I have a "radical" idea

[MikeWaters]

THere is no such thing as three strict kingdoms. This is just a metaphor that was introduced so we could understand that glories will differ.

So this stuff about progressing within a kingdom, but not moving up a kingdom, is garbage IMO.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

THere is no such thing as three strict kingdoms. This is just a metaphor that was introduced so we could understand that glories will differ.

So this stuff about progressing within a kingdom, but not moving up a kingdom, is garbage IMO.

You're not suggesting that there is more to the eterneties than what we have been told are you? That's just plain silly. Why would there be more to the story when we obviously have all the understanding we need to grasp the limitless complexities of the afterlife.

Geez Mike...

Seriously...

I have no idea. Where did the whole "no progress between kingdoms" doctrine come from in the first place? Is this doctrine or something Grapevine would attribute to some three initials?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

You're not suggesting that there is more to the eterneties than what we have been told are you? That's just plain silly. Why would there be more to the story when we obviously have all the understanding we need to grasp the limitless complexities of the afterlife.

Geez Mike...

Seriously...

I have no idea. Where did the whole "no progress between kingdoms" doctrine come from in the first place? Is this doctrine or something Grapevine would attribute to some three initials?

Yes, SWK.....

He is also the one who debunked the Adam/God theory.....

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Yes, SWK.....

He is also the one who debunked the Adam/God theory.....

I thought that was GRE or MGM

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I thought that was GRE or MGM

Well, BRM, also did discredit the theory.....Don't know if he passed down those sentiments to JRM, and think that GBH has never publically commented on it...

[Dan]

I do not see the 3 degrees as three separate and distinct kingdoms the way most do. I believe we have the three degrees right here, right now. It is up to us if we want to turn this earth into heaven (by becoming spiritual, celestial man) or if we want to leave it as hell on earth (by living as natural, telestial man). The waxing and waning between the two ends is filled with those who are progressing/degressing (terrestrial man) from one towards the other.

The kingdom of heaven is always at hand, and it always has been. It is up to us to see it and comprehend it. We do not have to wait for it until the next life. Those who live celestial life are promised certain spiritual belssings and comforts. Same for those who live a terrestrial life, etc.

Whatever light and knowledge we gain in the next life will be with us in the next life because we are eternal beings. I do not expect the next life to be organized the way, I suspect, most LDS think it will be.

[Dan]

... first edition discussed the possibility of movement between kingdoms. But that was relatively soon after the turn of the century. When the idea of MMPs and AG, among other things (blood atonement, etc.) was being downplayed, the formal idea of kingdom progression was removed. Talmage's second edition of the book, the one we all have now, removed the part about kingdom progression. It is not a coincidence that a lot of the old, significant concepts or "doctrines" were all abandoned at around the same time.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Dan

... first edition discussed the possibility of movement between kingdoms. But that was relatively soon after the turn of the century. When the idea of MMPs and AG, among other things (blood atonement, etc.) was being downplayed, the formal idea of kingdom progression was removed. Talmage's second edition of the book, the one we all have now, removed the part about kingdom progression. It is not a coincidence that a lot of the old, significant concepts or "doctrines" were all abandoned at around the same time.

Dan, I am almost finished with 'Conflict in the Quorum'....

A couple of statements, are these accurate?

Brigham taught that God was progressing in knowledge, and if he ceased this progression he would stop being God....

Orson disagreed saying God was found in all things, and that when exaltation was acquired, progression ceased in the sense of gaining knowledge....

Brigham taught that Adam was God, and Orson felt that it was against what he was taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, to which Brigham retorted that Adam/God was taught to him by Joseph....

Am I understanding this correct thus far?

[Dan]

... those appear to be accurate as far as I can tell.

[Dan]

... try to ponder things in a manner other than linear. All things are before God continually, past, present and future. Linear time is a man-made construct. Now consider the the degrees of glory as they possibly relate to states of being past, present and future, which are really all now. There are so many mind numbing ways to ponder that on tangets galore. We know so little. We should never be prideful about thinking we know 'deep things' of the kingdom, because we don't. We are totally ignorant in the big picture. I am not lecturing anyone with this, just thinking out loud.