Differentiating between gods and angels

[GoCeltics]

“For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:22-24).

“Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17).

Are angels exclusively those single inhabitants in one or both of the two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom?

Do telestial and terrestrial inhabitants also qualify to become angels?

[InCognitus]

40 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Are angels exclusively those single inhabitants in one or both of the two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom?

No.  The Greek and Hebrew word for "angel" simply means messenger.  The key is whether or not they are messengers from God or not.  "Angels" are not a separate type of being as some people believe.  Even mortal humans are referred to as angels in various places in scripture (such as when prophets of God are referred to as the "LORD's messenger" in places like Hag 1:13, Malachi 3:1, and 2 Chronicles 36:16).  So "angel" is just a job description, and there is nothing exclusive about it.  Even Jesus can be identified as the "Angel of the Lord" (see for example the Got Questions website article, Who is the angel of the Lord?)

40 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Do telestial and terrestrial inhabitants also qualify to become angels?

They could be considered "messengers" of those who are heirs of salvation in some situations perhaps.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Are angels exclusively those single inhabitants in one or both of the two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom?

D&C 76:96:

Quote

And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one.

The division of the Celestial Kingdom into three degrees is first described in D&C section 131. This doesn't enter LDS awareness until it was canonized in 1878. But even then, there is no recognition of the idea of subdividing the Celestial Kingdom anywhere until it is first suggested in 1922. This is when our current notion of a sub-divided Celestial kingdom begins. Prior to that, the only distinctions we can read about (going back to the 1840s) is that there will be differences in rank in terms of those that are simply a part of the Celestial Kingdom, and those that are crowned there with some additional glory. For a period of time, this was understood in terms of polygamy - those with more than one wife would have greater glory than those without. In 1922, polygamy was gone - and this new idea made for an easy way for LDS leaders at the time to address the growing awareness of the problem of race and the Celestial Kingdom.

So ... depending on how you want to take this, there are all sorts of LDS views. One thing is clear, even those leaders who were most opposed to the idea of upward mobility between kingdoms could not place barriers to those in the Celestial Kingdom. So Elder McConkie writes:

Quote

They neither progress from one kingdom to another, nor does a lower kingdom ever get where a higher kingdom once was. Whatever eternal progression there is, it is within a sphere.

In contrast, President J. Reuben Clark wrote:

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.

So, I think that all of this remains an open question within LDS theology. I think that at the very least, Section 132 can only refer to those in the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms in terms of the meaning intended in its original context - it shouldn't be understood at all in terms of the Celestial Kingdom. This fits well with Section 76.

There are lots of complicating features, because, for example, we already have to make all sorts of exceptions. What happens, for example, to those who die as infants, who did not marry in this world. We then try to push work for the dead to fill the gap - but there again, we have a historical complexity. Sealings for the dead for this sort of thing were inconceivable before 1894. Prior to 1894, all sealings for the dead were adoptive. It wasn't until after 1894 that deceased spouses could be sealed to each other. So when D&C Section 132 was written (1843) there isn't all of this later understanding and reinterpretation yet. I think that it was meant in a much more narrow context than what we give it now.

And, I would add, eternity is a very, very long time ...

I think that in the long run, the really core idea is that eternal glory is not meant to be a solo exercise, but a partnership. And for those of us who are unwilling to exist within such a partnership, we are limiting what we can become. I don't know about everyone else here - but my expectations of marriage and family were far different from the reality. There is a certain something about those relationships that forces a certain amount of humility on us. Perhaps that humility is necessary when combined with the absolute agency coupled to an "eternal weight of glory".

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that in the long run, the really core idea is that eternal glory is not meant to be a solo exercise, but a partnership. And for those of us who are unwilling to exist within such a partnership, we are limiting what we can become. I don't know about everyone else here - but my expectations of marriage and family were far different from the reality. There is a certain something about those relationships that forces a certain amount of humility on us. Perhaps that humility is necessary when combined with the absolute agency coupled to an "eternal weight of glory".

Well explained…

[CV75]

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:22-24).

“Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17).

Are angels exclusively those single inhabitants in one or both of the two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom?

Do telestial and terrestrial inhabitants also qualify to become angels?

There are all kinds of angels:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/angels?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/angels?lang=eng

Some are exalted and some are not; some have immortal bodies and some do not: there is not much exclusivity about about the kingdoms, glories or bodies (or lack thereof) angels may inhabit. So telestial and terrestrial inhabitants also qualify as angels. D&C 132:15-17 differentiates in terms of gods and angels for convenience in teaching that gods are directly involved with enlargement (continuation of the seeds and lives -- verses 19, 22) and other angels not.

Since all the children of God, are angels, the term is used when it is important to convey the eternal aspect of our opportunities and choices, activities and influences. It shows that there is a consideration to be had concerning what we are now, what we were before, and what we will become.

Edited February 12 by CV75

[GoCeltics]

On 2/12/2025 at 1:54 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that in the long run, the really core idea is that eternal glory is not meant to be a solo exercise, but a partnership. And for those of us who are unwilling to exist within such a partnership, we are limiting what we can become.

What does Doctrine 76:70 mean in all celestial beings having glory that of the sun, even the glory of God?

“These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical”.

 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

What does Doctrine 76:70 mean in all celestial beings having glory that of the sun, even the glory of God?

“These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical”.

What it means is that all those who are in the Celestial Kingdom share the same glory. This means that we shouldn't see subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom where some have more (or less) glory than others - or, in other words, we don't have an angels class and a gods class of people in the Celestial Kingdom.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What it means is that all those who are in the Celestial Kingdom share the same glory. This means that we shouldn't see subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom where some have more (or less) glory than others - or, in other words, we don't have an angels class and a gods class of people in the Celestial Kingdom.

This makes sense to me.  I agree with you. 

So now I am curious... in this context, what is your analysis of these verses, which ime are traditionally interpreted as indicative of gods and angels classes in the Celestial Kingdom?

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

"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];

"And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

"He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."  (D&C 131:1-4)

"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

"For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (D&C 132:16-17)

Thanks!

Edited February 14 by manol

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, manol said:

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

Celestial could refer to all of Heaven and not just the celestial kingdom.  I believe I read that “celestial” wasn’t consistently used originally with just the celestial kingdom, but when speaking of what we think of as Telestial, Terrestial, and Celestial Kingdoms now. 
 

That would seem to imply that everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is sealed in marriage. 
 

This isn’t where I first read it, but covers it well:

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-131/#:~:text=That idea hangs on nothing,heavens revealed in D%26C 76.

Quote

Then he invited Melissa and Ben to stand and sealed them together by the power of the holy priesthood vested in him by ministering angels of Almighty God. He promised that if they kept the terms and conditions of this covenant, no power on earth or in hell could prevent them from being resurrected together and crowned with exaltation and eternal lives (D&C 132:19–24).¹

That got their attention. Joseph sat them down again and taught them about the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they had just “made and entered into” (D&C 132:7). He said there were three parts to it (see section 132), and its blessings wouldn’t be sure unless and until Melissa and Ben made them sure by being faithful to the covenant. Using his secretary, William Clayton, as an example of one who had taken the step the Johnsons were taking, Joseph taught them the doctrine of exaltation through faithfulness to covenants sealed by sacred ordinances.

The context for the first four verses, then, is exaltation. All of the sources suggest that what Joseph taught the Johnsons that night is not the same as what D&C 131:1–2 has been understood to mean—that there are three degrees inside the highest of the three degrees of glory. That idea hangs on nothing more than D&C 131: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees” and the assumption that “celestial” there means the highest of the three heavens revealed in D&C 76. That is not the only possible interpretation, and in context it’s not the best one. In the vocabulary of both Joseph and the Johnsons, “celestial” could still just mean heavenly. If we read D&C 131:1 that way, it makes sense in context. In other words, Joseph probably taught the Johnsons what we are taught—there are three glories in heaven, and exaltation in the highest one comes from making and keeping the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Joseph meant what sections 76 and 132 teach.

According to William Clayton’s journal, Joseph taught that “in order to obtain the highest [degree of glory] a man [and woman] must enter into this order of the priesthood,” meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Joseph explained that a man and a woman sealed together “by the power and authority of the holy priesthood” would continue to be married and have their family after resurrection, while those who weren’t sealed would not.²There are many, many descendants of the Johnsons today, and they will be their descendants forever, as a result of this revelation.

The day after he sealed the Johnsons, Joseph preached a sermon on 2 Peter 1 about making one’s eternal destination sure. It included section 131:5–6. William Clayton noted Joseph teaching

that knowledge is power and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also that salvation means a man’s being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. He said the more sure word of prophecy meant, a man’s knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy through the power of the Holy priesthood. He also showed that it was impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.³

 

Quote

Joseph had taught the same principle in other words the preceding Sunday. He tried to help the Saints understand the difference between having a testimony that one could be saved if they obeyed the gospel and gaining the testimony that one had been saved because they obeyed the gospel. Step one is to gain a testimony of Christ and the possibility of salvation, Joseph taught. That was just the beginning of the quest for knowledge of God, which to Joseph was the equivalent of power over sin and death. “They would then want that more sure word of Prophecy that they were sealed in the heavens & had the promise of eternal live in the Kingdom of God,” Joseph taught. This is what he called “knowledge,” which is what he meant in section 131—and what the Lord meant all the way back in section 84:19–24.⁴

Section 131 leads willing Saints to the knowledge of God, the certainty of a future exaltation by virtue of the sacred covenants sealed by priesthood. Ignorance of the knowledge of God leads to a less certain, or at least less celestial, future. One wants to be more sure in what the young Joseph called “matters that involve eternal consequences” (D&C 131:5).

Basic premise if I understand correctly is 131 involves 3 different times of teaching and we should look at the context of those verses in what was being taught.  Joseph did not give final approval to the combination that was created by William Clayton and then added to the D&C by Orson Pratt under Brigham Young’s oversight.

Edited February 14 by Calm

[Calm]

Here’s additional background info on Sec 131:

http://archive.timesandseasons.org/2023/03/in-the-celestial-glory-there-was-three-heavens/index.html

Quote

An interesting incident with President Brigham Young, however, complicates the picture even further and gets closer to the heart of the issue. On February 12, 1870, Wilford Woodruff recorded that during a meeting of the School of the Prophets, “Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He contended that no person could have a celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives.” Holeman’s remarks were in line with what many others were teaching, as demonstrated above. President Brigham Young, however, countered: “President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.”^[10] The prophet’s statement indicates that the interpretation that only people who are sealed by priesthood authority–polygamous or monogamous–are allowed into the Celestial Kingdom is not the complete picture.

Which seems to contradict 131….

Since the section was created from notes, I wonder if something got left out.

Edited February 14 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, manol said:

o now I am curious... in this context, what is your analysis of these verses, which ime are traditionally interpreted as indicative of gods and angels classes in the Celestial Kingdom?

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

"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];

"And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

"He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."  (D&C 131:1-4)

"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

"For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (D&C 132:16-17)

Thanks!

Celestial, in this sense, is not specifying the Celestial Kingdom but has the more generic meaning of "heavenly". In other words, the three degrees here should be understood as referring to the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial kingdoms. Historically, the first time that this passage in D&C 131 is interpreted as referring to divisions within the Celestial Kingdom itself was in 1922 by (and Section 131 isn't added to scripture until 1876) by Elder Melvin J. Ballard. This is the first known instance of this idea in print. So, prior to 1922, this idea appears to be unknown - and that includes when the text of D&C 131 was added to the canon.

This isn't entirely unexpected. The earliest drawing of the Celestial Kingdom that we have was published by Orson Hyde in 1847. He describes it like this:

Quote

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with  he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father's and becomes part of it. … The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. ... It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms. These have received their washings and anointings in the temple of God on this earth; they have been chosen, ordained, and anointed kings and priests, to reign as such in the resurrection of the just. Such as have not received the fullness of the priesthood, (for the fullness of the priesthood includes the authority of both king and priest) and have not been anointed and ordained in the temple of the Most High, may obtain salvation in the celestial kingdom, but not a celestial crown. Many are called to enjoy a celestial glory, yet few are chosen to wear a celestial crown, or rather, to be rulers in the celestial kingdom.

You can see that there is a potential infinite number of nested sub-kindgoms in the Celestial Kingdom - and those that are closest to God have greater celestial crowns in the Celestial Kingdom - but there isn't a distinction based on glory. This dovetailed with the original view of sealings mentioned here. Because there wasn't yet a history of sealing families (children to parents), these connections were made through sealings of adoption. So in some ways, who you were sealed to was understood to affect your importance (but not glory) in the Celestial Kingdom. One way that these sealings of adoption played out can be seen in winter quarters when the Saints were leaving Nauvoo to head west. They organized themselves in groups loosely defined by these sealing connections - Wilford Woodruff described these groups in his journal as "tribes", and for a few members, they took this so literally that they considered themselves real sons (consider John D.
Lee's belief that he was an adopted son of Brigham Young after he was sealed in this way). This practice of being sealed to leaders of the church (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and so on) as an adoption (and in line with this view of the Celestial Kingdom described by Orson Hyde) continued until it was eventually stopped by Brigham Young and George Q. Canon. The model here didn't seem to work as well as it was originally conceived - particularly since the vast majority of the
members of the church (upwards of 80 percent) were endowed in the final days in Nauvoo (and this was why there was the immediate division into Woodruff's tribes). This belief was gradually changed as the theology shifted - but it wasn't until 1894 that there was a major change. In 1894, for the first time, people could seal deceased people together who had never been members of the Church while alive (there were some intermediate steps including the start of proxy priesthood ordinations in the 1870s. While this change was welcomed by some members, there was a lot of concern over this shift. Woodruff made efforts to convince people that this change would not affect their standing in the Celestial Kingdom. He also goes on to explain that there is still the minimal need for the sealing adoptions - but only when there is no identifiable parents:

Quote

Have children sealed to their parents, and run their chain through as far as you can get it. When you get to the end, let the last man be adopted to Joseph Smith, who stands at the head of this dispensation.

At any rate, when we get to the major shift in the post-1922 context, we don't really have much to work with in terms of understanding why the division exists. What is the thing that differentiates between the three tiers. There is some discussion about polygamy, but that had formally ended in 1890. For a long time, we had the race issues, where baptism became the entry point into the lowest of the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom - allowing blacks in to the Celestial Kingdom, but placing barriers on entering into the second or third degree of the Celestial Kingdom. It all became a bit of a mess. I don't think you can find anything remotely current in LDS thought that describes what criteria separates the 2nd and 3rd degrees of the Celestial Kingdom. So, with all of this in mind, to read D&C 131 (which comes from material written down in 1843), with our modern understanding, we are only going to get a bad understanding of the text.

Finally, there is the issue of Section 131, which was written by William Clayton in his journal. When it was prepared for inclusion in the D&C, the material in brackets in verse 2 was added by Orson Pratt (it isn't a part of the journal entry). So there is a bunch of stuff going on here, that really opens the text up to a lot of different interpretations. It was clearly included in 1876 in the canon as a way of bolstering polygamy.

On a different note, Joseph Smith did say this in 1840:

Quote

“Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fulness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fulness as those who are resurrected from the dead.

This suggests that Joseph Smith believed that angels are a part of the Terrestrial Kingdom - and while these individuals functioned as angels, they were in that kingdom. Post-judgment, and resurrection, they would then enter into the Celestial Kingdom. This wouldn't be necessary in a context in which some part of the Celestial Kingdom was reserved for ministering angels.

Edited February 14 by Benjamin McGuire

[cujo22]

On 2/12/2025 at 10:54 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

D&C 76:96:

The division of the Celestial Kingdom into three degrees is first described in D&C section 131. This doesn't enter LDS awareness until it was canonized in 1878. But even then, there is no recognition of the idea of subdividing the Celestial Kingdom anywhere until it is first suggested in 1922. This is when our current notion of a sub-divided Celestial kingdom begins. Prior to that, the only distinctions we can read about (going back to the 1840s) is that there will be differences in rank in terms of those that are simply a part of the Celestial Kingdom, and those that are crowned there with some additional glory. For a period of time, this was understood in terms of polygamy - those with more than one wife would have greater glory than those without. In 1922, polygamy was gone - and this new idea made for an easy way for LDS leaders at the time to address the growing awareness of the problem of race and the Celestial Kingdom.

So ... depending on how you want to take this, there are all sorts of LDS views. One thing is clear, even those leaders who were most opposed to the idea of upward mobility between kingdoms could not place barriers to those in the Celestial Kingdom. So Elder McConkie writes:

In contrast, President J. Reuben Clark wrote:

So, I think that all of this remains an open question within LDS theology. I think that at the very least, Section 132 can only refer to those in the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms in terms of the meaning intended in its original context - it shouldn't be understood at all in terms of the Celestial Kingdom. This fits well with Section 76.

There are lots of complicating features, because, for example, we already have to make all sorts of exceptions. What happens, for example, to those who die as infants, who did not marry in this world. We then try to push work for the dead to fill the gap - but there again, we have a historical complexity. Sealings for the dead for this sort of thing were inconceivable before 1894. Prior to 1894, all sealings for the dead were adoptive. It wasn't until after 1894 that deceased spouses could be sealed to each other. So when D&C Section 132 was written (1843) there isn't all of this later understanding and reinterpretation yet. I think that it was meant in a much more narrow context than what we give it now.

And, I would add, eternity is a very, very long time ...

I think that in the long run, the really core idea is that eternal glory is not meant to be a solo exercise, but a partnership. And for those of us who are unwilling to exist within such a partnership, we are limiting what we can become. I don't know about everyone else here - but my expectations of marriage and family were far different from the reality. There is a certain something about those relationships that forces a certain amount of humility on us. Perhaps that humility is necessary when combined with the absolute agency coupled to an "eternal weight of glory".

Love these thoughts. I believe the historical details you present support my contention that for things in our distant future and past, God’s teachings are meant to convey only some “core ideas”. In addition to the core idea you give in the last paragraph, latter-day revelation gives the core idea that rather than a heaven/hell conceptualization the truth is more that we will all be raised to our rightful state, and in perfect harmony with God’s justice and mercy, an afterlife that’s consistent with the uniqueness of the individual and with perfect justice and mercy. The scriptures/revelations are not intended to be wrested to understand the types of specifics that the OP is wondering about. I don’t think we really have any meaningful data/info to dig into the topics the OP is wondering about. 
 

To read D&C 76 and interpret it as an instruction manual to decide which of three boxes each individual goes in and exactly what there lives will look like or differences between types of beings, I think misses the point. We have to accept that the specifics of our beginnings and ultimate destiny are shrouded in mystery. We accept that mystery with faith believing that God is looking out for us.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

believe the historical details you present support my contention that for things in our distant future and past, God’s teachings are meant to convey only some “core ideas”.

Well stated.

From the second link I posted:

Quote

 

This incomplete picture, perhaps, is what President Dallin H. Oaks was speaking about in a recent general conference. In talking about concerns about relationships in the afterlife that he had heard, he asked the rhetorical question: “What do we really know about conditions in the spirit world?” and answered with a quote that: “When we ask ourselves what we know about the spirit world from the standard works, the answer is ‘not as much as we often think.’” He cautioned that:

Excessive reliance on personal teachings or speculations may even draw us aside from concentrating on learning and efforts that will further our understanding and help us go forward on the covenant path.

Trust in the Lord is a familiar and true teaching in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

That same principle applies to unanswered questions about sealings in the next life or desired readjustments because of events or transgressions in mortality. There is so much we do not know that our only sure reliance is to trust in the Lord and His love for His children.^[11]

 

 

Edited February 14 by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Celestial, in this sense, is not specifying the Celestial Kingdom but has the more generic meaning of "heavenly". In other words, the three degrees here should be understood as referring to the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial kingdoms. Historically, the first time that this passage in D&C 131 is interpreted as referring to divisions within the Celestial Kingdom itself was in 1922 by (and Section 131 isn't added to scripture until 1876) by Elder Melvin J. Ballard. This is the first known instance of this idea in print. So, prior to 1922, this idea appears to be unknown - and that includes when the text of D&C 131 was added to the canon.

This isn't entirely unexpected. The earliest drawing of the Celestial Kingdom that we have was published by Orson Hyde in 1847. He describes it like this:

You can see that there is a potential infinite number of nested sub-kindgoms in the Celestial Kingdom - and those that are closest to God have greater celestial crowns in the Celestial Kingdom - but there isn't a distinction based on glory. This dovetailed with the original view of sealings mentioned here. Because there wasn't yet a history of sealing families (children to parents), these connections were made through sealings of adoption. So in some ways, who you were sealed to was understood to affect your importance (but not glory) in the Celestial Kingdom. One way that these sealings of adoption played out can be seen in winter quarters when the Saints were leaving Nauvoo to head west. They organized themselves in groups loosely defined by these sealing connections - Wilford Woodruff described these groups in his journal as "tribes", and for a few members, they took this so literally that they considered themselves real sons (consider John D.
Lee's belief that he was an adopted son of Brigham Young after he was sealed in this way). This practice of being sealed to leaders of the church (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and so on) as an adoption (and in line with this view of the Celestial Kingdom described by Orson Hyde) continued until it was eventually stopped by Brigham Young and George Q. Canon. The model here didn't seem to work as well as it was originally conceived - particularly since the vast majority of the
members of the church (upwards of 80 percent) were endowed in the final days in Nauvoo (and this was why there was the immediate division into Woodruff's tribes). This belief was gradually changed as the theology shifted - but it wasn't until 1894 that there was a major change. In 1894, for the first time, people could seal deceased people together who had never been members of the Church while alive (there were some intermediate steps including the start of proxy priesthood ordinations in the 1870s. While this change was welcomed by some members, there was a lot of concern over this shift. Woodruff made efforts to convince people that this change would not affect their standing in the Celestial Kingdom. He also goes on to explain that there is still the minimal need for the sealing adoptions - but only when there is no identifiable parents:

At any rate, when we get to the major shift in the post-1922 context, we don't really have much to work with in terms of understanding why the division exists. What is the thing that differentiates between the three tiers. There is some discussion about polygamy, but that had formally ended in 1890. For a long time, we had the race issues, where baptism became the entry point into the lowest of the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom - allowing blacks in to the Celestial Kingdom, but placing barriers on entering into the second or third degree of the Celestial Kingdom. It all became a bit of a mess. I don't think you can find anything remotely current in LDS thought that describes what criteria separates the 2nd and 3rd degrees of the Celestial Kingdom. So, with all of this in mind, to read D&C 131 (which comes from material written down in 1843), with our modern understanding, we are only going to get a bad understanding of the text.

Finally, there is the issue of Section 131, which was written by William Clayton in his journal. When it was prepared for inclusion in the D&C, the material in brackets in verse 2 was added by Orson Pratt (it isn't a part of the journal entry). So there is a bunch of stuff going on here, that really opens the text up to a lot of different interpretations. It was clearly included in 1876 in the canon as a way of bolstering polygamy.

On a different note, Joseph Smith did say this in 1840:

This suggests that Joseph Smith believed that angels are a part of the Terrestrial Kingdom - and while these individuals functioned as angels, they were in that kingdom. Post-judgment, and resurrection, they would then enter into the Celestial Kingdom. This wouldn't be necessary in a context in which some part of the Celestial Kingdom was reserved for ministering angels.

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Here’s additional background info on Sec 131:

http://archive.timesandseasons.org/2023/03/in-the-celestial-glory-there-was-three-heavens/index.html

Which seems to contradict 131….

Since the section was created from notes, I wonder if something got left out.

Thank you both for digging deep and learning much and for taking the time to share what you have found here on this site. 

And thank you too @cujo22. 

This is very interesting. I have been in the habit of reading whatever made it into the D&C through my modern lens and classifying is as being on a level that vastly transcended anything else said or written on the subject (that didn't make it into the canon), but it's not necessarily that simple, is it? 

Edited February 14 by manol

[Dario_M]

Btw... i'm thinking about that first doctrine you mentiont in your post and i don't think i believe in that. If somebody is a real genuinely good person in their whole life i can not imagine that God wouldn't allow them in one of his kingdoms after passing away. 

Edited February 15 by Dario_M

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Btw... i'm thinking about that first doctrine you mentiont in your post and i don't think i believe in that. If somebody is a real genuinely good person in their whole life i can not imagine that God wouldn't allow them in one of his kingdoms after passing away. 

Who are you responding to, Dario?  The opening post?

[Dario_M]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who are you responding to, Dario?  The opening post?

Yes Calm. I'm indeed responding to the opening post. On all the stuff that this TS has started on this topic. 

Edited February 15 by Dario_M

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Yes Calm. I'm indeed responding to the opening post. On all the stuff that this TS has started on this topic. 

The usual interpretation of the verses quoted is that a good person will abide the laws of God, so after death they would be in a kingdom of glory, “abide” meaning accept or act in accordance with, accordance meaning agreement.  In other words, good people chose to obey God’s laws as they understand them and as they grow to better understand them, they become better in obedience.  Eventually with God’s help, those who wholeheartedly love God will become perfect in obedience.

Even wicked people after repenting/being purified of their sins in some fashion can abide the Telestial law, so are in a kingdom of glory.  The only ones who will not abide God’s laws at all, those who know God’s truth and still reject it as Lucifer rejected God’s laws, are those headed for Outer Darkness, the sons of perdition.

LDS doctrine has no problem accommodating good people of all kinds.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/kingdoms-of-glory?lang=eng#title1

Edited February 15 by Calm

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The usual interpretation of the verses quoted is that a good person will abide the laws of God, so after death they would be in a kingdom of glory, “abide” meaning accept or act in accordance with, accordance meaning agreement.  In other words, good people chose to obey God’s laws as they understand them and as they grow to better understand them, they become better in obedience.  Eventually with God’s help, those who wholeheartedly love God will become perfect in obedience.

But maybe someone who never goes to the church and isn't a member of the LDS community obeys Gods laws better then someone who is a member of the LDS community but fails in obying Gods laws. Like me for example... i've a really hard time following the covenands that i have made so far. A non believer maybe hasn't made those covenands but just automaticaly lives by them way better then i do. Who from the 2 will end up in the spirit prison do you think? 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Even wicked people after repenting/being purified of their sins in some fashion can abide the Telestial law.

But why can a non believer not end up in the Telestial kingdom? Why is that doctrine in the openingspost saying that a non believer can't even end up in the Telestial kingdom? 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

so are in a kingdom of glory.  The only ones who will not abide God’s laws at all, those who know God’s truth and still reject it as Lucifer rejected God’s laws, are those headed for Outer Darkness, the sons of perdition.

Yeah...well...i hope i will not end up in there anyway. Like i said i have a really hard time following the rules. I don't wanna end up in hell. 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

LDS doctrine has no problem accommodating good people of all kinds.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/kingdoms-of-glory?lang=eng#title1

Well...it seemed a bit like that when i saw the first doctrine in the openingspost of TS. 

[GoCeltics]

On 2/14/2025 at 10:49 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What it means is that all those who are in the Celestial Kingdom share the same glory. This means that we shouldn't see subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom where some have more (or less) glory than others - or, in other words, we don't have an angels class and a gods class of people in the Celestial Kingdom.

Which kingdom do the gods from Doctrine 76:50-60 belong to? 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Which kingdom do the gods from Doctrine 76:50-60 belong to? 

The Celestial Kingdom. But in the context in which it is originally given, there aren't any subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom - so this applies to everyone who enters that kingdom.

[GoCeltics]

On 2/17/2025 at 3:27 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Celestial Kingdom. But in the context in which it is originally given, there aren't any subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom - so this applies to everyone who enters that kingdom.

If there are no subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom, do the angels from Doctrine 132:16-17 reside alongside the gods, with celestial glory too?

Are there any angels in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms?

Edited February 19 by GoCeltics

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

If there are no subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom, do the angels from Doctrine 132:16-17 reside alongside the gods, with celestial glory too?

I think that it's hard to say - at least in that original context. As I pointed out earlier, Joseph Smith also taught this:

Quote

Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fulness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fulness as those who are resurrected from the dead.

There is a strong suggestion here that the place of ministering angels is in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

I am not one to speculate too much - I think that we are probably wrong about how we understand most of this - either because it isn't really necessary for us or because our experience doesn't give us a good way to understand it. I also think that one of the challenges that we have here is that there isn't a strong well-developed mapping of these different degrees of glory and their relationship to each other. What comes across strongly is that the difference between the Celestial Kingdom and the Terrestrial Kingdom is the presence of God. We have confusion in the idea that our earth become transformed into the Celestial Kingdom. Confusing because, of course, we don't think that God isn't already present in a celestial kingdom, and so the language we use is naturally problematic (does the earth become a part of an existing celestial kingdom? Is it a local celestial kingdom? Is the celestial universe even locally real?). It seems to me quite possible that much as we think that the Spirit World is co-existent with the world that we experience (mortality) yet hidden from it, so too could all of the degrees of glory be co-existent - layered so to speak, on top of each other, and depending on your degree of glory in the post-mortal state, you may not be able to see or interact with all of them. In that case, angels can reside alongside the gods, function as ministering angels, and still not dwell in the presence of God. And this gives a bit more interpret-able sense to the notion that there is only one Glory in the Celestial Kingdom, and one Glory in the Terrestrial Kingdom - but in the Telestial Kingdom there are many mansions. But who knows ... maybe its just turtles all the way.

[InCognitus]

On 2/19/2025 at 9:37 AM, GoCeltics said:

If there are no subdivisions of the Celestial Kingdom, do the angels from Doctrine 132:16-17 reside alongside the gods, with celestial glory too?

I realize you are asking about a specific group described in Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17 here, but since you seem focused on the place that angels have in the afterlife I just want to also make it clear (repeating what I said earlier in the thread) that since "angel" is just a messenger and a job description (even if only a temporary one), there are those who reside in the Celestial Kingdom that could have held that title from time to time, such as the Lord Jesus Christ who has had the title "angel of the LORD" in Old Testament times.  Others also come to mind (like the "angel" Moroni, Gabriel, Michael, prophets of God, etc. etc.).  Individuals who have held that title (or even currently hold that title) are not a separate class of beings or part of a subdivision of the Celestial Kingdom, it's simply the role they had in the service of God the Father at different points of time.

[GoCeltics]

On 2/19/2025 at 1:49 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And this gives a bit more interpret-able sense to the notion that there is only one Glory in the Celestial Kingdom, and one Glory in the Terrestrial Kingdom

What do you mean by glory ?