A Hierarchical Heaven.

[2ndRateMind]

I was going about my business, once, when one of your missionaries came across me.

 

I can't remember how we got on to the subject, but he told me you guys have three levels of Heaven, each with an impressive name. One for good people, one for very good people, and one for very, very good people. (I paraphrase). How is it just, he asked me, that there is only one heaven, in which good, ordinary people who just scrape by St Peter, end up in the same place as a Saint and Martyr who devotes and gives his life for the faith? It's only right, he suggested, that there should be different realms according to different degrees of goodness.

 

Well, I wasn't quick witted enough to put this to him at the time, but my observation of the world is that there are as many different degrees of goodness as there are people, past, present, and future. The same logic applies. How is it right that any individual, who only just fails to make it into a better one of these realms, be shoehorned into the same level of heaven as some other individual, who only just scrapes by the criteria?

 

Are we not entitled to individually tailored after-lives? Or, is there some ontological discontinuity I have not perceived? A street conversation is not an ideal forum for theological discussions, and there may well be considerations more easily expanded, here.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 25, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

The chapter of Mormon scripture that lays this out most clearly is Doctrine and Covenants, section 76. As I read it, the key factor is the degree to which one received "the testimony of Jesus"--remembering, of course, that Mormonism allows for the possibility that a person who didn't have a chance to hear the Gospel in his/her lifetime can still be taught it during the period between death and resurrection. It's not fundamentally a works-based reward system, however tempting it may be to present it as such; and Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard still applies to some degree.

My experience is that Mormon thought typically considers the "kingdoms" as physical places, or levels of heaven. I am a bit unorthodox in this regard, because I think the defining feature of one's "degree of glory" will be the quality of body with which one is actually resurrected--I think a celestial being will simply be able to do things/have particular powers that a terrestrial being won't. In other words, I don't think it's really primarily a matter of where you are; but of what you are.

Venturing back into the realm of mainstream Mormon doctrine: it is very clearly taught that only Celestial beings will be able to produce offspring in the eternities; that they (and only they) will have claim on the sanctified earth as their place of residence; and that only they will be so purified as to be able to abide the presence of God the Father Himself.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

There is nothing against the idea you have.  Even a few hints it might indeed be the case.

 

What we know is that Heaven is divided into 3 Kingdoms.  That revelation came as Joseph Smith pondered the implication of 1 Heaven were everyone got the same reward.  However we would be stepping into the same kind of error as we did with the 1 Heaven idea if we require that everyone got the same reward depending on Kingdom.  It has not been revealed that this is the case for all kingdoms.  But there are hints that there might be Sub Kingdoms (for lack of a better term to classify the differences).  But we simply don't have clear information at this time.

[2ndRateMind]

So, I read the link. I found it hard going, so I need to check my understanding. Hope that's OK.

 

The celestial inhabitants are those who believe in some kind of Christianity in this life.

The terrestrial inhabitants are those who fail to believe in Christianity in this life, but are convinced subsequently, prior to the end of time.

The telestrial inhabitants are those who are not convinced, until the end of time.

 

So, if I've got the hang of this, our heavenly reward depends on our belief, and also at what point we believe.

 

Is that fair on your position?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

[Just_A_Guy]

Essentially, yes; but with the following caveats:

 

1)  I interpret "receive the testimony of Jesus" as receiving all of the true doctrines appurtenant to the Gospel--in other words, not just generic Christianity; but "true" Christianity--in other words (coming from a Mormon!), the Gospel of Christ as interpreted by Mormonism. Those who receive it in this life--or would have done, had it been preached to them (D&C 137:7)--and live according to that belief, receive a celestial glory.  Those who reject it in this life but afterwards receive it, receive a terrestrial glory.

 

2) The telestial do ultimately receive the testimony of Jesus, but not until the last resurrection (v. 85) at the time that every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is in fact the Lord (see, e.g., Philippians 2:9-11).

 

3)  Those who are "not convinced until the end of time", in your parlance--who continually "deny the truth and defy [His] power" (D&C 76:31), are subject to the "second death" and never do get redeemed (vv 38-39).  These are not inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom; they are what Mormons call "sons of perdition".  We don't know what exactly happens to them (see vv 45-48) - but apparently, it's not pretty.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Seminarysnoozer]

So, I read the link. I found it hard going, so I need to check my understanding. Hope that's OK.

 

The celestial inhabitants are those who believe in some kind of Christianity in this life.

The terrestrial inhabitants are those who fail to believe in Christianity in this life, but are convinced subsequently, prior to the end of time.

The telestrial inhabitants are those who are not convinced, until the end of time.

 

So, if I've got the hang of this, our heavenly reward depends on our belief, and also at what point we believe.

 

Is that fair on your position?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Mormons believe that we all believed in Christ and His plan before coming here.  There was an assessment of that belief that we call the First estate. If one believed and had faith in a Savior then one passed the first estate test.  If not then they followed Lucifer in his rebelion against that plan, they essentially did not believe that a Savior could help them.  So, the weeding out of who believed and who didn't believe has already taken place.

 

Now we face a test of integrity, in other words, to what degree did we believe in Christ.  Do we believe in Christ despite being behind a veil of forgetfulness and being tempted by carnal things or do we give into the carnal nature and forget about our spiritual upbringing.  Kind of like when a young adult leaves the home, do they follow what their parents taught or are they swept away by the temptations of the world.  That is the kind of test we face now having already stated that we believe in Christ before the test began.  To what degree do we believe in Christ and have faith in God.  It is a test of Character, a test of integrity or what we sometimes say; 'the desire of the heart' or true nature.

 

The various challenges we face in life do not reflect in a one to one way our spirituality.  Some that were very successful in the previous life are born with conditions like Down's syndrome others that were very successful in the previous life might have special callings such as becoming a general authority for the church or maybe being the first one in their family to accept the gospel which allows for generations to follow in the same path.  Some who were successful in the previous life might be born at a time when the gospel was not around or in a place where it could not be received and so will receive it in the spirit world. The degrees of glory in the next life can hardly be measured by our acts in this world because it has to be judged in light of the desire of the heart and what was given in this life.  Where much is given much is required.  God will be the judge of that, looking at all the variables we cannot see at this time.

[2ndRateMind]

@Just a Guy

 

OK. Let me try again, suitably corrected.

 

The celestial is populated exclusively by Mormons who came to believe in their mortal lives.

The terrestrial is populated by unbelievers (including other Christians) in their mortal lives, who find Mormon belief after their temporal deaths, but before the last resurrection.

The telestrial is populated by those who do not find Mormon belief until the last resurrection. (Second coming?)

The rest don't make any kind of heaven at all, damned by their stubborn unbelief.

 

Any better?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

@seminarysnoozer. Just seen your post. I'm going to need to mull it over. I'm not ignoring you.

Edited August 25, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

OK, with your much appreciated help, I will get to the bottom of this.

 

Prior life. Mormons are separated from unbelievers.

 

Mortal life. The population of the celestrial realm is determined, being those who remain Mormons, or would have done if they could have done.

 

After life 1. Pre-Final Resurrection. The population of the terrestrial realm is determined, being those who were Mormons and, after some mortal waywardness, become Mormons again.

 

After life 2. At Final Resurrection. The population of the telestrial realm is determined, being those who were Mormons, and, after some mortal waywardness, and some post-mortem waywardness, too, finally revert to being Mormons again.

 

How am I doing?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 25, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

Just one more quibble.  :)

 

 

The celestial is populated exclusively by Mormons who came to believe in their mortal lives.

 

I would change this to "The celestial is populated exclusively by persons who embraced an understanding of the Gospel similar to that taught by the Mormons, and either a) did so during their mortal lives, or b ) would have embraced it during their mortal lives if they had had an opportunity to learn it."

 

I don't like to use the term "Mormon" in such discussions, because it's kind of presentist--the term "Mormons" is typically used only to describe members of a particular religious institution that has existed for fewer than two hundred years; and the membership in the Celestial Kingdom is (of course) not so limited.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Seminarysnoozer]

OK, with your much appreciated help, I will get to the bottom of this.

 

Prior life. Mormons are separated from unbelievers.

 

Mortal life. The population of the celestrial realm is determined, being those who remain Mormons.

 

After life 1. Pre-Final Resurrection. The population of the terrestrial realm is determined, being those who were Mormons and, after some mortal waywardness, become Mormons again.

 

After life 2. At Final Resurrection. The population of the telestrial realm is determined, being those who were Mormons, and, after some mortal waywardness, and some post-mortem waywardness, too, finally revert to being Mormons again.

 

How am I doing?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Right, as Just_A_Guy stated, substitute the word "Mormons" with followers of Christ. And realize that we are all born with some "light of Christ" - still all followers of Christ at birth.  (side note - this is one of the reasons why we don't baptize infants)

Edited August 25, 2014 by Seminarysnoozer

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, with your much appreciated help, I will get to the bottom of this.

 

Prior life. Mormons are separated from unbelievers.

 

Well, per my post above, I'm not overly fond of using modern terms like "Mormon" in discussions like this that (theoretically) span thousands of years.

 

In the prior life ("pre-mortal life" or "pre-existence", in Mormon jargon), there were those who agreed to follow God--and those who fought Him.  Only those who agreed to follow Him were allowed to be born on this earth.  Per Mormon teaching, every person who was ever born made this agreement, regardless of what religion they currently follow--by "keeping the first estate" (remaining true and faithful to God in the pre-mortal life) they qualified themselves for their "second estate" (receiving a physical body here on the earth).

 

Mortal life. The population of the celestrial realm is determined, being those who remain Mormons.

 

Again, avoiding that pesky presentist word "Mormon"--yes, the population of the celestial kingdom will be determined by the degree to which we accept and follow the true gospel of Jesus Christ (or as much of it as we have had an opportunity to hear).

 

After life 1. Pre-Final Resurrection. The population of the terrestrial realm is determined, being those who were Mormons and, after some mortal waywardness, become Mormons again.

 

Partly, yes (Mormons call this stage the "spirit world", by the way).  The righteous, faithful spirits are in a state called "paradise", and Mormons believe that those in paradise spend this period teaching the true gospel both to those who have wandered away from the true gospel; and to those who never had an opportunity to hear the gospel.  Collectively, both of those classes of individuals are in a state called "spirit prison". 

 

Individuals who never had an opportunity to hear the full gospel in mortality, but would have accepted it if they had had a chance to hear it and lived their lives in compliance with whatever degree of light and knowledge they actually had in their lifetimes, are still eligible to enter into the Celestial Kingdom if they accept the gospel when it is taught to them in spirit prison.

 

After life 2. At Final Resurrection. The population of the telestrial realm is determined, being those who were Mormons, and, after some mortal waywardness, and some post-mortem waywardness, too, finally revert to being Mormons again.

 

Substituting out that term "Mormon" again--that's essentially how I see it, yes.  In Mormon parlance, the event is called the "resurrection and final judgment".

 

There are some nuances/complications to the above (as a general principle, for example, not everyone is resurrected at once--individuals who have obtained a celestial glory will be resurrected before those who receive a terrestrial glory); but those are the fundamentals.  :)

Edited August 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

The celestial inhabitants are those who believe in some kind of Christianity in this life. The terrestrial inhabitants are those who fail to believe in Christianity in this life, but are convinced subsequently, prior to the end of time. The telestrial inhabitants are those who are not convinced, until the end of time.

One of the key words used in D&C 76, IMO, is the word "valiant" (see vs 79). D&C 76 describes those in the terrestrial kingdom as having received a testimony of Jesus, but were not "valiant" in that testimony. I interpret the description of those in the Celestial kingdom as having been valiant in their testimony of Jesus through their obedience to God's commands. Those in the Telestial kingdom did not receive a testimony of Jesus (see vs 82). Edited August 25, 2014 by MrShorty

[Blackmarch]

these are the only ones we're told about, it's highly likely that there are levels within them. Furthermore before people go to them there is going to be a millennia of learning and preparing.

celestial, telestial, and terrestrial kingdoms is kinda like saying the U.S, Britain, and Russia(minus the bad stuff). For an oversimplistic comparison.

[Leah]

I was going about my business, once, when one of your missionaries came across me.

 

I can't remember how we got on to the subject, but he told me you guys have three levels of Heaven, each with an impressive name. One for good people, one for very good people, and one for very, very good people. (I paraphrase). How is it just, he asked me, that there is only one heaven, in which good, ordinary people who just scrape by St Peter, end up in the same place as a Saint and Martyr who devotes and gives his life for the faith? It's only right, he suggested, that there should be different realms according to different degrees of goodness.

 

Well, I wasn't quick witted enough to put this to him at the time, but my observation of the world is that there are as many different degrees of goodness as there are people, past, present, and future. The same logic applies. How is it right that any individual, who only just fails to make it into a better one of these realms, be shoehorned into the same level of heaven as some other individual, who only just scrapes by the criteria?

 

Are we not entitled to individually tailored after-lives? Or, is there some ontological discontinuity I have not perceived? A street conversation is not an ideal forum for theological discussions, and there may well be considerations more easily expanded, here.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Are you saying that Heavenly Father is not capable of being perfectly just in these matters? That you would be able to make a better judgment than Heavenly Father could?

I am confident that Heavenly Father knows and understands things we never could, and that he will be just in all things.

[2ndRateMind]

OK, so I have, at least, an approximation of your thinking in this regard. I have to say, I do not find it at all unreasonable as a faith position. People have believed, and I am sure still do believe, far stranger things. And, as usual, your ideas seem to hang together quite well.

 

So let me put this question to you all. There seems to be a conflation of two quite separate concepts going on, here. One is the notion of faith, and one is the notion of virtue. I am not at all sure one can be held responsible for one's beliefs, which seem (in this world) to be as much a matter of accident of birth in time and space as any other consideration, whereas our vices and virtues are surely down to our own choices, and we can justly be held answerable for them. So, is it 'fair' to decide which of us will inherit heaven, in a prior life, so long before we have had the chance to exercise or fail to exercise any virtue we may possess, and determine our quality of heavenly reward by which point in time we come to accept some (let's assume, for the sake of argument, divinely) approved set of beliefs?

 

I'm sure you've argued this one out before; I'm interested to hear your views.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Are you saying that Heavenly Father is not capable of being perfectly just in these matters? That you would be able to make a better judgment than Heavenly Father could?

I am confident that Heavenly Father knows and understands things we never could, and that he will be just in all things.

 

 

Dear Leah, I have absolutely the same confidence. The issue is, do our religions give us an accurate picture of Him, and how He will dispose of us?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Seminarysnoozer]

OK, so I have, at least, an approximation of your thinking in this regard. I have to say, I do not find it at all unreasonable as a faith position. People have believed, and I am sure still do believe, far stranger things. And, as usual, your ideas seem to hang together quite well.

 

So let me put this question to you all. There seems to be a conflation of two quite separate concepts going on, here. One is the notion of faith, and one is the notion of virtue. I am not at all sure one can be held responsible for one's beliefs, which seem (in this world) to be as much a matter of accident of birth in time and space as any other consideration, whereas our vices and virtues are surely down to our own choices, and we can justly be held answerable for them. So, is it 'fair' to decide which of us will inherit heaven, in a prior life, so long before we have had the chance to exercise or fail to exercise any virtue we may possess, and determine our quality of heavenly reward by which point in time we come to accept some (let's assume, for the sake of argument, divinely) approved set of beliefs?

 

I'm sure you've argued this one out before; I'm interested to hear your views.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

I disagree with the idea that our vices and virtues are down to our own choices directly. (key word being directly)  I am sure some will disagree with me as far as that goes.

 

We have all been given different challenges and trials in this life.  For some it may be a genetic propensity for alcoholism, for example.  If one chooses never to drink alcohol then it is not a problem.  If one, however, chooses to drink and there is a genetic drive for alcoholism then the trap has been sprung which may be very difficult to get out of. The why's related to why someone has this trial vs another is something we are not privy to at this time.  Another might be given a genetic drive towards same sex attraction, etc. We can say for sure that our carnal body's drives will be different than our spiritual inclinations and that is what presents the test we face, that is what sets up the test and the challenge. We are not expected to overcome the challenges of this life on our own and this seems fair because we did not cause the challenge on our own. 

 

As Christ answered the question of who sinned to make the blind man blind from birth and He answered it was neither the blind man or his parents.  At the same time, it is not an accident.  Certain challenges and trials are specifically placed for our test in life and our development.

 

Also keep in mind that again we believe that we are currently dual beings with opposing natures, one carnal and one spiritual.  The carnal self is not really self, it is a temporary stewardship from which we are to show our faithfulness.  See the parable of the ten talents.  The talents were given in the beginning of the parable, the stewards did not come up with the talents on their own, they were temporary stewardships.

[Just_A_Guy]

So let me put this question to you all. There seems to be a conflation of two quite separate concepts going on, here. One is the notion of faith, and one is the notion of virtue. I am not at all sure one can be held responsible for one's beliefs, which seem (in this world) to be as much a matter of accident of birth in time and space as any other consideration, whereas our vices and virtues are surely down to our own choices, and we can justly be held answerable for them. So, is it 'fair' to decide which of us will inherit heaven, in a prior life, so long before we have had the chance to exercise or fail to exercise any virtue we may possess, and determine our quality of heavenly reward by which point in time we come to accept some (let's assume, for the sake of argument, divinely) approved set of beliefs?

 

I'm sure you've argued this one out before; I'm interested to hear your views.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

The piece of the puzzle I think you're missing is this thing that Mormons call the "light of Christ" or "Spirit of Christ".  A passage in the Book of Mormon reads, "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil" (Moroni 7:16).  In other words--even if we don't have the fulness of the gospel given to us, we do get bits and pieces.  We have an instinct--call it a "divine spark", or whatever you will--that, to a certain degree, tells us that some things are right and some things are wrong. 

 

Now, a Bhuddist or Muslim isn't necessarily going to suddenly wake up one day out of the blue and think "holy cow.  I think I'm supposed to follow this guy, Jesus, who I never ever heard of before!  And there's this word--more-muhn--I wonder what that means?!?"  But there's something within us that tells us little things:  that there is a God.  That helping others is good.  That adultery is bad.  That honesty in business transactions is right.  If we follow that instinct, we'll find ourselves being changed into the kind of beings to whom God can eventually entrust a celestial glory--even if our knowledge is not yet complete.  If we get in the habit of ignoring or suppressing that instinct, we'll find ourselves hardening into the kind of creature that is diametrically opposed to all the virtues God stands for.  (Take a look at this sermon, when you get a minute, because the link between knowing something and becoming something is crucial.  Mortality isn't just a chance to "prove yourself"; it's a chance to actually grow and change into the kind of being that God wants you to be.)

 

It's ideal, of course, to have the full gospel taught to you in this life--and to accept and follow it--because, as Joseph Smith taught, "if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."  Nevertheless, it appears that the degree to which we act--or fail to act--on that little bit of light that Christ gives each of us regardless of religious upbringing, is (in conjunction with His perfect knowledge of each of us) sufficient for God to make a correct judgment as to our eternal destiny even if we spend our entire lives unaware that there is such a thing as Mormonism.*  As for those who are fortunate enough to have had Christianity (especially Mormonism) preached to them in their lifetimes:  I think it boils down to the principle that where much is given, much is required.

 

*This is a general rule, but as always--there are exceptions; for example, in the cases of the mentally/emotionally/developmentally disabled or children who die at such a young age that they couldn't possibly have had any awareness of what they were doing or the consequences of their actions.  The most common Mormon explanation for these kinds of situations is that such individuals were so extraordinarily valiant and dedicated in the pre-mortal life, that further testing and schooling in mortality was unnecessary for them--they have already shown themselves worthy of a celestial glory.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[2ndRateMind]

I'm still cogitating over your replies, but I just wanted to say how much I like the idea that those disabled     children who die premature and early deaths are possessed of souls so valiant that they needed no further testing in this vale of tears. I think that is a conception so beautiful that it deserves to be true, and, if it isn't true, it really ought to be.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 26, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Traveler]

I will respond quickly – I believe this subject is critical in understanding the purpose of life and divine nature.   If we try to judge anything of life or of G-d using only the empirical parameters between an individual’s birth and death – the only possible conclusion is that actual justice and a G-d of divine character is at best a deceptive and cruel fantasy.    If however, we look at life as one of many opportunities to gain understanding of an eternal conflict between “good” and “evil” we can realize that a “one size fits all” heaven or hell is neither necessary nor sufficient solution to good and evil as well as a loving companionate G-d verses a cruel enslaving Satan.   

 

Heaven and hell is not so much what we may believe or even want as it is the reality of what we desire most has in evolving our character.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I will respond quickly – I believe this subject is critical in understanding the purpose of life and divine nature.   If we try to judge anything of life or of G-d using only the empirical parameters between an individual’s birth and death – the only possible conclusion is that actual justice and a G-d of divine character is at best a deceptive and cruel fantasy.    If however, we look at life as one of many opportunities to gain understanding of an eternal conflict between “good” and “evil” we can realize that a “one size fits all” heaven or hell is neither necessary nor sufficient solution to good and evil as well as a loving companionate G-d verses a cruel enslaving Satan.   

 

Heaven and hell is not so much what we may believe or even want as it is the reality of what we desire most has in evolving our character.

Great response and I hope not to detract from it because you stated it so well.

 

One question spawned from your statement.  You used the word eternal to describe the conflict between "good" and "evil" whereas I look at that conflict as temporary.  Were you using the word "eternal" to mean part of the eternal round and it is an eternal principle pertaining to mortality or were you using the word "eternal" to mean that the conflict will always be around or some other meaning?

 

My understanding is that Christ will overcome all evil at the end of the Millenium and all that find their self on the right hand of God will enter unto His rest. D&C 29; "27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father;

 28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

 29 And now, behold, I say unto you, never at any time have I declared from mine own mouth that they should return, for where I am they cannot come, for they have no power."

and Revelations 20; "10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

 

Alma 12; " 34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest."

 

Joseph F. Smith explains that "enter into my rest" means all doubt and fear and the cunningness of men have been cast from him, sounds like the battle is over for that person.

 

and D&C 59; " 23 But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come."

 

So, even if there is "eternal" conflict between good and evil we do maintain the hope that through righteousness we will come unto Christ's rest and the conflict will be over for us one day with peace throughout our eternal life.

[Traveler]

Great response and I hope not to detract from it because you stated it so well.

 

One question spawned from your statement.  You used the word eternal to describe the conflict between "good" and "evil" whereas I look at that conflict as temporary.  Were you using the word "eternal" to mean part of the eternal round and it is an eternal principle pertaining to mortality or were you using the word "eternal" to mean that the conflict will always be around or some other meaning?

 

My understanding is that Christ will overcome all evil at the end of the Millenium and all that find their self on the right hand of God will enter unto His rest. D&C 29; "27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father;

 28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

 29 And now, behold, I say unto you, never at any time have I declared from mine own mouth that they should return, for where I am they cannot come, for they have no power."

and Revelations 20; "10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

 

Alma 12; " 34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest."

 

Joseph F. Smith explains that "enter into my rest" means all doubt and fear and the cunningness of men have been cast from him, sounds like the battle is over for that person.

 

and D&C 59; " 23 But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come."

 

So, even if there is "eternal" conflict between good and evil we do maintain the hope that through righteousness we will come unto Christ's rest and the conflict will be over for us one day with peace throughout our eternal life.

I believe your references are symbolic and indicate the end of an era.  There would be nothing gained in our experiences (agency) if after this life there was no evil.  In essence we will be masters in the knowledge of good and evil in the same manner that that G-d (and others) are masters of such knowledge and understanding.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe your references are symbolic and indicate the end of an era.  There would be nothing gained in our experiences (agency) if after this life there was no evil.  In essence we will be masters in the knowledge of good and evil in the same manner that that G-d (and others) are masters of such knowledge and understanding.

Let me rephrase the question.  I didn't ask if there would be no evil.  You stated "eternal conflict between "good" and "evil"".  Is the conflict eternal for any given person or is there an end to the conflict at some point ?

 

When we sing in church, "We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er" we are singing about a false ideal?

[Urstadt]

Another thing that is important to understand is that the degree of glory which people chose to live in this life is the degree they will inevitably take up after this life. D&C 88:20-32 lays this out very well:

20 That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

25 And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—

26 Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.

27 For notwithstanding they die, they also shall rise again, a spiritual body.

28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.

29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

People will choose which degree they want after this life based on the degree they chose while in this life.

[2ndRateMind]

I have to say, this idea that our degree of heaven being that degree to which we are able to 'abide' heaven, that degree to which we can 'stand' proximity to the divine, has some resonance for me. Love, being an ecstasy of equal parts joy and pain, is a thing in it's divine intensity which it requires virtue to perceive, virtue to contain, virtue to appreciate to it's fullest extent. There are those among us in the world, for example, who think love to be weakness, love to be foolish, a temporary madness, or love to be no more than a sentimental expression of a selfish desire to be 'wanted'. I do not think such as these would like to be too close to God, or choose that for themselves. And there are some of course, worse than this, who would hate to be in the presence of such a terrible degree of love, at all. 

 

Nevertheless, none of these considerations seem to me to have much to do with which faith, which world-view, one thinks to be truth. We all seem to have some capacity for love, unless we choose to kill it within ourselves, and I am not yet convinced that one's religion, while it may (or may not) be of assistance in building our capacity to love and be loved, is actually the decisive factor. We may or may not be vindicated in our faith, and we may or may not feel some sense of satisfaction at that, but such a small emotion will not, I think, make or break our experience of Heaven.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 28, 2014 by 2ndRateMind