Someone Coming to Get You When You Die?

[Islander]

On 9/1/2020 at 5:47 PM, Duncan said:

Something that has been reported, at least, in my family, on three occasions that we know of (member of the church and non member) is that when you are dying they claim to have seen a loved one that already died. It's almost like that deceased person is coming to get them. I know Brigham Young said "Joseph" when he was dying-I have no idea if he saw him or wanted to see him, I wasn't there. Do you think there is something to that idea that when you are dying someone from the great beyond comes and gets you?

That is a completely anecdotal proposition with no basis in scripture.  

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, Islander said:

That is a completely anecdotal proposition with no basis in scripture.  

The Edmonton Oilers aren't mentioned in the scriptures either but they sadly exist, I am wondering if there is any basis for this phenomenon

[strappinglad]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 Edmonton Oilers aren't mentioned in the scriptures either but they sadly exist,

Easy there fella!!!

[Duncan]

36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Easy there fella!!!

would you prefer the Lethbridge Lasers? or the Brooks Badgers?😜

Edited September 7, 2020 by Duncan

[Islander]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

The Edmonton Oilers aren't mentioned in the scriptures either but they sadly exist, I am wondering if there is any basis for this phenomenon

Well, the Edmonton Oilers have no standing in the spiritual realm and as far as I can tell, very small one in the temporal sphere. 

Magical thinking is typical of children. They believe they can change reality by just sheer mental prowess, thinking up an alternative outcome. Grownups also do that from time to time. Unfortunately, this is one typical example. Trying to communicate with the dead, divining the future and similar schemes are some variations of the same theme. When it comes to the spiritual world and things of God, He is the real authority and His will is always done and revealed according to His purposes, most notably in the scriptures. If it's not in the scriptures it is man-made. You obviously did not like my answer and your response was just facetious.  Brilliant. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Islander

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Islander said:

Magical thinking is typical of children. They believe they can change reality by just sheer mental prowess, thinking up an alternative outcome. Grownups also do that from time to time. Unfortunately, this is one typical example. 

What is “unfortunate” and “magical” about the very real minister of angels/spirits?  The Lord sends angels to bear us up and comfort us in our most trying times.  That is doctrinal.  

Why, being a Latter-day Saint, would you try to cut our ties with the spirit world and the intimate relationship we have with those who have passed on - especially at a time when perhaps their presence and comfort may be needed the most?

Quote

 

When do the angels come? If we seek to be worthy, they are near us when we need them most.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/04/when-do-the-angels-come?lang=eng

 

 

What more appropriate time for the ministering of angels than when death approaches? If I have a choice, you bet I will be there to welcome my son and daughter into the spirit world and to minister unto them at their time of passing.

Quote

 

One of the most beautiful stories in our heritage, an experience of President Heber J. Grant’s, bears witness that a testimony about the right relationship between life, death, and the spirit world can comfort us in times of sorrow, help us understand God’s purposes, and teach us the true nature of our existence. President Grant writes:

“I have been blessed with only two sons. One of them died at five years of age and the other at seven. My last son died of a hip disease. I had built great hopes that he would live to spread the Gospel at home and abroad and be an honor to me. About an hour before he died I had a dream that his mother, who was dead, came for him, and that she brought with her a messenger, and she told his messenger to take the boy while I was asleep; and in the dream I thought I awoke and I seized my son and fought for him and finally succeeded in getting him away from the messenger who had come to take him, and in so doing I dreamed that I stumbled and fell upon him.

“I dreamed that I fell upon his sore hip, and the terrible cries and anguish of the child drove me nearly wild. I could not stand it and I jumped up and ran out of the house so as not to hear his distress. I dreamed that after running out of the house I met Brother Joseph E. Taylor and told him of these things.

“He said: ‘Heber, do you know what I would do if my wife came for one of her children—I would not struggle to keep that child; I would not oppose her taking that child away. If a mother who had been faithful had passed beyond the veil, she would know of the suffering and the anguish her child may have to suffer; she would know whether that child might go through life as a cripple and whether it would be better or wiser for that child to be relieved from the torture of life; and when you stop to think, Brother Grant, that the mother of that boy went down into the shadow of death to give him life, she is the one who ought to have the right to take him or keep him.’

“I said, ‘I believe you are right, Brother Taylor, and if she comes again, she shall have the boy without any protest on my part.’

“After coming to that conclusion, I was waked by my brother, B. F. Grant, who was staying that night with us, helping to watch over the sick boy. He called me into the room and told me that my child was dying. I went in the front room and sat down. There was a vacant chair between me and my wife who is now living, and I felt the presence of that boy’s deceased mother, sitting in that chair. I did not tell anybody what I felt, but I turned to my living wife and said: ‘Do you feel anything strange?’ She said: ‘Yes, I feel assured that Heber’s mother is sitting between us, waiting to take him away.’

“Now, I am naturally, I believe, a sympathetic man. I was raised as an only child, with all the affection that a mother could lavish upon a boy. I believe that I am naturally affectionate and sympathetic and that I shed tears for my friends—tears of joy for their success and tears of sorrow for their misfortunes. But I sat by the deathbed of my little boy and saw him die, without shedding a tear. My living wife, my brother, and I, upon that occasion experienced a sweet, peaceful, and heavenly influence in my home, as great as I have ever experienced in my life.” (Improvement Era, June 1940, pp. 330,383.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1977/12/the-spirit-world-our-next-home?lang=eng

 

 

But of course our prophet, President Grant was just being childish in his magical thinking, right?

Edited September 7, 2020 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/3/2020 at 11:36 AM, cherryTreez said:

... I have a daughter who died. I cannot wait until I can hug her again. I am not afraid of death for me. I worry for my loved ones that I would leave behind. 

I cannot imagine how painful that must be for a parent.  It upends the natural order of things, in which it is our children who are supposed to bury us, not vice-versa.  As for those you leave behind, know that, as much as they and others appreciate your solicitude, they will be looked after, as well.  Condolences on your loss.  I wish you (and your loved ones!) well.

[Duncan]

10 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, the Edmonton Oilers have no standing in the spiritual realm and as far as I can tell, very small one in the temporal sphere. 

Magical thinking is typical of children. They believe they can change reality by just sheer mental prowess, thinking up an alternative outcome. Grownups also do that from time to time. Unfortunately, this is one typical example. Trying to communicate with the dead, divining the future and similar schemes are some variations of the same theme. When it comes to the spiritual world and things of God, He is the real authority and His will is always done and revealed according to His purposes, most notably in the scriptures. If it's not in the scriptures it is man-made. You obviously did not like my answer and your response was just facetious.  Brilliant. 

you're talking about something else entirely, "communicating with the dead" which isn't what I was talking about-Joseph Smith did it a la Moroni et al.  I can think of a thousand things not mentioned in scriptures that neither you nor I nor anyone else made like Elk, otters, muskrats. Unicorns are mentioned in the scriptures, are they real? can you tell their feeding schedule, i'd love to see one

[Islander]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

What is “unfortunate” and “magical” about the very real minister of angels/spirits?  The Lord sends angels to bear us up and comfort us in our most trying times.  That is doctrinal.  

Why, being a Latter-day Saint, would you try to cut our ties with the spirit world and the intimate relationship we have with those who have passed on - especially at a time when perhaps their presence and comfort may be needed the most?

 

What more appropriate time for the ministering of angels than when death approaches? If I have a choice, you bet I will be there to welcome my son and daughter into the spirit world and to minister unto them at their time of passing.

 

But of course our prophet, President Grant was just being childish in his magical thinking, right?

Again, personal anecdotes and dreams do not raise up to the level of direct revelation and explicit doctrine. That is a slippery slope and I have heard some pretty bizarre "teachings" based on such. I suggest that if it is not in the scriptures and stated as revelation it should remain where it is. Everybody is entitled to personal belief but we must be careful not to set speculation and personal opinion (and yes, prophets also have personal opinions, not to be confused be revelation) at the level of scripture. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Again, personal anecdotes and dreams do not raise up to the level of direct revelation and explicit doctrine. That is a slippery slope and I have heard some pretty bizarre "teachings" based on such. I suggest that if it is not in the scriptures and stated as revelation it should remain where it is. Everybody is entitled to personal belief but we must be careful not to set speculation and personal opinion (and yes, prophets also have personal opinions, not to be confused be revelation) at the level of scripture. 

Since when is the ministering of angels not explicit doctrine? 

The personal anecdotes and dreams described by even our highest officers in the church are not contrary to our doctrine in any way.  Our doctrine allows for such things, and you therefore have no place to dismiss and downplay these sacred experiences and testimonies as childish magical thinking. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by pogi

[Islander]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Since when is the ministering of angels not explicit doctrine? 

The personal anecdotes and dreams described by even our highest officers in the church are not contrary to our doctrine in any way.  Our doctrine allows for such things, and you therefore have no place to dismiss and downplay these sacred experiences and testimonies as childish magical thinking. 

You are entitled to your opinion. But that is all that is. But from a theological standpoint, you are moving the goal post. You went from family members "coming to get you" to now the ministering of angels. It is NOT the same thing. In the scriptures, every mention of "familiar spirits" is met with a warning and condemnation. Again, personal dreams and opinions, no matter who they come from, do not raise up to the level of sound doctrines or revealed scripture. Turning personal experience and anecdote into doctrine is just bad theology. 

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Islander said:

You are entitled to your opinion. But that is all that is. But from a theological standpoint, you are moving the goal post. You went from family members "coming to get you" to now the ministering of angels. It is NOT the same thing. In the scriptures, every mention of "familiar spirits" is met with a warning and condemnation. Again, personal dreams and opinions, no matter who they come from, do not raise up to the level of sound doctrines or revealed scripture. Turning personal experience and anecdote into doctrine is just bad theology. 

How do you define "familiar spirits"?

The restoration is littered with people who have passed on visiting and revealing truths to living people.  It also happened in ancient time:

Quote

Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
Alma 40

Is that an example of "familiar spirits"?  Maybe we should write-off that passage?

Note the language in this passage: "As soon as they are departed from this mortal body," they are "taken home".

Granted, this could be interpreted a number of different ways, but one possible interpretation that can't be outright dismissed is that someone is actually there to take us and guide us.  Other passages use the term "brought".  That is the interpretation I prefer.  I like to think of our passage into the next world like our first time through the temple, with loved ones and guides there to direct you every step of the way.  I don't believe we are left alone to process the transition.  It seems more true to the nature of God and man to send loved ones to greet us.   

But let me get this straight though, you are not protesting that angels and spirits can minister unto a dying person, you are simply protesting that these ministering spirits can't be acting as guides once they are deceased?   So if a spirit visits a dying person it is doctrinally sound, but if that same spirit decides to hang around and is still there to welcome the now deceased person's spirit into the spirit world, then you have a problem with it?   "I interpret "coming to get you" as simply ministering angel/s being present at the time of transition from this life to the next.  What is so "magical" and "childish" about that?

If you want to suggest that it is not doctrinal to teach that some one comes to get us when we die, that is fine.  I won't protest that It is not necessarily doctrinal.  But neither is it contrary to doctrine.   I just think your dismissal of it as childish and "magical" is uncalled for and unnecessarily harsh.  You need to explain what is so magical about it. 

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by pogi

[Islander]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do you define "familiar spirits"?

The restoration is littered with people who have passed on visiting and revealing truths to living people.  It also happened in ancient time:

Is that an example of "familiar spirits"?  Maybe we should write-off that passage?

Note the language in this passage: "As soon as they are departed from this mortal body," they are "taken home".

Granted, this could be interpreted a number of different ways, but one possible interpretation that can't be outright dismissed is that someone is actually there to take us and guide us.  Other passages use the term "brought".  That is the interpretation I prefer.  I like to think of our passage into the next world like our first time through the temple, with loved ones and guides there to direct you every step of the way.  I don't believe we are left alone to process the transition.  It seems more true to the nature of God and man to send loved ones to greet us.   

But let me get this straight though, you are not protesting that angels and spirits can minister unto a dying person, you are simply protesting that these ministering spirits can't be acting as guides once they are deceased?   So if a spirit visits a dying person it is doctrinally sound, but if that same spirit decides to hang around and is still there to welcome the now deceased person's spirit into the spirit world, then you have a problem with it?   "I interpret "coming to get you" as simply ministering angel/s being present at the time of transition from this life to the next.  What is so "magical" and "childish" about that?

If you want to suggest that it is not doctrinal to teach that some one comes to get us when we die, that is fine.  I won't protest that It is not necessarily doctrinal.  But neither is it contrary to doctrine.   I just think your dismissal of it as childish and "magical" is uncalled for and unnecessarily harsh.  You need to explain what is so magical about it. 

 

These exchanges in the forum get long and most times unproductive since neither party will be convinced by the other's argument. But, nontheless, here I am.

There are people that have no religious affiliation that claim the same experience. If one does not know God and His Son, Jesus Christ, that person is cast out into spirit prison to await the resurrection. God is NOT involved and the future is rather dark and dreary for that person. But they claim, equally, the presence of "angels", deceased family members and the like. Everyone wants to believe they are destined to a better place. But such promises only hold true for those that come onto Christ in mortality.  Those that reject the Gospel have no part in the kingdom of God. 

What I am saying is that such position is not explicitly stated in scripture and thus we should not "teach" it as if it were sanctioned doctrined.  "Reading" something into a verse of the text that can not be corroborated elsewhere is not sound theology. It remains in the realm of speculation,  opinion and personal anecdote. It should stay there. 

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Islander said:

There are people that have no religious affiliation that claim the same experience. If one does not know God and His Son, Jesus Christ, that person is cast out into spirit prison to await the resurrection. God is NOT involved and the future is rather dark and dreary for that person.

Why must it be "dark and dreary" for those who have no religious affiliation in mortality but are not wicked?  Perhaps it is you who is teaching non-doctrinal speculation and opinion.

Either way, whether their future is bleak or bright, the passage I quoted speaks of the very moment of death and suggests that both the righteous and the wicked will be "taken" home, regardless of their future outlook.

Quote

 

Now, concerning the ^astate of the soul between ^bdeath and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are ^ctaken ^dhome to that God who gave them life.

 

52 minutes ago, Islander said:

God is NOT involved and the future is rather dark and dreary for that person.

Why can't his angels be involved?  Doesn't the passage suggest we are all taken home to God at the moment of death?

52 minutes ago, Islander said:

Everyone wants to believe they are destined to a better place. But such promises only hold true for those that come onto Christ in mortality. 

Do we belong to the same church?  I sometimes wonder.  

52 minutes ago, Islander said:

What I am saying is that...

No, what you said is that it is childish and magical.    Remaining in the realm of speculation, opinion, and personal anecdote" is not the same a s magical thinking.   Surely, you can see the difference and why your comment might be perceived as insulting to those who have experienced such sacred things. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by pogi

[Islander]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Why must it be "dark and dreary" for those who have no religious affiliation in mortality but are not wicked?  Perhaps it is you who is teaching non-doctrinal speculation and opinion.

Either way, whether their future is bleak or bright, the passage I quoted speaks of the very moment of death and suggests that both the righteous and the wicked will be "taken" home, regardless of their future outlook.

 

Why can't his angels be involved?  Doesn't the passage suggest we are all taken home to God at the moment of death?

Do we belong to the same church?  I sometimes wonder.  

No, what you said is that it is childish and magical.    Remaining in the realm of speculation, opinion, and personal anecdote" is not the same a s magical thinking.   Surely, you can see the difference and why your comment might be perceived as insulting to those who have experienced such sacred things. 

We are ALL sinners and we are ALL wicked when compared with the Holiness of God. The difference is that for those that embrace the Gospel of Christ the Atonement of the Savior is the means of salvation on account of faith and repentance. ALL others stand condemned on account of their sin. That is the Gospel and the word of God.

Eccles. 7:20

Psm 14:2-3

Is 6:5, 64:6-7

Matt 19:16-17

2 Cori 5:21

1 Jhn 1:8-10

James 2:10

Mosiah 2:1,24,  26:9, 3:19

2Ne 4:17-19

Ether 3:2

The passage says "taken home". Taken by God, by His means and power to the realm of the spirits where we all come from. Spirit prison is not in a different dimension. In fact, from the scriptures, we know that those in prison can see those in paradise. It does not say taken by angel's. You are injecting your belief into that passage

Magical thinking refers to attempting to change reality by thinking that one can, just by thinking or believing in an alternative outcome. Just because we want it to be that way and some say that it is, it does NOT make it so, if God has not explicitly said/reveal so in scripture. That is what I'm suggesting. 

What happens is that I have actually read the scriptures in great detail rather than just believing whatever is said from the pulpit that is incaccurate but is never corrected. There is a lot of cultural gnosticism in the church. People say things that have been repeated historically and most believe they know something when in fact they are in error. But nobody corrects them.