The Memory of Heaven and the Amnesiac King
The Amnesiac King
G.K. Chesterton, that great defender of the sanity of wonder, once remarked, “The most ignorant of humanity know by the very look of earth that they have forgotten heaven.”1 It is a haunting accusation. It suggests that our modern disease is not ignorance but amnesia. The ache in the human chest is not a craving for novelty, but a homesickness for something impossibly old. We do not suffer from knowing too little about the world; we suffer from having forgotten that the world was once a wedding, not a warehouse.
Imagine a man who wakes in the middle of a vast, roaring factory. The air is thick with oil and iron. Pistons hammer the air into noise. To a visiting angel, the place would not have looked like ‘industry,’ but like a great idol that ate hours and exhaled smoke. A foreman strides up, presses a wrench into his hand, and tells him his story:
You are a cog. You are a biological accident — a machine made of meat — thrown up by the random collisions of atoms over billions of years. Your purpose is to tighten this bolt until you rust and fall back into the silence you came from.
The man nods. He takes the wrench. He eats, he works, he sleeps. He accepts the foreman’s gray, utilitarian tale as the whole of reality. And yet, in the thin stillness between the pounding of the gears, he hears a melody he cannot explain. It is only a fragment, like a song from a country he does not remember visiting, the fragrance of a garden he cannot recall seeing. He looks at his grease-blackened hands and feels, absurdly, that they were meant to hold a scepter, not a tool.
The modern world — the world of material reductionism and secular disenchantment — asserts that we are that factory worker. It tells us the universe is a machine and we are only its temporary ghosts. Our loves are chemical flares. Our prayers are private monologues. Our existence is a statistical fluke in an indifferent void.
But the Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, dares to tell us the terrifying and beautiful truth: we are the amnesiac King. The scandal of the Restoration is not that it tells us we are worse than we feared, but that it tells us we are older and higher than we dared to hope.
This is not a comforting metaphor we have invented; it is an ontological claim. As President Russell M. Nelson has repeatedly taught, before any other label — before we are employees, Americans, introverts, or even “sinners” — we are children of God, children of the covenant, and disciples of Jesus Christ.2 That title is not greeting-card fluff; it is a royal name. It says that the irrational dignity we sometimes feel is, in fact, the most rational thing about us. We are not trying to survive a cosmic accident. We are trying to remember a royal lineage. The world tells us we are accidents pretending to be royalty; the Gospel insists we are royalty passing through a world that only looks like an accident.
In this light, “re-enchantment” is not pretending that the world is magical. It is the rigorous discipline of anamnesis — the work of un-forgetting. It is the refusal to let the factory’s din drown out the music of home. It is the decision to trust the half-remembered melody more than the clamor of the pistons. In other words, re‑enchantment in the Restoration is not about inventing a fantasy, but about remembering reality as it truly is.
The Disenchanted Universe
C. S. Lewis, describing the medieval imagination, wrote of a cosmos that was alive and musical. For the ancients, the space above us was not a cold vacuum called “space” but the Heavens — layered, luminous, and ordered by intelligence. The stars were not mere flaming stones; they were signs and singers (see Moses 2:14).
We have traded this vision, Lewis says, for a joyless cosmology. We have emptied the sky. We have silenced the music. We still speak of the “heavens,” but only as a place where rockets go to feel lonely. We now treat the universe as silent, empty, and dead.
The tragedy is not merely that the secular world believes this. The tragedy is that we, as Latter-day Saints, have sometimes sprinkled this disenchantment with left-over Sacrament water. We possess a theology of thunderous glory, yet we frequently flatten it into a flowchart.
We possess a theology of thunderous glory, yet we frequently flatten it into a flowchart.
We handle the Plan of Salvation — a cosmic drama of risk, valor, and deification — as though it were a business plan or a legal contract. We speak of “checking boxes” and “enduring to the end” with the weary tone of accountants closing the books. We take the wild, prodigal love of the Father and reduce it to a tidy transaction. It is as if we were handed a thunderstorm and asked for it to be explained on a spreadsheet.
We see this drift in the way we compartmentalize a “spiritual life” alongside the other quadrants of growing physically, mentally, and socially, as though the “stature” of Luke 2:52 were just a slice of a self-improvement pie chart. Spirituality becomes one more metric to optimize, one more tool in the kit. We start asking, “Does it work?” as if the Atonement were a wrench or a software update. As my friend and scholar Dr. S. Brett Savage has observed, when we reduce the Gospel to utility, we clear the stage for “counterfeit explanations” of our own being. We begin to believe the world when it tells us we are “things to be acted upon” — by trauma, by genetics, by environment.
But the prophet Lehi, standing on the edge of a wilderness twenty-six centuries ago, shattered that machine. He divided all reality into two grand categories: “things to act and things to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:14). The disenchanted world contends that you belong to the second class — a thing buffeted by biology, driven by chemistry. The Gospel claims you bear the burden and glory of being among the first.
When we forget this, we adopt a mechanized imagination. We strip the Ghost from the machine. We construct a flattened anthropology where there is no spirit, only firing neurons; no agency, only stimulus and response. We risk becoming Chesterton’s “madman”: not the man who has lost his reason, but the man who has lost everything except his reason.3 We preserve our diagrams, policies, and handbooks — and misplace the poetry.
When that happens, we commit a kind of spiritual suicide. We become people who, at least in practice, risk becoming functional atheists who attend church. We keep God in our vocabulary the way some people keep old family portraits: politely dusted, carefully hung, and never consulted. God remains on our forms, but not in our fears. We assent to a Deity who once wound up the cosmic factory, but who does not kneel beside us in the dark. We forget that the universe is not a locked room; it is a cathedral. We forget that we are not employees of the Almighty but His kin.
Olam and the Ancient Self
Into this silent, mechanistic void, the Restoration speaks a word that alters the very being of the human person: co-eternal.
Traditional Christianity, for all its profound beauty, has often been constrained by the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo — creation out of nothing. If God summoned us from absolute nothingness, then we are fundamentally unlike Him. He is the necessary Artist; we are the fragile artifacts. He is the Potter; we are the pot. The pot may adore the Potter, but it can never grow up to be of His kind. In that world, we are strangers in a universe built, finally, not for our joy but for His glory alone.
Joseph Smith, by revelation, tore open the sky and showed us a more ancient truth. In May 1833 the Lord declared: “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29).
That single sentence explodes the factory. If you were there “in the beginning,” then your life is not a brief accident in God’s afternoon; it is a chapter in a story that began before clocks. If you were “in the beginning,” you are not a product rolling off an assembly line. You are not a manufactured good. You stand as old as the story itself. Put simply: you did not begin when your birth certificate says you did.
As Terryl Givens has argued, the Restoration recovers the pre-mortal life not as a quaint prologue but as the guarantee of our identity. We are not objects fabricated by God; we are intelligences co-eternal with Him. We were not conjured from the void; we were tutored from the beginning. In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith used the image of a ring—a circle without beginning or end. If the soul had a beginning, he reasoned, it must also have an end. But because it has no end, it could have had no absolute beginning.4
Jeremiah hears the Lord say, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jeremiah 1:5). The Hebrew term for that kind of “before” is olam — a time beyond the vanishing point, a depth of past our minds cannot sound. The Restoration takes William Wordsworth’s poetry and engraves it into doctrine:
“Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar.”5
Wordsworth guessed what Joseph saw. The poet felt that we were homesick; the prophet remembered the home. If we lived before, then this world is not an alien warehouse. It is the Father’s house.
If we lived before, then this world is not an alien warehouse. It is the Father’s house.
The beauty of a mountain range, the hush of a sealing room, the sudden spear of joy at the sight of a child — these are not brand-new experiences. They are recognitions. We are not learning a foreign tongue; we are recovering our mother language. Conversion, in this light, is not the invention of a new self but the courtesy of finally introducing yourself to the one you have always been.
This doctrine annihilates the “joyless cosmology.” It insists that you are not “a machine made of meat.” You are a being of immense age and dignity. You once stood among the “noble and great ones” (Abraham 3:22). You shouted for joy when the foundations of this world were laid (see Job 38:7). The stubborn melody you hear in the factory — the one the foreman calls a hallucination — is the echo of your own history.
Re-enchantment, then, is the choice to trust that echo. It is the refusal to bow under the “iron yokes” of the world’s definitions (D&C 123:8). The world says you are your job, your bank account, your diagnosis, your wound. The memory of heaven says you are an eternal intelligence, uncreated and indestructible, presently enrolled in a harrowing and holy tutorial called mortality.
Living with “Double Vision”
How, then, do we live as amnesiac kings and queens in a world that keeps shoving a wrench into our hands? We must cultivate what Richard Williams calls “a turning of things upside down.”6 We must learn to live with double vision. If this is who we truly are, then our way of seeing the world must be turned inside out. That is the work of double vision.
We must begin to see the physical world not merely as matter, but as witness. In the Pearl of Great Price, the Lord tells Moses: “And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual” (Moses 6:63). The world calls this superstition. Heaven calls it accurate eyesight.
Here is the key to the re-enchanted eye. To the materialist, a tree is only a photosynthetic machine scrambling for light. He is right about the scrambling and wrong about the light. To the baptized imagination, the tree is a sermon in bark and branch, reaching for the light as we are commanded to do. To the materialist, a neighbor is a competitor, a resource, or a nuisance. To the enchanted eye, that neighbor is a brother or sister whose future glory, as C. S. Lewis warns, would tempt us to worship if we saw it unveiled. “There are no ordinary people,” Lewis writes. “You have never talked to a mere mortal.”7
This shift — from managing behavior to awakening awe — changes everything. It transfigures our boredom. It reinterprets our pain. It turns religion from a list of demands into a romance of redemption.
Consider the Sacrament, the quiet center of our weekly worship. To the factory-trained eye, it is frankly dull: a crumb of bread and a plastic thimble of water, passed by a teenager with a crooked tie, consumed in a room full of people checking their watches or their phones. It is “nothing but” carbohydrates and hydration. It is, as modern charity might put it, ‘the bare minimum’ — and so we naturally do it with the bare minimum of attention.
Now bring the Restoration’s lens. Bring the memory of heaven. Suddenly that bread is the torn flesh of the God who wept (see Moses 7:28-37). That water is the blood of the Innocent who bought our freedom at infinite cost. The carpeted chapel falls away, and we are back in the Upper Room; deeper still, we are back in the Grand Council, once again choosing the Lamb over the accuser.
When the priest kneels to pray, he asks that we may “always have his Spirit to be with [us]” (Moroni 4:3). What is that if not a plea for permanent re-enchantment? He is asking that the Holy Ghost overlay our ordinary vision with divine sight — not for ten reverent minutes, but always. He is asking that we carry this double vision from the chapel into the parking lot, the office, the kitchen, and the hospital corridor.
Under such a gaze, the “ordinary” world begins to burn with meaning. The family dinner becomes a faint rehearsal for the marriage supper of the Lamb. The fragile act of forgiveness becomes a small participation in the Atonement itself. The awkward, faltering ward member reveals himself as a “noble and great one” in disguise. Our tragedy is not that we sit beside saints in disguise, but that we insist on treating the disguises as the most interesting part.
The Submerged Sunrise
We are called to “dig for the submerged sunrise of wonder.”8
We are called to “dig for the submerged sunrise of wonder.”8
We inhabit a world fiercely determined to keep that sun under the waterline. The forces of disenchantment are tireless. Despair has all the advantages of laziness; hope is the stubborn decision to keep swimming when the statistics say you should sink. They will chant at you, day after day, that you are broken beyond hope, that you are merely a victim, that you are a complicated machine in slow decay. They will press the wrench back into your hand and bark at you to get on with your shift.
But we know better. We have records. We have prophets. The world offers us data; God, in His untidy way, insists on sending us witnesses. From Abraham to Joseph Smith to Dallin H. Oaks, they testify that we are strangers here only because we belong to a better country.
Re-enchantment is the choice to swim toward that light. It is the refusal to live as a cog. It is the daily, defiant decision to remember that we are royalty in exile, and that the King is coming back for His household. It is to look at mountains and stars and the faces around our dinner table and say, with a jolt of recognition: I know you. I know this place. This is not merely a factory. This is a school for gods, and the bell has already rung.
Let us, then, handle the doctrines of the Restoration not as tools in a toolbox, but as windows thrown open to glory. Let us refuse the ghastly simplicity that wants the function but will not endure the living organ. Let us marry our clear doctrine to a baptized imagination, so that when we speak of the gospel of Jesus Christ we are not only offering a lecture on ethics, but singing the song of redeeming love—a song which, if we listen closely, we will recognize as the first language of our hearts, learned long before the world began.
Book of Mormon Evidence: No Procreation in Eden
Abstract
Lehi taught that if Adam and Eve had not transgressed, “they would have had no children” (2 Nephi 2:13). This claim is plausible when viewed in the context of various extrabiblical traditions.
The Predominant Christian View
According to the book of Genesis, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). Because this commandment to procreate was given in a pre-Fall setting, the Christian world has largely held to the view that Adam and Eve could have had children in the Garden of Eden. The primary rationale is that God would never have given them a commandment that they could not fulfill without first transgressing another commandment. This view was established by prominent theologians in the Middle Ages, such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and has held sway ever since.1
There are, however, several curious details from the biblical account that hint that Adam and Eve may not have been able to procreate prior to the Fall after all. The first clue comes from the fact that the scriptural record never states that Adam and Eve had any children in the Garden of Eden.2 Another clue derives from their apparent state of innocence, for only after they partook of the fruit were their “eyes … opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Genesis 3:7).3 Finally, it is interesting that the sorrow of childbearing is only emphasized after the Fall. Speaking to Eve, the Lord declared, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16).4
These details, however, are not conclusive. The text is ambiguous, and for centuries leading up to Joseph Smith’s day Christian thinkers and theologians predominantly believed that Adam and Eve had the capacity to procreate before their Fall from Eden.
The Book of Mormon View
With this context in mind, it is notable that the Book of Mormon takes the opposite view. When giving his final blessing on his son Jacob, Lehi declared:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Nephi 2:22–23)
Lehi never explained why Adam and Eve could not have had children, but it is interesting that the statement is closely followed by a comment on Adam and Eve’s innocence before their transgression.5
Support from Extrabiblical Sources
As in many other instances, this unique detail in Joseph Smith’s revelations finds varying degrees of support from extrabiblical sources. One line of evidence comes from rabbinic traditions that made a distinction between beings from the upper realm (heaven) and the lower realm (earth). In this framework, angelic creatures from the upper or supernal realms were viewed as not being able to procreate, while animals from the lower regions were able to propagate their species. Adam and Eve were seen as having a unique blending of these traits.
In Bereshit Rabbah, a rabbi describes mankind as being created from both heavenly and earthly elements. From the lower realm, man “eats and drinks as does an animal, procreates as does an animal, defecates as does an animal, and dies as does an animal. From the supernal realm: He stands as do the ministering angels, speaks as do the ministering angels, has intelligence as do the ministering angels, and sees as do the ministering angels.”6 A different rabbi from this source explains, “The supernal beings were created in the [divine] image and likeness, but do not procreate, while the earthly beings [that have been created up to now] procreate, but were not created in the [divine] image and likeness. The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘I will create him [Adam] in the [divine] image and likeness, [a trait] from the supernal realm, but he will procreate, [a trait] from the earthly realm.”7 These ideas are broadly in line with Doctrine and Covenants 132:16–17, which states that angels “cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly.”8
While these sources are silent as to how Adam and Eve specifically attained the qualities associated with the lower realm (including procreation), others attribute the acquisition of animal-like traits as being directly related to their partaking of the forbidden fruit. The early Church Father Gregory of Nyssa wrote, “It is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life.” However, upon noting that angels cannot procreate as mankind, Gregory pointed out that after the transgression in the Garden of Eden, mankind “truly was made like the beasts, who received in his nature the present mode of transient generation, on account of his inclination to material things.”9 Another text, called The Words of Adam and Seth, declares that Adam, “not having observed the commandments, and having been stripped of the divine light, and having been thrown outside the Garden, became an equal of the dumb beasts.”10
The theme of Adam and Eve losing the light and glory of Eden turns up in many other texts as well. A Zohar commentary called Midrash Ha-neʿelam to Shir ha-Shirim explains:
And when the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam the Protoplast, He introduced him into the Garden of Eden (clothed) in a garment of glory that was consubstantial with the light of the Garden of Eden … [but he sinned] and those garments flew off of him, and the luminous soul which opened a window to what was above departed from him, and he was left stripped of all (these things).”11
Another Zohar text, known as Terumah, claims that “the perfection below [i.e., in the mortal world] was lacking since it had been lost through the transgression of Adam the Protoplast. He (i.e., Adam) descended below and hid himself among the trees of the garden. There he was stripped of all the aspects of the garden.”12 It may be significant that both of these narratives relate directly to the crucial themes of innocence and clothing in the Genesis account, where Adam and Eve were found naked and God provided coats of skins for them after their transgression (Genesis 3:21).
Within such sources, Adam and Eve being clothed in the Garden’s light appears to be a metaphor to explain the spiritual qualities of their bodies before the Fall. This understanding is supported by the fact that each of these accounts uses the departure of this light from Adam to help explain Enoch’s later transformation into an angelic being. Midrash Ha-neʿelam to Shir ha-Shirim explains that when “Enoch came, that supernal light—the holy soul—descended into him, and Enoch was invested with the supernal dignity which had left Adam.”13 Terumah likewise reports that one day Enoch “went inside the Garden of Eden, and [the angels who dwelled there] showed him the secrets of the garden …. Afterwards he cloaked himself (with) that light inside that garment.”14 In other words, Enoch’s physical body became filled with the same angelic light associated with the Garden that had once imbued Adam and Eve before they transgressed.15
According to Chesed LeAvraham, when the Messiah comes in the end times, resurrected beings will gain bodies that are similar to the one that Adam had before he sinned: “On that day, the dead in the Land of Israel will return at the time of their revival in a new spiritual form. Similarly, the seven thousand who are alive, all will be in a new spiritual form, akin to the form of Adam before sin.”16 While this doctrine doesn’t align with Restoration scripture (which treats post-mortal resurrected bodies as being different from pre-mortal unembodied spirits), it still illustrates how some Jewish traditions viewed Adam’s body as undergoing a change after he transgressed.
One striking conclusion from these traditions is that the Garden of Eden itself may not have been entirely grounded in the physical world. At least on one level, it was apparently believed to be an otherworldly realm of light and glory, where angels dwelled and righteous men like Enoch could one day return.17 In 2 Enoch we read that after God created the Garden of Eden and placed Adam therein, God then “created for him an open heaven, so that he might look upon the angels, singing the triumphal song. And the light which is never darkened was perpetually in paradise.”18
A Jewish work known as Shulchan Shel Arba makes a similar comment. The “world of souls,” it explains, “is what is called ‘Garden of Eden’ (gan aden) among the sages, and they called it this by way of an allegory, using the example of how the body takes delight (mitaden) in a garden.”19 A particularly interesting account, which describes the Garden as a place where premortal spirits dwell, can be seen in Sefer Mishkan ha-ʿEdut:
Before Adam the Protoplast had been introduced there, the Garden was not empty. And not only were the plants and the delightful things there, also there were all the souls destined to exist in the world, each of them endowed with the likeness, form, and appearance which they would have afterwards. Truly they have been (there) since the day they came into existence, and they still by a miracle remain there at present.20
Especially when viewed through the lens of Restoration scripture, the Eden narrative appears to be highly symbolic. Adam and Eve’s choice to partake of the forbidden fruit seems intended to symbolize the choice that all of mankind would make to leave the premortal realm and enter into the lone and dreary world of mortality. Thus, while still in the Garden, Adam and Eve may have had angelic bodies of light, rather than physical bodies of flesh and blood. And, in such a state, they very well may not have had the physical capacity to procreate before their transgression, just as Lehi had claimed.21
It is also possible that they had bodies of flesh and blood (or at least flesh and bones) but that they were different in some fundamental way compared to typical human bodies. Precedent for this idea can be seen in the physical traits of translated beings such as the three Nephites, whom Mormon described as not being susceptible to physical pain or death (3 Nephi 28:36–40) and who were “as the angels of God” (3 Nephi 28:30).
Whatever the case may be, it should be emphasized this matter has never been formally settled by revelation. Even though these explanations are plausible based on the available scriptural evidence, and even though they are enticing when viewed in light of various extrabiblical sources, they must remain tentative without further revelatory confirmation.
Conclusion
If Joseph Smith had simply made up the Book of Mormon, he went out on a limb when declaring that Adam and Eve “would have had no children” had they not transgressed (2 Nephi 2:13). While the account in Genesis suggests that a mystery related to procreation may indeed be present in these passages, Lehi’s bold claim was antithetical to centuries of mainstream Christian thinking and biblical interpretation.
It is therefore quite fascinating that various lines of evidence from ancient and medieval sources can be found in support of Lehi’s statements. At least the following related points can be derived from these texts: (1) angelic beings, unlike creatures in the mortal realm, cannot procreate, (2) the Garden of Eden was a place where angels or spiritual beings dwelled, (3) Adam and Eve had glorious angel-like bodies while in the Garden of Eden, and (4) when Adam and Eve sinned, they lost their angelic glory and their bodies became more like the beasts of the earth, which had the ability to procreate. While such sources do not definitively prove the truth of Lehi’s assertion, they render it as surprisingly plausible and very much aligned with Jewish thinking and early traditions about the Garden story.22
Further Reading
Andrew Skinner, “The Tree of Life in the Hebrew Bible and Later Jewish Thought,” in The Tree of Life: From Eden to Eternity, ed. John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry (Deseret Book, 2011), 25–54.
Stephen D. Ricks, “Adam’s Fall in the Book of Mormon, Second Temple Judaism, and Early Christianity,” in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew Hedges (FARMS, 2000), 595–606.
Bruce M. Pritchett Jr., “Lehi’s Theology of the Fall in Its Preexilic/Exilic Context,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 2 (1994): 49–83.
Relevant Scriptures
Bible
Book of Mormon
Footnotes
1. See Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. John Healey, vol. 2 (John Grant, 1909), 46–52; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1912–38), 344–346.
2. Not too much should be made of this detail, since the account doesn’t provide a timeline for how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before their transgression, but it is a relevant data point, nevertheless.
3. One might reasonably wonder how they could be expected to procreate if they weren’t aware of their nakedness (as such a condition suggests a lack of knowledge about the function or purpose of their sexual organs). However, their nakedness also seems thematically connected to the concepts of justice and judgment, in that they couldn’t hide their sin. Thus, precisely what one is to make of this textual detail isn’t fully clear based on the text alone.
4. One could argue, however, that childbearing could have transpired before the Fall, but that it simply would have lacked any element of sorrow or anguish.
5. One could possibly interpret these passages as explaining what would have happened if Eve had partaken of the fruit but Adam had refused to do so. Under that reading, the inability to have children may have resulted from Adam remaining in the Garden while Eve was cast out, causing them to be eternally separated. While this conclusion isn’t impossible, the specific language of the text argues against it. The use of the plural “they” is particularly significant: “if Adam had not transgressed … they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” (2 Nephi 2:22–23). If the text were only speaking of Adam not transgressing, this statement wouldn’t make sense, since it goes on to describe how both Adam and Eve would have remained innocent and ignorant of good and evil had the transgression not occurred. It therefore seems most likely that when the Lehi spoke of Adam partaking of the fruit, he was speaking metonymically (where Adam refers jointly to both Adam and Eve). Several other scriptural passages use the name Adam in this way, as a substitute for both Adam and Eve or for all of mankind. See, for example, Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Nephi 9:21; Mosiah 3:11; Mormon 9:12; Moses 1:34. See also Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part One: 1 Nephi–2 Nephi 1 (FARMS, 2014), 505–506.
6. See Bereshit Rabbah 8:11, online at sefaria.org.
7. Bereshit Rabbah 14:3, online at sefaria.org; bracketed text in the original. See also Ramban on Leviticus 17:7. It should be noted that a paradox seems to be at play when it comes to the ability to create posterity. On one level, the basic instinct to procreate in human bodies can easily devolve into unsanctioned lust and can therefore be viewed as a primarily negative animal-like trait. On the other hand, the capacity to create human bodies may be viewed as a unique gift from above (as seen in D&C 132:16–17). Thus, while this gift may transcend the realm of angels, whether it makes one more animal-like or more god-like seems to depend on how it is used.
8. Although this statement pertains to a post-mortal context, it may reasonably apply to pre-mortal life as well. A fundamental tenant of Latter-day Saint theology is that mankind came to earth to receive physical bodies, which have capacities or functions not afforded to unembodied spirits.
9. Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Making of Man,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 5: Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Select Writings and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893), 755–756.
10. Michael E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to the Patriarchs and Prophets (Jerusalem, 1982), 12–13; cited in Moshe Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” Immanuel 24, no. 25 (1990): 229. This description may be echoed by the phrase “natural man” found in canonized scripture (Mosiah 3:19; 1 Corinthians 2:14). As described in Moses 5:13, when men began to follow Satan, they became “carnal, sensual, and devilish.”
11. Zohar Ḥadash, Midrash Ha-neʿelam to Shir ha-Shirim fol. 69a–b (ed. Margaliot); as cited in John C. Reeves and Annette Yoshiko Reed, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Oxford University Press, 2018), 299.
12. Zohar Ḥadash, Terumah fol. 42d (ed. Margaliot); as cited in Reeves and Reed, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 175.
13. Zohar Ḥadash, Midrash Ha-neʿelam to Shir ha-Shirim fol. 69a–b (ed. Margaliot); as cited in Reeves and Reed, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 299.
14. Zohar Ḥadash, Terumah fol. 42d (ed. Margaliot); as cited in Reeves and Reed, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 175.
15. See Scripture Central, “Book of Moses Evidence: Enoch Clothed with Glory,” Evidence 500 (June 25, 2025).
16. See Chesed LeAvraham, Even Shetiya, Maayan 3 22:2, online at sefaria.org.
17. See Tractate Derekh Eretz Zuta 1:18: “There were nine who entered the Garden of Eden alive, viz.: Enoch the son of Yered, Elijah, the Messiah, Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Hiram, king of Tyre, Ebed-melech the Cushite, Jabeẓ the son of R. Judah the Prince, Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, and Seraḥ the daughter of Asher. Some say: Also R. Joshua b. Levi.” A similar description of a spiritual return to Eden, facilitated by a messianic priest figure, can be seen in H. C. Kee, “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., ed. James H. Charlesworth (Doubleday, 1983–1985), 1:795: “And [the Lord] shall open the gates of paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life.”
18. Translation by F. I. Anderson, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:152.
19. Shulchan Shel Arba 4:16, online at sefaria.org.
20. R. Moses de León, Sefer Mishkan ha-ʿEdut (ed. Bar-Asher); as cited in Reeves and Reed, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 320–321.
21. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Garden of Eden never existed in the mortal world, but just that there may be a heavenly component to the story that isn’t fully captured or explained in the account in Genesis. Jewish traditions describe several dualities, where sacred locations on earth are mirrored in heaven. These include the temple and tabernacle, as well as the city or community of Zion or Jerusalem. See, for instance, Zohar Pedudei 212: 211–212: “It has already been explained that the verse, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’, means that the lower world was created after the pattern of the upper. Now, the Tabernacle below was likewise made after the pattern of the supernal Tabernacle in all its details. For the Tabernacle in all its works embraced all the works and achievements of the upper world and the lower, whereby the Shekinah was made to abide in the world, both in the higher spheres and the lower. Similarly, the Lower Paradise is made after the pattern of the Upper Paradise, and the latter contains all the varieties of forms and images to be found in the former. Hence the work of the Tabernacle, and that of heaven and earth, come under one and the same mystery.” See also Zohar Vayigash 2:14: “Observe that when the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, He gathered his earthly matter from the four corners of the world and fashioned him therefrom on the site of the Temple here below and drew to him a soul of life out of the Temple on high.” These statements compare well with the dual spiritual/physical creation as described in Moses 3:5. It is therefore possible that Eden may have also had some sort of dual significance, where there was both an earthly and heavenly component to this realm. Since current scripture has not fully revealed the details of this matter, there may be a number of important nuances that will be unveiled at some future point.
22. While most (but not all) of the sources mentioned in this article are not technically ancient themselves, the traditions that they report often stem from much earlier times. In many cases, it is ultimately impossible to determine the true origin of many Jewish strains of thought.
The Eternal Implications of Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Abortion
It was fall 1973 and my wife (Maradee) and I had just moved back to Cache Valley where I was about to start teaching Economics at Utah State University. Maradee was about four months pregnant and we were anticipating adding a second child to our family. The first months had been uneventful, but then things quickly went wrong and she had a miscarriage.
We experienced all the uncertainty, anguish, and guilt that tend to be associated with a young couple having a miscarriage but managed to move forward with our lives. Just over a year later, we were blessed with the birth of our daughter, Lisa. All went well and she is now an amazing wife and mother.
As I looked at my precious infant daughter, I wondered, “Is she the same spirit who didn’t make it the first time or is she a completely different person? And if different, what is the status of the spirit who was programmed for the fetus that miscarried?” At some point, I will know for sure, but not right now.
In contrast, our fourth child, Jenny, had a myriad of special needs. We cared for her for 38 years until she passed away in 2017. Although our experience was much more difficult than the temporary setback of a miscarriage, the ultimate outcome is clear. Jenny never approached the standard for accountability, so her destiny is guaranteed by D&C 137:10, “…. all children who die before the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” On another occasion, I would like to share the pathos and humor of our chaotic 38 years with Jenny.
One purpose of this article is to consider what happens to spirits that don’t properly enter mortality–miscarriages, stillbirths, and, yes, abortions. Do they bypass the normal process of mortality or are they recycled into another body as part of an alternative path for that spirit?” The outcome of those three situations is the same, but the cause of not being born differs dramatically. With miscarriage and stillbirth, the reason is a biological malfunction, but with abortion it is a conscious choice to terminate the pregnancy.
A second purpose is to look more closely at abortion and to consider how abortion can be viewed much differently through the lens of the restored gospel, as compared to other religious perspectives. The goal here is not to debate whether abortion is right or wrong, but to probe what is the eternal consequence. However, I acknowledge that I support the Church’s position on this issue.
Miscarriage and Stillbirth
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter, Church) does not record stillbirths or miscarriages on church membership records. The Church’s policy generally involves recording ordinances and milestones such as births, baptisms, confirmations, and other ordinances for individuals who are born alive. Moreover, temple work is not done when there is a miscarriage or stillbirth. That would seem to imply that the process isn’t complete until the spirit has had its opportunity for mortality through birth. However, there is some ambiguity because the Church Handbook also refers to those who die before birth as “children” and specifically states that the lack of requirement for temple ordinances “does not deny the possibility that they may be part of the family in the eternities.” [Handbook, 38.7.3)
The issue of whether or not the spirits associated with a miscarriage or stillbirth get a second chance at mortality can be inferred, but specific doctrinal statements are difficult to find. Under God’s plan, every one of His children will have the opportunity to have the experiences necessary to realize their eternal potential as a child of God. One of these requirements is a physical body. That body might be received as part of another physical birth or during the Millenium when all incomplete matters, such as infirmities, marriage, and bodies will be resolved. No one will be unwillingly left behind.
The scriptures teach that all of God’s spirit children who accepted the great Plan of Salvation will be resurrected. But they can’t be resurrected unless they first have a body. If there is opportunity for exaltation for all of us who have lived and sinned, there must be a path for those who haven’t sinned because they haven’t yet experienced mortality.
This explanation assures equity for all of God’s children, but it doesn’t answer the question of if my daughter Lisa was a spirit who tried to come to us twice or if there was another spirit who unsuccessfully tried to join us. It probably doesn’t have to be the same in every case. At this point, I am satisfied not to know, but just to be Lisa’s father.
Abortion Attitudes and Church Policy
Now to the sensitive topic of abortion. It’s a political issue as well as being deeply personal. The range of extreme views is so broad as to defy compromise. Extreme pro-choice advocates argue that a woman’s right to choose is inviolate. Equally extreme pro-life advocates oppose abortion under any circumstance and equate it to murder. Views on abortion differ dramatically. A 2022 Pew Research Center survey reported the following percents saying “YES” to the statement: Abortions Should Be Illegal in All/Most Cases
Jehovah’s Witness 75%
Church of Jesus Christ of LDS 70%
Evangelical Protestant 63%
Catholic 47%
Islam 37%
Mainline Protestant 35%
“Nones” 23%
Judaism 15%
Church members are not unanimous in their opposition to abortion, but they are more opposed than any other group except Jehovah’s Witnesses. This opposition may reflect support for the Church’s policy with respect to abortion, as stated in the General Handbook of Instructions:
“The Lord commanded, ‘Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it’ (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer.….. As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” (Handbook, 38.6.1)
Abortion and the Doctrine of Pre-Mortal Life
Attitudes toward abortion are often based on the person’s belief regarding when life begins. In most other faith traditions, life is viewed as beginning at conception, as shown below.
When Does Life Begin?
Roman Catholic Conception
Eastern Orthodox Conception
Episcopal Conception
Evangelical Protestant Conception
Mainline Protestant Conception
Jehovah’s Witness Conception
Judaism Birth
Islam Conception/But the soul enters the body at 120 days
LDS Each entity is eternal
Based on the premise of life beginning at conception, an abortion results in an irrevocable termination of existence. If life starts at conception, then when the life is ended by abortion, that potential person will never exist. There are no second chances for that life form. One and done. No mulligans. Thus, an abortion may permanently deprive the world of an Einstein, a Gandi, or an Aaron Judge.
The perspective is much different for those with an understanding of the Plan of Salvation because the concept of pre-mortal life comes into play. I am once again reminded of the incredible explanatory power associated with this doctrine. It has so many implications.
A critical component of the Plan of Salvation is that each of us is an eternal being—we had no beginning and we will have no end. Mortality is not our starting point, it is just one step along the way to achieving our eternal destiny of becoming like our Heavenly Father. But mortality is an essential part of that journey that can’t be skipped.
Dallin H. Oaks taught that “our attitude toward abortion is not based on revealed knowledge of when mortal life begins for legal purposes. It is fixed by our knowledge that according to an eternal plan, all of the spirit children of God must come to this earth for a glorious purpose, and that individual identity began long before conception and will continue for all the eternities to come.” (1991 Supplement to the 1989 General Handbook of Instructions, p. 1)
What are the implications of abortion when coupled with the doctrine of pre-mortal life? Elder Oaks stated that abortion is a serious sin because “the ultimate act of destruction is to take a human life.” (Ibid.) It puts a person in the position of making a decision about the duration of life, which is clearly God’s prerogative. The immediate plan for a specific spirit to be part of a specific family is at least temporarily thwarted by the termination of a pregnancy by abortion.
But what are the long-term ramifications? If all of God’s spirit children are guaranteed the right to a mortal body, then the consequence must be temporary. That spirit will be embodied at some point. It may be with the same family through a later pregnancy, it may be as part of another family, or it may not happen until the millennium. We don’t know the details. What we do know is that abortion will not abrogate the right of that spirit to have a body so that she/he can continue the journey to exaltation.
What else can be said? Some argue that mortals have had experiences that shed additional light on the question of uncompleted births. For example, Sarah Hinze has published several books, including the 2015 The Castaways, that include stories of visitations by yet unborn children. The title refers to those children who were prevented the opportunity for life by abortion. The accounts are a little inconsistent in that some of those children are given another chance to be born, while others languish in heaven and are cared for by others. It’s unclear in the book how this determination is made.
These accounts are touching and there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of those who share their experiences. Hinze asserts that she has collected accounts of hundreds of encounters with pre-birth beings. I have always been skeptical of these claims and also of near-death encounters. But I make no judgement here and I was struck by a statement by her husband in a 2022 documentary movie on the topic, Remembering Heaven. He argues that one such story is an anecdote, but many similar testimonies approach the status of data. As a social scientist, I can’t summarily dismiss that argument.
Finally
There is much that we don’t know about abortion. What we do know is that it cannot thwart the will of God and the promises made to His children. Note how different this conclusion is than the view from the perspective of other religions that “life begins at conception” and life is one and done. The doctrine of pre-mortal life sheds light on so much of human existence.
This understanding should not be used to justify “convenience abortions” or to lessen the seriousness of the choice involved. But it does once again show that God will prevail and testifies of the amazing enlightenment we receive through the doctrines of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Celestial Kingdom: “Will We Be “Bored in Eternity? Does One Size Really Fit All?”
Recently, a friend texted me a question. She is a faithful, devoted member of the Church, but her adult children have some challenges. It made me sad and caused me to think. This is what she wrote:
Do you really, deep down want to live for eternity in the highest realm of the Celestial Kingdom where you will create worlds and deal with all of the heartache and pain of those living on your ‘earths’? Being a parent is such a very heavy load. I can’t fathom parenting a world of inhabitants. I think I have a different role to play through eternity. I’ve always considered myself to be more of a “worker bee.” But all we hear about is reaching that lofty goal. WHY?
My glib and almost immediate response to her was “You drastically underestimate yourself for two reasons. First, you assume that mortal you reflects your true capabilities as developed through the eternities. Remember, we are ‘looking through a glass, darkly.’ Second, you are ignoring the infinite, enabling power of the Atonement. Grace, grace, grace. Paul says, ‘I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13)’”
That wasn’t enough for her, so I referred to a “higher source,” LDSBOT, which is an artificial intelligence app available from the B.H. Roberts Institute. It’s based on CHATGPT and tailored to respond to church-related queries. I have mixed feelings about it because of the potential for misuse. I can see a deacon being asked to speak in church on repentance and totally procrastinating the assignment until riding to church when he asks LDSBOT to write him a five minute talk. When his time comes, he just reads the talk off his iPhone. Zero learning.
Nevertheless, I compartmentalized my integrity and asked it, “What if someone in the Celestial Kingdom doesn’t want to create worlds? After just 10 seconds of cyber-speed contemplation, the BOT responded:
Great question! (apparently, I was AI approved). The doctrine of the Church teaches that in the Celestial Kingdom, our will is aligned with God’s will. Elder Dallin H. Oaks has taught that part of our journey in mortality is to learn to align our desires with God’s desires for us. When we are exalted, our joy and purpose will be in fulfilling God’s plan, which includes creating and nurturing eternal family units.” [1]
LDSBOT then laid out point-by-point how this will work:
1. In the Celestial Kingdom our desires will be perfected. We will have a full understanding of God’s plan and a deep love for His work. It’s hard to see how someone who has reached such a state of perfection and joy would not want to participate in the creation and governing of worlds, as it aligns completely with divine love and purpose.
2. Our current earthly perspective is limited. The things we find difficult or unappealing now might be seen differently when we have a broader, eternal perspective.
3. While it’s theoretically possible to wonder about differing desires, our eternal progression and perfected state of being in the Celestial Kingdom should align our desires with God’s work and glory.
Basically, the answer was, “get with the program and everything will be fine.” Apparently, one size fits all, or at least will fit all in the future. My friend found the AI’s recommendation to be somewhat helpful because she’s more obedient than I am. I was left wanting more, so I decided to explore what we have been taught by scripture, latter-day prophets, and scholars.
Comparative Religious Beliefs Regarding the Nature and Potential of Mankind
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereafter, Church) has distinctive beliefs on the origin and destiny of man. They are rooted in the concept of pre-mortal life and the literal fatherhood of God. Other Christian churches teach that creation was ex nihilio (out of nothing) and that our existence begins at birth. The implication is that God and man are not just different in terms of level of perfection; they are fundamentally different species. There is a qualitative divide between Creator and creature, and, consequently, mankind’s potential is inherently and significantly limited.
In contrast, Church doctrine holds that human potential is based on a relationship with God that extends eternally backward in time and that God is “a kindred Being who invites the human family to share His condition and nature…. humans are inherently more godlike, God is more anthropomorphic, and God’s purposes are more oriented toward human theosis than is the case with earlier Christian conceptions….”[2]
Paul taught that we are “children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. (Romans 8:17)” Parley P. Pratt distilled Church theology on the topic as “God, angels, and men are all of one species.” [3] The concept takes on its most lofty form in the oft-repeated couplet from Lorenzo Snow that, “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”
C.S. Lewis didn’t go quite as far, but he did ask, “Is it so very difficult to believe that the travail of all creation which God Himself descended to share, at its most intense, may be necessary in the process of turning finite creatures (with free wills) into—well, into Gods.” [4]
What Will Those Who Inherit the Celestial Kingdom Do?
Not much has been revealed about the ongoing activities of those in the Celestial Kingdom. To be AI neutral, I gave the non-sectarian CHATGPT a crack at the question. It responded that activities and experiences in the Celestial Kingdom may include:
1. Living in the Presence of God. The faithful will dwell with God the Father and Jesus Christ, experiencing perfect joy and love.
2. Eternal Families. Families can be united eternally, allowing individuals to be with their loved ones forever.
3. Progress and Learning. Fundamental to Church theology is the concept of eternal progression. Those in the celestial kingdom will become more like God as they increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power.
4. Service and Work. There will be meaningful service and work, contributing to God’s purposes.
5. Creation and Stewardship. Some teachings suggest that the righteous may participate in creation and stewardship over worlds or other divine responsibilities. However, there is not much detail about what this will entail.
6. Receiving Exaltation. Those in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will receive exaltation, becoming like God and sharing in His glory.
The CHATBOT response was helpful, but generic. I wanted some validated specifics. The most relevant information in the scriptures is found in these verses:
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. (emphasis added).
D&C 130:2 -And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy
D&C 130:19– “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.”
Latter day prophets tell us more. The most revealing information provided by Joseph Smith is in the King Follett Discourse, his last public sermon before his assassination. Joseph taught that God was once a man like us and progressed to become God. He explained that humans have the potential to progress and become like God. [5] In Moses 1:39, we learn “For behold, this is my work and my glory–to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” The implication is that, as we become like God, we too will create worlds.
Parley Pratt wrote, “I might also tell you of the continued exertions of creative power by which millions of new worlds will yet be formed and peopled, not just by God the Father, but also by king Adam and his descendants.”[6]
Brigham Young taught that “All those who are counted worthy to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions and millions of others.” [7]
Comments by recent church leaders have been consistent, but more circumspect. Gordon B. Hinckley emphasized mankind’s divine potential when he said, “The whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to Godhood.” [8] And Dallin H. Oaks has taught that exaltation means to become like our Heavenly Father, which implies developing the attributes and potentially the capacities that God has. [9]
Another concept that may be relevant to life in the celestial kingdom is that of ministering angels. Typically, this role is associated with assisting those of us in mortality. But the scriptures suggest that there will also be ministering angels in the post-judgement existence. Usually, they are afforded a secondary status. For example, D&C 132:16, referring to those who did not participate in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, teaches that such are, “…..appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.”
But it is plausible that there may be those who are righteous and who are sealed to eternal companions who would be happier to be associates rather than the CEOs charged with the demanding work of creation and “eternal lives.” Couldn’t that still be a noble and fulfilling destiny?
So What About My Friend’s Question?
Joseph Smith promised that “if you could gaze into heaven for five minutes, you would know more than you would be reading all that ever was written on the subject.” [10] Unfortunately, that option is not available to most of us.
We spend a lot of time thinking about and, hopefully, acting in ways that will take us to the top level of the celestial kingdom. Not surprisingly, we tend to gloss over what we will be doing there on a day-to-day basis. This is probably appropriate because we don’t have much guidance about that final abode and celestial pursuit must be our primary concern—getting there precedes being there.
An intriguing, but somewhat disquieting evaluation of the heaven issue is portrayed in the quirky TV series, The Good Place, which aired on NBC from 2016 to 2019. The starting point was a young woman who died in an accident after living a rather sleezy life. Because of a snafu, she was sent to the “good place” in the hereafter. As the series evolved, because of a truly gigantic foul up, none of the righteous departed were getting to their deserved reward. In the final season, the problem was corrected and the leading characters (some of whom had turned their after-lives around) were experiencing bliss.
This heavenly experience went on for an extremely long time during which the characters had the opportunity to see everything, patch up all their tarnished relationships, and learn everything there is to learn. The result was a feeling of overwhelming boredom. There was nothing left to be done or to experience. Those in charge (and who that is was always a bit vague in the series) provided a final option. By simply walking through a portal in the woods, their consciousness is terminated and they no longer exist. Several of the key people in the series chose this path and we watched as they voluntarily ended their existence.
That final episode was one of the best series finales I have seen. It was touching and profound. And the question it raised is still on my mind. Eternity is a long time. What could we do that would continue to be interesting forever? Wouldn’t boredom set in after the first million or so worlds created? How many chats would you find interesting with siblings? How much math and science is there to learn and apply? And how does the principle of godly omniscience reconcile with the concept of eternal progression?
So where does all of this leave my friend who is not sure she wants to be a world creator? The answer may be that our understanding and nature will be much different in eternity. Our capacity to love, serve, and handle responsibilities will be greatly enhanced and our exercise of agency will cause us to align with God’s work as described in Moses 1:39. Or maybe, as long as God’s purposes are fulfilled, not every righteous one of His children has to be in charge.
Finally, there is the boredom issue. Boredom may not be a possibility for perfected or perfectible persons. I can accept that, but it is beyond my limited comprehension at this point. And my guess is that most of you have never worried much about being “bored in eternity.”
NOTES:
[1] Oaks, D.H., “Desire,” General Conference, April 2011.
[2] Givens, T. L., Wrestling the Angel, Oxford University Press, 2015, p.264.
[3] Pratt, P.P., Key to the Science of Theology, 1855, p. 33.
[4] Lewis, C.S., Collected Letters, Harper-Collins, 2007, 3:520.
[5] Smith, J.F., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-7.
[6] Pratt, P.P., “Celestial Family Organization,” 1-2.
[7] Journal of Discourses, 18:259.
[8] Hinckley, G.B., “The Great Things Which God Has Revealed,” General Conference, April 2005.
[9] Oaks, D.H., “The Challenge to Become,” General Conference, October 2000.
[10] History of the Church, 6:50.
How a Tangent About Foreordination Helps Explain Repentance
View the article at Book of Mormon Central.
“And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.”
Alma 13:3
The Know
When Alma, son of Alma, was speaking to the people in Ammonihah, he taught them about the premortal existence: “And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world” (Alma 13:3). Yet the rest of Alma’s address is about repentance. This poses the question: Why would Alma interrupt a sermon about repentance with a discussion about the pre-mortal life?[1] A careful reading of Alma’s speech shows that he may actually have brought this up as part of his effort to get them to repent.[2]
One detail that supports this point is that it is often the manner of ordination that Alma focused on: “And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. And this is the manner after which they were ordained…” (Alma 13:2–3).[3] Thus, as A. Keith Thompson has noted, “it is the manner of ordination to the Priesthood on the earth that was foreordained in the pre-existence.”[4] Ultimately, “it is ‘exceeding faith and good works’ on earth that would qualify men for ordination to the Priesthood” or, in other words, adherence to the standards of obedience that were ordained in the pre-mortal life.[5]
The phrase “called and prepared” also supports this interpretation. As Thompson noted, “the words calling and called, in verses 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 all refer to an ordination in mortality seem to confirm” that Alma “anticipated an ordination following exceeding faith and good works in mortality.”[6] Thus, “those who do not exercise exceeding faith and good works in mortality will not be ordained to the Priesthood.”[7] Ultimately, even though the “calling” was “prepared in the pre-existence, it is extended only in earth life after faith and good works have been demonstrated” (see Alma 13:4–5).[8]
Alma further stated that many “were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish” (Alma 13:10). This verse suggests, according to Thompson, “that it is the exceeding faith of righteous men on earth that leads to their ordination to the Priesthood and the office of high priest within that Priesthood.”[9]
The importance of righteousness in mortality is made clear in Alma 13:13, “And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.” This verse helps to clarify why Alma brought up the pre-mortal life in the first place. He wanted to show that the priesthood, with its associated standards of worthiness, had been prepared before the foundation of the world. All they had to do to receive it was repent and live up to that eternal standard.
The Why
This is one occasion, among many, when the Book of Mormon can help us understand another book of scripture. Abraham 3:22–23 states that God showed Abraham “the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers.” Scriptures like this might cause some people to wonder, if so much was determined in the premortal life, what good is repentance and righteousness in this life?
Alma 13 answers this question. It shows that repentance and faith in this life is of the utmost importance, and that faith and repentance today is what matters.[10] As Thompson stated, “Alma was identifying the foreordained worthiness standard as a second witness or proof that repentance and righteousness to a high priestly level was a completely legitimate expectation of all the children of God.”[11]
Joseph Smith stated that everyone “who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was.”[12] But Alma 13 makes it clear that repentance and faithfulness in this life are still essential, foreordination or not. Alma 13 also helps to give depth to the words of Abraham 3:25–26: “And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” Being chosen in the premortal life is not some kind of an eternal free ride.[13] Rather, through our faith and repentance in this life, we live up to the eternal standards that have existed since before the world was.[14]
Through our faith and repentance in this life, not just our inherent goodness or premortal faithfulness, we become the kinds of people Heavenly Father wants us to be, and live up to our divine potential as children of God.
Further Reading
- Keith Thompson, “Were We Foreordained to the Priesthood, or Was the Standard of Worthiness Foreordained? Alma 13 Reconsidered,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture21 (2016): 249–274.
James T. Duke, “The Literary Structure and Doctrinal Significance of Alma 13:1–9,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, no. 1 (1996): 103–118.
Robert L. Millet, “The Holy Order of God,” in Alma, The Testimony of the Word, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 6, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 61–88.
[1] For a careful analysis of this chapter, see James T. Duke, “The Literary Structure and Doctrinal Significance of Alma 13:1–9,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, no. 1 (1996): 103–118.
[2] For another perspective, see Robert L. Millet, “The Holy Order of God,” in Alma, The Testimony of the Word, Book of Mormon Symposium Series, Volume 6, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 61–88.
[3] Emphasis added.
[4] A. Keith Thompson, “Were We Foreordained to the Priesthood, or Was the Standard of Worthiness Foreordained? Alma 13 Reconsidered,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21 (2016): 259.
[5] Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
[6] Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
[7] Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
[8] Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 259.
[9] Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 261.
[10] Claims that people were punished with black skin because of premortal unfaithfulness, for example, is clearly wrong. See “Race and the Priesthood,” online at lds.org.
[11] Thompson, “Alma 13 Reconsidered,” 265.
[12] See Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1972), 365.
[13] For a thorough treatment of the premortal existence, and its relationship to mortality, see Joseph F. McConkie, “Premortal Existence, Foreordinations and Heavenly Councils,” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1986), 173–198.
[14] See Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1987–1992), 3:94.
Saturday’s Warrior 2016: The Story behind the new Big-Screen Movie
“Do you even want all of these kids?” the clerk asked, as he stared at the young family.
The year was 1973, and composer Lex de Azevedo stood in line at a grocery store in Los Angeles. As the successful Music Director of the hit TV show, The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour, he was no stranger to the mood and culture of the times. Having been raised in Southern California and lived there for most of his life, he was very much at home. However, this cavalier comment from a grocery store clerk took him aback.
He thought to himself: “Do we even want our children? How could you even ask such a question? These children are a gift from God. They are part of His plan!”
In that moment, the idea for Saturday’s Warrior was born.
As Lex witnessed the growing chasm between his LDS beliefs about life’s meaning, and the changing beliefs of the culture around him, he was troubled. For instance, the world’s answer at that time to many social problems was simply to limit the number of births, or as it was called, “zero population.” Lex, however, believed that the answer was not to limit the number of children coming to this world, but to understand why they were coming, and the purpose behind life. People needed to know that life began in a pre-mortal world. Families were an indispensable part of the Plan.
It wasn’t long before Lex began writing songs with lyricist Doug Stewart for a musical. Maybe, they thought, it would be something Ricks College would consider putting on for a few nights. Little did they know . . .
In 1974, the live stage musical of Saturday’s Warrior began. In Salt Lake City, there were 246 consecutive sold-out shows. In Los Angeles, audiences flocked to fill the huge civic auditoriums night after night. In Phoenix, Saturday’s Warrior sold more tickets in two hours than Elton John sold in two weeks. It was an LDS cultural phenomenon unlike anything that anyone had ever seen.
The musical was about a fictional Mormon family with a rebellious teenage son, and it struck a chord with audiences everywhere–Mormon or not. Thousands of Mormons brought their non-Mormon friends to the show as if to say: This is who we are. This is what we believe. This is how we feel.
Why the name “Saturday’s Warrior?” It was based on the idea that some of the most obedient, noble and valiant spirits in the pre-mortal world—the Lord’s warriors—were reserved to be born on earth in these latter days: the earth’s “Saturday” before Christ returns in glory on “Sunday.”
Saturday’s Warrior was light-hearted and funny at some times, gut-wrenching at others. It explored the doctrines of pre-mortal existence, eternal marriage, and the divine plan of happiness in a way that audiences loved. The music was contemporary, captivating, and heart-warming; people couldn’t stop singing it. Some scenes were serious: parents aching over the faith-crisis of their teenage son. Some were more tongue-in-cheek: playful sequences about how pre-mortal life might have looked. But ultimately, it resonated with people in a profound way, as if to reinforce their belief that there is more to this life than just this life.
When he was writing it, Lex wondered if people would come. Come they did, and for years. After several years of record-breaking attendances at theaters, another production company released their version of Saturday’s Warrior on VHS. This video of a staged performance introduced the Saturday’s Warrior music and message to another generation of LDS youth. For many, this is their only exposure to Saturday’s Warrior.
Over 40 years have passed since the debut of Saturday’s Warrior on the stage, and yet, scarcely a week goes by that someone doesn’t seek out Lex to tearfully tell him that it changed their life, or the life of someone near them. Many have even told Lex that they were born because their parents saw Saturday’s Warrior!
For many years, people have also asked Lex why he has not produced a film version of Saturday’s Warrior. It’s not that the opportunity never arose. After all, thousands of people have encouraged him to do it, including investors who have even offered financing. However, Lex never felt entirely comfortable with the idea of a film version for several reasons.
First, Saturday’s Warrior’s plot and story construction had been designed for the stage, and the characters largely were products of their time. Second, he felt that Saturday’s Warrior was a sort of “hallowed ground” because of all the lives it had changed. As such, perhaps it was a legacy best left alone. Third, if it were to be resurrected as a movie, it would have to been done right—with exceptionally good quality with a global distribution—and that would be very time-consuming and expensive.
However, last year, one morning he woke up with an impression. Even though he had resisted doing so for many years, he felt strongly that the time was now. The film of Saturday’s Warrior needed to be made. His initial reaction to that feeling was a resurrection of so many feelings that he had felt before: it simply couldn’t be done. Though he had tried to visualize what a film version would look like for many years, he had always ended up deciding against it. However, this time things were different.
Not long thereafter, Lex awoke with another idea: the solution for restructuring the plot so it would work perfectly as a movie. Rather quickly, everything began coming together, and Lex couldn’t help feeling that, after 40 years, the time was now right. He began preparations for the screenwriting and production process.
Today, less than a year later, the new script is all but finalized. Auditions and casting are almost complete. New songs have been written and recorded. Wardrobe and sets are being secured. A “dream team” production crew has been hired, including director Michael Buster. Purdie Distribution is now involved, the same company that distributed Meet the Mormons. News outlets are picking up the story. After 40 years, it is happening.
For Lex and countless fans, the time is right. It is time to make a new Saturday’s Warrior for a new generation, to bring back the magic of the beloved stage musical–and take it to the world. Not as a stage musical, but a big screen movie, complete with a live-orchestra sound track, celebrities, and technology that no one could have ever dreamed of in 1974.
Where will the money come from to make the movie all it can be—and to ensure that it has an impact like it did 40 years ago? Part of it will come from the multitude of eager fans of the original musical. The funding effort will be designed around letting fans be a part of the movie project and production, with “insider” information and involvement.
There’s a lot of excitement and speculation about the cast. Several celebrities are planning to be in the film, contingent only on the shooting schedule working with their existing obligations. Fans who are part of the fundraising campaign will be the first to know who the celebrity cast members will be. Some fans will get promotional rewards, like tickets to a premiere. Some will even be able to be in the movie!
In one very significant way, history will have to repeat itself for the movie to “go global.” Going global will take tens of thousands of people willing to share the fundraising campaign on social media—much like Mormons shared the original musical with their friends decades ago. Fans will be invited to be “Saturday’s Warriors” and do just that with this slogan: “The 1970s musical changed thousands of lives. Let’s change millions!”
Lex and his team of filmmakers firmly believe that Mormons will share Saturday’s Warrior’s message once again, and in an even more powerful way than they did 40 years ago. Why? Because the world needs to know, now more than ever, that there’s more to life than just this life.
Go to https://saturdayswarrior.com for information on how to be part of Saturday’s Warrior – The Motion Picture, Coming in 2016.
FEATURES
