- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
One doctrine to which I was initially attracted is the idea of a fuller understanding of the judgment than the traditional heaven-hell dichotomy. My biggest problem with the heaven-hell dichotomy was that, at the margins, there would be someone who got into heaven because they helped one old lady across the street and someone who went to hell because they didn’t. After all, the cutoff’s got to be somewhere, right? That didn’t resonate with me as a meaningful or accurate statement of what God is like. How could you throw someone into hell forever on the basis of one omission? I’ve realized from the beginning of my time in the Church that I simply don’t agree with the idea that there’s only progression within the kingdoms. But I’ve been becoming more bothered by the realization that our traditional doctrine just puts you in the same position as the old heaven-hell dichotomy. The difference between being telestial and terrestrial is, at the margins, enormous: eternally, you could be a whole kingdom apart because of that one act that you committed. We seem to sell the idea that exaltation will be something that the generally faithful will receive, but that ends up being just another situation where we’re establishing another potential cutoff point: after all, some of those “ministering angels” would be denied exaltation because they didn’t ask one additional person out (thus demonstrating that they weren’t trying hard enough to get married), and someone who’s exalted would have gotten it because they did.
Of course, there’s no reason to be bound by the logical implications of a doctrine with which one disagrees. But it’s easier to be quiet about things like the Word of Wisdom (because it’s mostly good and easy to ignore) and the “perfection” of local leaders (because that’s exactly what you’d expect a self interested person to say). We reject eternal progression at a church, but in doing so, we basically place our doctrine in exactly the same position which we criticize. So it’s tough to hear talk of terrestrial and celestial without laughing. Anyone else have thoughts on this sort of thing?
My current view is that we (every person) are already “perfect.” But by perfect, I mean whole and complete, not the 20th century notion of having no flaws or individuality (concepts of mass production). We have forgotten our wholeness, or are in the process of rediscovery. The story you talk about, so common in the Church, is a good story at one level. It satisfies a lot of people for a lot of their life. It tells them what to do. If you do enough X, then you will get reward Y. You don’t have to think about it, just do it. The problem with that mentality is limiting. You can stop when you reach the finish line. It is also frustrating, because the finish line is often impossibly distant. I think that particular frustration is built into the system to expand our souls. We will be at the next ridge (to see what lies beyond) when we finally tire of that incorrect “truth” and let go of the baggage we carry.
From my studies of mystics and mystical experiences outside our Church, I think that we gravitate to (or create) whatever “kingdom” of glory we want, the one where we are comfortable and complete. It is always perfect for us. Ritual, religion, prayer, practice, these all are tools to help us realize this state, our natural state (which is divine).
I forgot to add that words “Eternal” and “Progression” both require time as one of their dimensions. I currently think time is an illusion we create to order things, and to try and build a story or a reason for our manifestation in this tangible kingdom. So “eternal progression” is not really a correct notion. Eternity has not “time.” Progress does not happen without “time.” Everything in the eternities *IS*. God says his/her/their name is the great “I am.” And their purpose is to be: “I am that I am.” [אהיה אשר אהיה]
I think God speaks in words that mortals can understand. I forgot to qualify that I am probably wrong, but the above ideas are things that I consider. Don’t take my answers as being “THE” answer. My ideas are a way to wiggle around the logical problems. Like Ray said, this is the language God is speaking to me, at the moment, so that I can understand and find beauty. Great thoughts, guys. I think my problem is really with the idea of judgment: the only way that we know how to understand progression or self improvement is as a “judgment” against some ideal standard that we accept. Any final judgment disregards, by definition, anything that could happen after that. That just isn’t just to me. So I kind of agree with the idea that time isn’t really a binding construct in terms of our progression: at any given moment, we just are where we are, and I can’t see how that process of development would ever halt if there is an afterlife. Quote:The difference between being telestial and terrestrial is, at the margins, enormous: eternally, you could be a whole kingdom apart because of that one act that you committed.
Gabe, fwiw, that’s just a fundamental misunderstanding of core Mormon doctrine. Even the most detailed descriptions we have of the kingdoms differentiates by general categorization (in my own words, “valiant”, “wishy-washy” and “flat-out bad”), not +500 good acts compared to +501. I know too many members have internalized what I believe is a similar outlook (that we have to “earn” exaltation), but, honestly, I think very few members think they can screw up their reward by making one mistake. Even for those people, we teach the goal as “becoming” so much more now than when I was a young adult that I just think we’re talking about how the Church used to present things in an age (60’s and 70’s) seen by the leadership as filled with rampant immorality and licentiousness and lasciviousness. I hear all the time still about “keeping the commandments” and obedience (which I think is absolutely necessary as the base), but recently I also hear MUCH more about grace and forgiveness and tolerance and becoming than I did growing up.
Please understand, I don’t mean to minimize your pain with regard to this issue. I just think in cases like this it’s important to separate “the incorrect traditions of our fathers” from what is being taught currently – and this is a major example of doctrinal pruning, imo.
Having said that, I also believe that the division of kingdoms is more allegorical and motivational than absolute. I think it is necessary to teach an understandable generality, but I think that generality fades away in the end. I believe ultimately the judgment is a foregone conclusion by the time it occurs, because I see it as nothing more than being what we have become – and continuing to grow as we are able to grow.
Ray, I disagree. We’ve been given general categorizations of who’s getting into the three kingdoms, and you’re right that those seem to be quite far apart. But, at the end of the day, you get put into one of three boxes, and your advancement potential is limited to the contents of that box. I don’t pretend to know where the divider is (especially as our traditional doctrine isn’t clear). But the line must logically be there at some point. This is why I don’t buy that doctrine: I think it is simply ludicrous to think God would do that to us. But I also think it logically follows from the argument that we make. The only way around that would be to say that nobody’s “on the bubble” because there are three basic types of people, they’re really far apart, and everybody’s in one of the three. That just doesn’t fit the spectrum of morality that I see in choices, others, and myself. Unfortunately, it does fit the polarizing theme that seems to be an essential ordinance of the gospel these days. You may be right that we’re now emphasizing a different approach to salvation and eternal life than we used to. I hope so. But I think a meaningful shift would have to break with our doctrine (and certainly the Doctrine and Covenants) by either allowing for progression between kingdoms or loosening the finality of the judgment. Of course, it may be the case that the doctrine of the kingdoms is something that we just grow out of (like, say, the law of adoption as practiced in the late 1800s), but it seems to me to be too deeply ingrained into other doctrines (such as temple marriage) to go that easily.
Am I making sense or am I still out in left field?
Quote:Having said that, I also believe that the division of kingdoms is more allegorical and motivational than absolute. I think it is necessary to teach an understandable generality, but I think that generality fades away in the end. I believe ultimately the judgment is a foregone conclusion by the time it occurs, because I see it as nothing more than being what we have become – and continuing to grow as we are able to grow.
And I thank you for this: this is exactly how I see it. Thanks for getting it into words.
Ahh, how good it feels to hear the pure, unvarnished truth, guys. I want to bump this topic back up again. The reason is: I miss Brian’s insights & this is a topic I’ve been thinking about lately. I have a tendency to compare myself with other people in the church (& other places).
It is never a good idea to do that.) I feel like I come up short.
Eternal Progression is a principle that makes sense on so many levels to me. There are no two of us that are the
same. Even when we move through the educational process. We may of been a failure in high school yet in
college we may have excelled.
Is it me, did Brian look like Aaron Rodgers with a little less hair on top?
Quote:
Having said that, I also believe that the division of kingdoms is more allegorical and motivational than absolute. I think it is necessary to teach an understandable generality, but I think that generality fades away in the end. I believe ultimately the judgment is a foregone conclusion by the time it occurs, because I see it as nothing more than being what we have become – and continuing to grow as we are able to grow.
Eternal Progression
God: Look how much you’ve grown!
Me: Wow! Is there still more growing to do?
God: Sure thing bud! Grow as much and as long as you want.
Progression between kingdoms was regularly taught and accepted prior to the mid 20th Century. It makes sense to me (with the caveat that I don’t really believe in the three kingdoms). I like to do family history. The reason I like to do it is because I learn about the individual lives within my family. One of the things I’ve learned is many of them were very poor & had little or no education. I have seen immigration records where they had to sign
their names & many did it with an “X”. They couldn’t go to school because they were needed to help their parents work the fields.
If they didn’t or couldn’t, there was a good chance that they would starve to death. My Father was the first & only member of his
family that graduated from High School. The reason I bring this up is because we have a tendency to judge members of the church
by their family lines, their education, their wealth, their jobs, their position in the church, etc.
Below are a few articles I found that are interesting:
https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression Quote:The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined of comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview….
The concept of eternal progression is a salient (moving upward) feature of the gospel of Jesus Christ, readily distinguishable
from traditional Christian theology. The philosophical views of the Middle Ages were basically incompatible with such a concept, and the idea of progress that emerged in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment was that of social evolution. The traditional Christian view has held that those in heaven enter “a state of eternal, inactive joy. In the presence of God they would worship him and sing praises to him eternally, but nothing more.” Latter-day Saints, however, constantly seek personal and righteous improvement not only by establishing Zion this world, but by anticipating the continuation of progression eternally.
Eternal Progression is a principle that makes sense to me. Even if it isn’t fully defined or understood (by me).
If this life is meant to be a learning process, it should continue beyond this stage of our lives.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.