The second level of the CK…new revelation!

Theo1689

Well-known member
It's not as much of a mess that you might think. I trust the standard works. If leaders agree with me, I quote them.

So you invent your own theology, and cherry-pick the leaders who agree with you.

It's really not any different than any Christian does. Some pick their denomination, others don't pick any at all.

Not only is this completely false, but it's also OFF-TOPIC.

But as usual, this poster knows he cannot defend his bankrupt and indefensible beliefs, and so he has to instead try to attack Christianity (which is OFF-TOPIC), hoping that he can convince readers that it is fault, and that Mormons hopefully wins by "default" (which is fallacious).

When Christians can straighten out all their beliefs, then they will have room to place judgment on us. In the meantime, the core beliefs are basic: 1) Jesus is the Christ, 2)The Church is true, 2) Joseph Smith restored it - the BoM is true.

Again, wrong on many counts:

1) Smith "restored" nothing.
2) Smith was a FALSE prophet.
3) The BoM is a poorly-written piece of fiction which teaches modalism, and monotheism, among other things, neither of which Mormonism teaches.

And no, Christians don't have to do anything to judge Mormonism.
Mormonism has a set of beliefs, and a set of sources which they claim are authoritative to teach those beliefs, and all we (or anyone else, regardless of religious beliefs) have to is compare Mormon beliefs to Mormon authoritative teaches.

In the meantime, I take all church leader's statements to heart. I ponder and pray about them, and I find some are more true than others.

So you deny that they are true "prophets".

"There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise" Lorenzo Snow, "A Serious ordeal, etc.," in Conference Report (October 1898), 54.

Sounds like a recipe for a "god of confusion".
Great job! ;)
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Aaron…who is we? Your theology is about as un-orthodox as it comes. You even admit is and call it Aaronisms.
I'm still a Mormon, and mormons don't believe salvation is based on what we know of the next life.

LDS theology teaches you are saved (eternal life) by duty and merit…and the reward of this is expounded on and is basically the carrot on a string. It is why you got to the temple.
Some may say "obedience to the faith". We are not earning salvation.
The temple is binding us under covenant to that we become entitled to receive the power to live the higher law.
Think 1 Ne 3:7. God can't provide a way to keep the commandment if we never officially accept the commandment,
This, by the ordinances godliness is made manifest.

My mother and most TBM family’s I know have a picture or sign on there wall, the reads ‘Families are Forever”…I bet you had one in your home growing up? So is is based on your knowledge…no, but knowledge of the afterlife is paramount, taught, sought after…and it why you got to the temple. Again is is the carrot on the string, it is what you strive for…”to be like HF.”
Maybe initially. Oaks identified 7 different motives of why we serve. We may start off with selfish motives, but as we mature in our faith, our motive becomes charity.
 

Markk

Active member
Maybe the term "celestial" just has a broader meaning than you assign to it. I can crop out a few verses the seem to apply specifically to those exalted in the celestial kingdom, and still describe everyone in the Celestial Kingdom.

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
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.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.


Maybe, but LDS theology applies limits to a logical interpretation, In other words Gods are exalted men and women, and they are the only ones that can reproduce Spirits. And if you want to force the AGT into the conversation, Adam was God, a exalted man. And further for arguments sake…, if you want to force two Adams into the AGT…BY taught the Adam that was on the earth, or as Watson puts it Adam jr…he was a exalted person who was created from th edict of another earth.

So Aaron, based on this, I see no wiggle room to say that a celestial body is not synonymous with the glorified body of a exalted person.

If you want to argue that a celestial body is a generic term of all people in the CK’s different kingdoms, then you “own” the encounter argument and you need to explain how a person from the lower CK can reproduce, in that is where this argument started.

Thanks for the conversation Aaron.
 

Markk

Active member
I'm still a Mormon, and mormons don't believe salvation is based on what we know of the next life.
I never said they do…I said it is the carrot on the stick.

“It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is a forever family in which wewant membership. Such blessings must be earned” (Thomas Monson, “AnInvitation to Exaltation,” Ensign
(Conference Edition), May 1988, p.53)

I can give you scores of such teachings…an note it is a merit based salvation…one that must be earned.
Some may say "obedience to the faith". We are not earning salvation.
The temple is binding us under covenant to that we become entitled to receive the power to live the higher law.
Think 1 Ne 3:7. God can't provide a way to keep the commandment if we never officially accept the commandment,
This, by the ordinances godliness is made manifest.
Aaron…see the quote by Monson above…he is saying it must be earned. You claim you follow the brethren, that you are Mormon…but you deny clear teachings like the done above. You quote Oaks, and am sure you will now state Monson was wrong…

This is why I see it as messy.
 

Markk

Active member
I can't resolve contradictions if you can't identify them.
But we're in agreement - There's in actuality 7 degrees of heaven. The top three are considered "celestial".
God is #1, Angels are # 3
Aaron, according to LDS theology there are three degrees of glory…the telestial glory, the terrestrial glory, and the celestial glory, there is also outer darkness. With in the celestial glory there is three levels…exalted individuals, kings and priests, kings and queen, Gods and Goddesses live in this highest estate…and men have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and “glory” as HF and Jesus. Ministering angels will be in the third estate, and will be servants to the highest estate. As far as I know, who will live in the second estate has not been disclosed, but sources close to me suggest it may be for Charles William Post (please google his name).

It’s been awhile, and it might take awhile to find it, but I have read some LDS folks taught that there are different levels in the two lower degrees. It certainly wasn’t a standard teaching, but then yours and BoJ are not standard either.

So no, LDS theology teaches three degrees of glory, not seven. Maybe I am splitting hairs and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that is what you meant.

The contradictions are many, maybe I will start a thread once I get caught up with this one. I’ve been busy at work, and I have about a month to go before football season, when I usually take a break from forums like this. So I have about a month or so to talk some sense into you… :) Just kidding.

Take care
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Maybe, but LDS theology applies limits to a logical interpretation, In other words Gods are exalted men and women, and they are the only ones that can reproduce Spirits. And if you want to force the AGT into the conversation, Adam was God, a exalted man. And further for arguments sake…, if you want to force two Adams into the AGT…BY taught the Adam that was on the earth, or as Watson puts it Adam jr…he was a exalted person who was created from th edict of another earth.

So Aaron, based on this, I see no wiggle room to say that a celestial body is not synonymous with the glorified body of a exalted person.

If you want to argue that a celestial body is a generic term of all people in the CK’s different kingdoms, then you “own” the encounter argument and you need to explain how a person from the lower CK can reproduce, in that is where this argument started.

Thanks for the conversation Aaron.
I never claimed angels have the ability to reproduce, or having continuing posterity. That's a strawman argument you've painted on me.

Your making a false dilemma that either angels aren't celestial OR angels can reproduce.
I've given ample evidence that angels dwell in the presence of God, angels do not reproduce, the CK is three degrees.

I think you're confusion comes from making "degree of glory received" and "kingdom of glory" synonymous. The kingdom of glory is where people dwell, degree of glory is light and knowledge. Varying degrees can exist with a single kingdom.
Moreover, all three (general) degrees of glory, are all with the kingdom of God.

It comes down to if you WANT to understand, or if you want to justify your position based on verbal technicalities. I have teenagers. I'm used to it. I can do this all day. 😉
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I never said they do…I said it is the carrot on the stick.

“It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is a forever family in which wewant membership. Such blessings must be earned” (Thomas Monson, “AnInvitation to Exaltation,” Ensign
(Conference Edition), May 1988, p.53)

I can give you scores of such teachings…an note it is a merit based salvation…one that must be earned.

Aaron…see the quote by Monson above…he is saying it must be earned. You claim you follow the brethren, that you are Mormon…but you deny clear teachings like the done above. You quote Oaks, and am sure you will now state Monson was wrong…

This is why I see it as messy.
I'm sure you could find scores of similar quotes on earning salvation. This is also a nuanced truth, of which I have debated fellow Mormons.
To illustrate my point, simply read the entire article from which you extracted the quote:

As a Christian, knowing the "rest of the Lord", have the daily activities of life changed much? You still eat, sleep, and work, right? Life doesn't change, and the problems probably don't get any easier, but your perspective on them probably has. And it's probably that perspective that provides peace and strength, giving you the ability to endure, and probably also find joy.

To those raised in the Church all their lives, it's more difficult to see the contrast. They just hear about "duty" and what they should do. Thus, most members I've come in contact with in these discussions usually cringe at the term "worthiness".

For example, most women I know, including my wife, dread mother's day, either because many women are single, and/or can't have children, or for those who had kids, feel that they fall short of the standard of the ideal. And yet they go to church, where some insensitive soul holds up a picture of the perfect mom, and then explains the importance of mother's fulfilling their calling.

So people respond in different ways. There's those Milton Hunter types who hold up the veneer of perfection, and bask in social praise, and look down on people less than.
Other people, strive and cope in different ways. They do they best they can with what they have to work with. Some of those resort to anti-depressants, or less visible addictions. Other people come to understand the atonement. (Maybe a mix of both).
Some people give up entirely, and realize it's not working for them. And/or some live counter culture to prove they don't need to be perfect.

For each type of response, different messages are needed to help certain people find motivation to get back on the path. And the promise of "heavenly rewards" by fulfilling our responsibilities is one of them. For others, it's a reminder that we don't "earn" salvation, where we are entitled to anything for our obedience, but rather "qualify" for the blessings.
per the same article:
"How grateful we should be that a wise Creator fashioned an earth and placed us here, with a veil of forgetfulness of our previous existence, so that we might experience a time of testing, an opportunity to prove ourselves, and qualify for all that God has prepared for us to receive."

Christianity focuses on our fallen nature, and how much God loves us, which is a critical understanding so that we can authentically forgive and love ourselves (and many Mormons lack the ability to do). Yet, skeptics can twist this message also:

But what we can't do, and be biblically congruent is promote lawlessness and easy-gracism.

SO, anyway, in summary, yeah, I'm sure you'll find messages to promote you narrative in Mormonism for or against. But they all need to be received in context, and felt by the Spirit to understand the intent behind the message.
 

Markk

Active member
SO, anyway, in summary, yeah, I'm sure you'll find messages to promote you narrative in Mormonism for or against. But they all need to be received in context, and felt by the Spirit to understand the intent behind the message.
Real quick I have to run, and I will ponder on the integrity of what you wrote here..but what you wrote here = contradictions. The GA teach that salvation is earned and merited, thousands of times, it is either a true teaching of the LDS church, or a false contradiction by people that have no idea what their restored church even teaches, over multiple generations. I mean wow…Aaron, that is just denial, and why folks believe it is a cult.

The context is Merit and duty, it is a context of works. It just is.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Aaron, according to LDS theology there are three degrees of glory…the telestial glory, the terrestrial glory, and the celestial glory, there is also outer darkness. With in the celestial glory there is three levels…exalted individuals, kings and priests, kings and queen, Gods and Goddesses live in this highest estate…and men have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and “glory” as HF and Jesus. Ministering angels will be in the third estate, and will be servants to the highest estate. As far as I know, who will live in the second estate has not been disclosed...
So far so good.

, but sources close to me suggest it may be for Charles William Post (please google his name).

It’s been awhile, and it might take awhile to find it, but I have read some LDS folks taught that there are different levels in the two lower degrees. It certainly wasn’t a standard teaching, but then yours and BoJ are not standard either.
Right. So why are we tripping over this? We both agree no individual is the standard, it's all speculation at best. The standard is the Standard works.

So no, LDS theology teaches three degrees of glory, not seven. Maybe I am splitting hairs and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that is what you meant.
Yeah, you're totally splitting hairs. If we look at the sub-degrees there's 3 CK, Terrestrial, telestial, and OD. So, six by my count. (I miscounted earlier)

The contradictions are many, maybe I will start a thread once I get caught up with this one.
You could do that, but I'm afraid it might be an exercise in futility since we agree no individual carries a standard.

I’ve been busy at work, and I have about a month to go before football season, when I usually take a break from forums like this. So I have about a month or so to talk some sense into you… :) Just kidding.

Take care
Lol! I can appreciate that. That's probably wise. I'm thinking I should do something similar and add variety to my life.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Real quick I have to run, and I will ponder on the integrity of what you wrote here..but what you wrote here = contradictions. The GA teach that salvation is earned and merited, thousands of times, it is either a true teaching of the LDS church, or a false contradiction by people that have no idea what their restored church even teaches, over multiple generations. I mean wow…Aaron, that is just denial, and why folks believe it is a cult.
In contrast, I believe Anti-Mormonism is more of a cult than the LDS Church is.
Take all of what you said above and then add that they don't believe in the "Real" Jesus, and you've encapsulated Anti-Mormonism in a nutshell. (Just don't talk to them or they might persuade you with their lies.) 😂
The context is Merit and duty, it is a context of works. It just is.
Or the context is grace and love. We do things because we love God because he first loved us.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
In contrast, I believe Anti-Mormonism is more of a cult than the LDS Church is.
Take all of what you said above and then add that they don't believe in the "Real" Jesus, and you've encapsulated Anti-Mormonism in a nutshell. (Just don't talk to them or they might persuade you with their lies.) 😂

Of course you do.

But if we are "anti-Mormonism", then Mormonism is "anti-Christianity".
If you want us to stoop down to your level....
 

Markk

Active member
In contrast, I believe Anti-Mormonism is more of a cult than the LDS Church is.
Take all of what you said above and then add that they don't believe in the "Real" Jesus, and you've encapsulated Anti-Mormonism in a nutshell. (Just don't talk to them or they might persuade you with their lies.) 😂

Or the context is grace and love. We do things because we love God because he first loved us.
I have to apologize, I generally post on my i phone or i pad while I am on the go, and if I misspell a word, which is often, it auto replaces…I meant to write “entirety“ and it came out “integrity.” I will never question you integrity.
 

Markk

Active member
Or the context is grace and love. We do things because we love God because he first loved us.
I only wish that were true in a LDS construct. Go to a well balanced Christian fellowship and ask anyone about being “worthy.” But don’t let me every try to talk you out of your interpretation of faith vs works, at least in that sentence.

But the sad reality is in Mormon-dom, if you don’t do, you won’t get and if you don’t give [money] you are not worthy. And if you want to debate whether what I just wrote is a LDS orthodox teaching or not…bring it on. It makes me angry just thinking about how they system milks the folks, of time and treasures, and then leaves them with th rotten fruit of unworthy-ness.
 

Markk

Active member
Lol! I can appreciate that. That's probably wise. I'm thinking I should do something similar and add variety to my life.
Fantasy football is a blast…and I have a shop where I do wood working, watch football, and try to escape honey do’s.
 

Markk

Active member
Right. So why are we tripping over this? We both agree no individual is the standard, it's all speculation at best. The standard is the Standard works.
HUH. I am not tripping over anything. The standard is what the church teaches, and how the SW are interpreted, and put into teaching manuals and spoken by the GA. But even the SW change over the years, so they are not exactly safe i.e. The lectures of faith.

It is a circular argument Aaron, the reason you state it is the standard works, is because a GA told you so, and then you turn around and ignore certain GA’s.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I only wish that were true in a LDS construct. Go to a well balanced Christian fellowship and ask anyone about being “worthy.” But don’t let me every try to talk you out of your interpretation of faith vs works, at least in that sentence.
If I presented anything supporting my view in an LDS construct (which I have) you would (and have) just call it "watered down".

But the sad reality is in Mormon-dom, if you don’t do, you won’t get and if you don’t give [money] you are not worthy. And if you want to debate whether what I just wrote is a LDS orthodox teaching or not…bring it on. It makes me angry just thinking about how they system milks the folks, of time and treasures, and then leaves them with th rotten fruit of unworthy-ness.
So I'd be interested in presenting your idea of a "do nothing" salvation on a Christian board and see how well you can defend it.
This is where Christians really do harm to Mormons, and widen the divide. Instead of using Paul's approach of talking about the natural man, and the impossiblity of keeping the entire law, thus salvation can only be found in grace, they portray Christianity as a "do nothing, lawless, easy grace" construct.
If you don't know the transformative power of the atonement, then IMO you never really learned the gospel. That's a pity.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
The standard is what the church teaches, and how the SW are interpreted, and put into teaching manuals and spoken by the GA.
Ok.
But even the SW change over the years, so they are not exactly safe i.e. The lectures of faith.
Safe? What does safety have to do with anything?
You wouldn't be operating under the assumption that the Church "saves" us would you, because that would be contrary to shat the Church teaches.
It is a circular argument Aaron, the reason you state it is the standard works, is because a GA told you so,
Because they're going to tell me to ignore the standard works or something?
and then you turn around and ignore certain GA’s.
Because that's what the GA's also to me to do.
What you're missing is the concept of personal revelation. You must think Mormons are expected to rely on the arm of the flesh. That's not the way it works.
 

Markk

Active member
Safe? What does safety have to do with anything?
You wouldn't be operating under the assumption that the Church "saves" us would you, because that would be contrary to shat the Church teaches.
Sorry I was not clear. What I mean by safe is that the standard works have changed, been edited, added to and taken way from, adjusted, and eliminated as standard works. Which is why it is a circular argument, confusing and IMO a mess.

One will say that we follow the SW’s…then when a SW is edited, or removed, it is done so by the GA’s and continuing revelation, so then that is more important.

The lectures of faith have been removed, the article faith changed, JS history edited, the Book of Commandments changed, even th eBoM has many changes…so there is no absolute benchmark in the church other than things will change and nothing or nobody is “safe” in these regards.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
If I presented anything supporting my view in an LDS construct (which I have) you would (and have) just call it "watered down".


So I'd be interested in presenting your idea of a "do nothing" salvation on a Christian board and see how well you can defend it.
This is where Christians really do harm to Mormons, and widen the divide. Instead of using Paul's approach of talking about the natural man, and the impossiblity of keeping the entire law, thus salvation can only be found in grace, they portray Christianity as a "do nothing, lawless, easy grace" construct.
If you don't know the transformative power of the atonement, then IMO you never really learned the gospel. That's a pity.
That’s what you’d like to think about Christian belief. Not the reality. No one has ever said it was “lawless” or “easy.” Those are your own words.
 

Markk

Active member
Because that's what the GA's also to me to do.
What you're missing is the concept of personal revelation. You must think Mormons are expected to rely on the arm of the flesh. That's not the way it works.
I totally understand the concept of personal revelation, and I witness the fruit of it on forums like this and in Ward gossip. How is personal revelation working with you and BoJ here?

Als people get excommunicated by expounding on personal revelation. The concept only works when you keep it to yourself or between yo and your bishop.

Read Grant Palmers story and how personal revelation worked for him…it got him disfellowshipped.
 
Top