Sunday, August 9, 2009

[Meaning the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage]

The topic of polygamy has been on lots of peoples minds lately. Those of you who have been trying to make sense of it will find my part 5 of the searching for the 23 high priests article very thought provoking. Among other things I will address the status of biblical polygamy in this dispensation.

My feelings about polygamy have evolved a little. What I have to say may surprise you a little.


Speaking of polygamy, someone else just sent me an email asking this question;

"was the parenthetical statement in verse 2 of D&C 131, viz. [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage], always present in this verse, or was it something added later. the only other reference to the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is in 132, which is obviously a point of debate. i suppose my real question is if the "order of the priesthood" mentioned in the same verse really referring to marriage, or was that interpretation added sometime later. did the Lord really use that language.."the new and everlasting covenant of marriage"?

Here was my response to him;

According to the blue books, section 131 was never intended to be represented as a revelation.

Sections 130 and 131 were composite statements from Joseph Smith. verses 1-4 of 131 were comments JS made while visiting a friends house taken out of history of the church… of course, this is during the time that he was apparently practicing polygamy.

Those comments from history of the Church were not put into the D&C until 1876 by Orson Pratt under the direction of BY..

YES the comments in brackets were added later..

Strangely enough, when you read the entire original statement without the comments that Pratt and Young added, JS was speaking about the highest priesthood and was speaking about being sealed for eternity to ONE wife.

Here is the exact quote taken out of the history of the Church that Joseph Smith made to his friend;

"“Your life is hid with Christ in God and so are many others, nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent you from inheriting eternal life for you are sealed up by the power of the Priesthood unto eternal life, having taken the step necessary to for the purpose.

Except a man and his WIFE enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die. That is, they will not have any children after the resurrection.

But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.

The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood, or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgment in the flesh and the spirit, being delivered to the buffetings of Satan until the day of the Lord Jesus the way I know in whom to confide-

God tells me in whom I may place confidence.

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 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..

I personally find the above quote to be anything but an endorsement of the spiritual wife doctrine or polygamy.

One other observation about those verses. I believe people mistakenly assume that "celestial glory" means "celestial kingdom". I don't believe it does. When you realize it doesn't, there is no scriptural basis I am aware of for the doctrine that there are three sub-degrees of glory in the highest of the three degrees of glory. there are simply three degrees of Glory.. period. I believe that the following scripture disproves it D&C 88:29.

Finally.... To the person from Ogden that just sent a reply requesting the portion of part 5, in which I address the blessing and the cursing, I do have you on my list. I hope to send it to those of you that have requested it within a day or two. Also, you asked about my phone conversation with "Rob" about the planets... He says he has figured out how to read the signs in the heavens using the feast days and holidays of Israel in conjunction with using facsimile #2 from the book of Abraham as a clock, etc. he said he could not explain much without diagrams. I just noticed he posted some stuff on the anarchy site if you are interested.

56 comments:

ldsanarchy said...

D&C 88: 29 doesn't work to disprove it. You have to take into account D&C 88: 31 and D&C 76: 98-99.

Someone who is watching said...

Anarchist,

I am not sure I understand your point, nor do I understand what the other two scriptures have to do with it.

Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying.

I agree that there are three degrees of glory, ie, celestial, terrestral, and telestial.

what I don't think is clearly proven in the scriptures is that the highest, celestial kingdom has three separate division within it...

I think that 88:29 does prove my point that there are not three divisions in it because those, who I have known, who speculate that the celestial "kingdom" is divided into three divisions usually posit that you cannot move up from whichever of the three you end up in.

Additionally, some think, for example, that only those who live the highest portion of celestial law, for instance, those who believe the multiple wives is a higher portion of the celestial law, are in the highest,of the three division of the celestial kingdom while those with one wife, yet celestial in every other way, are in a lower division but still within the celestial kingdom.

I believe verse 29 of section 88 proves that anyone that lives celestial law and is quickened by ANY portion of celestial glory, and qualifies for the celestial kingdom, will, categorically, eventually recieve a fulness of the celestial glory.

but regardless of whether I am correct about verse 29 as supporting evidence, my question to you is, outside of section 131, which is someones recollection of what JS said, can you produce a second scriptural witness that would support the belief that there are three divisions within the celestial kingdom?

I find it interesting that section 76, would not mention it if such was the case.

ldsanarchy said...

D&C 88: 29 and 31 have the same language:

29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

D&C 76: 98-99, speaking of the telestial glory, says:

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;
99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

The implication is that "a fulness" in these scriptures does not imply receiving everything offered by these worlds. The reasoning is simple: if you inherit the telestial glory, you will receive "a fulness," yet still your "fulness of glory" will differ from the "fulness of glory" of another person in the telestial.

As these scriptures define "a fulness" as not meaning "obtaining everything offered by the world" in question, D&C 131 and 132 are consistent and not at all contradictory, in explaining that there are different glories within the celestial world, just like the telestial world.

Taking it further, this would imply that the terrestrial world is likewise composed of people who are of differing glory.

Just as one star differs from another star in glory, typifying the telestial, the same can be said of one moon differing from another moon in glory, typifying the terrestial, and of one sun differing from another sun in glory, typifying the celestial. The principle and pattern is the same.

NEPT said...

To me, D&C 76:98-99, in conjunction with 96-97, actually make it seem like the celestial and terrestrial glories are uniform (one degree) whereas the telestial glory contains variable degrees, just as the stars differ in glory one from another. In effect, this would be the polar opposite of a celestial kingdom having multiple degrees.

Doug Towers said...

Interestingly presented.

I would pose that D&C 76 does present some division within the Celestial Kingdom. It only states that 144,000 will become Gods. It is interesting to note that it doesn't include the general assembly of the church of the first born in that.

I would also present that no-one can be considered in a marriage relationship unless they are having children or plan on doing so during the eternities. God made the male and female and said have children. That is what the marriage is for.

Far more females will gain eternal life than males, because they are more spiritually orientated (men get lost in logic too often; women listen to their hearts). So what are they going to do for husbands if no plural marriage?

Women who are so possessive of their husbands that they won't share him with other women in need aren't eternal life material. Equally men so lazy as to not be prepared to take on additional wives.

Someone who is watching said...

Anarchist-

regarding the celestial kingdom, I don't think there are many different equals;

"And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the asaints shall be filled with his bglory, and receive their cinheritance and be made dequal with him. (80:107)

do you think there are three divisions in the Celestial Kingdom? If so can you prove scripturally?

Someone who is watching said...

NEPT

I read it like you.

Every time you and I interpret the scriptures the same way I am reminded of how intelligent and good looking you must be. LOL

The Celestial Kingdom is governed by Mercy & Grace which transforms all of the church of the first born into the exact image of Christ being made equal with him and receiving the fulness of the Father. All inhabitants of that kingdom have one glory just as our sun has one brightness.

The Terrestrial Kingdom is governed by Justice which also transforms those inhabitants into the same level of Glory. all inhabitants of that kingdom have one glory just as our moon has one brightness.

the Telestial Kingdom is governed by justice which rewards each person in an exacting way for their evil deeds, ie, some murderers kill more people than other murderers, some thiefs steal more than other thiefs and some polygamists take more wives that other polygamists. LOL

each inhabitant of that kingdom has their own differing brightness just as the stars have differing brightness...

Doug,

you said;

"Far more females will gain eternal life than males"

I used to believe that, but I don't anymore.

Can you prove that assumption scripturally?

ldsanarchy said...

OWIW, the scripture you quote is D&C 88: 107. My understanding of English grammar is the following:

And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, [after this comma, we start talking about saints, not angels] and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.

The sentence has two subjects: angels and saints. The angels part has the verb "shall...be crowned" and then the sentence presents a second subject, saints, in which the saints partake of three verbs "shall be filled," "shall...receive" and "shall..be made." It is indicative that there is a division between angels and saints, in other words, that angels receive one thing, what is termed being "crowned with the glory of his might" while saints receive another thing, what is termed "filled with his glory," an inheritance and equality with him.

But don't take my word on it. Go ask a college English professor about this sentence and see that it must be interpreted this way, according to the rules of English grammar.

This, of course, is still in line with both D&C 131 and D&C 132 and indicates a clear division within the Celestial Kingdom. You yourself have provided the scriptural proof you have asked for. Had the sentence been meant to indicate that saints and angels receive the same thing, it would have been worded differently, for instance,

And then shall the angels [and saints] be crowned with the glory of his might, and [] shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.

LDSA

Someone who is watching said...

Anarchist

That isn't fair, you know I can't differentiate between verbs and
nouns and all that kind of stuff.

NEPT will have to address that...

He a scientist with lots of degrees.

Nevertheless, you said;

"that angels receive one thing, what is termed being "crowned with the glory of his might" while saints receive another thing, what is termed "filled with his glory," an inheritance and equality with him."


I guess you are suggesting that angels who have been crowned with the glory of his might are in one division of the celestial kingdom and Saints who have been filled with his glory are in another division..

I don't buy your interpretation.

Putting the scripture passage in context, the angels being referred to are the major angels who are Gods servants...who were also Saints during their earth life.

This is, I believe, what is being emphasized... the order in which everyone is being quickened

But I am facinated with your storyline, can you elaborate on the distinction between the angels and the Saints that you have put in different divisions in the Celestial Kingdom and how they related to each other and how their Godhood differs, etc.?

ldsanarchy said...

With all respect to NEPT, a scientist with degrees does not an English professor make. Go to the right expert.

OWIW, you wrote, "Putting the scripture passage in context, the angels being referred to are the major angels who are Gods servants...who were also Saints during their earth life."

You are missing the whole point of D&C 88. As I wrote in Keep your eye on the planets!,

"Now, when you read the rest of the section (D&C 88: 64-141), try to keep in mind that this section is a lesson in ASTRONOMY! The Lord is talking of heavenly things, meaning PLANETS! Nevertheless, as above, so below."

Someone who is watching said...

It's late.. go to bed.. we shall chat some more another time

BTW someone over at common consent had the same feeling I have about what 131 was really saying about the celestial glory

http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/18/is-the-celestial-kingdom-divided-into-three-subdegrees/

ldsanarchy said...

That's quite an eclectic bunch of intellectual musings (at BCC). Extreme Doritos' comment (#2) is the one that explains it best:

That v. 1 is referring to the Celestial Kingdom in specific and not the Three Degrees of Glory in general (as the word “celestial” means “heavenly” some questions arise as to whether this is not simply a restate of the substance of D&C 76 where three degrees of glory are presented as opposed to the new revelation of additional divisions in the Celestial Kingdom in particular) is necessarily implied by the substance of v. 2. Verse 2 states that in order to enter into the highest degree one must have an eternal marriage. But, this is not necessary to gain access to the Celestial Kingdom alone as unmarried ministering angels will be present there also, cf. D&C 132:16-17. Thus, this passage must be referring very specifically to three additional degrees within the Celestial Kingdom proper.

While the topmost degree is defined, and the lowest degree can be inferred as relating to celestial quality persons who were not eternally married, there remains the question as to what the middle degree of the celestial kingdom is composed of.


The above would be correct even taking out all references to marriage and just leaving in "this order of the priesthood." I'll re-quote him with the substitution:

That v. 1 is referring to the Celestial Kingdom in specific and not the Three Degrees of Glory in general...is necessarily implied by the substance of v. 2. Verse 2 states that in order to enter into the highest degree one must [enter into this order of the priesthood]. But, this is not necessary to gain access to the Celestial Kingdom alone as [baptized and confirmed people who have no priesthood] will be present there also, cf. [the entire Standard Works]. Thus, this passage must be referring very specifically to three additional degrees within the Celestial Kingdom proper.

Baptism is the ordinance that opens up the Celestial world to us, not entering into any order of the priesthood, so Extreme Dorito is correct.

What I find especially entertaining, though, is that despite the intellectual prowess that BCC's contributors and commenters love to show off, they all seem so very confused about the "middle" heaven or degree. lol

Malachi said...

What convinced me that there is only one inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom are the scriptures in the New Testament speaking about being a son and heir and as such are glorified with Christ. I just don't see any middle ground. It seems to be all or another Kingdom completely. Are the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom heirs or not?

For example:
(New Testament | Romans 8:14 - 17)
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.


Plus the testimony of section 76 which I believe says that if you are baptized, receive the Holy Spirit, and overcome by the Holy Spirit of promise receive all the Father has.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:51 - 55) 51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

I think these apply to the discussion.

Someone who is watching said...

Anarchist

My assessment of the BCC crowd was similar to yours.

The only thing I found alluminating on that thread was the original question posed.

I thought the guy did a good job of explaining why 131 could be referring to the three degrees of glory mentioned in 76 instead of revealing new doctrine.

Malachi

I think you are dead on!

You also must be extremely good looking and very intelligent to interpret this mystical passage the same way I do!

I was reminded that JS wrote a poem about 76 to further clarify the truths taught in it.

here are a few passages from his poem;

56. These are they that are hon'rable men of the earth;
Who were blinded and dup'd by the cunning of men:
They receiv'd not the truth of the Savior at first;
But did, when they heard it in prison, again.
57. Not valiant for truth, they obtain'd not the crown,
Bur are of that glory that's typ'd by the moon;
They are they, that come into the presence of Christ,
But not to the fulness [fullness] of God, on his throne.




I beheld the celestial, in glory sublime;
Which is the most excellent kingdom that is,-
Where God, e'en the Father, in harmony reigns;
Almighty, supreme, and eternal, in bliss.
67. Where the church of the first born in union reside,
And they see as they're seen, and they know as they're known;
Being equal in power, dominion and might,
With a fulness [fullness] of glory and grace, round his throne.

there is only one fulness of the father and only one fulness of the Celestial Glory.. those who live a lesser law don't make it into the Celestial Kingdom at all, they are in a lower one.

ldsanarchy said...

Malachi, the scripture you quote in D&C 76: 51-55, which is talking about the exalted, is not an explicitly detailed list of attributes. When the text says, "that by keeping the commandments," this leaves open another unsaid list of attributes. What are these other commandments that the exalted keep? The vision record doesn't say.

Taking the text and trying to force it to be narrowed down to a specific list wrests it. It's like having someone describe an imaginary object called a Flig and saying it is a cube of these specific dimensions and it is color red on one side, blue on another and "other colors," and then saying if you've got a cube of these specific dimensions, colored red on one side and blue on another side, you've got a Flig. Well, no, you don't have a Flig, because you're only working with a part of the description of a Flig.

The resurrection is divided into first and second, just and unjust. D&C 76 only tells us that the exalted have part in the resurrection of the just (the first resurrection). It doesn't say anything about the terrestrial kingdom, which resurrection those people receive. However, using the rest of the Standard Works, such as Mosiah 15, we learn that the terrestrial people have part in the resurrection of the just. So, D&C 76: 50-70, which starts out talking about people who inherit the resurrection of the just, is not talking about ALL the people who receive that resurrection, but of a certain group that receive that resurrection.

The notion that the group being spoken of in those verses applies to every person who inherits the CK is something you are superimposing upon the text. (And that goes for you, too, OWIW.) The text does not say that. It is only describing a group of people who will inherit the the CK.

I normally disregard the verse summaries, but in this case the editors got it right: "50–70, The glory and reward of exalted beings in the celestial kingdom."

As for Romans 8: 14-17, it, too, is not an exclusive list. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God" to do what? Paul doesn't say. If you take one scripture and leave out the rest of them, then a person could, I suppose, say, "I am led by the Spirit of God. I need not baptism." Is that right? Of course not.

OWIW, you wrote, "there is only one fulness of the father and only one fulness of the Celestial Glory."

D&C 76: 96-99 says that each kingdom's glory is "one." But such a "one" glory can differ from person to person in a kingdom. So, "a fulness" of a glory obviously does not imply receiving everything a kingdom offers. I thought my second comment answered this adequately, but you seem determined to believe otherwise. And that's okay. To each his own.

Someone who is watching said...

Anarchist-

I suspect we all feel that the other guy is wresting the scriptures when they don't interpret them the way we want them to.

I wrote an article some time ago having to do with the doctrine known as the fulness of the Father.

I believe you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it or you didn't believe the scriptural and doctrinal content provided in it.

It is primarily the information gathered and provided in that article that provides me with the context for understanding what is said in section 76.

I am going to provide, once again, a few excerpts from lectures on faith.

I believe the person who wrote the information in lectures on faith understood what he was talking about from personal experience.

I don't provide these so much for you because you have made up your mind and you have a vested interest in having three divisions in the celestial kingdom because of your vested interest in the spiritual wife doctrine.

However, in the event that there are people reading this series of replies with an open mind, trying to discern the truth, of both issues, I am providing these quotes for them.

I believe the term of salvation being used in these passages refers to the highest level of salvation which we often refer to as exaltation.. but I will let the reader interpret them as they will. BTW the limited characters accepted may require multiple posts;

“And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit,”

“…The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all–the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father–possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father–a Mediator for man–being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments:

and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.”

Someone who is watching said...

continued...

“Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do

Q. Does the believer in Christ Jesus, through the gift of the Spirit, become one with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son are one?
A. They do. John 17: 20,21. Neither pray I for these (the apostles) alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

“..let us ask, where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimilated, in order that we may be made partakers of life and salvation? or in other words, where shall we find a saved being? for if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain, without much difficulty, what all others must be, in order to be saved – they must be like that individual or they cannot be saved:

we think, that it will not be a matter of dispute, that two beings, who are unlike each other, cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one, will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved: and if we find one saved being in all existence, we may see what all others must be, or else not be saved.

We ask, then, where is the prototype? or where is the saved being? We conclude as to the answer of this question there will be no dispute among those who believe the bible, that it is Christ: all will agree in this that he is the prototype or standard of salvation, or in other words, that he is a saved being. And if we should continue our interrogation, and ask how it is that he is saved, the answer would be, because he is a just and holy being; and if he were any thing different from what he is he would not be saved; for his salvation depends on his being precisely what he is and nothing else;

for if it were possible for him to change in the least degree, so sure he would fail of salvation and lose all his dominion, power, authority and glory, which constitutes salvation; for salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses, and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him: Thus says John, in his first epistle, 3:2 and 3: Behold, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be; but we know, that when he shall appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And any man that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure.–Why purify himself as he is pure? because, if they do not they cannot be like him.”

“That he proposed to make them like unto himself; and he was like the Father, the great prototype of all saved beings: And for any portion of the human family to be assimilated into their likeness is to be saved; and to be unlike them is to be destroyed: and on this hinge turns the door of salvation.”

Malachi said...

Wow Watcher, I haven't read the lectures on faith for so long that I had forgotten it talked about this stuff so clearly. I'm sure there's ways to rationtionalize around these ideas, but to me a person receives Godhood or he does not.

I have wondered for a long time what the separation is between the celestial and the terrestrial. I believe it is what we've actually been discussing on this blog. I believe it is either a celestial Godhood or a terrestrial inheritance.

I believe that the phrase in section 76 "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God" is referring to the Christian Churches of today. Also the phrase from the lectures "... A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; ..." The christian churches of today do not require much at all and therefore do not have the power of eternal lives which leaves a terrestrial inheritance.

Enoch, Melchizedek, Moses, Christ and his apostles, the great Nephite prophets and Joseph Smith have all worked toward an ideal a higher plain of existence. Some succeeded and were taken to God others failed and were given a lesser law. All Christian churches today are on that lower level of spiritual struggle.

That is why I appreciate so much the idea of watching for a more excellent way.

Someone who is watching said...

Malachi-

thank You for highlighting the following scripture-

"These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God"

I think the simplicity of that scripture is profound and that it sums up the distinction between the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms.

You ether gain the crown over the kingdom or you don't.

I love the way those passages in lectures on faith are using the term “Salvation” to be synonymous with how latter day saints normally use “exaltation”.

I believe that is how the NT and Book of Mormon usually, if not always defines salvation.

Being “damned” doesn’t necessarily mean one is a Son of Perdition or that they are thrust into hell, it simply means one has been limited from gaining the greatest gift that God can give which is to be a possessor of all things and to be a God and to eternally procreate.

That is what it is to receive the greatest gift of salvation… which involves being made EQUAL with Christ and to be transformed in to the image and power of the Father.

Notice how the D&C defines “salvation” as the greatest gift of there is;

13 If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation. D&C 6: 12-13, 16

The above passage verifies that the plain and simple gospel of Christ in the Book of Mormon and NT is usually if not always speaking of the highest potentiality of the soul when using the term salvation.

Someone who is watching said...

"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:" Rom. 9: 27

That passage is pretty simple, despite the number of Israel being as the sand of the sea, a remnant will be saved (receive the crown over the kingdom).

The rest will be in the terrestrial or telestial kingdom, or a son of perdition…

there are not varying degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom, you are either transformed into the image and likeness of God or you are damned from bringing forth eternal increase.

The true gospel of Jesus Christ is pretty simply and the whole focus is on Christ Jesus and his atonement.

Those who would change the gospel to require multiple wives are preaching “another” gospel and will be accursed for it if they don't repent.

The apostle Paul was amazed at how some of the Saints of his time had so quickly gotten off the path of the plain and simple gospel of Christ and had begun altering the true Gospel and preaching ANOTHER gospel;


"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any bother gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.."

Notice how section 132 introduces a corrupted version of the term salvation which totally contradicts what lectures on faith and the scriptures really teach about the term "salvation";

"For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition"

I don't think the B of M or the NT agree with the definition of saved that the "other gospel" contained in section 132 is speaking about.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16: 16


I think Lectures on Faith sums it up pretty nicely;

“..if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain, without much difficulty, what all others must be, in order to be saved – they must be like that individual or they cannot be saved:

we think, that it will not be a matter of dispute, that two beings, who are unlike each other, cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one, will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved”

NEPT said...

That was a very elegant argument, Watcher. You built it up quite nicely and then pummeled us with the "other gospel" jab. I'm still woozy.

It's all making more sense with time.


BTW-I missed the Perseids because it was too overcast in my neck of the woods.

ldsanarchy said...

LOL

"Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him." (D&C 76: 43)

Saved=anyone who inherits the telestial, terrestrial or celestial kingdoms.

Unsaved=anyone who inherits outer darkness

The doctrine of salvation encompasses the doctrine of exaltation, whereas the doctrine of exaltation is speaking specifically of receiving all there is in the entire kingdom of God (all kingdoms of glory inclusive). It is just as correct to speak of exaltation in terms of salvation as it is to speak of any other degree of "dominion, power, authority and glory" in the created Universe (Inner Sphere of Light) in terms of salvation. The context of the scripture should tip you off as to which shade of meaning of the word "salvation" we are talking about. This is pretty simple stuff, OWIW. You are making it more complicated than it is.

The lectures on faith do not conflict with the rest of the Standard Works, nor does D&C 132 conflict with anything, either.

"For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition"

is a true statement, according to the "Saved=" definition of D&C 76.

The BoM use of the word "salvation" is almost always referring to the D&C 76: 43 definition, not to exaltation, as you believe.

The lectures on faith quote you used said, speaking of those who inherit exaltation (salvation), that it is "all those who keep his commandments" who inherit this salvation. D&C 132 fits, again, into this, as it contains additional commandments and doctrine so that we can keep them. Remember, the Lord has promised us "commandments not a few." (D&C 59: 4)

Honestly, I find all this quite circular, as the supposed conflicts you bring up seem to me to be contrived by forcing certain words to mean one thing and one thing only, as if the English language was based on one word, one definition. We all know it isn't. One word can have 20 shades of meaning. Perhaps if we were speaking or writing Esperanto it would be better able to interpret the scriptures. LOL

As for your Fulness of the Father article, I believe I did, at least, skim it and I think I did comment on a comment, if not on the article itself. I don't always take the time to respond to everything I find correct or incorrect on the blog. Sometimes I just let things fly and see how others respond. I will go and read the article word-for-word, perhaps, and comment more fully on it, as you are always looking for a test to your theories.

Someone who is watching said...

Yes,I agree there are multiple definitions for the term saved or salvation.. I am suggesting that the statement from lectures is evidence that

1) Sometimes the term saved is used to refer to the highest possible level of salvation which is the celestial kingdom as opposed to the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms

2) That it is one of several reasons to believe that that those who remain single and without eternal increase (see verse 4 of section 131) would not in fact be in a sub-division of the "celestial kingdom" but rather they would be classified as one who was not valiant in the testimony of Jesus and/or who died without law, which, according to section 76 would qualify them for the terrestrial kingdom, not a sub-division of the celestial kingdom (see section 76:72, 75,79) ;

Quote from Lectures:

“..if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain, without much difficulty, what all others must be, in order to be saved – they must be like that individual or they cannot be saved:

we think, that it will not be a matter of dispute, that two beings, who are unlike each other, cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one, will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved”

ldsanarchy said...

OWIW, your point #2 only works if D&C 131's use of the term "Celestial glory" refers to all three kingdoms of glory and not just the specific Celestial Kingdom. Here's what you said in your post:

"One other observation about those verses. I believe people mistakenly assume that "celestial glory" means "celestial kingdom". I don't believe it does. When you realize it doesn't, there is no scriptural basis I am aware of for the doctrine that there are three sub-degrees of glory in the highest of the three degrees of glory. there are simply three degrees of Glory.. period."

The following scripture, though, makes it plain that Celestial glory is referring to Celestial Kingdom:

"For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory." (D&C 88: 22)

From this and other scriptures, it is counterintuitive to assume that Celestial glory refers to all three kingdoms and not the specific Celestial Kingdom. Do a keyword search on "celestial glory" and you'll see what I mean.

Again, the only logical conclusion that can be come to, with all that has been discussed in this post, is that there are three degrees within the Celestial Kingdom: gods, angels, and "something else". LOL

One more thing, the quotes you wrote from Lectures on Faith were defining salvation as exaltation and, in this context, were, of course, correct. They don't work under any of the other shades of meaning of the word "salvation."

ldsanarchy said...

OWIW, one more thing.

TruthSeekerToo kept bringing up on on the LDS Anarchy blog that the term "new and everlasting covenant" only appears in three sections: D&C 22, D&C 131 (parenthetically), and in D&C 132, which she discounted. This person who emailed you about this term might want to do a keyword search for "new covenant" and for "everlasting covenant." Although only three sections contain the four words "new and everlasting covenant," there are lots of scriptures that speak of the new covenant and of the everlasting covenant.

As you are the keyword search master, I figured I'd mention it here. ;)

Someone who is watching said...

Anarchist,

The point I was trying to make is that if you are correct, that "celestial glory" is the same as the "Celestial Kingdom" in the way that Joseph Smith supposedly used the term according to someones recollection, as recorded in section 131, then clearly verse four is referring to one of the divisions in the celestial kingdom since that is the original topic of the passage.

Now then, if that assumption is true, and if the statement in lectures is true, that anyone that is not identical in every way to a saved (exalted) being cannot be a saved (exalted)being, then you would have unsaved beings inhabiting the celestial kingdom with saved/exalted beings, even if separated by some type of partition.

I personally find that scenareo to be inconsistent with scripture.

Additionally, it seems to me that section 76 has already identified those who end up living single and without eternal increase as being candidates for the terrestrial kingdom since they would fall into the categories of having lived without gospel law and/or not been valiant in their testimony of Jesus.

May I suggest however, that the primary reason this topic has relevance to either of us probably stems from the deeper issue of polygamy.

It has to do with whether the theological section in 132 is true or not with regard to the necessity of having plural wives in order to reach the highest salvation. ( at least according to some peoples interpretations)

I frankly don't really care that much one way or the other if there are three division in the Celestial Kingdom, normally is just doesn't seem all that pertinent to me.

It only becomes an important issue to me because it appears to me that the statement in 131 was selectively and surgically extracted from an otherwise very enlightening and useful larger discourse attributed to JS, and then was modified by a phrase that was entered at a later time that potentially changes context.

If someone foreign to the deeper issue of how you and I differ on our perception of section 76 were to visit this thread they would really scratch their heads and wonder why either of us are expending so much energy on what appears to be a seemingly insignificant doctrine... one that could be classed with "do the pearly gates swing or slide", etc.

So perhaps we should just cut to the chase and debate the real issue... the Spiritual Wife doctrine, since I think that is really at the heart of this issue and the passion that we both have on this topic.

I would invite you to join those who have accepted my invitation to critique my segment in part 5 regarding the spiritual wife doctrine. ( once I finish it).

I have been wanting people to review it and really test the assumptions and interpretations that I have made concerning the place of polygamy in the latter day work.

You seem to be the perfect candidate to hold the theory up against the scriptures and LDS church history to test the theory.

ldsanarchy said...

OWIW, you wrote,

"Now then, if that assumption is true, and if the statement in lectures is true, that anyone that is not identical in every way to a saved (exalted) being cannot be a saved (exalted)being, then you would have unsaved beings inhabiting the celestial kingdom with saved/exalted beings, even if separated by some type of partition."

I can't agree with that statement the way it is written (meaning that I don't find it scriptural) because again you are forcing one shade of meaning of the word "saved" into every instance. Had you written it thusly, I would agree with it:

"Now then, if that assumption is true, and if the statement in lectures is true, that anyone that is not identical in every way to a saved (exalted) being cannot be a saved (exalted) being, then you would have saved (unexalted) beings inhabiting the celestial kingdom with saved/exalted beings, even if separated by some type of partition."

There are different shades of meaning of the word "saved." An unexalted being who inherits the CK is still "saved" according to the scriptures.

Perhaps you think that my purpose in commenting on this post is to defend the doctrine of plural marriage, but it is not. I merely was addressing D&C 131 without the parenthetical statement. In other words, I have been looking at it with just the words "this order of the priesthood." On that basis alone the premise of the section referring to the three kingdoms and not to three degrees within the CK doesn't hold up to scriptural scrutiny. I only planned on addressing your D&C 88: 29 scriptural proof, but got drawn in further. (That happens sometimes.)

Plural marriage is another subject altogether. I am not sure that I am the best one to test your next article. If you are going to address biblical polygamy, I would suggest having Mark Henkel, founder of the Christian Polygamy organization, TruthBearer.org, as well as other websites, such as BiblicalPolygamy.com, review it. If you are going to stick to just Mormon polygamy and D&C 132, then maybe Derek P. Moore would be best, as he has a greater knowledge of LDS history than I do.

I mainly confine myself to the scriptures and don't spend much time on church historical records or written histories. But, if you still want to send it my way, send it along and I'll pass it through my anarchic filter and return it back to you all disorganized and unreadable.

Someone who is watching said...

Since the content pertains to how biblical polygamy interrelates to LDS doctrine and LDS church history I don't think christian groups would have any interest or appreciation for the topic, much less any context with which to view it.

Derek is welcome to critique it if he wants to.

NEPT said...

I've really enjoyed this back-and-forth between you guys (even you, Anarchy, despite that you have reservations about my English grammar skills, LOL).

Anarchy, your arguments are quite persuasive and almost convinced me that D&C 88:22 equated celestial glory exclusively with the celestial kingdom; but as I lay in bed last night thinking, unable to sleep (the two of you have ruined any good rest I might get nowadays, btw), the thought popped into my head that the kingdoms/worlds may not be three uniquely separate circles or spheres (bear with the geometrical analogy for a moment, please). That is, instead of the stereotypical 'plan of salvation' diagram we see so often, from primary on up, that depicts the three kingdoms as three unconnected circles, maybe it should be drawn as three concentric circles, with the celestial sphere/circle encompassing the terrestrial, which itself encompasses the telestial. By definition, the celestial circle would contain both the terrestrial and telestial worlds. In this respect, 'celestial glory' would not necessarily refer to the celestial kingdom alone, but would define all the kingdoms that are circumscribed by the celestial kingdom. In that light, it would be accurate to claim that the three degrees of the 'celestial glory' are, in fact, the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms.

In this setting, the 'boundaries' of each kingdom would prevent you from moving outward to the next, but would not prevent you from going toward the center, and 'visiting' lower kingdoms.

This seems congruent with D&C 88:77,112, which tell us that those of the terrestrial world enjoy the presence of the Son, but not the fulness of the Father; and that those in the telestial kingdom cannot go where God and Christ dwell. But those verses DO NOT SAY that the Father and the Son cannot go to them.

As far as I can tell (and I can't tell very much, LOL), the scenario I have described does not contradict the scriptures, but I welcome any refutation, as long as you're nice about it!

In the end, I still haven't made up my mind!

Anonymous said...

Allow me to suggest another way of proving that there are simply three degrees of glory and no subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom;

D&C 88:96-102 provides a very simple breakdown of the four classes of souls on the earth and a corresponding breakdown of the three kingdoms of glory and a fourth place in outer darkness they will inherit;

D&C 88:96-98 identifies the Celestial Souls who will inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

They are the Saints who are alive that are quickened and caught up to meet Christ and the Saints who come forth out of their graves who are also quickened and caught up to meet Christ.

Both of those groups constitute those that lived gospel law (celestial law- section 42) and will inhabit the celestial kingdom.

Both groups are called Saints, both groups are quickened, both groups are caught up to meet Christ, both groups descend with him when he comes down to reign on earth.

Both are designated as the “FIRST FRUITS”.

“First fruits” refers to the 144,000 high priests who achieve Godhood. ( See Rev 14:1-5)

D&C 88:99 identifies the Terrestrial Souls who will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom.

These are all of those who are Christ’s at is coming, who finally receive the gospel AFTER the first resurrection.

These are they who did not accept and live gospel law during probation, prior to the quickening (1st resurrection) of the celestial souls. They finally come forth and accept the gospel, but they did not receive the testimony of Jesus in the flesh (See D&C 76:74).

They died without gospel law(See D&C 76: 72) they are not caught up into the cloud with the church of the first born D&C 76: 102 )

D&C 88:100-101 identifies the Telestial Souls and the Sons of Perdition that don’t accept the gospel and remain under condemnation.

They live not again until after the end of the millennium.

D&C 88:102 identifies the Sons of Perditions as those who will remain filthy still after the telestial souls have finally been redeemed.

Those few passages provide with great clarity and simplicity a synopsis of the four categories of souls the end up going to the Celestial Terrestial and Telestial Kingdoms as well as those who go to outer darkness.

Those passages make it quite clear that those of the first resurrection, who are quickened first in verses 96-98, are the first fruits- 144,000 and does not include anyone else who could be put into a subdivision in the ck.

They are the ones that lived gospel law prior to being quickened and caught up. They are the first fruits which are all made equal with Christ.

There is no need to have subdivisions in the Celestial Kingdom, everyone else already has an inheritance in a kingdom of lesser glory or in outer darkness.

Someone who is watching said...

NEPT
I love your modified diagram.

I think it is consistent with the scriptures, although it does not necessarily answer the question at hand.

I hereby claim the rights to make and use said diagram in future articles by decree of the King, Queen and Papacy.

Anonymous

The literal chronological reading of those verses bring up a huge question that has been on my mind for a long time.

They seem to indicate that the 144,000 go forth to seal up the wicked and redeem the believing terrestrials AFTER the quickening and rapture of the 144,000. (Which most LDS define as the 1st resurrection)

The question I have is, are the terrestrials in spirit form during that NEXT phase of missionary work when they are redeemed or have they been returned to the earth in the flesh.

Is that what it means when it says that they can be judged according to men in the flesh?

I realize that knowing this is not pertinent to our salvation, but I am highly curious.

I lean towards them being returned to the earth in the flesh.. I think the saving ordinances need to be performed in the flesh…

BTW I agree with your interpretation…

you must be very intelligent and good looking… even if you are… ME!

NEPT said...

I was too chicken to call you out, Watcher. So, thanks for confirming my suspicion. I thought the 'anonymous' post had a familiar ring.

And what do you mean that my patented diagram doesn't answer the question at hand??? I think it does a pretty decent job in explaining how 'celestial glory' could signify all three kingdoms. Is this the thanks I get for trying to help you out!! LOL

Someone who is watching said...

NEPT

I understand that the diagram as you explained it favors my interpretation, however, one could simply add a few more rings and still have the same concept allow for the commonly accepted interpretation of having subdivisions within the Celestial Kingdom...

That is all I was implying.

BTW

After further consideration, I believe your diagram would be more accurate if you inverted it. the Celestial Kingdom would be in the center of the universe. Light, life and truth is at the very center of creation. God is in all things and through all things.

The light would emanate from the very center.. outwards.

Outside of the telestial glory would be an outer ring depicting outer darkness.

If in fact there is something like Kolob etc. that needs to be in the center of the CK that could be in the center again.

Don't bother patenting this version, I've already done it. LOL

TruthSeekerToo said...

Malachi-I agree with you about how the NT presents the Celestial Kingdom. I love the NT!

LDSA you said:
"TruthSeekerToo kept bringing up on on the LDS Anarchy blog that the term "new and everlasting covenant" only appears in three sections: D&C 22, D&C 131 (parenthetically), and in D&C 132, which she discounted. This person who emailed you about this term might want to do a keyword search for "new covenant" and for "everlasting covenant." Although only three sections contain the four words "new and everlasting covenant," there are lots of scriptures that speak of the new covenant and of the everlasting covenant."

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wat saying.
The only place that the New and Everlasting Covenant is used to refer to marriage covenants is D&C 132. No where else is it used to refer to polygamist marriage.

If you have any other reference that does specifically refer to polygamist marriage as the New and Everlasting Covenant (or any other play on those words) I would love to reread it since I have yet to find it.
I am familiar with the keyword searches you speak of, I just didn't read any that were talking about marriage.

ldsanarchy said...

OWIW, D&C 88: 96-98 speaks of THREE GROUPS of people, not TWO GROUPS of people, as you suggest. Read it again. And yet again, if you still don't catch it.

The term "firstfruits" refers to all those who are resurrected first, meaning those who rise in the morning of the first resurrection. It does not specifically identify only 144,000 people, though those 144,000 will be among the firstfruits. See 2 Nephi 2: 8-9; Jacob 4: 11; etc. Just do a keyword search.

Yes, the verses in D&C 88: 96-102 are talking about four classes of people, celestial, terrestrial, telestial and sons of perdition, but then later on, as I explained above, in D&C 88: 107 the celestial people are further divided into angels and saints.

NEPT, as OWIW already pointed out, you can't have the lower kingdoms in the center and the higher kingdoms in the outer regions. It must be the other way around.

NEPT said...

I'm not sure why the two of you are beating me up. It's not intended to be a spatial diagram, but rather a modified venn diagram, or something of the like, that simply shows a hypothetical relationship between three unequal sets (kingdoms) of glory. If it is accurate to say "the doctrine of exaltation is speaking specifically of receiving all there is in the entire kingdom of God (all kingdoms of glory inclusive)," then a circle that includes all other 'circles of glory' would represent the celestial kingdom, or exaltation in the highest degree, whichever you prefer.

Someone who is watching said...

It was not my intention to beat up on you. I love the concept you have suggested.

I just think that as a visual, it should be inverted.

I have already been playing around in paint to create a visual.

I didn't realize you were making a distinction between a spatial diagram, and a modified venn diagram.

Whatever those things are... LOL

NEPT said...

That's OK, I don't know what they are either!

Someone who is watching said...

I think that creating the following three divisions from verses 96-107 of section 88 does not constitute sound doctrine;

1- The Saints who are live who are quickened and caught up to meet him and descend with him, who are the firstfruits

2- The Saints who are dead who are quickened and caught up to meet him and descend with him, how are the first fruits

3- The seven angels, (led by Father Adam) who are blowing the trumps of the various resurrections and events of the end times

I would sure be curious to see the designations of who goes where by anyone who subscribes to the three divisions in the celestial kingdom theory.

Certainly none of the Saints would qualify for the highest division if Adam and the other six angles are the only ones that inherit that highest division.

One the other hand, if it is one of the two groups of Saints that reach the highest division of the celestial kingdom, then of course our Father Adam, who is second only to Christ in the order of the Gods would not be able to reach the highest division…

There are two keys to understanding section 131:1-4.

One is understanding which definition of the word “celestial” Joseph Smith was using when speaking of the “Celestial Glory”.

I believe he was using the most common definition of the word used during that time.

According to the 1828 Websters, Celestial mains; “Heavenly; belonging or relating to heaven; dwelling in heaven..”

The second key is in understanding which order of the priesthood joseph Smith was referring to when he used the phrase “order of the priesthood”.

Although someone inserted the term; “New and Everlasting order of Marriage” in brackets to clarify which order of the priesthood he was referring to, I don’t think that term refers to an order of the priesthood.

Joseph Smith taught there were three orders of the priesthood and he taught what they were;

1- the Aaronic or levitical priesthood named after Aaron, P

2- Patriarchal priesthood often named after Abraham and also associated with Moses

3- The highest priesthood named after Melchizedek.

I believe Joseph was referring to the highest order of the priesthood that was named after Melchizedek which was revealed by God through the prophet Joseph Smith at the special conference at the Morley Farm.

Someone who is watching said...

This is really what I think Joseph was saying;

“In the heavens there are three kingdoms of glory; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into the highest order of the priesthood which is named after Melchizedek, which priesthood requires the priesthood holder to enter into the oath and covenant of the Father and to be sealed by the holy Spirit of promise.

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.”

If in fact there really were three degrees or divisions within the “celestial kingdom” section 76 would have made that doctrine clear.

After all, that was one of the main purposes of section 76, to clearly designate the three different laws pertaining to the three different glories that the three different categories of saved beings inherit.

Many years later, in Nauvoo Joseph Smith gave a discourse in January of 1844. In it he covered the topic of the three degrees again…

and again, he didn’t seem to feel it was necessary to break the celestial kingdom into different categories.

Notice how he puts the whole emphasis on living the whole law of the celestial kingdom by going through ALL of the ORDINANCES and being ELECTED by God.

He makes no distinction regarding three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom nor does he say anything about doing temporal acts and living carnal laws like polygamy in order to get a higher salvation;

“The question is frequently asked; Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc.

I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, “there are many mansions in my Father’s house. And I will go and prepare a place for you.”

House here named should have been translated kingdom and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too…

How many will be able to abide celestial law and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called but few are chosen”

Again, why wouldn't Joseph clearly teach of the three additional divisions of the celestial kingdom on this occasion if they really existed?

I would submit that “many”, in the above passages, is more than three. Hence, Joseph was not speaking of three differing divisions in the celestial kingdom, he was saying everyone in his fathers kingdom, that qualifies by keeping all the ordinances, has a mansion.. and all mansions (in that particular kingdom) are equal and identical but distinctly separate because each exalted being is given their own mansion.

TruthSeekerToo said...

Watcher,
Abraham had an oath and covenant from God. Was this the Melc. Priesthood or the Abrahamic Priesthood? Or was it the promise of the Melc. PH and Savior?

It seems that the Abrahamic priesthood is the catalyst for the Melchezidec priesthood. Abraham and Sarah were promised that Christ would come through their seed. Seed is another word for priesthood in many instances.

I can't wait to figure out how this all fits together 'cause I have a feeling it is mind expanding awesomeness!

Someone who is watching said...

TruthSeekerToo

The patriarchal priesthood that was restored to the earth by Peter James and John had been named after Abraham and it is a lineage based priesthood. In the 2nd chapter of Abraham we are informed that this priesthood was to bless all of the families of the earth with the gospel of salvation.

If you compare the terminology of that chapter with the terminology contained in section 124 you will see that the church in Nauvoo was functioning by Patriarchal priesthood.. the same priesthood that it was functioning on in Kirtland prior to the special conference at the Morley Farm.

However, even though the patriarchal priesthood was named after Abraham, he did eventually enter into the oath and covenant of the Father, pay tithes to Melchizedek (consecrate) and show forth his willingness to serve God and sacrifice ALL THINGS.

By doing so he obtained the oath from God that he would receive all that the Father has and was elected to the Highest priesthood that had been named after Melchizedek... among other things.

Sputnik said...

OWIW,

The lesson in Gospel Doctrine is coming up about D&C 131:1-4 and 132. After reading the comments here and studying these sections here are my questions. Hopefully you can shed some light on it for me.

If this section is a false revelation what is the role of the sealing ceremony in the temple about. I don’t think this is addressed anywhere else but in this section.

Is it possible that section 132 was about marriage by the priesthood but was altered? After reading it seems much of it I would agree with. Only certain versus seam to be in conflict with the gospel.

In verses 34-37 of 132 it talks about Abraham taking on more wives and equates that to when Abraham was going to offer his son Isaac up for sacrifice saying it wasn’t to his condemnation because he was doing what the Lord commanded. This seems to indicate that normally polygamy is to your condemnation unless the Lord specifically commands you to practice it. So this would be a limited context in which polygamy is practiced. I wonder if Joseph was commanded to practice it and possibly a few others and then when the church rejected Joseph Smith and the Law of Consecration that this practice got out of hand and spread like it did.

The most part about polygamy seems to be versus 61 to 65 in 132. This could have been appended on at a later date to promote polygamy.

I’m just trying to make sense of this all. Nowhere else in scripture that I’m aware of is Eternal Marriage even addressed. It’s entirely possible that this is false doctrine to begin with and we only need to worry about the ordinance of Baptism since that is what Christ teaches as the whole of his gospel in 3 Nephi to the Nephites in chapter 27: Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Holy Ghost and Faithfulness until the end.

The point that I keep coming back to is God never says you have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom except in 131 and 132. These seem to be out of sorts with the rest of scripture. I just came from the dedication of the Oquirrh Mountian Utah Temple.

Someone who is watching said...

Sputnik

As I recall, you are a gospel doctrine teacher.

First of all, I don’t know what the upcoming lesson has to do with your questions…

I certainly hope you would not teach what I have been teaching in your gospel doctrine class!

You shouldn't believe anything I teach.. you should simply use the scriptures I am speaking about to do your own research.

You will find yourself walking down the road talking to yourself if you are not prudent about what God is revealing to you.

You really need to stick with the manual and the doctrines that have been approved by the brethren when you are teaching in the church.

The truth should only be discussed in appropriate places like this blog.

Nevertheless, for your own edification I will address your questions as best as I can LOL;

You said

“If this section is a false revelation what is the role of the sealing ceremony in the temple about. I don’t think this is addressed anywhere else but in this section.”

I am not currently speaking much about the temple, other than the post I did on “Black and White Robes”

I am not sure if you are referring to section 131 or 132.

I am not saying section 131 is a false revelation.

First of all, it is not a revelation. It is someone’s recollection of what JS said to them.

And I don’t disagree with it.


I simply don’t agree with the inflection that the inserted phrase creates nor do I agree with the commonly accepted interpretation of it

President Young inserted the phrases “[meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” to refer to which order of the priesthood JS was speaking about.

Of course the only place where the concept of "everlasting covenant of marriage" exists is in the theological part of section 132.

The problem is that there is no order of the priesthood that is referred to as the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage”… it doesn’t exist.

There are only three orders of the priesthood which JS and the scriptures clearly clarify;

1- Aaronic,
2- Patriarchal
3- Melchizedek.

I think I have pretty much explained what those passages in 131 are referring to in this post.

Now then, getting to section 132…

I have shown from historical references in other posts that the original revelation on polygamy was only addressing the patriarchal order of polygamy

It appears that it did not originally contain all of the theological stuff about how you need to have multiple wives to get into the celestial kingdom.

I will be sending you an article explaining what the role of polygamy was in the restored church.. I just want to post a few more parts of the Morely Farm series first to provide a little more foundation before I do so….

It could be a few weeks or so..

Regarding section 132, I have also shown in a previous post that there are numerous false doctrines contained in the theological part of section 132, for instance;

1- It states that only one man on earth at a time can hold the sealing power. This is a blatant contradiction of section 68 and also 124.

2- It claims that Abraham has entered into his exaltation when in fact 3rd Nephi and Hebrews tells us that the patriarchal fathers in the Old Testament cannot be redeemed without us and we cannot be redeemed without them and that they are suspended with the city of Enoch in a paradisiacal glory until it is time to descend with Christ at the time when he will redeem the inhabitants of this earth.

Someone who is watching said...

continued

3- It contradicts what the Book of Mormon teaches about the status of David and Solomon. It states that the Lord justified David and Solomon in having many wives; “..I the Lord justified my servants Abraham Issac and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines… David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this pwer; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife..”( D&C 132:1, 39.) The book of Mormon states; “But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

For more on section 132 please see the following post;

http://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-spiritual-wife-doctrine/

You said;

“Is it possible that section 132 was about marriage by the priesthood but was altered? After reading it seems much of it I would agree with. Only certain versus seam to be in conflict with the gospel.”

Yes that is possible. More than likely it was referring to a lesser law that what is contained in section 42 which was rejected by the Saints… more on that in the polygamy article I will be sending you.


You said;

“In verses 34-37 of 132 it talks about Abraham taking on more wives and equates that to when Abraham was going to offer his son Isaac up for sacrifice saying it wasn’t to his condemnation because he was doing what the Lord commanded. This seems to indicate that normally polygamy is to your condemnation unless the Lord specifically commands you to practice it. So this would be a limited context in which polygamy is practiced. I wonder if Joseph was commanded to practice it and possibly a few others and then when the church rejected Joseph Smith and the Law of Consecration that this practice got out of hand and spread like it did.”

I will cover all of this when I send you the article on polygamy…


You said

“I’m just trying to make sense of this all. Nowhere else in scripture that I’m aware of is Eternal Marriage even addressed. It’s entirely possible that this is false doctrine to begin with and we only need to worry about the ordinance of Baptism since that is what Christ teaches as the whole of his gospel in 3 Nephi to the Nephites in chapter 27: Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Holy Ghost and Faithfulness until the end.”

Within the next week or so I am going to show what the real “oath and covenant of the Father” is. When I do, you will see how profound your above statement is.

You said;

“The point that I keep coming back to is God never says you have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom except in 131 and 132.
These seem to be out of sorts with the rest of scripture.”

Actually, marriage is one of the first commandments that God gave to us. We have been commanded to marry and become ONE FLESH, just as Adam and Eve were before God separated the female intelligence out of Adam.

Marriage is essential to inheriting the celestial kingdom and it needs to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

Sputnik said...

OWIW,

Any of the questions and comments I make here are my own. I don't propogate anything unless I "fully understand" what I'm talking about except to my wife who finds all kinds of faults with my logic.

When I teach GD I do stick with the manual. I find it's not my right to teach contrary to the church doctrines. If I find something that I completely disagree with in the manual I just don't address it. Until more is revealed through the Lords servants then the church teachings are good enough for the general public for now.

For my personal study I just want to dig a little deeper then what the church provides.

Someone who is watching said...

LOL Just giving you a hard time

Sputnik said...

My wife brought up the scripture in Matt. 22, its also in mark and luke where the sadducees ask about a women who is married to seven brothers serially after each dies and ask whos is she in the ressurection. Jesus answers saying "For in the resurrection they neither marry , nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

I don't know how to interpret this except that life with Marriage as we know it now, is different then it is in heaven.

As far as the New and Everlasting Covenant meaning entering into baptism and concecration, if the lord promises all that he hath will be ours if we keep this covenant I don't really know that we need to worry about all the other things like marriage in heaven. If we recieve supreme happiness with our Heavenly Father, I can only imagine that relationships will be part of that.

Someone who is watching said...

That scripture is actually a testimony of eternal marriage.'

It is my understanding that those questioning Christ were not totally ignorant. They already understood that a righteous woman belonged to her righteous husband in the resurrection.

They were not asking if marriage existed in heaven, rather they were asking which of her husbands she would belong to.

They simply wanted to know what would happen in an unusual case such as the one mentioned.

The mistake they were making is that they were asking who the woman would be given to in or during the resurrection.

But according to eternal law it is too late to be sealed to anyone during the resurrection.

Only those marriages sealed during this probationary period will be eternally married.. all others will be single... they will be the angels of God in heaven.

You said;

"As far as the New and Everlasting Covenant meaning entering into baptism and concecration, if the lord promises all that he hath will be ours if we keep this covenant I don't really know that we need to worry about all "

I agree!

ldsanarchy said...

"2- It claims that Abraham has entered into his exaltation [past tense] when in fact 3rd Nephi and Hebrews tells us that the patriarchal fathers in the Old Testament cannot be redeemed without us and we cannot be redeemed without them and that they are suspended with the city of Enoch in a paradisiacal glory until it is time to descend with Christ at the time when he will redeem [future tense] the inhabitants of this earth."

This reminded me of a scripture:

"Therefore, thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, [past tense] concerning the house of Jacob: Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale." (2 Nephi 27: 33)

Btw, were you ever able to pick out the THREE GROUPS mentioned in D&C 88: 96-98?

Someone who is watching said...

It sounds like you think that the Old Testament Saints like Abraham and Enoch and the Saints in the City of Enoch that have been "redeemed" from this world have entered into their final "exalted" state.

And yes, I did a brief analysis of the three groups that you have identified as the three divisions of the celestial kingdom. You must have missed it... scroll up. It was several posts posts ago.

Someone who is watching said...

"... as Paul says concerning the fathers- that they without us cannot be made perfect- neither can we without our dead be made perfect" D&C 128:15

Father Abraham and others have been redeemed from the powers of this world but they have not received their final exaltation and been made perfect yet.

Someone who is watching said...

In fact, God hasn't even completed his covenant with Abraham and Jacob and the other patriarchal fathers yet..

".. your dwellings shall become desolate until the time of the fulfilling of the covenant to your fathers.." 3 Nephi 10:7

"And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel." 1st Nephi 14:17

"Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." 1st Nephi 15:18

"Nevertheless, when that day cometh, saith the prophet, that they no more turn aside their hearts against the Holy One of Israel, then will he remember the covenants which he made to their fathers." 1 Ne 19:15

Why don't we wait until the covenant between God and Abraham has been fulfilled before we try to exalt Abraham and send him off to create other worlds?

ldsanarchy said...

OWIW, I didn't miss your response. I read it, but your response indicated that you still missed the three groups, which is why I asked you about it again. (You thought I was referring to angels as the third group. I wasn't.) Also, your response used D&C 88: 96-107 as the text. I had asked you to look at D&C 88: 96-98. And I had asked you to look at it again, in case you miss it. My words were, "Read it again. And yet again, if you still don't catch it." The text of those verses indicate three groups of people, not two.

I'm not going to explain it to you, other than to say look at the verses again. I think it's funny that your brain has combined the three groups mentioned into just two groups. Brains are funny things, the way they work.

Someone who is watching said...

I am aware of what verses 96-98 say. They are reiterating what paul said.

Paul points out that there are already Saints suspended in the heavens with the City of Enoch from Old Testament times that Christ will bring with him.

He then points out that in the end times, those who lived after the crucifixion will be caught up to meet Jesus and the Old Testament Saints.

Those who are caught up to meet the Old Testament Saints are divided into two groups, those living at the time and those who had died.

Please read the following passages very carefully because this is speaking about the EXACT same thing that the passages in 96-98 are saying;

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with ba shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

As you can see, Paul lumps the two groups of Saints that are caught up during the end times together making no distinction between which kingdom they will inherit. (because they inherit the same kingdom)

And, of course, according to the law of witnesses, the Lord has provided a second witness that there are two groups being spoken of that are caught up in the end times and they make up one group as far as which kingdom they all inherit.

When they are caught up they meet Christ and the Church of the Firstborn who are all those Old Testament Saints who had been suspended with the city of Enoch;

102 Last of all, these [terrestrial spirits] all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud. D&C 76: 102

If my brain is doing funny things, I guess perhaps the brains of Paul, Joseph and Sidney were also doing funny things.

Someone who is watching said...

BTW you are taking 2 Nephi 2: 8-9 and Jacob 4: 11 out of context.

Yes Christ was the firstfruits of the first watch, meridian resurrection, when many of the Old Testament Saints arose, but that usage of the term firstfruits is not specifically what section 88 and the associated verses in the Book of Revelation is talking about

Those verses you are quoting are clearly making reference to those who were raised up shortly after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

The verses I am quoting are specifically speaking of those who are raised in the end times.

Those Old Testament Saints spoken of in the verses you quoted will not be raised again, they are among those who are suspended with the city of Enoch who meet with the Saints that are caught up;

Those Saints mentioned in 96-98 represent the Zion from "beneath" that is caught up to meet those Saints who are the Zion from "above";

“the Lord hath brought down zion from above, the Lord hath brought up zion from beneath.” (84:100 See also Moses 7:62-63


Section 76 addresses the fact that those quickened in the end times as spoken in verses 88:96-98 are caught up to meet “the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.”

Hence there are the righteous Saints from Old Testament times who are considered first fruits and first born, that have been redeemed from this world and are suspended in a terrestrial glory with the city of Enoch (BTW that would include Father Abraham who you think has received his final exaltation and is off creating worlds before God has finished his covenant with Abraham)

AND

there are the living and dead Saints who are considered the first fruits of the end times and are also the church of the first born of the end times, who will both be caught up to meet the Old Testament Saints and then descend with Christ at his coming.

“May the kingdom of God [which is set up on earth] go forth, that the kingdom of heaven [in heaven] may come…” (section 65:5-6)