Families Are Forever . or Not

[smac97]

Mette Harrison occasionally writes guest pieces for Jana Riess.  Today's entry is an interesting one, as it deals with the death of her father, and her feelings now that she has stopped believing in the Restored Gospel.  A few excerpts:

Quote

Late in January of this year, I was with my dad who was on hospice. Two older Mormon men came by, bringing a tray of sacrament bread and water to share with those who couldn’t make it to regular church services. It was clear this was their calling and that they didn’t know my dad personally. They were making rounds at an assisted living facility, and there were a lot of people on their list. They were kind, told us that they could “feel his spirit,” and went on their way afterward.

I’ve been thinking about the experience since then, trying to process what it meant. I haven’t taken the sacrament since I stopped attending church over a year ago, but I hadn’t talked openly with either of my parents about my faith transition. That said, the moment when I had to decide whether or not to take the sacrament while my parents were watching was weird.

I could have said no. I could have insisted I’d already had it. But I decided not to, mostly because I wanted to do an experiment. I wanted to see what it felt like to take the sacrament after all this time. And it felt like—mostly nothing. There wasn’t a spiritual sense to the ritual on my side. I didn’t feel God calling me back to Mormonism. But I didn’t feel judgment from God, either. Or even a sense that God was there.

What I did feel was—peace over my decisions. I felt a sweetness that I was able to help my dad by placing the bread in his mouth and holding the little cup so that he could drink the water. The ritual had no meaning for me, but I felt that it did for him. The ritual was familiar and it reminded me that this is one thing religion does well. It helps us feel in contact with our past selves, and sometimes I struggle with that as someone who has left the religion she followed for nearly fifty years.

I've encountered this sentiment quite a bit.  It seems that people who stop believing can sometimes expect to feel subsequent spiritual promptings, the absence of which ("I didn’t feel God calling me back to Mormonism...") can be construed as validation of their decision ("What I did feel was—peace over my decisions...").

Quote

My father passed the morning of March 1, and his funeral was March 7. In some ways, it was lucky that it happened just before Utah began to shut down. My sister canceled her trip from Seattle because of the coronavirus, but almost all of the rest of us were there, including my dad’s oldest sister, his last surviving sibling. I elected not to speak at the funeral, though I’d helped my father compile his life history. I honestly didn’t think I would be able to do a eulogy well. I feared I’d end up clouding things up with the deep sense that I was never the daughter my father wanted, that I never fit into my very left-brain family as the artistic one.

The funeral was the first time I’d been back to a Mormon chapel since I stopped attending a year ago. I sang the hymns and found that I still felt power in them. I listened to talks about the importance of “the work”—work that I’ve long since given up.

I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone. But it’s also true that his grave is directly next to my husband’s grandmother and my stillborn daughter Mercy, next to where I and my husband will be buried in time, where my mother will also be buried, and my in-laws. There was something deeply touching about that.

The first line in the third paragraph ("I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone.") is somewhat striking when juxtaposed with her last line here:

Quote

Late last year, as my father had accepted death was coming, he made some inquiries at different cemeteries and with the help of my oldest brother, went to visit them. My brother called me on the phone before he took my parents to the cemetery where Mercy is buried and asked if I was OK with them being buried next to us, because if I wasn’t, he’d just make sure they went to another part of the cemetery.

I was deeply touched by this kindness in asking. And I said that I didn’t mind—that it would be special, in a way. Family is family. And even if I’m not a believing Mormon anymore, family will be forever.

On one hand, she says "I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone."  On the other, she says "Family is family. And even if I’m not a believing Mormon anymore, family will be forever."

Any thoughts as to what she means by that?  What does "family will be forever" mean in the absence of the doctrines taught by the Church?  Assuming that we are "gone, irrevocably gone" the moment we die, what does "family will be forever" mean?

I ask this because of a few experiences I have had. 

At present, I have a dear friend who is dying of cancer.  He likely has months or weeks to live.  He has no family nearby, and so his friends have stepped in.  He is having lots of time to contemplate his mortality, and he is quite at peace about it.  He believes in Jesus Christ, in the Restoration, and all that comes with it.  He is in full fellowship and has kept his covenants - something that took a lot of effort and work for him.  He is in no hurry to pass on, but he's not afraid of it, either.

A few years back, I visited an old friend who was on his deathbed.  We did not stay long, as he was drifting in and out of consciousness.  I remember holding his frail hand in mine as he spoke of what he looked forward to: seeing his wife again.  He died a few days later.

A few years back I received word that a dear neighbor lady - who had been a surrogate grandmother to my youngest daughter, teaching her to sew - had had a heart attack.  Her family asked me and another member of the bishopric to come to the hospital.  We arrived to find her children surrounding her.  Their grief and sense of loss was palpable.  Bleak despair.  While their mother was still breathing, they knew she was gone.  My sense was that they pretty much did not have an emotional/philosophical/spiritual/religious framework to help them cope.  The heart attack was totally unexpected, and she never regained consciousness.  None of them had been able to say their goodbyes.  None had had time to prepare for the loss.  Abruptness of it was, for them, shocking, all the more because I think they felt, like Ms. Harrison did, that their mother was "gone, irrevocably gone."

There are moments in each of our lives where "it's time to ask yourself what you believe."  Contemplating the end of one's life, or observing a loved one contemplate his or hers, is just such a moment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are moments in each of our lives where "it's time to ask yourself what you believe."  Contemplating the end of one's life, or observing a loved one contemplate his or hers, is just such a moment.

The linked invitation is external. Without someone one else to make the suggestion, at such times one might choose whether to link her intellectual conclusions to her emotional experience (as the author above is describing), or link our spiritual experiences to them (as she informs us she abandoned), or integrate all (and more) of them as I try to do.

"Forever" in author's case seems to refer to the "now" of every day she expects to live, and perhaps in memories and genes she hopes to pass along. This can be sustained for as long as they matter to anyone. It matters to her for now and for as long as she can foresee, but she too will die. At some point after memories are no longer passed on and genetic material gets lost in the mix, they don't really matter any more.

Edited May 1, 2020 by CV75

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The linked invitation is external. Without someone one else to make the suggestion, at such times one might choose whether to link her intellectual conclusions to her emotional experience (as the author above is describing), or link our spiritual experiences to them (as she informs us she abandoned), or integrate all (and more) of them as I try to do.

"Forever" in author's case seems to refer to the "now" of every day she expects to live, and perhaps in memories and genes she hopes to pass along. This can be sustained for as long as they matter to anyone. It matters to her for now and for as long as she can foresee, but she too will die. At some point after memories are no longer passed on and genetic material gets lost in the mix, they don't really matter any more.

Yes, if there is no possible afterlife--which is beyond our control--then the meaning of forever is the now.

To the OP, nah, maybe "deciding" too much of what we believe is a betrayal of the now and even a betrayal of our loved ones we would want to be with forever.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

On one hand, she says "I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone."  On the other, she says "Family is family. And even if I’m not a believing Mormon anymore, family will be forever."

Any thoughts as to what she means by that?  What does "family will be forever" mean in the absence of the doctrines taught by the Church?  Assuming that we are "gone, irrevocably gone" the moment we die, what does "family will be forever" mean?

I figure it means exactly the same thing as when people use the Lord's name in vain in countless "Oh my god"s.  It doesn't mean anything.  It's said out of habit, or as a vocal filler.  Without thought, without meaning.

[Calm]

Quote

I could have said no. I could have insisted I’d already had it. But I decided not to, mostly because I wanted to do an experiment. I wanted to see what it felt like to take the sacrament after all this time. And it felt like—mostly nothing. There wasn’t a spiritual sense to the ritual on my side. I didn’t feel God calling me back to Mormonism. But I didn’t feel judgment from God, either. Or even a sense that God was there.

I would not expect someone who hadn't prepared for the experience to generally receive any spiritual prompting.  While it may happen, God has taught us the soil needs to be prepared to receive the seed.

Not making a judgment about worthiness here.

[alter idem]

It's especially sad that she went from believing for almost 50 years to not even believing God exists, as she said she now believes that her dad is just gone, as she emphasized, 'irrevocably gone'.    Many people who don't share our faith, or any faith, still believe there is an afterlife, I think that was one of the hopeful benefits for people who had no religious beliefs, in the reporting on Near death experiences beginning back in the 70s.  I also don't understand why it should matter to her, as to whether or not it was okay to bury them near her daughter's plot, since her own child would also be 'irrevocably gone' now too, I guess.  What would it matter, if everyone ceases to exist when they die?

I think she wanted to end on a more upbeat note, since the article was, IMO, one of sadness and despair, so rather than end on the desolate message of her article, she ended by saying 'family will be forever' because they are buried together?  But to me it was hollow, since she said she believes they no longer exist so that would mean there's no forever at all.

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The linked invitation is external. Without someone one else to make the suggestion, at such times one might choose whether to link her intellectual conclusions to her emotional experience (as the author above is describing), or link our spiritual experiences to them (as she informs us she abandoned), or integrate all (and more) of them as I try to do.

"Forever" in author's case seems to refer to the "now" of every day she expects to live, and perhaps in memories and genes she hopes to pass along. This can be sustained for as long as they matter to anyone. It matters to her for now and for as long as she can foresee, but she too will die. At some point after memories are no longer passed on and genetic material gets lost in the mix, they don't really matter any more.

So "forever" in this context is merely poetic/figurative, not literal?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, if there is no possible afterlife--which is beyond our control--then the meaning of forever is the now.

Could you elaborate on this?  I don't understand what you are saying.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To the OP, nah, maybe "deciding" too much of what we believe is a betrayal of the now and even a betrayal of our loved ones we would want to be with forever.

I don't understand this, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mette Harrison occasionally writes guest pieces for Jana Riess.  Today's entry is an interesting one, as it deals with the death of her father, and her feelings now that she has stopped believing in the Restored Gospel.  A few excerpts:

I've encountered this sentiment quite a bit.  It seems that people who stop believing can sometimes expect to feel subsequent spiritual promptings, the absence of which ("I didn’t feel God calling me back to Mormonism...") can be construed as validation of their decision ("What I did feel was—peace over my decisions...").

The first line in the third paragraph ("I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone.") is somewhat striking when juxtaposed with her last line here:

On one hand, she says "I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone."  On the other, she says "Family is family. And even if I’m not a believing Mormon anymore, family will be forever."

Any thoughts as to what she means by that?  What does "family will be forever" mean in the absence of the doctrines taught by the Church?  Assuming that we are "gone, irrevocably gone" the moment we die, what does "family will be forever" mean?

I ask this because of a few experiences I have had. 

At present, I have a dear friend who is dying of cancer.  He likely has months or weeks to live.  He has no family nearby, and so his friends have stepped in.  He is having lots of time to contemplate his mortality, and he is quite at peace about it.  He believes in Jesus Christ, in the Restoration, and all that comes with it.  He is in full fellowship and has kept his covenants - something that took a lot of effort and work for him.  He is in no hurry to pass on, but he's not afraid of it, either.

A few years back, I visited an old friend who was on his deathbed.  We did not stay long, as he was drifting in and out of consciousness.  I remember holding his frail hand in mine as he spoke of what he looked forward to: seeing his wife again.  He died a few days later.

A few years back I received word that a dear neighbor lady - who had been a surrogate grandmother to my youngest daughter, teaching her to sew - had had a heart attack.  Her family asked me and another member of the bishopric to come to the hospital.  We arrived to find her children surrounding her.  Their grief and sense of loss was palpable.  Bleak despair.  While their mother was still breathing, they knew she was gone.  My sense was that they pretty much did not have an emotional/philosophical/spiritual/religious framework to help them cope.  The heart attack was totally unexpected, and she never regained consciousness.  None of them had been able to say their goodbyes.  None had had time to prepare for the loss.  Abruptness of it was, for them, shocking, all the more because I think they felt, like Ms. Harrison did, that their mother was "gone, irrevocably gone."

There are moments in each of our lives where "it's time to ask yourself what you believe."  Contemplating the end of one's life, or observing a loved one contemplate his or hers, is just such a moment.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe her intent is this: Even though I know there is no God, and that when we die we will never again exist as hinking, sentient beings; nevertheless, as a matter of record, we did exist as a family at one time, and while it lasted we did indeed love each other.

Edited May 2, 2020 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Maybe "forever" means "unbreakable bonds" for her.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So "forever" in this context is merely poetic/figurative, not literal?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, hat is how it comes across to me, and I think she would agree with how i interpreted her.

[theplains]

I would say the real concern should be if you are forever separated from Jesus or not.  

But regarding LDS theology, a forever family is dependent on whether all family members are exalted
to Godhood.  If not, I suppose this could then be termed a 'not-forever-family'.  Assuming Heavenly
Father was once a man who became a God (as Joseph Smith taught) and He had brothers, He too
might currently be living in such a disconnected forever-partial-family.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, theplains said:

But regarding LDS theology, a forever family is dependent on whether all family members are exalted
to Godhood.  If not, I suppose this could then be termed a 'not-forever-family'.  Assuming Heavenly
Father was once a man who became a God (as Joseph Smith taught) and He had brothers, He too
might currently be living in such a disconnected forever-partial-family.

Not really.  At maximum I would say all had to be in the Celestial Kingdom, which is not automatic godhood.

There are teachings out there that faithful parents will have all their children as their eternal family.  Not sure that will work as I wonder about Cain given Adam and Eve were certainly faithful, but it raises the possibility it may not even be required for all to be in the CK.

[theplains]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are teachings out there that faithful parents will have all their children as their eternal family.  Not sure that will work as I wonder about Cain given Adam and Eve were certainly faithful, but it raises the possibility it may not even be required for all to be in the CK.

I suppose that could be true ... that a son will still technically be a family member even if that son is forever
separated; living in outer darkness or the telestial kingdom.

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, theplains said:

I would say the real concern should be if you are forever separated from Jesus or not. 

This is the case for the primary teaching of our faith.

26 minutes ago, theplains said:

But regarding LDS theology, a forever family is dependent on whether all family members are exalted
to Godhood.  If not, I suppose this could then be termed a 'not-forever-family'.  Assuming Heavenly
Father was once a man who became a God (as Joseph Smith taught) and He had brothers, He too
might currently be living in such a disconnected forever-partial-family.

From the Hymn #300:

"Fam’lies can be together forever
Through Heav’nly Father’s plan."

Of course Heavenly Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ to reunite us with Them, and as witnessed throughout the Old and New Testaments, this reuniting is manifested most fully in the eternal family order. Hence the emphasis on genealogies, family histories and brotherhood throughout the Bible, and in connection with the genealogical history of Jesus, our connection with God.

Edited May 1, 2020 by CV75

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, theplains said:

I suppose that could be true ... that a son will still technically be a family member even if that son is forever
separated; living in outer darkness or the telestial kingdom.

That is not what the teachings say about "wayward children".

Edited May 1, 2020 by Calm

[theplains]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

That is not what the teachings say about "wayward children".

What of the one-third of Heavenly Father's wayward children who rejected His plan of salvation?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

What of the one-third of Heavenly Father's wayward children who rejected His plan of salvation?

Our teachings are not set up systematically to answer all questions leaving no gaps, in spite of some believing they do,  

So my answer is "God knows, not me".

[Duncan]

I wonder about family that you don't want to be with for eternity, what happens to you if you are good? Some people you don't want to see now let alone forever😒

[Islander]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The first line in the third paragraph ("I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone.") is somewhat striking when juxtaposed with her last line here:

On one hand, she says "I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone."  On the other, she says "Family is family. And even if I’m not a believing Mormon anymore, family will be forever."

Any thoughts as to what she means by that?  What does "family will be forever" mean in the absence of the doctrines taught by the Church?  Assuming that we are "gone, irrevocably gone" the moment we die, what does "family will be forever" mean?

A few years back I received word that a dear neighbor lady - who had been a surrogate grandmother to my youngest daughter, teaching her to sew - had had a heart attack.  Her family asked me and another member of the bishopric to come to the hospital.  We arrived to find her children surrounding her.  Their grief and sense of loss was palpable.  Bleak despair.  While their mother was still breathing, they knew she was gone.  My sense was that they pretty much did not have an emotional/philosophical/spiritual/religious framework to help them cope.  The heart attack was totally unexpected, and she never regained consciousness.  None of them had been able to say their goodbyes.  None had had time to prepare for the loss.  Abruptness of it was, for them, shocking, all the more because I think they felt, like Ms. Harrison did, that their mother was "gone, irrevocably gone."

There are moments in each of our lives where "it's time to ask yourself what you believe."  Contemplating the end of one's life, or observing a loved one contemplate his or hers, is just such a moment.

Thanks,

-Smac

A very interesting and thought provoking article. I have many family members that are not Latterday Saints and some that are atheist. It is quite striking that it is at moments like this (the actual or impending death of a family member) that the mind and heart struggles for congruence between the choices we have made, their implications for our future and the feelings elicited by the experiential circumstance. Note that she continues to experience "tension" between her former beliefs, that of her father's and what it implies in terms of the realm beyond. The fact that she is writing about it points to the fact that it is still "not settled" in full in her heart and mind. She may have made a conscious decision to leave the Church and Christianity behind, but death has a finality and implications that she can not ignore. 

True atheists are not "burdened", as it were by such considerations. Life is random and meaningless, accidental, ephemeral and inconsequential. We are (allegedly) just cosmic dust. But, she can't help but explore, still, her thoughts and feelings about what is taking place in her life and what it means. It is rather easy to shield oneself behind elaborate philosophical arguments than to acknowledge the longing for love that lasts, that endures; our loneliness, pains, the urges of our hearts and the uncertainties of life on the face of our mortality. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder about family that you don't want to be with for eternity, what happens to you if you are good? Some people you don't want to see now let alone forever😒

We probably will have such a personality makeover in terms of our bad traits, we lose all our triggers that set others off and become rather likeable.

And for those of us who are practically perfect now, whose only fault is not wanting to be in the presence of toxic individuals....why would we hold on to feelings that would no longer apply to the toxic person as they have been detoxified through the Atonement (assuming they accept it)?  Say, for a trivial example, a person has a mortal habit of eating with their mouth open spraying bits of food around now, once perfected they will no longer have that habit and will even keep their elbows off the table, so why would we, the well mannered individuals that we will be, have an issue with having them at our table for the feast?

Now if they have broken covenants in the relationship and we no longer have the same sort of feelings for them, I don't assume those feelings will automatically be restored if they repent.  There are potential eternal consequences to covenant breaking, imo.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Calm

[Rain]

 

3 hours ago, Islander said:

A very interesting and thought provoking article. I have many family members that are not Latterday Saints and some that are atheist. It is quite striking that it is at moments like this (the actual or impending death of a family member) that the mind and heart struggles for congruence between the choices we have made, their implications for our future and the feelings elicited by the experiential circumstance. Note that she continues to experience "tension" between her former beliefs, that of her father's and what it implies in terms of the realm beyond. The fact that she is writing about it points to the fact that it is still "not settled" in full in her heart and mind. She may have made a conscious decision to leave the Church and Christianity behind, but death has a finality and implications that she can not ignore. 

True atheists are not "burdened", as it were by such considerations. Life is random and meaningless, accidental, ephemeral and inconsequential.

Most atheists I know actually feel life is very meaningful and that we should make the most of it because this is all there is. 

3 hours ago, Islander said:

We are (allegedly) just cosmic dust. But, she can't help but explore, still, her thoughts and feelings about what is taking place in her life and what it means. It is rather easy to shield oneself behind elaborate philosophical arguments than to acknowledge the longing for love that lasts, that endures; our loneliness, pains, the urges of our hearts and the uncertainties of life on the face of our mortality. 

 

[Islander]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

Most atheists I know actually feel life is very meaningful and that we should make the most of it because this is all there is. 

 

Well, most "atheist lite" adhere to a soft humanistic philosophy. But true atheist have to confess that if there is no God, a Law Giver and Creator that thus infuses His creation with His likeness and Spirit, we are then no different than other forms of life in this planet. This is what true atheist think about humanity and life in general:

“Darwin's theory shows the truth of naturalism: we are animals like any other; our fate and that of the rest of life on Earth are the same. Yet, in an irony all the more exquisite because no one has noticed it, Darwinism is now the central prop of the humanist faith that we can transcend our animal natures and rule the Earth.”   “The advance of knowledge deludes us into thinking we are different from other animals, but our history shows that we are not.”   “Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth. To think otherwise is to resurrect the pre-Darwinian error that humans are different from all other animals. (...) There is no mechanism of selection in the history of ideas akin to that of the natural selection of genetic mutations in evolution.(...) Among humans, the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves: 'we deceive ourselves in order to deceive others better'. A lover who promises eternal fidelity s more likely to be believed if he believes his promise himself; he is no more likely to keep his promise.(...) In a competition for mates, a well-developed capacity for self-deception is an advantage.”   “The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth. To think otherwise is to resurrect the pre-Darwinian error that humans are different from all other animals.”   “Homo rapiens is only one of very many species, and not obviously worth preserving. Later or sooner, it will become extinct. When it is gone the Earth will recover. Long after the last traces of the human animal have disappeared, many of the species it is bent on destroying will still be around, along with others that have yet to spring up. The earth will forget mankind. The play of life will go on.”          John Gray "Straw Dogs" 2008

As you can see, atheism, taken to its natural conclusion has no real use to "enlightenment" or meaning. 

[Kenngo1969]

If one's view is that s/he simply ceases to exist entirely and succumbs to the void immediately upon shuffling off this mortal coil, then perhaps the biggest surprise to him or her will simply be continuing to exist upon doing so:

"Wow!   I'm still here!"  I was not expecting that!

If the bar is set that low, it won't take much to surprise such folks.   Will they be the ones who are least prone to complain about getting only two mints on the pillow instead of the expected three?

Time will tell, I suppose.  We shall see.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

What does "family will be forever" mean in the absence of the doctrines taught by the Church?  Assuming that we are "gone, irrevocably gone" the moment we die, what does "family will be forever" mean?

Maybe it just means it is a historical reality that cannot be changed after death.  Yes, these named people lived together on earth and were "Family" and after they are gone, they are gone, but the fact that they lived here and the experiences they had cannot be changed.

That Lincoln died in 1865 is true "forever".

Maybe it's nothing more than that.

But it is really inconsistent imo that she would be so certain that there is NO afterlife- how could she know that with certainty?  It almost seems a "faith-based" belief all on its own.  Even in my atheist days I would not have said that.  It seems inconsistent with the whole concept.

And what about the old saw that you "cannot prove a negative"?

Edited May 2, 2020 by mfbukowski