Comments on: Is the Celestial Kingdom Divided into Three Subdegrees?

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:11:29 +0000

I wasn’t around when this was first posted, but thanks to Stapley linking back to this on a recent post I ended up here. I was only recently introduced to this possible reading Kevin advocates in the post, but I think I have become convinced that Kevin’s reading above is the more likely one. Glad to see the key arguments layed out so nicely.

By: By Common Consent » Children who pass away

By Common Consent » Children who pass away — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:29:52 +0000

[...] Ibid., pg. 101. Note that when Orson Pratt redacted the journal for inclusion in section 131, he inserted a bracketed note that the highest order of Priesthood of which the prophet spoke was temple marriage. Kevin Barney had a great post with a nice discussion here about the relative merits of that position. [...]

By: Steve A.

Steve A. — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 05:26:40 +0000

What if the three degrees are as follows:

Degree 1: Couples sealed in the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Degree 2a: Single Women

Degree 2b: Single Men

I picture it as a sort of triangle, with the top section being Degree 1, and the base being Degrees 2a and 2b.

To me, this matches the scripture:

1 IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest [Degree 1], a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it [Degree 1].

4 He may enter into the other [Degree 2b], but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. [Likewise, the woman may enter into the other (Degree 2a)].

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:08:46 +0000

Gotcha – I remembered the Temple President conversations, but forgot about the appeal to authority. I agree that there is significant misreading going on of those authors on this point.

By: Costanza

Costanza — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:00:52 +0000

J.,
Check footnote 57 on page 165 of the Buerger book for the discussion with the temple president. On McConkie and Smith, you are right that they don’t explicitly deal with what is or isn’t required for the fulness of the priesthood, beyond saying that “all the ordinances” of the temple are required. I guess that would include the 2nd anointing. I should have been clearer on my original point, though, which is that the temple presidents (I have looked it up and see that there were two of them) that Buerger spoke to cited BRM, JFSII to sustain their argument that the second anointing is not required. Buerger thinks that they are misreading these two authors.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:10:38 +0000

Costanza, I don’t remember Beurger going that far in his analysis. My understanding is that, though quite veiled, both JSFII and McConkie had a more nineteenth century view of the fullness.

By: costanza

costanza — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:49:08 +0000

Regarding the issue of fulness of the priesthood/second anointing–David J. Buerger deals with this in some depth in THE MYSTERIES OF GODLINESS. As I recall, he writes of discussing the issue with a temple president (Oakland temple?). Buerger basically set forth the rather obvious sources indicating that in the period from the 1840s to the turn of the century (roughly) the fulness of the priesthood meant second anointing. The temple president quotes Joseph Fielding Smith and B.R. McConkie, who as the architects of twentieth-century LDS thought, equated the fulness of the priesthood with all temple ordinances up to and including celestial marriage, but not including the second anointing. It is an interesting example of two interpretations clashing.

By: Talon

Talon — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:31:45 +0000

I wonder how many other doctrines drilled into me are based on an instance a long time ago when our first prophet was talking to someone in his/her home while someone else kept a journal of it.

I wonder about this as well.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:16:44 +0000

Kevin, I think the statement in the Millennial Star is unnequivically describing the the higher ordinances of the Temple. The full piece is available here. I also think that you are correct that the modern Mormon perception is rather problematic. The current Temple liturgy defies the modern tendency that you outline in your comment to minimize or even disregard the importance of the second annointing. Moreover, Joseph and everyone else in the 19th century were rather explicit on the matter. In the April conference before his death, Joseph preached on the matter:

...when the House is done, Baptism font erectd and finished & the worthy are washed, anointed, endowed & ordained Kings & priests, which must be done in this life, when the place is prepared you must go through all the ordinances of the house of the Lord so that you who have any dead friends must go through all the ordinances for them the same as for yourselves; (Woodruff Account, WoJS pg. 363)

I think that we have to hope for it in this life or for posthumous proxy-work in the next. I do think that a reasonable reading of the nineteenth century exaltation and temple doctrine can mesh with your reading of Sec 131.

By: Rob Osborn

Rob Osborn — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:36:06 +0000

There is another part of the doctrine of the three kingdoms that just seems to strike a strange sounding bell in my head. That bell is the assumed state we think the Telestial heirs will be. We know so little really. We get little bits of information here and there, but there always seems to be this large amount of misinformation and presumptions about things that get taught. Maybe it is just me but I really think the Telestial people will be holy and just people. They of coarse cannot get to that point without some penalty for sins, but, through repentance and obedience I believe they will be redeemed through the ordinances of the temple.