Duncan Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 I don't know how I feel about being sealed eternally to people I don't like (crazy aunt) or people I may not like, what if I think my Great great whoever is a total twit? I know a few marriages that are sealed in the Temple but are terrible and I can't imagine either spouse living for eternity with each other, if they can't live together here. I heard someone say once they heard about the idea of being eternally to your family and they said what happens then if you're good? hanging out with your doofus, but worthy, brother perpetually doesn't sound like a good idea!
ALarson Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Duncan said: I don't know how I feel about being sealed eternally to people I don't like (crazy aunt) or people I may not like, what if I think my Great great whoever is a total twit? I know a few marriages that are sealed in the Temple but are terrible and I can't imagine either spouse living for eternity with each other, if they can't live together here. I heard someone say once they heard about the idea of being eternally to your family and they said what happens then if you're good? hanging out with your doofus, but worthy, brother perpetually doesn't sound like a good idea! I believe if we lived as Christlike a life as we can (always trying to do better and always trying to not hurt others, but love them), we will be able to be with those we love. No one will be forced to be with someone they don't want to be around and no one will be forced to be apart from their loved ones. I'm not sure what "being with" will even mean in the afterlife though. Much of this all really makes no logical sense when its analyzed and put into real family relations and situations. Edited April 8, 2019 by ALarson 2
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 12 hours ago, ALarson said: But then how does that really work with our kids (for example....). I'm sealed to my kids, but I'm not sealed to their spouses. They are sealed to both me and their spouses. Will I just be able to be with them, but not see or be with their spouses? I know we are told it'll all work out....but much of it is pretty confusing. We will not be in family units like we are here on earth when our kids are all small (IMO). Each of them will have their own spouses and so on.... Or are you just specifically speaking about spousal sealings? This is a very important point. If I recall correctly, Nelson made it clear that only those who are righteous will be exalted, and not (necessarily) their family members. I’ll read it when the talk is published, but this idea sets up scenarios of families being broken up because certain members aren’t righteous enough. My sister is gay, and I’d rather go to hell with her (if god truly does in fact condemn those) than be without her in heaven. 2
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 11 hours ago, Rivers said: I know that. But unsealed people can still be in contact and hang out with each other right? To me, this is where LDS theology on the afterlife falls apart. It makes no sense. The only answer I’ve ever gotten is: “No, but it will all be worked out.” 1
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 11 hours ago, JAHS said: "Outside the Celestial kingdom there is no family unit. That organization is reserved for those willing to abide in every covenant and every obligation which we are called upon to receive while we sojourn here in this mortal life(p. 67) ...children left without one and maybe without both parents, to be taken perhaps through the mercy of the Almighty into some other faithful family, to be adopted in such a family to be theirs through all eternity...(p. 83) If this is true, I hate this god. It pains me that this “prophet” would teach such vile. God breaks up families forever and puts children into new families because dad drinks coffee and therefor can’t hold a temple recommend? So much for the church focusing on the family... Maybe only righteous families who pay tithing are worth keeping together in the Mormon God’s eyes.
ALarson Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: To me, this is where LDS theology on the afterlife falls apart. It makes no sense. The only answer I’ve ever gotten is: “No, but it will all be worked out.” I have never been able to get an explanation from anyone I've asked regarding how is one's relationship going to be different with all the thousands they are sealed to vs all the ones they are not sealed to (and they are all together in the Celestial Kingdom). Will we all be color coded? Ha! If we are blue and see another person wearing blue then we're in the same sealing group? But that doesn't work because some of them will be sealed to a pink or orange person. It comes down to everyone being with their spouse anyway, IMO. 1
pogi Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: God breaks up families forever... God doesn't break up families, people do. They can choose to live together...or not. Edited April 8, 2019 by pogi 1
JAHS Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: If this is true, I hate this god. It pains me that this “prophet” would teach such vile. God breaks up families forever and puts children into new families because dad drinks coffee and therefor can’t hold a temple recommend? So much for the church focusing on the family... Maybe only righteous families who pay tithing are worth keeping together in the Mormon God’s eyes. I love this God who protects the children despite the unfaithfulness of the parents. 1
ALarson Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, pogi said: God doesn't break up families, people do. They can choose to live together...or not. Exactly. God will allow us to be with those we love (if they choose to be with us as well). I believe that there will be no forcing apart or forcing together. We know who wants to use "force" and it's not God. Bottom line is that none of really knows how it will be. Edited April 8, 2019 by ALarson
MustardSeed Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 Children? Seems illogical. It’s eternity. No one will be a child for eternity. We will all be us. No cfr. And we will all be as happy as all get out. We all go where we wanna be.
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 23 minutes ago, pogi said: God doesn't break up families, people do. They can choose to live together...or not. Wow. God says: No coffee, if you don’t obey me, I’ll break up your family. Then it’s up to the family member to choose or not, and the blame for breaking up a family is on them. The whole family wants to be together, but god disallows it. To me, there is little difference between that and armed robbery. The robber won’t kill you if you give him your watch. You decide if you want to live or not, and it’s your fault if you are killed. This is a god who uses fear and threats of breaking up families to gain compliance? This is the Mormon God? Makes no sense to me. 2
Tacenda Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 31 minutes ago, pogi said: God doesn't break up families, people do. They can choose to live together...or not. I doubt very much a mother, father, wife, sister, aunt, uncle, brother, husband would appreciate a God that would separate them from each other over the WoW.
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 19 minutes ago, JAHS said: I love this God who protects the children despite the unfaithfulness of the parents. Hypothetical: A mom drinks coffee, and her children love her and want to be with her. She’s a great mom! She can’t get a temple recommend, and therefor will not go to the celestial kingdom. They all die in a car crash. This god that you love pulls her kids away, even if they want to be with her, and gives those children to parents who abstain from coffee? This is BS. Utter BS. If this really is the theology of the LDS church, I want nothing to do with it. For years, the church has emphasized the importance of the family unit; but in the end, it seems the family unit and the threat of breaking it up is a coercive ploy to gain compliance to commandments and rules.
JAHS Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Hypothetical: A mom drinks coffee, and her children love her and want to be with her. She’s a great mom! She can’t get a temple recommend, and therefor will not go to the celestial kingdom. They all die in a car crash. This god that you love pulls her kids away, even if they want to be with her, and gives those children to parents who abstain from coffee? This is BS. Utter BS. If this really is the theology of the LDS church, I want nothing to do with it. For years, the church has emphasized the importance of the family unit; but in the end, it seems the family unit and the threat of breaking it up is a coercive ploy to gain compliance to commandments and rules. Why are you here on this board then? If the children are faithful to the gospel they will eventually be sealed to their own spouse anyway in the eternity. You mention only coffee. We don't know for sure how God will judge people in the end and exactly what criteria He will use. If she is sealed to them and otherwise faithful she may still get to have them with her. 1
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, JAHS said: Why are you here on this board then? If the children are faithful to the gospel they will eventually be sealed to their own spouse anyway in the eternity. You mention only coffee. We don't know for sure how God will judge people in the end and exactly what criteria He will use. If she is sealed to them and otherwise faithful she may still get to have them with her. Few things: Im on this board to figure out the LDS theology. It’s tough to nail down! You mention spouses as some sort of consolation (for not being allowed to be with parents), but I’m talking about the theology of being sealed to parents. If prophets (presidents of the LDS church) are mouthpieces of God in earth today, then we do know that coffee is a disqualifier for the celestial kingdom.
Duncan Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 44 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Hypothetical: A mom drinks coffee, and her children love her and want to be with her. She’s a great mom! She can’t get a temple recommend, and therefor will not go to the celestial kingdom. They all die in a car crash. This god that you love pulls her kids away, even if they want to be with her, and gives those children to parents who abstain from coffee? This is BS. Utter BS. If this really is the theology of the LDS church, I want nothing to do with it. For years, the church has emphasized the importance of the family unit; but in the end, it seems the family unit and the threat of breaking it up is a coercive ploy to gain compliance to commandments and rules. this is BS because it isn't even a real situation, as you are leaving out parts to the scenario. You forgot about covenants, you imply that a recommend automatically gets you into the CK. You forgot about the verse in the DC that talks about the dead who repent, as there are no Starbucks in Heaven so her craving, our cravings go with us, death doesn't change anything. You frogot about why doesn't she want to give up coffee? does she love that more than her kids?
JAHS Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Few things: Im on this board to figure out the LDS theology. It’s tough to nail down! You mention spouses as some sort of consolation (for not being allowed to be with parents), but I’m talking about the theology of being sealed to parents. If prophets (presidents of the LDS church) are mouthpieces of God in earth today, then we do know that coffee is a disqualifier for the celestial kingdom. I don't think we do know that for sure. My own grandmother was addicted to coffee her whole life but really wanted to be able to go to the temple. Trying to cut it out completely was just too hard for her old body to handle. The Bishop told her if she could just cut down to a half a cup per day he would give her the recommend. She was able to do that and he gave her the recommend. In the end I think God really goes on what is in our hearts and who we have become in this life. 2
Tacenda Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Duncan said: this is BS because it isn't even a real situation, as you are leaving out parts to the scenario. You forgot about covenants, you imply that a recommend automatically gets you into the CK. You forgot about the verse in the DC that talks about the dead who repent, as there are no Starbucks in Heaven so her craving, our cravings go with us, death doesn't change anything. You frogot about why doesn't she want to give up coffee? does she love that more than her kids? Your comment made me think of this scripture: What Defiles a Man10Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen and understand. 11A man is not defiled by whatenters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.”12Then the disciples came to Him and said, “Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”… ETA: Families can be together forever or families can be separated forever, doesn't sound very loving in the scheme of things. The church's logo of it being together is not telling how it can separate as well to the incoming converts are they? Where other faiths do not try to separate, maybe it's till death do us part in the civil marriage ceremony, but still together. Or the church's early leaders jumped on the "till death do us part", and rolled with that, meaning they are actually apart, hmm. Edited April 8, 2019 by Tacenda
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Duncan said: this is BS because it isn't even a real situation, as you are leaving out parts to the scenario. You forgot about covenants, you imply that a recommend automatically gets you into the CK. You forgot about the verse in the DC that talks about the dead who repent, as there are no Starbucks in Heaven so her craving, our cravings go with us, death doesn't change anything. You frogot about why doesn't she want to give up coffee? does she love that more than her kids? You bring up a good point about not knowing th whole situation. But in the complexities is where Mormon dogma on this issue finds safety (per your example: one day she’ll repent!). As for your idea that a TR does not equal entry into the CK - sure, I can see that they are not synonymous. But, have you had (or can you even imagine) church authorities teaching that one can enter the CK, while still not worthy of a TR? I doubt I could find any authoritative source say that. Hence, my point I think remains apt. I missed your point on the Starbucks in heaven idea, and how it relates to cravings and her staying with her family. Maybe you couple clarify (if it matters?). 1
SouthernMo Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, JAHS said: In the end I think God really goes on what is in our hearts and who we have become in this life. I hope this is the case. But it seems at odds with some LDS teaching.
Oliblish Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 12 hours ago, MustardSeed said: I know someone who wouldn’t go to the temple because they didn’t want to be with their spouse forever. I’m not sure I do today either, but I’m a sinner anyway so I’m getting used to the cat plan 😂 On my mission I had mixed responses when we taught about eternal marriage. One man responded "Do I have to?" when we said he could be with his wife forever. (She was sitting right next to him at the time.) A relative of mine told everyone before she died NOT to have her work done. She did not want to ever see her abusive husband again. Of course it was done anyway.
pogi Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, SouthernMo said: Wow. God says: No coffee, if you don’t obey me, I’ll break up your family. Then it’s up to the family member to choose or not, and the blame for breaking up a family is on them. The whole family wants to be together, but god disallows it. To me, there is little difference between that and armed robbery. The robber won’t kill you if you give him your watch. You decide if you want to live or not, and it’s your fault if you are killed. This is a god who uses fear and threats of breaking up families to gain compliance? This is the Mormon God? Makes no sense to me. I think the equivalent would be more like choosing to adhere to the laws of physics or not. You can choose to submit to the law of gravity or you can try to live independent of it at your own peril. It is your choice. Don't blame God for killing you because he created gravity. The sealing power is eternal law. You can try to live independent of it and pretend like it has no effect on you if you want. Who can and cannot be sealed is based on eternal laws. I don't think coffee will keep someone from being sealed if that is their only vise in life, even if a bishop thinks otherwise. God will have the final say based on his knowledge of eternal law. Everything functions on eternal law. You are subject to it, as is God. There is no escaping it. Edited April 8, 2019 by pogi 1
Rivers Posted April 8, 2019 Author Posted April 8, 2019 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Some sealers have told me that most everyone on the other side accepts the ordinances. However, for the stubborn cases who are in different glories (say one in Telestial and the other in Terrestrial) might not see much of each other -- unless one comes down to visit. Even those in the same glory -- both in Telestial, for example -- will only be able to hang out. No hanky panky. Even if all the body parts are restored to their perfect frame?
Exiled Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Rivers said: Even if all the body parts are restored to their perfect frame? May I present the concept of a TK Smoothie? https://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2006/12/the-tk-smoothie-rule/
Duncan Posted April 8, 2019 Posted April 8, 2019 46 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: You bring up a good point about not knowing th whole situation. But in the complexities is where Mormon dogma on this issue finds safety (per your example: one day she’ll repent!). As for your idea that a TR does not equal entry into the CK - sure, I can see that they are not synonymous. But, have you had (or can you even imagine) church authorities teaching that one can enter the CK, while still not worthy of a TR? I doubt I could find any authoritative source say that. Hence, my point I think remains apt. I missed your point on the Starbucks in heaven idea, and how it relates to cravings and her staying with her family. Maybe you couple clarify (if it matters?). we all die and for me, sadly there won't be KFC in Heaven so I can't satisfy my addiction, I need to do that here, same with coffee. You are right though about the TR and CK, but recommends have only been in existence since the 1840s and the've been modified since then obviously, so that would be a certain time only thing and not required for someone who died in 1532 in what we know today as Paraguay, who would qualify for one but didn't have the sit down with the bishopric member-i.e. we have it but not everyone who would qualify for one had one
Recommended Posts