Yesterday I rhapsodized about SpaceShipOne and the Ansari X Space prize. In it I alluded to the unique LDS reasons for fascination with exploring space. Today I would like to expand on those reasons and on the unique opportunities that space expansion can present to the Kingdom. I writing this in earnest, but feel free to impute to me whatever degree of ironic distance permits you to tolerate what I have to say. It’s a little raw.
The unique LDS reasons for fascination with space are twofold. The first reason has organic roots in Mormonism but is strange and unsettling to us who are only used to the modern church. This first reason is LDS Zionism, which is the idea of building Zion or at least Deseret. No matter how much we talk about Zion families and Zion wards, the genuine Zion is a place apart politically and geographically. There is no such place today, nor can there be. Mormonism only has a critical mass in the Intermountain West, but even there the law and the institutions are largely those of the nation at large. Even in those areas where politically and culturally we could act, the Intermountain West shows surprisingly little difference from the rest of the country. If we are ever to evolve anything genuinely and uniquely Mormon, we need the real separation that this earth cannot afford us. Space offers real separation. Moonbases, Mars colonies, and space colonies with their ability to bemoved, give us a chance to have our own place. We could then learn what Mormonism was a way of life for a nation and not just for a person or a family. We could ask for the revelations that are now held back because they are moot. We could be a genuine city on a hill to the world, showing the real possibility of a different way of life, and similarly an inspiration to those members who would be left behind to live in the world and act with it. These are the benefits of Zion that space could offer us. What’s more, we would honor our roots. Our ancestors tried to build a nation in an inhospitable place and we are true to their memory–our hearts are turned to them and theirs to us–if we seek to carry on their work.
Given all this I’m surprised the Saints haven’t wondered more about what the future holds for us. Gentile SF writers have done it for us: Mormons have their own planets in Starship Troopers and in The Gripping Hand. But we haven’t. Do we hesitate to think so far ahead, seeing it as God’s province alone to make grand plans for the future?
Or perhaps we think our plans will make no difference? This is a worthwhile point. Space will open up. Men and women will settle. But not today or tomorrow or soon. The path that will lead to space colonies is so uncertain and expensive and reliant on enormous nonexistent infrastructure that the Church is in no position to launch its own efforts, despite its resources and the dedication of its members. But failing a utopian independent Mormon space program, what is there? Lots. We could do some good with prizes like the Ansari X Space prize I mentioned that seed innovation. Research into biospheres, for example, is woefully underfunded. We could help speed things along, probably. Yet even I, with stars in my eyes, wouldn’t want to use tithing funds and tithing time on such a wishful venture without some guiding word from Christ. And frankly, it would be very odd for the Church to do any such thing without preparing the ground among the members with talks and revelation explaining the meaning and importance of opening up space. In fact, at this early stage of affairs that initial step might be enough. It would keep members aware of space exploration, sensitize some of them in their politics, send some few more of them into the space industries and investment in those industries, and would give us a foot in the door if the time ever came. That’s probably the best we can do for now. LDS Zionism is a long-term goal that is both unsettling to the modern psyche and difficult to work towards in current circumstances.
The second goal is less alien to the modern American psyche but hardly more modest. This is the goal of leavening the loaf. A historical model is the Puritans, who thought they were separating themselves and failed, but did succeed in putting their stamp on the New World and making it hospitable for the survival of religion. Insomuch as there is a space community now of enthusiasts, researchers, and corporations, this second goal is achievable now. We just need to be active, as Mormons, and in the long course of things we will find that the new world of space will be hospitable to our views and our institutions. The space community now is a little thing but if it grows as it could we may find that the color we’ve added to the paint may be brushed over a very big barn indeed.
How to achieve this second goal? Simply, some Saints have to think about space expansion in connection to their religion, some have to act politically in favor of space expansion, some must go into the industries, into research, into investments–and we’re there rubbing shoulders and earning gratitude and making friends.
Mormons also have an opportunity to articulate the religious reasons for going to the planets and the asteroids. The space community feels it, but they can’t articulate it well. We can articulate it. God can speak to us in new revelation. We can draw on our existing revelations. Possible themes: the visions of the majesty of God’s handiwork; our knowledge the real and independent existence of the universe and the possibilities of increased relations with it; the holiness of increase and growth; the holiness of turning to our settler ancestors for inspiration; our being the children of God and growing to be like him through the work of creation; why it is that having a garden on the personal level is and making “the desert blossom as the rose” at the level of the Church was so important. This we can do.
Will we? Ask God. As for me, I will answer any call to pioneer Mars with a resounding yes (if only!) and until then will say yes to hometeaching and tithing and raising kids and will keep thinking about Mormons and space.
Adam i find your comments interesting and exciting. Very few of us give ourselves the opportunity to think beyond the here and now.
Just reading the story of Enoch gives me entrance to such thoughts. Certainly the city and all went to a different place in space.
So yes, there is and will be an opportunity. The heavens await. And it is there for those who inquire to receive. I am not sure it come through normal streams of commerce, however.
Adam: yes.
While the establishment of religous/ethnic/cultural ‘homeworlds’/colonies would be a fabulous advent…it needs to be tempered by stringent “tolerance” laws; lest we revert back to pogroms & such.
I would be happy to see a theocratic Zion given a chance to rise & rule; rather than waiting for Christ to build his own government…should we build one up for him to run? one that is already running…so that he can run with it? I prefer not to be the slothful servant on this issue…whether on Earth or elsewhere.
However…I’d also love to see Zion disperse & ‘raise up’ & ‘leaven’ the loaf of humanity. The Gospel needs a home base…that it alone controls, yet…we need to also be a minority among others…so we can share & preach until the perfect day arrives (which, according to Pres. Young, will still have gentiles, albeit righteous ones, aplenty).
Now, where find we this synthesis?
I am a big fan of stargazing — even a member of the Dark Sky Association. Part of the fascination is the beauty and immensity out there. It is impossible for me to not think of God and His power and creations when I see the stars and planets and moon at night. My dream home would be away from city lights and have a clear horizon. I agree with some of the comments on your other post that the accounts of Enoch, Moses, and Abraham fill me with a desire to see what they have seen.
However, my enthusiasm falls short of space exploration. I don’t know exactly why. The ancients received their visions of space through direct communication with God due to their righteousness. They didn’t have big telescopes or fancy space ships (at least they didn’t describe them, maybe that is what God used, a chariot of fine craftsmanship). Somehow it seems tainted to achieve space through the work of mortal hands. The notion of America as a promised land prepared and protected by God lost some of its potency once it becamse so easy to get there. Would space be the same? Is space exploration our modern-day Tower of Babel?
I have this feeling, though, that heaven may be more technical than I currently envision. God is powerful because he knows how to build and maintain teleportation, telekinesis, and telepathy devices. We can’t see ‘spiritual’ beings because of their cloaking devices. The earth’s substances were created through trial and error in God’s big lab in the sky. The Garden of Eden only looked so good because gods-in-training spent so much time weeding, fertilizing, and irrigating. No wonder God needed to rest from His labors.
My laziness makes me prefer a heaven with a little more fantasy (magic spells and rings of invisibility) and less science fiction. :-)
Matt: I’m with you re: a preference for magic over technology…in fiction & in fact [if any of us ever really do get to create our own personal worlds...I don't think I will reveal science...lol]
However…is this taint removed, as you seem to hint, by the knowledge that God has revealed these tech inventions to us? While this doesn’t allay your Post-Modern Tower of Space Exploration babel…it does ameliorate the lack of wonder…?
I hate to be a tease [okay, not really], but one of my upcoming posts [probably not for another week or two, though] on A Motley Vision will be titled “Mormons in Space” — I’ll give ya’ll the capsule version here though: One of the explanations is simply that LDS sci-fi authors are writing for the national market — and I’m not sure that a totally Mormon-centric work would appeal to that market. The other is — I wonder if our doctrinal emphases on the end times, the second coming, and this earth becoming the celestial kingdom create a certain amount of reticence on our part about Mormons in space.
So Adam, are you another Saint Benedict?
I certainly think space will provide exciting opportunities to explore new forms of community, and I hope that will include distinctly Mormon forms! I suspect that the Church as currently constituted has plenty to do without embarking on such an ambitious venture as a space colony, in an official capacity. We didn’t invent all the other technologies we use to move God’s work along; no special reason why we necessarily have to be on the technological cutting edge here either.
Plus, there’s something special about Earth; for the moment, I prefer to think of space projects as complementary to our efforts on Earth, rather than providing a “better” way to attain our Zionist goals.
But certainly supporting projects in space, in a responsible way, is a worthy project for those members who feel so moved. Saint Benedict, as I understand, was not operating under any particular mandate from the Pope to set up his special forms of community. Nor were the pilgrims who came to America; they followed their own sense of spiritual call. We don’t need to be commanded in all things; I say, write the manifesto and set up the blog! Greenwood is a good name to counter the idea that space is a sterile place
: ) Hm, the Greenwoodine colonies . . .
‘Governor’ Morris… :)
Perhaps you might include a small section on Mormon Fantasy writers also. Tracy Hickman has plenty of works which make either implicit or explict references to his LDS beliefs. Some even have to do with other worlds (____ gate series); even if in a fantasy rather than sci-fi setting.
you are correct though…none directly tackle a _mormon_ state, country or colony [although OSC & folk of the fringe does deal with a post-Apocolyptical UT where the Mormons are the only govt left & many Saints lose their faith since Christ didn't choose to come at that time...]
A good first step, Ben, would be private, consciously experimental Mormon attempts at communal living, but so far no dice. No one’s at all interested even in thinking about it. Ah, for transcendentalist times, when every American had a plan for a utopian community in his pocket.
Adam,
I have sometimes wondered, usually after re-reading Hugh Nibley’s “Enoch the Prophet”, if the “tower” of Babel, designed both to reach the heavens and to escape God’s wrath for the people’s wickedness, might not have been a space rocket….
Okay, that’s a little strange, but I share it to make these points:
1. Why do we think we could “escape the world” in space? If we could get there, so could the rest of the world (which is what happened in the inter-mountain west).
2. There certainly is a strong element of “escapism” in the Zion concept, and no small amount of tension between that and the opposing concept, alluded to by Lyle, of “making straight the pathways of the Lord”—the idea of “taking back” this world from Satan, of re-claiming what is rightfully Christ’s, and ours, from the thief and usurper Satan. If you will, we could designate these two opposing concepts as the “Enoch” imperative vs the “Captain Moroni” imperative.
3. I have to say, I very, very much feel more at home with the “Captain Moroni” imperative. I just don’t like the idea of “leaving” the world. This world is Christ’s, and so therefore it is *mine*, and *my children’s*, as joint-heirs of Christ. Also, I genuinely recoil at the concept of leaving the non-LDS behind—their souls are precious also, some, even many, may still respond to the Gospel. What will become of them if we depart? *We* LDS may “grow” and “thrive” on some other distant planet, but I can’t take comfort in that while our brothers and sisters outside the Gospel suffer through a living hell of madness and depravity, blood and horror, once those who hold the Priesthood leave for greeener pastures.
So, if given the choice, I think I want to stay here. “There must needs be oppostion in all things”, and I’m not sure I’d like living in a society that was all LDS (as long as Satan is still not bound)—I don’t want to deal with the religious complacency (read: laziness) that might breed, plus other dangers. I will make my stand here, on this earth, with all its seeming ugliness, looking forward to the day when this world will be a great “Urim and Thummim, like unto a sea of glass”. But I’ll send you an intergalactic post card every now and then!
Adam, about Earth . . . I have heard that there is this one kind of soil in South America that was believed to have been cultivated by the ancient inhabitants there, a kind of Eden soil perhaps, that still exists and can proliferate under the right conditions. This fits in with a larger idea that before the plagues from Europe, brought over by explorers, destroyed civilization as it had been known in South America, there was a lot of knowledge about how to tend the earth, and recent archaeology is turning up signs of spectacular “terraforming” that was done, with creative use of living organisms; can we return the Earth to its paradisiacal state?
A parallel project, perhaps.
Imagine Pres. Hinckley standing up in Conference & announcing, a la Prof. Farnsworth (of Futurama fame), Good news everyone! The time for building the New Jerusalem is here. Now don’t forget to set your clocks back, or you just might miss the lift-off …
I’ve heard something like what you’re saying, Ben. Scientists now suspect that at least some portions of the Amazon were planted to produce nuts and fruits, but who knows?
Gary,
As you are aware, I sympathize with your view very much. I’m all for redeeming the culture here. The problem there is trying to redeem a culture ties you to it–you’re not always free to go where the Gospel would take you. I’m trying to have it both ways by proposing that some percentage of the Saints set up a City on the Hill that can serve as an inspiration and a resting place for the rest of us, Saints and not saints alike. I happen to think that such projects will go a long way to turning the tide in the culture wars, as adventure and daring are once more clearly virtues and pioneering groups are once again seen as heroes. Finally, space is going to happen and its going to be big and in many ways its going to be a breaking of old ties and a starting of new ones. If the Saints can get in the door we could make a big jump this way.
Tower of Babel,
I thought Nibley viewed the tower as an anti-temple, not as a physical attempt to scale the heavens. In any case, note that I am NOT proposing the Search for Kolob project.
lyle -
Not sure I understand what your question was, but I’ll try to answer by saying that knowing more about astronomy and physics takes away some of the mystery and excitement of space. That is quickly replaced by a new excitement of knowing a bit of how God may have done things, and that in turns leads to more mysteries. I’m not sure if scientific knowledge tells us only about how this mortal world works, or how God’s reality works as well (at least in part).
As far as tech inventions being revealed by God, I personally don’t think all inventions are. Many are, and President Hinckley talks about our modern wonders quite a bit. I’d describe it as saying that while all truth originates with God, the time and manner in which we acquire knowledge is not always God-given. In the Garden of Eden, Satan taught Adam and Eve about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their curiosity and justification led to more knowledge after they partook. Yet God was not pleased with them and even less pleased with Satan. If Satan really told the truth about doing what was done on other worlds, who gave the fruit in those other worlds? If Adam and Eve had been faithful, would God himself have introduced them to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in His own way and time? I think it is important that both Adam and Eve eventually said Yes to more knowledge without even asking God whether they should. They even knew who they were dealing with and still said Yes.
All of this to say that I believe Satan is perfectly able and willing to inspire even well-intentioned people with real truth that leads to sin and destruction. Time will tell what (and when) God really wanted us to know.
Matt: Thanks for the response. You understood the question perfectly! :)
Adam: It sounds like you are setting up the City on a Star/Hill as a “resting place”?
a. That sounds alot like the _elves_ who were _weary_ of middle earth & then went to the grey rocketship havens so they could go to zion in the starts.
b. however, this would have a great effect. Borrowing from the writings of L.E. Modestitt Jr., the existence of a “perfect” place would allow a strong base…and the existence of “the rest of the world(s) needing to be won over” would provide a place for missionaries to be sent to, for youth unsure whether they want to live in the “perfect” society to go & experiment/decide where to live, etc. Also, those that tire of the “world(s)” would have the ‘shinging’ Zion on a Hill to perhaps look to as a place to immigrate/convert to. :)
Speaking of Tolkien, I know there’s nothing left to explore ocean-wise, yet I still (like Sam) am haunted by the sound of the sea. Given the vastness of space, & the potential number of worlds to explore, etc., I wonder how quickly we would really tire of it all.
I’ve been reading a book called “Creating the Millennium” by Kent Huff. (the father of Ben Huff) Kent has a very strong post-millenniel view and is unafraid of considering all kinds of fun things that may be involved in bringing about the millennium – space exploration being one of them.
Adam, I am interested in intentional communities, but do they have to be communal? Certainly whatever is Christ’s is Father’s, and vice versa, and when we receive what they have, surely we will be sharing, but prior to that . . . I’m not sure communal is necessarily the way to go. Er — I am all in favor of communing, though, and certainly a community is a matter of having something in common. Write up the manifesto, and let’s talk about it! Presumably we could try some pilot programs without having to go into space first.
One book I enjoyed btw described artificial, floating island aquacultural communities as a practice venue for new forms of community which might then be reproduced in space. Seems to me it would be useful to work up a range of transitional forms from “get together for Church on Sunday” to “cozy up in the biosphere for a one-way voyage to Alpha Centauri”. How is having other communities in proximity a benefit? How is it a detriment? And accordingly, how much is the right amount of exchange?
Presumably the most powerful, near-term arrangement would be an intentional community that was heavily engaged with the rest of the world in terms of economic cooperation and development of technology and other knowledge, but was positioned to be more self-contained culturally than most other cities, at the same time that it was strongly culturally engaged with other segments of the LDS world.
How is, say, Utah Valley too much of the world? What would it take to change that? Is it primarily political autonomy you are looking for? I think cultural autonomy may be more important, and for that we need cultural *power*! Power to hold the attention of our people, so they don’t just go watch the usual TV drivel and so forth. Part of what annoys other people about the U.S. is that it has this very powerful media output that is hard to compete with, and which heavily favors an adolescent, anti-traditional approach to life.
Hey Jack, where did you come across your copy? I’m curious how it’s traveling.
Intentional communities don’t have to be communal, that is true, and maybe my definition of communal is a little more elastic than yours, but I’m thinking that some degree of joint ownership of property and joint decision-making is necessary as a glue. Also, I think it would be hard for Mormons to make the kind of sacrifices that a founded community requires without the idealism of some degree of shared ownership.
Joint ownership could promote the cultural autonomy you’re talking about. If, say, there’s only one TV down at the community center (or townhall, or whatever) then the world’s impact is more attenuated.
Adam,
What you are suggesting reminds me of the influence (a very positive influence) which Irish monks had on both Catholicism and Western Culture during the Middle Ages, stepping forth from their monasteries to preach throughout Europe against the rot and incompetence and injustice that Catholicism and Europe had fallen in to. They accomplished great things. Maybe we could too—IF we did in fact come back to Earth to invite all to come and partake of the Gospel. My fear is that we might instead, like the brother of Jared when his people reached the great sea and “got comfortable”, just “forget” to call upon the Lord.
Gary,
you’re envisioning some sort of mass migration. I’m seeing a vanguard of the church where the bulk of the church stays behind. That’s the crazy dream, anyway. The more realistic dream is that we will stay a part of society, even in space, but that by getting involved now we are more influential in a more hospitable extraterrestrial society than otherwise.
adam: your realistic assumption is the better one. frankly…while MOs may have some political capital…unless space colonies were alloted by country & we could leverage our 33% position in Tonga to get the Tonga colony…a Mormon colony would be out of the qeustion.
Much as the western land grab showed in the U.S….this would be prime & strategic (military & political) grants. Not just for whomever.
And if it were purely a “commericial”/for sale deal…well…I think that the Rich MOs are too few vs. the Righteous Rich & wicked rich of the world…
the thing is, Lyle, that once the infrastructure is in place, anybody with enough cash can get in the game. Space is limitless. We wouldn’t have to compete.
I like that version of “communal’, Adam : )
Wow, the last thing I would want to do is live in space with only Mormons!! Adam, your quest for Zion is misunderstood and misplaced. Zion, like the Celestial Kingdom, will clearly not be limited to Mormons. What a narrow view of a global gospel and omnipresent God you seem to have.
“Zion, like the Celestial Kingdom, will clearly not be limited to Mormons.”
The Celestial Kingdom will be limited to Mormons.
Whether Zion (an ideal, earthly community) must be 100% Mormon is an interesting question. Probably not, but it would have dominantly Mormon, it seems to me. Not only because having a shared set of values and beliefs would be necessary to being of one mind and one heart, but because a Zion that isn’t temple-centered isn’t really a Zion.
Also, the most self-conscious attempts to build Zion that we are aware of were not creedally diverse. Enoch’s Zion was a geographical separation of the believers. The Nephite-Lamanite Zion occurred after the unbelievers and the wicked were physically killed and the survivors were all converted. Missouri, Nauvoo, and Utah were also Mormon societies. Its hard to see how we could ever develop any distinctly Mormon culture or society without some kind of separation.
Mostly, however, I believe you are attacking a strawman. I am not proposing that all the Saints everywhere withdraw themselves into one tight community.
“The Celestial Kingdom will be limited to Mormons.”
How wrong you are. I suggest you read what President Hinckley has said on this.
So, Adam, you’re the guy who keeps offending my salt-of-the-earth friends and neighbors who are not Mormon and with whom I am trying to share the gospel. They tell me that Mormons believe only Mormons will truly be saved. I try to tell them that we, in fact, do not believe such nonsense, but they tell me that they have heard Mormons say as much. I thought we were more informed than that, but I guess I am wrong.
Can one be “saved” without being Mormon? Yes.
To Adam’s point–can one inherit a place in the Celestial Kingdom without being Mormon? No. I think our dear Prophet’s consistent emphasis on missionary work, retention efforts, and temple work fully support this doctrine. As do the scriptures.
Just so.
Ryan and Adam,
So the joke about St. Peter telling souls new to heaven to tiptoe past a certain group because they are Mormon and think they are the only ones in heaven at least includes you two. Neat.
So what make we of Alvin Smith, to name one, who will never be a Mormon but will inherit the Celestial kingdom? What about non-Mormon children who die before they turn eight? Certainly you don’t suggest that Mormonism, or any religion for that matter, is practiced in the hereafter? Of course, tenets of Mormonism will have effects, as will tenets of many faiths. But there is no religion or honor code in heaven. Rather, the truth of all things will govern, not the imperfect implementation of restored truths by mortal men and women.
Note to self, do not sit Adam (or similarly-minded saints) by _______ (Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, Hindu) friend who is investigating gospel at the next meeting on Mormon space quest.
I guess it depends on the definition of “Mormon.” If it means being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints while inhabiting a mortal body, then I agree completely with you, Paul. But my religion provides for all, not just for a few.
If being “Mormon” is to be baptized by one having authority bestowed from God and receiving the other ordinances requisite for exaltation, then I quite firmly believe that only “Mormons” will inherit the Celestial Kingdom. I think to say otherwise is to cheat those not of our faith of the greatest gift of our religion, even the fulness of the gospel. I have made many trips to holy places to help those that have gone before be able to choose this Mormonism. I hope they do.
Also, there is a giant distinction between “saved” and “exalted” (i.e. inhabiting the celestial kingdom) that seems to be lacking from your post.
I think Alvin Smith will be baptized vicariously. This issue has been thoroughly threshed out here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2156
What do you make of D&C 1, where the Lord identifies this as the the ‘Only true and living Church’? Or the First Vision, where Jesus says practically the same thing? Or D&C 23, where in response to some folks arguing that they had been baptized in other religions, the Lord states that those baptisms are dead works and adds “enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God”? What do you think of the whole practice of vicarious baptism? how does it make sense if all religions are on equal footing?
The answer is that they’re not. All religions and beliefs are not on equal footing. This church for all its flaws is the earthly arm of the eternal kingdom.
sandra, if we don’t have something else to offer, even greater knowledge that will lead to greater things if followed, why even share the gospel?
I am sure that our Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, etc. friends will find much joy in the hereafter, as they will enjoy a measure of salvation, but we share the gospel so that they can enjoy a fulness.
Sandra,
Why would you ever have your Jewish, Muslim, etc. friends investigate the gospel, if its not important to eternal life in the Celestial Kingdom? For that matter, why are you singing Kumbayah in this church instead of another? Other faiths would demand less of you and would be more hospitable to your views.
Yes, Ryan, the definition is one of my sticking points. The provincial term “Mormon” falls short. I believe, and I believe we are taught to believe, that all faithful people who confess Christ and receive the essential ordinances will inheret some level of the celestial kingdom. Most will not be Mormons, will not have lived by the same cultural norms and beliefs, will not have subscribed to the same codes of conduct (within reason of course) or manners of worship. Indeed, the celestial kingdom will be as non-mormon as any place in the world.
Huh?
Friends, have you not taken occasion to leaf through the pages of the Book of Mormon? (let alone the other standard works) wherein we find the phrase: “There is no other name given whereby man can be saved…”? Can we at least agree that salvation comes to those who believe on the Savior’s name? (else what shall we make of His suffering?). Is it really such a stretch to believe that it is not only important to accept the Savior, but equally important to accept Him on the terms which He has provided as revealed through Joseph Smith? (else what shall we make of the restoration?)
God’s mercy is manifest not in a tolerance for diverse paths which have been marked by men as the road to heaven, but in his patience in allowing all sufficient means to find and continue in the *one* that does. IMO, we (all of God’s children) will be working out our salvation for a long time to come after this little stint with mortality.
I think Paul said what I am trying to say. Ditto, P.
I’m at a loss to understand, Paul, why you think that someone who has accepted Christ and his authorized ordinances wouldn’t be in some sense a Mormon. I’m even less able to understand why you think its so obvious that these people are not Mormons that you feel entitled to sneer at people like Ryan and me who think otherwise.
Did you seriously think that Ryan and I were arguing that only people who belonged to the Mormon church, while in the flesh, from about 1830 to 20xx, were going to heaven? Have a little charity and common sense, man.
The same goes for you, Sandra.
Last of all, I don’t see what your idiosyncratic definitions of Mormon have to do with the wisdom of anything that was said in the main post or in the first 26 comments.
“God’s mercy is manifest not in a tolerance for diverse paths which have been marked by men as the road to heaven, but in his patience in allowing all sufficient means to find and continue in the *one* that does. IMO, we (all of God’s children) will be working out our salvation for a long time to come after this little stint with mortality.”
Jack, I agree with you. The one path, however, is broader than Mormonism. It has to be. By the most inclusive definition, Mormons comprise a exceedingly small number of people, many of whom will not make it to the Celestial kingdom. Further, many people who were not and will never be Mormons will inherit the CK. We can’t co-opt all people who make it to the CK into the Mormon net just because they make it to the CK. That logic is backwards.
Of course, ordinances are necessary as is faith, but being a Mormon is assuredly not.
“Last of all, I don’t see what your idiosyncratic definitions of Mormon have to do with the wisdom of anything that was said in the main post or in the first 26 comments.”
Then don’t respond. And, I am not sneering at you, Adam. In fact, it is impossible to sneer in writing.
“Did you seriously think that Ryan and I were arguing that only people who belonged to the Mormon church, while in the flesh, from about 1830 to 20xx, were going to heaven? Have a little charity and common sense, man.”
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if you held that belief. Are you equating heaven with the CK? You’re the one who said only Mormons go to the CK. The lack of charity of which you accuse me is the same lack you seemed to have displayed towards Sandra, even if her original post was a little harsh.
Adam,
Just to nitpick with you for a second — It’s quite anachronistic to say that the Celestial Kingdom will be populated by Mormons. Is Adam (our original ancestor) a Mormon? Abraham?
“Mormons” and “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” are both subsets of the larger set of “members of the Church of Christ” (not the present-day denomination, but the Church of Christ as defined by the Savior).
Abraham is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Abrahamic-Age Saints, or whatever the proper appellation may be. He is not a Latter Day Saint. He didn’t spend his time on earth in the latter days. And he’s not a Mormon. His testimony is not in any way based on Mormon or on the Book of Mormon.
I’m not even sure that Mormon would consider himself a Mormon. Ask Mormon, and he would probably phrase it along these lines — “Believing Nephites (where Nephite = follower of Christ) will be saved.” Or something along similar lines.
Now perhaps present and future people may need to be Mormons. But Abraham isn’t a Mormon, and that’s not going to keep him from the Celestial Kingdom.
If sneering in print is what you’re after, see comments #28, 31, 32 (and, to be fair, #36).
Speaking of not responding, do you have anything to say to comments # 33,34, and 40?
Paul,
God’s people historically have always been few in number–a phenomenon seems to go with the territory. Being Mormon (imo) has a lot to do with accepting the Priesthood as authoritative in managing the affairs of the Kingdom here on the earth. The primary purpose of that Priesthood (again, imo) is to dispense the ordinances by which the “power of Godliness is made manifest”. Or in other words, to prepare people for salvation. The long and short of it is that no matter what definitions we may use in this argument to determine who will and who will not be recieved into heaven, those that are redeemed (with the exception of little children) will follow the one path that has been prescibed by God for such redemption. And that path is to be found in it’s fullness only with in the sanctuary of the Kingdom–which is the Church at present.
Kaimi,
Do you really think that when people say “only Mormons will go to the Celestial Kingdom” they mean that “only people who belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while in the flesh, from about 1830 to 20xx, were going to heaven?”
Actually, let me put it in a way more relevant to the argument in this thread: do you think that Paul and Sandra are at such pains to tell their Muslim/Jewish/salt-of-the-earth neighbors that we don’t believe only Mormons go to heaven because Paul and Sandra worry that their neighbors might think we thought father Abraham and the prophet Mormon weren’t going to heaven?
Thanks, Kaimi. I thought those examples were obvious, so I was surprised at the responses I was getting from Adam and others. I think we can at least all agree that what you say is true. Where Sandra and I may diverge with you and obviously Adam (though I don’t want to speak for her and I am not sure I am decided yet) is on your last paragraph. I currently don’t believe that present and future people need to be Mormons to inherit the CK. There are just still too many variables to make such a rigid statement. An African bushman living today could inherit the CK without being Mormon, no? Provided that he confesses Christ, receives the necessary ordinances at some point, and has lived a life worthy of such an inheritance.
Kaimi,
The “Restoration” is just that: a restoration. Abraham (we presume) and other prophets of previous dispensations appeared to JS and committed to him the keys of their dispensations. The Kingdom as it stands today, virtue of those priesthood keys held by the presiding authorities of the church, is a gathering of all into one.
Paul, Sandra, one can only squirm uncomfortably here. You sound like (a) Philosophy 101 students disagreeing with the prof for the sake of hearing their own voices, and (b) Political Science 101 students disagreeing with their classmates on some nitpicky point in order show how with it they are, i.e., how provincial everyone else is. The thing about these students is that there is never really any fundamental disagreement; it’s all for show. O.K., O.K., the Celestial Kingdom will be a great big blazing diverse place, an absolutely unique culture from what any of us are used to, without the baggage hampering us here, etc. etc. etc. Admitted! Still, though (as you have admitted), the ordinances that are in our time unique to the Mormon faith will be necessary for entrance. You might as well say, “Of course Muslims will have to accept Christ to enter the full rest of God! But how dare you imply that that would make them in any way Christian!” You might as well say it, but that would be silly.
“What do you make of D&C 1, where the Lord identifies this as the the ‘Only true and living Church’? Or the First Vision, where Jesus says practically the same thing? Or D&C 23, where in response to some folks arguing that they had been baptized in other religions, the Lord states that those baptisms are dead works and adds “enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God”? What do you think of the whole practice of vicarious baptism? how does it make sense if all religions are on equal footing?
The answer is that they’re not. All religions and beliefs are not on equal footing. This church for all its flaws is the earthly arm of the eternal kingdom.”
I accept the scriptures for what they purport to be. Still, Mormons have not cornered the market on exaltation, nor can we, nor will we ever.
Just so, Jack. Bushmen in Africa who wish to accept Christ after they die and be saved will have to do so by receiving the ordinances and entering that kingdom.
It’s all well and good not wanting to offend folks, but the simple truth is that the rites and power ultimately necessary for salvation are present here and nowhere else. The scriptures purport to be revelation, and accepting them as such means accepting what they say.
“Still, Mormons have not cornered the market on exaltation, nor can we, nor will we ever,” Paul said, drawing himself up majestically and sweeping from the room. Adam, Jack, and Kingsley stared at each other silently for a moment. “Who on earth was he responding to?” asked Kingsley in a bewildered voice.
Thanks, Kingsley. My goal is to be a student forever, even if I remain in the remedial 101 classes, though my day job is something quite different.
“the Celestial Kingdom will be a great big blazing diverse place, an absolutely unique culture from what any of us are used to, without the baggage hampering us here, etc. etc. etc. Admitted!”
From reading your previous posts, I am quite sure you don’t understand that statement.
The issues I raise are actually very relevant, though perhaps pedestrian to you. When our Catholic neighbors gain entrance into the CK over our Mormon relatives, will we be surprised? Will we still desire to live on the Mormon space station?
Right on, Adam and Kingsley.
The thing I don’t like about this kind of argument is the implication that those who hold to the “narrow” view that it’s “Mormon or bust” are somehow less tolerant, less considerate of other religious experiences.
I think we’ll all find, Mormon and “non” alike, that it’s going to require a great deal of adjustment to get ready for the everlasting burnings. We all need the miracle of the atonement in order to get through the eye of the needle.
“From reading your previous posts, I am quite sure you don’t understand that statement.”
Which posts are those, Paul? I understand it perfectly; I wrote it. You have swooped down on a whimsical, fun, speculative post with slobber on your chin and self-righteous malice in your heart. It will not surprise me in the least if my Catholic friends, once they have participated in the ordinances unique in our time to the Mormon faith, enter the Celestial Kingdom ahead of me. I hope that (e.g.) Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, and a host of others are already there with drinks in their hands and stories to tell. Lighten up, why dontcha, and train your big cannons on targets more worthy of attack.
“the rites and power ultimately necessary for salvation are present here and nowhere else.”
I am not sure what you mean by that vague statement. I am certain that as worded it is wrong.
“Curelom, Steve Evans’ blog familiar?” Adam ventured.
And then the conversation turned to how silly it was to baptize the dead. Never having worn white shirts or read correlated Sunday School manuals in life, they could never be Mormon.
Actually, Kingsley, I didn’t swoop in. Someone else did. Adam responded erroneously, and I responded to Adam. Are you a lawyer? You blather and lie like one.
I think I agree most with Jack. The only reason I jumped in the fray was because Adam made the silly comment that only Mormons will go to Heaven.
And then they headed back to the space station. Kingsley bought Paul a drink (served by a two-headed waitress with glowing eyeballs), and they discussed their old, blind, silly days on earth together.
Paul,
Kingsley’s (imo) a brilliant rhetorician. Don’t take it too much to heart. (just be sure to swap drinks with him!) :>)
“Blather and lie”? “LAWYER”?! Why you — ! I may blather, but I do not lie. I perhaps got a little hot under the collar up there; please accept my apology. I think you read way, way too much into what Adam said — in order to sermonize. I speak for myself but also, I think, for Adam when I say that I look forward to a Celestial Kingdom as diverse and alive and enchanted as the earth. I want India, Africa, England, China, I want the Arabian desert, I want all gorgeous cultures represented in all their glory (and maybe, just maybe, a little of Utah, too!). But I want more than anything else the culture of God and Christ, whatever that is — and assuming I get my act together in time to participate!
But something was not right, something . . . Yes, just as they suspected. “I’m sorry, but we don’t allow Seventh Day Adventists on the space station.” they told the waitress. “Your left head will have to go!”
Gee, thanks, Jack. All rhetoric and no substance is what Paul’s thinking!
Kingsley,
Please don’t insult Paul’s thinking like that. And you left the ‘s off of what.
Sheesh!
I misspelled Kingsley’s name too. [Editor: all fixed]
Yes! I wanna be the only white boy on the basketball court again! I hope we get to relive our best memories.
And then the two-headed bright-eyed waitress began beating Kingsley about the face and neck with her incredibly heavy space tray. Paul, explaining feverishly that the SDA thing had been merely a joke, noticed President Monson at the bar telling a long story involving an orphan, a widow, and an amazing coincidence.
No, Kingsley. Not rhetoric as in meaningless political jargon. But rhetoric as in the emotive expression found in the classics! You whip Cyrano at his own game!
It hardly needs saying that the amazing coincidence had been properly baptized, as also the orphan and the widow. And also that Kingsley recovered from his wounds, though not without a few dark looks and a muttered ‘by the singing sands of Neptolumus Five!”
““Curelom, Steve Evans’ blog familiar?” Adam ventured. ”
“Snort,” came the shadowy reply.
And then Steve emerged from the shadows, looking active and slim in his Wonder Woman costume.
“Steven, I mean Steve, you’ve stopped shaving your legs!” the two-headed waitress gasped.
He fixed her with his steely gaze, his eyes glinting with resolve just like the spangles on his costume. “Did I stop shaving my legs . . . or did my legs stop shaving me?”
And with that he strode out into the passageway, out into . . . history.
Suddenly, Obiwan, does an airial backflip landing in front of him ready for combat. Steve ignites his light saber but in the process catches his hairy legs on fire. Soon he is completely engulfed in flames. Obiwan is motionless as he watches his one-time friend writhing in agony on the ground. “I loved you!”, yells Obiwan. “We were brothers!” He walks away leaving Steve in a smoldering heap.
Ronald Dworkin famously compared legal interpretation to a chain novel.
I wonder what he would have thought of this thread.