The temple

[Cyclingmom]

I’m just wanting some dialogue on something I think about often. I’m active in the LDS church. I believe that it teaches good pronciples and I believe in Christ. I believe families are forever. What I have a hard time with is believing families are only forever IF certain rituals are done in an LDS temple. My heart and mind can’t quite wrap around any possible reason for that....but I’ve tried to have faith. The problem is; it’s the BASIS of our religion. “Families can be together forever”, and “go to the temple”  are pounded in us. But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! Did Christ teach that at all? It seems to me that He would have taught us about sealing to a spouse, etc. if that were the bottom line. There are so many examples in life where the ideals we are taught just can’t work out. Blended families, deaths, etc. So, yeah....I do have faith that it will all work out in heaven and that maybe we just don’t have all the understanding needed. BUT shouldn’t we have a logical reason with the minds God gave us? I can’t see it. I want to but I can’t. 

[Storm Rider]

In this day and age the idea that there is truth, objective truth, is beyond the grasp of many. Instead, the masses are taught that they have their truth, subjective truth, that may be good for you, but it is not for everyone. The fundamental assumption of this philosophy is the self and satisfying its desires, wants, and passions. This is in direct conflict with the reality of God and the fact that he teaches the truth to his children.

Jesus taught that baptism was a requirement for salvation. The vast majority of Christians recognize this truth. It opens the door to required ordinances for salvation and stepping stones for Exaltation.

Your question deals directly with the ordinances of Exaltation. You seem to accept the requirement of baptism but stumble over the existence of another ordinance for Exaltation.  

I don't quite understand your statement regarding your non-LDS friend....she can't even do now until she is dead?  How is that? She can do it now while she is living. The fact that God has designed a plan that everyone will either be able to receive the ordinances of salvation and Exaltation in this life or in the next sets the restored gospel of all other teachings of other Christain denominations. Your friend seems to be saying, I want to be saved, but in only want to be saved based upon what I think and want to do rather than humbly following after the Savior.

Lastly, I have never known a teaching from God that we should understand his logic and reasoning for what he does. In fact, we can discuss numerous scriptures that teach the exact opposite - his ways are not our ways.  A foundational stone of discipleship is humility; that we will accept his will for our lives rather than our own. 

If this continues to be a problem for you then get to the temple and begin and never stop doing temple work for the dead. In this process, you will be known as a savior on Mount Zion. Many will say things - they will talk about Jesus and they will even say they have done many wonderful things in Jesus' name, and yet the Savior will say, "I never knew you...".  The lynchpin is to hear and obey. 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Cyclingmom said:

But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! 

Excellent questions!  And welcome to the forum

I'm going to start off by addressing a common myth: that the act of us humans going through a religious ritual in and of itself does anything.  That is completely false.  For example: the act of a person getting dunked in and of itself washes away someone's sins-- no no!  Rather Christ & His atonement are what paid the price and take away a repentant person's sins from them.  The act of baptism is that person choosing to covenant with the Lord and have Christ does this from her/him.    Christ does ALL the heavy lifting, we merely accept Him and His gifts/ways.

The same is true for sealings: the act of us kneeling across the alter in and of itself does nothing.  Rather it's Christ that's doing the lifting: He paved the way for ALL mankind to be saved and together.  What is actually happening in a sealing is us covenanting with Christ and accepting His gift of being with our family.  Again, He does all the lifting, we merely accept Him and His gifts/ways.  

Rituals themselves don't do any saving.  Rather the itself exist to help us mortals visualize this covenant: for example seeing the old you be buried in water and the new one arise back out of that 'grave'.  During a sealing we see each other go on forever, kneeling together.     When you think of it, this visualizing is really what are rituals are about (religious or not).  For example, the act of wearing a high school graduation cap and gown in and of itself doesn't actually make anyone graduate high school.  Rather, the reason we put on caps and gowns at graduation is because it's an outward ritual to visualize the internal changes to that person.    And we mortals, we do need that ritual visualization.  And of course when it comes things regarding salvation, we do desperately need that acceptance of Christ. 

2 hours ago, Cyclingmom said:

There are so many examples in life where the ideals we are taught just can’t work out. Blended families, deaths, etc. So, yeah....I do have faith that it will all work out in heaven and that maybe we just don’t have all the understanding needed. 

Another common myth: that your family in the Celestial Kingdom going to be copy-paste just like your family here on Earth.

No.  YOU aren't even going like the you here.  Because, let's face it you currently are a very small minded selfish sinner.  I am too!   Each one of us are.  We are nothing but a pitiful shadow of a shadow of the beautiful gloried beings we will each be then.  This individual transformation fundamentally metamorphs each relationship we have.  The version of child you are now is nothing but a pitiful shadow of what it will be once you are perfected and perfectly honor your father and mother.  Same with honoring your spouse and being perfectly one with that perfect being.  Same with loving your children.  

So... yeah, we can't picture what it is to be a perfected being.  Let alone to be in a single perfect relationship-- let alone many with your parents, spouse, and children.  We do not REMOTELY 'get' what it is to be in an exalted family.   Let alone minor things like: "hey what is it like to play tag with my youthful great-great-great-great-grandma" or other living arrangement stuff.  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Cyclingmom said:

I’m just wanting some dialogue on something I think about often. I’m active in the LDS church. I believe that it teaches good pronciples and I believe in Christ. I believe families are forever. What I have a hard time with is believing families are only forever IF certain rituals are done in an LDS temple. My heart and mind can’t quite wrap around any possible reason for that....but I’ve tried to have faith. The problem is; it’s the BASIS of our religion. “Families can be together forever”, and “go to the temple”  are pounded in us. But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! Did Christ teach that at all? It seems to me that He would have taught us about sealing to a spouse, etc. if that were the bottom line. There are so many examples in life where the ideals we are taught just can’t work out. Blended families, deaths, etc. So, yeah....I do have faith that it will all work out in heaven and that maybe we just don’t have all the understanding needed. BUT shouldn’t we have a logical reason with the minds God gave us? I can’t see it. I want to but I can’t. 

In the scriptures, the Lord teaches-

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

That seems very logical to me and I think this is true regardless of the topic, including eternal families.  

I've run into people who belong to Christian denominations that teach that people will not be married in Heaven and they still believe they will be with their spouse after death (even though some of them were specifically married 'until death do us part').  I think that a lot of people recognize that it would not be God's desire to split up people who love each other but they don't bother going much deeper than that.  It's kind of a 'God wouldn't do that to me" way of looking at blessings (or not getting a blessing) rather than actually studying the issue out.  But we know that simply wanting a blessing isn't what determines whether or not we will receive it.  

[longview]

There are 3 degrees in the Celestial Kingdom.  The highest of the highest (top degree) will be entered into only by those who have made serious Temple Covenants.  The purpose is to qualify for the work God is doing.  Which is to invite intelligences to become Spirit Children and to participate in the Great Plan of Happiness.  The SCOPE is far greater than merely to have our "earthly family" to be sealed together for Eternity or even to bind all the righteous generations one after another from Adam to the end of the Millenium (The House of Israel).

Those who are NOT interested in committing to that kind of work can simply occupy the lower orders.  But they will NOT have an "increase".  I suppose anyone can be free to associate with beings at their level (or lower) but will not "bear" anymore children.

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;  2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];  3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.  4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

[rpn]

But all people will at some point choose to accept the ordinances that have been done by proxy for them on earth.  

We don't know much about what Jesus actually taught when He was born in the meridian of time:  we have only a couple hundred pages, none of it contemporaneous with His life and all of it come down through people who may not have even known (they didn't have the internet), much less preserved biblical mention of various teachings.   We also know (presumably because we presently have the ability to make and keep records that did not exist when Christ was on the earth or even later until fairly recently) that work for the dead is one of the important duties of this dispensation (yes it IS mentioned in the bible and there are rare other Christian faiths who taught baptism for the dead).

To say that Jesus didn't teach something assumes the bible preserved everything, but we factually disavow that, and it is practically, highly unlikely.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Cyclingmom said:

.................I believe families are forever. What I have a hard time with is believing families are only forever IF certain rituals are done in an LDS temple. My heart and mind can’t quite wrap around any possible reason for that....but I’ve tried to have faith. The problem is; it’s the BASIS of our religion. “Families can be together forever”, and “go to the temple”  are pounded in us. But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! Did Christ teach that at all? ........

 

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

...................................

Jesus taught that baptism was a requirement for salvation. The vast majority of Christians recognize this truth. It opens the door to required ordinances for salvation and stepping stones for Exaltation.

Your question deals directly with the ordinances of Exaltation. You seem to accept the requirement of baptism but stumble over the existence of another ordinance for Exaltation.  ........................................

Jesus insisted on being baptized by John, even though he and John both knew that he did not need baptism of repentance.  So why did he insist on it?  "To fulfill all righteousness."  In other words, the sacraments (holy acts) must be done by everyone here or hereafter.  No exceptions, and Jesus sets that example for us.  This includes marriage sealings, and all other sacraments.  A Roman Catholic instinctively understands that need, but a Protestant does not.  Seems alien to those not engaged in such practices.  How can an oath or covenant have eternal value?  Under formal priesthood supervision, they are acts done in the name of God.

[Garden Girl]

Hello Cycling Mom...

One of the things I love most about the Church is the doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families, sealed on earth and sealed in heaven... As a widow for the past 20 years, it is comforting to me to think of my husband, to whom I'm married not just "until death do you part," but for "time and all eternity."   And my being sealed to my mom, dad, and sister as an eternal family on Oct 3, 1955 in the Salt Lake temple... I remember the feeling of kneeling together around the altar, joining hands as the sealing was performed.  I am the only one left, but I take comfort that my family is waiting for me.

My faith in these principles is strengthened by the scriptures... For instance... Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gives the Apostle Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" that "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  This is further explained in D&C 132:45-46... "For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.  And verily, verily I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens..."

Just as Christ bestowed power and authority or "keys" upon Peter, so he restored these in our dispensation through Joseph Smith... and why we have the temple ordinances and covenants for the sealings...  and why we do these ordinances on behalf of our departed loved ones.  And as rpn points out... our loved ones will be able to accept or refuse the proxy ordinances.  But I doubt there will be very many who do not accept them...

GG 

 

[Duncan]

One of my favourite ideas about the Temple comes from this article by Pres. Marion G. Romney

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/03/temples-the-gates-to-heaven?lang=eng

I like the idea of the Temple as a gate, baptism as a gate that puts us on the path that leads back to God through Christ. I like the idea of ordinances as rungs on the ladder, we all fell from the prescence of God and the atonement of Christ is the ladder and the rungs are his ordinances leading back to God. Our Stake about 10 years ago had this mission vision thing, "the Pathway back to Christ"or something, I thought it should be "the Pathway with Christ" our covenants and ordinances link us with Christ, who's other name is also known as "Immanuel" aka. "God with us". My 2 cents

[katherine the great]

On 9/22/2018 at 9:54 AM, Cyclingmom said:

 when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done

I don't think there is anything in LDS theology that teaches that people won't see or be with their loved ones in the afterlife without temple ordinances. I believe Joseph Smith stated that the same sociality that exists here will exist there as well. I think temple sealings are only necessary for the "exaltation" track. God allows us to associate closely with one another on this earth without any ordinances. I don't see how that will be any different in the afterlife. Frankly, I think its petty for anyone to think that God would completely ban people from seeing their loved ones who end up in the same kingdom for rejecting LDS doctrines (they can see and be with other people, just not their spouses?) I've never read any doctrine that states that but have met people who actually believe that. 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I don't think there is anything in LDS theology that teaches that people won't see or be with their loved ones in the afterlife without temple ordinances. I believe Joseph Smith stated that the same sociality that exists here will exist there as well. I think temple sealings are only necessary for the "exaltation" track. God allows us to associate closely with one another on this earth without any ordinances. I don't see how that will be any different in the afterlife. Frankly, I think its petty for anyone to think that God would completely ban people from seeing their loved ones who end up in the same kingdom for rejecting LDS doctrines (they can see and be with other people, just not their spouses?) I've never read any doctrine that states that but have met people who actually believe that. 

I'm sure I can find quotes to the contrary, but heading to work soon so I will come back to this. Here's this one: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/the-importance-of-celestial-marriage?lang=eng

Edited September 24, 2018 by Tacenda

[katherine the great]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure I can find quotes to the contrary, but heading to work soon so I will come back to this. Here's this one: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/the-importance-of-celestial-marriage?lang=eng

Yes. President Kimball was fervent in his encouragement of temple marriage. He states:

"No one who rejects the covenant of celestial marriage can reach exaltation in the eternal kingdom of God".

I agree that this is doctrinal, hence my comment that it is only required for those on the exaltation track. If a person wishes to reach exaltation which includes having "eternal increase" (i.e.: create spirits to populate their own worlds and become gods themselves), they must be in a valid, covenant temple marriage. Everyone else with the exception of the sons of perdition will be relegated to the average protestant view of heaven: all together and serving God, but not necessarily living together in a state of matrimony as we know it here. I'm not aware of any doctrine that says that we cannot see each other and be together in heaven outside of temple marriage.

 

[Garden Girl]

23 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Yes. President Kimball was fervent in his encouragement of temple marriage. He states:

"No one who rejects the covenant of celestial marriage can reach exaltation in the eternal kingdom of God".

I agree that this is doctrinal, hence my comment that it is only required for those on the exaltation track. If a person wishes to reach exaltation which includes having "eternal increase" (i.e.: create spirits to populate their own worlds and become gods themselves), they must be in a valid, covenant temple marriage. Everyone else with the exception of the sons of perdition will be relegated to the average protestant view of heaven: all together and serving God, but not necessarily living together in a state of matrimony as we know it here. I'm not aware of any doctrine that says that we cannot see each other and be together in heaven outside of temple marriage.

 

Hello Katharine... I'm always so glad to see you here and hope this finds you well...

I'm glad for your above further clarification... that has been my understanding also... and I think it is made clear in the scriptures...

GG

[Jeanne]

On 9/22/2018 at 9:54 AM, Cyclingmom said:

I’m just wanting some dialogue on something I think about often. I’m active in the LDS church. I believe that it teaches good pronciples and I believe in Christ. I believe families are forever. What I have a hard time with is believing families are only forever IF certain rituals are done in an LDS temple. My heart and mind can’t quite wrap around any possible reason for that....but I’ve tried to have faith. The problem is; it’s the BASIS of our religion. “Families can be together forever”, and “go to the temple”  are pounded in us. But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! Did Christ teach that at all? It seems to me that He would have taught us about sealing to a spouse, etc. if that were the bottom line. There are so many examples in life where the ideals we are taught just can’t work out. Blended families, deaths, etc. So, yeah....I do have faith that it will all work out in heaven and that maybe we just don’t have all the understanding needed. BUT shouldn’t we have a logical reason with the minds God gave us? I can’t see it. I want to but I can’t. 

Boy...do I hear you.  Long story....but I am one who understands that it is difficult to even imagine that I would not see my husband because of temple rituals etc.  🙁 What a cruel thing that would be for so many.

[Tacenda]

After reading Katherine's response to me above, I realized I continually forget that I've had it wrong in my mind all of these years and once again maybe did that again. So couples and families can be together without the temple? It's only when they want to increase their families in heaven? Do I have that right. Or they will not be with God if they don't get married or get endowed in the temple? I'm not sure I'm fine with that. I'm fine to just keep my earthly family and not increase it. But I'm not fine with not living with God so much. But I don't even know God. He doesn't seem to want to be in my life since day one, or has and I've not known it.

So when the church advertises families can be together forever when they marry in the temple, is that false advertising? My question is for whomever would like to answer. I know someone in the past has mentioned that we can be together but they probably mean we won't be together like we are together here on earth. That we won't be able to have love relations, avoiding the "s" word here. Is this the case? I'm sure fine with that. Here's an article from Swedenborg, of which I'm positive Joseph Smith got from it some ideas. https://leewoof.org/2017/01/29/will-happily-married-couples-be-together-in-heaven/ I have a feeling the hereafter will be totally different than earth life. But apparently our doctrine mentions worlds without end. I believe it may be like Jesus mentions in the Bible, again people will comment on this portion. But maybe what he said is just that. We'll be together but not married any longer. Since in some civil marriages they say till death do you part. Still confused thought, I found this online, I like what it said, and I'm sure if she's reading, Jeanne will too! https://billygraham.org/answer/will-we-be-reunited-with-our-loved-ones-whove-gone-to-heaven-before-us/

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

After reading Katherine's response to me above, I realized I continually forget that I've had it wrong in my mind all of these years and once again maybe did that again. So couples and families can be together without the temple? It's only when they want to increase their families in heaven? Do I have that right. Or they will not be with God if they don't get married or get endowed in the temple? I'm not sure I'm fine with that. I'm fine to just keep my earthly family and not increase it. But I'm not fine with not living with God so much. But I don't even know God. He doesn't seem to want to be in my life since day one, or has and I've not known it.

So when the church advertises families can be together forever when they marry in the temple, is that false advertising? My question is for whomever would like to answer. I know someone in the past has mentioned that we can be together but they probably mean we won't be together like we are together here on earth. That we won't be able to have love relations, avoiding the "s" word here. Is this the case? I'm sure fine with that. Here's an article from Swedenborg, of which I'm positive Joseph Smith got from it some ideas. https://leewoof.org/2017/01/29/will-happily-married-couples-be-together-in-heaven/ I have a feeling the hereafter will be totally different than earth life. But apparently our doctrine mentions worlds without end. I believe it may be like Jesus mentions in the Bible, again people will comment on this portion. But maybe what he said is just that. We'll be together but not married any longer. Since in some civil marriages they say till death do you part. Still confused thought, I found this online, I like what it said, and I'm sure if she's reading, Jeanne will too! https://billygraham.org/answer/will-we-be-reunited-with-our-loved-ones-whove-gone-to-heaven-before-us/

Thank you Tacenda!!

[katherine the great]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

After reading Katherine's response to me above, I realized I continually forget that I've had it wrong in my mind all of these years and once again maybe did that again. So couples and families can be together without the temple? It's only when they want to increase their families in heaven? Do I have that right. Or they will not be with God if they don't get married or get endowed in the temple? I'm not sure I'm fine with that. I'm fine to just keep my earthly family and not increase it. But I'm not fine with not living with God so much. But I don't even know God. He doesn't seem to want to be in my life since day one, or has and I've not known it.

 

Bless you Tacenda. I always love your posts. I'm basing my post on my understanding of doctrine. I've heard members here and there go off on tangents and speculation (always so, so judgmental) and I can't not roll my eyes. I don't think we can really know all the particulars of the afterlife and I feel terrible that God has abandoned you. I can't imagine how that would feel. In spite of my countless flaws, I've always felt that God is there no matter what. Maybe its more to do with genetics and personality type-I don't know. But just looking at scripture, I don't read anything that requires temple ordinances to simply see our loved ones again. Maybe through temple work for the dead there will come a time when the entire human family is simply sealed together, I don't know. (Of course being an anthropologist it makes me wonder about how far back into our fragmentary history we could possible go and how neanderthals and other species of humans fit into this...) Lots of questions and very few answers. <3

[katherine the great]

Another thought: "till death do us part" was never meant to imply that people should accept that they will never be together again. It was simply a way announcing the intent to stay together for the rest of their lives and of allowing married people to remarry after the death of their spouse.

Edited September 25, 2018 by katherine the great

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Another thought: "till death do us part" was never meant to imply that people should accept that they will never be together again. It was simply a way announcing the intent to stay together for the rest of their lives and of allowing married people to remarry after the death of their spouse.

There are churches though which specifically teach that people will not be spouses after death. There will be no parents, no children, no relationships of any kind other than fellow follower/brother/sister in Christ, who they will recognize but nothing beyond that.

I have a couple friends who belong to such churches. One, if I’m remembering right, is seventh day Adventist’s. The other is Lutheran. 

[katherine the great]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are churches though which specifically teach that people will not be spouses after death. There will be no parents, no children, no relationships of any kind other than fellow follower/brother/sister in Christ, who they will recognize but nothing beyond that.

I have a couple friends who belong to such churches. One, if I’m remembering right, is seventh day Adventist’s. The other is Lutheran. 

Absolutely! Most of my protestant friends believe some version of that because of Matthew 22. Although I have never heard them express that they will literally not recognize their spouse and children. 

[Duncan]

There is this vision that Pres. Jedediah M. Grant had and he related it to Pres. Heber C. Kimball and he shared it at Pres. Grant's funeral. It appears to have happened a week or so prior to his death. According to this it appears there is family unity among the righteous and family disunity among the unrighteous

the righteous

"I saw the order of righteous men and women; beheld them organized in their several grades, and there appeared to be no obstruction to my vision; I could see every man and woman in their grade and order. I looked to see whether there was any disorder there, but there was none; neither could I see any death nor any darkness, disorder or confusion. He said that the people he there saw were organized in family capacities;"

the unrighteous

“when I looked at families there was a deficiency in some, there was a lack, for I saw families that would not be permitted to come and dwell together, because they had not honored their calling here.”

now, I don't know what he means by "calling" as in are they unrighteous non members or unrighteous members, I have no idea!

I would imagine that the gospel is going forward there to both the righteous and unrighteous people of all churches or none at all

http://jod.mrm.org/4/135

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Bless you Tacenda. I always love your posts. I'm basing my post on my understanding of doctrine. I've heard members here and there go off on tangents and speculation (always so, so judgmental) and I can't not roll my eyes. I don't think we can really know all the particulars of the afterlife and I feel terrible that God has abandoned you. I can't imagine how that would feel. In spite of my countless flaws, I've always felt that God is there no matter what. Maybe its more to do with genetics and personality type-I don't know. But just looking at scripture, I don't read anything that requires temple ordinances to simply see our loved ones again. Maybe through temple work for the dead there will come a time when the entire human family is simply sealed together, I don't know. (Of course being an anthropologist it makes me wonder about how far back into our fragmentary history we could possible go and how neanderthals and other species of humans fit into this...) Lots of questions and very few answers. ❤️

Bless you back Katherine!

[Stargazer]

On 9/25/2018 at 1:03 AM, Tacenda said:

Here's an article from Swedenborg, of which I'm positive Joseph Smith got from it some ideas

Please note that I don't mean to sound critical of you in saying this, and it's not directed at you particularly. But I find it a bit amusing that people speak of Joseph Smith as if they believe he was a widely read scholar, that his family's bookshelves or the local lending library were simply bursting with books about the Arabian peninsula, the geography of the middle east, and had a generous selection of the works of Immanuel Swedenborg, among other things. People living in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are spoiled for choice about where to find information. It's at our fingertips all the time, and we forget that 150 years ago, especially on the frontiers of settlement, that if families had more than the Bible and the Old Farmers Almanac on their bookshelves (even assuming they had a bookshelf) they were very unusual.

Isn't it possible that Swedenborg and Smith got their information indepenently from the same source?

Edited September 30, 2018 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Please note that I don't mean to sound critical of you in saying this, and it's not directed at you particularly. But I find it a bit amusing that people speak of Joseph Smith as if they believe he was a widely read scholar, that his family's bookshelves or the local lending library were simply bursting with books about the Arabian peninsula, the geography of the middle east, and had a generous selection of the works of Immanuel Swedenborg, among other things. People living in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are spoiled for choice about where to find information. It's at our fingertips all the time, and we forget that 150 years ago, especially on the frontiers of settlement, that if families had more than the Bible and the Old Farmers Almanac on their bookshelves (even assuming they had a bookshelf) they were very unusual.

Isn't it possible that Swedenborg and Smith got their information indepenently from the same source?

Yes, that's possible.

[strappinglad]

I am aware of several people who will be more than happy to NOT be with their dysfunctional families for eternity. Those of us who grew up with loving and caring  parents and siblings see joy in our reunion. A good chunk of humanity won't see it that way.