Talmage’s view on progression between kingdoms

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

CV75, thank you for taking the time.

Unfortunately I'm not making the connection that IF "eternal punishment does have an end", THEN "eternal progression would also."  Why would this be the case?

And from the second sentence quoted, it sounds like there could be no progression without an atonement, presumably as a safety net for if (or much more realistically when) we stumble.  Is that what you mean?

If my questions become tiresome please don't feel any obligation to respond. 

I wasn't actually TRYING to pad my post-count with that "edit", but hey...

Not at all irksome. If my responses seem terse, it is only a function of how much time I have for something so interesting to me. The connection I'm making between eternal punishment and eternal progression to show that each has an end is based upon symmetry as follows:

Eternal (God’s) punishment, described as the weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth and the torment of those found on His left hand, has an end. They enter a kingdom of glory and go on with their lives. If this “left hand” is the post-mortal spirt world, they have an opportunity to repent and progress. If it is the final judgement, they do not. In either case, the torment ends at some point.

To be consistent, Eternal (God’s) progression, would then also end, meaning those found on both the left and right hand would receive a kingdom of glory. Some would be exalted and go on with their lives as gods.

Perhaps un-resurrected, post-mortal spirits dwell in the same kingdoms as their resurrected peers, so yes, they might be ministered to according to the order described in D&C 76 in the hope they would repent and advance until they are resurrected and quickened by a higher glory than they otherwise might have been. But they would not progress any further after the resurrection.

Given the Plan of Salvation, I am saying there can be no eternal (God’s) progression without the Savior. Without the principle described in Abraham 3, no one can aspire to a higher spiritual plane, much less be added upon.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m always bemused whenever I get an alert that my name has been mentioned in a thread that hasn’t even interested me enough to look in on. 

Which presumes that threads stay on topic. Good dodge, but pretty transparent 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Unfortunately I'm not making the connection that IF "eternal punishment does have an end", THEN "eternal progression would also."  Why would this be the case?

Because God presumably set the definition for "eternal" in the context of "God's punishment" as NOT endless, but temporary,  and applying that context here also to "eternal progression", the syllogism is hereby declared true. 🤔😉😁

-- The Syllogism Judge 

Edited October 18, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which presumes that threads stay on topic. Good dodge, but pretty transparent 

Good dodge? What is it I supposedly dodged? I haven’t even been interested enough to try to decipher that. 
 

If you’re trying to drag me into a thread, it is incumbent on you not to make me guess at what you’re getting at. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

wasn't actually TRYING to pad my post-count with that "edit", but hey..

Don’t worry about that….if you want to actually pad your count, there is the three word thread.

[Olmec Donald]

2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

You do realize we are scattered ones and twos... and larger groups of scattered ones too... as of now, don't you? 

Yes.  I was thinking more in terms of the afterlife.

From D&C Section 128 verse 18 it sounds to me like we are only "made perfect" (presumably in the afterlife) as an inclusive-of-our-dead-going-back-to-Adam "whole and complete and perfect union", rather than as individuals or even as couples.  But maybe it's just a matter of what is emphasized by a particular point-of-view.

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

To be consistent, Eternal (God’s) progression, would then also end, meaning those found on both the left and right hand would receive a kingdom of glory. Some would be exalted and go on with their lives as gods.

Thank you.  I would have classified the process of "going on with their lives as gods" as progression, but maybe that's the wrong term.

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because God presumably set the definition for "eternal" in the context of "God's punishment" as NOT endless, but temporary,  and applying that context here also to "eternal progression", the syllogism is hereby declared true.

That's an elegant argument, but according to Section 19 there was a SPECIFIC reason why God used terms like "eternal punishment", which was for heightened effect, "that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory."  In other words, God used scary wording to motivate people who would not be motivated by the higher (in this case kinder, gentler) truth.  I don't really see a parallel to that in God's usage of the term "eternal progression."

By the way, if I had passed Syllogistic Logic in college, I would accept your argument.  However I do not accept your argument, therefore I did not pass Syllogistic Logic in college. 

;^)

(It's true - I flunked it!)

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Don’t worry about that….if you want to actually pad your count, there is the three word thread.

Not that creative. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Yes.  I was thinking more in terms of the afterlife.

From D&C Section 128 verse 18 it sounds to me like we are only "made perfect" (presumably in the afterlife) as an inclusive-of-our-dead-going-back-to-Adam "whole and complete and perfect union", rather than as individuals or even as couples.  But maybe it's just a matter of what is emphasized by a particular point-of-view.

Thank you.  I would have classified the process of "going on with their lives as gods" as progression, but maybe that's the wrong term.

That's an elegant argument, but according to Section 19 there was a SPECIFIC reason why God used terms like "eternal punishment", which was for heightened effect, "that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory."  In other words, God used scary wording to motivate people who would not be motivated by the higher (in this case kinder, gentler) truth.  I don't really see a parallel to that in God's usage of the term "eternal progression."

By the way, if I had passed Syllogistic Logic in college, I would accept your argument.  However I do not accept your argument, therefore I did not pass Syllogistic Logic in college. 

;^)

(It's true - I flunked it!)

Not that creative. 

I don’t think it really matters what terms we use as long s the discussion eventually yields a mutually clarifying description. There are ways to communicate more efficiently but we are not philosophers  @mfbukowski, a plug!

For example, “eternal progression” and “eternal increase” are not scriptural terms, but we understand them to mean advancement to godhood and never-ending continuation of the seeds, respectively, as described in D&C 132 (i.e., “the exaltation and continuation of the lives and “continuation of the seeds forever and ever").

When it comes to gods, “they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue” and “by this law is the continuation of the works of [the] Father [both in the world and out of the world should they continue].” When it comes to seeds, “they continue as innumerable as the stars.” I suppose this can be viewed in two ways: the works of the Father (the eternal round) are accomplished (1) when children are born and stay in the covenant and remain sealed to us; and (2) when spirit children are brought forth. This is why I prefer to use “continuation” over “progression.”

But neither of these touch upon post-resurrection progression from the telestial kingdom to exaltation. In my mind, what keeps this idea from jibing well with D&C 132 is that out of the world, they (people, couples or families) either continue as gods or not based upon the sealing power as validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise. The way this Section is written, the route to continuation is made at the juncture between this world ("in") and the resurrection ("out"), and there is no indication that this dichotomy is not literal and only for heightened effect (as “eternal” is iteral in the terms “eternal progression” and “eternal increase”).

[Olmec Donald]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

For example, “eternal progression” and “eternal increase” are not scriptural terms, but we understand them to mean advancement to godhood and never-ending continuation of the seeds, respectively, as described in D&C 132 (i.e., “the exaltation and continuation of the lives and “continuation of the seeds forever and ever").

Yeah, after posting that, I realized the term I was using isn't scriptural, but figured it didn't warrant another addendum/edit post.

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

But neither of these touch upon post-resurrection progression from the telestial kingdom to exaltation. In my mind, what keeps this idea from jibing well with D&C 132 is that out of the world, they (people, couples or families) either continue as gods or not based upon the sealing power as validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise. The way this Section is written, the route to continuation is made at the juncture between this world ("in") and the resurrection ("out"), and there is no indication that this dichotomy is not literal and only for heightened effect (as “eternal” is iteral in the terms “eternal progression” and “eternal increase”).

So if I read Section 132 correctly, apparently this sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise is incredibly powerful, as it not only differentiates who will be exalted, but also guarantees the exaltation of its recipients no matter what sins they commit, except for the shedding of innocent blood.   So presumably the Holy Spirit of Promise is more than just a warm and peaceful feeling one might experience in the Temple.  Or is it?  I don't think I've seen the term outside of its use in Section 132.  Does it have a known specific meaning?

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1978/06/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-is-the-holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/doctrine-and-covenants-visual-resources/2010-07-113-holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng

He states it can be forfeited….

Edited October 19, 2021 by Calm

[Olmec Donald]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1978/06/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-is-the-holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng

Thank you.  

So it's just another name for the Holy Ghost?  And it (presumably) bestows exaltation on whoever is married in the temple?   Not trying to argue against, just trying to wrap my big head around this. 

 

[Olmec Donald]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/doctrine-and-covenants-visual-resources/2010-07-113-holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng

He states it can be forfeited….

That last link and comment hadn't been added when I started writing my first reply.

D&C 132:26 says:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God."

So yes something temporary can be forfeited, but do they not still "come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation"?

What am I missing?

[Olmec Donald]

Addentum/edit:  That sentence should have been written:

So yes something temporary can be forfeited, but do they not still "come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation", as long as they have not committed murder?

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Not that creative

Just cut and paste a bunch.

They are not looking for new Shakespeares. 

You are needed in the trenches.

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good dodge? What is it I supposedly dodged? I haven’t even been interested enough to try to decipher that. 
 

If you’re trying to drag me into a thread, it is incumbent on you not to make me guess at what you’re getting at. 

Ok.

Pull out your biggest dictionary and look up "dammed" and then "damned" and tell me why only LDS folks ignore "damned" and give it the meaning of "dammed".

Drives me nuts 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Thank you.  

So it's just another name for the Holy Ghost?  And it (presumably) bestows exaltation on whoever is married in the temple?   Not trying to argue against, just trying to wrap my big head around this. 

 

Agreed.

LDS also have that kind of usage in phrases like "spirit of contention".

I hardly think it is meant to be an entity.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Yeah, after posting that, I realized the term I was using isn't scriptural, but figured it didn't warrant another addendum/edit post.

So if I read Section 132 correctly, apparently this sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise is incredibly powerful, as it not only differentiates who will be exalted, but also guarantees the exaltation of its recipients no matter what sins they commit, except for the shedding of innocent blood.   So presumably the Holy Spirit of Promise is more than just a warm and peaceful feeling one might experience in the Temple.  Or is it?  I don't think I've seen the term outside of its use in Section 132.  Does it have a known specific meaning?

Please see Calm’s helpful references.

Its sealing role would prevent the continuation of one glory and its attendant works into a greater kingdom of glory (D&C 76 shows that the reverse occurs for ministering purposes). D&C 88 shows that the continuation of resurrected glory is a static condition, since once they are quickened by their attendant glory, “they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.” They continue to return to their own place. These courses are fixed, and the light of the countenance of their Lord shines upon each in its hour, time and season, according to the ministering assignments described in D&C 76.

[bOObOO]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok.

Pull out your biggest dictionary and look up "dammed" and then "damned" and tell me why only LDS folks ignore "damned" and give it the meaning of "dammed".

Drives me nuts 

Our belief is that we dam(m) ourselves by not progressing while we have the opportunity to progress.  Like for example when we could believe something is true, with God to help us know what is true, but instead we choose to reject that belief as the truth and believe it is false.  Obviously the truth is still true even if we don’t believe it is true.  What is, is, and what was, was, and what will be, will be, regardless of what we believe is the truth.

Our belief regarding damnation is that God will dam(n) us when we don’t progress while we have the opportunity to progress.  Like in the example above with God damning us for us damming ourselves.  God can’t help us to progress when we refuse to do what is required for us to be able to progress. It is like him offering to give us a blessing while we are refusing to accept that blessing.  We must accept the law and the truth upon which each blessing from God is predicated, otherwise we receive no blessing.

So maybe the reason you’re seeing people use each term, dam(m) and dam(n), the way they do is because each term is closely connected.  When we dam(m) ourselves we can expect God to dam(n) us or consider us to be dam(n)ed.

[Olmec Donald]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please see Calm’s helpful references.

Most of them cite Bruce R. McConkie, who says that the Holy Spirit of Promise is the Holy Ghost, and that it's ratifying seal is essential (so you can't lie your way into the Celestial Kingdom on a technicality).  Makes sense to me.

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Its sealing role would prevent the continuation of one glory and its attendant works into a greater kingdom of glory (D&C 76 shows that the reverse occurs for ministering purposes). D&C 88 shows that the continuation of resurrected glory is a static condition...

It looks like the preponderance of scriptural evidence supports the later editions of Talmadge's book, rather than with the first edition, regarding progression between kingdoms in the hereafter. 

Note that up until the summer of 1829 (when Section 19 was given), the scriptures seemed to support the idea that "eternal punishment" would last for eternity.  So anyone who FELT that God would not burn his children for all eternity was still CORRECT prior to Section 19, even though they didn't have convincing scriptural evidence.  (And obviously the rest of the Christian world still does not, which must make it hard for those who individually have have progressed beyond the traditional concept of "eternal punishment".)  My point being, maybe we don't yet have all of the relevant data, and maybe the data we don't have is actually "good news". 

A part of me feels God would not be the one to lose patience and seal shut the door on any of his children (though I admit the possibility that such could be OUR choice).  Imo the following line of thinking is reasonable even if it currently falls short in scriptural justification:

On 8/19/2021 at 5:25 PM, JLHPROF said:

A Terrestrial being that continued to learn and progress would unavoidably become a Celestial being eventually OR the Terrestrial environment would be forced to admit new truth beyond the Terrestrial level.

 

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Most of them cite Bruce R. McConkie, who says that the Holy Spirit of Promise is the Holy Ghost, and that it's ratifying seal is essential (so you can't lie your way into the Celestial Kingdom on a technicality).  Makes sense to me.

It looks like the preponderance of scriptural evidence supports the later editions of Talmadge's book, rather than with the first edition, regarding progression between kingdoms in the hereafter. 

Note that up until the summer of 1829 (when Section 19 was given), the scriptures seemed to support the idea that "eternal punishment" would last for eternity.  So anyone who FELT that God would not burn his children for all eternity was still CORRECT prior to Section 19, even though they didn't have convincing scriptural evidence.  (And obviously the rest of the Christian world still does not, which must make it hard for those who individually have have progressed beyond the traditional concept of "eternal punishment".)  My point being, maybe we don't yet have all of the relevant data, and maybe the data we don't have is actually "good news". 

A part of me feels God would not be the one to lose patience and seal shut the door on any of his children (though I admit the possibility that such could be OUR choice).  Imo the following line of thinking is reasonable even if it currently falls short in scriptural justification:

 

Absolutely, we haven’t all the data, so we usually interpret what we do have in a way that supports the biases that drive and color our observations in the first place. I can justify @JLHPROF's line of thinking with scripture, which would be subject to further analysis and discussion if I were to share it, just as my own view.

I too feel that God would not be the one to lose patience and seal shut the door on any of his children (do you know anyone that teaches this?). His modus operandi and  granting glories and kingdoms is not described that way in the D&C; rather, they are the most appreciated gifts that can be given.

Edited October 19, 2021 by CV75

[Olmec Donald]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I too feel that God would not be the one to lose patience and seal shut the door on any of his children (do you know anyone that teaches this?).

Not in so many words, no.  You are absolutely right to call me on that, and I appreciate it.

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, we haven’t all the data, so we usually interpret what we do have in a way that supports the biases that drive and color our observations in the first place. I can justify @JLHPROF's line of thinking with scripture, which would be subject to further analysis and discussion if I were to share it, just as my own view.

Thanks for posting this.  Yes, I'm sure that my own bias are strongly in play. And obviously I don't know enough to actually justify both sides with scripture. 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Not in so many words, no.  You are absolutely right to call me on that, and I appreciate it.

Thanks for posting this.  Yes, I'm sure that my own bias are strongly in play. And obviously I don't know enough to actually justify both sides with scripture. 

I find that bias can run counter to revelation (both personal or prophetic), but of course it is best to act on the revelation when it comes. Absent light and revelation, I think there is no "right" or "wrong" bias, which is why I hesitate to conclude that any pre-revelation parties were correct/incorrect on any particular matter, especially to support my current bias. They were doing their best with the light they had, and revelation helps us all look forward with progress  

[ProphetShiloh]

On the subject of progression between kingdoms, this can be cleared up when the plan of salvation is fully understood.  This is a little bit like the argument of predestination vs. fore-ordination. 

Each cycle of creation, which is what the scriptures refer to as a "world", has a pattern to it.  The revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr., are the most accurate and reliable source of information on this subject since he is in fact the "face" of Michael-Adam in the new world.

Adam comes in the end times of the old world (day 6 is when "man" is created) in order to lay the foundation of the new world that is soon to follow.  God gives Adam the responsibility to "name" all of the "creatures".  All of these names that Adam and his helpmeet Eve give are recorded in a very special book.  This is the Book of Life.  This is what the LDS temple work is all about.  We are performing the labor God gave to Adam and Eve in the new world.

Once this book is completed, which is when Adam and Eve have reviewed and named (judged) all of the souls of the old world and organized them into the new world, its contents are fixed and immutable from that point forward.  Every soul is given a measure or cup to fill in their next world.  That is what the "name" people are given accomplishes.  It informs them as to what measure of glory they are foreordained to receive in the world to come.

This is why the Apostle Paul uses creation account symbolism when he describes the manner in which we shall rise up in the resurrection in the world to come.  He speaks of fishes, fowls, creeping things on dry land, man, etc.  All of these are measures of spiritual glory that people will qualify for.  All of the measures of glory that are less than that of "man" are what the LDS refer to as "spirit prison".  These are "creatures" that qualify for salvation (immortality) but they are deprived of Eternal Life, which is to live in the Father's Kingdom under the fullness of the glory of Man.

There is nothing that a person can do to alter what has been foreordained for them in the Book of Life, but their actions can certainly forfeit blessings that had been foreordained for them.  And, depending upon a person's faith, or the lack thereof, they will be judged again when it comes time for another cycle of eternity to transpire and for a new Book of Life for the new creation to be written by that new world's Adam and Eve.

[InCognitus]

I haven't really been following this thread, but I was pleased to see in my email today a BYU Studies notification about articles in the current volume (60:3), and it included an article relevant to the topic of this thread:

How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?
By Terryl L. Givens

He notes:  "It may simplify matters to state at the outset the official Church position: progression through the kingdoms is not a matter of settled doctrine."

I'm just beginning to get into the article (I just barely noticed it in my email), and since I need to get up early for meetings in the morning, I won't get the opportunity to finish it tonight.  But I thought others would find it interesting too.  The whole issue looks interesting.

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, ProphetShiloh said:

And, depending upon a person's faith, or the lack thereof, they will be judged again when it comes time for another cycle of eternity to transpire and for a new Book of Life for the new creation to be written by that new world's Adam and Eve.

Are you saying that even after we get judged here and are given immortality, that another cycle of creation will cause us to loose our immortality again and have us go through creation all over again to be judged again?  If so, what's the point of immortality or eternal life if we just keep repeating the cycle?

[Olmec Donald]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I haven't really been following this thread, but I was pleased to see in my email today a BYU Studies notification about articles in the current volume (60:3), and it included an article relevant to the topic of this thread:

How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?
By Terryl L. Givens

He notes:  "It may simplify matters to state at the outset the official Church position: progression through the kingdoms is not a matter of settled doctrine."

Quoting from the article (the part I agreed with, obviously!):

"Elder Boyd K. Packer and Elder Jeffrey R. Holland have both spoken to the immense reach of the Atonement, without stipulating whether that reach transcends resurrection and judgment. Elder Packer testified that “no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime [is] exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness.” Elder Holland affirmed that “however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made or talents you think you don’t have, or however far from home and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.” [emphasis Donald's]

Note that this same basic message of transcendent hope found its way into what is arguably the greatest rock song of all time.  If you're my age you've probably heard it hundreds of times: 

"Yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on." - Robert Plant, from "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zeppelin