Posted on 11/15/2012 4:33:43 PM PST by Colofornian
(To see Cal Grondahl’s cartoon that goes with this post, click here) A key difference between Latter-day Saints and many other Christian churches is that Mormons believe that there are various post-judgment kingdoms in the outskirts of heaven. There’s the Telestial Kingdom, for anyone from Hitler to that lawyer who’s cheating on his wife. There’s the Terrestrial Kingdom, for those decent folks who said “not now” when the missionaries came by the door. And then there’s the Celestial Kingdom, the jackpot prize.
But even the Celestial Kingdom comes in degrees. According to Joseph Smith, there are three degrees of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. So there’s the big leagues, triple-AAA ball, and AA ball in the Celestial Kingdom. The Terrestrial Kingdom is eternal single-A ball while Telestial Kingdom folks are damned to the rookie leagues forever.
And there’s a reason I say leagues, because Mormon pop theology also flirts with the idea of progression within the lesser kingdoms … and even from kingdom to kingdom.
I refer to one of the more obscure B.H. Roberts’ books, ”Outlines of Ecclesiastical History,” first written in 1893, but my edition is from 1927. The copy I have was used by an LDS missionary of that era. Roberts was one of the “progressive model” Mormon leaders of the first half of the 20th century. He favored a more expansive interpretation of Mormon doctrine. It was a doctrinal battle that Roberts and others would eventually lose, mostly snuffed out by Joseph Fielding Smith and the rise of ultra-conservative church leaders.
Anyway, Roberts, on page 416, parts 19 and 20 of The Restoration of the Gospel section, writes:
“The question of advancement within the great divisions of glory celestial, terrestrial, and telestial; as also the question of advancement from one sphere of glory to another remains to be considered. In the revelation from which we have summarized what has been written here, in respect to the different degrees of glory, it is said that those of the terrestrial glory will be ministered unto by those of the celestial; and those of the telestial will be ministered unto by those of the terrestrial — that is, those of the higher glory minister to those of a lesser glory. We can conceive of no reason for all this administration of the higher to the lower, unless it be for the purpose of advancing our Father’s children along the lines of eternal progression. Whether or not in the great future, full of so many possibilities now hidden from us, they of the lesser glories after education and advancement within those spheres may at last emerge from them and make their way to the higher degrees of glory until at last they attain to the highest, is not revealed in the revelations of God, and any statement made on the subject must partake more or less of the nature of conjecture.
20. But if it be granted that such a thing is possible, they who at the first entered into the celestial glory — having before them the privilege also of eternal progress — have been moving onward, so that the relative distance between them and those who have fought their way up from the lesser glories, may be as great when the latter have come into the degrees of celestial glory in which the righteous at first stood, as it was at the commencement: and thus between them is an impassable gulf which time cannot destroy. Thus: those whose faith and works are such only as to entitle them to inherit a telestial glory, may arrive at last where those whose works in this life were such as to entitle them to entrance into the celestial kingdom – they may arrive where these were, but never where they are.”
Now here is where things get really interesting. I went to an online archive of Roberts’ 1893 book for the last quote. And “… where they are” is where section 20 ends. However, if I go to the 1927 edition of “Outlines of Ecclesiastical History,” which I am holding in my hands, Roberts continues with this fascinating “conjecture”:
“But if it be granted that the chief fact about Intelligences is that they have power to add fact to fact and thus build up knowledge, and through knowledge have wisdom, and thus make progress; and if to such intelligence there is granted eternal life — immortality — then it is useless to postulate any limitations for them; for in the passing of even a few thousands of millions of years, even if progress be very slow — there will come a time when these intelligences — men and women of even the telestial glory — may become very acceptable characters, and very important personages.”
This is radical doctrine, and exciting to read. It brings Mormonism back to its most progressive roots. But, today, web searches include only the 1893 edition. Roberts’ speculation from 1927 is not there.
And since 1927, the idea of eternal progression toward exaltation has became a pariah. I came of age as a young Mormon in the 1970s and I recall more than one teacher telling classes that the idea that you could progress from any of the lower kingdoms to exaltation was damnable to consider. In fact, I recall teachers citing Bruce R. McConkie, who described the idea as one of the “Seven Deadly Heresies.” (here)
What is included in Roberts’ 1927 version was part of Mormonism’s move to more speculation of doctrine, more discussion. It was not to last, though. I have no idea of if the propensity to seeing the 1893 version of “Outlines …” online is due to disapproval of the 1927 edition, but I would not be surprised.
Today, if you go to the LDS apologetics group FARMS’ internal Wiki page on eternal progression between the three kingdoms, you get an odd non-answer that translated, more or less reads, there is no official church position on this, but it probably isn’t true.
Going back to Roberts’ book, section 7, page 408, of The Restoration of the Gospel,” he writes:
“Naturally the question arises why was the gospel preached to the spirits in prison who had once been disobedient if there were no means by which it could be applied to them for their salvation. We can scarcely suppose that Messiah would preach the gospel to them if it could do them no good. He did not go there to mock their sufferings or to add something to the torture of their damnation by explaining the beauties of that salvation now forever beyond their reach! Such a supposition would at once be revolting to reason, insulting to the justice of God, and utterly repugnant to the dictates of mercy!”
That part of Roberts’ teachings remains Mormon doctrine. It’s a reminder that the LDS belief that God does not have a “line” that divides all in a “heaven” and “hell” is still evidence of the faith’s exciting, progressive roots.
So, despite the JFS and BRM efforts to make progression within kingdoms a “sin” to speculate about, we Mormons do still wonder about these issues, and even discuss them among ourselves from time to time. (To read a fascinating article on Roberts’ and others debates within the LDS leadership over doctrine, go here).
You KNOW this is what we do, when you hateful bigots CONSTANTLY post facts directly from our own printing presses.
WE know how to destroy them. Why don't YOU?
--MormonDude(Just stay home at your ranch and LEAVE US ALONE!)
Thank GOD!!
And all along I thought it may have been the CONTENT of the posts; NOT just the way the type looks.
Eva; just for you I removed the colored, bold text that was posted in #50.
I'm sorry it hurt your eyes.
Can you see ANY 'mean spirited pettiness' in the following???
I am SO through with this!
If they want to CONTINUE to try to personalize it; I'm going to let them.
You guys can waste yoiur time if you wish!
I'll only be doing it if a new screenname appears.
Question put to Harry Reid by mom as he was growing up:
“Harry!! You got your chores done yet??”
Then it's YOUR own fault; as PLENTY of facts about MORMONism is being printed in these threads.
Harry Reid has achieved a more senior elected position in the United States government than any other Mormon in history
(Perhaps Mitt should either switch to be a CHRISTIAN or switch to be a DEMOCRT!)
WIKI
hum?
There are people on this religion forum that post truth about mormonISM and there are people who know little to none that start trashing (as you put it) not the information but the poster, why not talk to them about responding to the information not the poster.
mormonISM foundation is anti-Christian - that is an issue to think about.
You aren’t working to expose the Mormons. We all know about Mormonism. The book only made it worse. What you are doing is trying to punish Mormons by insulting them and demeaning them. No one reads your drivel except your buddies, who already know it all, anyway.
That’s the problem, the anti-Mormon Crusade is mean spirited and hate-filled. That’s just not going to influence a lot of people and pushes people like me to defend the Mormons, rather than join your crusade.
No and again it is not anti-mormon it IS anti-mormonISM.
You are apparently reading my dribble, just saying.
I do not desire to punish mormons, that doesn’t even make sense, if you see it as such there is nothing I can do about it.
You have stated in your reply to me that you know mormonISM yet continue to defend it, the question is why?
Why are you as you stated defending mormons by attacking the words of mormonISM, sorry, the posters who post the words of mormonISM.
If as you stated are offended by my anti-mormonISM posts, then explain why you are offended, what have I said is incorrect?
My experience with mormonISM goes back fifty years, I know mormonISM, I lived mormonISM, I will continue to expose mrormonISM.
No one reads your drivel except your buddies, who already know it all, anyway.
LOGIC 101 says these two statemnets don't compute!
Do it; the jury is getting antsy!
Hi. That is what I meant. People here, especially on Mormon and Catholic threads, tear into each other so much that I avoid the threads. I don’t come to FR to tear into people here. Except for trolls, which is another thing enturely
I hope we Christians are avoiding tearing into PEOPLE and tear into THEOLOGY instead.
You keep printing incorrect stuff about my Church’s beliefs. For example, that Jesus Christ is not our (Mormons) Savior. That’s the biggest whopper! Also the stuff about Jesus not being the Creator. And on and on it goes.
You know what LDS Scripture is. You know what our Articles of Faith contain.
You keep condemning Mormons to hell - which of course is incorrect, too. That we are “lost” and need you to save us. Uh, hello! Jesus Christ is our Savior, thank you very much. I could go on and on.
You asked me to point to “incorrect” statements. Those are the biggest whoppers.
But cheer up, maybe you can get me banned/zotted for being a Mormon.
P.S. You can’t call us a cult anymore since the Rev. Billy Graham removed LDS from his ministry’s list of cults.
Sandy Graham never said mormonISM was not a cult, all he did was remove a web page .
Sandy you were never banned for being a mormon the admin has ready said that.
Sandy you have been given the words of your leaders, what you proclaim is simply not correct.
Sandy the teachings of mormonISM state ‘salvation after all you can do”, that is not Grace. No one can condem you to hell that is a free will choice.
Sandy show us why what we show you from your leaders words are not correct, prove it. Don’t just talk - prove it
Sandy Graham never said mormonISM was not a cult, all he did was remove a web page .
Sandy you were never banned for being a mormon the admin has ready said that.
Sandy you have been given the words of your leaders, what you proclaim is simply not correct.
Sandy the teachings of mormonISM state ‘salvation after all you can do”, that is not Grace. No one can condem you to hell that is a free will choice.
Sandy show us why what we show you from your leaders words are not correct, prove it. Don’t just talk - prove it
They keep printing things right from the horse's mouth, from Mormon official sources. How can those things not be Mormon belief? How else are we to know of your church's official beliefs, if it is not sourced from official sources? Are we supposed to believe you, a Mormon woman, instead?
Bring us examples from concrete sources, then the perpetual whining that your church is being misconstrued perhaps(?) could be established as justified. Can you do such? I mean, is it true you are a lawyer? I know of another lawyer that posts on RF threads. That dude rocks (he can make his case quite strongly)
For example, that Jesus Christ is not our (Mormons) Savior. That’s the biggest whopper!
Since that is the sort of thing which is difficult to both establish, and refute (for it is a matter of faith) I do see that held up by you habitually in effort to make your other overall claims. Like your repeated claim --- what many posters here show [print] are Mormon teachings --- are in some magic land somewhere over the rainbow, not "correct" in some way. I put it rudely like that, for you continually fail to bring real evidence to back your claims concerning the teachings themselves, which are the real issue, as evidenced by your own words, "They keep writing stuff that is incorrect".
You know what LDS Scripture is. You know what our Articles of Faith contain.
Yes, that's the problem? They know it and quote it, linking to texts, linking to discussions both old and current (like the article at the top of this thread) by which it is demonstrated that not only what you try to portray here as "incorrect stuff" IS NOT incorrect much at all, for when we find the matters in modern discussion, based on Mormon theological works --- how can any sane person say "that's incorrect"? "that's not what the church teaches"?
If you were pressed to argue your case in a court-of-law (somewhere far enough away from SLC for the Court to be disinterested) could you successfully make the case that Mormonism is being maligned on these threads? What evidence would you be able to bring? So far, all I see is is evidence of whining, and your own opinions concerning the matter.
let me guess here...will I receive yet another post from you proclaiming Jesus is your Savior? Ok fine. I'm happy for you. But what does that have to do with;
and how such claims are simply not true
The issue isn't "you" or what you believe. The issue is what your church teaches. Perhaps you're in a congregation which clings strongly to some unadulterated King James version (not a Joseph Smith version of a King James, but something more in tune with a "revised standard" edition), and keeps the Book of Mormon on a back shelf gathering dust, along with writings such as Doctrines & Covenants, and is sliding towards more mainstream Christian belief & teaching. If so, then keep traveling, ye heretic. As a special added bonus, you won't need depend upon some fallible man which you marry (and tell me ladies, are any of your husbands infallible? that's what I thought you'd say, lol) to "call your name" so that you may enter in, to that place which is the Lord's after your time on this earth is done. Which takes us back to the subject matter of this thread.
WHAT EXACTLY concerning this telestial/terrestrial/celestial Mormon teaching, has anyone posted "incorrect" stuff about? To save time, and to keep the focus on the "they" which you mention, lets limit the inspection to what the "Inmans" have posted. You know who "they" are, don't you?
LOL.
BTW, I was at an animal adoption fair and the guy who owns the petting zoo is probably your doppleganger.
P.S. You can’t call us a cult anymore since the Rev. Billy Graham removed LDS from his ministry’s list of cults.
- - - - - - - - - -
Sandy you keep deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to claim the LDS church is not a cult. EVERY time I see this, I will respond and correct you. Perhaps you will get it and quit lying.
First of all, Billy Graham doesn’t speak for all Christians, second the removal of the ENTIRE list of cults (he did not remove just Mormonism) doesn’t change the fact that Mormonism is a cult.
Sandy is promoting the false intimation that Graham no longer believes Mormonism is a cult. That is not true. From Eric Johnson.
“We called the BGEA on October 24 and talked to a representative. When we asked if the media were putting words into BGEA’s proverbial mouth—that “Mormonism was no longer a cult”—the spokesman fully agreed that the BGEA’s action was being misinterpreted. He added that nowhere did the association ever make such a statement. According to Ken Barun, “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”
It can be debated whether this move was the wisest decision. In hindsight, the BGEA leadership must now understand that taking the article down created much more of a stir than if the article had just remained on the site. By deleting it, the media was able to twist this action into saying that Billy Graham must somehow no longer think that Mormonism is a cult. This simply is not the case.
http://www.mrm.org/billy-graham-mormonism-christianity
BGEA still considers Mormonism a cult.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.