Progression Between Kingdoms

[janderich]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fully agree.  I have not seen a single quote here that I think says anything about progression between kingdoms.  We will be resurrected when we are ready.

If we were judged at death, then there would be no purpose for temples or work for the dead to allow for progression.   Those who never heard of the gospel would have no way of accepting it after death.

It almost seems that they have never seen the various plan of salvation diagrams!!  Premortal Life > Earth Life > Spirit World > Final Judgement > Resurrection > Kingdoms of Glory.

Elementary stuff!!

Too elementary and ultimately wrong. I wish we could do away with that false diagram. President Benson once told us, "The Book of Mormon Saints knew that the plan of redemption must start with the account of the fall of Adam. In the words of Moroni, "By Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ . . . and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man." (Mormon 9:12). Here is the basic plan of salvation as taught by Moroni in Mormon 9:11-14: Creation -> Fall -> Coming of Christ -> Redemption/Resurrection -> Return to God -> Judgement -> Restoration to wickedness or happiness. That is the plan of salvation in the book of Mormon and in the Temple. It includes Christ, it includes returning to God, it includes restoration to wickedness or happiness. 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are born innocent and live our lives and mess them up or not mess them up within a few years, relatively speaking.  If we can mess up our lives in a short time, we can repent in a few years as well.

I have no clue why people think repentance goes on anywhere but the spirit world and every quote here seems to have that central flaw- of thinking that repentance or further sin actually takes place AFTER the resurrection.  Yet there is clear evidence that we are resurrected with the type of body which matches our kingdom of glory

No one at all has addressed how that is supposed to work on the theory of progression between kingdoms.

Sure we are resurrected with the type of body which matches our kingdom of glory but that body is not perfect. We will be resurrected with flaws still in our character. As Moroni teaches, "And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them: and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still..." (Moroni 9:14). We came into this life with certain tendencies and flaws, we will be resurrected with some.

Here are some important questions:

If resurrection is the end of our progression how then will we ever become like God? 

Does separation from God and this earth life provide opportunities for growth and progression we can obtain in no other way? Have we learned all we can from our experience here at the end of our life? If not, how will we progress further in these important areas?   

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The notion that someone has done something so heinous (short of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) that the Atonement of Christ cannot cover them upon repentance seems to sell the Atonement short. It is referred to in scripture as an "infinite" atonement.  So why cannot Hitler be covered?  

Because one of the unforgivable sins is the shedding of innocent blood.

[MrSpruceMoose]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

So there are no accidents?  Tell that to an hermaphrodite.  Tell that to those who have died in war or other circumstances that happened before they experienced the mighty change of heart.  Why did Christ preach to the spirits in prison from the days of Noah? Why are we then baptized for the dead?  Your theory does not square with the love and mercy of the God I worship, who saved a sinner like me.  It doesn't make sense to me that I would be saved, but my virtuous Father who lacked faith in the Savior would be lost.  There is enough ambiguity in the scriptures, scribed at the hand of fallible men, that gives me hope.  I believe God is infinitely more merciful than I am now.

D&C 122:7-9

 

7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

9 Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.

 

What exactly is your issue with what I said? You say that God is merciful and yet you deny that he is an all knowing God with an all emcompassing divine plan for each of us. Do you seriously think that men who are killed in war or people who die an accidental death are taken without God's intent? If someone is taken from this earth it is because they were appointed to leave at that time. Maybe someone was taken because they would never accept the gospel in this life but would in the next, we don't know. But, our loving Father in Heaven has a plan for all of us. You even mentioned the work that is done for those who don't hear the gospel in this life. No one is left behind. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is outside of his plan for us.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Quote

I think that declaration is presumptuous and naive.  I think we lack sufficient light and knowledge to speak intelligently about progression between kingdoms.

I admire the Givens, but absent revelatory guidance on the subject, the case cannot be "made."  It's just conjecture.  Reasoned and hopeful, to be sure, but conjecture all the same.  And as such, I can't put too much stock in it.

Scott Woodward has compiled a good list of statements about this topic (both pro and con): Selected Teachings on Is There Progression Within and/or Between the Kingdoms of Glory?

I can't agree to that.  I think there is some real risk in making definitive declarations on topics about which we lack light and knowledge.  We run the risk of alienating ourselves from the entirety of the Gospel because we cherish too much one particular facet of it.

Let's not draw lines in the sand.  Let us instead work with what we've got, and study and trust in God as to speculative/conjectural issues like this one.

Thanks,

-Smac

The bolded statement makes sense to me.  The rest of it sounds like you are drawing a line in the sand: "We run the risk of alienating ourselves from the entirety of the Gospel because we cherish too much one particular facet of it."  How is That?

I think there is some risk at making definitive declarations on topics about which we lack sufficient light and knowledge.  We simply don't know if there is progression between kingdoms of glory.  So declaring that the Plan of Salvation "only" makes sense if there is progression seems . . . risky.  It's drawing a line in the sand.  It's imposing conditions on God instead of submitting to His will.

What if a person insists that the Plan of Salvation must include progression between kingdoms, and otherwise he'll ditch the whole thing?  And what then happens if in the future a revelation is received which definitively establishes that there is not progression between kingdoms?  What does that person do?  Does he toss the entirety of the Plan because it does not meet his personal conditions, his own private litmus test, as to this specific issue?

I have seen several instances of this my-way-or-the-highway approach to the Restored Gospel ending up badly for the individual.  Consider, for example, Kate Kelly, who apparently made female ordination a litmus test for continued discipleship.  I also know of people who have left the Church or withdrawn from activity because of the Church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity (often centering on the proscription against same-sex behavior).  The list could go on for quite a while.

I do not advocate "draw{ing} lines in the sand," meaning that we impose personalized, because-I-say-so conditions on the terms of the Restored Gospel.  I think many of us are uncomfortable with some aspects of the Gospel, and yet insisting that the Gospel "only" makes sense if those aspects are rejected is a recipe for failure.

I think the narrative in John 6 is instructive.  The Savior Himself taught things which his disciples (as in people who had previously chosen to follow him) found troubling.  In a way, they drew a line in the sand (as far as their expectations about what Jesus should/could teach), decided that Jesus Christ had crossed that line, and they then left Him:

Quote

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

This is what I mean by not drawing lines in the sand.  Our individualized expectations/requirements about what the Restored Gospel should/must contain should not predominate over what it does or might contain.

So when we run into speculative/conjectural issues (such as whether there is progression between kingdoms), I think we should refrain from staking out definitive, insistent, my-way-or-the-highway positions on those issues.  We should instead work with what we've got, and study and trust in God as to topics about which we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge.

Just my two bits.

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Can we not learn, grow, repent (turn from our misunderstandings to accurate thoughts and actions) beyond this life?  

Yes.

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Outside of the Temple, we should be able to engage in reasonable conversation about controversial things. 

I agree.  I think that is what we are doing.

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

The idea of movement between kingdoms appeals to me because I have two wayward loved ones who are otherwise decent people in many ways. 

I understand that.  I respect that.  I think it is a hopeful concept.  God, in His infinite justice and mercy, knows that is "right," including whether there is progression between kingdoms.  If He allows such progression, I will rejoice.  On the other hand, if He does not allow such progression, I will (hopefully) say, as Nephi did, "Thy ways are just."

Meanwhile, I'm not going to insist that the Plan of Salvation only makes sense if progression between kingdoms is part of it, because we simply do not know that.

My personal preferences are not the sole and exclusive arbiter of what is right and correct.  I sometimes get things wrong.  I have my biases and blind spots.  For example, I personally am somewhat discomfited at the concept of animal sacrifice, and yet that is plainly a part of the Gospel (not presently practiced, but considered a divine mandate when it was).  But despite that discomfiture, I have not used animal sacrifice as a litmus test for the validity of the Restored Gospel.  I can't say that the Gospel is "only" acceptable if animal sacrifice is not a part of it.

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Eternity is a long time.  If God is to complete His stated work, I am encouraged that there may be movement.  I am of the "No empty chairs" school, that Christ has the power to save all except those who ultimately in the aeons refuse to embrace light and knowledge and turn from darkness (repent).  There is enough ambiguity in the scriptures to allow for hope on this and many other topics.

I quite agree.  There is plenty of room for such hope.  I share it.  My point was not that we cannot hope for these things, only that we should not insist on them.  As you will recall, my remarks were in response to the statement that "the plan of salvation making sense only if choice will always be a factor."  The context seemed to indicate that "choice" here referred to "progress between kingdoms."  I think we lack sufficient light and knowledge to speak intelligently about progression between kingdoms.  For me, the Plan of Salvation makes sense with or without it (though I hope it's there).

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Consider this: "For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer."  2 Nephi 10:2

I love this Gospel.  I know the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet.  I believe we are led by prophets today (and the Holy Ghost.)  I hang my hat on those things, and the fruits of the Gospel I have experienced.  Beyond that, there is much knowledge to wrestle and embrace in our quest for ultimate truth.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

D&C 122:7-9

 

7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

9 Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.

 

What exactly is your issue with what I said? You say that God is merciful and yet you deny that he is an all knowing God with an all emcompassing divine plan for each of us. Do you seriously think that men who are killed in war or people who die an accidental death are taken without God's intent? If someone is taken from this earth it is because they were appointed to leave at that time. Maybe someone was taken because they would never accept the gospel in this life but would in the next, we don't know. But, our loving Father in Heaven has a plan for all of us. You even mentioned the work that is done for those who don't hear the gospel in this life. No one is left behind. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is outside of his plan for us.

Yes, I believe some are taken early by accident or suicide, mental illness, etc. Without God's intention.  I don't believe everything that happens is intended by God.  Does He know in advance?  Probably, but I'm not sure.  I'm not saying that God can't know the end from the beginning, or that He doesn't give special attention to specific people.  Likening the scriptures to myself, God didn't put a star in the heavens millions of years in advance that would appear to three specific wise men on one important night.  God does have that kind of power.  But there are other circumstances that aren't so clear.  Was it possible for the  people of Nineveh to be destroyed by God?  Or did He change His mind because they repented?  Did God intend for His beloved King David to fall from his exaltation?  This is all somewhat complicated, with some areas hard to understand.  I don't believe in predestination for everyone.  I believe in agency, and that God probably knows but doesn't let His intention interfere with our agency.   That would be a different plan.

There are several places in the Scriptures that appear to indicate God had regrets, or felt He had made a mistake.  Here is one from Genesis 6:

"5 ¶ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
            6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
            7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Did God know that in advance?  Would you do something you knew in advance you would want to repent of?  How about the the parable of the tame and wild olive trees where the servant made a difference on the outcome?  Like I have said here, There is enough ambiguity in the scriptures to give me hope.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Meerkat

[MrSpruceMoose]

16 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

There are several places in the Scriptures that appear to indicate God had regrets, or felt He had made a mistake.  Here is one from Genesis 6:

"5 ¶ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
            6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
            7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Did God know that in advance?  Would you do something you knew in advance you would want to repent of?  How about the the parable of the tame and wild olive trees where the servant made a difference on the outcome?  Like I have said here, There is enough ambiguity in the scriptures to give me hope.

The Jospeh Smith Translation clarified verse 6 to say: "And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained, that the Lord had made man..."  The Hebrew translation of the word repent (found in the footnotes) means to be sorry, moved to pity, or have compassion. So to me, that scripture doesn't give an example of God not having forsight of something. The scriptures can seem ambiguous, but given enough prayer and study, along with modern day revelation given to today's prophets and apostles, there really isn't much left up to interpretation. 

[Meerkat]

19 minutes ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

The Jospeh Smith Translation clarified verse 6 to say: "And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained, that the Lord had made man..."  The Hebrew translation of the word repent (found in the footnotes) means to be sorry, moved to pity, or have compassion. So to me, that scripture doesn't give an example of God not having forsight of something. The scriptures can seem ambiguous, but given enough prayer and study, along with modern day revelation given to today's prophets and apostles, there really isn't much left up to interpretation. 

I see your point.  My issue is the difference between knowing and intending.  And lacking the time to pray and study myself to all understanding in this life, I do enjoy a good discussion.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

Do you seriously think that men who are killed in war or people who die an accidental death are taken without God's intent? If someone is taken from this earth it is because they were appointed to leave at that time.

I can't speak for anyone else but to me a key doctrine of the gospel's restoration is the rejection of predestination. What you are expressing is predestination and the rejection of free will by God. So yeah, I think people who die in war are dying because of freely made choices and not because it was God's intent they die right then.

It seems like the Church goes to great extents to distinguish preordination from the more Calvinistic predestination (where God controls everything). Robert Millet did an interesting paper on Joseph Smith's views of Calvinism a few years back.

Edited November 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[MrSpruceMoose]

7 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I see your point.  My issue is the difference between knowing and intending.  And lacking the time to pray and study myself to all understanding in this life, I do enjoy a good discussion.

I also enjoy a good discussion. The scriptures are very plain and yet there are bits that are beyond my understanding sometimes. We don't know everything and there are many mysteries that we will never know in this life. It's fun to discuss them though and try to come to at least some level of understanding from what we do know. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

What exactly is your issue with what I said? You say that God is merciful and yet you deny that he is an all knowing God with an all emcompassing divine plan for each of us. Do you seriously think that men who are killed in war or people who die an accidental death are taken without God's intent? If someone is taken from this earth it is because they were appointed to leave at that time. Maybe someone was taken because they would never accept the gospel in this life but would in the next, we don't know.

A family down the street and around the corner a mile or so is now completely gone in what is apparently a murder suicide.  Even the dog.

Was that due to God intending them to leave 'now' or to someone listening to despair and giving up and not enduring to the end or something else God adapts his plan to after men make their at times evil choices.?

[MrSpruceMoose]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak for anyone else but to me a key doctrine of the gospel's restoration is the rejection of predestination. What you are expressing is predestination and the rejection of free will by God. So yeah, I think people who die in war are dying because of freely made choices and not because it was God's intent they die right then.

That's not what I'm expressing at all. Yes our Father in Heaven probably does know what we will do and where we will end up in the next life, but that doesn't mean that he takes our free will away. Just because He knows what we are going to do does not mean he has determined our actions. Remember that Nephi and Moses were shown the future of the earth and what events would happen. How could they be shown this if God did not know and was waiting to see what would happen? He knows the beginning from the end because He is the beginning and the end. That does not mean we are predetermined. We still have our agency. It just means that He knows how we will use our agency.

[MrSpruceMoose]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

A family down the street and around the corner a mile or so is now completely gone in what is apparently a murder suicide.  Even the dog.

Was that due to God intending them to leave 'now' or to someone listening to despair and giving up and not enduring to the end or something else God adapts his plan to after men make their at times evil choices.?

Yes, I do believe it is part of God's plan if someone commits suicide. He knows the beginning from the end and everything that happens in between. Just because he knows that someone will commit suicide, doesn't mean he'll take their agency away and keep them from doing it. 

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

That's not what I'm expressing at all. Yes our Father in Heaven probably does know what we will do and where we will end up in the next life, but that doesn't mean that he takes our free will away. Just because He knows what we are going to do does not mean he has determined our actions. Remember that Nephi and Moses were shown the future of the earth and what events would happen. How could they be shown this if God did not know and was waiting to see what would happen? He knows the beginning from the end because He is the beginning and the end. That does not mean we are predetermined. We still have our agency. It just means that He knows how we will use our agency.

But you are saying it was appointed to happen. There's an inherent contradiction between the two claims.

This isn't a new debate but involves fundamentally how God is involved in events. If it's appointed for us to die at a specific time then that implies God ensures that happens. That is intrinsically at odds with free will. Calvinists don't mind this and just choose a sense of freedom which lets God pick all our choices. But it's pretty deeply problematic in a Mormon context to say that God intends we die when we do and brings that about.

I recognize this is not an uncommon Mormon belief. I used to hear on my mission people say you are exactly where you need to be with the exact experiences you should be having. However again that just can't work. It implies that (in that case) not only does the Mission President have no involvement in deciding transfers (that there's an inescapable direct revelation to everything) but that any possible alternative situation is against God's will. The implication of this is the fatalism entailed by Calvinism or many forms of Islam where everything that happens is exactly what God intends.

The problem is that not only is this view regularly preached against by the Brethren but it has pretty deeply disturbing implications for the nature of God.

Edited November 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think only small minority of God's children will choose not to repent when hearing the Gospel either in this life or the next.

Only God has the authority to determine what is fair chance at hearing and accepting the Gospel if they had endured, and that extends into the next life for most people who have ever lived.

All I know is, 500 trillion years is a long time. People change. 

[Freedom]

13 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

What is the 'doctrine' of eternal progression'? Any argument in favor of moving up in glories is only supported by imaginary connect the dot explainations fueled by wishful thinking.

The same applies to your point of view. If it is so clearly set out in the scriptures, why then does the church taken no position on the matter?

 

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his king follett discourse. It is based on the proposition that "there is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary-they must increase or decrease" (Young, JD 1:350).

and :Life is never static. "One must progress or retrograde. One cannot stand still. Activity is the law of growth, and growth, progress, is the law of life" 

[MrSpruceMoose]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But you are saying it was appointed to happen. There's an inherent contradiction between the two claims.

This isn't a new debate but involves fundamentally how God is involved in events. If it's appointed for us to die at a specific time then that implies God ensures that happens. That is intrinsically at odds with free will. Calvinists don't mind this and just choose a sense of freedom which lets God pick all our choices. But it's pretty deeply problematic in a Mormon context to say that God intends we die when we do and brings that about.

I recognize this is not an uncommon Mormon belief. I used to hear on my mission people say you are exactly where you need to be with the exact experiences you should be having. However again that just can't work. It implies that (in that case) not only does the Mission President have no involvement in deciding transfers (that there's an inescapable direct revelation to everything) but that any possible alternative situation is against God's will. The implication of this is the fatalism entailed by Calvinism or many forms of Islam where everything that happens is exactly what God intends.

The problem is that not only is this view regularly preached against by the Brethren but it has pretty deeply disturbing implications for the nature of God.

No there is no contradiction at all. Do not forget a major point of this life is to gain experience and learn and grow from it. Just because we have our free will does not mean that we can work outside of what God intended to happen. Look at what happened in the beginning. Lucifer rebelled against what our Heavenly Father wanted and in doing so created exactly what was needed for us to have trials in this life. Adam and Eve broke the commandment to not eat from the tree and as a result we are now all here. Two things that would look as if God's will was undermined by agency and yet it was exactly what he intended for his plan. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

Yes, I do believe it is part of God's plan if someone commits suicide. He knows the beginning from the end and everything that happens in between. Just because he knows that someone will commit suicide, doesn't mean he'll take their agency away and keep them from doing it. 

Are you saying he simply anticipates people's choices or he intends them to make that choice in order to fit his plan...say in the case of the family in my town, if someone had a sense of something about to happen, God would have put in place distractions or other things that would have prevented anyone or anything from interfering with this family, that dog dying at that very moment.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Calm

[MrSpruceMoose]

9 minutes ago, Freedom said:

The same applies to your point of view. If it is so clearly set out in the scriptures, why then does the church taken no position on the matter?

 

Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, 243-244. (Mel. Pr'd manual, 1979-1980, 146. See also Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 50.) After a person has been assigned to his place in the kingdom, either in the telestial, the terrestrial or the celestial, or to his exaltation, he will never advance from his assigned glory to another glory. That is eternal!

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 1:196. It is from these revelations which recite that resurrected beings come forth with different kinds of bodies [D&C 76; 88:16-33; 1 Cor 15:35-58;Mormon Doctrine, 1st ed., 573-579] that we learn a few of the many revealed reasons shy there is not and cannot be progression from one degree of glory to another after the resurrection.

George Albert Smith, Conference Report, October 1945, 172. There are some people who have supposed that if we are quickened telestial bodies that eventually, throughout the ages of eternity, we will continue to progress until we will find our place in the celestial kingdom, but the Scriptures and the revelations of God have said that those who are quickened telestial bodies cannot come where God and Christ dwell, worlds without end.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:402. I could explain a 100 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.

Bruce R. McConkie, "The Seven Deadly Heresies" (Tape Transcript), BYU, 1 June 1980. Heresy number five. There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or, if not, that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were. This is worse than false! It is an evil and pernicious doctrine.

It lulls men into a state of carnal security. It causes them to say: "God is so merciful; surely he will save us all eventually. If we do not gain the celestial kingdom now, eventually we will, so why worry?" It lets people live a life of sin here and now with the hope that they will be saved eventually.

The true doctrine is that all men will be resurrected, but they will come forth in the resurrection with different kinds of bodies-some celestial, others terrestrial, others telestial, and some with bodies incapable of standing any degree of glory. The body we receive in the resurrection determines the glory we receive in the kingdoms that are prepared.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:31-34. [Italics in the original.] No Advancement from Lower to Higher. It has been asked if it is possible for one who inherits the telestial glory to advance in time to the celestial glory?

The answer to this question is, No!

The scriptures are clear on this point. Speaking of those who go to the telestial kingdom, the revelation says: "And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end."

Notwithstanding this statement, those who do not comprehend the word of the Lord argue that while this is true, that they cannot go where God is "worlds without end," yet in time they will get where God was, but he will have gone on to other heights.

This is false reasoning, illogical, and creates mischief in making people think they may procrastinate their repentance, but in course of time they will reach exaltation in celestial glory.

 

From all of these modern day prophets it seems pretty clear what the doctrine is. But of course, the "church" hasn't taken a position so that must mean it's open to interpretation right?

[MrSpruceMoose]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying he simply anticipates people's choices or he intends them to make that choice in order to fit his plan...say in the case of the family in my town, if someone had a sense of something about to happen, God would have put in place distractions or other things that would have prevented anyone or anything from interfering with this family, that dog dying at that very moment.

Now you're getting into the question of how much does God influence events to allow someone's choices to happen. I've already stated, he knows what will happen but that does not mean he is going to interfere with our agency one way or the other. 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

Just because we have our free will does not mean that we can work outside of what God intended to happen.

Um. Yes, by definition that is what free will means. To say otherwise is simply to say that with respect to that event there was no free ability to choose in that case.

Edited November 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[MrSpruceMoose]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Um. Yes, by definition that is what free will means.

Refer back to my example of Adam and Eve. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This is a HUGE question. It kind of gets to the questions of the purpose of this life as well as the afterlife. Having an unclear or inaccurate knowledge about why we're here, what is expected of us, and what the consequences are for our actions kinds of throws everything into question. If the next life is a continuation of progression then maybe we could ease up on ourselves and others during this life and not be so judgmental of different life choices.

Personally, progression between kingdoms makes perfect sense. Damning all progression for an individual based on a very short life (in eternal scheme of things) seems very harsh if our Heavenly parents really are loving.

Without continual progression, eternity will be a real drag. It would be like a rookie winning the Rookie of the year, league MVP, and Superbowl in their first season. What's next? After a while, winning the superbowl and MVP awards every single year would start to lose it's wonder and thrill. Eternity is such a long time. I can't really wrap my mind around the concept without it seeming depressing. There must be so much more than the small amount of knowledge we think we have now. If that's true, progression must be a thing.

BUT if it's possible to eternally progress, is it also possible to regress?

[pogi]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fully agree.  I have not seen a single quote here that I think says anything about progression between kingdoms.  We will be resurrected when we are ready.

If we were judged at death, then there would be no purpose for temples or work for the dead to allow for progression.   Those who never heard of the gospel would have no way of accepting it after death.

It almost seems that they have never seen the various plan of salvation diagrams!!  Premortal Life > Earth Life > Spirit World > Final Judgement > Resurrection > Kingdoms of Glory.

Elementary stuff!!

We are born innocent and live our lives and mess them up or not mess them up within a few years, relatively speaking.  If we can mess up our lives in a short time, we can repent in a few years as well.

I have no clue why people think repentance goes on anywhere but the spirit world and every quote here seems to have that central flaw- of thinking that repentance or further sin actually takes place AFTER the resurrection.  Yet there is clear evidence that we are resurrected with the type of body which matches our kingdom of glory

No one at all has addressed how that is supposed to work on the theory of progression between kingdoms.

mfb, I tend to agree with you, with one small exception.  Unfortunately, the simplistic salvation diagrams have it wrong.  The resurrection(s) happens before final judgment.  The first resurrection has already happened in fact.  Christ was the first fruits of the resurrection and He inaugurated the first resurrection of the righteous saints who lived before Christ (Matt 27:52-53).  The next resurrection (also called the first resurrection) will happen at the commencement of Christ's return and millennial reign.  The second trump will sound in the afternoon of the "first" resurrection, and thus begins the 2nd (or third, depending on how you are counting) resurrection.  The following resurrection will occur after the millennium in two parts.  Only after the all are resurrected will final judgment take place.  This is made evident in the following scriptures:

Quote

Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him according to their works whether they be good or whether they be evil  (Mosiah 16: 10-13).

Quote

And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God (2 Ne. 9:15).

This suggests that there are several degrees of judgment.  The first judgment will be at the time of death to determine if we will be placed in paradise or prison, a second judgment will occur at the time of resurrection to determine which resurrection we will rise in, but the final judgment is reserved until after the 1,000 year reign of the Lord.

What is interesting to keep in mind is that at the end of the millennium, Satan will be let loose once again to tempt and deceive man:

Quote

At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be set free for a short time. Some people will turn away from Heavenly Father. Satan will gather his armies, and Michael (Adam) will gather the hosts of heaven. In this great struggle, Satan and his followers will be cast out forever. The earth will be changed into a celestial kingdom. (See D&C 29:22–29; 88:17–20, 110–15.)
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng

The part that I have in bold is particularly interesting because it demonstrates that we will not be judged only for our actions in mortality, but final judgment will take into account our actions after death too.  This means that people can change after death and we need not lose hope.  To lose hope or assume that someone is lost is extremely prematurely.  We should not assume that the seemingly righteous who pass away cannot fall in the millennium, or that the seemingly wicked at death cannot come unto Christ.  That is why we are asked not to judge - a lot can happen in a thousand years!

This also means that even after resurrection, a person can still fall from grace before final judgment and reception of their degree of eternal glory.  This, to me, suggests that the eternal glory of our resurrected bodies will not be received in their fullness until after final judgment.   I recognize that this might give potential theoretical viability to the theory of kingdom hopping, in that it suggests that our resurrected bodies can change in glory after resurrection.  It is my belief however, that once we receive our corporeal glory after final judgment, that it will indeed be "final". 
 

Edited November 16, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

Refer back to my example of Adam and Eve. 

But doesn't that undercut your argument? After all one can know that something will eventually happen without determining when it happens. It's the exactness in your position that is the problem. With Adam and Eve we don't know how long they were in the garden. God could know it was highly probable that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit but not when they'd eat the fruit. Further if it was truly free then Adam and Eve could have chosen to not eat the fruit at all. Presumably God had something prepared for such an unlikely outcome.

You're position earlier wasn't simply that in some vague terms we'd do some class of acts. Rather it was the claim, "if someone is taken from this earth it is because they were appointed to leave at that time."

To return to your Adam and Eve example if God knew that eventually Adam and Eve would absolutely eat the fruit then I think we can easily argue they weren't free in that regard since there was no possible world in which they wouldn't eat the fruit. Now it could easily be that they were not predetermined by God in that case, but it seems hard to say they were free.

It's worth noting as well that the example of Adam and Eve was problematic for other reasons since they appear to be in a child-like state until they partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they couldn't know good from evil it's hard to argue they were free at all in any strong sense. It's only after that they become free. (See 2 Ne 2:25-27 for Lehi making a similar argument that the fall was essential to become free)

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fully agree.  I have not seen a single quote here that I think says anything about progression between kingdoms.  We will be resurrected when we are ready.

If we were judged at death, then there would be no purpose for temples or work for the dead to allow for progression.   Those who never heard of the gospel would have no way of accepting it after death.

It almost seems that they have never seen the various plan of salvation diagrams!!  Premortal Life > Earth Life > Spirit World > Final Judgement > Resurrection > Kingdoms of Glory.

Elementary stuff!!

We are born innocent and live our lives and mess them up or not mess them up within a few years, relatively speaking.  If we can mess up our lives in a short time, we can repent in a few years as well.

I have no clue why people think repentance goes on anywhere but the spirit world and every quote here seems to have that central flaw- of thinking that repentance or further sin actually takes place AFTER the resurrection.  Yet there is clear evidence that we are resurrected with the type of body which matches our kingdom of glory

No one at all has addressed how that is supposed to work on the theory of progression between kingdoms.

 

Three of my quotes address post-resurrection progress!

Here is the pertinent bit of the Brigham Young one:

“All others would have to inherit another kingdom, even that kingdom agreeing with the law which they had kept. He said they would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial kingdom, but it would be a slow progress.”

They are progressing after inheriting a kingdom and will eventually progress to the celestial kingdom says he. Their resurrection upon entering their first kingdom is assumed.

Hyrum’s quote also assumes resurrection. “Those of a terrestrial glory” signifies that they have received a glory, which reception occurs when? In the resurrection.

Lastly, Franklin D. Richard specified that those who have already inherited the terrestrial kingdom will progress toward the celestial. His explicit statement on their progression reads:

”Thus the people of God will go forward. They will go forward, like unto the new moon, increasing in knowledge and brightness and glory, until they come to a fullness of celestial glory.”