I have heard the Mormon view of heaven described as degrees, glories, kingdoms and worlds. D&C 76 describes terrestrial and telestial worlds. D&C 131:1 talks about degrees, but only in the celestial sphere. And so on.
So I am left to wonder whether the celestial, terrestrial and telestial spheres are actual worlds (or inhabitable planets). They could be, on the other hand, different levels (degrees) of existence on the same planet. I am not sure either one makes more sense.
Separate planets would make sense if we were able to interpret the spheres as being actual separation from each other. On the other hand, I can’t wrap my hand around all these spirits floating through space as they go to their new homes.
A less literal separation would also make sense?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùespecially if the new “heaven” was established here on our earth?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùsince it would be easier for us to get there. On the other hand, that could imply the possibility of progressing between the different degrees.
So even though we tend to use the above terms interchangeably, is there one term that is more literal than the others? Is ‘world’ more accurate than ‘glory’? Is ‘kingdom’ more accurate than ‘world’?
I disputed the idea of separate planets in an ealier post too. A “Planet of the Terrestrials” just seems absurd to me.
“On the other hand, I can’t wrap my hand around all these spirits floating through space as they go to their new homes.”
Our resurrected bodies will be quite different than what we have now. Do you remember the ascension of Christ?
What about it?
In reference to “spirits floating through space” perhaps there is no floating, but rather an advanced form of space travel. perhaps even instantaneous teleportation(think Star Trek “beam me up Scotty”).
It’s my understanding that God dwells on another planet (Kolob) thus, how did our earth get created from such distant headquarters. And how did Jesus travel back to where God dwells after the ascension?
Also, how do we assume that the “Lord” of the old testiment (pre-mortal Jesus), who was a spirit and surely did not dwell on the Earth, communicated in person with earthlings on a regular basis?
Also, it is my understanding that both paradise and spirit prison are currently already on this earth in another dimension and that the Celestial Kingdom will indeed be on this earth, which will be glorified and transformed….but I don’t know about the other kingdoms. Hmmmm.
In the book of Moses there is discussion about the “worlds without number” and the incomprehensable number of inhabited planets out there. This also suggests the existance interplanetary travel through space.
“God dwells on another planet (Kolob)”
Actually, Kolob is a star (a sun if you will) and God dwells on a planet near that star.
“how did our earth get created from such distant headquarters”
God started a process and let the laws of nature run their course.
Oops! Kim you are right about Kolob! Sorry! But the point here is that God dwells on another distant planet, which is not earth.
Also it still seems to me that starting the natural process of creating a universe might require travelling to another location at some point.
What we do know is that God, the pre-mortal Jesus and other heavenly beings visited Adam and other prophets on earth in person. So by what means did they travel from this planet near Kolob to earth?
Beats me. Transporting seems feasible. So does inter-dimensional portals.
With all this talk about inter-dimensional portals, inhabited star systems, faster-than-light space travel and other dimensions – I simply can’t see why other christians don’t consider the LDS to be mainstream.
/endSarcasm
Seriously, I don’t understand why people can believe in the miracles performed by gods but still have to anthropomorphize their method of travel or physical existence.
Hey people, they’re supposed to be GODS – they do stuff differently.
It’s like arguing whether God would take the train or the bus to get to Brooklyn…
Okay after re-reading that last comment I seem to be a little bit on the aggro side.
Hey – I kid because I love…
But the point is that an almighty being probably does not get from point A to point B in a method that we could possibly understand.
Why would he go to Brooklyn?
Touche, good sir!
I tip my hat to you.
:)
>probably does not get from point A to >point B in a method that we could >possibly understand.
Why not. Don’t you believe that everything God does falls within the laws of nature? Would knowing that information undermine God?
Given the nature of science, Jeff, it is entirely possible that God uses a method that we have not “discovered” or that we do not fully understand yet.
Rick, believing in miracles is indeed compatable with our sci-fi speculations because these miracles could also be attributed to a higher understanding of physics and science that we just don’t yet comprehend, rather than some mysterios fairy tale magic.
For example, if a person from several centuries ago were to witness such things as automobile travel, e-mail communication, and modern medical treatments they would most certainly categorize these things as “miracles”.
Likewise, such things as telepathic communication (Holy Ghost) and advanced space and time travel may not be so far fetched.
And Kim, the reason I brought up the subject of God’s home planet was to point out that such intergalactic descriptions found in the book of Moses implies a physical separation between worlds, not just a dimensional separation.
P.S. Rick, I don’t think anyone claims that the LDS are mainstream Christianity (hence the vigorous opposition we receive from other Christian denominations). Rather, it has been prophesied that we would be a “peculiar people”. The only claim the LDS make is that they believe in the same Jesus found in the New testament.
Oh yeah, by the way, my name’s Angie, an old friend of Rick’s from Magrath. I stumbled on this blog via Rick’s profile and found it very interesting. I was just being shy because the rest of you don’t know me.
“the book of Moses implies a physical separation between worlds, not just a dimensional separation.”
Can it be both?
Hmmmm, well perhaps. I’m just pointing out the feasability of a physical separation between worlds, (and therefore possibly kingdoms). But certainly this does not preclude the existance of dimensional separations, especially in light of the idea that the spirit world is right here on Earth. I’ve heard it theorized that what separates these dimensions is the rate at which time moves along in each realm. Therefore those who dwell in each dimension are unable to detect other dimensions in the same physical location.
Nevertheless, if one could travel from planet to planet in the blink of an eye, physical separation between worlds does not seem so absurd, nor inferior to a dimensional separation.
Kim, in reviewing this post I can see why the concept of interdimensiional travel is easier for our mortal mind to grasp than instant interplanetary travel.
Probably because Discover magazine has dedicated more study to the theory of alternate dimensions than to teleportation of matter through space (at least from what I’ve noticed).
Anonymous said: “Rick, believing in miracles is indeed compatible with our sci-fi speculations because these miracles could also be attributed to a higher understanding of physics and science that we just don’t yet comprehend, rather than some mysterious fairy tale magic.”
So to distill this down to its’ essence, it’s not that god does miracles it’s just that he has better technology?
That’s a pretty good way to diminish your savior, no?
Are you saying that I should be like a god to the bushmen because I have a cell phone?
This train of logic leaves very little room for the gloriousness of a higher being, and basically turns him into the wizard of oz.
Don’t look behind the curtain!!
Kim,
I completely agree with the possibility that “God uses a method that we have not ‘discovered’ or that we do not fully understand yet.”
However I did have issues with the statement, “that an almighty being probably does not get from point A to point B in a method that we could possibly understand.” Emphasis mine.
At what point in progression toward perfection would the method of Godly transportation change from one that we could not possibly understand to one that we MUST come to master? I just wonder if that understanding would be impossible as a mortal. (And if it is, how do we know that?)
The nature of science when it comes to religion (within the Mormon sphere anyway) is that everything that happens has a scientific explanation – even if that at times makes you feel like you are “diminish[ing] your savior”.
Indeed, advanced science and technology doesn’t make one a God.
But perhaps the concept that science could be behind miracles (from turning water into wine to bringing the dead back to life) would not diminish the Saviour or God if their status is also based on other divine characteristics, such as a perfect knowledge of good and evil, and perfection in such capabilities as love, integrity etc.
If a God is truly all powerful(even if it IS through science) AND all good, I think it is quite different from the Wizard of Oz.
“However I did have issues with the statement, “that an almighty being probably does not get from point A to point B in a method that we could possibly understand.” Emphasis mine.”
Good point. I completely overlooked the “possibility”.
Here’s a question to consider:
Why do you need to quantify and categorize how an almighty being does what she does?
I could ask anyone right now,”How is is that you are thinking right now? Not, what are you thinking about but how are you actually thinking?”
I sure couldn’t answer the question.
I exist.
I’m thinking and I don’t know how it happens.
Why wouldn’t that same thing apply to a creator being?
“Hey, Almighty! How exactly do you do that creating a world thing?”
“Hmmm…I don’t know. I just do it”
Or is this totally outside the realm of the LDS creator?
That is a very interesting thought Rick. Very interesting indeed. But yes, it is outside the realm of the LDS concept of the creator simply because the LDS believe that they each have the potential to become a God as well.
How will this happen? Through the process of progression, rather than waking up one day with the ability to be all-powerful, but not knowing how your doing it. Even if hypothetically this were the case, how would the creator bestow such powers on us without knowing everything about how those powers are done?
“Why do you need to quantify and categorize how an almighty being does what she does?”
We need to learn the nature of God if we want to be like God. To me this seems self explanatory.
I could ask anyone right now,”How is is that you are thinking right now? Not, what are you thinking about but how are you actually thinking?”
It is a fallacy to imply that because you or I don’t know exactly how the human mind works that it is impossible to know.
Not to walk myself into a fallacy of my own (because I really can’t say for sure) but I’ll bet there are some neurologists out there that have a pretty good idea and their pool of knowledge grows everyday. Even if they don’t know what causes living organisms to be alive, they are starting to know more and more about how electrical impulses within the brain and the body are connected to how we think.
I don’t believe that someone or something could create a world and not know how it was done – to say that would be contradictory to LDS teachings that God has a plan as well contradictory to the way we as humans build things. While the possibility exists that God thinks “‘Hmmm…I don’t know. I just do it'”, I prefer the philosophy of occam’s razor.
So Jeff,
You’re saying the only thing separating you from God is the Universe’s owner’s manual?
Don’t you think that somehow diminishes the Almighty a bit?
This intrigues me, since many faiths embrace the concept of things being unknowable, whereas here you seem to see knowledge of all things as a step toward divinity – a prerequisite even.
It’s been pretty well established that there are logical truths to which there is no proof, i.e. truths without proofs.
It’s also been established that no complete set of rules exists that will effectively describe a set (incompleteness).
Does belief in the divine contradict these two concepts?
“You’re saying the only thing separating you from God is a Universe’s owner’s manual?”
It is my understanding that it’s not just intellectual knowledge that separates us from being a god, but also the prerequisite direct experiences and character development (the latter probably being the toughest one to master).
I don’t really view the concept of a god being all good and all powerful, as a direct result of being all knowing, to be diminishing. On the contrary I think that viewing a god as some other species who naturally possesses powers without knowing how or why is much more diminishing.
“It is my understanding that it’s not just intellectual knowledge that separates us from being a god, but also the prerequisite direct experiences and character development”
Does that mean people who die as infants or are born with mental challenges that make them unaccountable will never attain godhood?
Good point. However it was not my intention to imply that the aforementioned qualifications of god-hood can only be acheived through mortal probation. Clearly this is not so in the case of ALL spirits.
If I recall doctrine on the subject of accountability exemption correctly, it allows for the idea that progression has occured before this lifetime and that progression will continue after this lifetime as well.
Apparently you and I didn’t qualify for exemption from this stage of the learning experience, and therefore probation was necessary for the likes of ourselves, so here we are.
Meanwhile, I’m interested in your take on the qualifications of god-hood.
We need a body.
“You’re saying the only thing separating you from God is the Universe’s owner’s manual?”
Rick, I did not mean to make you think I thought the only thing separating me from God is [knowledge]. I apoligize if I said anything to make you believe that.
“Don’t you think that somehow diminishes the Almighty a bit?”
I don’t think it matters, but I can understand where you are coming from. When ones perspective on God changes from that of “supreme magical being” to “all knowing scientist” it’s understandable to say that the new title seems like a demotion.
Joseph Smith set the precedent for the LDS angle on “God = all knowing scientist” when he taught that everything God does falls within the laws of nature. That includes every “miracle” God has ever done from the organization of the world to the conception of Christ “after the manner of the flesh”.
It’s my opinion that if you find yourself so uncomfortable with this line of thinking then maybe you need to re-evaluate your beliefs. Mormons do not fit the mold of typical Christian religions and this particular topic is a favourite of anti-mormons to pick on Mormons for.
At the same time I can understand why so many people find the LDS faith better than other religions because it makes so much more sense than the mystical magical, creation out of nothing, immaculate conception, non-human God view.
Don’t get me wrong – and this is where I may have misled you with my previous comments – I know the Church teaches that there are a lot more steps involved in progression toward godhood besides knowing the tricks of the trade. Some of the steps are pretty clear and straightforward such as baptism by immersion and others which (to me anyway) are less clear (ie. being enabled to give signs and tokens when required), but nevertheless unless I have been completely misled by my life as a Mormon I think Joseph Smith wanted to reconcile his faith with science and therefore if you believe in Joseph Smith then it seems to me it should follow that you believe God is the ultimate scientist.
Jeff said: “It’s my opinion that if you find yourself so uncomfortable with this line of thinking then maybe you need to re-evaluate your beliefs. Mormons do not fit the mold of typical Christian religions and this particular topic is a favourite of anti-mormons to pick on Mormons for.”
I’m pretty secure in my beliefs, I guess it’s the clear articulation of the beliefs of the brethren (as described by you) which is a bit shocking.
When President Hinckley is going out of his way to show the rest of Christianity just how orthodox the church is, it’s interesting (and a wee bit titillating) to hear the members talking amongst themselves.
It’s pretty clear that the members and the seventy are not on the same Public Relations page.
Jeff said: “… I can understand why so many people find the LDS faith better than other religions because it makes so much more sense than the mystical magical, creation out of nothing, immaculate conception, non-human God view.”
Don’t get me wrong, I love the LDS.
Some of my best friends are LDS.
But statements like the above are the reason that members come off as arrogant – and fly directly in the face of President Hinckley’s bridge-building work between mainstream Christianity and the LDS.
…and it’s not really ‘so many people’, it’s more like a very few people in isolated pockets across the planet, right?
As far as I know neither the president of the church nor “the brethren” have ever gone so far as to say that God does not act within the natural laws of science despite their efforts to “show the rest of Christianity just how orthodox the church is”. They will say things like, we don’t know how God what he does, but at the same time they never indicate that God doesn’t know or that that particular information is unknowable.
I’m really not trying to be arrogant here, I’m just stating things as I see them. As far as I can see, the truth is, the church is different from mainstream Christianity. I’m honestly sorry if that offends you. Don’t let me put words in your mouth, but perhaps what is offensive is that the Church tries to have its cake and eat it too.
“It’s pretty clear that the members and the seventy are not on the same Public Relations page.”
If saying that God acts within natural laws is bad PR then I guess I should take this opportunity to admit that I’m not really worried about giving the church either good or bad PR. I do like the conversation though, and I believe I have made valid points throughout. If you want to set up a a straw man argument by implying that my arguments are invalid because they are bad PR, I guess that’s fine, but it won’t change the facts.
I may not be as eloquent as “the brethren” in portraying the church’s beliefs but I honestly would like to know how what I have said goes against what the church teaches?
“…and it’s not really ‘so many people’…”
Why are you quibbling over semantics? Obviously “So many people” is a relative term used to point out that there are millions of people who follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Using that term illustrates my point and it sounds a lot better than the equally subjective “very few people in isolated pockets across the planet”.
But if it would make you happy then certainly I’ll correct myself and I’ll try to be a little more sensitive to the outsider’s point of view.
“I can understand why [relatively speaking in comparison to world population that very few people in isolated pockets across the planet] find the LDS faith better than other religions because [in my non-public relations appropriate opinion] it makes [deleted] more sense [to me] than the mystical [deleted] non-human God view.”
Hey Jeff, I totally understand your position – please don’t take my questions as some kind of indictment of your belief system.
I’m just been pointing out that the members’ understanding of doctrine, and the interpretations of how it should all play out, hasn’t really been in sync (or is it n’sync :P )
with the press releases coming out of the COB.
I hadn’t really taken notice of the members’s version vs. public consumption version of mormon doctrine until the year the Olympics went to Salt Lake.
It seems so me that ever since then, that there has been a kinder-more-mainstream ‘look, we’re just like all you other christians’ message from the powers that be in the church.
I just see it all as very curious, that’s all.
As far as quibbling about semantics goes – I just like to remind members from time-to-time that in the big scheme of things, they are a very small part. Maybe it’s a ‘living in the Mormon corridor thing’. I sometimes get the immpression that members think that the whole world has membership ratios similar to around here (or Utah, or Rexburg) -It’s simply not true.
So when one says they are ‘considering an outsider’s view’, one should remember that they are really saying ‘considering how most of the world would view this’.
I don’t think what the prophet has said and what we are discussing are contradictory, but rather a matter of which of our many beliefs are being emphasized.
I don’t think the prophet has ever actually said that we are just like everybody else, only that we have some important things in common.
And Kim….it’s true that obtaining a body is the primary objective of being born on earth. But do you mean to say that any member of the human race is automatically qualified for godhood simply because they got born?
I didn’t say the primary objective of being born on earth is to receive a body. What I said was that having a body is a qualification of godhood.
Oh OK, I’ll re-word. Are you saying that a body is the ONLY qualification necessary?
I’m saying that the body is the only qualification that everyone needs to have to be a God.
Does that mean that you and I, and everyone else born on the earth, can expect to be a God no matter what?
No.
OK so we agree that other criteria must be met one way or another, and that it’s not just about knowledge either (as important as that is)
I agree that there is more involved in becoming a God than simply having a body. The body, however, is the only universal qualification I can determine. Everything else does not seem to be required of everyone. At least not acquired in the same way.
Ah, I see. Indeed.
Have any of you read the BIBLE???
You must not understand the LDS religion to ask that kind of question.
Yes, currently reading it. For about the 3rd time I think (all the way through).
So, you are still counting the times you’ve read the Bible! Man oh man people, I sense another pissing contest coming up (rofling!
How about this, I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve read the Bible, nor would I make such a boast. I no longer read my Bible “all the way through”, I use my Bibles as a point of reference and study guides applying them to my everyday walk through life. After all, how many times do you have to read something through before you have internalized it? Sheesh!
If you are a Christian, then you should understand,
the Holy Bible is the only accurate account of the history of mankind ever written without a political agenda. Read it, Learn it, Refer to it, and Live it; but you won’t get any holier by reading it more times than your neighbour.
Only God grants wisdom and knowledge and understanding. reading your Bible “all the way through” again won’t help. (rofling . . . again!)
To whom do you attribute this book of Moses to. It’s not in the Bible! So it cannot be God inspired works, and therefore quite suspect to say the least.
Regarding God traveling anywhere (and I know this was started tongue in cheek), He travels nowhere. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent! If He so chooses, He can be everywhere at all times. he doesn’t travel – He just is!
Kim do you really believe God needs a body? “Cause once again you are limiting God to your own understanding; yet believe me He is quite beyond your (all of our) comprehension.
cheerio