Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories

[Tacenda]

Listening to apostle Joseph B Wirthlin's grandson on the recent MS podcast, he has nothing but wonderful things to say about his granddad, his word.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think it is the church that divided families.   I think it is family members who divide families.  On both sides.  There are an awful lot of things that family members can be divided on, but some families do well together anyway.  And of course some families make a huge mess of it often using whatever it is as an excuse and a weapon.  

 

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. ^(B)I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ^35 (C)For I have come ^(D)to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ^36 (E)And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. ^(B)I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ^35 (C)For I have come ^(D)to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ^36 (E)And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

You're probably replying to the wrong person in that I'm very much of the mind that the bible is imperfect and even it were perfect we very much don't get a lot of the context of it all.  

In light of this I go back to the family member. Does the person use your scripture as justification to treat the other person badly or does he use "love they neighbor" as a guide to treat the family member well? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

You're probably replying to the wrong person in that I'm very much of the mind that the bible is imperfect and even it were perfect we very much don't get a lot of the context of it all.  

In light of this I go back to the family member. Does the person use your scripture as justification to treat the other person badly or does he use "love they neighbor" as a guide to treat the family member well? 

I’m saying that some conflict is baked in despite the best intentions based on the doctrine. If your spouse leaves the church, they have a abandoned their covenants. The idea of sealed for eternity is gone. The faithful spouse will be sealed to someone else for eternity. That’s a tough pill to swallow and is bound to cause severe pain on both sides of the marriage. Does that mean they have to treat each other poorly as a result? No, but it certainly sets the stage. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m saying that some conflict is baked in despite the best intentions based on the doctrine. If your spouse leaves the church, they have a abandoned their covenants. The idea of sealed for eternity is gone. The faithful spouse will be sealed to someone else for eternity. That’s a tough pill to swallow and is bound to cause severe pain on both sides of the marriage. Does that mean they have to treat each other poorly as a result? No, but it certainly sets the stage. 

I can see what you are saying though I think that to some extent pretty much everything will have some kind of baked in conflict.  I also understand the pain of close family members leaving, but as time goes on I don't feel that pain anymore.  Part of it was the conflict already in our relationship, but a greater part was coming to understand that Heavenly Father loves all of his children whether they have left the church of not. That despite what we think we know we really don't have a clue what will happen in the next life. I'm not talking about being able to know or just believe.  I'm talking about the idea that the info we have is so finite that it doesn't tell us enough about the next life for me to worry about those members of my family who have left.  I'm sure there are others on this board who would definitely disagree with that.

So I get what you are saying, but after going through what I did I see it a whole lot less of a church thing and more of a person thing.  I can understand why you feel differently than I do.  

[Craig Speechly]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think it is the church that divided families.   I think it is family members who divide families.  On both sides.  There are an awful lot of things that family members can be divided on, but some families do well together anyway.  And of course some families make a huge mess of it often using whatever it is as an excuse and a weapon.  

 

Really?  The church is the wedge that is being driven between believers and non.  What other possibility is there for that wedge?  The only solution is to find mutual respect between the believer and non for their conflicting beliefs.  Each party has to give a little and be willing to accept the other where they are not where they want them to be.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Really?  The church is the wedge that is being driven between believers and non.  What other possibility is there for that wedge?  The only solution is to find mutual respect between the believer and non for their conflicting beliefs.  Each party has to give a little and be willing to accept the other where they are not where they want them to be.

I think you've argued against your own conclusions in this post and made Rain's point. 

As you've said here, it's not the church that needs to change to bring peace, it's the people (both in the church and outside of it) who need to give a little to do that.  That's because it's not the church that is the wedge, but rather how family members are wielding it against those who see things differently.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

40 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can see what you are saying though I think that to some extent pretty much everything will have some kind of baked in conflict.  I also understand the pain of close family members leaving, but as time goes on I don't feel that pain anymore.  Part of it was the conflict already in our relationship, but a greater part was coming to understand that Heavenly Father loves all of his children whether they have left the church of not. That despite what we think we know we really don't have a clue what will happen in the next life. I'm not talking about being able to know or just believe.  I'm talking about the idea that the info we have is so finite that it doesn't tell us enough about the next life for me to worry about those members of my family who have left.  I'm sure there are others on this board who would definitely disagree with that.

So I get what you are saying, but after going through what I did I see it a whole lot less of a church thing and more of a person thing.  I can understand why you feel differently than I do.  

I love the sentiment you express. But based on my experience you express this because of who you are as a person despite church teachings. I was taught God would not be mocked. This story stuck out in particular to me and I know it was still being taught when I was a young mens leader:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2010/04/what-is-the-doctrinal-status-of-the-car-wreck-story/

In it, it is clear that those that choose a different path, rejecting covenants will not be given another chance. This is a church teaching. It is something that is absolutely divisive. A believing spouse is left feeling like they are already divorced, since the marriage will end at death. This is a sentiment I’ve seen expressed on both sides (believer and non-believer - reporting what their believing spouse feels). And who can blame them?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I love the sentiment you express. But based on my experience you express this because of who you are as a person despite church teachings. I was taught God would not be mocked. This story stuck out in particular to me and I know it was still being taught when I was a young mens leader:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2010/04/what-is-the-doctrinal-status-of-the-car-wreck-story/

In it, it is clear that those that choose a different path, rejecting covenants will not be given another chance. This is a church teaching. It is something that is absolutely divisive. A believing spouse is left feeling like they are already divorced, since the marriage will end at death. This is a sentiment I’ve seen expressed on both sides (believer and non-believer - reporting what their believing spouse feels). And who can blame them?

It's this part of the story--

“Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ 

--that suggests what is specifically meant by mocking God in this example. 

This example is not about choosing a different path or rejecting covenants that someone sincerely doesn't believe in anymore.  This example is about someone who didn't want to live a certain way but thought they could still claim the blessings from that kind of a life regardless, via temple work. 

That's the mockery. 

It is also not a church teaching that people who reject covenants will not be given another chance.  We do the temple work all the time for people who rejected the gospel while alive.  Clearly, we believe there is still hope for them.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's this part of the story--

“Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ 

--that suggests what is specifically meant by mocking God in this example. 

This example is not about choosing a different path or rejecting covenants that someone sincerely doesn't believe in anymore.  This example is about someone who didn't want to live a certain way but thought they could still claim the blessings from that kind of a life regardless, via temple work. 

That's the mockery. 

It is also not a church teaching that people who reject covenants will not be given another chance.  We do the temple work all the time for people who rejected the gospel while alive.  Clearly, we believe there is still hope for them.

 

For the married couple:

”Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands.”

On the efficacy of work done for the dead:

“The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead”

I think it’s great that you believe the way you do. But others, making a good faith effort to live the religious doctrines taught by the church, see a spouses loss of faith as essentially a celestial divorce. That’s a tough spot to come back from, and much more difficult to navigate than pretty much any other difference in opinion between spouses. 

[Rivers]

On 9/13/2022 at 8:46 PM, Craig Speechly said:

In an unexpected turn,  LDS apologist & current Leonard J Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University has broken the Mormon Stories boycott by appearing in a traditional lengthy M.S. podcast episode. And the world continud to turn and the sun did rise this morning. 

As someone who tries to find good in everyone and focus on common ground, I found this to be a very refreshing turn of events and hope that other believers will feel that the logjam has been broken and it is now ok to be interviewed on Mormon Stories,

It was a very faith promoting episode.  

I watched part of it.  Mainly the second episode.  I love Patrick Mason.  But John Dehlin exhausts me.  

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I watched part of it.  Mainly the second episode.  I love Patrick Mason.  But John Dehlin exhausts me.  

Me too!!! I think eventually he'll fade out, he's said as much. What I hate is he goes on and on and on, and could cut down half or more of what he's saying.

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For the married couple:

”Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands.”

On the efficacy of work done for the dead:

“The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead”

I think it’s great that you believe the way you do. But others, making a good faith effort to live the religious doctrines taught by the church, see a spouses loss of faith as essentially a celestial divorce. That’s a tough spot to come back from, and much more difficult to navigate than pretty much any other difference in opinion between spouses. 

It’s better than the belief that a non-believing spouse will burn in Hell for eternity.   
 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Rivers

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

It’s better than the belief that a non-believing spouse will burn in Hell eternity.   
 

 

 

I’m responding to the idea that people not the church is what causes pain and division in mixed faith families. And so I agree with you that it’s better. But that is a person that is rejecting church doctrine on the subject. In other words the doctrine divides but certain people are able to look past the doctrine and come together in spite of it. 

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m responding to the idea that people not the church is what causes pain and division in mixed faith families. And so I agree with you that it’s better. But that is a person that is rejecting church doctrine on the subject. In other words the doctrine divides but certain people are able to look past the doctrine and come together in spite of it. 

Jesus did say that His gospel would divide people.  
 

Religion is something that both unites and divides people.  
 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Jesus did say that His gospel would divide people.  
 

Religion is something that both unites and divides people.  
 

 

Exactly. 

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But others, making a good faith effort to live the religious doctrines taught by the church, see a spouses loss of faith as essentially a celestial divorce.

As one whose spouse and kids have left the church, I get where this comes from. Maybe I'm deluding myself (I sometimes wonder what pres Nelson would say to me after some of what he has said), but I don't believe these "sad heaven" doctrines. I find enough universalism in our scripture and beliefs to believe that  hope is never lost.

This is one of those things we sometimes claim to "know" more than I believe we really know.

[Rivers]

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As one whose spouse and kids have left the church, I get where this comes from. Maybe I'm deluding myself (I sometimes wonder what pres Nelson would say to me after some of what he has said), but I don't believe these "sad heaven" doctrines. I find enough universalism in our scripture and beliefs to believe that  hope is never lost.

This is one of those things we sometimes claim to "know" more than I believe we really know.

Terryl and Fiona  Givens advocate for a very positive view of heaven in their books.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I think it’s great that you believe the way you do. But others, making a good faith effort to live the religious doctrines taught by the church, see a spouses loss of faith as essentially a celestial divorce. That’s a tough spot to come back from, and much more difficult to navigate than pretty much any other difference in opinion between spouses. 

It's heartbreaking for those couples who have to deal with that change in their marriage, and I would never speak for them.  I don't personally know any who feel the way that you've described above but I do not doubt that they are out there.

But, there are also other couples in the same situation who don't feel that way.  It's still very hard to navigate but they don't feel it's essentially a celestial divorce.  I also personally know very active members whose spouses had their work done after death (who rejected it while alive) and they very much believe that their husbands accepted it after death and that they will be married to them for eternity.  

And what that says to me is that it's not the teachings of the church that are creating these different perspectives, it's the differences in the people themselves.  And I think that has always been Rain's point.

[Rain]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I love the sentiment you express. But based on my experience you express this because of who you are as a person despite church teachings. I was taught God would not be mocked. This story stuck out in particular to me and I know it was still being taught when I was a young mens leader:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2010/04/what-is-the-doctrinal-status-of-the-car-wreck-story/

In it, it is clear that those that choose a different path, rejecting covenants will not be given another chance. This is a church teaching. It is something that is absolutely divisive. A believing spouse is left feeling like they are already divorced, since the marriage will end at death. This is a sentiment I’ve seen expressed on both sides (believer and non-believer - reporting what their believing spouse feels). And who can blame them?

After seeing your response to rivers I see a little more of where you are coming from.  I do think people feel pain from things in the church. I know when my sister divorced the first time I later heard Families Can Be Together sung I hurt for her.  

So yes, that story from President Kimball may cause pain. And I'll be honest that I don't agree entirely with what he said, because of other things said throughout the scriptures and our doctrine. I think his words there are short sighted given the plan we teach. Yep, I said it.

I was thinking more about deviciveness and given my experience with many people and so many things said by church leaders seeming to unite or divide and seeing what happens with other organizations or topics and family members overall I still feel it is more of a people thing rather than a church thing.  I am ok with you disagreeing.

Don't get me wrong. I often see people point out that it is always the people problem and not the church and they are often right about that. I just don't see the church as more divisive than most things. 

[Duncan]

There's a lady in our ward who was divorced from her husband, he didn't join the church-I am sure they had other issues. She had his work done and sealed to her after his death. If it brings her peace than fine but I question whether or not they would be together in the next life, if they couldn't make a go of it here. Time will tell I guess!

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There's a lady in our ward who was divorced from her husband, he didn't join the church-I am sure they had other issues. She had his work done and sealed to her after his death. If it brings her peace than fine but I question whether or not they would be together in the next life, if they couldn't make a go of it here. Time will tell I guess!

I thought it was against the rules to have someone sealed to you that you weren't married too??  That's crazy.

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought it was against the rules to have someone sealed to you that you weren't married too??  That's crazy.

I dunno, I can't imagine he's pleased with this sealing done. I don't know how long they were married but it ended in divorce

Sometimes I wonder if they did the sealing but didn't file the paperwork! hahahhaha! so it's done as far as she knows but it wasn't ratified on any church paperwork or in heaven!

Edited September 22, 2022 by Duncan

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I dunno, I can't imagine he's pleased with this sealing done. I don't know how long they were married but it ended in divorce

Sometimes I wonder if they did the sealing but didn't file the paperwork! hahahhaha! so it's done as far as she knows but it wasn't ratified on any church paperwork or in heaven!

So weird.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I thought it was against the rules to have someone sealed to you that you weren't married too??  That's crazy.

I have heard a few exceptions being made for engaged couples where one unexpectedly dies before the wedding, but a divorce couple being sealed seems inappropriate to me as could be used as a threat if allowed. I think of both are dead and their kids seal them, that would be very different, but all the children should agree before it was done.  It can always be done later if meant to be. 
 

Since it would only be confirmed by the Spirit if both were happy about it and wanted it, it is the effect on the living I am concerned about.