The Depressing Plan of Salvation

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Lucretia:

I understand your frustration when you hear such things. I would never say such a thing to you nor do I know anyone who would, still, your reaction comes from somewhere and I empathize.

Nobody has ever said such a thing to me in such words. The implication is always there, but most people toot away about the plan of salvation, etc. without ever realizing what they really are saying. I did watch the last pair of missionaries who left my house carefully, and they didn't dust their feet on my threshold, to their credit. (that's a little joke) I appreciate your response, Hoops.

Hey, with a screen name like that, you're someone I would love to understand.

Still, you're right. That is the implication. While it can be disheartening, it can also be wonderfully freeing - though I'm sure you've heard that before.

Ha, ha! I'm just an ordinary middle-aged woman, not any kind of heart breaker, but I do sometimes wish I had been a little more Lucretia and a little less uptight -- I mean, upright -- Mormon in my younger days. Oh, well, so I color my hair Titian Red paint my toenails and post on this board to compensate.

As for the plan of salvation (or the implication?) being wonderfully freeing, I might have heard it before but at this moment not getting it. What do you mean?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

This discussion is beginning to remind me of a conversation that I've had -- once with a Muslim married to a Mormon friend, and once with a Catholic married to a Mormon friend -- in which the heavily Mormon-influenced non-Mormon would say, effectively, "Well, my religion believes in _____________ (eternal progression, eternal marriage, an anthropomorphic divine Father, salvation for the unevangelized dead, or some other doctrine that the individual admired), too." And then I would be in the awkward position of responding that, while I wished that were true, it simply isn't.

I've had the same conversations with Mormon friends who insist that their religion believes in the same things as my spiritual path. While I wish that were true, it simply isn't, but there's no use of me saying so because they can only understand a dualistic religion.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Hey, with a screen name like that, you're someone I would love to understand.

Still, you're right. That is the implication. While it can be disheartening, it can also be wonderfully freeing - though I'm sure you've heard that before.

Ha, ha! I'm just an ordinary middle-aged woman, not any kind of heart breaker, but I do sometimes wish I had been a little more Lucretia and a little less uptight -- I mean, upright -- Mormon in my younger days. Oh, well, so I color my hair Titian Red paint my toenails and post on this board to compensate.

As for the plan of salvation (or the implication?) being wonderfully freeing, I might have heard it before but at this moment not getting it. What do you mean?

Lucretia, you mean you weren't a backseat Delilah!? I wasn't either! I had plenty of chances not to be upright, but I was a good Mormon girl and passed them all up, too. Oh, well. Them's the breaks. :)

KA

[_dartagnan]

== I can't see how it's better, incidentally, to believe that nobody can be with his or her family than to believe that at least some people can be.

Christians generally believe that those who are saved will go to heaven. There is no division of heavens so the natural understanding is that loved ones who make it there will see each other again. I mean why not. This understanding is not something unique to Mormonism.

== The same people who believe that marriage lasts "until death do us part." I've actually met them.

Yes, they believe people are not married in heaven, and they base it on Matthew 22Ç30- "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

But this does not mean they are literally separated from other family members.

== I have to admit, candidly, that I find this discussion here really weird. I've always thought of the notion of eternal families, and always heard it presented, as good news on top of what people already tended to believe about individual immortality, not as a subtraction from what people already believed. Mainstream Christians already believed that we would continue to exist as individual angels in the life to come, without special relationships to people who had once been members of our earthly family.

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that would preclude special relationships. It seems to be one of those unanswered questions that was considered irrelevant.

== Mormonism came to take nothing away from the idea of continued individual existence, but to add to it the (to me, very good news) that earthly kin-relationships would be made eternal. That's not negative. It's wonderfully positive.

True, but this is not unique to Mormonism. Perhaps as an official doctrine, but as common belief goes, most Christians believe they will be with their loved ones again, the same as Mormons. What they do not believe is that they will still play the roles of father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, nephew, etc.

== Standard Christian doctrine, historically, has been that all of humankind will be separated from loved ones and family forever

Source please. I would be surprised to see anything substantiate this claim.

== either in the sense that some will be in heaven and some in hell, or else in the sense that, even if all are in heaven, earthly kin-relationships will no longer be relevant.

But Mormonism also teaches that there is a separation, so there is nothing new in that regard. In reality the only way families can be together forever is if all members make it to the same kingdom. And we know how unlikely that prospect is. Mormonism made it more complicated and this paradigm creates more questions than it answers. Once you get away from the romatic Saturday's Warrior view, there is very little about it that makes any sense.

== It strikes me as incredibly odd that the fact that Mormonism came to add something lacking in traditional Christian doctrine should be taken as an unholy assault on family relationships. How weirdly ironic.

Well the romantic view of the LDS plan sounds nice if all things work out like they are supposed to, but if they do not, then we are looking at something really incoherent. In theory it sounds great, in practice it is a mess.

== This discussion is beginning to remind me of a conversation that I've had -- once with a Muslim married to a Mormon friend, and once with a Catholic married to a Mormon friend -- in which the heavily Mormon-influenced non-Mormon would say, effectively, "Well, my religion believes in _____________ (eternal progression, eternal marriage, an anthropomorphic divine Father, salvation for the unevangelized dead, or some other doctrine that the individual admired), too." And then I would be in the awkward position of responding that, while I wished that were true, it simply isn't.

So you are essentially telling people what their religion really teaches. Wow.

I would appreciate a source for your claims above. When did "historic" Christianity begin to teach that we can all be together forever in heaven.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Christians generally believe that those who are saved will go to heaven. There is no division of heavens so the natural understanding is that loved ones who make it there will see each other again. I mean why not. This understanding is not something unique to Mormonism.

The question is whether kin and marital relationships will continue, or whether such past earthly relationships will lead to special relationships in the afterlife. The traditional answer of the theologians has been No, whatever the masses may have felt.

Yes, they believe people are not married in heaven, and they base it on Matthew 22Ç30- "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

I believe I once read that passage.

But this does not mean they are literally separated from other family members.

Something, of course, that I didn't say.

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that would preclude special relationships.

Not in the scriptural texts.

It seems to be one of those unanswered questions that was considered irrelevant.

No, it was actually denied by some, and left undiscussed by others.

Not surprisingly, many people were bothered by the former response, and unsatisfied by the latter. This is why many early Latter-day Saints and early converts reacted with such enthusiasm to the doctrine of sealing and eternal marriage. Not because it was old hat and familiar to them, but precisely because it wasn't and because they saw it as very good news.

Source please. I would be surprised to see anything substantiate this claim.

Sorry. No time to research this for you at the moment. Good luck.

Once you get away from the romatic Saturday's Warrior view, there is very little about it that makes any sense.

It makes sense to me, and I suspect that it once made sense to you.

So you are essentially telling people what their religion really teaches. Wow.

Wow indeed.

Wow, first, because I believe I've read some things by you about Islam.

Wow, second, because I believe I've read some things by you about Mormonism.

Wow, third, because you surely can't believe it misguided to point out that, in fact, Islam doesn't teach eternal progression or the existence of an anthropomorphic divine Father.

And wow, fourth, because you'd just written such things as these:

Christians generally believe that those who are saved will go to heaven. There is no division of heavens so the natural understanding is that loved ones who make it there will see each other again. . . . Yes, they believe people are not married in heaven, and they base it on Matthew 22Ç30- "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." . . . most Christians believe they will be with their loved ones again, the same as Mormons. What they do not believe is that they will still play the roles of father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, nephew, etc.

Well, that's it.

No further interaction with you. Bad history, bad prospects, bad idea. Best wishes.

[_dartagnan]

== The question is whether kin and marital relationships will continue, or whether such past earthly relationships will lead to special relationships in the afterlife. The traditional answer of the theologians has been No, whatever the masses may have felt.

I would like to know when (approximately) the change took place in Christianity, whereby the theological position became flexible. I have a couple of Protestant ministers in my family and neither of them have denied the possibility that family members continue one together in the hereafter. In fact I have been to more than a few funerals where the bereaved was assured that there was no reason to mourn since the deceased was now at a better place, and that they would be reunited soon. There seems to be nothing objectionable about this in traditional Christianity.

== I believe I once read that passage.

Just a point of reference for those inclined to think the idea somewhat baseless. Incidentally, I have yet to find an adequate apologetic response to this scripture. It seems annoyingly clear that, at least according to this passage, we will be like angels, who are not married.

== Something, of course, that I didn't say.

You did so indirectly. The question was asked, "Who believes that nobody can be with their families?" To which you responded - "The same people who believe that marriage lasts 'until death do us part.'"

The people who believe this represent the vast majority of Christians today. So you implicitly asserted that they believe "nobody can be with their families." I am simply pointing out that this is false.

== Not in the scriptural texts.

Actually, not in anything that has been presented thus far (references to mysterious theologians don't count). Telling me to go research it myself is not reassuring that you are on solid ground here. You made the assertion so I would appreciate it if you would back it up. This is not a trivial point. It is a very crucial point because it bolsters a primary sales pitch in Mormonism today. The whole idea is to say Mormonism gives us something unique and special (therefore it is true and the rest are not) since the rest of the Christian world denies something so lovely as the concept of eternal relationships.

But the fact is much of this rests on myth. I have heard more than a few missionaries spin the scenario in comparing the LDS view contra the traditional view, whereby families are torn apart in the latter. This is grossly inaccurate and it should be dispensed with.

== No, it was actually denied by some, and left undiscussed by others.

I guess it is too much to ask to name the ones who did and those who didn't. There were many things that "some" Christian theologians denied which others left undiscussed. Two thousand years of tradition... I would hope so.

== This is why many early Latter-day Saints and early converts reacted with such enthusiasm to the doctrine of sealing and eternal marriage. Not because it was old hat and familiar to them, but precisely because it wasn't and because they saw it as very good news.

These types of assertions would be more meaningful if you could offer some kind of substantiation... but like you said... you don't do that.

== Wow indeed. Wow, first, because I believe I've read some things by you about Islam. Wow, second, because I believe I've read some things by you about Mormonism.

I said "wow" because it is considered the cardinal sin over at FAIR, and I was surprised to see you admittedly doing it. To tell someone else what their religion teaches is walking a fine line, but to tell them they don't really know what their religion teaches is a social death sentence. You don't ask non-Muslims about Islam; you ask Muslims. You don't ask non-Mormons about Mormonism; you ask Mormons.

I never once said there was anything wrong with it. Of course some members of certain faiths know very little about their own religion, and correction is often called for.

It us just that I was surprised to see you do exactly what I had been doing at FAIR, which drove some people nuts.

== Wow, third, because you surely can't believe it misguided to point out that, in fact, Islam doesn't teach eternal progression or the existence of an anthropomorphic divine Father.

Of course not. You read too much into the "wow." Next time you might try asking for clarification before having another melodramatic display of indignation.

== And wow, fourth, because you'd just written such things as these:

Yes, I described the general Christian belief from an informed perspective. Virtually everyone in my family and my extended family is of one Protestant stripe or another, and none of them disagree with the prospect of eternal relationships. I know. I approached all of them about this matter when I was in the process of joining the Church.

In fact, the only Christians who seem to vocally deny this are those who are anti-Mormon, and are using this as another shell in their arsenal. But I doubt even they really believe they will not see their loved ones again.

Ultimately, your perspective seems to follow the traditional LDS script - how the comparison is supposed to go. We hear about it in LDS sunday school classes, during missionary discussions, etc. Your perspective reflects this perfectly; the non-LDS version is unappealing because it means relationships do not continue in heaven. You don't seem to be concerned as to whether or not this is accurate, and refuse to back up the claim. It just sounds good because it makes the LDS view seem unique and inspired. You seem to be more concerned with maintaining the traditional "our concept is better than theirs" approach.

[_Polygamy Porter]

HI KA...

I had a similar time as a child.

I was a child convert. My father is agnostic, my mother joined a few years after I. Everytime I heard, "families can be together forever," I heard, "I will be alone in heaven."

The Plan, for me, was, no matter how good I was, I would not be with my family. My parents were not sealed, I was not sealed to anyone. I would not be with my parents and siblings.

I never liked the plan. It always seems so elitist, so cruel, so wrong. So NOT what a child needs to here. I spent many a night as a child crying, wondering why God would create such a plan.

~dancer~

All part of the marketing plan to suck the entire family in.

A friend just up the road from our house was a nevermo. His wife was a member. He attended as a nevermo until his daughter was induced into YW. She would cry at the dinner table and during family prayer about her dad not being with them in heaven. He could not take it I guess and finally joined and even went through the temple and wears the magic undies.

Too bad he did not have the logic and reason I had to combat the advances of the YW program via his daughter.

[_Polygamy Porter]

KA,

I bet you are glad to be rid of that condescending cult.

A high school friend of my wife's had a baby die three days after birth. It was born nearly dead and they revived it, only to finally die three days later.

in a Mormon priesthood pretend blessing, she was told by her stake prez via the blessing, that she now has a child in the CK, which is according to the doctrine and that she would be allowed, in heaven, to RAISE this child into adulthood. WTF?

Here is the cruel part. She is so freaked that she might not be able to see her deceased baby that she lives Mormonism to a ridiculous T and incessantly threatens her living children with "we must live up to celestial standard or else we wont get to see our baby boy!!!!" She believes this why? Because it was TOLD to her BY GOD via the blessing from the SP. Gaaagh

He poor hubby was just called to be bishop. She is a bundle of nerves and I swear she is popping Sandy candy.

She is a victim of the cult.

[_dartagnan]

Of course other faiths believe they will reunite with their loved ones in the hereafter. This is not something unique to Mormonism, thus, it cannot be something that has been restored. It is not evidence that the Church is true. It is just one more aspect that people "feel" is correct, and the Church has an interesting way of making it seem unique to them.

The main difference as I see it is that other faiths do not adhere to the somewhat incoherent script of "families forever," while at the same time proposing the system of "eternal progression." The former concept sounds lovely to children who are worried about being away from their mommy and daddy, but as you grow up you really have to consider the implausibility of it all.

This and the more mature doctrine of eternal progression are a bit contradictory if you think about it. I mean is God, who was once a man as we are now, who now sits in the yonder heavens as the omnipotent God of our universe, actually taking time out to have celestial family home evening with his earthly parents and siblings? In what sense are they "together" when he is sitting on his own throne ruling his own world?

What really is the importance of talking about families forever to begin with­?

There is the Saturday's Warrior doctrine for the children and the eternal regression of gods for the adults. We are not kids anymore so let's be pragmatic about this. In heaven, if we are really going to be sitting around with our families, then we will all be the same age in our celestial bodies. In what sense will we be a "family" when my great great grandfather, who I have never met, along with my great great grandkids, all look like me?

Assuming everyone from the past three generations made it to the celestial kingdom, aren't we supposed to be focusing on progressing through the eternities while acting with the powers which God himself exercises now? This is why I say the LDS paradigm raises far more questions than it answers.

I don't see how the two pictures can be blended together. Sitting around with your brothers and sisters in an eternal family home evening type setting... I mean where does it end? Your brothers and sisters will have children of their own, and their children will have children, and so on and so forth. Where is there anything remotely similar to this expressed ins cripture? Who can make sense of it?

The LDS family who introduced me to the Church, for example. They were very close as you could imagine. That was the primary attraction for me because my family was going through a phase of division, and I was only 16. They had five kids, all of whom seemed inseperable. Now they are all married with their own kids and they rarely see one another. I emailed Jeff who baptized me to get information on teh others and I was literally stunned to hear that he had not seen them in two years. He is more concerned with his own salvation at the momemnt, trying to get his wife pregnant again and teaching his immediate family about how families are forever. The youngest of teh five actually left the Church and is pretty much ignored by the rest of the family. The others are now teaching their own children about how they can be together with their brothers and sisters forever, but when their children get married they will also be less concerned about sticking together with their siblings and more focused on trying to make it to the celestial kingdom and being eternally married with their spouse. To make their situation even more complicated, the mother of this family broke her sealing from the biological father after he died in a tragic jogging accident, and then she was resealed to her second husband while her kids remained sealed to her and their biological father.

What, pray tell, is so breathtakingly simplistic about this system? It is an absolute mess.

And everyone realizes this when they get older and they sense urgency to make it to a certain kingdom in heaven or else they will be torn apart from their family.

But I guess the point is that I see people already begining to move away from their "families" as they grow up and start families of their own, so I don't see how it is necessarily unappealing that they would not be a "family" in heaven throughout eternity. Nobody doubts relationships continue on; the question is in what sense do they remain a "family forever."

To be sure, the LDS paradigm has a fabulous story for all ages, and I argue that they are not all entirely compatible with each other. That is one of the things that had been gnawing at me as I became older and started thinking this stuff through from a not-so-naive perspective. Maybe I have an advantage of not having been conditioned as a child to believe Saturday's Warrior was a coherent doctrine.

[_Paul Osborne]

I haven't read the exchanges between you too, yet. How nice it is that the mod squad from MAD/FAIR are not here to flaunt their board authority.

Punch it guys, but remember you are still brethren and sons of God. Just say what you really think and be honest about it. That's what I try to do.

Paul O