Progression across Kingdoms?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I just think it is worthwhile to be realistic about the current state of orthodoxy in the church.

I think the part in bold above implies that even our understanding of doctrine can cultural, and not absolute. Without any firm statement of what is doctrine (other than the ambiguous “what is in the Holy Scriptures” I believe we are subject to many whims and beliefs of men who happen to have influence at any given time in the church. Sure, there are bedrock doctrinal principles (like the need for baptism, Go Holy Ghost, etcetera, but in the areas where there isn’t a lot of definition, personal interpretations can become near doctrine for certain generations.

[Anonymous]

That is true, SD . . . but I don’t want a firm statement. I would rather have space to govern myself, including my own mind.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the orthodox position is no progression between kingdoms. In fact it seems like a “no progression model” really means you can’t progress but you can backslide – an upper limit if you will. There’s some evidence of backsliding since we know that 1/3 of the hosts of heaven followed Satan and lost their first estate.

So what happens in the telestial kingdom after a trillion trillion years? Or any kingdom besides the highest degree of the celestial kingdom for that matter? As a resurrected being with a perfect body, but who can’t visit family and who probably can’t have sex, how many paintings can I draw, math classes can I take, harp songs can I compose, etc, before I get crazy bored and want to murder someone?

If you believe that God is loving and merciful, it seems that repentance and progression would be possible. I choose a symbolic interpretation. Depending on the day, I’m lucky to believe there’s a God at all.

[Anonymous]

One possible interpretation of the Endowment is that this is the terrestrial or terrestrial kingdom we’re in right now.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I believe we are subject to many whims and beliefs of men who happen to have influence at any given time in the church. Sure, there are bedrock doctrinal principles (like the need for baptism, Go Holy Ghost, etcetera, but in the areas where there isn’t a lot of definition, personal interpretations can become near doctrine for certain generations.

That is my understanding as well SD. In reading about the apostacy of the early Christian church there was much written about the different schools of thought, influencers, sects, and schisms within the church. Too often these diffirences were settled with compulsion – excommunication or even execution by those that had the power to do so. Even as I abhor the methods of compulsion used, I can understand the need of the church to have some sort of consolidation or standardization. What does it mean to be Christian at all? Is there any organization to implement policy/define doctrine or does each individual church do its own thing?

I believe that similar patterns exist in our own church. Thank goodness that we live in a more civil time – but we do have our own set of schizms, sects, influencers, innovators, retrenchment, and excommunications.

The idea of progression between kindoms IMO did not have a powerful influencer to push and preach it at a critical time. The men that were drawing the lines excluded it from the circle of orthodoxy.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Roy wrote:

I just think it is worthwhile to be realistic about the current state of orthodoxy in the church.

I think the part in bold above implies that even our understanding of doctrine can cultural, and not absolute. Without any firm statement of what is doctrine (other than the ambiguous “what is in the Holy Scriptures” I believe we are subject to many whims and beliefs of men who happen to have influence at any given time in the church. Sure, there are bedrock doctrinal principles (like the need for baptism, Go Holy Ghost, etcetera, but in the areas where there isn’t a lot of definition, personal interpretations can become near doctrine for certain generations.

I think my problem with the current orthodoxy of the church, is that I now have no idea when it will change. I am really struggling with this idea right now. All of a sudden the current state can be the past state and now this is our current state. Am I making any sense??

Old-Timer wrote:

That is true, SD . . . but I don’t want a firm statement. I would rather have space to govern myself, including my own mind.

I am with Ray on this one. I don’t know that having a firm statement would help me, because I would then question whether this “firm statement” would stay the “firm statement”. I am in perpetual confusion right now. :crazy: I am very quiet about how I feel, I only really open up on this site because I am so scared of judgment of others. I am scared to lose friends, lose peoples confidence, and lose peoples trust. I am currently looked at as very much TBM and a lot of people look so forward to my comments in church and in my sacrament talks. I have been very quiet lately and I can tell people are noticing, but I am always worried I will cause TBM’s to see me as someone that isnt toeing the line and someone to watch out for.

So, I am going to ignore what current orthodoxy I don’t like and believe in progression across kingdoms. And, for a while I will keep that to myself.

[Anonymous]

slowlylosingit wrote:

So, I am going to ignore what current orthodoxy I don’t like and believe in progression across kingdoms. And, for a while I will keep that to myself.

FWIW, this is what I do also. I use my spirit to filter out what works for me and what fills my soul with meaning. Always with the caveat that what works for me is not necessarily a more accurate representation of the afterlife and that what works for me will not necessarily work for anyone else. I have had to get comfortable with the prospect of being totally wrong. My approach is not about being right anyway but rather about crafting the best way for me to get through this life and helping others along the way. Morminism does a pretty decent job at that for many, many people that I love and respect.

[Anonymous]

I agree, Sam, that the endowment is a fascinating aspect of this discussion, even if most don’t see it that way.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

FWIW, this is what I do also. I use my spirit to filter out what works for me and what fills my soul with meaning. Always with the caveat that what works for me is not necessarily a more accurate representation of the afterlife and that what works for me will not necessarily work for anyone else. I have had to get comfortable with the prospect of being totally wrong. My approach is not about being right anyway but rather about crafting the best way for me to get through this life and helping others along the way. Morminism does a pretty decent job at that for many, many people that I love and respect.

Thank you for this. It helps to know that there is a way to do this, to navigate my thoughts and still StayLDS.

[Anonymous]

I think the Church knows if it makes a firm statement it will limit future revelation and further light and knowledge. It’s better for them to know if it hasn’t been revealed, then we are left to speculate and follow the spirit. Like Ray….I prefer this.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I agree, Sam, that the endowment is a fascinating aspect of this discussion, even if most don’t see it that way.

I’m not the greatest fan of the Endowment, but certainly (and I hope I’m not overstepping the mark here), it begins in the terrestrial room (in most temples, some the creation room) and ends in the celestial room. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Effectively, the initiate (I think that’s the right word here) is shown the fallen world in the film, and “progresses” to the celestial. Since the fallen world (in most versions of the temple) is associated with the terrestrial, and is where we enter the endowment from, and “terrestrial” is used to refer to our current world, then I’d suggest we’re being boosted from terrestrial (possibly telestial) to celestial by means of the process.

Like I say, talking about the endowment is a touchy subject, but I hope I’ve done so in an appropriate manner. Certainly it is “doctrinal” as I understand it.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

So what happens in the telestial kingdom after a trillion trillion years? Or any kingdom besides the highest degree of the celestial kingdom for that matter? As a resurrected being with a perfect body, but who can’t visit family and who probably can’t have sex, how many paintings can I draw, math classes can I take, harp songs can I compose, etc, before I get crazy bored and want to murder someone?

Making any Kingdom but the highest a hell? I think that would be the problem with living forever anyway. Does watching your children do horrible things to each on Earths for eternity sound any better? If we live forever I would hope that problems like boredom cease to exist. Sometimes I really like the idea some kind of reincarnation. Getting to forget a part of eternity would make it easier to deal with.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I am with Ray on this one. I don’t know that having a firm statement would help me, because I would then question whether this “firm statement” would stay the “firm statement”.

For me, the underlying premise of Ray’s comment about not wanting a firm statement, and the statement from slowlylosingit is that the church/prophets really don’t know what the answer is to this question. And even if they claimed they did, we couldn’t count on the answer being the same across generations.

[Anonymous]

For me, the underlying premise is that I want to be able to act as an agent unto myself and struggle to figure out what I believe without having to be commanded in all things.

This is one topic where nothing I believe is going to make any difference in the end, so I don’t want anyone telling me exactly what the answer is – whether or not they are right or consistent over time.

[Anonymous]

I think that if I were to do a poll in church most people would believe that there’s no progression between kingdoms. My guess is that most people would view progression between kingdoms in much the same light as they view the whole mercy vs. justice debate. A lot of what was said in the other thread could be said about progression across kingdoms.

Under the progression model some may develop the attitude that sure, I’m headed for the telestial kingdom but no biggie, I’ll just progress out of it eventually so why get a hernia trying to go all the heavy lifting now?

Many members probably have the kingdoms walled off from each other to address this concern.

[Author]

Posts