Happiness in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Anonymous]

A reality for many Mormon parents is that some of their children “wander from the path.” They are faced with the prospect that even though they may live lives that earn them a place in the Celestial Kingdom, their child may not. As I consider my love for my own children, it occurred to me that if I was a member of the Celestial Kingdom and my child was not, my happiness would be somewhat tainted by that fact. If my son committed a crime and was sent to jail, I would suffer even while knowing that this is where he deserved to be. Or if my child was living in some remote part of the world and I could only see him or her occasionally, I would miss them. And yet, we are promised eternal joy with our loved ones as part of our reward in the CK. But many of our loved ones won’t be there. Will that joy be complete? WIth all the emphasis in the Church on eternal family, how can we square this with the fact that some of us won’t be with our families? Any thoughts?

[Anonymous]

cog dis.

I have no answers.

[Anonymous]

Gerald wrote:

how can we square this with the fact that some of us won’t be with our families? Any thoughts?

I think there’s been a slow and dysfunctional drift over time in Mormonism in the direction of interpreting the symbolism of afterlife “kingdoms” as literal, physical locations with boundaries. I know completely what you are talking about. This is the common way to visualize the three kingdoms in our post-life cosmology. Just the mere act of calling them “kingdoms” in our language brings up imagery of medieval cities with buildings (“mansions”) all clustered together inside a fortified, defensive wall. There are those inside the wall, and those left out in the cold and danger outside the city wall.

I would strongly argue though that it isn’t the only way to visualize the transcendent concepts Joseph was “revealing” as a “prophet.”

The whole mess immediately brings up feelings of instinctual separation anxiety when any relationship deviates outside of our highly idealized (unrealistic and impractical) view of being sealed together as families, and of being a citizen of the Celestial Kingdom. Heck, even having citizen papers isn’t enough. There are three levels within the highest third level! 😯 So would you be separated even from others within the CK?

It is helpful to me to see this as a VERY incomplete attempt to describe something of great spiritual significance in the afterlife. It is a human’s attempt (Joseph Smith) to describe something that is far beyond our ability to get our heads wrapped around. We can’t even prove we exist after we die, let alone precisely define what we all do FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER in that continuing existence. Any activity, even the most happy and pleasurable, done for a long enough period of time becomes torturous. So what is the afterlife really like? What are we going to be doing in a BILLION years? Nobody can really get their mortal mind wrapped around that. Let’s face it. Being a king or queen and making babies for a couple billion years probably gets boring at some point. I’m just harping on that to make my point. Joseph Smith maybe was given a cool story. It could even be literal revelation from God, but it isn’t even close to a complete answer. If there is an afterlife, and there is an answer, it would be like a human scientist trying to explain to a banana slug what it’s like to live and work at the Large Hadron Super-Collider in Switzerland.

Here’s a better analogy IMO for the afterlife “kingdoms”: Picture them as levels of college degrees. You and your family can all live together in the dorms. You can all enjoy each others’ company. Some family members are working on a Masters Degree, and some are working on a PhD. Whatever we do in this life gets us admission to “the program” in the afterlife. Some people might have made more progress in this life and are placed in the PhD program because that is best for them. Others might be placed in the Masters program. Some might be placed in the Bachelors undergraduate program. You can all have conversations about any topic. You can all hang out in the common areas or attend classes together. But people will have different perspectives based on how far along in “the program” they are at. The good news is you have ALL OF ETERNITY to finish the program and get to the goal.

I am just making up a different story. Joseph Smith made up one story. It’s a good one. It works up to a point. But both of our stories break down if you start to take them too literally. We don’t actually go to college when we die! We also don’t move into a medieval walled city full of mansions with servants, and have sex and make infinite babies when we die.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Gerald wrote:

how can we square this with the fact that some of us won’t be with our families? Any thoughts?

I think there’s been a slow and dysfunctional drift over time in Mormonism in the direction of interpreting the symbolism of afterlife “kingdoms” as literal, physical locations with boundaries.

I don’t know about the drift part. I’m 66 and literal is the only way I’ve ever heard it preached. Of course that’s part of the problem. We’ve little information to go on and then people flesh it out with their opinions as they go along and before you know it it’s doctrine of the conventional wisdom sort. The most recent seems to be the “no empty chair at the table” talk.

Quote:

I am just making up a different story. Joseph Smith made up one story. It’s a good one. It works up to a point. But both of our stories break down if you start to take them too literally.

I voiced my frustration about this whole business on SD’s thread about temple marriage. I’m still sealed to my first wife and kids, two which I’m estranged from. Assuming I don’t go to Hell like she said I was going to, where is it that we’ll all end up? Reproducing and world creating seem doubtful. I think JS should have thought it through a bit more. Way too many loose ends.

[Anonymous]

I think we tend to take the church way too seriously and way too literally. At least I did for a long time — much too long. I am trying to concentrate on the here and now with the hope that the hereafter will take care of itself.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

I don’t know about the drift part. I’m 66 and literal is the only way I’ve ever heard it preached. Of course that’s part of the problem. We’ve little information to go on and then people flesh it out with their opinions as they go along and before you know it it’s doctrine of the conventional wisdom sort.

Yeah, I think I may have worded that wrong. I think we have slowly forgotten over time that this was all symbolic. Most endowed members today have on clue how the ceremonies developed. It’s my opinion that many members in the Nauvoo era must have had a different view. Freemasonry was very popular. Many were freemasons, and would have immediately understood that context and the symbolism. That’s my opinion.

But as time went on, fewer and fewer people were around to remember how it all formed up, and then add to that the secrecy nature of even talking about the rituals … and you end up with cultural amnesia within two or three generations.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

I think there’s been a slow and dysfunctional drift over time in Mormonism in the direction of interpreting the symbolism of afterlife “kingdoms” as literal, physical locations with boundaries. I know completely what you are talking about. This is the common way to visualize the three kingdoms in our post-life cosmology. Just the mere act of calling them “kingdoms” in our language brings up imagery of medieval cities with buildings (“mansions”) all clustered together inside a fortified, defensive wall. There are those inside the wall, and those left out in the cold and danger outside the city wall.

GBSmith wrote:

We’ve little information to go on and then people flesh it out with their opinions as they go along and before you know it it’s doctrine of the conventional wisdom sort. The most recent seems to be the “no empty chair at the table” talk.

For what it is worth, we have the same imagery of the Paradise / Prison divide. Remember the uncrossable gulf that Jesus Himself had to bridge. Once after leaving conference and being moved by the words of GBH, I saw people out mowing their lawns etc. I was struck by how separated we are in our worldviews, yet we can mingle and interact – I felt that things could be similar after this life as we know them to be in mortality (surely God is not dependant on a Berlin wall concept to keep order in the spirit world).

BY did have a counsellor by the name of Jedidiah that said that families would be divided in the spirit world but that was a looong time ago. The BOM itself and the new missionary “Preach My Gospel” manual both repeatedly refer to the “state” of happiness and the “state” of misery – not as a physical location but a “state.”

So if this same understanding could be applied to the post-resurrection realms, it could be much like Brian described. And there is some budding evidence that the modern church could be backing down from a literal “persons from a higher kingdom may visit those from a lower, but those from a lower may never visit those from a higher” and “no empty chairs” interpretation. I personally firmly believe my family to be a forever family – full stop – no qualifiers! and I believe this concept to be good for my family.

[Anonymous]

There was a thread over on BCC that ended up talking about the afterlife and how we view “the future”. I’m going to be lazy and just paste all of my relevant comments into one comment here. Sorry for the length:

Quote:

First, just to state my foundational principle with regard to this conversation (seeing the future), “We see through a glass, darkly.” There is almost nothing I reject as impossible, especially when we are talking about God.

To avoid the technical aspects of a conversation like this, what if we vastly underestimate God’s power to actualize an “at-one-ment” in the end and over-value every little choice we make at each moment “along the timeline” throughout the process?

With or without a mortal reincarnative element, what if what really counts is the growth and progression throughout all eternity – unbound by the time constraints we naturally envision?

In that framework, God can know the eventual outcome without removing our agency in the slightest – since our agency doesn’t affect the ultimate outcome as much as it does the length and specifics of the journey to get there.

All members might not agree with that, but it certainly isn’t incompatible with many of the scriptural pronouncements about God’s ultimate purpose in creating us.

Quote:

“it seems to imply progress between kingdoms”

#69 – Not really.

I believe that we won’t end up in a kingdom with fixed boundaries until we’ve progressed as much as we’re able to progress throughout “time” and “eternity” (and, if you notice, the missing word in what I just said is really instructive, imo) – so our “final judgment” will take a whole lot longer than most people assume. I’m not quite at the “everyone will be exalted in a celestial state” extreme – but I’m closer to that end of the spectrum than the “exalted few” camp.

Iow, I believe that the “time” between mortal death and entrance into a final kingdom is immensely longer than we tend to think – and that impacts our discussion of topics like this in a fundamental way.

There’s more than just that bare-bones outline, but it’s the main aspect that impacts how I see this topic.

Quote:

Let me add that I see the “kingdoms of glory” as much more “conditions of being” than “locations” – and that is the central principle that influences what I wrote above. I think our “glory” refers to the height of our progression – and I don’t believe God limits our progression in any way. I believe we grow and progress until we can’t grow and progress any more – and then, and only then, are we “assigned” a kingdom.

Thus, God can see the outcome (collectively and, perhaps, even individually) without impacting our agency in the slightest. That is true at the absolute level IF there is “progression between kingdoms” (or, phrased differently, if all endure to the highest end, no matter how long it takes – and the “kingdoms” simply describe the process of growth though which all pass and not unique, limited destinations).

I dont’ “know” any of this – but it feels and seems right to me at the moment.

Quote:

I think the prevalent view is that the “kingdoms” are locations inhabited by Beings of that specific condition. I don’t argue with that, necessarily; I just am open to the “lower kingdoms” being “stages of development toward the ultimate end” (the “highest kingdom”) – especially given the fact that the presentation of our journey that currently is used in the temple has us progressing through kingdoms until our eventual “end”. We already believe in that process during mortality (with the general belief that we won’t reach it fully in this life), so extending the “probationary” period as long as is necessary doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to me – especially for those people who have no legitimate chance to grow and progress much in mortality.

If we change “locations” to “destinations” (like I used in the 2nd paragraph of #74), it will be closer to the problem I see in how the kingdoms are seen. I think they are seen as final destinations that are assigned relatively soon after death; I’m saying they might be portions of progression, instead (paths on the Path, if you will) – and they might be ultimate destinations, if some simply can’t progress further no matter how long they are given througout time and eternity. I’m fine with either version, but I lean toward the “portions” view.

Thus, in a nutshell, I believe we will be happy in the end because we have grown and progressed as much as we are capable of growing and progressing. I didn’t go this far in the thread over at BCC, but I’m not sure we ever will stop growing and progressing – so I see the Celestial Kingdom more as a “light ever before our eyes” than as a destination of any kind.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray, nicely put…er pasted…er whatever. :crazy:

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

cog dis.

I have no answers.

x2

I just typed and deleted about 10 answers I was unsatisfied with. This just has to be one of those things we can’t really know.

I never really could get on board with the whole sealing principle because it doesn’t make sense unless you have a perfect family, and perfect for multiple generations. I had a daughter with a woman I have never married. She can’t be sealed to her parents. It’s not an option. So I have been sealed to the rest of my kids and my wife, but I still can’t be sealed to all my children. So what’s the point, honestly? My dad’s been excommunicated, so he’s gone. My mom is sealed to my stepdad, but he is not sealed to me, so even though I am sealed to my mom, we aren’t really a whole unit there. It’s holes like this that make me feel like most of this is human ideas to try to explain things humans have no possible way of comprehending. It’s like trying to fathom how big the universe is.

[Anonymous]

I was thinking about this just a few days ago, as it was discussed in PH sunday that folks can/will visit those who are in the lower kingdom, but those in the lower kingdom can’t/won’t visit those in the higher kingdom.

I have decided to take everything I hear or believed about the LDS theology, and turn it on its head, and see if it makes any better sense to me. This is what I came up with.

Okay. So, let’s just assume that Ray is right, about the kingdoms being a state of being rather than a physical state. Okay, and it gets implied many many times that people will go where they are comfortable, and those in the lower kingdom will not be comfortable going to the higher kingdom. In my VERY TBM family paradigm, I am a Terrestrial being at best, and they are Celestial beings – for obvious reasons of LDS theology such as church activity, temple recommend, callings etc etc.

Now, let’s say it is all symbolic and apply it to this life, a state of being.

Comfortable is keyword here. We use comfortable often in regards to this doctrine. So in my own family, I almost NEVER get visitors – haven’t had a visitor for at least five years, and only my parents and one brother have ever in the past 20 years come and visited me, twice. I almost never get phone calls or emails or letters. Almost NO communication at all Yet, I drove 700 miles this summer, TWICE, went home, just to visit with them and be around them. I will make a third trip in December. I use to write tons of letters and emails. dozens and dozens a year. I call my family — even now I have started calling them again. My SP brother called my SP and NEVER once called me or talked to me about about it. After my whole debacle — I had to call my SP brother and I had to ask to bury the hatchet and move on. I called EVERYONE of them, and continue to try to mend with them, yet they have not tried to ever get in contact with me. I am the one who has to make all the initiative. I am the one who is going and visiting. None of them EVER made an effort to “come down to the Terrestrial Kingdom” to visit with me. Yet, even today, I make every effort to go visit with them in their so called Celestial state of being.

So you tell me – who is in a celestial state of mind, and who is in a terrestrial state of mind? Who is comfortable around whom? Who will/can visit whom and who won’t/can’t visit whom? Just a thought? Maybe the LDS concept of celestial and terrestrial need to be “reevaluated?”

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It is helpful to me to see this as a VERY incomplete attempt to describe something of great spiritual significance in the afterlife. It is a human’s attempt (Joseph Smith) to describe something that is far beyond our ability to get our heads wrapped around. We can’t even prove we exist after we die, let alone precisely define what we all do FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER in that continuing existence. Any activity, even the most happy and pleasurable, done for a long enough period of time becomes torturous. So what is the afterlife really like? What are we going to be doing in a BILLION years? Nobody can really get their mortal mind wrapped around that. Let’s face it. Being a king or queen and making babies for a couple billion years probably gets boring at some point. I’m just harping on that to make my point. Joseph Smith maybe was given a cool story. It could even be literal revelation from God, but it isn’t even close to a complete answer. If there is an afterlife, and there is an answer, it would be like a human scientist trying to explain to a banana slug what it’s like to live and work at the Large Hadron Super-Collider in Switzerland.

Thanks Brian. What you say makes sense to me. Some things may just be incomprehensible to us. (Which might be why we don’t have too many details).

[Anonymous]

cwald, that is a great example of what I meant on a practical level. When we shun others who are different, we move toward locking ourselves into our own world – our own comfort zone. The goal, according to our actual theology of vicarious work for the dead, is to make a real connection to ALL of God’s children, no matter when they lived or what they believed – to “seal” everyone together in such a way that no child of God is excluded simply because the others don’t want to be around him. If anyone is excluded from that “sealing”, it should be because she refuses to be part of it – NOT because it refuses to embrace her.

Again, I see through this particular glass, darkly – but my heart leads me to where I want to go.

I think that is true of pretty much everyone, and I think our “ultimate end” will be much more about who we become than about anything else. “God is love.” Are we? If so, I think we will be “happy in the Celestial Kingdom”; if not, I think we won’t be.

[Anonymous]

Having written that last comment, I want to add one more thing in a different comment:

It is the theology of Mormonism that allows me to write that last comment.

It’s important for me to recognize and acknowledge that simple fact. It changes everything with regard to how I feel about “The Church”. Sure, it’s not perfect yet and still needs careful pruning until the very end – but it’s been the vehicle that brought me to where I am, and I have figured out how to stay in that vehicle and continue to ride in the direction I want to go.

Iow, even though I wish I could take it to the shop and repair some things – or soup up the engine a bit – or remap the collective journey to avoid some detours – or whatever other analogy might be appropriate . . . I’ve learned how to ride in it and keep getting closer to where I want to go – and staying in the vehicle allows me to help others move in that direction, as well.

I probably could buy a new vehicle just for myself, but I don’t want to “jump ship” (to mix metaphors) – and the road to where I want to go can’t be accessed on my own. It’s more like a carpool lane than a traditional race course.

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised that so many people make such huge sacrifices for this unknown phenomenon we call “The Celestial Kingdom”…at times, I wonder if it will be worth it? Does it mean I’ll be spending all my time setting up chairs, for example? I jest a bit, but you get my meaning. I’m finding this Church experience to be very hard during these years of my life — is the level of sacrifice and commitment for the organization what will be required of me for eternity? If so, I shudder a bit…

[Author]

Posts