D&C 130:2 The same sociality which exists here will exist there.
harleypig I had a discussion about the idea represented in this verse that caused me to think about this forum, in the sense of being able to ask a question without worrying (too much) about being criticized in some way for thinking too much.
First, let me disclaim any criticism for any church leader, past or present. That is not my intent, nor desire.
Everything I can find from the church, or authority, that discusses this scripture, or even mentions it in passing, focuses on the family unit we'll have in the eternities. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't disagree. If the family unit is the basis for everything else, it makes sense to focus on the main building block.
But that's not what the sentence means, at least not fully. There is no qualifier that limits what form of sociality is being talked about here. Well, perhaps the phrase 'coupled with eternal glory' is a qualifier, but it's not specific at all.
It seems to me that we can infer that the inverse is true as well, though I cannot find anything to back it up. I.e., the sociality which exists here existed in the pre-mortal existence, coupled with a–perhaps different kind of–eternal glory.
Further, we can assume, based on the use of the broadly defined word 'sociality', that not just church related society was being discussed, but all the myriad forms of social groups we have now.
We can assume that not only did we have, and will have, wards and stakes and bishops and Elder's Quorums and the like, but we did have, and will have, dancing troupes and popular singers and cooking stars and sports and … the list goes on. We might even have had, and will have, forums where we discuss things of interest to us, which we'll access through our own little white stones. :]
I realize I'm founding this belief on a single verse, and am quite possibly over analyzing this, but I don't think so.
My question is, does anyone have a non-emotional rebuttal to this? I mean, is there something said by somebody with some authority that will put paid to this theory?
C0unt_Z3r0
is there something said by somebody with some authority that will put paid to this theory?
Not that I know of. One way or another, I've never heard of anything authoritative that says what you're suggesting CAN'T be true. It's an interesting speculation and one worth pondering. Thanks for that insight.
Reddit_Burninator The spirits that dwell in these tabernacles on this earth, when they leave them go directly into this world of spirits. What! A congregated mass of inhabitants there in spirit, mingling with each other, as they do here? Yes, brethren, they are there together, and if they associate together, and collect together, in clans and in societies as they do here, it is their privilege. No doubt they yet, more or less, see, hear, converse and have to do with each other, both good and bad. If the Elders of Israel in these latter times go and preach to the spirits in prison, they associate with them, precisely as our Elders associate with the wicked in the flesh, when they go to preach to them (DBY, 378).
**Reddit_Burninator**
Reddit's a clan, right?
Reddit_Burninator When you are in the spirit world, everything there will appear as natural as things now do. Spirits will be familiar with spirits in the spirit world–will converse, behold, and exercise every variety of communication with one another as familiarly and naturally as while here in tabernacles. There, as here, all things will be natural, and you will understand them as you now understand natural things. You will there see that those spirits we are speaking of are active; they sleep not. And you will learn that they are striving with all their might–laboring and toiling diligently as any individual would to accomplish an act in this world (DBY, 380).
MathFabMathonwy
We can assume that not only did we have, and will have, wards and stakes and bishops and Elder's Quorums and the like, but we did have, and will have, dancing troupes and popular singers and cooking stars and sports and … the list goes on.
I have more thoughts than time to write them here at the moment. Overall, I think "the same sociality" is accurate, but perhaps not as we think. As an example, the Church is not "wards and stakes and bishops" and the like – those are a temporary (and IMO telestial) manifestation of the order of the Priesthood. At one point we had only one stake. Sometimes now we also have branches and districts. Maybe sometime in the future we'll have some other form of earthly organization. It's not the temporary, temporal form that matters, but the underlying principle.
Likewise, I don't believe the image of us living "with our families" as we often think of it makes any sense. If my wife is sealed to her parents as their child, does she live with them "as part of their family" as a daughter? Or does she live with me as my wife? Do our adult children "live with" us, or with their own families?
When we try to constrain exaltation to our current understanding of what "the same sociality" means, we end up with concepts that don't hold up. IMO it's the connection – the sealed, eternal connection – between husband and wife and between generations that matters. That, with the priesthood as the scaffolding, is the "sociality" that remains eternally. In a perfect, exalted world I wouldn't be at all surprised to find this has an analog in friendship, as we are all ultimately sealed together as family too.
But I don't really see anyone bouncing from cloud to cloud on their way over to their bishop's house for a backyard barbecue in the Celestial Kingdom. That kind of thinking is, IMO, analogous to 4 year olds applying their thinking and their world to what it is to be grown up and married when they play "house." They have a hint of what it is to be grown up and married, but they miss the much deeper essence of the experience.
**harleypig**
I should have included a qualification with my assumption of the existence of these groups and societies that they would be equivalent to our mortal experiences, but modified to fit the circumstances.
Children may not see the deeper meaning inherent in a bunch of their parents friends getting together for a joint activity, but the fact remains that the activity happens. I have no problem envisioning bouncing from cloud to cloud to the local celestial park to bbq some celestial steak and s'mores, with my myriad spirit children poking their collective noses in the nooks and crannies of the local star system and scaring the natives.
**pierzstyx**
That's a particular northern European tradition, not part of the gospel.
While I'm not claiming doctrinal standing for it, that practice was not isolated to Northern Europe, nor is that conception. I believe you find it in just about every civilization.
> If so, then sealing children to parents makes no sense.
I really don't understand this objection. Being sealed to your spouse doesn't stop you from visiting your parents does it? Being sealed to your parents doesn't mean you aren't able to live separately from them and with your wife does it? I think the answer there is no. So I can't conceive of the same working in the CK either.
**testudoaubreii**
I think the answer here may be that when you get married you cease to strictly be members of your blood family and begin one of your own.
This is part of the reason why dowries were given back in the day. When a woman left her family, she *left her family* and marriage united her to her husband and they began an entirely new family. You leave father and mother and become something new. While this may be a telestial concept, and obviously not as rigid as conceptualized generally, it is a possibility. I think we'll probably live in our married family units.
**pierzstyx**
Education in what words mean is not the same things as being able to communicate celestial concepts in a telestial tongue. It has been repeatedly said that mortal language fails to describe heavenly reality. But really you don't have to take it that far because neither Joseph, nor God, ever explained what they meant by the usage of the term or how broadly it could be applied. There are plenty of socialities that exist here that we know won't in Heaven, nation-states for example. In fact, the only instruction we've given that could help us interpret that statement is consistent application of it to the family. I see no reason why any application beyond what we've been given beyond that is either reasonable or needed.
As for the Church of the Firstborn, nothing about that link implied any form of organization as we currently experience. I never said there wouldn't be any order, only that the order we think of, our mortal order of Elder Quorums, Stake Presidents, etc. would be obsolete and unneeded. Rather there would be spontaneous order. Nothing in that post contradicted that belief. If anything when everyone is a God or Goddess, Priest and Priestess, King and Queen, then, to crib syndrome, no one is. There are no subjects, no inherent forced hierarchy of order, when everyone is a Supreme Ruler. There will be no need for such an organization as now exists in the Celestial Kingdom because all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present Gods simply do not *need* it.