On family in the afterlife: Besides questioning and deflecting hope of family reunions in the afterlife, Lewis also apparently longed for such a possibility. He wrote in The Four Loves: “We may hope that the resurrection of the body means also the resurrection of what may be called our ‘greater body’; the general fabric of our earthly life with its affections and relationships. But only on a condition . . . : nothing can enter there which cannot become heavenly.” (In LDS terms, a truly celestial marriage could only be a marriage that had become truly celestial.)

On our “small-minded expectations”: “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us. . . . We are far too easily pleased” (“The Weight of Glory”).

How different heaven might be from life as we know it here: By what Lewis calls “transposition,” all (perhaps) that is familiar to us might continue but be transformed and lifted to transcendence. We may “be hardly more surprised by hitherto unimagined differences than by hitherto unsuspected similarities. . . . When I know as I am known I . . . shall see how the transcendent reality either excludes and repels [the categories/concepts/realities I’m familiar with], or how unimaginably it assimilates and loads [them] with significance. Had we not better wait?”–i.e., wait and see. (All this is from “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”; see also “Transposition” and much of Miracles.)

On the same question from LDS sources, I just read a verse the other day that blew me away, though I’ve read it many times before: “For since the beginning of the world have not men heard nor perceived by the ear, neither hath any eye seen, O God, besides thee, how great things thou hast prepared for him that waiteth for thee” (D&C 133:45). So we hope for something far beyond our present capacity to imagine. Yet Joseph Smith also noted the similarities: “that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy” (D&C 130:2).

On “second chances” with implications for friends and family (this is me now, though Lewis has things to say on this as well): If God is love and if that love is essentially and supremely an absolutely unqualified concern for the welfare of others, then desiring the salvation of all (“not willing that any should perish” [2 Peter 3:9]) is part of what it means to be godly. (By the way, one of my favorite definitions of hell is from The Brothers Karamazov: “the torment of no longer being able to love.”)

Given God’s power and love, I believe that all will eventually have as many blessings as they can possibly (which among other things means “willingly”) receive. Any sort of permanent hell would thus require a person’s firm, knowing, and irrevocable choice (I believe this view is supported both by the scriptures and, as it happens, by Lewis). Or perhaps a permanent hell might also result as a person, through a series of choices, undergoes such a change of nature as to be unable any longer (ever) to choose to allow God’s redeeming and transforming power to operate. (This last sentence is packed with all sorts of assumptions and speculations–but it does for me hint at what it might mean to be unredeemable.)

Short of these terrible possibilities, both the scriptures and the Spirit suggest to me that there’s ALWAYS hope. John H. Groberg gave a talk on that theme that repeats the phrase “there’s always hope” 40 times ( http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6901 ). I endorse that view and would add, the story’s not over yet and won’t be for quite a while.

Acts 2:27 “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell…”, a quote of Psalms 16:10. And, this seems to refer to David, a murderer & adulterer, very serious sins.

Then, Revelation 20:13:”…and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them…”. So, an empty hell at that point?

John 5:28-29:” 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

Empty out hell, resurrect those people, then toss them back into hell? Or, somewhere else?

Then the second chance issue. Was Saul given a second chance? He thought what happened to Stephen as a just end. If you believe in the Book of Mormon, what about both Alma’s? Alma the younger had a similar experience to Saul, who became Paul. The moral of this to me is it’s hard to make a final judgment as a mortal.

There are some comments in “The Three Degrees of Glory”, by Melvin J. Ballard, not doctrinally binding, but of interest, where those who will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom will be able to be part of what the LDS call Paradise in the spirit world upon sufficient repentance.

So, these are issues that should be addressed in interfaith dialogs on this subject. I am please that Jack is being rational & sane about this, for in the past most outreach programs were so biased, or knee jerk reaction, that I didn’t see the point of looking at them.

In section 76 it states that those in the CK will “minister to” the people in the Terrestrial Kingdom. I assume that includes face-to-face visits. But it doesn’t specifiy if all, or which, of the 3 degrees in the CK can bop on down to the Terrestrial for a visit.

(Section 76 states that the Telestial kingdom is ministered to by the Terrestrial, implying that those in the CK won’t make visits to the Telestial.)

The other way, and I forget if it’s in Section 76 or another, describes the celestialized earth as a “sea of glass” or a giant Urim-and-Thummim in which the inhabitants of the CK can “view” lower order or lesser kingdoms. I’m assume the lesser kingdoms include the Terrestrial and the Telestial. It doesn’t specify, but I assume that the viewing goes just one way.

Here’s my best paraphrase of the post, as I understand it:

“I’m not sure what heaven is like, but I trust God. It is not for me to put conditions on heaven—God is heaven’s architect and I’m sure it is a wonderful place. While in this life we suffer great loss. At the time of loss it is incomprehensible how a person could find joy or meaning again in this life. But even then, even in loss, God can bring joy into our lives. Surely if God can touch my soul with happiness, even in times of sorrow, God can handle heaven. As a matter of faith, I don’t need to know right now who will be there to share it.”

There. That’s my understanding. After writing it out, it sounds about right to me. I’ll have to think about it some more. Thanks for the post.

With these sorts of speculations the problem is with using words like “we” to mean all people. To one person, perhaps an eternal separation from their most beloved family and friends would be hunky dory. To others heaven really could not be accurately called heaven if they could not share it with their most beloved family and friends.

I’m not sure what evidence you think I could submit which would qualify as supporting my theory short of flying you up to heaven and showing you people who are happy there in spite of loved ones not making it. It was pointed out by Last Lemming in #4 that many people derive comfort in the wake of death from the hope of seeing their loved ones in the hereafter, and I responded that isn’t true for everyone and gave the example of atheists (who don’t believe in the afterlife) and Christians who believe their loved ones aren’t saved. Any religion which teaches non-believers in that religion will go to hell would also qualify. People in those systems who find happiness in the wake of death in spite of viewing their loved ones as lost forever is the closest thing to evidence I can submit.

I suppose what I should have said in the last paragraph was, “If we can learn to be happy after losing our loved ones here in this life, sometimes with no expectation of ever seeing them again, it’s entirely possible we can learn to be happy in the eternities should we ‘lose’ our loved ones there, for whatever reason.” Would that be more to your agreement?

That’s actually not what I’m asserting. Rather I am saying your point in the final sentence of this post is not supported by the the evidence you have provided.

Here again is what you said:

If we can learn to be happy after losing our loved ones here in this life, surely we can learn to be happy in the eternities should we “lose” our loved ones there, for whatever reason.

The problem is that your “IF” does not support the “THEN”. Nobody disputes that people can and often do enjoy happiness in this life after loved ones die. But it is anything but “sure” that one could or would be truly happy throughout all eternity in the absence of ones most beloved family and friends. Yet that is what your post is asserting.