- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always been taught that it’s only if we achieve the Celestial Kingdom that we will be with our families forever. Heck, I’ve taught that when I was presenting a lesson on the 3 Degrees of Glory. And oddly enough, during a Gospel Doctrine lesson on the creation of the earth, it suddenly occurred to me that that can’t possibly be true. After all, even the Telestial Kingdom is supposed to be better than the earth we live on now – and in this imperfect, mortal earth we live together as families. There is no possible way that the Telestial and Terrestial Kingdoms can be better than what we have right now if our mortal families are going to be split up. Basically, the other degrees of glory are no glory at all if we can’t be with our families. There is the CK and there is outer darkness and there is nothing in between. And I don’t know that the “eternal families only for the CK” is necessarily doctrine. It’s true that the Terrestrial/Telestial Kingdoms don’t have the promise that you will become like God (which only applies to men anyway 
now. We are always told that families are an eternal principle and the building blocks of God’s plan of salvation. I think either families are eternal or they aren’t. If families are that important, then they don’t simply exist as a way to ‘reward’ the maybe 1 percent of people who will ‘earn’ the highest degree of glory in the CK. (I’ve been thinking a lot about the way we view spouses/families as ‘rewards,’ particularly with regard to the way we teach the Law of Chastity to youth. My husband fervently believed that if he didn’t masturbate, didn’t look at porn, and served a mission, the Lord would ‘reward’ him with a faithful, attractive, virginal wife. I don’t think he’s at all unusual in holding that belief.) After all, a faithful Protestant man or a faithful Jewish man or a faithful atheist man may love and respect his wife and care for his children and I’ve got to think that counts for something in God’s eyes. That has to count as ‘keeping the first estate’ in some way. I don’t see God taking away families from people who tried their best and fell short, not if families are that important to God.
I laid this all out to DH over the dinner table and his eyes glazed over a little but he thought I had some good points. (He’s definitely still in an adjustment period regarding the New Joni.) I’m a little bit proud of myself here – I identified a point of possibly-doctrine that doesn’t make sense to me, I rejected it and substituted a version that makes more sense in my mind.
🙂 Joni, Very interesting take on the subject, and your conclusion seems reasonable. I know people – probably many of us – who simply don’t want to exist in any condition without their loved ones. I think unofficial doctrine is that people from higher kingdoms can visit those in lower kingdoms, but that seems rather hollow, sort of like visiting someone in prison.
I’ve thought about this subject before, but in a slightly more crude way. Only people in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom will get to have sex because that’s the only place where there are married people, right? And only married people will get to have sex in the eternities because we’ll all be obedient (or maybe will have to be obedient). Forbidding sex for eternity, except for the 1percenters, seems like a good way to have another rebellion in heaven.
Roadrunner wrote:Joni,
Very interesting take on the subject, and your conclusion seems reasonable. I know people – probably many of us – who simply don’t want to exist in any condition without their loved ones. I think unofficial doctrine is that people from higher kingdoms can visit those in lower kingdoms, but that seems rather hollow, sort of like visiting someone in prison.
My husband brought this up too. I wonder if maybe the kingdoms are not actual geographical locations at all but metaphors. I wonder if it’s more like the military, where you have enlisted, NCOs, and officers and they all intermingle because things won’t work if they don’t.
The TKs aren’t supposed to be like prisons – at least that’s not the way I read it in the D&C.
Quote:I’ve thought about this subject before, but in a slightly more crude way. Only people in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom will get to have sex because that’s the only place where there are married people, right? And only married people will get to have sex in the eternities because we’ll all be obedient (or maybe will have to be obedient). Forbidding sex for eternity, except for the 1percenters, seems like a good way to have another rebellion in heaven.
This is a really good point! And it begs the question, why would God resurrect
everyoneif only the top 1 percent gets to have sex? Everyone that’s ever lived gets to be reunited with a physical body. But what’s the point of having a physical body if you can’t have sex? I can’t imagine what a resurrected being would needa physical body for if not for sex. I’ve adopted the mindset that we have practically zero idea about what the afterlife will be like. It’s so full of logical contridictions and unknowns that there’s just no way to have a meaningful dialogue that isn’t full of caveats. That wouldn’t make a very fulfilling or interesting gospel doctrine lesson: “we basically don’t know jack about the afterlife so let’s just don’t talk about it” but that’s really how I view it. That’s not to belittle the question, though. I think the idea of a celestial kingdom where we get to live as families was one of Joseph Smith’s bold ideas that has helped build interest in the church, and which differentiates us from others. The notion that we will be productive beings, not sitting around playing harps for eternity while worshipping God holds a lot of appeal. Maybe that’s what you’re getting at Joni – JS’s core idea – that God loves us enough to let us have families for eternity is what’s important.
For many years I held the same views as Joni’s husband. If I’m worthy enough and live every single commandment, I might just have hope of the celestial kingdom. I was guilt ridden and full of anxiety, and I still feel the aftereffects of it today. Also agree that holding out a beautiful, virginal wife as a potential eternal reward holds a lot of power.
I think LDS theology is most coherent if we think of the Telestial/Terrestrial/Celestial Kingdoms as being not physically, but spiritually separated. If they are separate kingdoms, occupying separate space, then there would be the best person that just wasn’t quite good enough to qualify for the Terrestrial Kingdom, so got consigned to the TelK, and the person that is just ever so slightly more qualified to be in the TerrK. The former would be with all the really bad people, and the latter would be with really good people. But when you are talking about billions of people, all along an analog scale, how could the assignment to kingdoms have only three discreet choices? Thinking about it as spiritual separation, then we would all be together, but there would be different personal levels of closeness to godliness, just like in this life. The higher kingdoms would be more glorious not because of the material that makes up the paving stones in the streets, but because of inner happiness. This also fits better with the concept of eternal progression. It doesn’t really makes sense to think about being promoted from the TerrK to the CelK physically, because, again, with so many individuals involved, the difference from one to the other would have to be paper thin… meaning that some days you might be promoted to the CelK in the morning, but moved back to the TerrK before supper.
This concept is already explicitly spelled out by the varying degrees within the CelK. I just think that the model can be used to explain the whole thing.
Hi Joni, I think you’re onto something, and I can imagine an all wise & loving HF looking down and smiling at your efforts to figure out how these things work. :thumbup: As far as I can tell this teaching started with D&C 131:
Quote:In the Celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]
Back in the day this was clearly understood as plural marriage, today it is interpreted as a temple sealing – and then further interpreted as only in this degree of heaven do the sealing ordinances apply. When I read the old journals I get the impression that they looked for exaltation and multiplying glories and crowns and kingdoms etc. I see it as a cultural thing that applied a little more to their day than to ours. We have more of a sense that if we want to exalt ourselves above our neighbor that is a sign of pride or weakness of the natural man.
But anyway I agree if the “lower kingdoms” are better than mortal life they certainly won’t separate families more than this life does. To me it is all about love. If we can grow in love that is the force that will bind our families together and God will not separate them. To me the sealing ordinances are symbolic of the love that is the real binding force. Some checklist following families don’t like spending time together, and I can’t see how that would suddenly change as they pass through the veil. I don’t think an ordinance guarantees “together forever”, I don’t think we teach that it does, and we agree that everyone will at least have a chance to receive any ordinances they may need. There is so much we don’t know, I simply don’t worry about popular opinion on the topic today. The love of God will rule in the end.
Great post, Joni, and I agree with the comments of others, too. I love posts like this where we can think and share our similar perspectives. I have always wondered how exactly we would be kept separate in these other kingdoms. For instance, if both my wife and I, and maybe other relatives, are consigned to the Terrestrial Kingdom, which is better that the Telestial and better than here, then how are families kept apart? If it’s better than here, we can’t be physically separated because we’re not physically separated here unless we want to be. I’m very much like Roadrunner in that I have come to believe that we know so little about the afterlife that we can really only speculate. And it’s probably not worth speculating about with so little information. Really, we could make up anything and make it fit what we know. If the center of the gospel is love – and I believe it is – then how can love be separated? I do buy into the idea of being with God and being Godlike, but I don’t “know” it to be true – I only hope it might be. Frankly I’m not sure I want to be like God anyway.
Joni, How can the same sociality exist in the next life as exists here (D&C 130:2) if we are not together?
According to the temple endowment, you are currently in the telestial world.
According to Joseph Smith, Enoch (a godly man if ever there were), is now in the terrestrial world. (TPJS)
According to Brigham Young, this earth will be the home to ALL its former inhabitants once it is cleansed and celestialized.
At no point in the endowment are less valiant participants separated out to lesser kingdoms.
We all must pass through various stages of development – it’s a divine metamorphosis.
This doesn’t deny agency – it simply means that as our light and knowledge grow, God knows how to entice us toward the good. This also explains why telestial beings cannot go where Gods are. (D&C 76:112) To say otherwise would be like suggesting caterpillars could fly without first inhabiting the chrysalis.
Mormon doctrine is beautifully universalist and compares with Eastern Orthodoxy which likewise sees three stages of development: katharsis, theoria, theosis. St. John Climacus also saw progression as “The Ladder of Divine Ascent”, comparable to Joseph Smith’s comments about progression being a ladder to be climbed rung by rung and exaltation upon exaltation.
My .02
MnG
My husband, who is as TBM as they come (although he did wear a sweater instead of a suit jacket to church yesterday! Progress!) has often said that if the CK is anything like the Celestial Room of the temple, he doesn’t want it. I think it’s mainly all the whispering he is uncomfortable with (DH is hearing impaired and the temple can be a real struggle for him) but maybe it’s the weird outfits or the uncomfortable chairs or the fact that the thermostat is always set to freezing. I can’t imagine the CK being THAT much like the celestial room. It’s too quiet, and there are no children. I don’t want exaltation if it’s a bunch of standing around in a spotless white room without any children.
The idea of the different kingdoms being a spiritual separation makes a lot of sense to me. Kind of like here on earth, we’re all here together and we can visit each other whenever we want. But only temple recommend holders get to be in the temple (God’s presence). In fact, for the most part only those who WANT to be there will go there anyway. I have often heard that hell is more of a state than a place—a state of guilt and pain where the thought of being in God’s presence makes one shrink way. So maybe the afterlife doesn’t have any physical walls at all—the only barriers will be those created by our own desires and knowledge. Not sure what I really think about all that, but it’s good to consider. Like Roadrunner and DarkJedi, I feel there’s so little that’s concrete about the afterlife and so much contradiction in what we supposedly do know that it’s almost pointless to speculate, and that makes it hard for me to be motivated by so-called eternal rewards when I can hardly understand them in the first place. I can see how a concrete, physical separation or togetherness in the afterlife makes it easier to motivate people and make the purpose of their lives seem clearer. But it doesn’t hold up very well under deep scrutiny. It does make me start to feel like all the ordinances don’t matter as long as you are living with love.
Daeruin wrote:It does make me start to feel like all the ordinances don’t matter as long as you are living with love.
FWIW, I believe that ordinances do matter, but not in the way we normally look at them. I doubt strongly that God would say, “Gee, I’m sorry, St. Frances. You lived an exemplary life, and cared for others, prayed earnestly… everything about you screams Celestial Kingdom, but I just can’t let you in, because you were never baptized… at least not by proper authority and at the age of accountability.” But, you of course will counter with baptism for the dead. Fine. it is, in fact, something I love about LDS teaching is that ALL will have the “opportunity”, but then that begs the question of why require something that ALL will have anyway. Your head could spin thinking about he paradoxes.So, no, I don’t believe we need ordinances as something required by God. But I do believe, 100%, that ordinances and rites are helpers in our spiritual progression. We do these things to elevate our commitment to God and to invite His Spirit into our realm. Baptism, Mass, Torah Reading, Endowment, Eucharist, Salat. IMO, these things are more about stepping up our own spirituality than they are Godly checkboxes.
Orson wrote:As far as I can tell this teaching started with D&C 131:
Quote:In the Celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]
Back in the day this was clearly understood as plural marriage, today it is interpreted as a temple sealing – and then further interpreted as only in this degree of heaven do the sealing ordinances apply. When I read the old journals I get the impression that they looked for exaltation and multiplying glories and crowns and kingdoms etc. I see it as a cultural thing that applied a little more to their day than to ours.
+ 1
This makes perfect sense in the context of polygamy and increasing the size of one’s dominion. It is also very man centric as women seem to be part of the man’s dominion.
On Own Now wrote:So, no, I don’t believe we need ordinances as something required by God. But I do believe, 100%, that ordinances and rites are helpers in our spiritual progression. We do these things to elevate our commitment to God and to invite His Spirit into our realm. Baptism, Mass, Torah Reading, Endowment, Eucharist, Salat. IMO, these things are more about stepping up our own spirituality than they are Godly checkboxes.
I am just reaching that same place OON. I have struggled a bit with the whole ordinance idea seeing as how the core of the gospel in my view is “love God” and “Love they neighbor.” I really don’t believe Gandhi, for example, will be barred from reaching the CK just because he wasn’t LDS and no one did his temple work. And, I really can’t fathom us doing unending temple work for 1000 years to redeem the billions who have or will have lived – many of whom we have no record of. Seriously, if that’s what the millennium is going to be like I’d rather find something else to do.
I have always been of the opinion that we cannot know what the next life holds and it will be God who judges us and puts us where we’re most comfortable. Unfortunately this has gotten me trouble in the past as TBM’s argue who goes where. Recently (probably since marrying a NM) the doctrine of families are only eternal in the CK has really bothered me. It also bothers me that only those who receive the ordinances in this life can be gods. I haven’t found a way to deal with this yet. The cynical part of me thinks that the whole kingdom thing was thought up by JS as a way of ensuring members would do ordinances and (at that time) participate in polygamy From mackay11’s Quote of the Day thread: Quote:“Our Heavenly Father is far more merciful, infinitely more charitable than even the best of his servants. And the Everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend.” (Orson F. Whitney – General Conference April 1924)
I don’t get hung up on questions of exclusivity, since I believe God has “all eternity” to accomplish the mission of blessing his children. We see through a glass, darkly. That says it all for me.
Finally, fwiw, I see the degrees of glory as stages in eternal progression through which all but the knowingly rebellious (those who would look God in the eye and swing their fists) will pass eventually. I don’t see them as destinations – except in the sense of being conditions that last as long as they need to last to get us to the next stage.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.