by

In a recent conversation where I wondered if something I wrote was grammatically correct (and comprehensible), the discussion turned to how sometimes defining your terms and usages goes a long way. Subsequently a friend suggested that I take a few moments to define my use of “cosmology/cosmological” and “material” in Power of Godliness, something I realize I should have done better in the book. As it happens I touched on the ideas a little bit at MHA where LaJean and I spoke about what most people call Adam-God [n1]. Anyway, it was a party. You should have been there. I opened up with a little discussion of cosmology:



In our modern era, we are accustomed to thinking of cosmology as the science of the origin and development of the universe, with an army of physicists both theoretical and empirical probing space for black holes, neutron stars, and dark matter. But the cosmos is far more ancient and expansive. The cosmos that God so loved in the New Testament is not merely the sphere on which we stand and its population, but the order of existence, encompassing the physical world, yes, but also the spiritual world with its divine hierarchies, and the astral heavens. It comprised “the social, political, and religious structures of authority and power.” It is “a vision of the whole of things.” [n2] Thus, in association with the expanded temple liturgy (though with important antecedents), Smith revealed new ideas that restructured heaven, earth, and their populations. He recast the histories of God and humanity. He revealed a new cosmology.

In Power of Godliness I talk a lot about “the cosmological priesthood.” This is, of course, an artificial framework—Joseph Smith didn’t use the term—but priesthood is a term with wildly shifting meaning over time within our tradition. My little framework is consequently quite useful to understand what is going on in the temple and church across history. In Nauvoo Joseph Smith revealed a new cosmology in association with the temple liturgy. Salvation, kinship, government, and priesthood swirled together. Participants in the liturgy wore priesthood vestements, they called themselves and the network they created through sealings “the priesthood.” They ultimately became priests and priestesses. Now this wasn’t an ecclesiastical priesthood. You didn’t get a church office by being sealed to someone. It was instead a cosmological priesthood in the sense that it was a priesthood that ultimately constructed heaven, and ordered the cosmos, including earth.

What the temple liturgy did was to construct heaven. A lot of people believe that heaven is a destination for the elect or the faithful. JS created heaven on the temple altars. In the same way that a Catholic priest materializes the body of Christ in the eucharist (it is literally present), Mormons materialized heaven. Where those relationships (and people that make them up) don’t exist, heaven doesn’t exist. There were antecedents: “inheritances” (that is plots of land) in the city of Zion were to endure “while the Earth shall stand” and “again in eternity no more to pass away.” [n3] This material heaven—this network of relationality—was priesthood, the cosmological priesthood. And it was no more material than the it would be in the resurrection.

So for fun, let’s try an application. This is an excerpt from Zina DHY’s 1850 patriarchal blessing that she received from the prophet’s uncle. What priesthood is it referring to?

the priesthood in fullness is & shall be conferred upon you[.] you shalt Increase in wisdom & Knowledge & Intelligence be able to do miracles in the name of Jesus to heal the sick to drive the destroyer from thy habitations & shall be blest with Every comfort which you Desire to make you happy in Time & in Eternity

_______________