angels in the lower levels of the celestial kingdom do not dwell with God?

ETA- it's hard for me to imagine that there is any level of misery in the celestial kingdom.

The key part of my phrase was "as would". Those forever angels to God, never becoming God in the fullest sense of the word, do not dwell in the presence of God in the same sense as do those angels who are God ("Elohim" in the plural sense of the word). The scriptural references I pointed to are the ones which I already cited showing that those who do not obtain the highest degree of glory experience Hell. I was not saying that the scriptures explicitly say that they do not but, *based upon scriptures*, not some external already thought about philosophical point of view on God's nature and our eternal nature before Him, but that based on what they do say, being "crowned" with glory, this point of view makes the most sense to me in the hypothetical scenario you wanted to discuss.

It is important to me, and I think it should be important to all, to philosophize on God and the eternities based on scripture; not something already philosophize about God and the eternities. Not that this will always give a clear, undisputed answer to everything.  In fact, I do not think temporal beings will ever be able to completely understand eternal realities, but founding ones beliefs directly from scripture is a great guide. Trying to depict eternal reality based on philosophy has lead to things such as Holy Trinity where much of it is based on scripture but does not offer the best view of God and is not based on the entirety of scripture. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I've never heard that either.  D&C 132 seems to indicate that they will exist as servants for those in the highest.  That would require interaction.  I've never liked the idea that each kingdom requires a separate location.  They are functions of glory as much as anything. 

That's a good point. Yes, of course they'll interact, even directly, but are not the lower brings, forever servants (as I coined the, in this thread) to the Most High, limited whereas God is unlimited? How would tou feel if tou dwelt in that eternal situation. Great happiness no doubt but would you want to interact with God "as do" the angels who too are God and unlimited as He is unlimited? That if you "just did that one last thing", you too would have unlimited potential as would God and the gods around Him? I am not at all suggesting a "separate kingdom" only that your direct interaction with God would be different.

[thesometimesaint]

All of us will always be servants of God, even as we become like him.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I've never heard that either.  D&C 132 seems to indicate that they will exist as servants for those in the highest.  That would require interaction.  I've never liked the idea that each kingdom requires a separate location.  They are functions of glory as much as anything. 

This just dawned in me. You followed the fomula I am laying out here. Why do you reject the idea of separate kingdoms (I do too by the way) for nonexalted angels in the Celestial Kingdom? Because there is no scripture which doctrines (I just made that eord up and I lime it  ) its readers to believe any such thing. One can, however, take my argument "one step further" and make rhe conclusion that there needs be a separate kingdom would be fine as far as hupothesis goes but it would deviate from scriptures, would it not? Thus anyone who teaches that there needs be a separate kingdom as if it is absolute truth deviate from its scriptural basis and is grounded primarily in philosoph, not scripture. A great example of how confusion can grow when scripture is departed from as a source of knowledge. 

Now, referring to D&C 132:

Quote

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Suggests a different nature of interaction between those in the Celestial Kingdom who are exalted and those who are not. Those who are exalted, so far as I know, are not under the subjugation to anyone. There even is no scripture suggesting they are subject to the Father. There most definitely is scripture and Latter-day prophets who declare God to be above all, including exalted angels, but based on scripture I would suggest that these exalted angels are eternally free of anything. They need not wait for God to command them for they command themselves as He would command them.

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

The best servants don't need to be commanded in all things.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The best servants don't need to be commanded in all things.

True, which makes it all the more depressing that they are so rare.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

All of us will always be servants of God, even as we become like him.

In the sense of forever carrying out His will, I fully agree. However, if you suggest that they recieve commandment from God to carry it out, I do not know of any scripture supporting any such thing. Non exalted angels I think will but not exalted gods. If anything, scriptures support freedom when one conducts him or herself as God would have them conduct themselves, even for mortals with perfect faith. 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

Even God didn't give up his Agency when he made the rules he lives by. The down side is that if he didn't follow his own rules he'd stop being God.

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even so, the lower two levels of the Celestial Kingdom are not exaltation yet still dwell with God. So...perhaps God doesn't desire/require exaltation for all children knowing that some would be happier without it.

Quote

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

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.

His is from D&C 132. From it I think we can conclude that there is damnation in the Celestial Kigdom fir rhise who recieve nit the glory of God. Does thst not duggest misery, sadness, suffering, etc. in the Celestial Kingdom.

They are "happier" in the sense that sonething they did not want was not forced upon them. And that since they did not want thecfulness of God's glory, they are assigned to something less than God's full glory for that is what is best for them thus they are "happy". 

I am merely seeking to cohesively tie together scripture we have regarding the Celestial 

Kingdom. Here's my main point to you if you would respond to them:

1) Is there not damnation in the Celestial Kingdom? 

2) How do you associate happiness with being damned? 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Even God didn't give up his Agency when he made the rules he lives by. The down side is that if he didn't follow his own rules he'd stop being God.

Perhaps. 

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, which makes it all the more depressing that they are so rare.

I don't believe I am anything special, but I do believe in repentance.

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Perhaps. 

It is what he claims.