Families Are Forever . or Not

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

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:

If God is a Human, exalted, Humanism is not inherently atheistic.  Christian Humanism is growing.

And atheists do not "have to confess" ANYTHING

Edited May 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[cacheman]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.....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"?

In the excerpt from the OP, she describes her thoughts on the lack of afterlife as a belief. 

Quote

I don’t believe that my father is waiting for us on the other side. I think he’s gone, irrevocably gone.

Did she express certainty elsewhere in the article?

[cacheman]

12 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. 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. 

The excerpts smac posted above appear to show that her writing is not motivated or born out of tension, but to highlight the fact that despite differences in religious thought, we still share life experiences and lasting connections.  She expressed this in a way that was respectful towards her former faith.  I think it's poor form to respond to her writing by implying that she is experiencing tension due to unsettled beliefs, and that she is not a 'true athiest'.  In the excerpts above, it's not apparent that she views herself as an athiest.  In any case, why should I give credence to your desription of what a 'true athiest' believes, when I could simply ask an athiest?  

 

[Meadowchik]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I don't understand this, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

First, it's just one way to think of forever, but I'm only guessing at what she meant. Kind of like the "eternal punishment" being "God's punishment" but not lasting for eternity. 

Other ways to think of forever is the naturalistic way. Untraceable or not, the particles that made up our bodies and minds being related by family ties will always have that past as long as they are. 

Second, deciding too much of what one believes can harm a person and their loved ones and minimize the moments together in the now. It's possible that you have the mourning thing backwards in your descriptions. It's possible that those who feel  bereft and at a true and immense loss are the ones who are truly mourning in a healthy fashion. I think I would much rather have relationships with people when we mutually appreciate the preciousness of the moment, instead of always in the back of our minds believing we can make up for lost time in the afterlife. 

I think some of the most common things spoken about death and dying and loss in the LDS culture are some of the worse types of things to tell a grieving person. Things like, "Heavenly Father has a different mission for him" or "let us not mourn but rejoice..."  My friend's son is the same age as my youngest child and he was diagnosed with a terminal illness last Fall. His condition has drastically deteriorated and he does not seem to have much longer to live. This sucks terribly, it's unthinkably horrific...that said, there are not words to adequately describe this loss.

I appreciate that some may derive comfort in believing that the suffering of their loved one is diminished somehow by a belief in the afterlife. That is their prerogative. But mourning the loss is a critical part of valuing other people as people and valuing life ourselves.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, cacheman said:

In the excerpt from the OP, she describes her thoughts on the lack of afterlife as a belief. 

Did she express certainty elsewhere in the article?

Dunno, didn't read it 🙃.

My bad.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Islander said:

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. 

As a former atheist, I do not understand your point.

It seems you are saying that atheists "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. " ?

Which of the two paradigms acknowledge that longing ?

If the atheists, one would think they would then empirically see that longing as "real" and be able to explain it rather than disregard it.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If God is a Human, exalted, Humanism is not inherently atheistic.  Christian Humanism is growing.

And atheists do not "have to confess" ANYTHING

I believe you are mistaken there. The God, Almighty, omnipresent and omniscient that we worship is NOT human. He is beyond time and space, without end or beginning, without measure or increase. As to the composition of His bodily representation to us we can only but speculate. But, it mostly for our benefit.

Humanism is a human philosophical construct of the Renaissance, a revisionist at last, that looks back to the Greeks and Romans for existential meaning, the relevance of human above that of God and a failed attempt to arrive at morality without a Moral Law Giver. Again, real atheist know and state, like Dawkins, that humans are just an accident of cosmology.

[Tacenda]

I think I could handle being this kind of humanist! I like what she said in the video about treating people how they wanted to be treated vs. the old way, treating people how you would want to be treated. https://www.abc4.com/gtu/meet-the-9-year-old-author-of-elle-the-humanist/?fbclid=IwAR0d4Db_ow5-wpRpbObmm-3VZt0c4EhNtRGVUtrfltY5AYshsRUYzNxT9gg

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

I believe you are mistaken there. The God, Almighty, omnipresent and omniscient that we worship is NOT human. He is beyond time and space, without end or beginning, without measure or increase. As to the composition of His bodily representation to us we can only but speculate. But, it mostly for our benefit.

Humanism is a human philosophical construct of the Renaissance, a revisionist at last, that looks back to the Greeks and Romans for existential meaning, the relevance of human above that of God and a failed attempt to arrive at morality without a Moral Law Giver. Again, real atheist know and state, like Dawkins, that humans are just an accident of cosmology.

We do not believe in omniscience and certainly not omnipresence.

We believe in an immanent God who allows himself to be subject to natural law, and "organizes" worlds from existent material instead of ex nihilo.

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Omnipotent_God;_Omnipresence_of_God;_Omniscience_of_God

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/1/2020 at 11:34 AM, smac97 said:

Mette Harrison ..................., 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 think she is referring to the family plot, with gravestones, as the only afterlife.  But, of course, that cemetery and those stones will eventually disappear.  There is  nothing permanent about them.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think I could handle being this kind of humanist! I like what she said in the video about treating people how they wanted to be treated vs. the old way, treating people how you would want to be treated. https://www.abc4.com/gtu/meet-the-9-year-old-author-of-elle-the-humanist/?fbclid=IwAR0d4Db_ow5-wpRpbObmm-3VZt0c4EhNtRGVUtrfltY5AYshsRUYzNxT9gg

Very much like the "higher law" of loving as Christ has loves us. I take that message as a standard of excellence, one that is more than quid pro quo.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think she is referring to the family plot, with gravestones, as the only afterlife.  But, of course, that cemetery and those stones will eventually disappear.  There is  nothing permanent about them.

There is not even anything very permanent about the memory of people who pass on. I know a little bit about my great-grand parents. I know next to nothing about my progenitors earlier than that. To me, they are names and dates on paper or a computer screen. I presume it will be the same with me for my great-great-grandchildren. It is the way of things. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is not even anything very permanent about the memory of people who pass on. I know a little bit about my great-grand parents. I know next to nothing about my progenitors earlier than that. To me, they are names and dates on paper or a computer screen. I presume it will be the same with me for my great-great-grandchildren. It is the way of things. 

It is nice to leave a small account at least for those of future generations.  The high points of one's life:  Mission service, noteworthy callings, war service.  When I find an ancestor or relative who did something everyone will forget, I try to insert a brief account in familysearch.  I am very proud of my ancestors, and imagine with wonder what lives they led on the frontier, or in their countries of origin.  A few details go a long way.

I know the units they served in during the Revolution, the Civil War, etc., and I have some of their letters, obituaries, and the like.  I sometimes wonder how my forebears survived the clan wars in highland Scotland, or the Viking lives my Danish ancestors lived, etc.  What an amazing time it will be to know all that in eternity, to meet them all as one huge family.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is nice to leave a small account at least for those of future generations.  The high points of one's life:  Mission service, noteworthy callings, war service.  When I find an ancestor or relative who did something everyone will forget, I try to insert a brief account in familysearch.  I am very proud of my ancestors, and imagine with wonder what lives they led on the frontier, or in their countries of origin.  A few details go a long way.

I know the units they served in during the Revolution, the Civil War, etc., and I have some of their letters, obituaries, and the like.  I sometimes wonder how my forebears survived the clan wars in highland Scotland, or the Viking lives my Danish ancestors lived, etc.  What an amazing time it will be to know all that in eternity, to meet them all as one huge family.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My point is that I don’t believe those who believe one’s life has no meaning beyond death are apt to reverence the memory of their progenitors in such a lasting way. It is rare for any individual to be remembered much beyond the fourth generation. Memories have even less permanence than grave markers. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My point is that I don’t believe those who believe one’s life has no meaning beyond death are apt to reverence the memory of their progenitors in such a lasting way. It is rare for any individual to be remembered much beyond the fourth generation. Memories have even less permanence than grave markers. 

What I especially like are tv programs like "Finding Your Roots," and "Who Do You Think You Are," which throw such surprising light on the ancestry of various well-known people.  They make it into an adventure, and some guests are even moved to tears.  Our influence will tie the entire human family together, even if it takes a millennium.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My point is that I don’t believe those who believe one’s life has no meaning beyond death are apt to reverence the memory of their progenitors in such a lasting way. It is rare for any individual to be remembered much beyond the fourth generation. Memories have even less permanence than grave markers. 

There are many atheists who are historians.  I see no reason if atheists can be interested in the past in a general or community way, why they could not be interested in the history of their family.  In fact they might be more interested in seeing what they likely view of the cause of their existence (since non-atheists may see their existence as a result of something much more than their ancestors, such as God or their eternal soul), especially in cultures that have a more active respect of ancestors.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

On 5/2/2020 at 4:39 AM, cacheman said:

The excerpts smac posted above appear to show that her writing is not motivated or born out of tension, but to highlight the fact that despite differences in religious thought, we still share life experiences and lasting connections. 

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "lasting connections."  I never met my paternal grandfather, and I only met my maternal grandfather twice, and had maybe a total of five minutes of conversation with him.  

Quote

She expressed this in a way that was respectful towards her former faith. 

Yes, she did.  I appreciate that a lot.

Quote

I think it's poor form to respond to her writing by implying that she is experiencing tension due to unsettled beliefs, and that she is not a 'true athiest'. 

I think this is a fair point.  I occasionally encounter critics who presume to tell me what I really think, or suggest or imply that I and people like me are stupid and/or dishonest because our conclusions about the Restored Gospel differ from theirs.  These behaviors are sort of annoying, so I don't think we should replicate them.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My point is that I don’t believe those who believe one’s life has no meaning beyond death are apt to reverence the memory of their progenitors in such a lasting way. It is rare for any individual to be remembered much beyond the fourth generation. Memories have even less permanence than grave markers. 

Just wondering, are you implying that a belief in the afterlife is the only way to believe one's life has meaning beyond death?

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are many atheists who are historians.  I see no reason if atheists can be interested in the past in a general or community way, why they could not be interested in the history of their family.  In fact they might be more interested in seeing what they likely view of the cause of their existence since non-atheists may see their existence as a result of something much more than their ancestors, such as God or their eternal soul, especially in cultures that have a more active respect of ancestors.

Yes, and the perception that interest in ancestors is exclusive to theism might be merely an effect of a majority theistic culture. It's possible that theistic systems do such an effective job of integrating everything that is culturally meaningful into its religious paradigms, that it then gives the impression that meaningful elements could only be experienced through theism.

[smac97]

On 5/2/2020 at 8:00 AM, Meadowchik said:

First, it's just one way to think of forever, but I'm only guessing at what she meant. Kind of like the "eternal punishment" being "God's punishment" but not lasting for eternity. 

Okay.  I'll think about that.

Quote

Other ways to think of forever is the naturalistic way. Untraceable or not, the particles that made up our bodies and minds being related by family ties will always have that past as long as they are.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.  Per Wikipedia: "Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought on the basis of good evidence to be necessary for life."

If I were to compile these elements in the foregoing proportions and place them in a pile on a table, I would have . . . nothing much.  

I think we are so much more than "the particles that ma{k}e up our bodies and minds."  I believe we have souls.  

Quote

Second, deciding too much of what one believes can harm a person and their loved ones and minimize the moments together in the now.  It's possible that you have the mourning thing backwards in your descriptions. It's possible that those who feel  bereft and at a true and immense loss are the ones who are truly mourning in a healthy fashion.  I think I would much rather have relationships with people when we mutually appreciate the preciousness of the moment, instead of always in the back of our minds believing we can make up for lost time in the afterlife. 

This doesn't seem like an either/or scenario.

By way of analogy, consider applying your reasoning here to a more finite context.  A young married couple love each other very much, and they want to have an enjoyable life after they retire.  They recognize that this means they will have to prepare now for their retirement.  So they live their daily lives in ways that are congruent with their long-term goals.  They work on maintaining and strengthening their relationship with each other and their children.  They exercise, watch their diet, get regular medical care and checkups, avoid harmful substances, and generally try to live a healthy lifestyle.  They work hard and put aside savings consistently, and invest some of these sums prudently.  

Does any of this mean that they are sacrificing or failing to "appreciate" the "preciousness of the moment"?  Or is it possible that living in and enjoying "the moment" and planning for the future are mutually compatible efforts?

Quote

I think some of the most common things spoken about death and dying and loss in the LDS culture are some of the worse types of things to tell a grieving person.

That depends on the person, I think.  On his perspective.  Those predisposed to the nihilism inherent in the rejection of God and the perpetuation of existence after death may well not respond well to the doctrines espoused by the Church.  They may dismiss them out-of-hand as wishful thinking, as a cynical mechanism of power over others.  

On the other hand, a grieving person may be open to some possibilities.  That God exists.  That He sent us here with a purpose and a plan.  That this plan includes explanations as to the nature and character of God, of our existence before and after this life, of the purpose of this life, of the teachings and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, of the things God wants us to do while we are here, and the blessings that relate thereto.

To illustrate this, here's a video I came across yesterday:

 

Quote

My friend's son is the same age as my youngest child and he was diagnosed with a terminal illness last Fall. His condition has drastically deteriorated and he does not seem to have much longer to live. This sucks terribly, it's unthinkably horrific...that said, there are not words to adequately describe this loss.

But there may be words that mitigate this loss.

I have a friend who unexpectedly lost a teenage daughter.  It was a terrible loss for her.  Then she learned about the Church and the teachings about families.  Whereas she had previously thought she had lost her daughter and would never see her again, now she believes she will not only see her again, but will be with her in the eternities.  She is much more at peace with the loss of her daughter than she was before.

Quote

I appreciate that some may derive comfort in believing that the suffering of their loved one is diminished somehow by a belief in the afterlife. That is their prerogative. But mourning the loss is a critical part of valuing other people as people and valuing life ourselves.

I don't think anyone has suggested that we cannot or should not mourn the loss of a love one.  The question, rather, is what do we believe about that loss.  Is it permanent or temporary?

Seems like a pretty big question to ask, and have answered.  We already know the naturalistic, and nihilistic, answer.  The one offered by the Restored Gospel is, in my view, so much more beautiful and hopeful.  Both still contemplate "mourning," but the latter includes so much more beyond that.

Death is not to be feared.  It is just another path.

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"  (1 Cor. 15:54-55)

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."  (John 16:33)

"Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."  (2 Nephi 31:20).

These are words of tremendous comfort.  They are not an alternative to mourning, but a salve and coping mechanism for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 3, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

On 5/1/2020 at 11:34 AM, 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'm guessing she means in the ancestral sense. In that, whether we continue to exist after death, the reality of our mortal connection continues to exist long after we are dead.

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm afraid I don't understand this.  Per Wikipedia: "Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought on the basis of good evidence to be necessary for life."

If I were to compile these elements in the foregoing proportions and place them in a pile on a table, I would have . . . nothing much.  

I think we are so much more than "the particles that ma{k}e up our bodies and minds."  I believe we have souls.  

First, I did not find a link for the article you quoted in your OP. For anyone interested, and since I do think it's more proper to include links when possible: https://religionnews.com/2020/05/01/even-if-im-not-a-believing-mormon-anymore-family-will-be-forever/

Regardless of belief about us having souls or not, sure, it's easy to look at the elemental components of a human body and say that's all it is. But we know that it's not. This particle and this one and this one (just pick any around you that you can imagine) was or is part of the universe in a specific way. It is part of not only a unique combination of particles, but a unique relationship of particles within the universe of relationships of particles. We may only know miniscule portion of the history of those particles, but they still existed in the way they did and their relationships were part of the current of relationships that continues to the present and will exist after our bodies do not. The act of having existed is still impactful even when it's in the past.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

This doesn't seem like an either/or scenario.

By way of analogy, consider applying your reasoning here to a more finite context.  A young married couple love each other very much, and they want to have an enjoyable life after they retire.  They recognize that this means they will have to prepare now for their retirement.  So they live their daily lives in ways that are congruent with their long-term goals.  They work on maintaining and strengthening their relationship with each other and their children.  They exercise, watch their diet, get regular medical care and checkups, avoid harmful substances, and generally try to live a healthy lifestyle.  They work hard and put aside savings consistently, and invest some of these sums prudently.  

Does any of this mean that they are sacrificing or failing to "appreciate" the "preciousness of the moment"?  Or is it possible that living in and enjoying "the moment" and planning for the future are mutually compatible efforts?

I like this example, it is very nice and reasonable, and I think it works and makes the point as long as their preparations for the future are in good balance with the present needs and opportunities. My concern is about neglecting the now for afterlife concerns, it is not to say that the present is the only thing that matters.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

That depends on the person, I think.  On his perspective.  Those predisposed to the nihilism inherent in the rejection of God and the perpetuation of existence after death may well not respond well to the doctrines espoused by the Church.  They may dismiss them out-of-hand as wishful thinking, as a cynical mechanism of power over others.  

On the other hand, a grieving person may be open to some possibilities.  That God exists.  That He sent us here with a purpose and a plan.  That this plan includes explanations as to the nature and character of God, of our existence before and after this life, of the purpose of this life, of the teachings and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, of the things God wants us to do while we are here, and the blessings that relate thereto.

It also depends on the speaker. Some people can be incredibly insensitive in times of trauma and tragedy and they can make the suffering worse. Even grieving LDS members can be wounded further by others who want to impose their mutual belief in the afterlife over the present experience, instead of mourning with them when they mourn.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

But there may be words that mitigate this loss.

I have a friend who unexpectedly lost a teenage daughter.  It was a terrible loss for her.  Then she learned about the Church and the teachings about families.  Whereas she had previously thought she had lost her daughter and would never see her again, now she believes she will not only see her again, but will be with her in the eternities.  She is much more at peace with the loss of her daughter than she was before.

Not to nitpick, but words themselves do not mitigate the loss itself, but maybe words can mitigate the pain of loss. And those helpful words do not necessarily need to involve believing in an afterlife.

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anyone has suggested that we cannot or should not mourn the loss of a love one. 

And yet you used some very brief snapshots of deathbed experiences as examples desirable or undesirable, the one where the sense of loss was openly and palpably felt as supposedly the less desirable response to the death of a loved one.

I do think that there are LDS tendencies that tend to induce shame in people who mourn for their dead and regret those losses, or simply interfere with the mourning experience with their need to talk about their beliefs.  It is unfortunate when that happens. 

It is not uncommon at LDS funerals, for example, for church leaders to give talks that give little or no personal mention of the deceased, but give a lesson on the Plan of Salvation or some other gospel topic. My own father and I somehow arrived at the topic of LDS funerals and I recall that he told me he does not want his funeral to be used that way as a missionary tool. There is a difference between remembering the deceased in the context of their beliefs (or the beliefs of the family, if the deceased was an infant or child) and using the the funeral as a chance to teach a typical church lesson.

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seems like a pretty big question to ask, and have answered.  We already know the naturalistic, and nihilistic, answer.  The one offered by the Restored Gospel is, in my view, so much more beautiful and hopeful.  Both still contemplate "mourning," but the latter includes so much more beyond that.

Death is not to be feared.  It is just another path.

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"  (1 Cor. 15:54-55)

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."  (John 16:33)

"Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."  (2 Nephi 31:20).

These are words of tremendous comfort.  They are not an alternative to mourning, but a salve and coping mechanism for it.

Yet there are other answers which need not require an afterlife. One can believe that death is permanent but still believe life matters. One can find comfort even in the impermanence of life. One can derive comfort in the experience of life all on its own.

I think that Mette Harrison's words are her example of ways she derives comfort in her time of losing her father.

It looks to me like she has shared something that may in fact be a foreign concept to you, thus your post and it may very well be a pretty new concept for her, too, as an exmormon. I am glad you are taking the opportunity to try to understand her and others who are facing life without a belief in an afterlife. It is true that some people prefer to face death with a belief in a life beyond, but others don't.  This is just my feeling, but since we are talking about feelings, I'll say that I feel grateful that I am facing my life without a belief in the afterlife. I feel like this (relatively new) perspective is enhancing my life and relationships. Somehow I am edified in the exercise of appreciating someone's life, including my own life, as a finite, fragile, but precious thing.

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Death is not to be feared.  It is just another path.

Also, on this point, there are ways to view death without an afterlife which need not incite fear. 

If there is no awareness at death, then fearing death is literally the fear of nothing. If one leaves the possibility open of something else beyond death, it need not incite fear. I think the prospect of something else is exciting and interesting. Yet I also feel peaceful about the prospect of nothingness at death.

[Tacenda]

On 5/3/2020 at 1:48 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

There is not even anything very permanent about the memory of people who pass on. I know a little bit about my great-grand parents. I know next to nothing about my progenitors earlier than that. To me, they are names and dates on paper or a computer screen. I presume it will be the same with me for my great-great-grandchildren. It is the way of things. 

I wonder all the time, if people didn't know they'd see their loved ones, wouldn't they be kinder and not waste time or take each other for granted? Maybe this would change the way things are put down for their future progenitors as well. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder all the time, if people didn't know they'd see their loved ones, wouldn't they be kinder and not waste time or take each other for granted? Maybe this would change the way things are put down for their future progenitors as well. 

Probably as many would change that way as would change knowing they would not be seeing others eternally into less responsible and kind because they didn't worry about being held accountable in the afterlife in some way.

I am very grateful for the belief in eternity I have because I don't hate a number of people for unintentionally and intentionally (in the sense they knew they were being dismissive of what was important for me or people generally) robbing me of my dreams because I can still fulfill them in the next life.  I am grateful for the belief in eternity so I don't have to think of my mother's last years as robbed from her due to dementia, as what made her unique is gone.