Are the inheritors of the Terrestrial kingdom damned?

[AtlanticMike]

A couple years ago one of my kids was studying the d&c for seminary. When she got to 132 and started reading about Emma being destroyed, I think verse 54, she had a really hard time with the wording. From my understanding and the best I could explain to her, was that to me, what God was telling Emma was if she didn't listen to Joseph, she would be banished to the terrestrial kingdom an live eternity in a damned status along with everyone else who inherited that kingdom. Is this a good explanation or do you read it differently?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Mike Livingston said:

A couple years ago one of my kids was studying the d&c for seminary. When she got to 132 and started reading about Emma being destroyed, I think verse 54, she had a really hard time with the wording. From my understanding and the best I could explain to her, was that to me, what God was telling Emma was if she didn't listen to Joseph, she would be banished to the terrestrial kingdom an live eternity in a damned status along with everyone else who inherited that kingdom. Is this a good explanation or do you read it differently?

The Terrestrial Kingdom is not a kingdom of damnation.

The very thread title is a contradiction- don't think you will get many replies

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Mike Livingston said:

A couple years ago one of my kids was studying the d&c for seminary. When she got to 132 and started reading about Emma being destroyed, I think verse 54, she had a really hard time with the wording. From my understanding and the best I could explain to her, was that to me, what God was telling Emma was if she didn't listen to Joseph, she would be banished to the terrestrial kingdom an live eternity in a damned status along with everyone else who inherited that kingdom. Is this a good explanation or do you read it differently?

"Destroyed" is a funky word in the scriptures. It can mean damnation, it can mean a merely temporal destruction, it can mean being separated from and divested of the fruits of the priesthood, and in the scriptures you even see references to being destroyed in the flesh but saved in the spirit. The common overarching theme appears to be "falling short". If this is the case than we live in destruction continually and salvation rises as a phoenix from the ashes of a once-fallen reality. 

So I don't see a specific consignment to any postmortal state in section 132. 

Also, those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom are resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium. It's not a kingdom of damnation in the conventional sense. 

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Also, those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom are resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium.

Is that so? I'm not objecting, I'm just questioning. You have a reference? 

I know about the resurrection of the just and unjust, and that the unjust have to wait until all the just are resurrected (or do they?), but do all the just get resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium? Problem with that, in my mind, is that during the tribulation leading to the second coming many righteous people will die before they hear the gospel (people in places where Christian missionaries have not yet penetrated, for example, and so have not heard the "good news"). So there they are in the spirit world, not yet taught the gospel, and up starts the Millennium and they can't yet be resurrected because they're not ready for it -- but their ultimate kingdom cannot yet be determined.

Or do you mean to say that those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom will begin to be resurrected at that time? In that case, what about those who live into the Millennium who will eventually inherit the Celestial Kingdom? When do they get resurrected?

I'm not convinced, by the way, that it matters in which order one is resurrected.  The resurrection of the just is qualitatively better than that of the unjust, regardless of who gets resurrected before whom. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Mike Livingston said:

A couple years ago one of my kids was studying the d&c for seminary. When she got to 132 and started reading about Emma being destroyed, I think verse 54, she had a really hard time with the wording. From my understanding and the best I could explain to her, was that to me, what God was telling Emma was if she didn't listen to Joseph, she would be banished to the terrestrial kingdom an live eternity in a damned status along with everyone else who inherited that kingdom. Is this a good explanation or do you read it differently?

What is the explanation she accepts today?

I think the immediate explanation is found in verse 55 (to be destroyed is the opposite of that, as applied to this world and the eternal worlds). I also recommend going to the footnotes and then the footnotes of the footnotes to see what several things "destroy" might mean. In each case, I wouldn't want it.

It might be worth updating her on your current thoughts.

[AtlanticMike]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The Terrestrial Kingdom is not a kingdom of damnation.

The very thread title is a contradiction- don't think you will get many replies

That's fine, I only need one to be happy so thank you for replying. But I disagree with what you said. On Jan. 14 2016 Elder Oaks gave a talk called Teaching Repentance and Baptizing Converts. It's an awesome talk and if your actually interested in viewing it but not watching the whole video, you can skip to the11.45 to 12.15 mark to hear his view on who is or isn't damned. Also, 13.00 to 13.55, this is when Elder Oaks explains that anyone who doesn't accept baptism and the ordinances of the temple are damned to a lesser status or kingdom. All I ask is for you watch the video, it's on the churches official website under gospel media. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. I'm not saying the Terrestrial kingdom isn't a kingdom of glory, all I'm saying is the souls who reside there are in a state of damnation. To me, being in a state of damnation after we die would be finding yourself in a kingdom (even if it's a kingdom of glory) that you are unable to live with your Heavenly parents with no hope of eternal progression. If I'm understanding the terrestrial kingdom correctly, isn't that what it offers?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Is that so? I'm not objecting, I'm just questioning. You have a reference? 

I know about the resurrection of the just and unjust, and that the unjust have to wait until all the just are resurrected (or do they?), but do all the just get resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium? Problem with that, in my mind, is that during the tribulation leading to the second coming many righteous people will die before they hear the gospel (people in places where Christian missionaries have not yet penetrated, for example, and so have not heard the "good news"). So there they are in the spirit world, not yet taught the gospel, and up starts the Millennium and they can't yet be resurrected because they're not ready for it -- but their ultimate kingdom cannot yet be determined.

Or do you mean to say that those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom will begin to be resurrected at that time? In that case, what about those who live into the Millennium who will eventually inherit the Celestial Kingdom? When do they get resurrected?

I'm not convinced, by the way, that it matters in which order one is resurrected.  The resurrection of the just is qualitatively better than that of the unjust, regardless of who gets resurrected before whom. 

That is a valid objection. I suspect that time as experienced by spirits is not like what we experience so I don’t think it will be a problem but I could easily be wrong.

[AtlanticMike]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a valid objection. I suspect that time as experienced by spirits is not like what we experience so I don’t think it will be a problem but I could easily be wrong.

So Nehor, you sure do have a lot of post here so I would value your opinion on the video I asked mfbukwoski to watch if your interested. 

[AtlanticMike]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the explanation she accepts today?

I think the immediate explanation is found in verse 55 (to be destroyed is the opposite of that, as applied to this world and the eternal worlds). I also recommend going to the footnotes and then the footnotes of the footnotes to see what several things "destroy" might mean. In each case, I wouldn't want it.

It might be worth updating her on your current thoughts.

My daughter thought destroyed meant gone, kaput, vaporized, annihilated and so on. All I was trying to explain to her was that Emma wouldn't find herself in the celestial kingdom as an exalted being with Joseph if she doesn't obey him. Probably the terrestrial since Emma is a good person. 

[Stargazer]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a valid objection. I suspect that time as experienced by spirits is not like what we experience so I don’t think it will be a problem but I could easily be wrong.

Coincidentally, I've been thinking about this "time" issue lately. So, if time passes there as it does here, someone who died near the time of the Flood has been sitting (floating?) around in the spirit world for what, six thousand years and they've not gone catatonic from boredom yet? Assuming that it's possible to be bored in the SW.  And the earliest arrivers, (e.g. Abel) had to float around there for centuries all alone waiting for more people to die? Assuming that it's possible to be lonely in the SW.

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Mike Livingston said:

My daughter thought destroyed meant gone, kaput, vaporized, annihilated and so on. All I was trying to explain to her was that Emma wouldn't find herself in the celestial kingdom as an exalted being with Joseph if she doesn't obey him. Probably the terrestrial since Emma is a good person. 

The word "destroyed" occurs in the New Testament, for example, about 49 times, and in no case does it refer to annihilation. In DC 45:19 it says "But, verily I say unto you, that desolation shall come upon this generation as a thief in the night, and this people shall be destroyed and scattered among all nations."

You can't be annihilated and then scattered among all nations. You have to survive in order to be scattered.

I suggest that the Lord did not mean anything more than that she would lose her promised blessings through disobedience. And anything that the Lord commanded of Joseph was HIS command, and not merely Joseph's own words. Emma had a testimony that he was God's prophet. How could she reject a known prophet's words that were spoken as a prophet and then remain untouched by the disobedience? Just because God's commandment comes through a mortal interlocutor does not change the character of the commandment to a nullity that can be disobeyed without fear of repercussion.

As an aside, I believe Brigham Young said that because of Emma's attitude about plural marriage Joseph would have to go to hell to get her, if he wanted her in the resurrection. Actual quote is from the Journal of Discourses (17:159):

"Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her."

But Brother Brigham sometimes said things that he probably shouldn't have. I sure wouldn't want to pontificate as to Joseph's ability to retrieve his wife from that bad place. Assuming that that's where she went. In any case, I'm pretty sure that Brother Brigham knew the difference between the sectarian Christian hell and the reality of the case. It sounds like he was just freelancing.

 

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Mike Livingston said:

My daughter thought destroyed meant gone, kaput, vaporized, annihilated and so on. All I was trying to explain to her was that Emma wouldn't find herself in the celestial kingdom as an exalted being with Joseph if she doesn't obey him. Probably the terrestrial since Emma is a good person. 

Hopefully she understood, or came to understand, that Emma was commanded to obey the Lord's instructions, law and voice (verses 3 and 53), not necessarily Joseph in general. Elder Oaks' comments about damnation would have been a good message to share with her, and hopefully she understands that as well.

Edited December 13, 2020 by CV75

[AtlanticMike]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The word "destroyed" occurs in the New Testament, for example, about 49 times, and in no case does it refer to annihilation. In DC 45:19 it says "But, verily I say unto you, that desolation shall come upon this generation as a thief in the night, and this people shall be destroyed and scattered among all nations."

You can't be annihilated and then scattered among all nations. You have to survive in order to be scattered.

I suggest that the Lord did not mean anything more than that she would lose her promised blessings through disobedience. And anything that the Lord commanded of Joseph was HIS command, and not merely Joseph's own words. Emma had a testimony that he was God's prophet. How could she reject a known prophet's words that were spoken as a prophet and then remain untouched by the disobedience? Just because God's commandment comes through a mortal interlocutor does not change the character of the commandment to a nullity that can be disobeyed without fear of repercussion.

As an aside, I believe Brigham Young said that because of Emma's attitude about plural marriage Joseph would have to go to hell to get her, if he wanted her in the resurrection. Actual quote is from the Journal of Discourses (17:159):

"Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her."

But Brother Brigham sometimes said things that he probably shouldn't have. I sure wouldn't want to pontificate as to Joseph's ability to retrieve his wife from that bad place. Assuming that that's where she went. In any case, I'm pretty sure that Brother Brigham knew the difference between the sectarian Christian hell and the reality of the case. It sounds like he was just freelancing.

 

Awesome, thank you for that. Do you think the beings who make it to the kingdom of glory called the terrestrial kingdom, find themselves in a state of damnation? I  think Elder Oaks in the video I referenced above makes it clear that anyone outside of the celestial kingdom is damned. I would appreciate it if you watch it and tell me what you think.

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The Terrestrial Kingdom is not a kingdom of damnation.

The very thread title is a contradiction- don't think you will get many replies

What's the contradiction?

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Mike Livingston said:

Awesome, thank you for that. Do you think the beings who make it to the kingdom of glory called the terrestrial kingdom, find themselves in a state of damnation? I  think Elder Oaks in the video I referenced above makes it clear that anyone outside of the celestial kingdom is damned. I would appreciate it if you watch it and tell me what you think.

Don't need to watch it, sorry. I might watch it later, nevertheless, but can't just now.

My understanding of the word "damnation" in this connection is that it refers to the end of progression. That one has reached the pinnacle of one's progress. Read the following:

DC 131:1-4 - 

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

It might be said that those, even in the Celestial Kingdom, who have not entered into the order of the priesthood mentioned here, are damned or have reached their own pinnacle of progression.  They certainly are not suffering hell fire, and neither are those who have inherited Terrestrial or Telestial glory. Can they progress beyond those two kingdoms? I have heard that they cannot. But so what? Each of us has chosen our own course, and some have chosen varying degrees of disobedience. Only those who chose not to repent find themselves in the Telestial, but even they enjoy an incomprehensible joy and glory. Incomprehensible to us mortals, at least.

So I don't worry about them; they'll be fine. I just strive to not disappoint Father too much in my own behavior.

[AtlanticMike]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Don't need to watch it, sorry. I might watch it later, nevertheless, but can't just now.

My understanding of the word "damnation" in this connection is that it refers to the end of progression. That one has reached the pinnacle of one's progress. Read the following:

DC 131:1-4 - 

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

It might be said that those, even in the Celestial Kingdom, who have not entered into the order of the priesthood mentioned here, are damned or have reached their own pinnacle of progression.  They certainly are not suffering hell fire, and neither are those who have inherited Terrestrial or Telestial glory. Can they progress beyond those two kingdoms? I have heard that they cannot. But so what? Each of us has chosen our own course, and some have chosen varying degrees of disobedience. Only those who chose not to repent find themselves in the Telestial, but even they enjoy an incomprehensible joy and glory. Incomprehensible to us mortals, at least.

So I don't worry about them; they'll be fine. I just strive to not disappoint Father too much in my own behavior.

I never said anything about hellfire. And basically said exactly what you just said, that since there's know eternal progression in the terrestrial kingdom the spirits there are in a state of damnation. Thank you for the answer I appreciate it.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Is that so? I'm not objecting, I'm just questioning. You have a reference? 

I know about the resurrection of the just and unjust, and that the unjust have to wait until all the just are resurrected (or do they?), but do all the just get resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium? Problem with that, in my mind, is that during the tribulation leading to the second coming many righteous people will die before they hear the gospel (people in places where Christian missionaries have not yet penetrated, for example, and so have not heard the "good news"). So there they are in the spirit world, not yet taught the gospel, and up starts the Millennium and they can't yet be resurrected because they're not ready for it -- but their ultimate kingdom cannot yet be determined.

Or do you mean to say that those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom will begin to be resurrected at that time? In that case, what about those who live into the Millennium who will eventually inherit the Celestial Kingdom? When do they get resurrected?

I'm not convinced, by the way, that it matters in which order one is resurrected.  The resurrection of the just is qualitatively better than that of the unjust, regardless of who gets resurrected before whom. 

D&C 88:99-101, emphasis mine: 

Quote

 

99 And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh.

100 And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation;

101 And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.

 

Juxtapose this with D&C 76:71-73: 

Quote

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

From this I've thought that the people resurrected with the second trump are those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom. It's clear that they, unlike the telestial inhabitants, rise at the beginning of the Millenium, and therefore take part in the resurrection of the just. This makes sense, since D&C 76:75 calls the terrestrial-dwellers the "honorable men of the earth", with the caveat that they were blinded by the craftiness of men. 

I also think that time works differently for spirits. Given that spirits are eternal beings it would absolutely have to. There's no reason that our feeble conceptions of the nature of time should actually be right. So I too am wary of a linear interpretation of these things, and I also consider that the Lord does love His symbolic teaching and there is 0 reason to believe that that has stopped with our dispensation (and the temple in fact confirms that it has not). So, I'm pretty open to loose interpretations of the trump-sequence in D&C 88. Multiple scriptures are pretty clear that Christ has to be resurrected before anybody else, but other than that I'm not sure how sequential it is. 

The infinity of preexistence, the nature of eternity, is somewhat interesting to me. I used to be kind of baffled that our eternities could be decided by the events of 70 or so years on this little planet. But then I reflected that we have had an eternity to become what we presently are, so this life is the culmination of an eternity of preparation. Somehow that made it click on an intuitive level. 

[katherine the great]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Emma had a testimony that he was God's prophet.

She also had a testimony that he was a flesh and blood man and prone to mistakes. Emma was a magnificent person and if she isn't living her best celestial afterlife then no one is. 

Edited December 13, 2020 by katherine the great

[OGHoosier]

10 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

She also had a testimony that he was a flesh and blood man and prone to mistakes. Emma was a magnificent person and if she isn't living her best celestial afterlife than no one is. 

I expect she's doing just fine, for magnificent she was, though I'm obviously in no position to render a verdict. I unfortunately lack the quality of "being God" that would give me that right. 

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Mike Livingston said:

I never said anything about hellfire.

Didn't say you did! 🙂 

Quote

And basically said exactly what you just said, that since there's know eternal progression in the terrestrial kingdom the spirits there are in a state of damnation. Thank you for the answer I appreciate it.

The word "damnation" is mainly used by non-Restoration Christian as a substitute for the word "hell", or eternal burning. Or, at least that's how I see it. It doesn't have a meaning in the Gospel taught by the Latter-day Saints, except to wire it up to non-progression. Because, for one thing, the Terrestrial Kingdom isn't a place where the denizens are on fire for eternity. Or even the Telestial.

But even Perdition, or Outer Darkness, is not a place of burning.  It's going to cold, it's going to be grey, and it's going to last you for eternity.

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The infinity of preexistence, the nature of eternity, is somewhat interesting to me. I used to be kind of baffled that our eternities could be decided by the events of 70 or so years on this little planet. But then I reflected that we have had an eternity to become what we presently are, so this life is the culmination of an eternity of preparation. Somehow that made it click on an intuitive level. 

As I have matured in the Gospel and quantum physics, I have come to feel as you do about it. My favorite physicist is Richard Feynman, and my second favorite is Stephen Hawking, both of whom were decided atheists.  In Hawking's last book (published posthumously) he said something that really clicked with me about God. Granted, he was disparaging the very existence of a Creator at the time, but what he said took me to a new place of understanding. I suppose that "understanding" is a matter of degrees (as Feynman once said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics"). But it became extremely clear that in order to create the universe, God had to be standing outside of it, or else he would have had to create Himself, which is an absurdity. What Hawking said was that at moment of the Big Bang there was no time for a Creator to exist in (let alone create anything in). This is patently obvious! So there's no other "place" or "time" for God to be than "outside" of the universe, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. Of course, Hawking uses this idea of "no time for a creator to exist in" to say of course there's no God, but there's no math nor physics behind that assertion, so it's just his unsupported opinion. He may have changed his opinion by now.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

She also had a testimony that he was a flesh and blood man and prone to mistakes. Emma was a magnificent person and if she isn't living her best celestial afterlife then no one is. 

Bolded is my opinion, too. It's actually not a particularly divisive opinion, because there's only one person who wasn't prone to mistakes and that was Christ.

Emma had a particularly hard row to hoe. If you've ever listened to the dramatization of Church history which Orson Scott Card wrote for Living Scriptures, at one point you heard Brigham Young expressing his derogatory opinion about Emma in the hearing of Eliza Snow, who then proceeded to defend Emma with cutting zeal. I loved it. As Card felt, I feel that there were few women in the Church who had such a difficult task to perform. And we err greatly in finding fault with her. Would we have done as well with the same burden, is the question we should ask ourselves if we feel inclined to criticize her.

[AtlanticMike]

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

She also had a testimony that he was a flesh and blood man and prone to mistakes. Emma was a magnificent person and if she isn't living her best celestial afterlife then no one is. 

Best answer yet. Thank you

[AtlanticMike]

Still no sure if you guys think that the terrestrial kingdom (even though it's a kingdom of glory, part of heaven) is a place for souls that have been damned. Me personally, I think when a mormon hears the word "damned" we automatically think 👹👿🔥🔥🔥🔥. To me, damned or destroyed, in our scriptures/theology  means the end of eternal progression/eternal family, because eternal progression is everything to mormons. We don't knock on doors so people can go to the terrestrial kingdom, we dont knock on doors so people can become a member of the church and live just a ok life, we knock on doors so people can accept baptism and ultimately make it to the celestial kingdom as an exalted being, are soul purpose here on earth is to make it back to the celestial kingdom so we can glorify our heavenly father, there's nothing else in our beliefs that state we are shooting for a different outcome. So to me the terrestrial kingdom more closely resembles outer darkness because in both you've fallen short, lost your eternal family, lost eternal progression. The way I see it is outer darkness is Seattle (like star gazer said above, dark and gloomy), telestial Kingdom would be Spokane, the terrestrial would be Florida and the celestial would be the Bahamas 🌴. No hell fire anywhere in site. I'm sorry if I offended anyone who lives in Washington state with this post😁

[Stargazer]

50 minutes ago, Mike Livingston said:

Still no sure if you guys think that the terrestrial kingdom (even though it's a kingdom of glory, part of heaven) is a place for souls that have been damned. Me personally, I think when a mormon hears the word "damned" we automatically think 👹👿🔥🔥🔥🔥.

To me, damned or destroyed, in our scriptures/theology  means the end of eternal progression/eternal family, because eternal progression is everything to mormons.

Which is what I wrote above: 'The word "damnation" is mainly used by non-Restoration Christian as a substitute for the word "hell", or eternal burning. Or, at least that's how I see it. It doesn't have a meaning in the Gospel taught by the Latter-day Saints, except to wire it up to non-progression.'

50 minutes ago, Mike Livingston said:

We don't knock on doors so people can go to the terrestrial kingdom, we dont knock on doors so people can become a member of the church and live just a ok life, we knock on doors so people can accept baptism and ultimately make it to the celestial kingdom as an exalted being, are soul purpose here on earth is to make it back to the celestial kingdom so we can glorify our heavenly father, there's nothing else in our beliefs that state we are shooting for a different outcome.

Absolutely correct!

50 minutes ago, Mike Livingston said:

So to me the terrestrial kingdom more closely resembles outer darkness because in both you've fallen short, lost your eternal family, lost eternal progression. The way I see it is outer darkness is Seattle (like star gazer said above, dark and gloomy), telestial Kingdom would be Spokane, the terrestrial would be Florida and the celestial would be the Bahamas 🌴. No hell fire anywhere in site. I'm sorry if I offended anyone who lives in Washington state with this post😁

Hey! My hometown is in Washington state! I'm just in England now because of other reasons...

But even in Seattle we sometimes see the sun, so it isn't always outer darkness! Actually, my hometown is Olympia. I'll have to invoke the other Washingtonian to this thread: @Bernard Gui!!