Okay I've been told families can be forever. Repeatedly.
Now, I'm not sure if I'm the first and only man to disagree with his in-laws, but my idea of a perfect afterlife certainly does not include spending a considerable amount of time with my mother-in-law.
This sentiment also applies to my own parents.
I love them, and I can handle my parents in small doses - but an eternity of being with them sounds only less pleasant than repeatedly stabbing myself in the eye with a letter opener.
Now I'm not sure I can speak for my kids, my lord - I can barely speak to my kids, but I'm sure that they don't want me cramping their eternal styles any more than I want my parents around.
So all this leads to the crux of this posting.
Why, precisely, are forever-families a good thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Well, in actuality, you won't be spending forever with your WHOLE family. Basically with your spouse. You will be able to see your children and other family members. I think though, that by then all of our imperfections and problems we have with any family will be eradicated becuae we will develop Christlike love. :)
Personally I would love to increase my relationship with most of my family on both sides and I can't imagine not being with Kim forever.
I'm sort of with Mary on this one, Rick.
We are continually told that we'll be with our families forever, but doesn't that ultimately mean we'll all be together (I mean, of those who make it).
For example, in the "Families are Forever" scenario, I would be together forever with my wife and children. The same could be said for my parents: they will be with each other and their children. This means, of course, that not only will I be with my wife and my children, but also my parents, my siblings, my brothers/sisters-in-law, and my nephews and nieces. The same could be said of my parents' parents: they will be with each other and heir children. This means of course that not only will I be with my wife, children, parents, siblings, siblings-in-law, nephews and nieces, I will also be with my grandparents, my uncles, my aunts, my cousins, my children's second cousins, and so forth.
This pattern, presumably, could be followed right back to Adam and then back down every branch of Adam's family tree.
So, I am not sure the phrase "Families can Be Together forever" really has much meaning.
Personally, I think spouses will be together. I am doubtful of the existence of any other family relationship existing in the afterlife.
So is this a case of deliberate mis-labeling?
I mean, when I think of my 'family' I certainly don't restrict the meaning of the word to 'only my wife'.
This seems to me, as a never-mormon, a bit misleading.
The prize of being united forever with families belongs to those who have, through the grace of Christ, developed true Charity. Those who possess this charity won't be bothered by their petty resentments of in-laws, because they won't have them.
I don't understand on what basis other posters are speculating that they will be "with" only a portion of their family and not with others. Where does this idea come from? The contrary seems more consistent with doctrine--the sealing power was given so that all the generations could be joined together in a continuous chain, back through our Father Adam, and on through to our Father in Heaven through Christ. Without this chain we cannot be brought back into the family of God. So what makes it seem that we will be compartmented into small, discrete family units that don't interact with one another?
It's also good to know that those who really don't want to choose a life of being forever united with their families will certainly get their wish. Reject such a life, and you won't have it.
"I don't understand on what basis other posters are speculating that they will be "with" only a portion of their family and not with others."
As I stated above, ltbugaf, anything else isn't really "being together with our family" any more than it is being together wit everyone in the celestial kingdom.
"This seems to me, as a never-mormon, a bit misleading."
It's not just the never-Mormons who find it misleading, Rick.
"...by their petty resentments of in-laws..." -emphasis mine
This makes it sound like it's my problem... I'm pretty sure that given a perfection of self, they'll come around to my way of thinking...
"Reject such a life, and you won't have it."
This is not really sounding like such a bad option, given the fact that I don't really think I'd like it, if it matches the descriptions I've heard thus far.
I don't think that "being together with everyone else in the Celestial Kingdom" and being "together with our families" are mutually exclusive. On earth, right now, I have a familial relationship with my uncles, aunts, second cousins, and so forth. I also have a familial relationship with my wife, and my children. Obviously some of these are what we would think of as "closer" relationships than others. I don't believe that sealed relationships in the Celestial Kingdom eradicate those differences. Being eternally bound to my mother as her son is obviously different from being eternally bound to my wife as her husband, which is in turn different from being eternally bound to my sister as her brother. If I get to be my mother's son forever, and I get to be my wife's husband forever, and I get to be my sister's brother forever, I don't see how these relationships dilute each other, or what leads to the belief that relationships such as those between siblings, cousins, aunts, and so forth should not exist in a large, extended, and sealed family.
(I'm also concerned about the tone I have been taking in some comments I have made on other "thoughts." I pledge to be more constructive and less concerned with arguing for argument's sake. With that in mind, I hope you'll understand that my remarks here are not meant to be cutting.)
ltbugaf, the idea that a family relationship exists in the hereafter is not the point we are arguing against. Or at least not what I am arguing against. What I am arguing against is the idea that, as the song title goes, families can be together forever.
Well, I, for one, have only the vaguest idea of the actual physical arrangements of life in the Celestial Kingdom. I don't know whether being "together" will have the same meaning as it has here. If by "together" you mean living on the same block and seeing each other all the time, I would have to guess that these concepts won't have much meaning. Distance doesn't matter much to God. Neither does time. Since He knows and sees all, it's hard to imagine why having one of His relatives nearer or farther would matter, or even how He could "see" or "not see" a particular person at a given moment, since as far as I understand, He sees everything all the time. Since Eternal Life is the same as His life, I presume that those who inherit Eternal Life and are sealed forever to their families will also see and know all, as He does. And therefore I don't know how they would not be "together" with relatives other than spouses.
It's a good explanation, and one with which I do not argue, but I'm not so sure that's the meaning the rest of the Church membership uses when they sing the song.
Yes Kim, that's my point also.
It's a pretty strange concept anyway.
That I'm going to be separated from my family by default in the hereafter.
That just sounds mean. :P
groannnnnnnnnnnn gee just what I am looking forward to... a forever family dinner with ALL our sons at the same table with ALL the loud arguing about who is right and with a spouse who will argue logistics of being the oldest therefore the most wise and the most able to be the most right in all aspects of our family..... hmmmm wonder if they have places to go for lunch with our daughter and daughter in law?????
I also wonder if they have Everquest there and if all imperfections are erased in the Celestial life, does that mean we can actually have a decent coversation that touches on aspects other then computer games??? Hmmm I may have to rethink this and have something I may be able to look forward to!!
Ok, what I think is that we won't all LIVE together. But it's like all living in the same community, or at least being able to see each other whenever we want etc. Knowing each other. But as far as actual living together, I think that will be wiht our spouses.
It's also useful to realize that we believe in a pre-existence. The way we knew each other then is different than how we know each other now. And after we die, it'll be different, again, because we'll have both the knowledge of each other in the pre-existence as well as during our lives.
I think the emphasis put on families being together forever stems from other religions not believing that marriage is eternal. We do.
I have plenty of family members I wouldn't want to spend eternity with, believe me. But as harsh as this sounds, I doubt I will be.
"It's also useful to realize that we believe in a pre-existence."
Do we? Don't we believe that we have always existed in one form or another? If so, can there be a pre-existence?
It's fine and dandy to say we knew each other in the pre-existence and we'll be perfect so we'll all get along - but if I retain any individuality in the hereafter, there's no way I will want to be cooped up with my wife for time and all eternity, nor I suspect she with me.
I really like being by myself sometimes.
I'd also like to take the opportunity, once I'm dead, to go chumming around with some other interesting dead people. My wife will not want to meet many of these people because our interests are so divergent and she thinks I'm crazy.
Am I the only one who wants to spend some time in the afterlife talking to people other than my wife?
I think we will be. I think as far as living together it will be with our spouses. But we have the freedom to move and interact and we will get to do that. I am pretty sure of that, anyway.
I'd love to chat with Robbie Burns.
So if we've got the freedom to move and interact, then what's the upside to eternal marriage?
If I can associate with my spouse without a temple marriage anyway, I mean?
I've always wondered why Mormons tend to pooh-pooh other religions' afterlife beliefs as unfathomably cruel: families separated forever. yet the LDS version is even worse. Not all spouses want to be married forever, or married to the same partner forever. Singles and gays are marginalized. There's intense pressure to find an "eternal companion" and then pray, pay and obey to the bitter end in order to remain married to that person for the rest of eternity.
I'd rather sit on clouds and play a harp.
"Not all spouses want to be married forever, or married to the same partner forever."
And how does the lDS concept of the afterlife not allow for this?
Well, what if someone qualifies for all the blessings of exaltation but simply doesn't want to be with his/her spouse forever? Or what if that person married spouse A who died twenty years before he met spouse B. He was sealed to both of them in the temple, but neither A nor he wants to be in a polygamous relationship for eternity. Or what of people who simply don't want to be married at all, but miss the bestest, most glorious heaven simply because they don't want or can't attract a spouse?
Or if one partner wants to be married (say Mrs. Anon) and Mr. Anon just doesn't. Yet they both qualify for exaltation in all respects. They won't be exalted? What if Mrs. Anon catches the eye of Brother Ministering Angel number million and five? She's been sealed forever and ever to Brother Anon and can never change that, so she gets cast down to a lower kingdom?
Nermalcat:
You seem to speak as though you are certain of all the dynamics of the LDS concept of Heaven.
In my mind, it's not as clear for members of the church as you indicate. Many of the concepts you talk about as fact are mere speculation. Would you please cite some canonized references (or anyone else who thinks they know)?
Particularly:
-"everyone will be the same age"
(try the Journal of Discourses version of the King Follet discourse)
-"one does NOT have to be married to dwell in the celestial kingdom" (See Doctrine & Covenants... you know the one it's probably highlighted - I thought it was D&C 130:20 but maybe I'm mistaken)
-"If any person is unhappy with their sealing arrangement the sealing is VOID." (I've never heard the topic of divorce in Heaven discussed in church)
Also please remember that Mormon Doctrine is not Mormon doctrine (for those that don't know Mormon Doctrine is an unofficial book by scholar Bruce R. McConkie. It's teachings do not necessarily reflect what the church teaches and though it's been through revisions, I wouldn't count on anything it says that is not backed up by teachings somewhere else.)
"according to Mormon Doctrine even murderers and rapists will be better off than a harp playing cloud-dweller." Given the choice, I'd take the harp any day - (no need to respond to this, I understand what you are trying to say - I just think you worded it in a funny way).
Nermal:
What if I'm perfectly fine with the two kids I have now, and have no desire for god-hood?
Given this premise, now sell me on eternal marriage.
There's just no upside for someone who is not interested in populating their own world.
Quite frankly, the idea of spending the rest of eternity breeding and being disappointed with what my spirit children are doing to one another, fills me with dread.
What a terrible way to spend eternity.
Holy wowzers! I don't even know where to start here...Just let me say this, I think those who want to will, those who don't won't be there. Make that out as you will. This whole question doesn't seem to baffle my brain as much as everyone else commenting.
"... and being stuck with eternal limitations"
You want to talk about eternal limitations?
Try having a whole world to look after. That's pretty limiting.
Hmmm? Wanna go hang out with the Black Sox? Nah. I gotta stay at home and watch the kids - err, I mean the world. Maybe next time.
Hey Kris, what happens if one person wants to be around the another, but the other person doesn't want to be around the former?
Who's wants win in heaven?
You can't have it both ways.
Consider the classic step-mother scenario. Try telling the kids that enternity is reserved for the step-mom and not the biological.
Oh yeah, that soundhaveke heaven.
//sarcasm off
nor are the "Journal of discourses".
But the King Follet discourse is doctrine. It was the venue for a huge change in the religion! It's where Joseph Smith first taught that man may become a god. To say that it's not doctrine is to say that only the white washed stuff from Salt Lake City counts - and even the King Follet discourse can be read on the church website.
The controversy comes in because the version printed in Journal of Discourses has a couple of paragraphs that were omitted from the version printed in the newspaper at the time. Particularly Joseph's statement that at whatever age you die, that's how old you will be physically for eternity. The church now seems to ignore those statements that were cut out - I have to admit they were pretty wild concepts, and I wouldn't be comfortable with them either.
It's clear to me that:
The doctrine of sealings as presently taught in the missionary discussions and curriculum are geared to invest potential members and current members emotionally, and to bind them to the Church which offers those ordinances. It tugs on the heartstrings of those who love their families/spouses and want to be with them "forever" (whatever that means---it's never explained). It's a nice romantic idea that sounds too good to be true.
When you really delve into what that means for people in the following situations, it ain't all that appealing to:
1. A single woman with children--who's she sealed to in this life, and what becomes of her afterwards, especially if she doesn't WANT to be married, but DOES want to be exalted.
2. Righteous gay members who want to live with their families of origin but don't want to "marry" a gay partner or a straight partner.
3. People who are divorced and don't (obviously) want to live with the person they're still sealed to. The church doesn't always grant cancellations of sealings to whomever asks, and it rarely allows cancellation of sealings for women who dont' have another marriage partner lined up.
4. People who are in so-so marriages who are righteous, but wouldn't have married the partner of choice if they had been older, wiser, more mature, etc. Does anyone here *really* think that a 19 year old starry eyed BYU student who marries after 2 months because of peer pressure and homesickness is obligated to stay with that husband just because they're "sealed"? Sure, she might learn to love him, but what kind of system is this that seals people together for ever and ever just because they got married?
Is there Musical Chairs in heaven? Because it seems there's gonna be an awful lot of shuffling going on.
Sealings just dont' make sense, and it's disingenuous and manipulative of missionaries and the Church's PR departments to paint forever families as an understandable, attainable, desirable goal.
"... a God would be all powerful and would not be constrained by space or linear time ... (ie a god can be anywhere, anytime)."
So given this scenario, why don't you send me a sign that gods are indeed all-powerful?
I'm sure that you'll be exalted, right?
And since gods can time travel according to you, why don't you make my life a bit more interesting?
As a matter of fact, why didn't you do this yesterday since you've already read this by the time you've achieved god-hood and have all this free power and time and the ability to transcend space and time?
Having completed this comment without any sort of 'bolt out of the blue' moment, I'm going to assume that the lack of your godly intervention has dis-proved your attaining godlihood. Sorry to hear about that. Oh well, better luck next life. Oh. That's right, the LDS don't believe in reincarnation...
Or maybe you just don't have time for the little people now that you're a god. That hurts. That really, really hurts.
:P =)
Sealings seem astonishingly couterproductive, then, if they're so tenuous that despite the priesthood power that binds them, "love" can break them. I thought WHATSOEVER was bound on earth was bound in heaven. What level of love do you have to have to break a sealing, or to make it effective? I thought once you were sealed, you were sealed.
Why, then, do we do temple work for ancestors when we have NO IDEA whether or not they wanted to be married to each other in the first place, much less looooooved each other? What of ancestors 1,000 or more years ago who had no concept of courtly love, or romantic love, or even physical pleasure? What about the billions of couples throughout the world who were in arranged marriages? What about people who were/are happy with the "death do you part" kind of arrangement and who truly just want to be married for 50 years instead of 50 kazillion plus?
What kind of love makes a sealing an eternal sealing? I thought the only thing that solified a sealing was the confirmation of the Holy Spirit of Promise. After all, we make NO covenants to love each other during the temple sealing ceremony. Some people marry after knowing each other a week. Do they "love" each other with an eternal love? Are they commanded to love each other? And are they therefore expected to love each other for all eternity simply because they're sealed?
What kind of love is the "right" kind of love to make marriage last after death? Are we talking about courtly love? Brother-sister love? Mutual respect? What level of love must each person have to maintain this oh-so-tenuous sealing power? What if people love each other but STILL don't want to live together, or the other way around?
We promise neither love nor devotion at the sealing. We do promise to have children and be faithful to the Church, however.
Post a Comment