Progression Between Kingdoms

[CV75]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

@MrSpruceMoose, I think part of the exactness problem is that God abides by law, and all laws have bounds and conditions. God can appoint any number of things to happen with His children according to the conditions that are met by their agency. His Son's Atonement of course covers all possible contingencies and outcomes or appointments. He has perfect faith in this arrangement and thus possesses what we call foreknowledge. God's appointments are thus dependent on, or "on account of their ...faith and ...works" as expressed to any degree according to the agency they exercise, "having chosen" (Alma 13:3).

Edited November 16, 2017 by CV75

[pogi]

5 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

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.

First of all, I'm not sure how this quote is supportive of your claim.

5 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

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?

Sorry bro, the church really has not taken a position.  Sometimes the brethren simply disagree with each other, and sometimes they overstate their opinions.  You are right that several brethren have argued that there will be no progression between kingdoms (as you have pointed out), but several others have argued that there will be progression, including Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Franklin D Richards, B.H. Roberts, J. Reuben Clark, Lorenzo Snow, and James E. Talmage.  

To see quotes from these brethren (and others both for, against, and neutral) see:

 http://probationarystate.blogspot.com/2009/08/progression-between-kingdoms.html

While I tend to agree (at this point) that there will be no progression between kingdoms, I am not entirely convinced that I am right.  But one thing is certain, the church has not taken an official position on the matter as you claim.  It is open to interpretation.

Quote

Secretary to the First Presidency in a 1952 letter; and again in 1965 
==================== 
The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

Does anybody else think that it was quite bold, and even audacious of McConkie to state the following:

Quote

 

 Seven Deadly Heresies; BYU Marriott Center,  June 1, 1980

Heresy 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.

 

How can he say that when the first presidency sent a letter out to the church just 15 years prior (and another 13 years before that), stating that "the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point."

Just 20 years earlier, J. Reuben Clark (First Councilor in the First Presidency to McKay) stated:

Quote

I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here.  It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can:  and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.

Others like Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Franklin D Richards, B.H. Roberts, Lorenzo Snow, and James E. Talmage have stated similar things.  So, it just seems rather audacious of McConkie to call such a belief an "evil and pernicious doctrine" without being the president and prophet of the church to proclaim a definitive revelation on the matter.  I don't mean to stir up controversy, but dang!  Did he not get the memo...twice?

Edited November 17, 2017 by pogi

[MrSpruceMoose]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

While I tend to agree (at this point) that there will be no progression between kingdoms, I am not entirely convinced that I am right.  But one thing is certain, the church has not taken an official position on the matter as you claim.  It is open to interpretation.

 

Where did I ever claim the church has taken a position? I quoted prophets very definitively teaching that progression in glories is false doctrine. If you want to disagree with multiple prophets because there is no official church statement then that's your choice.  Also, if you agree then what is your point? 

[MrSpruceMoose]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

 

No one can know the intracacies of how God works. That is beyond our understanding. However, there are several things we do know. 

1. God knows each and everyone of us individually, better than we know ourselves.

2. God is all knowing and knows every event that is going to happen. He knows every tiny detail of this world, no blade of grass is missed.

3. God knows how long we are going to be on this earth. As I quoted in D&C earlier, our days are known and numbered.

 

You seem to be arguing from the point that God is continually adjusting his plan to make it work. That makes absolutely no sense. If he knows everything, then he knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit when they would. To say he didn't know and had a contingency plan for if they did is ludicrous. To make this clearer, let me give an example.

Imagine a football coach who watches a replay of a football game his team plays in. However, this football game has not been played yet. When it is played, he knows every touchdown, flag, injury, fumble and interception that is going to happen. So knowing everythat will happen, why wouldn't this coach make it so that his team will overcome everything, make no mistakes and win decisively? Because this coach cares more about his player's growth than winning. He will play his role as coach, but he will let his players play how they will play so they can learn from it. I don't know how I can explain it better than that.

If you're issue about the word 'appointed' in regards to suicide, as if God decreed that a certain person would kill themselves as a certain time, that is not what I meant. At this point, you're splitting hairs and arguing semantics.  

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.”

Perhaps these are partial quotes but none say that they will change from one Kingdom to another. That is all interpretation. Advancing in Glory towards Celestial glory is not changing from the telestial kingdom into the Celestial Kingdom. It is advancing toward it.

I would like to think I am advancing toward Celestial glory too but I am not in Celestial Glory.

Perhaps if you provided a link to the previous quotes you might have a point but all of these quotes show me is that advancing toward a goal is not being at the goal.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. One can be two steps into the process and still be advancing toward the goal.

I still not have seen the words that people in the terrestrial Kingdom can advance to the Celestial Kingdom. And no one has still mentioned one single word about the problem of having bodies that correspond to the kingdom which one inherits.

Not a single person, not a single quote.

I advise people on tax planning. If there's a loophole in the code people drive trucks thru the loophole. If it is not specifically written out very clearly it is a loophole.

These are not even loopholes in this alleged Doctrine. They just appear to me to be fantasy. Sorry but to me there's nothing there.

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Does anybody else think that it was quite bold, and even audacious of McConkie to state the following:

How can he say that when the first presidency sent a letter out to the church just 15 years prior (and another 13 years before that), stating that "the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point."

Just 20 years earlier, J. Reuben Clark (First Councilor in the First Presidency to McKay) stated:

Others like Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Franklin D Richards, B.H. Roberts, Lorenzo Snow, and James E. Talmage have stated similar things.  So, it just seems rather audacious of McConkie to call such a belief an "evil and pernicious doctrine" without being the president and prophet of the church to proclaim a definitive revelation on the matter.  I don't mean to stir up controversy, but dang!  Did he not get the memo...twice?

So the brethren are divided, but we are going to resolve it here for them

Great idea. 

Jus

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So the brethren are divided, but we are going to resolve it here for them

Great idea. 

Jus

Not for them... for us.  These things are as relevant to our salvation as geography of the Book of Mormon.  In other words, not very.  However, we discuss them seeking comfort of one sort or another on this topic.  Some of us have loved ones we are concerned about.  The idea of progress between kingdoms can povide hope as we strive to endure in faith praying, attending the Temple, seeking any commandment with a promised blessing that will influence our wayward loved ones for good.

Why did the Brethren express their divided opinions? Do they ever discuss things when they are seeking revelation? Do we? There are many things in the Book of Revelation that are hard to understand.  But we wrestle through them anyway.  Why don't we just ignore them?  One kernel of truth that I seek to embrace is this: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19:10. I believe I am entitled to that.

I believe D&C 88:118 is also instructive: "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

I seek revelation from you on this thread.  We are certainly free to discuss and speculate on things that are important to us until the revelation comes.  

I appreciated Rivers comment on the 14th: "I recently finished the Givens' new Book The Christ Who Heals.  And to my amazement, they devote  an entire chapter to the idea if progress between kingdoms." I place Givens' books in the category of "Best Books." They also have an inspiring treatment of this subject in their book "Wrestling with the Angel."  I recommend it.  I am also grateful for their thought provoking work "The God Who Weeps." 

These Articles of Faith also pertain:

7 "We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

We are not trying to steady the arc here, as your comment could be interpreted.  We are seeking revelation on this subject for reasons that are personal and important to some of us. ☺

Edited November 17, 2017 by Meerkat

[janderich]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Does anybody else think that it was quite bold, and even audacious of McConkie to state the following:

How can he say that when the first presidency sent a letter out to the church just 15 years prior (and another 13 years before that), stating that "the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point."

Just 20 years earlier, J. Reuben Clark (First Councilor in the First Presidency to McKay) stated:

Others like Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Franklin D Richards, B.H. Roberts, Lorenzo Snow, and James E. Talmage have stated similar things.  So, it just seems rather audacious of McConkie to call such a belief an "evil and pernicious doctrine" without being the president and prophet of the church to proclaim a definitive revelation on the matter.  I don't mean to stir up controversy, but dang!  Did he not get the memo...twice?

Absolutely. But McConkie was nothing if not audacious, he wrote an entire book by himself and named it Mormon Doctrine. President McKay had to assign an apostle to make corrections, of which over 1,000 were found. So I take this statement about progression as par for the course.  

[janderich]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And no one has still mentioned one single word about the problem of having bodies that correspond to the kingdom which one inherits.

Not a single person, not a single quote.

Our bodies certainly do correspond to the kingdom we inherit. But entering into a kingdom is not the end. We will be added on again and again. At the end of one eternal round we will enter into another round, and yet another. One probation after another, one resurrection after another, until we obtain our resurrected bodies free and clear. Then we will no more taste of death. 

Here is how Brigham Young once explained it: 

Quote

It is just so with matter, Take, for instance, a grain of sand. You can not divide it so small that it can not be divided again - it is capable of infinite division. We know nothing about how many times it can be divided, and it is just so with regard to the lives in us, in animals, in vegetation, in shrubbery. They are countless. ... Well, how many lives are there in this grain of corn? They are innumerable, and this same infinity is manifest through all the creations of God. We will operate here, in all the ordinances of the house of God which pertain to this side the vail, and those who pass beyond and secure to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives will go on and receive more and more, more and more, and will receive one after another until they are crowned Gods, even the sons of God. (Journal of Discourses 15:138)

Brigham says there are countless lives in us and that we will secure to ourselves a resurrection and then receive more and more, one after the other until we are crowned Gods.

Here is another from Heber C. Kimball: 

Quote

What I do not to-day, when the sun goes down, I lay down to sleep, which is typical of death; and in the morning I rise and commence my work where I left it yesterday. That course is typical of the probations we take. But suppose that I do not improve my time to-day, I wake up to-morrow and find myself in the rear; and then, if I do not improve upon that day, and again lay down to sleep, on awaking, I find myself still in the rear. This day's work is typical of this probation, and the sleep of every night is typical of death, and rising in the morning is typical of the resurrection. They are days labours, and it is for us to be faithful to-day, tomorrow, and every day. Brethren, this is the course we have to take: it is a progressive work from one day to another, and from one week to another; and if we advance this year, we are so far advanced in preparation to better go through the next year. (Journal of Discourses 4:329)

Heber here tells us that the arising in the morning is similar to the resurrection and that we will repeat that process again and again. 

I have now provided you the information you have requested on eternal progression and how the body we obtain corresponds to the kingdom we receive. I expect you will still not accept it. But store it away. Consider it again in time of quiet contemplation and the Lord may reveal it to you. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, janderich said:

Our bodies certainly do correspond to the kingdom we inherit. But entering into a kingdom is not the end. We will be added on again and again. At the end of one eternal round we will enter into another round, and yet another. One probation after another, one resurrection after another, until we obtain our resurrected bodies free and clear. Then we will no more taste of death. 

Here is how Brigham Young once explained it: 

Brigham says there are countless lives in us and that we will secure to ourselves a resurrection and then receive more and more, one after the other until we are crowned Gods.

Here is another from Heber C. Kimball: 

Heber here tells us that the arising in the morning is similar to the resurrection and that we will repeat that process again and again. 

I have now provided you the information you have requested on eternal progression and how the body we obtain corresponds to the kingdom we receive. I expect you will still not accept it. But store it away. Consider it again in time of quiet contemplation and the Lord may reveal it to you. 

At some point, if divided once more, the grain of sand is no longer a grain of sand. I’m not sure how many molecules it takes to constitute a grain of sand, but even if only one, once divided it is no longer a grain. And a corn seed grows (actually, it dies -- John 12:24) and perpetuates more seeds, but this is not through a process of division, as it does not directly divide into more seeds as the grain of sand (pollen and gametophyte must join together). The post-resurrection advancement Brigham Young speaks of seems to be only for those who have already “[secured] to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives,” of those who are quickened by their celestial spirits (D&C 88:28).

Heber C. Kimball is talking about the progress we undergo in mortality in anticipation for a glorious resurrection. After the resurrection, only those referred to by Brigham Young will continue to progress unto a continuation of the seeds.

So, we increase our agency in one kingdom so as to advance into a higher kingdom here in this mortal telestial kingdom. This life is the only place where we have a space granted unto us in which we might repent and secure the eternal, celestial world and exaltation (Alma 12:24). But the condition of immortality, of living forever, eradicates any space for repentance (Alma 42:5), so once one is quickened in a lesser kingdom, he has really run out of options and has no other place to go.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

Does anybody else think that it was quite bold, and even audacious of McConkie to state the following:

How can he say that when the first presidency sent a letter out to the church just 15 years prior (and another 13 years before that), stating that "the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point."

Just 20 years earlier, J. Reuben Clark (First Councilor in the First Presidency to McKay) stated:

Others like Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Franklin D Richards, B.H. Roberts, Lorenzo Snow, and James E. Talmage have stated similar things.  So, it just seems rather audacious of McConkie to call such a belief an "evil and pernicious doctrine" without being the president and prophet of the church to proclaim a definitive revelation on the matter.  I don't mean to stir up controversy, but dang!  Did he not get the memo...twice?

Yes, I think Elder McConkie spoke a bit too enthusiastically in making his point. I think J. Reuben Clark was referring to progress in the the spirit world and not post-resurrection, or progress in the post-resurrection as Brigham Young described, which was not between kingdoms but for those resurrected souls who have secured exaltation and still have some developmental work to do.

[janderich]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

At some point, if divided once more, the grain of sand is no longer a grain of sand. I’m not sure how many molecules it takes to constitute a grain of sand, but even if only one, once divided it is no longer a grain. And a corn seed grows (actually, it dies -- John 12:24) and perpetuates more seeds, but this is not through a process of division, as it does not directly divide into more seeds as the grain of sand (pollen and gametophyte must join together). The post-resurrection advancement Brigham Young speaks of seems to be only for those who have already “[secured] to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives,” of those who are quickened by their celestial spirits (D&C 88:28).

Sure the grain of sand will ultimately change into constituent molecules, atoms, etc. But that is not the point here. The point is about countless lives, receiving one after another. 

What do you take "secure to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives" to mean?

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Heber C. Kimball is talking about the progress we undergo in mortality in anticipation for a glorious resurrection. After the resurrection, only those referred to by Brigham Young will continue to progress unto a continuation of the seeds.

Don't change his words to fit your specific paradigm. He says that going to sleep, and rising in the morning is "typical of the probations we take." The words are plain and do not need to be twisted.

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, we increase our agency in one kingdom so as to advance into a higher kingdom here in this mortal telestial kingdom. This life is the only place where we have a space granted unto us in which we might repent and secure the eternal, celestial world and exaltation (Alma 12:24). But the condition of immortality, of living forever, eradicates any space for repentance (Alma 42:5), so once one is quickened in a lesser kingdom, he has really run out of options and has no other place to go.

If this life was the only chance we had to change I submit that none of us would make it to where God and Jesus Christ are. Add on the spirit world and we would still not make it. 

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

No one can know the intracacies of how God works. That is beyond our understanding. However, there are several things we do know. 

1. God knows each and everyone of us individually, better than we know ourselves.

2. God is all knowing and knows every event that is going to happen. He knows every tiny detail of this world, no blade of grass is missed.

3. God knows how long we are going to be on this earth. As I quoted in D&C earlier, our days are known and numbered.

You seem to be arguing from the point that God is continually adjusting his plan to make it work. That makes absolutely no sense. If he knows everything, then he knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit when they would. To say he didn't know and had a contingency plan for if they did is ludicrous. To make this clearer, let me give an example.

Imagine a football coach who watches a replay of a football game his team plays in. However, this football game has not been played yet. When it is played, he knows every touchdown, flag, injury, fumble and interception that is going to happen. So knowing everythat will happen, why wouldn't this coach make it so that his team will overcome everything, make no mistakes and win decisively? Because this coach cares more about his player's growth than winning. He will play his role as coach, but he will let his players play how they will play so they can learn from it. I don't know how I can explain it better than that.

If you're issue about the word 'appointed' in regards to suicide, as if God decreed that a certain person would kill themselves as a certain time, that is not what I meant. At this point, you're splitting hairs and arguing semantics.  

There are many people who disagree with (2). Blake Ostler and David Paulsen are two of the best known advocates of open theism with respect to God. For them he can know probabilities for things not affected by free will and can know things that he has in his power to bring about. Outside of those things God simply doesn't know the future. Now I'm quite skeptical of this view but it has of late become rather influential. At a minimum we should note though that omniscience in a Mormon context involves God knowing all that is possibly knowable, not that God knows everything we can conceive of him knowing. What those limits are isn't clear.

In any case the big problem is the interaction of God's foreknowledge (assuming he has it) and free will. It's precisely that interaction that leads people like Paulsen and Ostler to open theism. They are committed to a particular conception of free will that is incompatible with foreknowledge. As I suggested I'm far more skeptical of this conception of foreknowledge but they argue (fairly persuasively) that for God to punish people in a retributive fashion requires they be accountable for their actions in a fashion only this type of free will can explain. (For more on this I'd suggest reading Blake's Exploring Mormon Thought Volume 1 -- he has also been going through the arguments in a podcast from Greg Kofford Books) For a more general explanation about why particular truths about future events are incompatible with libertarian accounts of free will I'd check out the SEP on foreknowledge and free will. (Although they have many articles on free will that one should read to get up to speed on the debate)

I bring all this up simply to note a lot has been written on this (it's a whole field in philosophy) and also in a faithful Mormon context. (One can disagree with Paulsen and Ostler - but it's hard to call them unfaithful)

To the more specific issue of the exegesis of D&C 122:9, I'm not sure one should read that as implying God knows exactly when Joseph Smith will die. But even if it means that, it's clearly a case of God using his power to keep Joseph alive until he's finished with his task. i.e. it's God intervening in this particular case in which he uses his power to stop people's free will attempts to kill Joseph rather than a general claim of everone's life span and events being determined by God in a Calvinistic fashion.

To your point about it being "ludicrous" for God to have backup plans, I think the 116 pages is a pretty good example of that.

I don't think I'm splitting hairs although I certainly am saying we have to pay pretty close attention to the semantics. It simply matters a great deal how God knows the future and what he does. Even if one admits foreknowledge (as I tend to be willing to do) remember that this issue again is God's intents and particular events. So subtly different views can lead to pretty big implications. 

My sense is that what you are somewhat trying to argue for is something called middle knowledge or molinism. That is God knows every possibility and then arranges everyone's free choices so that they lead to what he wants. I'm not sure if that's what you actually are arguing for though so I'll hold off criticizing that position. I'd suggest reading up on these things though as there really are pretty problems reconciling free will with many of the positions you are espousing. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

2 hours ago, janderich said:

Sure the grain of sand will ultimately change into constituent molecules, atoms, etc. But that is not the point here. The point is about countless lives, receiving one after another. 

What do you take "secure to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives" to mean?

Don't change his words to fit your specific paradigm. He says that going to sleep, and rising in the morning is "typical of the probations we take." The words are plain and do not need to be twisted.

If this life was the only chance we had to change I submit that none of us would make it to where God and Jesus Christ are. Add on the spirit world and we would still not make it. 

To “secure to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives” refers to D&C 132:22-23 (“For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me. But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.”) and is accomplished by receiving Jesus in the world (per D&C 84:36-39, “For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.”). Those who secure it are described in D&C 76:50- 70.

Heber C. Kimball’s words are pretty clear so I am only explaining what they mean. He emphasizes that “it is a progressive work from one day to another, and from one week to another; and if we advance this year, we are so far advanced in preparation to better go through the next year,” and makes no mention of the courses of immortal worlds. He is speaking of what we need to do in this life, which is not an estate in which gods can die and resurrect over and over (though he did believe in Adam-God--are you changing his words to fit your paradigm?). He is saying that if we “do not improve our time while in this life [“this day of life” which of course is all the days of our lives], then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed (Alma 34:33),” in other words, we will be “still in the rear” on resurrection morning if we do act so as to secure a resurrection pertaining to the lives.

I disagree that none of us can secure to ourselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives by the virtue and grace of Jesus Christ extended to us in this life and the spirit world. The Plan of Happiness is founded on that principle. I think those that have faith in Christ per D&C 76:50-70 will find Him before the resurrection, and in the resurrection proceed from their celestial glory into exaltation.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

Where did I ever claim the church has taken a position?

This is what you said:

Quote

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?

You are rather sarcastically suggesting that it should not be up for interpretation, that it is set in stone doctrine.  You make it sound as if all the modern day prophets are in agreement and clear on the doctrine, and that even thought the church itself hasn't made a statement, the brethren who run the church have, and that should be good enough for us.  That is what I was commenting on.  That simply is not the case.

12 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

 I quoted prophets very definitively teaching that progression in glories is false doctrine. 

 And I quoted prophets very definitively teaching that progression in glories is true doctrine.  Did you read the link?

12 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

If you want to disagree with multiple prophets because there is no official church statement then that's your choice.  

Same back to ya!

12 hours ago, MrSpruceMoose said:

Also, if you agree then what is your point? 

My point is simply that, akin to McConkie, you are overstating a theory as a doctrine.  It is not doctrine. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, janderich said:

Absolutely. But McConkie was nothing if not audacious, he wrote an entire book by himself and named it Mormon Doctrine. President McKay had to assign an apostle to make corrections, of which over 1,000 were found. So I take this statement about progression as par for the course.  

Agreed, but this case just seems like a particularly hard slap in the face to those brethren who have openly disagreed with him historically and where the church itself has sent out two official letters stating that it does not take a position on the matter for the precise reason that the brethren are not agreed and there is no definitive revelation on the subject.  He is basically accusing other living (and dead) prophets of subscribing to a "deadly heresy" that is "beyond wrong" to the point of it being "evil" and "pernicious".

[pogi]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I think Elder McConkie spoke a bit too enthusiastically in making his point. I think J. Reuben Clark was referring to progress in the the spirit world and not post-resurrection, or progress in the post-resurrection as Brigham Young described, which was not between kingdoms but for those resurrected souls who have secured exaltation and still have some developmental work to do.

I disagree about J. Reuben Clark, simply because progress in the spirit world from prison to paradise is a given...why would he make it a point to take sides if there is only one side on that point.  Also, he would not have considered the duration of the spirit world to be "eons of eternities that are to follow".  If he was referring to progression within the spirit world only, I wouldn't expect him to say "it is my belief..." but instead to say, "it is the doctrine of the church..." Here is what he said:

Quote

I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here.  It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can:  and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.

It is clear that when the church sent out the letter stating that they do not take a position on the matter, they clearly stated that some of the brethren have held the position that advancement between kingdoms is possible, while other's hold the opposite view.  The church has admitted that some brethren do believe in progression between kingdoms and that no definitive revelation has been given on the subject, so we can't really pretend like some don't hold that view.  J. Reuben Clark gave that quote just 5 years before the Church sent out the letter saying that the brethren are not agreed and the church is not taking a position, so it seem likely that he was one of those who disagreed with popular opinion. 

Here are some other quotes in case anyone has not looked at the link I provided:

Quote

Hyrum Smith (Assistant President of the Church, Church Patriarch, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve)
Reference:  August 1, 1843, transcribed by Franklin D. Richards; Words of the Prophet, pg. 24; CHO Ms/d/4409/Misc Minutes Collection
====================
Hiram [Smith] said Aug 1st [18]43 Those of the Terrestrial Glory either advance to the Celestial or recede to the Telestial [or] else the moon could not be a type [viz. a symbol of that kingdom]. [for] it [the moon] "waxes & wanes". Also that br George will be quickened by celestial glory having been ministered to by one of that Kingdom.

Quote

Franklin D. Richards (Member of the Quorum of the Twelve)
Reference:  Journal of Discourses, Volume 25:236, May 17, 1884
====================
The Savior tells us that the terrestrial glory, or kingdom, is likened unto the glory of the moon, which is not of the brightness of the sun, neither of the smallness nor dimness of the stars. But those others who have no part in marrying or giving of marriage in the last resurrection, they become as stars, and even differ from each other in glory; but those in the terrestrial kingdom are those who will come forth at the time when Enoch comes back, when the Savior comes again to dwell upon the earth; when Father Abraham will be there with the Urim and Thummim to look after every son and daughter of his race; to make known all things that are needed to be known, and with them enter into their promised inheritance. 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.

Quote

 

B.H. Roberts (Member of the First Quorum of the Seventy)
Reference:  New Witnesses for God, Volume 1; pp. 391-392
====================
These are the great divisions of glory in the world to come, but there are subdivisions or degrees.  Of the telestial glory it is written: "And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one, for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world" [D&C 76:98].  From this it is evident that there are different degrees of glory within the celestial and the telestial glories; and though we have no direct authority for the statement, it seems but reasonable to conclude that there are different degrees of glory in the terrestrial world also.  It appears but rational that it should be so, since the degrees of worthiness in men are almost infinite in their variety; and as every man is to be judged according to his works, it will require a corresponding infinity of degrees in glory to mete out to every man that reward of which he is worthy, and that also which his intelligence will enable him to enjoy.

The question of advancement within the great divisions of glory celestial, terrestrial, and telestial; as also the question of advancement from one sphere of glory to another remains to be considered..  In the revelation from which we have summarized what has been written here, in respect to the different degrees of glory, it is said that those of the terrestrial glory will be ministered unto by those of the celestial; and those of the telestial will be ministered unto by those of the terrestrial - that is, those of the higher glory minister to those of a lesser glory.  I can conceive of no reason for all this administration of the higher to the lower, unless it be for the purpose of advancing our Father's children along the lines of eternal progression.  Whether or not in the great future, full of so many possibilities now hidden from us, they of the lesser glories after education and advancement within those spheres may at last emerge from them and make their way to the higher degrees of glory until at last they attain to the highest, is not revealed in the revelations of God, and any statement made on the subject must partake more or less of the nature of conjecture.  But if it be granted that such a thing is possible, they who at the first entered into the celestial glory - having before them the privilege also of eternal progress - have been moving onward, so that the relative distance between them and those who have fought their way up from the lesser glories may be as great when the latter have come into the degrees of celestial glory in which the righteous at first stood, as it was at the commencement.  Thus:  Those whose faith and works are such only as to enable them to inherit a telestial glory, may arrive at last where those whose works in this life were such as to enable them to entrance into the celestial kingdom - they may arrive where these were, but never where they are.

 

Quote

 

James E. Talmage (Educator, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve)
Reference:  Articles of Faith (book)
====================
Articles of Faith, James E. Talmage (1st Edition, 1899, pp. 420-421)

It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.

 

Quote

Joseph F. Smith (Prophet)
Reference:  Improvement Era 14:87 [November 1910] 
==================== 
“Once a person enters these glories there will be eternal progress in the line of each of these particular glories, but the privilege of passing from one to another (though this may be possible for especially gifted and faithful characters) is not provided for.” 

While mostly against the idea, Joseph F. Smith clearly believed that there can be exceptions. 
 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

I particularly appreciate what B.H. Roberts said here, and think we all need to keep this in mind:

Quote

B.H. Roberts (Member of the First Quorum of the Seventy)
Reference:  New Witnesses for God, Volume 1; pp. 391-392
====================
The question of advancement within the great divisions of glory celestial, terrestrial, and telestial; as also the question of advancement from one sphere of glory to another remains to be considered.. Whether or not in the great future, full of so many possibilities now hidden from us, they of the lesser glories after education and advancement within those spheres may at last emerge from them and make their way to the higher degrees of glory until at last they attain to the highest, is not revealed in the revelations of God, and any statement made on the subject must partake more or less of the nature of conjecture.

While it is interesting to discuss, lets be careful not to overstate our positions.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I disagree about J. Reuben Clark, simply because progress in the spirit world from prison to paradise is a given...why would he make it a point to take sides if there is only one side on that point.  Also, he would not have considered the duration of the spirit world to be "eons of eternities that are to follow".  If he was referring to progression within the spirit world only, I wouldn't expect him to say "it is my belief..." but instead to say, "it is the doctrine of the church..." Here is what he said:

It is clear that when the church sent out the letter stating that they do not take a position on the matter, they clearly stated that some of the brethren have held the position that advancement between kingdoms is possible, while other's hold the opposite view.  The church has admitted that some brethren do believe in progression between kingdoms and that no definitive revelation has been given on the subject, so we can't really pretend like some don't hold that view.  J. Reuben Clark gave that quote just 5 years before the Church sent out the letter saying that the brethren are not agreed and the church is not taking a position, so it seem likely that he was one of those who disagreed with popular opinion. 

Here are some other quotes in case anyone has not looked at the link I provided:

While mostly against the idea, Joseph F. Smith clearly believed that there can be exceptions.

Of course, there is no official position from the Church, so any of my comments reflect my current understanding. He says it will take place in the eons that are to follow, not that it will take eons or a transition between kingdoms of glory. I understand him to be saying “…the unrighteous will have their chance [in the spirit world, before there resurrection], and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow [i.e. after their departure from the spirit world and their resurrection], they, too, may [if they have proven eligible in the spirit world to secure to themselves a resurrection pertaining to the lives] climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.”

I think Hyrum Smith’s remarks could be taken in context of what occurs in the spirit world. Franklin D. Richards seems to be referring to the City of Zion that was taken up (the terrestrial glory of translated beings) and which will return to the Millennial earth (also having a terrestrial or paradisiacal glory).

Unlike B. H. Roberts, I can conceive of administration from the higher to the lower simply being the eternal order of things. By nature ministering entails providence from a higher possessor to a lower beneficiary; I'm thinking that higher beings love and minister to those in the lower kingdoms to the extent to which they are willing to receive and enjoy (D&C 88:32). This operates according to the appropriate medium; for example, the telestial kingdom receives the fulness of the Holy Spirit and terrestrial ministering angels, but not celestial angels (the Church or the Firstborn) nor the fulness of the Son; these presumably minister to those of the terrestrial world.

James E. Talmage acknowledges the “ifs” involved, and Jospeh F. Smith parenthetically suggests a “may.”

Now I do not pretend to know what these men were thinking and believing when they said these things, but I think they could be speaking the truth as I understand it.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now I do not pretend to know what these men were thinking and believing when they said these things, but I think they could be speaking the truth as I understand it.

CV75, the church has clearly stated that the brethren are not in agreement on this matter.  It is pointless to try and interpret everyone as if they are in agreement, when they are admittedly not all in agreement.  Clearly some brethren do believe in, and accept the idea of progression between kingdoms.  So, if not these brethren, then whom? It seems reasonable to me that these are the most likely candidates.

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps these are partial quotes but none say that they will change from one Kingdom to another. That is all interpretation. Advancing in Glory towards Celestial glory is not changing from the telestial kingdom into the Celestial Kingdom. It is advancing toward it.

I would like to think I am advancing toward Celestial glory too but I am not in Celestial Glory.

Perhaps if you provided a link to the previous quotes you might have a point but all of these quotes show me is that advancing toward a goal is not being at the goal.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. One can be two steps into the process and still be advancing toward the goal.

I still not have seen the words that people in the terrestrial Kingdom can advance to the Celestial Kingdom. And no one has still mentioned one single word about the problem of having bodies that correspond to the kingdom which one inherits.

Not a single person, not a single quote.

I advise people on tax planning. If there's a loophole in the code people drive trucks thru the loophole. If it is not specifically written out very clearly it is a loophole.

These are not even loopholes in this alleged Doctrine. They just appear to me to be fantasy. Sorry but to me there's nothing there.

 

“Advancing to a celestial kingdom,” not towards, said Brigham.

“Until they come to a fullness of celestial glory,” not towards, said Franklin.

”Advance to the Celestial Kingdom or recede to the telestial,” not toward, said Hyrum.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

CV75, the church has clearly stated that the brethren are not in agreement on this matter.  It is pointless to try and interpret everyone as if they are in agreement, when they are admittedly not all in agreement.  Clearly some brethren do believe in, and accept the idea of progression between kingdoms.  So, if not these brethren, then whom? It seems reasonable to me that these are the most likely candidates.

Just doing my part to make life difficult!

Where the Church hasn't come up with a compilation of attributed beliefs, it would be hard to find out who believes what. I'm trying to understand (and challenge, LOL) the rationale for progression between kingdoms.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Does anybody else think that it was quite bold, and even audacious of McConkie to state the following:

How can he say that when the first presidency sent a letter out to the church just 15 years prior (and another 13 years before that), stating that "the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point."

Just 20 years earlier, J. Reuben Clark (First Councilor in the First Presidency to McKay) stated:

Others like Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Franklin D Richards, B.H. Roberts, Lorenzo Snow, and James E. Talmage have stated similar things.  So, it just seems rather audacious of McConkie to call such a belief an "evil and pernicious doctrine" without being the president and prophet of the church to proclaim a definitive revelation on the matter.  I don't mean to stir up controversy, but dang!  Did he not get the memo...twice?

Here was your J Ruben Clark quote

Quote

I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here.  It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can:  and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.

Where does it say they can progress between kingdoms?   It doesn't.  This is the same kind of quote we see again and again here on this thread that allegedly says something it does not actually say.

It says that the unrighteous may attain the "destiny" of one who is righteous.  What does that mean?

Interp 1 which excludes kingdom jumping:

Suppose I am a bad guy and on the other side "get religion" and end up being as "righteous" as someone in some level of the CK.  So maybe that individual gets what the individual in the CK gets without BEING IN the CK.

Why not?

Some self-taught scholar may be at the level of one who has a Phd but NOT BE a Phd!   He cannot teach at a university, get published easily etc.

He has attained the intellectual level of a Phd- the intellectual "destiny" of knowing all a Phd knows and still NOT BE a Phd.

Interp 2 which excludes kingdom jumping:

Here Elder Clark is describing what happens in the spirit world.  Someone "unrighteous" enters the spirit world in spirit prison.   

There he works hard and repents and "nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, [after having their vicarious ordinances done in the temple, so they can attain the resurrection of one in the Celestial Kingdom and ] have climbed to those eternities that are to come.

So how are those two possibilities excluded from what Elder Clark says here?

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

“Advancing to a celestial kingdom,” not towards, said Brigham.

“Until they come to a fullness of celestial glory,” not towards, said Franklin.

”Advance to the Celestial Kingdom or recede to the telestial,” not toward, said Hyrum.

 

Look- I personally believe in eternal progression and honestly look at all this kingdom stuff as metaphorical poetry saying "If you are good, you get all God has.  If you have half-good you only get a portion of what God wants you to have".   Literalists always want every jot and tittle made perfectly clear but that doesn't work with God.

The question for me is to create a coherent interpretation out of the jumble of all these quotes and the bottom line is the BODY PROBLEM which no one addresses.  Do you switch bodies when you switch kingdoms?   This is not about "what really happens" after we are resurrected - not for me anyhow.   Anyone can get their own testimony on that one.   I am not even sure our bodies need to change.   I don't see why one could not just get more zapped or whatever happens when one qualifies.

But that is not part of a coherent theory of the afterlife.   We ain't got one.   So as usual it's Orthopraxis, be good and see how it turns out.

So I don't think it is wise to build an entire gospel interpretation on the sandy foundation of the word "TO"  which is just a mite ambiguous  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to

 

 

Quote

 

Definition of to

1a —used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached 

• drove to the city

• went back to the original idea

• went to lunch

b —used as a function word to indicate direction 

• a mile to the south

• turned his back tothe door

• a tendency to silliness

c —used as a function word to indicate contact or proximity 

• applied polish to the table

• put her hand to her heart

d (1) —used as a function word to indicate the place or point that is the far limit 

• 100 miles to the nearest town

 

(2) —used as a function word to indicate the limit of extent 

• stripped to the waist

e —used as a function word to indicate relative position 

• perpendicular to the floor

2a —used as a function word to indicate purpose, intention, tendency, result, or end 

• cameto our aid

• drink to his health

b —used as a function word to indicate the result of an action or a process 

• broken all topieces

• go to seed

• to their surprise, the train left on time

3—used as a function word to indicate position or relation in time: such as

a :before 

• five minutes to five

b :until 2 

• from eight to five

 

• up to now

4—used as a function word to indicate addition, attachment, connection, belonging, possession, accompaniment, or response 

• the key to the door

• danced to live music

• comes to her call

5—used as a function word (1) to indicate the extent or degree (as of completeness or accuracy) 

• loyal to a man

• generous to a fault

 or the extent and result (as of an action or a condition) 

• beaten to death

 (2) to indicate the last or an intermediate point of a series 

• moderate to cool temperatures

6a —used as a function word (1) to indicate a relation to one that serves as a standard 

• inferior to her earlier works

 (2) to indicate similarity, correspondence, dissimilarity, or proportion 

• compared him to a god

b —used as a function word to indicate agreement or conformity 

• add salt to taste

• to my knowledge

c —used as a function word to indicate a proportion in terms of numbers or quantities 

• 400 to the box

• odds of ten to one

7a —used as a function word (1) to indicate the application of an adjective or a noun 

• agreeable to everyone

• attitude to friends

• title to the property

 (2) to indicate the relation of a verb to its complement or to a complementary element 

• refers to the traditions

 (3) to indicate the receiver of an action or the one for which something is done or exists 

• gives a dollar to the man

 and often used with a reflexive pronoun to indicate exclusiveness (as of possession) or separateness 

• had the house to themselves

b —used as a function word to indicate agency 

• falls to his opponent's blows

8—used as a function word to indicate that the following verb is an infinitive 

• wants to go

and often used by itself at the end of a clause in place of an infinitive suggested by the preceding context 

• knows more than she seems to

 

•