Talk:D&C 131:1-8

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

I believe the most obvious reading of this scripture says that once you obtain a degree lower than the highest, you cannot increase to the highest. Here's the scripture with what I thnk is implied in parentheses.

  • 1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
  • 2 And in order to obtain the highest (degree), 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 (the highest degree).
  • 4 He may enter into the other (degrees), but that (degree) is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

So when it says "that is the end of his kingdom", I believe Joseph is referring to the degree obtained. Then the next line is qualified by the first. The idea that "he" cannot have an increase seems to be an extension of the idea that "his" kingdom has come to an end. He cannot have an increase = he cannot progress. Or in other words, damnation.

Can you be damned to the Celestial Kingdom? --Mjberkey 03:35, 11 July 2007 (CEST)

I'm not sure I can support this with scripture, but suppose you can be damned at any point in your eternal progression. I also think its important to note that there is no temporal conditions alluded to here; we can't know if this "end of his kingdom" is a permanent or temporary condition. So while I think this passage means that to have "increase"=eternal posterity, one has to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. I'm not sure it says much that can be generalized beyond that.--Rob Fergus 01:00, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Interesting, I think you've convinced me. Are you saying that verse 3 could be read more clearly saying "And until he does, he cannot obtain it"? --Mjberkey 02:43, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

I think that's one way to read it. Though perhaps there are some who will choose not to ever enter into that order of the priesthood, for whatever reason?--Rob Fergus 01:15, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

Mjberkey, Rob, others, please take a look at my write up of your thoughts on the commentary page and edit to correct. Thanks, Matthew

Looks good to me. --RobertC 11:33, 16 July 2007 (CEST)

Doesn't Christ teach in Matt 22:23-30 that in the resurrection marriages are no longer performed? --Mjberkey 21:24, 18 July 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps Jesus wasn't providing a universal statement about marriage and resurrection, but merely responding to the question of what would happen to the Sadducees who at the time were not currently heirs of exaltation.--Rob Fergus 20:05, 19 July 2007 (CEST)