Kingdom of God

The Celestial room is the one place in Mormonism that feels like heaven is supposed to feel. Everything softens. Voices drop. The pace of the world slows down. People sit in white, faces exposed, the rest covered—uniform and reverent, careful not to disrupt the atmosphere.

I loved that room.

I never wanted to live there.

I wanted to visit. Clear my head. Ponder for a while. Then leave—go be loud with friends, tell slightly crude jokes with my spouse, be sarcastic, mock the absurd parts of life, and feel the full range of what it means to be myself.

That’s the tension I can’t shake when Mormonism talks about the Celestial Kingdom as an eternal destination.

Mormonism doesn’t merely promise “rest” or “peace” after death. It promises expansion: kings and priests, queens and priestesses; creation continuing outward; families and kingdoms that grow forever. But it also defines Celestial life as perfection—a state where sin can’t exist, and where the will of God is not just honored but fully embodied.

So here’s my question: if the Celestial Kingdom is a place where nothing meaningfully resists God’s will, what happens to the parts of me that do resist? Are they refined into something still recognizable as me, or do they have to die for heaven to be sinless?

In LDS teaching, the Celestial Kingdom isn’t described as the highest kingdom of glory or heaven with explicit requirements attached.

Doctrine and Covenants 76 lays out a portrait of those who inherit celestial glory: they receive the testimony of Jesus, are baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, keep the commandments, overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:51–53). Joseph Smith’s revelation also distinguishes exaltation—the highest degree within the celestial kingdom—from merely dwelling in celestial glory: exaltation includes promises like becoming kings and priests unto God, membership in the Church of the Firstborn, becoming gods, and receiving all that the Father hath (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:54–59).

That “highest degree” is tied—again, in LDS scripture—to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Doctrine and Covenants 131 teaches there are multiple degrees within the celestial kingdom, and that entering the highest degree requires entering into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4). Doctrine and Covenants 132 is where much of the explicit marriage/exaltation language lands—including promises framed in terms of continuation and throne imagery—alongside language many members summarize as queens and priestesses (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20).

The Celestial Kingdom is presented as a kingdom ordered by covenant, commandments, overcoming, and being sealed—language that strongly implies exacting alignment with the will of God.

And once those gates close behind that theology—especially once you add phrases like perfect, no unclean thing, and complete submission—the individuality question stops feeling hypothetical.

If you listen to LDS discourse long enough, “perfection,” “good,” and “God’s will” start to sound like synonyms.

Bruce R. McConkie is a useful shorthand for that voice—not because he is the final word on every Latter‑day Saint’s belief, but because he states the logic bluntly. Perfection, he writes, consists in devotion to truth and walking in complete submission to the Lord’s will, putting the kingdom first. Good, he defines as the opposite of evil: it “consists in obedience to his laws and conformity to his mind and will.”

Read together, those sentences compress morality into a single maxim: bring your mind and will into conformity to match God’s.

That definition is doing hidden work in this chapter. If “good” is obedience‑and‑conformity, and heaven is a place without sin, then anything in me that resists conformity isn’t just “quirky”—it starts to look like a heaven problem.

How do we know the will of the Lord? Through revelation and prayer. We are to act in accordance with that revelation. If we don’t we will sin. The definition of sin would be ‘To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.’ (James 4:17)

Sin, in this framing, begins with knowing God’s mind and will about something—and then choosing anything else. If we err without knowing, we may still harm—but we’re not operating inside James’s tight definition of sin-as-knowing-better.

No unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God (3 Nephi 27:19). There is no degree of allowance for any amount of sin in the Celestial Kingdom.

Thus we see that in order to be in the Celestial kingdom one must do the will of God and conform to his will in all things. Not doing so is a sin. We should know the very will of God in all things. Once we have that knowledge doing anything contrary would be a sin. According to Mormon theology though once you get to that point you will have no desire to do evil and only desire to do good continually. We should constantly be in communication with God at all times. We are taught to continually have a prayer in our hearts—speaking to God through prayer and receiving direction through revelation. Ours is to do the will of God.

If that’s the case, is there anything uniquely you anymore? Maybe, but the distinction may be very small and indistinguishable from an outside observer. You should still have your thoughts and memory. Your memory may be the only thing uniquely you at that point. That would only be true if God does not decide to reveal your memories to everyone else and vice versa.

What does your relationship with your spouse look like at that point? Can you make that slightly crude joke to your spouse anymore? In the temple we used to covenant to avoid all loud laughter and lightmindedness. Beyond that when we go into the Celestial room we are meant to keep a quiet reverent atmosphere that represents the Celestial kingdom. In the Celestial room everyone looks the same. The only difference is a face that is exposed. Everything else is white, but the green apron. We even cover our heads with a white hat or veil. Everyone acts the same. We converse in quiet hushed tones. Others may be praying. There is very little distinction between one another.

There are many different aspects to this scenario and even if LDS theology is true this may not be the way it is. I always imagined having much more autonomy in the celestial kingdom than the scriptures, prophets, or other leaders have alluded. I’ve always had it explained that we would all still be us, but would have no desire to do evil. What does that really mean though.

In Alma 19:33 it says their hearts had been changed; that they had no more desire to do evil. If they have no desire to do evil then they have no desire to do anything contrary to the will of God. The scriptures outline many verses highlighting that we should be doing good continually and nothing evil. See (Moroni 7:12-14, Alma 41:14, Alma 63:2).

How will that look in the next life? I have often pictured myself in the Celestial kingdom. In that place I am still me. If I follow the doctrine though to its full conclusion however I don’t see how that can still be the case in practice.

If there can be no sin in the Celestial kingdom, and if sin is defined as the willful violation of God’s commandments, then God’s commandments are defined as whatever God has communicated as his will through revelation to us. We then could say there can be no behavior in the Celestial kingdom that is contrary to God’s will. If there is only God’s will in the Celestial Kingdom then my will and everyone else's will is superseded and cannot be allowed.

Granted that implies that my will is not God’s will, but based on other LDS doctrine and teachings everyone who enters the Celestial Kingdom will have the hearts changed to God’s or in other words:

As individuals yield their hearts to God, are sanctified, and follow the Spirit, their desires and will become aligned with His. — Neal A. Maxwell

One would not be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom unless they were perfectly and completely aligned with God’s will and desires. What does a large group of people all following the same will, mind, and desires look like?

I keep reaching for a pop-culture picture—something that names the horror without proving theology.

On Apple TV+, Pluribus is essentially this question scaled up: what happens when humanity stops being billions of private interiors and becomes one coordinated mind—still wearing human faces, still polite, still functional, but no longer private in the way individuality requires.

The setup is intentionally blunt (signal → outbreak → “joining”): almost everyone is folded into a collective consciousness—people call it a hive mind—while a handful of immune outliers remain outside it. The hive isn’t portrayed as mindless zombies so much as uncanny harmony: shared awareness, synchronized behavior, a merged moral atmosphere where conflict dries up because disagreement becomes administratively impossible.

If you’ve watched it, you already know the intimate punch of that premise—relationships rerouted through a crowd; grief translated into something “reasonable”; autonomy treated like a hygiene problem the world needs to solve.

If you haven’t watched it, you still know enough for my purposes: many bodies, one will.

We can map those ideas and see some commonalities.

There are many concepts in LDS teaching—and Christianity more broadly—where, when someone points out a similarity between two ideas, a theologian will brush it off as a counterfeit: something shaped to look like the real thing while secretly leading people astray.

The familiar cultural example is the comparison between the United Order and Marxism. In many LDS circles, one gets framed as divinely inspired covenant economics; the other gets framed (especially in Western politics) as sinister compulsion. Whether or not that contrast holds up under careful historical analysis, the emotional logic is what matters here: similarities feel threatening, so the instinct is to emphasize difference until the similarity stops biting.

I’m sure some believers would deploy the same instinct against a hive-mind analogy: celestial unity is holy; Pluribus unity is profane—therefore, don’t think about it too carefully.

I’m not trying to prove hive-mind cosmology. I’m trying to name what alignment feels like when you completely strip away the natural man—is any of you left?

On a more personal level I like to make jokes and be sarcastic. We covenant to avoid lightmindedness and loud laughter—and depending on who’s interpreting, that can swallow a lot of normal human playfulness. These aren’t abstract sins for me; they’re parts of how I show affection, discharge tension, and feel alive.

For me to enter the Celestial kingdom I will have to change my will to match God’s. I will have to relinquish a part of me. Maybe that's fine—but how many other personality quirks do each of us have that would not align with God’s will?

In 2007 President Oaks gave a talk titled “Good, Better, Best.” Where he states:

just because something is good is not a sufficient reason for doing it.

He calls us to be even better than just good. Here we see a modern Prophet of God saying that something being good is not sufficient reason to do so. He is really saying that we need to do better than just good. I would treat that impulse—always reaching past “fine”—as part of the spiritual physics many members associate with Celestial life: you can’t stop at okay.

This creates tension with how this chapter has been using “good.” If “good” means doing God’s actual will, then “better than good” becomes either meaningless or unstable.

So Oaks’s usage seems closer to a gradient: choices that are more or less aligned—more or less wise, complete, consecrated—rather than a binary toggle labeled “good.” On that reading, “good” means something like acceptable-but-not-optimal, and “best” means what God would choose if you’re listening carefully enough.

With that gradient in view, the moral atmosphere tightens anyway: even if everything “good” you do is genuinely righteous, the rhetoric still trains you to suspect there’s a truer choice hiding above you.

What is the best choice in every situation? It’s the will of God. I don’t see any way doctrinally where we don’t lose our self and become the same as God with the same will and desires. There isn’t a sound reason to believe that if we should be seeking out the better and best things in this life that we won’t be required to always do the best in the next. At least if we want to be in the Celestial Kingdom.

Which points us—again—toward an old aspiration in scripture and sermon culture: a people who are of one heart and one mind. Does anyone truly want that? I have always interpreted these ideas more to mean that the people were together in one culture and one goal. I'm not convinced anymore that that is what the texts or modern prophets are really saying.

I’m not sure I really care about being in God's presence. I don't remember ever being in his presence. I have an idea in my head of what and who God is—there are scriptures that sharpen that idea and scriptures that complicate it.

Ultimately, I don't care about being with God—not as an abstract spiritual trophy. What I want is to be with my family. I want to be with my wife. I want to be with my children. That’s the promise in LDS theology that actually pulls me.

And I love them for who they are now. I don't want an eternity with them as sanitized replicas—still wearing their faces but missing their edges. I want to laugh and joke. I want to play games at the table. That’s my hope for the afterlife: belonging without becoming interchangeable.

Additional info

1 sam 2:35

And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.