Matthew
joespencer
Robert C.
robf
BrianJ
douglashunter
Kevin Barney
Jim F.
nhilton
cherylem
clarkgoble
NathanG
jennywebb
janetlisonbee
kirkcaudle
Karl D.EQ lesson #2 “To live with him someday”
Posted by douglashunter on January 11, 2007
Elders Quorum Lesson #2
To Live With Him Someday
The only way we can find joy, truth, and fulfillment is to live in harmony with Heavenly Father’s plan.
Sections of the lesson and their main points:
1) From the Life of Spencer W. Kimball:
- The priority of doing over Knowing. Knowing is not enough we must do righteousness
- The gospel is a way of life.
- Personal salvation requires personal responsibility.
- Humans as god embryos.
2) Teaching of Spencer W. Kimball:
- In premortal life we were taught the plan of exaltation.
- We were spiritual beings poessing full cognitive ability but we could progress no further without a change, we needed physical bodies. The Earth was created so we could come here and then return to Heavenly Father but we need to: a) Control desire, b) Continue to grow towards perfection.
- We responded to God’s offer of coming to Earth for growth and progress with gratitude.
- Existence has three estates or stages: pre-mortal, mortal and immortal. Each stage vitally affects the others.
-In pre-mortal life we understood the purpose of life which is to: gain knowledge, educate, train, control urges and desires, master and control our passions, overcome weaknesses, eliminate sins of omission and commission, follow laws and commandments, overcome, govern, perform ordinances.
3) Gospel of Jesus Christ Charts our Course Back to our Heavenly Father:
- God’s laws and commandments provide us with a map to reach perfection and godhood.
- The gospel is the only plan, which will exalt humanity.
- The LDS church is the only church that has the full plan of exaltation.
- In order to get into the plan it is mandatory to: a) have a proper baptism b) receive the gift of the holy ghost c) be ordained to the priesthood d) be endowed and sealed in the temple e) live a life of righteousness, cleanliness, purity and service
- The power of the atonement can’t work for us if we do not repent.
- God is eager to forgive.
- Assurance of supreme happiness, certainty of successful life and exaltation come to those who plan to live in complete harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and follow the course they have set.
4) Only the Valiant and faithful will be exalted:
- Immortality is to live forever in an assigned kingdom.
- Eternal life is to gain exaltation in the highest heaven and to live in the family unit.
- There are degrees of glory: Telestial, terrestrial, and celestial
- When we die our bodies go to mother earth and our spirits go to the spirit world, where there will be more training.
-The reunion with the body renders us immortal making further progress towards godhood.
- Resurrection is made available to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he opened the way to immortality and exaltation.
- In pre-portal life we understood there would be sorrow, disappointments, hard work, blood, sweat, and tears, but we agreed to come here because we saw the potential blessings.
5) Mortality is the Time to Prepare to meet God:
- We are currently in the second estate. Being here is evidence of out having kept our first estate.
(Paragraphs 1 – 4 repeat points from the “teachings of” section)
- A most serious human defect is procrastination an unwillingness to accept personal responsibilities now.
-Our first responsibility is to prepare to meet God, subjugate the flesh, and subject the body to the spirit.
- The road of life is plainly marked by the map of the gospel.
- There are many lax members of the church, who procrastinate, who live the gospel casually but not devoutly. Who comply with some requirements but are not valiant. Do no major crime but fail to do what is required.
- Good hopes and desires must be translated into works.
- We must receive ordinances, must be faithful in overcoming weakness.
- Those who do all this shall be Gods above all, everlasting.
- The end result is worth the cost.
This is a huge lesson and contains several parts. A good deal of space is dedicated to a summary review of basic doctrines, so many are included that the lesson can merely list them without going into any detail.
There is an area of emphasis in the lesson that I think deserves attention above the others. This is the emphasis on spiritual progress requiring action on our part. In the opening the idea is presented in the language that knowing the gospel and what is required is not enough, this knowledge must be the basis for action. Towards the end of the lesson the idea is repeated with a different emphasis. At the end of the lesson Strong language is used to emphasize what Kimball felt was a lack or rigor in how many of us live the gospel, our not taking responsibility for what we are doing now.
My approach to this lesson is going to be a bit unusual, or at least significantly different from the way I usually present lessons. I’m going to spend a short amount of time reviewing the major points of the lesson but most of the time will be spent in an activity.
In the lesson Kimball is quoted as saying,
” There are many members of the church who are lax and careless and who continually procrastinate. They live the gospel casually but not devoutly. They have complied with some requirements but are not valiant. They do no major crime but merely fail to do the things required- things like paying tithing, living the word of wisdom, having family prayer, fasting, attending meetings, serving . . . The lord will not translate one’s good hopes and desires and intentions into works. Each of us must do that for himself.”
The activity that follows arises from my experience coaching elite athletes. As part of their seasonal training program each athlete has to go through a self-evaluation and goal setting activity to help shape their training, their goals and their performance plan for the upcoming seasons.
Given Kimball’s emphasis on personal action, it seems worth trying to re-work of the performance review materials I use as a coach for the spiritual realm. We may not usually think about our spiritual lives in terms of “performance”, the way we may think of athletic or job performance but it strikes me that doing so may be one way of engaging Kimball’s pragmatics and also be a way of keeping ourselves focused on spiritual progress on a daily basis.
(As an aside I might also add that church folklore has it that the Nike Corporation adapted their famous slogan “Just do it”, from Kimball who apparently kept the phrase “Do it.” on his desk.)
I am going to hand out paper and pens so we can at least start the process in class.
The review process has three steps.
1) Past performance review: In this step we examine both a good and a bad performance from the past six months or so and examines specific aspects of each. For athletes we focus on good and bad competition performances. For our purposes we will look at “spiritual challenges.” I think its best to define these broadly. A spiritual challenge can be any event that was a significant challenge to us and that we see as having spiritual consequences, it can include anything from temple attendance, acts of service, performance in our calling, interactions with others, interpersonal conflicts, personal questions or doubts about faith or teachings, struggles with addiction, the end of a relationship, the death of someone dear to you, difficulty with forgiveness, etc. The point is to examine our lives and to choose two spiritual challenges one we dealt with well and another we did not deal with well.
Part 1
1) Think of a spiritual challenge of the past six months that you dealt with very well. It may have been severe or mild but you feel that you had the tools to handle it, took good actions and got through it well. Take a moment to briefly describe the challenge.
2) What was going on in your spiritual life in the time leading up to the challenge? How would you describe your spiritual life at that time? What were you doing and how did you feel about it?
3) When the challenge arose, what sort of things were you saying to yourself in response? What were you feeling? Did the challenge change how you were feeling about yourself? If so, how? In general, how were you emotionally?
4) As the challenge progressed how was your emotional energy focused? What types of thoughts were you aware of having, what were they and how did they effect you? Take a moment to list them:
5) What was your attitude towards your faith and church life as you faced this challenge, what were you worried about and what were you hopeful for? Take a moment to describe.
Part 2
6) Now think of a spiritual challenge that you faced in the past 6 months that you did not handle well, that may have had a negative outcome, or left you shaken when it was finished. Answer the following questions.
7) What was going on in your spiritual life in the time leading up to the challenge? How would you describe your spiritual life in that time period? List some of the spiritual activities you were engaged in.
8 ) When the challenge arose, what sort of things were you saying to yourself in response? What were you feeling? Did the challenge change how you were feeling about yourself? If so, how? In general, how were you emotionally?
9) During the challenge how was your emotional energy focused? What types of thoughts were you aware of having, what were they and how did they effect you? Take a moment to list them:
10) What was your attitude towards your faith and church life as you faced this challenge, what were you worried about and what were you hopeful about? Take a moment to describe.
Part 3
Now compare your answers from your positive and negative experiences.
1) Were their difference in your spiritual life leading up to the challenges and did this effect how you handled the situation when it arose? Why or why not? Was there a difference in the spiritual activities you were engaged in leading up to the onset of both challenges?
2) Was there a difference in your emotional focus at the onset of these crises? Was there a difference in the things you were saying to yourself, how you were praying, etc? List the differences.
3) In the future how would you like your emotional energy to be focused during such challenges? What actions would most likely be of benefit to you when facing challenges? List them.
4) For you individually what do you need to be doing in daily life to best be prepared to challenges when they arrive? Take a few minutes and make a list.
The idea behind these questions is that success or failure in any realm of our behavior are not accidents, they are constructed. Understanding our emotional and spiritual reaction to challenges helps us understand how to construct more consistent success. The answers you provide in part 3 of the process are to become the actions you take, the tactics you use when facing challenges in the future, in order to create more consistent success. Write your answers to part three on a separate card or paper and keep it where you can see it, to remind yourself of how you want to face spiritual challenges when they arise.
Joe Spencer said
Doug, this is an interesting approach to teaching this lesson. I admit that you surprised me somewhat. When paper and pens are handed out, I usually expect something really pointless to be done. But I think this is a good activity.
It does, however, raise an interesting question: what is the balance between the practical and the theoretical in the classroom? Is it a question of following the Spirit (sometimes more practical, sometimes more theoretical)? Is there (and this is perhaps the direction I’d be most inclined to think in) some way to unite the practical and theoretical in a single approach?
I ask because I seldom feel uplifted by practical lessons (I think I change more when my thinking changes than when I make a goal or decide to do something). But I totally recognize that many (if not most) feel bored or frustrated by theoretical lessons (they perhaps feel that they change more when a goal is set, etc.). Any thoughts?
Rob Osborn said
That is a very different approach, but I like it! One thing about this first lesson I do not care much for is the general doctrine of “only a few will be saved in eternal life”. I think that doctrine misses the mark! To think that there will be a great many who do not come back to live with heavenly Father does injustice to God’s eternal plan through his son Jesus Christ! Book of Mormon prophets knew that “the few” would be the ones who didn’t make it back rather than the other way around. I think it also strange to call the plan of salvation the plan of “exaltation”. This gets confusing when discussing this lesson as it may be hard for some to differentiate between “salvation” (eternal life) & “eternal marriage” (exaltation). The plan of salvation requires one to be actively obedient to the laws and ordinances of the gospel whether in life or in death. Disobedience to theis plan in both life and death requires one to be sent to hell until he repents. The only way out of that punishment is obedience to the plan of salvation.
One of the hard times I have always had about lessons like these is that it makes out forgiveness of sins a thing of not for most people even though they repent. It is like making a mockery of Christ! For instance- If “all sins” are forgiven except for the unpardonable sins (sons of perdition) then they are remembered no more (D&C 58:42). So how then could one like a “telestial” be judged by the “worldly” sins he committed if they have been forgiven him? Is repentance truly not possible? Also, how would it be possible for Christ to save a person from the devil who repented not of his sins? Repentance of sins is only possible through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. For the rebellious wicked in spirit prison, this same gospel is preached to them and those who repent and show obedience to the house of the lord (temple) and are washed clean (by proxy in temples) receive a reward for their good works (D&C 138:31-34, 57-59). This doesn’t sound to me like they will be condemned to a low kingdom based on their sinful lives! In fact, because they are or will be (futurally speaking) cleansed from their sins, they too can be admitted back into the presence of the Father to live with him eternally. This plan rings more true with scriptures like Helaman 12:23-26, Alma 11:37-41, Mosiah 27:25-27, D&C 29:27-28, 43-45.
Anyway, sorry to deviate from your original intent but people should know for themselves.
Robert C. said
Rob #2: This is just my impression, not sure I can back this up, but I thought salvation generally refers in Mormondom as the notion of being saved from hell which I would guess (if pressed) includes Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial glories in D&C 76 terms (and I think this accords with “immortality”) whereas exaltation includes the idea of being like God as only they in the Celestial Kingdom will be (closely related to the ideas of eternal marriage and eternal life). Thus, generally speaking, I read “plan of salvation” as Christ’s overcoming death and hell for presumably everyone but those who go to outer darkness (this is what I think the BOM and NT focus on), but the “plan of exaltation” refers to something only a relatively few will enjoy.
Robert C. said
Joe #1: I think there needs to be a mix of theoretical and practical. I take the teaching manuals as inspired in that they try to help us make a link between the scriptural stories and sermons and our day-to-day lives. We’ve also had a push in our ward Elders Quorum to meet once a month in the three committees to focus more on the practical. I take it as a sign from God that I was called to chair the Perfecting the Saints committee–a sign that I need to focus more on the practical (since I tend to like the theoretical at the expense of the practical!). I’ve been thinking about this in light of the New Testament and the idea of the Father’s abstract love being made concrete (which I take as analogous to practical). Put differently, Christ’s incarnation and atonement is exactly God’s way of putting-into-practice his love for us. And so we, as the body of Christ, need to become the body of Christ, our lives need to embody his teachings, his love, etc. I also tend to think of this as being central in the temple: if the temple is the meeting place between heaven and earth, then each time we leave the temple we are to take that part of heaven with us back into the world–what else is consecration if not a putting-into-practice, incarnating, living, exemplifying God’s word?
Oops, got sidetracked, your point was about how to use class-time, not whether praxis is important (thanks for letting me use you as my strawman..). I don’t really have an answer for how class time is best used, so I just try to follow instructions I find in the manuals I teach from. I also was quite impressed when I read a rough-draft manuscript of Terry Warner’s Bonds that Make us Free in a class I took from him. I think he has a gift for taking theoretical ideas and showing how they apply in very common day-to-day situations.
On another theoretical note, this is what first interested me in Continental philosophy. Actually my first taste of this approach was reading Dostoevsky who I think brilliantly shows through his characters the danger of becoming too analytically abstract and theoretical. Raskolnikov’s very name, meaning “schismatic,” captures this idea: his grand extraordinary man theory is not so much undermined philosophically, but through the concrete events of his life. (I think The Brothers Karamazov is a better example, but harder to explain, and I should stop now….)
My point is that I am becoming more and more convinced that time at church focusing on the practical is time well spent. At the same time, I think any focus on the practical should be properly motivated and framed theoretically.
Rob Osborn said
Robert #3,
Too even define it more- the plan of salvation saves one from death and hell. This is manifest in a life of obedience to the laws and ordinances. If one dies in his sins, all is not lost though. This is where the gospel gets pretty tricky because we know that those who die in their sins will be taught the gospel again in the spirit world and be able to accept it there. But the gospel itself is the saving ordinances for the Celestial kingdom. So now we have a contradiction. This can only be explained in light of our interpretation of the glories may not be the correct interpretation! In the temple, it is taught that we progress throught the gloroius worlds in order to come back into the fathers presence in the Celestial kingdom. This is tricky stuff because we picture the glorious worlds or kingdoms as separate spheres in the eternities when in fact, according to the temple, all of the kingdoms- the Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial are all the same world, just at different times in their progression. Like right now we are in the Telestial kingdom or telestial world. In this light, if it is true, then in the end there really is only to places to dwell- the kingdom of god (celestial kingdom) or the kingdom of the devil (outer darkness).
The doctrine of repentance and baptism is paramount to salvation. And by that I mean “any” kind of salvation (saved from death and hell). But you see, as one is or becomes saved through the atonement, they naturally become “heirs”- sons and daughters in the kingdom of god. This is where the statement from the Lord is manifest in Mosiah 27:25-27. Read it carefully because it speaks of “all mankind”, and the consequences of repentance or unrepentance.
Joe Spencer said
Rob #5,
I’ve never heard someone interpret this particular aspect of the endowment in this particular way. I suppose your interpretive approach could be called “literal,” even “fundamentalist” (in a totally non-derrogatory manner), if it weren’t for the fact that the some-planets-are-resurrected-to-one-glory-and-others-to-another doctrine were far more fundamentalist in its own peculiar way. In the end, I really like the approach you’ve taken, though I know that any appropriation I make of it will radically alter it.
Your comments certainly point to the necessity of discussing the place of D&C 76 and its interpretation. I’ve wrestled with how to understand “The Vision” for a long time. It is interesting to me that most of the early saints disliked it or disregarded it (if I’m justified in trusting Grant Underwood on the point) until Joseph made his 1844 comments on the subject (twelve years after the revelation). And it is further interesting to me that it plays such a fundamental role in the temple, regardless of that initial discomfort among the saints. Of the most interest of all is the fact that so much of the language of D&C 76 is wrapped up in the project of the JST (it was itself received while Joseph and Sidney were at work on the translation). This is a detail I don’t know exactly how to think about yet (mostly because I’ve not taken the time yet to unravel how all of the connections tie into the JST). But I think it does call for further work to be done on “The Vision.”
Perhaps Matthew is right that we ought to have a blog on this subject….
Robert C. said
Rob #5: Interesting thoughts. My sense is that many if not most of the regulars at the New Cool Thang blog think along the lines that you’re suggesting–I think I even read someone arguing that we will all eventually end up in either the Celestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness (here and here are two monster threads that likely address this…).
Regarding “inheriting the Kingdom of God,” it seems to me we could think about different types of inheritance just like we think about different kingdoms of glory. In fact, I think this may be what gives the phrase “Church of the Firstborn” significance in the D&C: not only can we become reborn as sons and daughters in Christ through baptism, but we can also “earn” the additional rights traditionally bestowed on the firstborn (a double-portion of inheritance as well as leadership rights).
Robert C. said
(Joe #6: I’m not really hip-to-the-blog-scene, so I double checked here: if I understand right, you and Matthew mean we should devote a post or thread, which is a series of posts, to this heaven-hell topic, not an entire blog. Sorry to be pedantic, I just figure if we want to earn any blog credibility, we should learn the lingo!)
Rob Osborn said
Joe,
What is interesting about Grant Underwood’s paper- “Saved or Damned: Tracing a persistent Protestantism in Early Mormon Thought” is that He relies heavily on the definition of “damnation” from Bruce R. McConkie as being anything less than exaltation in the highest degree of glory in the CK. Not only is this the wrong definition, it has led the whole of us into a train of thought that enables us to think that one can be both damned and saved at the same time. He goes on to say that up until the vision was revealed, the saved or damned doctrine was prevailant in Joseph’s thoughts and words. The question I have is that why then have a further “damned or saved” revelation almost 5 years later from Joseph Smith’s hand (D&C 112:29)? The only answer I have been able to come up with is that Joseph saw the word “damned” or “damnation” much the same way as the rest of christianity which meant to be condemned to endless torment or to be delivered up to the devil- both of which is the state of the wicked in hell. So, if that assumption is correct, Grant Underwood is wrong in his assumption that the “saved or damned” doctrine was replaced by section 76 from a doctrinally correct standpoint. What has happened though is just like he says though that we now hold 76 as taking presidence over the “saved or damned” doctrine. It all gets very confusing really. There are over a 100 separate instances in our scriptures, many of which come from the Book of Mormon itself that teach of the saved or damned doctrine- some of which come from the Lord’s lips himself. So does section 76 supercede the saved or damned doctrine? It shouldn’t.
If you are interested in doing a little word study, you will find some amazing anomalies in section 76 if taken from our typical interpretation of the final assignment to glorious worlds view. I will give you one of several of the anomalies- Start in verses 40-43, these verses describe all those who get “saved” (from death and hell). One of the interesting points here is that it describes “all” except for the sons of perdition. “All” of these are washed clean (baptism-rebirth into spiritual life) verse 41-42. Verse 43 is signifacant in that when viewed alongside articles of faith 3-4 it fits perfectly. Also Christ “glorifies the father”, and what is it mean to glorify father? Read Moses 1:39. Immortality and Eternal life to the saved is what glorifies father. These two gifts coupled together are only possible in the Celestial Kingdom of God. There are many scriptural references made about the “saved” receiving eternal life on the right hand of god.
Also, you mentioned the JST which brings up another anomaly. Look in D&C 76:17, this is a retranslation of John 5:29. What makes this unique though, is that there are Book of Mormon passages that mimick John 5:29 almost exactly in wording, look at Mosiah 16:11, 3 Nephi 26:5, they have the same wording and meaning as John 5:29. So does this mean that the JST of John 5:29 can be viewed in different ways and is not necessarily a retranslation, or does it mean that the BoM needs further clarification, or does it just mean nothing?
Just a few mysteries!
Joe Spencer said
Wow, I see I should have explained some of references to things a bit better.
First, let me say, Rob, that what is intriguing me in your comments (#5) is not that you return to a saved-damned distinction (I’ve found that among other LDS thinkers), but that you suggest the three degrees of glory to be “only” a series of progressive states as they are presented in the temple. This is what I am taking as food for thought.
As far as Grant Underwood, I was referring to his historical, not doctrinal work. I’m not familiar with the paper you cited. I was referring to his book _The Millennarian World of Early Mormonism_. He doesn’t comment on doctrine replacing doctrine, just on the reaction of most early saints to section 76 (a negative reaction).
As for the JST, John 5:29 is actually the least of what is interesting of the JST references. Much more interesting to me is the Book of Moses stuff, the obvious references to the flood destruction and the Enochic vision of the atonement, etc.
In short: I have for a long time thought that the saved-damned dichotomy is key to everything (in other words: I have long felt as you have). But I have never quite known how to deal with section 76 (I am too loyal to Joseph Smith to throw it out in any way). Before your temple reading of the subject, I had found only three avenues for re-thinking the weight of that section, though I had not settled on any one of them being particularly better than the others: (1) it might be taken as bound up with the JST project as a whole, in which case it can only be interpreting within the broader scope of that project; (2) it might be taken as trying to articulate a New Testament theology of sorts, because of its profound New Testament grounding; or (3) it might be read as describing three orders of angelic beings in the heavens, as one finds in Rev 4-5, etc. You have added a fourth, and one I’d like to take up quite seriously.
As far as the ultimate dichotomy goes, I totally agree with everything you’ve said. I might have said the same things to argue the same point.
Rob Osborn said
Robert,
Thanks for bringing up those threads, I have checked into them and there is a lot of interesting views out there. You brought up the church of the firstborn. It interesting that I have been thinking along those lines for a while. I came to the conclusion that certainly everyone who is saved in the end are the very members of the church of the firstborn. Look at D&C 93:22, the key is that those who “are begotten through me” are members of the church of the firstborn. To “not be born again” through the savior finds one outside of being “saved”! Look at Mosiah 27:25-27 & Moses 6:59.
I believe that in the end, we will either be saved into the Celestial Kingdom or be cast out. I know it sounds like a strange doctrine but coupled with the scriptures, it must be true. I believe the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms have an end. The two lower kingdoms purpose is to advance mankind and perfect him in order for him to have eternal life in the Fathers presence. This is where the temple language really comes into play. Have people really stopped long enough to ponder the meaning of the temples teachings? Everyone says their not telestial beings and yet all of us since Adam have come into the Telestial world (temple language) in order to prove ourselves worthy to advance into the Terrestrial world (Millennial reign of Christ) whereupon we learn to perfect ourselves and learn to live with an eye single to the glory of God. We wouldn’t even need the terrestrial world if we really could become “perfect” while in mortality. The problem is though, we can’t- life is too short and Satan has too much power.
Is it no wonder that Christ comes to the earth to reign in order to “perfect” the work father gave him to do? And who or what does Christ perfect during his terrestrial reign? Us, those who are found worthy of this kingdom of glory(Christ’s presence). All of the terrestrial inhabitants minus a few sons of perdition perhaps (?) at the end of the kingdom, will be “perfected” and be presented to the father spotless and cleansed from all sin. The individuals who are perfected are those who are truly begotten through Christ becoming his sons and daughters- heirs to the kingdom, and members of the church of the firstborn!
Rob Osborn said
Joe,
Thanks, I usually m not well received in my views even though I have studied it out for years and years and even created my own blog to discuss the issues. Even my own views have drastically changed since I first started writing on my blog (rock of salvation). Want another interesting little tidbit? Look at D&C 76:88 (telestial “heirs” of salvation) and compare it with D&C 7:6 & Hebrews 1:14. The obvious question arises if they are not all talking of the same subject and same people. If they are, then another anomaly arises in our current teachings. Now with this in mind, the teaching of righteous telestial beings being ministered to, which in fact is probably us who are seeking the Lord right now, let’s look at the other side of telestial beings- the wicked ones. Are there both righteous and wicked telestial beings in the glorious world? There are both wicked and righteous who dwell on this glorious earth right now. Look at D&C 76:85, 103. These wicked beings are in direct opposite states of those who are being ministered to by the holiest of angels (John the beloved). In fact, a simple word study will find that these souls are at the other end of the spectrum in the telestial world (our world), they will go on to become sons of perdition and die the second death. Notice how in verses 106-107 it mentions these wicked as “enemies” and not part of the work Christ came into the world to perfect (cleanse from all unrighteousness). This hearks back to verses 40-44 where it defines those who Christ perfects through his atonement.
A little bit more of the mysteries!
Joe Spencer said
Rob (#12),
I really like all of this. Here’s an idea to bounce off of you and see if you’ve put any thought into this subject already. The traditional reading of D&C 131 is, of course, that the Celestial kingdom has three degrees within it. I have for a long time assumed that it is rather speaking of the “three degrees of glory” rather than three degrees within a particular degree. Might it then be read as a sort of corrective to D&C 76? That is, might it be read as suggesting that all “three degrees of glory” ultimately are celestialized (from telestial to terrestrial to celestial), but that there are different orders within the celestial kingdom? In other words, might it be read to say that within the celestial kingdom, there are three different kinds of beings (three different orders of the priesthood, perhaps)? It is significant to me that Joseph spoke of three orders of the priesthood (Aaronic/Levitical, Abrahamic, and Melchizedek), and that there seem to be three orders of priesthood in the typological roles of servant, son, and father. I don’t know what there may be to this, or whether it will bear fruit in the end, but I’d like to follow it out.
Rob Osborn said
I have thought of that before. It has always intrigued me that there are 3 glories within the CK. I don’t know if they are corrective of 76 or not though. Section 132 speaks of “celestial spirits” being raised with different glories, maybe that is the tie were looking for!
douglashunter said
Joe #1,
I am with you, I’m not a big fan of bringing out the pens and paper either. I have to admit that I had somthing of a conflict when I came up with this idea for the lesson. As a coach I am focused on changing behavior in order to help individuals reach their personal goals. The necessary changes are in an idividual’s understanding of, and conceptual approach to their behavior, the emotional framework around their behavior, and the execution of the behavior itself. The Kimball lesson does contain something of a call to action. Althought we Mormons don’t often talk about it in these terms, the lesson presentes the idea that we can and do (in specific ways) work out our own salvation (or exaltation). So I had to ask myself, why I don’t or wouldn’t want to apply some of the successful techniques I’ve used as a coach to presenting a lesson? Unfortunately, I think one of the reasons is the fear of rejection, or an unspoken understanding that we take it seriously, but not THAT seriously. In other words we may be engaging in exactly the laxity that Kimball addresses in a quote near the end of the lesson. So what to do? In this lesson I decided to experiment and spend most of the time on what is intended as a pragmatic activity. I’ll report back and let you know how it goes. As I am posting this, I think I am starting to develop an answer to your question about the balance between theoritical and the practical. If we are to be successful in our spiritual lives I think we need to undergo a similar process to that athletes go through. That is we need to be refining our conceptual approach and intellectual understanding, we need to strengthing ourselves emotionally and learn ways to handel negative emotions and foster positive emotions, finally we need to develop and refine high quality behavior. In my next lesson I think I will use this as the structuring element and see out ways of addressing each of these three realms in the context of the material presented.
Rob #1- I think that if one examines this lesson closely there may be some internal conflicts or at least areas of ambiguity. I think your comment is important because it suggests an area of the lesson that people may have some difficulty with, this being the distinction between salvation and exaltation. As Kimball put it, its the difference between being assigned to live in a kingdom and being able to become a God and live in the family unit. This lesson definately puts the emphasis on the idea that many (most?) of us won’t make it to exaltation. But it rases questions as well; we understand sealing as being for time and all eternity but Kimball’s words imply that this would only be the case for those who become exalted. So what happens to those individuals / families that are not exalted?
There is a lot more here to comment on, think about, but I just can’t keep up with you guys!
Joe Spencer said
Doug, thanks for your response. I’ll be interested to hear what you have to report after you teach on Sunday. My own response to the practical/theoretical question in teaching has been to treat the lesson situation itself as the most practical moment of all: we are there, seeking out God in a very real way, and in the most practical terms, we are seeking a very real, practical experience. Curiously, the whole experience is cast in the language of the theoretical. But I realize that this is very much my Hegelian bent (translated in the plain English: I’m uncomfortable with distinctions like the distinction between the practical and the theoretical, and so it makes me uncomfortable when a teacher asks how we can apply a particular lesson, because to ask the question assumes that the lesson experience itself is entirely theoretical, rather than an embodiment of the theoretical in the most practical situation of all). I’ll be interested in your follow-up. Perhaps you should post your reflections after Sunday’s quorum meeting as a separate thread, and we can take up this question of the theoretical/practical more directly?
douglashunter said
Joe #16 “I’m uncomfortable with distinctions like the distinction between the practical and the theoretical, and so it makes me uncomfortable when a teacher asks how we can apply a particular lesson, because to ask the question assumes that the lesson experience itself is entirely theoretical . . .”
I like this point a lot. I’ll have to think about it some more before responding.
Robert C. said
Joe #16: I also like what you say about the classroom experience being practical. On the other hand, I think it makes sense to ponder what it means to “live a Christ-like life” outside of the classroom, and outside of prayer, meditation, and study. For example, to think about what it means to be Christ-like in relationships with family, friends, work-mates, etc. My sense in my own life and interacting with others is that oftentimes it is easy to overlook the connection between, say, “loving our neighbor” and getting impatient with my wife when she forgot to do something we agreed she would do. Here’s how Dostoevsky puts in in the Brothers K. (since I’m on a D. kick lately):
Rob Osborn said
douglas,
I think the problems are more paramount to think in terms of why even have people sealed to each other if the majority of them wouldn’t want it? I don’t think this way, I personally think that once you cut through all the hardships of life and things get worked out in the end, people will want to be with their families and spouses eternally. And if they have been forgiven of all their sins, what could possibly stand in their way of achieving that?
Have you ever noticed how as people grow older they really begin to become dependant on an etrnal or long term comapnion relationship? I believe that it is just natural for the most part to fit the part that we were made for. People just are not happy by themselves. They thrive in family relationships. There really is nowhere in the scriptures that teach of only a few making it that far. Section 132 probably comes the closest, but even then I still think it is still way misunderstood. To think that someone could live righteously outside of a family relationship for billions of years is totally godless in my opinion!
Brooke said
Doug: Thanks for this lesson summary and teaching idea. I ended up using the “Christlike Attributes” list from the “Preach My Gospel” manual from which the sisters in Relief Society could do a self-assessment.
Matthew said
Thanks Doug for your lesson notes. I just got asked at the last minute to teach EQ today so these come in handy.
A trivial point–going forward I think we should label these with the same numbering as the book. So this would be lesson 1.