Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Telestial Progression?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Peggy Rogers

unread,
Sep 14, 2003, 11:09:59 PM9/14/03
to
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote:

> I thought that "eternal life" was synonomous with "eternal progression"
> and that was only possible in the CK.

Well, you're correct that, in common LDS usage "eternal life" is used as a
synonym for "exaltation," and the phrase "immortality and eternal life" is
understood to refer to two different concepts. Still, it seems possible to
me that a great deal of what I see as progress could happen in the lower
kingdoms. I've thought for some time that the Telestial Kingdom is the
heaven of the sense, the Terrestrial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses and
the intellect, and the Celestial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses, the
intellect, and the spirit.

David Bowie asked a little while back that I repost this story, so I
suppose it's about time. This is something I wrote years ago, in response to
a person who kept saying that the Telestial Kingdom would be hellish,
because people wouldn't be all-powerful and able to do the same sorts of
stuff that God does. Doug Brewster thinks otherwise. Maybe God does, too.)

Doug Brewster Goes to Heaven

When he thought about his former life (and it wasn't often) the last thing
that Doug Brewster remembered was climbing into his green Pinto, pulling out
of the parking lot of Last Chance Tavern, and heading home. Of course he'd
had a few beers--it was Friday night, wasn't it? and his job at the steel
mill was dry work. He deserved a little recreation.

Next thing he knew, Doug was sitting in what seemed to be a very comfortable
chair. It was hard to see anything that was around him, though, because the
room (or whatever it was) was so bright that it hurt his eyes. Then he was
aware of a presence in front of him, and a low, peaceful voice spoke:
"Douglas James Brewster?" Doug promptly rose to his feet. "Sir, yes, sir!"
he said. Doug had spent some time in the navy, and recognized a Personage of
authority when he encountered one. But he could hardly look at this
particular Personage, whose brightness and glory defied all description.

The Personage spoke again, this time kindly. "Douglas, how would you like to
start learning about how beer is made?" "Well," Doug replied, "beer sure is
one of my favorite things. I've always thought that when I retired from my
job at the steel mill I'd like to try my hand at a little home brew. Never
had the time or energy, though, what with all the stuff Edna wanted me to do
around the house."

"Excellent!" said the Personage. "From now on, beer _is_ your job."

Not long afterwards, Doug met Gunter Memling. Gunter had lived all his life
in a small city in Bavaria, where he had risen to be the manager of the best
brewery in that part of the world. Now he was running a micro-brewery, and
Doug became his assistant. As time went on, Doug learned about hops, barley,
malt, and the conditions needed for fermentation. In the evenings, he and
Gunter would sit in the little pub attached to the brewery, and sample their
wares.

Along with a friendly cohort of folks who wandered in (most of them
regulars) they'd discuss the subtleties of bitterness, mouth feel, aroma,
and head. Once in a while they'd close down the pub and go off to a movie
with a few of their friends. The movies were better than the ones he
remembered watching before, and so were the foot-ball and basketball games
that they sometimes went to. But what Doug enjoyed most was his work in the
brewery, and the satisfying fruits of those labors.

At one point some visiting professors came to town, and offered to teach a
few extension classes. (They were visitors from what LDS would call the
Terrestrial Kingdom.) With a little encouragement from Gunter, Doug decided
to sign up for a class in chemistry--hoping it would help him understand the
processes that went on in the brewery. To his surprise, the class was
nothing like the classes he remembered from high school. (Doug had never
been exactly an honor student.) At every class session there was something
fascinating to learn. And as a result of the things he learned, he was able
to make some suggestions for changes at the brewery that really made a
difference.

It seemed to Doug that he had been working at the brewery for about three
years. Actually, according to our calculations of time, it had been more
like three thousand years. Doug realized, though, that he was just beginning
to scratch the surface of learning about beer and everything that went into
its production. Sometimes he was able to visit different breweries to see
how things were done.

As it turned out, Gunter had been taking a class in watercolor painting, and
he decided that he would take a break from the brewery business and travel
around the world--painting landscapes and portraits and anything else that
struck his fancy. He left the brewery in Doug's very capable hands.

Doug learned some things about interior design, and re-decorated his little
pub so that it was even more cosy and inviting. He learned about marketing
and distribution, and started to sell more of his beer in neighboring
communities. He experimented with new recipies, and started making different
kinds of stouts, ales, and porters. In time he had to build a large annex on
to the original brewery. Not only did it have all the latest equipment and
methods, but the whole place was designed by an artist/architect who was one
of the regulars at the pub, so it was beautiful to look at as well. There
was also a little gym attached where Doug and some of the guys could work
out with weights. He'd been getting a bit of a beer belly, and decided it
was time for him to get into better shape.

It had been a long time since Doug had thought about his wife, Edna. But
when the new annex of the brewery was finished, he thought how nice it would
be to show it to her. After all, she _had_ been awfully pleased with some of
the building he'd done around their old house. "I wonder what's become of
Edna?" he thought.

Just then there was a knock at the door, and who should be standing on the
other side but Edna! Edna looked terrific--with the fresh complexion and
slender figure of the girl he'd fallen in love with. It occurred to Doug
that he wouldn't mind a bit giving Edna a tumble for old times' sake. But
no, when he glanced at her again, he saw that she had that "touch me not"
look that he used to notice sometimes after she came home from church.
What's more, she had that same glow about her that he'd learned to associate
with people who came, like his chemistry professor, from some other world,
or kingdom, or something.

While talking to Edna, Doug found out that she was a member of some choir
that was famous in the place where she lived. In fact, she was here on tour
with them, and that was why she'd been able to come by for a visit. She
started listing off the musical instruments that she'd been learning how to
play--oboe, harpsicord, cello, ukulele, harp, psaltery, dulcimer. And she
didn't just play them--she'd also started learning about composition. In
fact, the choir would be using one of her melodies in the concert tonight.
Doug remembered, now he thought about it, that she'd always had the radio or
the phonograph playing in their house while she cooked or did the dishes.
But it had never occurred to him that she might have any musical talent, or
that she might want to do something besides listen. He enjoyed showing Edna
around the brewery, and promised to use the tickets she gave him to her
concert.

As Doug sat in the audience that evening, listening to the glorious music
that poured from the stage, he thought, "Hmmm...harps, choirs, beautiful
dresses. I'll bet old Edna thinks that she's died and gone to heaven." Then
he thought about his little pub, his buddies, his new brewery, his plans for
the future, and he thought, "But she's wrong. _I'm_ the one who's died and
gone to heaven."

And he had. In time, he realized that there were other parts to this
"heaven," but he was always supremely satisfied with the part where he found
himself. The beer just kept getting better and better, and his palate kept
getting better and better, until he could taste nuances so subtle that he
had never guessed they existed. He started to take an interest in
agriculture, helping a neighboring farmer to develop new varieties of barley
and hops. After a few million years, almost everyone agreed that Doug
Brewster brewed the best beers in the Telestial Kingdom--and that meant the
best beers in that part of reality, since most of the Terestrials prefered
wine or whiskey, and the busy-body Celestials stuck to unfermented fruit
juices.

William Blake wrote:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

But Doug Brewster found _his_ eternity in a mug of beer.

Might Be Me

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 8:58:20 AM9/15/03
to

"Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:vmabc7p...@news.supernews.com...

> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > I thought that "eternal life" was synonomous with "eternal progression"
> > and that was only possible in the CK.
>
> Well, you're correct that, in common LDS usage "eternal life" is used as a
> synonym for "exaltation," and the phrase "immortality and eternal life" is
> understood to refer to two different concepts. Still, it seems possible to
> me that a great deal of what I see as progress could happen in the lower
> kingdoms. I've thought for some time that the Telestial Kingdom is the
> heaven of the sense, the Terrestrial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses
and
> the intellect, and the Celestial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses, the
> intellect, and the spirit.


That is an interesting concept. It may be worthy of some pondering. At the
very least it cannot be discarded out of hand.

> David Bowie asked a little while back that I repost this story, so I
> suppose it's about time. This is something I wrote years ago, in response
to
> a person who kept saying that the Telestial Kingdom would be hellish,
> because people wouldn't be all-powerful and able to do the same sorts of
> stuff that God does. Doug Brewster thinks otherwise. Maybe God does, too.)

I kept a copy of that some time back, but if I knew you wrote it, I had
forgotten. I liked it then, I like it now. I think you are probably onto
something.


Snip remainder

David / Amicus

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 9:02:04 AM9/15/03
to
What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the Telestial
Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the chief mucketymuck?

And isn't the Telestial Kingdom the place where the adulteres and
whoremongers etc go?

But in the next life isn't sex only allowed for those who have been
sealed together for time and eternity? And that's only in the CK.

Many of those in the Telestial KIngdom aren't going to be able to
fulfill their desires there.

Michael

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 1:16:08 PM9/15/03
to
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:09:59 -0600, Peggy Rogers wrote:


>
> David Bowie asked a little while back that I repost this story, so I
> suppose it's about time. This is something I wrote years ago, in
> response to a person who kept saying that the Telestial Kingdom would be
> hellish, because people wouldn't be all-powerful and able to do the same
> sorts of stuff that God does. Doug Brewster thinks otherwise. Maybe God
> does, too.)

Excellent story and can find ample support in Doctrine and Covenants
section 88, where we learn that we will be given that which we are
willing to receive.

Sincerely,
Michael

DARIUS

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 1:17:03 PM9/15/03
to
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vmbe2ck...@news.supernews.com...

Maybe they can have all the sex they want, just no children? Its like
spiritual birth control or something...


--
- Michael (Darius)
"There can be only one."
G.O.D. of Kish ~ (G)ames (O)perational (D)irector

Michael

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 4:43:37 PM9/15/03
to
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:02:04 -0600, David / Amicus wrote:

> What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the Telestial
> Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the chief mucketymuck?

They will fight.

> And isn't the Telestial Kingdom the place where the adulteres and
> whoremongers etc go?

Yes and many other kinds of people.



> But in the next life isn't sex only allowed for those who have been
> sealed together for time and eternity? And that's only in the CK.

Nothing is said about sex in any kingom. Only in the CK is it said the
"seeds will continue."


> Many of those in the Telestial KIngdom aren't going to be able to
> fulfill their desires there.

We do not know that. I suspect they will be able to exactly fulfill
their desires just as Peggy's story proposes.

It is quite likely that conflict will exist. The Norwegians considered
heaven to be filled with fighting, then every night they all go to
Valhalla for an all-night party. I suspect, for them, it may well be so.

Sincerely,
Michael

Peggy Rogers

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 4:48:28 PM9/15/03
to
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote:

> What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the Telestial
> Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the chief mucketymuck?

Well, you know the old joke -- the one where they're giving some people a
tour of heaven and they come to a large stone wall. The people ask what's
inside the wall and the guide says, "Shhhhh! That's where we keep the
Mormons. They think they're the only ones up here." Perhaps there could be
place where a Stalin could rule over everyone in the vicinity, and think it
was a whole world

> And isn't the Telestial Kingdom the place where the adulterers and


> whoremongers etc go?
>
> But in the next life isn't sex only allowed for those who have been
> sealed together for time and eternity? And that's only in the CK.

Well, we don't _know_ that, although I believe it has been suggested by some
church leaders. The only place I've ever seen it mentioned though (having
listened to church talks and lessons for fifty years) is by people over on
a.r.m. who want to find things to complain about. I've always understood
that resurrected people have all their body parts intact, and that the extra
blessing that the exalted have is not sexuality but fertility. And after
all, there's nothing canonical to indicate that procreation by gods is any
method we'd recognize as sex.

> Many of those in the Telestial KIngdom aren't going to be able to
> fulfill their desires there.

Not _all_ their desires, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that they'll be
miserable.

I have a gothic harp, which my husband made based on a wonderful painting by
Hans Memling:

http://www.abcgallery.com/M/memling/memling11.html

Because it has only eight notes in each octave, and only twenty-four strings
in all, I'm a bit limited in the music I can play on it -- mostly folk tunes
and stuff from the Middle Ages. Jazz and modern music are right out, since I
can't do accidentals. And yet (at least from my mortal point of view) there
is an infinite amount of music that I _can_ play that will sound lovely. And
there are all sorts of interesting things I could do with compositions and
different tunings.

Nobody claims that there are no limitations in the Telestial Kingdom, but
within those limitations there could be a great deal to be experineced and
enjoyed.

Peggy


Might Be Me

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 4:53:57 PM9/15/03
to

"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vmbe2ck...@news.supernews.com...

> What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the Telestial
> Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the chief mucketymuck?

I think it very likely that they would be placed so that each would have his
wishes granted in at least a limited sphere, supposing that this desire were
accurate. I think it is not exactly the way it will be, however.

> And isn't the Telestial Kingdom the place where the adulteres and
> whoremongers etc go?

Maybe. So?

> But in the next life isn't sex only allowed for those who have been
> sealed together for time and eternity? And that's only in the CK.

Where did you read that? Continued posterity is only in the Celestial
Kingdom, but that doesn't speak of sex per se.

> Many of those in the Telestial KIngdom aren't going to be able to
> fulfill their desires there.

Maybe. I have not been there. I know that many of us in mortality, which we
are told is a lot like the Telestial Kingdom, are not able to fulfill our
desires here. I don't recall everyone here who has said that we will be able
to fulfill _ALL_ of our desires in any of the Kingdoms of Glory, however.

MustBeMe

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 4:55:53 PM9/15/03
to

"Michael" <news...@orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:vmc93pn...@news.supernews.com...

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:02:04 -0600, David / Amicus wrote:
>
> > What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the Telestial
> > Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the chief mucketymuck?
>
> They will fight.

I like that answer. I would say that if earth is any indication that they
will ally themselves against others for a while and then they will split and
fight against each others. That appears, at least on the surface, to be what
they wanted in this life.

Snip


David Bowie

unread,
Sep 15, 2003, 5:04:47 PM9/15/03
to
From: "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net>


: What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the


: Telestial Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the
: chief mucketymuck?

Are people *trying* to Godwin discussions of the TelK out of existence?

: And isn't the Telestial Kingdom the place where the adulteres and
: whoremongers etc go?

: But in the next life isn't sex only allowed for those who have been
: sealed together for time and eternity?...

We don't know this. It's certainly held by some Mormons, but we have no idea
whether sex will exist in the next life, and if it does we have no idea of
what its form will be or who will be capable of it under what circumstances.

<snip>

David, who doesn't think it really matters
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.

Might Be Me

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 8:40:44 AM9/16/03
to

"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote in message
news:vmcabff...@news.supernews.com...

> From: "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net>
>
>
> : What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the
> : Telestial Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the
> : chief mucketymuck?
>
> Are people *trying* to Godwin discussions of the TelK out of existence?

If so, of course, it will not happen.


Snip

> David, who doesn't think it really matters

Could be a sign off on almost any message on here! <G>

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 8:52:24 AM9/16/03
to
Peggy Rogers wrote:

>"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> I thought that "eternal life" was synonomous with "eternal progression"
>> and that was only possible in the CK.
>
>Well, you're correct that, in common LDS usage "eternal life" is used as a
>synonym for "exaltation," and the phrase "immortality and eternal life" is
>understood to refer to two different concepts. Still, it seems possible to
>me that a great deal of what I see as progress could happen in the lower
>kingdoms. I've thought for some time that the Telestial Kingdom is the
>heaven of the sense, the Terrestrial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses and
>the intellect, and the Celestial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses, the
>intellect, and the spirit.

??

You mean fine, or pure matter?

You mean there won't be spiritual (material) reality in the lower kingdoms?

- Scott

Joel Rees

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 8:53:16 AM9/16/03
to
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote in message news:<vmbe2ck...@news.supernews.com>...
> ...

> But in the next life isn't sex only allowed for those who have been
> sealed together for time and eternity? And that's only in the CK.

Well, I remember the saying from high school days, "Those who talk
about it don't. Those who do it aren't talking about it." Not a strict
rule, but actually rather predictive. I've noted also that those who
use pornography a lot tend to lose their desire for sexual relations
with real people.

> Many of those in the Telestial KIngdom aren't going to be able to
> fulfill their desires there.

If so, maybe that will be because they discover that they've burned
themselves out?

Just a thought or two ...

Paula

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 8:55:33 AM9/16/03
to
Peggy Rogers <proger...@xmission.com> wrote:

> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > What if tho' more than one person wants the same thing in the Telestial
> > Kingdom? Both Hitler and Stalin wanting to be the chief mucketymuck?
>
> Well, you know the old joke -- the one where they're giving some people a
> tour of heaven and they come to a large stone wall. The people ask what's
> inside the wall and the guide says, "Shhhhh! That's where we keep the
> Mormons. They think they're the only ones up here." Perhaps there could be
> place where a Stalin could rule over everyone in the vicinity, and think it
> was a whole world

Perhaps in the spirit of reaping what you sow, it is only just that you
get to fight for eternity yet never get to be the boss of everyone!
Maybe Stalin and Hitler get hell in the sense of eternal frustration,
only they get to be in the Telestial Kingdom only for the benefit of
those who really liked battle but need someone to lead. I'm not sure
fighting would be banned in the hereafter. After all, if no one can be
injured or die, it kind of turns into a whole different kettle of fish
morally speaking.

I have a friend who was raised Southern Baptist. He told me that joke
about the wall. I told him the Mormons were being told the exact same
thing about the Baptists on the other side of the wall. ;-)

--
Paula
"Napoleon should be seen in Superdeterminism-Analogy History
theory as the Hitler of France." -- Archimedes Plutonium

David / Amicus

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 1:53:32 PM9/16/03
to
In the afterlife is God going to perimit / condon immorality / sin? The
church teaches no sex outside of marriage. Marriage only occurs in the
CK. No marriage = no sex. Therefore I don't see how there can be sex in
the TelK.

What people have been saying abut the TelK reminds me of the old
"Twilight Zone" ep that starred Sebastian Cabot as an "angel". A
criminal type person dies and goes to his reward and is met by Sebastian
Cabot. The guy gets everything he's always wanted. All the women, he
can't lose at gambling, booze. He soon gets tired of it all. He tells SC
that he'd rather be in hell. SC just laughs!!!

thecaldwells

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 2:21:44 PM9/16/03
to

"DARIUS" wrote in message

> Maybe they can have all the sex they want, just no children?

Wouldn't that be my idea of the celestial kingdom? Yeahhhhhhhh, no children!

David Bowie

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 6:14:04 PM9/16/03
to
From: "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net>

: In the afterlife is God going to perimit / condon immorality / sin?


: The church teaches no sex outside of marriage. Marriage only occurs
: in the CK. No marriage = no sex. Therefore I don't see how there
: can be sex in the TelK.

Well, aside from the really interesting (but presumably unanswerable)
question of the extent to which the rules we work under in this life are
actually also valid in any part of the next life, you make an assumption in
the above when you state "marriage only occurs in the CK". We don't know if
that's actually the case or not.

<snip>

David, reminding people of the underdefinition

Peggy Rogers

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 11:26:43 PM9/16/03
to
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote:

> In the afterlife is God going to perimit / condon immorality / sin? The
> church teaches no sex outside of marriage. Marriage only occurs in the
> CK. No marriage = no sex. Therefore I don't see how there can be sex in
> the TelK.

Maybe that's simply a failure of imagination on your part. ;-) When you
think about it, _why_ is it that sex outside of marriage is immoral or
sinful? Is it because the pleasurable feeings of sexuality are properly
limited to those who are married? If so, why do men have "wet dreams"? Is it
because it's wrong to express affection in physical ways? If so, why isn't
holding hands a sin? Or is it, perhaps, because sex outside of marriage
leads, far too often, to children being born to people who aren't equipped
to care for them, or to existing families being destroyed by adulterous
liasons? My own view (not a popular one among members of the church, it's
true) is that fornication is not nearly so serious a sin for people who are
very conscientious about birth control. If reproduction were impossible for
non-Celestials, then "irresponsible" sex might not be so much of a problem.

> What people have been saying abut the TelK reminds me of the old
> "Twilight Zone" ep that starred Sebastian Cabot as an "angel". A
> criminal type person dies and goes to his reward and is met by Sebastian
> Cabot. The guy gets everything he's always wanted. All the women, he
> can't lose at gambling, booze. He soon gets tired of it all. He tells SC
> that he'd rather be in hell. SC just laughs!!!

That's why my version of the Telestial Kingdom has all sorts of different
things that people can choose to do.

Lately we've been watching somf of the supplemental material on the "special
extended DVD edition" of Fellowship of the Ring. It sounds like it was an
amazing amount of fun to make that movie. I can picture Peter Jackson or
Cecil B. DeMille being in charge of putting together monumental Terrestrial
productions of The Silmarillion or Don Quixote or the Travels of Marco Polo
or Connecticut Yankee. Maybe there would be contests for who could make the
best version of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Maybe people would set up
reproductions of Jane Austen's England where they could live. With infinite
time and resources (one of my theories is that one reason we come to earth
is to learn how to manipulate matter) there would be all sorts of amazing
things that people could do.

Peggy


David / Amicus

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 11:29:29 PM9/16/03
to
<<you state "marriage only occurs in the CK". We don't know if that's
actually the case or not.>>

Huh? I thought one of the purposes of being a good Mormon was to be
married and sealed in the temple so that families can be forever! And
isn't that only possible in the CK?

It that's not so then why even bother with like keeping the WoW, paying
a tithe and doing all that's necessary to get a temple recommend and
stay temple worthy?

Eternal marriage is what sets Mormonism apart from other Christian
groups and most religions.

David Bowie

unread,
Sep 16, 2003, 11:45:44 PM9/16/03
to
From: "Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com>

<snip>

: David Bowie asked a little while back that I repost this story, so


: I suppose it's about time. This is something I wrote years ago, in
: response to a person who kept saying that the Telestial Kingdom
: would be hellish, because people wouldn't be all-powerful and able
: to do the same sorts of stuff that God does. Doug Brewster thinks
: otherwise. Maybe God does, too.)

: Doug Brewster Goes to Heaven

<snip>

I still love this story. This part, though, bothers me:

: Just then there was a knock at the door, and who should be standing


: on the other side but Edna! Edna looked terrific--with the fresh
: complexion and slender figure of the girl he'd fallen in love with.
: It occurred to Doug that he wouldn't mind a bit giving Edna a tumble
: for old times' sake. But no, when he glanced at her again, he saw
: that she had that "touch me not" look that he used to notice
: sometimes after she came home from church. What's more, she had that
: same glow about her that he'd learned to associate with people who
: came, like his chemistry professor, from some other world, or
: kingdom, or something.

The "touch me not" bit is what bugs me. It seems to me that the point of the
story is to say that all of the kingdoms involve positives--but it feels
like you're showing CK persons as being stuck-up or, even worse, sterile
(not in the fecundity sense, but in the emotional sense). I don't know--what
were you trying to get across with it?

Of course, you have to remember that you're being asked this by someone
who's never felt like either he or Jeanne projects a "touch-me-not" sort of
aura after church, or at least neither of us has ever really noticed it
emanating from the other--but maybe that's just more proof we're heathens.

<snip>

David, who had to learn to accept being a sexual being

Robert Perkins

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 12:51:27 AM9/17/03
to
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:52:24 -0000, Scott Marquardt <du...@dude.com>
wrote:

>??
>
>You mean fine, or pure matter?
>
>You mean there won't be spiritual (material) reality in the lower kingdoms?

That's a strawman.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Michael

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 1:00:48 AM9/17/03
to
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:04:47 -0600, David Bowie wrote:


> We don't know this. It's certainly held by some Mormons, but we have no
> idea whether sex will exist in the next life, and if it does we have no
> idea of what its form will be or who will be capable of it under what
> circumstances.

I'm one of those Mormons that believes in (1) the restoration of all
things and (2) that we will be resurrected as male and female. Insofar
that it seems unlikely your clothing will also be resurrected, I suspect
at least initially a great many naked people will be wandering around
looking for a robe or something. Should a man and a woman decide to try
something, I cannot imagine the police coming to stop them; but it is
also not at all certain that anything will come up, if you take my
meaning, since it is largely a neurochemical response. As we get older
we get a taste of the possibility that nudity means absolutely nothing
any more, a condition that may persist in the Resurrection of the Most
(which I suppose will conform somewhat to a Gaussian distribution also
known as the Bell curve).

A corollary to this idea, which is hardly new (searching the Journal of
Discourses turns up the idea from several notables; not the least of
which is Brigham Young himself) is that if there is to be a restoration,
it follows (or preceeds?) that Adam and Eve must have been capable of
procreation. There is simply no mention of it anywhere and I have no
idea how long they were in the garden and some years ago this story was
said to be at least partly.. well I forget the word but something like
figurative. It is a useful description but widely recognized as
incomplete.

Sincerely,
Michael

Peggy Rogers

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 10:30:57 AM9/17/03
to
"Scott Marquardt" <du...@dude.com> wrote:

> Peggy Rogers wrote:

Scott--

We are not amused.

I think you know that this is a form of argumentation that I particularly
abhor: taking what you _do_ understand to be someone's intended meaning, and
twisting it into a different meaning that will make them look foolish. I
know that you think Latter-day Saints are not entitled to use the word
"spiritual" in its common meaning of "concerned with religious values," but
they do it all the time whether you like it or not.


So especially for you, Scott, even though it messes up my tidy parallelism:
;-P

the Telestial Kingdom is the

heaven of the senses, the Terrestrial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses


and the intellect, and the Celestial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses,

the intellect, and the pure love of Christ, plus boundless creativity.

P


Might Be Me

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 10:38:26 AM9/17/03
to

"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:vmfl8p4...@news.supernews.com...

> <<you state "marriage only occurs in the CK". We don't know if that's
> actually the case or not.>>
>
> Huh? I thought one of the purposes of being a good Mormon was to be
> married and sealed in the temple so that families can be forever! And
> isn't that only possible in the CK?

As one of my wives used to say, "That's waht you get for doing your own
thinking!" You have leapt from the fact that there is no "Celestial
Marriage" outside the Celestial Kingdom to the thought that there is no sex
in the Telestial Kingdom. Hope you didn't strain anything in the leap! The
major part of the error seems to be in thinking that casual sex (or even
monogamous and devoted sex) without family is a good substitue for eternal
familiies.

> It that's not so then why even bother with like keeping the WoW, paying
> a tithe and doing all that's necessary to get a temple recommend and
> stay temple worthy?

Well, why do those Roman Catholics who religiously follow what they believe
to be the commandments of God do so? Could it have something to do with
faith in and love for Him?

> Eternal marriage is what sets Mormonism apart from other Christian
> groups and most religions.

Yes, that is part of what sets us apart. But that has little to do with
sealing your argument that therefore there can be no sex without eternal
marriage. After all, here in mortality (which we are told the Telestial
Kingdom will resemble to some degree) there is sex without eternal marriage.

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 10:40:51 AM9/17/03
to
Robert Perkins wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:52:24 -0000, Scott Marquardt <du...@dude.com>
>wrote:
>
>>??
>>
>>You mean fine, or pure matter?
>>
>>You mean there won't be spiritual (material) reality in the lower kingdoms?
>
>That's a strawman.

And that's an assertion.

How is it a straw man? What weak proxy for a Mormon position am I setting
up to tear down?

I'm only observing that Mormons continue to equivocate in their use of the
word "spirit" and "spiritual." If spirit is matter, then anything that's
spiritual is material as well. If it's matter, it's material. If it's
substance, it's substantial. If spirit is matter, then spiritual is
material.

- Scott

Might Be Me

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 10:59:41 AM9/17/03
to

"Michael" <news...@orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:vmfqk0o...@news.supernews.com...

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:04:47 -0600, David Bowie wrote:

Snip

> I'm one of those Mormons that believes in (1) the restoration of all
> things and (2) that we will be resurrected as male and female. Insofar
> that it seems unlikely your clothing will also be resurrected, I suspect
> at least initially a great many naked people will be wandering around
> looking for a robe or something.

Why do you think our clothing will not be resurrected? There have been
persons who were excommunicated at the time of their death who were buried
with (not in) Temple robes. When we are baptized, our clothing has to be
completely immersed or the baptism has to be redone. If the clothing needs
to be baptized, it seems that clothng would resurrect.

Snip

> A corollary to this idea, which is hardly new (searching the Journal of
> Discourses turns up the idea from several notables; not the least of
> which is Brigham Young himself) is that if there is to be a restoration,
> it follows (or preceeds?) that Adam and Eve must have been capable of
> procreation.

Why any question? If Adam and Eve were not capable of procreation, where did
we all come from?

Snip more about Adam, Eve and the Garden, and something being figurative.

I point out again that there was apparently nothing wrong with Adam and Eve
being naked, so far as God was concerned. It was the Serpent who was
concerned about it.

Peggy Rogers

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 7:01:14 PM9/17/03
to
"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:

> From: "Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com>

> I still love this story. This part, though, bothers me:
>
> : Just then there was a knock at the door, and who should be standing
> : on the other side but Edna! Edna looked terrific--with the fresh
> : complexion and slender figure of the girl he'd fallen in love with.
> : It occurred to Doug that he wouldn't mind a bit giving Edna a tumble
> : for old times' sake. But no, when he glanced at her again, he saw
> : that she had that "touch me not" look that he used to notice
> : sometimes after she came home from church. What's more, she had that
> : same glow about her that he'd learned to associate with people who
> : came, like his chemistry professor, from some other world, or
> : kingdom, or something.

> The "touch me not" bit is what bugs me. It seems to me that the point of
the
> story is to say that all of the kingdoms involve positives--but it feels
> like you're showing CK persons as being stuck-up or, even worse, sterile
> (not in the fecundity sense, but in the emotional sense). I don't
know--what
> were you trying to get across with it?

First of all, Edna isn't from the CK -- she's from the Terrestrial, like the
chemistry professor. I probably didn't make that very clear. But then, Doug
is pretty vague about places outside his own world. The only Celestial being
Doug encounters in the story is the Judge in the second paragraph. After
all, we read in D&C 76:86 that angels from the Terrestrial minister in the
Telestial.

So on earth, Edna had probably gone to one of those churches that promoted
the idea that sex is vaguely disreputable, and for women mainly a duty for
the sake of carrying on the human race. And Doug wasn't a very romantic or
considerate lover, so Edna had mostly bought the church's view. And she'd
been so busy with the music stuff that she hadn't taken time to re-think
this particular notion.

> Of course, you have to remember that you're being asked this by someone
> who's never felt like either he or Jeanne projects a "touch-me-not" sort
of
> aura after church, or at least neither of us has ever really noticed it
> emanating from the other--but maybe that's just more proof we're heathens.

I do think that Mormonism, in spite of its fervid prohibition of sex outside
of marriage, is a lot more positive in its view of sexuality than a lot of
denominations -- especially if you compare it with, say, Catholicism in the
Middle Ages.

Peggy


Robert Perkins

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 9:32:29 PM9/17/03
to
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:40:51 -0000, Scott Marquardt <do...@doot.com>
wrote:

>How is it a straw man? What weak proxy for a Mormon position am I setting
>up to tear down?

It isn't, but I only realized it after hitting "send". Mea culpa.

It's still distraction fallacy, but it isn't a straw man.

But this:

>I'm only observing that Mormons continue to equivocate in their use of the
>word "spirit" and "spiritual." If spirit is matter, then anything that's
>spiritual is material as well. If it's matter, it's material. If it's
>substance, it's substantial. If spirit is matter, then spiritual is
>material.

....*is* a straw man, which Peggy has already taken care of.

HTH! HAND!

Joel Rees

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 10:14:53 PM9/17/03
to
Michael <news...@orneveien.org> wrote in message news:<vmfqk0o...@news.supernews.com>...
> ... Insofar
> that it seems unlikely your clothing will also be resurrected, ...

Erm, ehem, ahhm, well, </cough> I just wanted to point out that being
clothed in glory will probably be far more effective for whatever
covering and protection is necessary than being clothed in moldering
textiles of some sort (despite the perversions of semantics that have
been made with the word "glory").

(Even petroleum-based synthetics apparently are nutritive to candida
albicans.)

Joel

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 10:18:52 PM9/17/03
to
Peggy Rogers wrote:
>"Scott Marquardt" <du...@dude.com> wrote:

>> You mean there won't be spiritual (material) reality in the lower
>kingdoms?

>We are not amused.

This will ever and always be a motif here, you know.

>I think you know that this is a form of argumentation that I particularly
>abhor: taking what you _do_ understand to be someone's intended meaning, and
>twisting it into a different meaning that will make them look foolish.

That's not the point, and I wish you understood that. The point is to
enforce coherence. I think LdS want their beliefs to be coherent. It's
incoherent, though, to speak of "spiritual" things as both nonmaterial and
material. If spirit is matter, as some LdS believe, then either they or LdS
who believe "spiritual" things are nonmaterial, cannot be right.

>I know that you think Latter-day Saints are not entitled to use the word
>"spiritual" in its common meaning of "concerned with religious values," but
>they do it all the time whether you like it or not.

Well, well understood. Surely you don't think that as an orthodox, *I*
object!

My objection is to incoherence in Mormonism.

I think you're mistaking my response to you as a word for you. It's not.
It's a reminder to all that if your viewpoint is to be privileged (and I
think it should be), then there will be issues for contrary viewpoints.

Sorry if indirection seems like direct criticism; it's not.

>So especially for you, Scott, even though it messes up my tidy parallelism:
>;-P

>the Telestial Kingdom is the
>heaven of the senses, the Terrestrial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses
>and the intellect, and the Celestial Kingdom is the heaven of the senses,
>the intellect, and the pure love of Christ, plus boundless creativity.

It's a bit odd that the telestial kingdom is ruled by a spirit who lacks
physical senses, but is the heaven of the senses. And it's a bit odd that
the kingdom ruled by Christ isn't where the pure love for him issues from
its denizens.

- Scott

Joel Rees

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:25:12 AM9/18/03
to
"Might Be Me" <n...@any.com> wrote in message news:<vmgsf25...@news.supernews.com>...
> ... The

> major part of the error seems to be in thinking that casual sex (or even
> monogamous and devoted sex) without family is a good substitue for eternal
> familiies.
> ...

Never could understand why they called it "going all the way", way
back when. If they had done what they claimed to have done, they'd
have only taken the first step, and without the formal declaration of
intent to really go all the way, at that.

Joel, thinking, as usual, a little too hard

PS <connection topic="eternity">Going all the way for a Mormon, of
course, would seem to be impossible during mortality.</connection>

Might Be Me

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:27:26 AM9/18/03
to

"Joel Rees" <jo...@alpsgiken.gr.jp> wrote in message
news:vmi58tp...@news.supernews.com...

Are you even thinking of implying that the body is less likely to have
decomposed than that the clothing will have decomposed?

I wonder if it may be that the reason that Adam and Eve were nude and
unashamed in the beginning was that they may have been "clothed in glory" to
some degree? But if so, how could Lucifer have managed to stay in their
presence?

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:29:52 AM9/18/03
to
Robert Perkins wrote:

>....*is* a straw man, which Peggy has already taken care of.

Can you quote what she said that "took care of" it?

What constitutes "taking care of" a straw man?

- Scott

Joel Rees

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 9:35:35 AM9/18/03
to
Speculative responses to some possibly irresponsible speculation --

;-)

Scott Marquardt <do...@doot.com> wrote in message news:<vmi5gc3...@news.supernews.com>...
> ...


> It's a bit odd that the telestial kingdom is ruled by a spirit who lacks
> physical senses, but is the heaven of the senses.

But if spirit is matter as we say, why should we assume that the
Spirit lacks sufficient physical sense to rule in a kingdom where the
people have been saved from the worst of the consequences of their
lusts? (If they could not have been saved that much, they would not be
able to withstand any glory at all, I think.)

> And it's a bit odd that
> the kingdom ruled by Christ isn't where the pure love for him issues from
> its denizens.

These are the good people of the earth -- people who understand, feel,
and give the pure love of Christ, but are not willing to follow fully
in His footsteps. It is _only_ their unwillingness to assume the full
burdens of Godliness that prevents them. They love Christ with a pure
love (finally understanding what His name means). They were not able
to transfer that love to god before their death. So, in a sense, they
don't have the fullness of the pure love _of_ Christ.

I still take issue with your apparent misunderstanding of our concepts
of rule. To rule is to lead, ergo, to lead to.

Joel, feeling a little telestial today, and trying to drown it in
s.r.m

John S.Colton

unread,
Sep 24, 2003, 10:33:11 AM9/24/03
to
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:18:52 -0000, Scott Marquardt wrote:

[snip]


>My objection is to incoherence in Mormonism.

[snip]

Is that really the case? From our discussions in the past, it seems
to me that your objection is to Mormonism, plain and simple. You just
use (perceived) incoherence as the battering ram with which to
(attempt to) knock down the Mormonism gate.

John


*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 11:24:58 AM9/25/03
to
[Moderator's Note: Please remember that using tags suchc as "neo-Mormon"
towards those that reject such tags is discourteous.
]

John S.Colton wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:18:52 -0000, Scott Marquardt wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>My objection is to incoherence in Mormonism.
>[snip]
>
>Is that really the case? From our discussions in the past, it seems
>to me that your objection is to Mormonism, plain and simple. You just
>use (perceived) incoherence as the battering ram with which to
>(attempt to) knock down the Mormonism gate.

Well, in a sense yes, you're right. But that's been misconstrued in the
past -- as when Peggy figured that I would love to see the CoJCoLdS
dismantled and her members dispersed "among other various congregations."
See a piece of my reply to that below.

I could just as well reduce the above remark to this: My objection is to
incoherence.

Mormonism obviously doesn't cohere with orthodoxy, which makes Mormonism a
concern. But my concern is that within Mormonism that doesn't cohere with
what's true in her. One doesn't remove all the internal organs when going
after a troublesome but not metastatic cancer. You surely remember how many
times I've irritated Rob by stating my pleasure with some of his neoMormon
tendencies. I'm certainly not against that kind of progress within
Mormonism.

Please remember periodic occasions when I've tried to make my attitude
clear. This reiteration dates to January of this year:

<quote>
October 1999, to Peggy
Point being, were Mormonism to "go orthodox," it would be pleasant to find
her on the road ahead of us, where orthodoxy needs to be anyway. I mean,
why not? What's unlikely about that? Nothing a priori, certainly. Heaven
forbid the CoJCoLdS should fall in rank, treading the path we've worn bare
with our own foolishness. Be orthodox, yes. But don't be everything else we
orthodox often can be, as well. Be everything else Mormons can be!

September 2000, to Raymond
LdS haven't just become more orthodox, they've become more humble. With
such humility comes wisdom. I still think that Mormonism could become
something great, indeed, and could meet orthodoxy down the road a piece on
the same path.

May 2001, to Robert
I've spoken for a couple years about an eventual rapprochement. Mormonism
could learn some lessons we orthodox don't have the opportunity to, enroute
to that meeting place in the road. Don't get me wrong, that road is
orthodox. But the Mormon context, and the painful journey it might be for
some (though I can't imagine why it couldn't as well be joyful), could be a
great opportunity for us all to learn.
</quote>

- Scott

David Bowie

unread,
Sep 25, 2003, 12:26:22 PM9/25/03
to
From: "John S.Colton" <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu>
: On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:18:52 -0000, Scott Marquardt wrote:

: >My objection is to incoherence in Mormonism.

: Is that really the case? From our discussions in the past, it seems


: to me that your objection is to Mormonism, plain and simple. You just
: use (perceived) incoherence as the battering ram with which to
: (attempt to) knock down the Mormonism gate.

Or maybe it's an objection to Joseph Smith, plain and simple? From past
discussions, i'm not sure which Scott objects to more, and whether his basic
objection to Mormonism is that it's a product of Joseph Smith, or his basic
objection to Joseph Smith is that he's the founder of Mormonism.

I'd be very interested to hear what Scott has to say in reply to *both*
John's and my questions.

David, who means something more than "No and no"

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 9:11:41 AM9/26/03
to
David Bowie wrote:
>From: "John S.Colton" <colton.idisl...@uwlax.edu>

>Or maybe it's an objection to Joseph Smith, plain and simple? From past
>discussions, i'm not sure which Scott objects to more, and whether his basic
>objection to Mormonism is that it's a product of Joseph Smith, or his basic
>objection to Joseph Smith is that he's the founder of Mormonism.

Ah, those binary alternatives again. ;-)

If a con man concocts a pyramid scheme, I think it would be beside the
point to wonder which people held in worse contempt -- the man, or the
plan.

Jesus said offenses are inevitable, but woe to those by whom they come. As
I've said before in this newsgroup, it's too late for a millstone to be
hung around Smith's neck. So he already missed out on the better course --
in my opinion.

- Scott

Joel Rees

unread,
Sep 26, 2003, 9:14:26 AM9/26/03
to
Scott Marquardt <do...@doot.com> wrote in message news:<vn626af...@news.supernews.com>...
> ...

> I could just as well reduce the above remark to this: My objection is to
> incoherence.

One man's incoherence is another man's logic.

> Mormonism obviously doesn't cohere with orthodoxy,

Of course it doesn't. Why _should_ it?

> which makes Mormonism a
> concern. But my concern is that within Mormonism that doesn't cohere with
> what's true in her.

... according to your perceptions, which I have never seen you
extricate from your orthodox context. As you have pointed out before,
it would be our (missionary) duty to give you the motivation to do so.
But if that fails, shouldn't we just both move on and let God take
care of the things we can't?

> One doesn't remove all the internal organs when going
> after a troublesome but not metastatic cancer.

You do realize that you set yourself up for a malpractice suit (or
practicing without license charge?) if it turns out the organ has no
tumor at all, benign or otherwise?

> You surely remember how many
> times I've irritated Rob by stating my pleasure with some of his neoMormon
> tendencies. I'm certainly not against that kind of progress within
> Mormonism.

The irritation is that you perceive something to be neo when it is
simply an expression of true doctrines which have not heard in the
mormon context. Many of us chuckle, because what you see as "neo" is
only something we've heard decades ago in leadership training sessions
and the like, or things which our grandparents passed down to us. You
see it as new, because you insist on focusing on the rumors, something
which I have harped on in the past.

True doctrines are never found in rumors, which should be obvious.

> Please remember periodic occasions when I've tried to make my attitude
> clear. This reiteration dates to January of this year:
>
> <quote>
> October 1999, to Peggy
> Point being, were Mormonism to "go orthodox," it would be pleasant to find
> her on the road ahead of us, where orthodoxy needs to be anyway. I mean,
> why not? What's unlikely about that? Nothing a priori, certainly. Heaven
> forbid the CoJCoLdS should fall in rank, treading the path we've worn bare
> with our own foolishness. Be orthodox, yes.

But if orthodoxy means conforming to what men (the race or the gender)
define as orthodox, why should I obey men rather than God? (Pardon the
reference.)

> But don't be everything else we
> orthodox often can be, as well. Be everything else Mormons can be!

Many of us our. Some of us backslide. But if you really want to help
the backsliders, you can't do it from outside. (That was a lesson my
Dad hammered at me with from before I was baptized to well after I was
in college. I did not want to put up with the crud, and I was _not_
going to conform to the mormon culture around me just so I could fight
from the inside. I'm still rather anti-conformist, but I find my
father was right. Why? Because, when I sit down to have a serious chat
with my church leaders, I discover they would far rather have me
conforming to the things God teaches me than to the things men teach
me.)

> September 2000, to Raymond
> LdS haven't just become more orthodox, they've become more humble. With
> such humility comes wisdom. I still think that Mormonism could become
> something great, indeed, and could meet orthodoxy down the road a piece on
> the same path.

Well, humility is definitely something I could use more of. In my
present case, I could perhaps use some more of the kind of humility
that cleanses the temple, but I'm referring to work, not church or
this NG when I say that.

> May 2001, to Robert
> I've spoken for a couple years about an eventual rapprochement. Mormonism
> could learn some lessons we orthodox don't have the opportunity to, enroute
> to that meeting place in the road.

We all have advantages in the roads we travel, if we travel them well
(and not to the drumbeat that bystanders may want to beat out). And,
of course, we all have things we can learn from each other.

> Don't get me wrong, that road is
> orthodox.

Not by any definition that mortal men have devised.

> But the Mormon context, and the painful journey it might be for
> some (though I can't imagine why it couldn't as well be joyful), could be a
> great opportunity for us all to learn.
> </quote>

The painful journey is painful, and there is no reason to try to make
it worse or longer or more repetitive than it is, but it is necessary.
Otherwise, we're just looking at maps.

Joel

0 new messages