Talmage’s view on progression between kingdoms

[Calm]

The thread this was last referred to in is locked, so decided to start a new thread.

Ben is a fantastic scholar and this is a fascinating find in my view and a great example of how assumptions can steer us so wrong. 
 

https://benspackman.com/2021/08/james-e-talmage-the-articles-of-faith-and-progression-between-kingdoms/

Quote

So in 1899, as a respected non-Apostle, Talmage accommodated the majority view of the review committee of the Quorum of the Twelve ³ and asserted progression between kingdoms. But having been called as an Apostle in 1911, and serving for 13 years when he revised, he reverted the text to reflect his own view.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

The thread this was last referred to in is locked, so decided to start a new thread.

Ben is a fantastic scholar and this is a fascinating find in my view and a great example of how assumptions can steer us so wrong. 
 

https://benspackman.com/2021/08/james-e-talmage-the-articles-of-faith-and-progression-between-kingdoms/

 

Doctrine is what a quorum of the Q12 says it is. Not what the FP says it is. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

Doctrine is what a quorum of the Q12 says it is. Not what the FP says it is. 

Are you suggesting that progression between kingdoms is therefore doctrinal because the majority view of the apostles reviewing his book was progression?  Or is your point something else?

[OGHoosier]

My admiration for Ben Spackman is probably approaching unhealthy levels at this point. 

Anyways, I was very fascinated by this. 

I have thought a bit about progression and in my opinion it makes some solid sense. It would provide an easy resolution to a couple theological questions I'm churning around with (though that's not a reason to uncritically accept it, of course). I kind of hope it exists, but I'll be fine if it doesn't. 

Also I do love learning more about the Quorum of the Twelve and their humanity. It makes me feel closer to them and to the New Testament church, who dealt with similar things. 

[Gillebre]

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing!

As I ponder these ideas I'm wondering if we feel like some sense of justice would be offended within us if people who were more comfortable in the other glories decided, eventually, to repent and grow. Humans can obviously become stagnant and refuse to grow, but after a few million years of the same thing I'm sure that at least some individuals will become open to eternal progress. Another thought I had: what's the point of ministering to those in the other glories if they can't grow and progress beyond their state? What would infinite grades of progression within the Terrestrial Kingdom, for example, matter when they can never reach exaltation eventually? 

Why do we minister in the Church? To help people make and keep covenants with the Lord, and to be steady on their path towards exaltation. The potential parallels between ministry on earth and ministry in the Kingdoms of Glory leads me to believe, at least preliminarily, that for those who do, in time, wish to grow and change, will have the ability to do so. For me it would mean casting off this weird feeling of injustice like how dare they, those who weren't valiant in the testimony of Jesus, get the chance, in the far future, to progress and join their eternal family? That caustic attitude would only lead to offending the Holy Ghost here on earth.

I'm still thinking about this. What does everyone else think? I don't recall the other thread, but this is very interesting. Thanks Calm!!

Edited August 19, 2021 by Gillebre

[OGHoosier]

12 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

What would infinite grades of progression within the Terrestrial Kingdom, for example, matter when they can never reach exaltation eventually? 

I can imagine the idea that the kingdoms of glory merely represent different tracks of progression, off in different directions (I would say with different end goals but, well, "end" isn't really part of the picture, is it?) God bills the celestial to us as the best because it's His, it represents the life He lives and believes is best, but the inhabitants of the other kingdoms may not see things the same way. Or perhaps they might believe that that kingdom is the best path for them as individuals. 

At face value I find this proposition plausible but with little to positively recommend it. 

[JLHPROF]

There's a big difference between progression of kingdoms and progression between kingdoms.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

The thread this was last referred to in is locked, so decided to start a new thread.

Ben is a fantastic scholar and this is a fascinating find in my view and a great example of how assumptions can steer us so wrong. 
 

https://benspackman.com/2021/08/james-e-talmage-the-articles-of-faith-and-progression-between-kingdoms/

 

Very interesting.

[Fether]

12 hours ago, Gillebre said:

I'm still thinking about this. What does everyone else think? I don't recall the other thread, but this is very interesting. Thanks Calm!!

I use to be staunchly against the idea of progression after final judgement. But then I realized that I had the same mindset as some Christians have when they declare “so-and-so is in hell and he will be there for all eternity!”. I find this to be extremely naive and short sighted.

Will our wants change in the afterlife? Will we be down to play video games for 2,000,000,000 years and then one day decide “I actually do want to be like God”? Will the removal of the veil reveal some eternal nature that we have, a way to see into the future that shows that we may never want eternal progression so we are happy in a lower kingdom? What does final judgement mean? Is there some universal law that prevents the other two kingdoms from progressing after final judgement?

Questions like these prevent us from really knowing.

[bOObOO]

So in summary, in 1899 the Quorum of Twelve Apostles when speaking as a united Quorum in the book titled 'Articles of Faith' stated they believed progression from lower glory to higher glory was possible and even probable, including progression from telestial glory to celestial glory, but in 1911 James Talmage edited the book he had written to instead reflect his own personal view that progression was more limited than the earlier Quorum of Twelve Apostles had stated when speaking as a united body.

So apparently there was at least one apostle in 1899 who believe eternal progression was more limited than some other apostle(s) believed.  I wonder how the vote was split, who agreed more with James Talmage than with some other apostles.

At any rate, more apostles believed in more progression than some other apostle(s) did.

Edited August 19, 2021 by bOObOO

[rongo]

This was an interesting read, but it doesn't seem right to me. According to Zimmer, Talmage said that he originally wrote what he did because of the dominant view among the leading Brethren; then changed it to his actual view when he had the authority to do that as an apostle. 

But, this same cadre of apostles (Joseph Fielding Smith in particular) was very speculation-averse and seemed to gravitate heavily towards "safe" views aligning with "McConkie-ite" orientations. In other words, I don't find it likely that George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and their colleagues at that time viewed progression between kingdoms favorably (exactly the opposite). Fielding Smith's epic battles with B. H. Roberts, and then later the "Committee" comments on his manuscript for "The Truth, the Way, the Life" give exactly the opposite view and impression to this tidbit from Max Zimmer. The Committee comments and Elder Roberts's replies are "grab some popcorn" reading. It just doesn't strike me as "right." 

I know that this makes it sound like I'm calling Talmage or Zimmer a "liar," but I think it's much more likely that Talmage was pressured to change it in subsequent editions, for the same reason it wouldn't see the light of day today: even if true, it's better for people not to bank on it and just to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling" in the here and now. I think the Brethren think that some people would "slack" here because they think they can make up for it "later." 

I have more thoughts, but that's all the time I have right now. 

[bluebell]

I've always wondered how the doctrine that we are resurrected with the body that matches the glory of the kingdom we will go to, works with the idea that we could progress between kingdoms.

Are resurrected bodies capable of changing glory?

Also, if progress forward is possible can you digress backward?

[bOObOO]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

This was an interesting read, but it doesn't seem right to me. According to Zimmer, Talmage said that he originally wrote what he did because of the dominant view among the leading Brethren; then changed it to his actual view when he had the authority to do that as an apostle. 

But, this same cadre of apostles (Joseph Fielding Smith in particular) was very speculation-averse and seemed to gravitate heavily towards "safe" views aligning with "McConkie-ite" orientations. In other words, I don't find it likely that George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and their colleagues at that time viewed progression between kingdoms favorably (exactly the opposite). Fielding Smith's epic battles with B. H. Roberts, and then later the "Committee" comments on his manuscript for "The Truth, the Way, the Life" give exactly the opposite view and impression to this tidbit from Max Zimmer. The Committee comments and Elder Roberts's replies are "grab some popcorn" reading. It just doesn't strike me as "right." 

What I would do first if I wanted to research this is find out what was written in the original book titled 'Articles of Faith' written by James Talmage and then see if he cited any sources. If he said the Quorum of Twelve Apostles expressed the more liberal view, I would trust that he didn't lie when he said that.  Zimmer may have only been citing what he had read in that book where James cited why he said that.    

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by bOObOO

[strappinglad]

How far back can eternal progression start? The first estate? 

[bOObOO]

Just now, strappinglad said:

How far back can eternal progression start? The first estate? 

Possible, but not probable, I think. They didn't qualify for the second estate because they wouldn't accept Jesus as their Savior, but maybe after seeing how good Jesus is as a Savior they'll change their minds and go to some other planet as mortals later.

Not all people learn at the same rate.  Some take a lot longer to learn some things that other people learn sooner. And I suppose there will still be some people ho are in the process of learning even after I have already learned everything.  Amazing isn't it.

[bOObOO]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've always wondered how the doctrine that we are resurrected with the body that matches the glory of the kingdom we will go to, works with the idea that we could progress between kingdoms.

Are resurrected bodies capable of changing glory?

Also, if progress forward is possible can you digress backward?

Joseph Smith and others supposedly saw resurrected beings who looked liked us, regular mortal people, doing regular things we do.  Including Moroni doing farm labor chores, while appearing as a regular person.  No more glory than regular people have.

And yet at other times those same people appeared in a more glorious form, radiating the light they had within them.

https://www.livingheritagetours.com/moroni-appeared-to-17-different-people/

[CV75]

I think the principles of learning the gospel in the spirit world before the resurrection, and progressing between kingdoms after the resurrection, are basically the same in how they depend on the point of "willingness". If you are not willing to act when the opportunity presents, you erode your willingness and thus your ability to act by grace. This is why the sacrament prayer is so important, where "willing" is a key operative word for the bread, which is taken first (the body of Christ; unconditional resurrection), but not for the water (the blood of Christ; conditional exaltation, which comes later).

Edited August 19, 2021 by CV75

[OGHoosier]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the principles of learning the gospel in the spirit world before the resurrection, and progressing between kingdoms after the resurrection, are basically the same in how they depend on the point of "willingness". If you are not willing to act when the opportunity presents, you erode your willingness and thus your ability to act by grace. This is why the sacrament prayer is so important, where "willing" is a key operative word for the bread, which is taken first (the body of Christ; unconditional resurrection), but not for the water (the blood of Christ; conditional exaltation, which comes later).

Daaaaaaaaaaang, I didn't even notice that. 

[bOObOO]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the principles of learning the gospel in the spirit world before the resurrection, and progressing between kingdoms after the resurrection, are basically the same in how they depend on the point of "willingness". If you are not willing to act when the opportunity presents, you erode your willingness and thus your ability to act by grace. This is why the sacrament prayer is so important, where "willing" is a key operative word for the bread, which is taken first (the body of Christ; unconditional resurrection), but not for the water (the blood of Christ; conditional exaltation, which comes later).

Sometimes suffering from our own unwillingness to do something can prompt us to be more willing to do those things, when we realize those things are worth doing.  Lots of people procrastinate doing things they realize they should do to get those things done. And sometimes not because they are lazy but because they want to do other things first.  Enjoying some specific sins or whatever.  Lots of people seem to enjoy doing bad things, as well as some good things, but to be perfectly good we need to give up on doing bad things, hopefully learning to enjoy doing only good things from that moment forward.

[Gillebre]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the principles of learning the gospel in the spirit world before the resurrection, and progressing between kingdoms after the resurrection, are basically the same in how they depend on the point of "willingness". If you are not willing to act when the opportunity presents, you erode your willingness and thus your ability to act by grace. This is why the sacrament prayer is so important, where "willing" is a key operative word for the bread, which is taken first (the body of Christ; unconditional resurrection), but not for the water (the blood of Christ; conditional exaltation, which comes later).

This is an interesting thought process. The fact that we are told that our bodies are quickened, in the Resurrection, by a portion of the glory that we will receive, does give me pause.

My mind is drawn back to two ideas: will the Father ever stop trying to reach us, bless us, teach us, and will we ever reach a point where we are so darkened or so set in our ways that we lose the ability to grow and change? Is there an artificial barrier between Kingdoms wherein God cannot allow others who are hunger and thirsting for growth, for greater righteousness? Or is the barrier self-made wherein they become so comfortable and used to what they have that they can't conceive of having more, and no outside force can alter the use of their agency in their stagnation?

More specifically does anyone have a thought as to the purpose of ministry from those greater glories to those in lesser glories? All that God does is to bless and nurture His children, so where do you think that ministry fits into the grand plan once the resurrection is complete? Obviously we're still missing several pieces of the big picture, but I'm interested to know what others think about this.

[bOObOO]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Daaaaaaaaaaang, I didn't even notice that. 

Think of the-1 down vote as a joke.  Ha!  Funny.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

According to Zimmer, Talmage said that he originally wrote what he did because of the dominant view among the leading Brethren;

Not quite…it was majority view of the committee for review, this may have been all of the apostles or only a few.  And it just may have been all the pro progression believers among the 12 (perhaps there was a member of the 1st presidency as well) were in the committee.

Unless someone has info on the size, I don’t think we can assume it was a majority of the apostles or the First Presidency. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Calm

[bOObOO]

5 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

This is an interesting thought process. The fact that we are told that our bodies are quickened, in the Resurrection, by a portion of the glory that we will receive, does give me pause.

My mind is drawn back to two ideas: will the Father ever stop trying to reach us, bless us, teach us, and will we ever reach a point where we are so darkened or so set in our ways that we lose the ability to grow and change? Is there an artificial barrier between Kingdoms wherein God cannot allow others who are hunger and thirsting for growth, for greater righteousness? Or is the barrier self-made wherein they become so comfortable and used to what they have that they can't conceive of having more, and no outside force can alter the use of their agency in their stagnation?

More specifically does anyone have a thought as to the purpose of ministry from those greater glories to those in lesser glories? All that God does is to bless and nurture His children, so where do you think that ministry fits into the grand plan once the resurrection is complete? Obviously we're still missing several pieces of the big picture, but I'm interested to know what others think about this.

I think what you're thinking is on the right track.  Take a leap of faith with faith that you are on the right track with what you are thinking on that. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

but I think it's much more likely that Talmage was pressured to change it in subsequent editions

I doubt that he was pressured to change. He didn’t have to mention the concept of no progression in his later conference talk, he chose to do so most likely and therefore that suggests a personal belief and lines up quite well with Zimmer’s recollection. 

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not quite…it was majority view of the committee for review, this may have been all of the apostles or only a few.  And it just may have been all the pro progression believers among the 12 (perhaps there was a member of the 1st presidency as well) were in the committee.

Unless someone has info on the size, I don’t think we can assume it was a majority of the apostles or the First Presidency. 

You're right, it doesn't necessarily have to be the majority view. At least multiple ones, though. 

I find it hard to believe that multiple apostles in the JFS and GAS era held that view. I believe it myself, but I don't think it's ever been a majority belief. I think the JFS-McConkie view has been dominant across all eras after the beginning of the 20th century (Jesus the savior of the entire universe, no progression between kingdoms, no progression for God, etc.). 

I don't think this Talmage-by way of Zimmer account is the whole story.