The Mormon doctrine of eternal families is incoherent. It makes no sense at all, once you get past how good it sounds on the surface.
The doctrine of eternal families was one of the hardest things for me to let go of when leaving the Church. I grew up secure in the knowledge that I would be with my family forever. It was soothing and reassuring, especially since I had a basically decent family. Then, when I married my lovely, sexy wife in the temple, it was wonderful to be able to be confident that I would be with her for ever.
So leaving the Church meant leaving that behind- that certainty and confidence that I would be together with the ones I love For Time And All Eternity. It was a hard thing to leave, even once I figured out that it was, well, total bunk.
‘Cause here’s the thing- what does an “Eternal Family” even mean? Supposedly only family relationships sealed in the temple will be eternal, and all others will dissolve upon death, just like aall other earthly contracts and relationships. But what does it look like?
Many Mormons I know imagine their eternal family as an eternal nuclear family- husband, wife, kids, all together. That’s preposterous. Will we all live in one house in the Celestial Kingdom? What about the kids’ spouses? And the kids’s kids? what about the parents’ parents, and siblings? Will we all live otgether in one big house? If everyone lives together in one big house because we’re all one big eternal family, then what makes that different that just everyone living in the Celestial Kingdom? Certainly one big house would be impractical, and if everyone lived in it, it wouldn’t be fundamentally different than everyone living in small houses, scattered a little bit. The one big house would be like a huge city-arcology anyway.
So, what makes two people who go to the Celestial Kingdom as “family” (say my brother and me) any different from two people who go to the Celestial Kingdom as “not-family?” And if everyone is related in the celestial Kingdom, then being related is meaningless, because there’d be no difference between “everyone is related” and “nobody is related.” We’d all live together happy in the Celestial Kingdom either way.
I’ve always assumed that this meant that “eternal family” in the Church realy just had to mean “eternal marriage.” Yes, I will still have a relationship with other assorted members of my earthly family, but given that it’ll be a paradise anyway, what difference will the arbitrary “related” label make? None at all.
So eternal family has to mean eternal marriage. But eternal marriage is just as incoherent, and I’ll tell you why.
Supposedly, marriages sealed in the temple last beyond death, and other marriages are severed. Okay, let’s assume that persons A and B have an eternal temple marriage, and persons C and D got married at the courthouse. Then they all die in a horrible car accident. Let’s assume that Mormonism is true: what happens to them then?
Argably, A and B go to the Celestial Kingdom (or its highest level at least), and C and D do not, but that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand, unless it isn’t- but wait until the end of this post for that.
The question is, what makes A and B different from C and D after death? A and B are married, and C and D are not. A and B get to continue in a marriage relationship for Time And All Eternity and C and D do not. That’s usually where the Church leaves things- happily ever after for A and B, and sadly ever after for C and D. But let’s folow C and D past “sadly ever after.”
C and D are resurrected with perfect bodies, and gender doesn’t go away because according to the Church, it is a part of one’s eternal identity that actually predates the creation of our spirit bodies.
C and D go to the Terrestrial Kingdom, and they are Not Married. What makes them different from A and B, who are married? C and D will not forget each other, so they will reember their relationship. What’s to stop them from continuing their relationship after death? What’s to stop them from buying or bulding a Terrrestrial Kingdom house and living in it happy as clams for just as much Time And All Eternity as A and B? Will it be against the rules, because cohabitation is wrong? Who cares? They’ve already gotten their meagre eternal reward anyway, and they have already lost the possibility of eternal increase, so why not live together? They have perfect bodies, so they can have sex and everything. No they won’t officially be married, but neither will anyone else in the Terrestrial Kingdom, so what’s the difference? What’s to stop them from saying “oh well, screw this, we’re married because we say we are?” What would the difference even be? It’s heaven, so there’s no death or injury so there’s no worry about inheritance, survivorship, or hospital visitation. There’s no immigration problem or anything, because i seriously doubt that there’s different countries in the Terrestrial Kingdom. In fact, all of the things that make “married” different from “not married” are earthly legal stuff, and the principle of the thing, and neither of those could possibly matter in paradise where nobody else is officially married either. The only difference is the arbitrary “married” label.
It’s possible that non-Celestial bodies get neutered or something, but that won’t stop them from living together or being together, just from having sex. and probably if you have no sex organs, then you won’t care about not getting any anyway. And if you do, then the problem is not that you can;t be Together Forever, just that you’re horny forever with no way to get off. That would arguably be really sucky, but the premise seems a bit far out, and it still wouldn’t stop you from eternal cohabitation.
Unless their separation is somehow forced, by mean angels or something. That would suck, too. You wouldn’t be able to ever even see your earthly sweetie, because the mean angels block you from going to her GTerrestrial Kingdom district or whatever. It would be really sad for a long time, but we’re talking about eternity here. Eventually, you’d move on and develop relationships with the people you were allowed to be with. Eventually you’d find a new sweetheart, and so would your earthly spouse, and then you’d just move in with your new sweetheart and be with her forever.
Unless the mena angels move in and separate the two of you. Every time you get close to someone, the mean angels come and put you in different corners. Oh well, you’d just get close to the next person, and the separating would continue for a really long time until everyone was separated by mean angels and everyone was alone. To keep people from developing intimate personal relationships that were basically the same as marriage, God would have to somehow enforce utter alone-ness. And He’d have to do it at every degree of glory except for the highest.
Then, either being al laone will bother us, or it won’t. If being eternally alone won’t bother us, then who cares? We certainly won’t; that’s the whole point. It’s hard to imagine now, but we’d have to be pretty different anyway. Alternately, if we do care, then every degree of glory becomes absolute hell, and really, every degree of glory but the highest one becomes the same thing as Outer Darkness (what’s more outer and dark than total loneliness? Total loneliness with the lights off?), and given that we’re not all Sons of Perdition, that makes no sense.
None of that makes sense. Unless we’re totally alone, we’re going to develop intimate personal relationships with whomever we’re allowed to be with, and ultimately it will be every bit as fulfilling as marriage. What is marriage but intimacy, and what’s to stop you from being intimate with the people you’re with? Nothing!
And if you’re going to have marriage-like intimacy with whomever you’re with anyway, why impose the arbitrary punishment of not being with the person you were married to in your earthly life? Especially since in all honesty you’d eventually get over it and move on, given all eternity.
What if God separates everyone by gender? Equally meaningless. You’d just develop intimate relationships with the people you were around. If you have a sex drive, you’d eventually (given all eternity) turn to fulfilling yourselves with each other, and if you have no sex drive then you wouldn’t care anyway. Again, rules against homosexuality and/orunmarried sex wouldbe totally meaningless–you’ve already gotten your eternal reward! So why not do what makes you happy, damn the rules?
I’m not saying we’ll all go crazy and everything in the Terrestrial Kingdom will tur to chaos because nobody needs to follow the rules. That’s not it at all, but we will want to have relationships with each other in order to be happy, so what’s to stop us? Arbitrary rules? Ha! And if we won’t want relationships in order to make us happy, then who cares if we can’t have them? Not us! That’s the whole point.
To sum up: unless we are totally alone, which is unlikely since that would pretty much be the same as Outer Darkness with the lights on, we will form intimate relationships with the people around us. If we are allowed to be with the people who were our friends and family on earth, we will probably continue those relationships. Even if we are not officially “family” anymore, what would the difference even be? All family is is genetics, relationships developed over time, and legal considerations. Even if the genetics are somehow erased, the relationships we’ve built won’t just go away, and the legal considerations are arbitrary and meanigless anyway (they only make a difference by contrast, and if nobody has legal family connections to each other, then it’s the same as if everybody did). If we are not allowed to be with the people who were our friends and family on earth, then we will develop intimate relationships with whomever we are allowed to be around, and given all eternity, these new reltionships will ultimately be much more intimate and fulfilling anyway.
Given that, there’s no reason to not let us be with our friends and family in the afterlife other than as a totally arbitrary punishment that will ultimately lose its bite anyway.
And if we can be with each other, and perpetuate a relatonship, what the heck differenc does it even make if we get to officially call ourself family or not? And who’s to stop us from continuing to call each other family anyway, and to keep acting like family? And if we keep acting like family, what makes that any different from actually being family?
What will we have lost?
The only thing I can think of is the possibility that “Eternal Marriage” is something qualitatively more than just earthly marriage perpetuated for all time. Maybe “Eternal Marriage” just means “marriage with the ability to make spirit children and populate new worlds with them.” And that would be cool and all, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if I couldn’t do it, as long as I got to spend eternity with my sweetheart (either the one I’ve got now or the new one I’ll meet in the afterlife) doing whatever it is we do get to do.
And that certainly isn’t what we talk about in the Church. I mean, we do talk about being like God and making new spirit children and everything, but nobody ever says “don’t you want an eternal marriage so you can make spirit children?” because that might not even be interesting to everybody. They always say “don’t you want to be Together Forever with your family?”
And to that I say “yes, of course,” but I don’t see why Mormonism, the temple, and the Celestial Kingdom are requirements for being together forever. Sorry; it’s poppycock.
Sailing to Byzantium 
C&D get seal by proxy as a matter of course like every last other couple that ever lived on the earth. Just like they get baptized by proxy and sealed by proxy as you know very well. Therefore they have eternal marriage and enter into the Celestial kingdom. They’re judged by the portion of the law they had in their lives and thus a lower standard
If that weren’t the case we wouldn’t be doing sealings for them would we?
WTF do we need the other kingdoms for?
Some people won’t be willing to accept the terms of celestial life, some will have had the opportunity to prove that very solidly in this life. Others, simply won’t be interested in God’s Big Plans ™ or will have sufficiently poor relations with their families that they won’t want it.
My own guess about life in the Telestial and Terrestrial worlds is that gender exists in a state more like it does in children. The differences remain but the chemical basis of interest is non-existant.
As for the house thing, I’d like to think couples will have to a couple bedrooms (one for company or a study) and a kitchen and manage to live within a days walk of immediate family and a little further from more distant relations.
Ideally one would be able to live farther from some members of the family than others and everyone would know it’s for the best and not be offended.
The Gospel According to Scurrilous Chapter 1 000 003 47 verse 945
And if gender is like little-kid gender and nobody will want to have sex anyway, then who cares if you can’t have sex? You won’t want to.
I’ve always thought the concept of eternal families was a little lacking practically. If Adam was righteous and gets to have his family with him, then everyone ever born gets to be with Adam in eternal life. It wouldn’t be fair to Adam to deprive him of his gggggggggggg- grandchildren.
As you’ve expressed at what point is “family” defined that does not included everyone being together.
“Together” could be interpreted as in the same kingom of heaven.
If that’s the case, David, then people in the Telestial Kingdom get to be “together forevr” too, and again, the temple is irrelevant.
Not together forever with the people in the Celestial Kingdom though.
There’s also the whole united in purpose thing I suppose.
I’m not sure when it comes to the actual nature of the kingdom of heaven though many have speculated on it.
For instance the scriptures talk occasionally about time stopping after the milenium. Now this could mean that our time frame becomes like God’s or that we exist in some sort of a more complex state that we cannot comprehend now. Or that the notion of individually judging us sounds terribly boring and the lineups will be worse than hell. I mean infinite people 1 Jesus right? (Yeah, I know, we’re judged by our bishops, there’s a scary thought!)
Currently I lean to a non-liniar veiw of time, where the veil is essentially our entropic nature only being able to be aware of the segment of creation in the entropic phase. But that’s really out there speculation both on the physics and theology fronts.
Personally I’d rather just live forever somewhere I can comprehend doing things I care about, but I’m not so sure that’s scripturally supportable. Maybe it’s fun to slide around on the big glass celestial earth or something?
Kullervo,
To begin, there are many mansions in heaven, in the Celestial Kingdom. Secondly, life in the Celestial Kingdom will socially be similar to what we are used to now. And what I mean by social, is our relations with friends and neighbors and family. The nucleus of an eternal family is not the children, but the husband and wife. Think about it, in the Celestial Kingdom, just how old will we be? What will our age be? What will we look like? Will our “children” be teenagers, or will they be “adults” like us? How about parents and grandparents? It doesn’t make sense that in a developed place like the Celestial Kingdom anyone outside the nucleus (husband and wife) will live in one spot. That, of course, does not mean kids and grandparents live far away, or never come visit. Because, of course, just where do you draw the line? Just how far away from your core do you allow in your mansion? Great-great-great grandparents? After all, I’m sure your great great grandparents would want their parents around, etc.
I realize that you’re at a point where you are not interested in coming back to church, however, it might be good for you to stop attempting to understand that which we will not understand until we get there. If it isn’t really important for your eternal salvation, you probably don’t need to spend too much time pondering over it. This would constitute one of those situations.
There is only one part of the Celestial Kingdom where eternal marriage can be found, and that is in the highest order. There are three orders in the Celestial Kingdom, and individuals who are not married can still enter the Celestial Kingdom, just not the highest order, because they are not married. What their relation will be with everybody else is anyone’s guess. But again, this is really not important to know or understand at this point in our lives. Really.
Okay, let’s go over this, because you make some incorrect assumptions about the salvation of C and D.
The two couples marry. A marries B in the temple, and are both sealed for time and all eternity. C marries D at the local courthouse, and their marriage is until death, as the legal document is only binding in this life. Everything is good to this point.
The two couples go on a drive and die in a horrible crash. From here, you’ve added some assumptions that are incorrect, and have not provided enough information to accurately describe what happens to the four individuals.
A and B, married in the temple, with the assumption that they’ve lived their lives to the point of their death worthily will enter into the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom because they’ve fulfilled all of God’s commandments. They will have an eternal increase, meaning that they can have children and create new worlds, and all that fun stuff. Okay, so we’re good to this point. Let’s talk about C and D.
C and D married in the courthouse. You did not specify if C and D are members of the church or non-members. So let’s go with both assumptions. If C and D are members of the church, what kept them from being married in the temple? Did D decide that D only wanted to be married to C just on this earth? Was C unworthy of going to the temple at this point in time? Did they elope? There are far too many questions unanswered, needing more information. In any case, as with everything else in this life, God looks at the situation and asks these very kinds of questions. Did C and D have ample opportunity to fulfill all of God’s commandments in this life? If the answer is no, then temple work can be done for C and D, allowing them to reach the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom. Did C and D have ample opportunity to fulfill all of God’s commandments in this life and they chose not to keep His commandments? If the answer is yes, then it becomes a matter of sinning against God. Then you get even more specific. Would C have married in the temple if D would have been worthy? Would C have married in the temple if D weren’t the domineering male who never gave C that chance? Well, then that brings up the possibility that C can still enter the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom, albeit married to another man. As to who this man might be, and if he have other wives, this is a question that can only be answered there, in the Celestial Kingdom.
Now, continuing the assumption that C and D are members of the church. Since they did not marry in the temple, their marriage is null and void the moment they die. Based on the assumptions discussed above, they were generally worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, minus the everlasting loss of the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom. They will never have an eternal increase, but they will have the Celestial Kingdom. What that entails, I do not know, nor am I troubled by my lack of knowledge.
They will not generally speaking be disallowed from the Celestial Kingdom because they didn’t marry in the temple if the rest of their lives were lived in righteousness.
Now, if C and D were non-members who married at the local courthouse and died with the temple-marriage couple, they would go to heaven and a few things would happen. First of all, some investigation would need to occur to find out if C or D ever had an opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. Did any missionaries stop by their door? Did their next door neighbor invite them to church and they declined?
If C and D had both declined membership in the church while in mortality, their likelihood of accepting and receiving the gospel and the Celestial Kingdom is low. If one would have and the other chose not to, then the one who would have would receive the gospel blessings, including proxy work in the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Celestial Kingdom. Unfortunately, if the other had chosen in mortality to shun the church, the other won’t get much mercy. However, God, knowing the hearts and intents of each and every one of us just might say, “C you did not choose me and my gospel before you met D, but I know in your heart that you would have chosen me and my gospel after you met C, because of the love you have for C, and for C’s faith in me, I grant unto you according to C’s faith and your intents.”
Now, if they both would have accepted the gospel in mortality had they the opportunity, they would be introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ and they will be invited to accept. They will be told that if they accept, their work will be done for them in the temples on earth. IF they accept, they will rejoice in their hearts at this news. Furthermore, because they never had the opportunity to marry in the temple while on earth, because they weren’t members at the time, their temple sealing will be done for them, and as such they will be rewarded the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom.
So the question then is, just who goes to the Terestrial Kingdom and the Telestial Kingdom? D&C 76: 71-90:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is more forgiving of men than some realize. The gospel of Jesus Christ is also more merciful of men than some realize. It also is harsher on men than others realize. It is also tougher on men than others realize.
Finally, Kullervo,
You want sex in the afterlife? Then stick with eternal marriage. That’s your safest bet. 😉
Daniel, no offense, but in attempting to teach me a Sunday School lesson (and you didn’t even hint at anything I haven’t already heard, learned, and taught over and over again myself) you have utterly and completely missed the point.
You have brilliantly, boldly, and unabashedly missed the point.
What I mean to say, without the meanness this time, is that for the purposes of my point, the specifics of C and D’s lives are irrelevant. Simply assume that they do not have an eternal marriage and are not going to the Celestial Kingdom. because I’m no really asking “what will happen to them;” I’m using them as a rhetorical device to show that the idea of people “not being together forever” is nonsensical.
So, if it helps, you can posit any story you want that ends with “and the result is that they don’t have an eternal marriage.”
And the “it’s not important for my salvation” card doesn’t work for me anymore. Sorry. Eternal Marriage and Eternal Families is preached from the rooftops- if it’s so good, I ant to kno why it’s so good and I want to know what the alternative is, and since it’s supposed to help me decide to choose Mormonism (since I’m supposed to stay in the Church so my family can be together forever, and since the missionaries use it as a hook all the time), you bet your life it’s important for my salvation.
Or, as my brother so eloquently put it, “[my] point was that ‘eternal families’ is a rhetorical buzzword, because our description of heaven offers no alternative in terms of family relations, other than outer darkness.”
Amen.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to convince people that marriage is simply an artificial legal entity. The only thing it affects is privacy rights, inheritance rights, etc.
It’s not to say that it doesn’t change your mindset being married, but marriage in and of itself isn’t the trigger that make you love and spend time with one another.
So since heaven is presumably a perfect world, where legal systems and rights don’t exist simply because people love and care for one another, then what’s the point of marriage? I won’t need special inheritance rights for my husband, because he won’t die again.
I guess the Mormon idea of heaven is a bit legalistic. Angel police! Haha.
Kullervo,
hence the importance of the gospel and eternal families.
I admit I did not give you a full answer, and as you say, something you’ve heard before probably numerous times. I don’t know you, nor what you’ve heard already, and as such you’ll probably get similar answers again and again from me and others who respond to you defending the gospel and the church.
Why is it nonsensical? Have you recently paid attention to all other Christian religions and what they think of the afterlife? You want to talk about sexless displeasure? Check out what Baptists think about gender and the afterlife! You want the best relational afterlife? This is it dude!
Seriously, you’ll not find a better afterlife situation than you will in this church. I’ve looked, everywhere, myself. Hinduism and Buddhism send you to nirvana and the Oneness, some amoeba where our identity ceases, and we are at one with…well, who knows what.
The rest of Christianity? They’re not quite sure about the afterlife. They keep getting stuck on the scripture where Jesus was asked about what happens in the afterlife to the woman married to a man who dies and is passed on to his brother (as was part of the Mosaic Law). They keep getting stuck on Jesus saying there is “no marriage” in heaven. They’re not sure what to make of relations in heaven, except that we’ll be singing praises to God for all eternity. (Can you seriously find a more boring thing to do for all eternity? I’m sure I’ll enjoy singing praises to God for a while, but after some time, I’ll probably want to go do some other things as well…..but that’s just me).
I challenge you, Kullervo, to find a doctrine in any religion that gives you a better afterlife than the one provided in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as given to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And I challenge you to show me where in another religion’s beliefs of the afterlife, life is as good as the one in this church for non-members.
Daniel,
I’m sad to hear that you find the prospect of singing praises to God for all eternity boring. As a Christian, that should be a joyful day to look forward to.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I don’t want to be with my family, but if indeed God exists and created me and the world, singing praises to him forever would be glorious.
Also, if the Protestants are right and there aren’t marriage in heaven, then it wouldn’t matter. Heaven is, by definition, a state of eternal happiness. It doesn’t matter if there is marriage or not in heaven, because you’ll be in a state of eternal happiness there. If there’s marriage, you’ll be happy. If there’s not marriage, you’ll still be happy.
bdeitrick,
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly happy to sing praises to God, just not for all eternity every second of the day. That’s the impression Baptists give of the afterlife. They get really hazy about all the other stuff we might do, and if you look at the afterlife practically, based on what they say, it seems all we do is sit around singing praises to God. Frankly that will get boring after a while. After all, eternity is a really REALLY long time…
Daniel,
I can see how if you look at the afterlife with human eyes and human perception, it might seem like a ‘boring’ thing. But, being that none of us has been there, I somehow doubt we can say with any surety that we know what it will be like–or what we would like or dislike about it.
Heaven is supposed to be a state of perfect happiness. Whatever that entails, you won’t be bored… because you’ll be busy being perfectly happy. Whether that means singing praises, chilling with Jesus, or finding oneness… it doesn’t matter.
I don’t know how you could find the idea of Hindu or Buddhist heaven bad–if you lose all desire, you wouldn’t want more.
I think it’s a matter of remembering that although many Christians may not know what Heaven will be like (cuz really, nobody does–even the LDS doctrines of Heaven aren’t incredibly clearcut), the idea of a perfect place… well, it’s perfect. ‘Nuff said.
Katyjane,
Well then, the LDS version should be just fine, right?
Kullervo’s question is not about what happens to righteous members of the LDS Faith, but what happens to non-members. He’s troubled by the fact that non-members don’t get to participate in the relationships we normally participate here (or could participate in in the eternities—such as eternal marriage). But while he may be disappointed that non-members don’t get the benefit that members do, he’s gotta ask himself (and do some research) just what other faiths say about their non-members and the benefits they receive in the afterlife. You’ll find (say for example in the Baptist faith) that unless you are a believer in Christ (as Baptists see it), then you are resigned to hell. At least in the LDS doctrine of the afterlife, even non-members get some seriously good benefits, and not burn in hell for all eternity. Is there any religion that offers more good things to non-members in the afterlife like the LDS church does?
Daniel,
I don’t actually think that Kullervo’s question was what happened to non-members. His point was that the whole concept of eternal families doesn’t make sense. And, he said, it doesn’t make sense because it would seem impossible to separate people for eternity in the lesser degrees of glory.
He’s not troubled by the idea that non-members theoretically don’t get to participate–he’s challenging the entire idea completely. His question, then, could perhaps be asked, “How does God PREVENT people outside of the Celestial Kingdom from having eternal families?”
Has anyone else noticed that the Mormon description of heaven is often defended because it’s “better” than what other religions offer? I find this thought freakishly selfish and disgusting.
Let me offer to the readers of this forum that a person who is true to his faith because he can get more– because his heaven promised sex, because his heaven promises power, because his heaven promises equality with God– stands no chance of going anywhere but to hell. Think it through. If it’s true and your intentions are humble and unassuming, that’s one thing. But if you’re being a good Mormon for sex, power and godhood, you’re doing exactly what Lucifer did before he was cast down; and there’s no reason to think that your piety in this life will change the orientation of your heart.
If the LDS church is true, it is inconceivable that there would be a place in the celestial kingdom for anyone who expected anything more than to serve and love others.
katyjane,
Why is it impossible? What God deems is.
Racticas,
I would be careful in calling anyone’s intents into question, especially mine. I find it funny that you and Kullervo are upset when I say that there are things that are “not important to your eternal salvation” but when I start talking about those very things, you bring up this argument, that by talking about these things, our intents must therefore be based on very selfish, power hungry reasons.
There is a reason why these things are not important to my eternal salvation. I could care less about them. I don’t think on them. Because frankly they don’t help me one bit in how to live my life now.
Daniel,
If these things are not important to your eternal salvation, then why do you care so much that Mormon heaven is better than other heaven? Why are you so judgmental about Protestant heaven where you praise God for all eternity, and Buddhist/Hindu amoeba heaven? If those religions are true, then are you going to get to heaven and be bored? Have you ever considered any sort of alternative? Or are those alternatives not good enough heavens for you?
Daniel, did you even read this post?
If somehow God could separate us in more than a legal sense (and if it’s only a legal separation it is irrelevant, as Beata says), then I’ll eventually get over it and develop a marriage-like relationship with someone else? What then? Will God separate me from them, too? Then I’ll move on to the next person. Will God keep separating me from the people i develop relationships with until I’m left alone, essentially the same as Outer Darkness but with the lights on?
If we can be in contact with other people, then we can have relationships. And we can have relationships as closely and as intmately as we are able to develop. What would stop us? Only God, and only by separating us from everyone else in existence, and if he did that there would be no difference between all of the degrees of glory other than the highest level of Exaltation and Outer Darkness (all the rest would be just like outer darkness), rendering the entire LDS doctrine of degrees of glory meaningless.
If we have bodies, then we can have sex. Unless we won’t want to for some reason, and then we won’t care, because we won;t have a sex drive anyway. What would stop us? We’ll have perfect bodies and free agency. Unless God physically separates us. Our desire to follow rules won;t stop us, because we’ll have already gotten our eternal reward, and barring that, there’s no reason not to have meaningful sexual relationships with our intimate partners.
So I can see no meaningful difference between A and B’s Eternal Marriage and C and D’s eternal terrestrial common-law cohabitation. Which means that one of the Church’s biggest selling points, even taken at face value and assumed to be true, is to me incoherent. It is, to me, logically self-defeating.
Daniel,
I see that I misread your post>
“Is there any religion that offers more good things to non-members in the afterlife like the LDS church does?”
as,
“Is there any religion that offers more good things to *members* in the afterlife like the LDS church does?”
My apologies. But man, if you think about it, you’ve got to admit that sounded BAD.
Beata,
Yes I would be bored. And yes, those other alternatives are not good enough heavens for me after hearing what kind of heaven there is in the LDS church. And no other religion offers a good afterlife to account for who we are. We are offspring of God, the Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth. We will be joint-heirs with Christ, and receive all that the Father hath. What does that mean in a practical sense? Well, what does the Father have? He has all power. What does that mean? That means the creation of worlds without number. That means the creation of spirits without number.
I am not a member of this church because of these rewards. Certainly no reward is good enough for what I’ve had to go through from 1996 to 2004 in regards to this church. Even those rewards sounded crappy during that time. I’m not in this church for rewards, I’m in it because this is where God wants me to be.
Kullervo,
Okay, you’re forgetting one aspect about immortality. We will be getting our bodies back, but they will not run on blood. What does this mean? I don’t know, but that fundamentally alters many aspects about our physical bodies. For example, we probably would not eat in the afterlife. I mean, animals will be in the afterlife too. We won’t be killing them. We also won’t be killing any plants either. So what does this say about sexual relations? First off, the lustful passions we feel here on earth is blood-based. What would happen with bodies that don’t have any blood in them? Will they feel that passion? Most likely not. Now, what would be the difference between Terrestrial bodies and Celestial bodies, and how would eternal marriages work with bloodless bodies? I don’t know. That is not clear from anything I’ve read. Does that mean that the whole system crumbles because of lack of information? Hardly.
So in the Terrestrial and Telestial worlds yes, you will have relations with people, but they won’t be sexual.
Racticas,
Yes, it sure sounded bad if I wrote it as you first read it. But I’m not a bad guy, and wouldn’t be that crass. 🙂
Daniel,
As I’m sure is the case with your wife, marriage is way more than sexual relations. So, outside of the Celestial Kingdom, could Kullervo and I not be friends? Could we not hang out? If we could, great! We could, essentially, still be married.
If we couldn’t hang out–could we hang out with other people? If so, we would form friendships and relationships with those people. We’d be sad and miss each other, but we’d move on.
If we couldn’t hang out with other people, then what is the difference between the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms and Outer Darkness?
And Joseph Smith said that the Telestial Kingdom was already way better than earth. And I can’t imagine something being way better than Earth-life where I had to be lonely forever, right?
And I’m not trying to imply that the Telestial Kingdom, therefore, is as good as the Celestial Kingdom. But rather that it’s difficult to see a fundamental difference in how Kullervo and I would be married in the Celestial Kingdom, with an eternal marriage vs. being not married but hanging out in the Telestial Kingdom.
katyjane,
My understanding is that, yes, indeed you can hang out and party like it’s 1999 with Kullervo in both the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms. People who are in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms are servants of those in the Celestial Kingdom. Just exactly how this plays out practically is anybody’s guess. But like you quote Joseph Smith, these two kingdoms are much better than life here on earth now.
That is well said. You cannot be happy if you are lonely forever. You will certainly know people and hang out with people in the Terrestrial Kingdom. The difference with Outer Darkness is that the Light of Christ does not shine there, and as such, it is a dark and miserable place. The only individuals who go there are the Devil, his angels and the Sons of Perdition. I would not worry about you and Kullervo. You are no sons of perdition.
You said at the beginning that marriage is more than just sexual relations, and you are right. The difference between the Celestial Kingdom and an eternal marriage and that of the Telestial Kingdom is that in the Telestial Kingdom you cannot have an increase. You cannot have anymore children. You cannot expand your potential, become who you are designed to be: a God (or in your case, a Goddess).
The Celestial Kingdom is the ultimate design of God’s plan. It is that we fulfill our full potential and follow in our Father’s footsteps. In the Telestial Kingdom, you remain a servant forever. In the Celestial Kingdom, you have the potential to create your own world.
What brings the most joy to our Heavenly Father? We do. We bring him the most joy. I don’t know about you and Kullervo, but ever since Ava was born….man I’ve been in heaven. She is such a joy. The creation of life is so wonderous and fantastic, and well, heavenly. I look forward to creating life for eternity.
But see, now you’re shifting the goalposts.
I’ll grant that the difference between a Celestial Kingdom Marriage and some kind of Terrestrial/Telestial common law partnership might very well be one of quantity- that only a Celestial Marriage offers eternal increase (I believe that to be sound LDS doctrine, and supportable with unquestionably canonical LDS scripture), and perhaps Celestial Marriage offers some other sort of difference in quality that the inhabitants of other kingdoms may not enjoy, the kind of thing that we might not even be able to imagine.
But- that’s not the LDS missionary talking point. The whole idea is that Heavenly Father’s plan allows your family to be “together forever.” People hear that and they like it not because they infer eternal increase and incomprehensible intimacy from it, but because of it’splain meaning, which is that otherwise they will be separated, and they want to be with their families.
If I am able to “hang out” in the TC (either one) with katyjane, then we’re together. Unless something stops it, we’re indeed together forever, in exactly the way that most people think of when we talk abotu eternal families and being together forever, and in exactly the way that is important to me, and I would argue the way that is important to most people. We may not officially be ‘married,” but honestly the state of marriage is a legal entity that serves property law functions and legitimizes sexual relationships. The interpersonal relationship that coexists with the legal one is honestly entirely independent ot he legal declaration of “married” or “not married,” especially if you look at marriage across the world’s cultures and throughout history.
So, a legal fiction will be terminated that would have no appreciable effect in the afterlife anyway… So what? That doesn’t affect us being together forever. And what if we say “okay, screw this, we’re married because we say we are,” who’s going to stop us? And what will the difference be, if there aren’t things like wills and hospital visitation and property rights and etcetera?
As far as sex goes, you have absolutely nothing to back up the assertion that there will be no sex for non-Celestials. at best, you have extremely attenuated inferences. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying you can’t back it up.
So either we’ll have the ability to have sex (in which case we will have sex, because why not?), or we won’t. If we don’t, then I imagine we won’t have a sex drive either, which means we won’t care about not getting any, so it won’t matter.
So, leaving the goalposts where they started (we’re talking about families that last forever), i still utterly fail to see how the Celestial couple gets to be together forever in a way that is meaningfully different from a Terrestrial or Telestial couple. Which means the doctrine, and it’s attendant fear tactic (be good and keep the commandments or you won;t be able to be together forever), become completely meaningless.
Kullervo,
yes it is the missionary talking point, and I’ve moved no goalposts. The inference taken from this talking point is that familial relations only continue in the Celestial Kingdom. Now as to what that means for relations in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom, we can only speculate, as we both are doing here.
I agree, it is my wild speculation.
I infer that “family relations” only continues in the Celestial Kingdom, and that the Terrestrial and Telestial give you something lesser. If that ends up what you are happy with, then so be it.
Daniel,
I fail to see, then, why you even started commenting on this post. The topic of the post is the difference between “being together forever” in the celestial kingdom and the other kingdoms. You claim all these differences, and in fact, assert how Mormon heaven is simply superior to all other kinds o heavens (insulting all kinds of other religious thoughts, mind you), and then conclude by saying all it’s all speculation.
My point (and possibly Kullervo’s point, although I’ll let him say it himself) is that speculation is bullshit, especially speculation that doesn’t hold up in logic.
One thing that’s always bothered me about Mormons is how they love to brag about how much better their heaven is compared to another religion’s heaven. Is that what we should be looking for when we try to find a religions? NO. It doesn’t matter if the Mormon heaven seem better, because if it isn’t true, then you aren’t going to get it. How is Protestant heaven worse? It’s a place of perfect happiness. How is Enlightenment worse? It’s the state of highest happiness. So the point isn’t which heaven is better, but which one you’re actually going to get.
Which is the point of Kullervo’s blog (or at least one of the points) – trying to find the right/correct religion, and NOT the best heaven.
Beata,
That’s all we can do, though. Speculate. We know that families will be together forever, but only in the Celestial Kingdom. As to what that means for the Terrestrial, the scriptures are not clear. Does that mean that it doesn’t logically make any sense? Hardly. It just means we don’t know and we muddle the situation more by speculating.
My attempts to visualize the afterlife are merely attempts to show that this religion gives one more answers about what is to come than any other religion. My challenge to Kullervo was to find another religion that paints a clearer picture of the afterlife for all involved.
In trying to find out which religion is “right/correct” one of the key things is can a religion accurately paint what the afterlife will be like? Which one is closer to the truth? I propone that no other religion paints a more realistic and accurate picture of the afterlife than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And I challenge Kullervo to find one that gets more detailed and more to what God has proclaimed in the Bible about what is to come.
Hmm. Based on what standard would you measure who had a “realistic and accurate picture of the afterlife?”
The Bible? It’s incredibly unclear. I generally find Mormon attempts to read Mormon docrine into Biblical passages extremely unconvincing. You have to decide you’re going to find the Plan of Salvation in there before you go looking, and then you really have to stretch what you find to make it fit.
Kullervo,
Use whatever each religion deems as their main sources of doctrine. The Bible by itself is, as you say, terribly unclear. But I am curious what other religions say about 1 Corinthians 15 in regards to the afterlife. How do they account for what Paul says…..
You know, I’m really really sad to hear you talk about eternal families like this. And though I can’t possibly convince you otherwise, I do know that families can be eternal. I know that. You’ll probably just shake your head and wonder that I can be so hopelessly self-deceived, but I know that I cannot deny the feelings I have felt. Our family is eternal. I have felt it. I know it. When we had those testimony meetings during the family reunions, I felt the Spirit testify to me that our family was something eternal and good and worth every effort. I know I may just sound like a silly blind child to you, someone who doesn’t think for herself, but I cannot deny truth of the gospel. Just whatever you do, wherever you decide to go, know that I do love you. Even if it’s a silly little Assistant Pig-feeder love. And I’m praying for you. I won’t give up. I believe in you. And even if you can’t believe in Him, your Heavenly Father loves you and believes in you, too. He is waiting for you.
I hope that even if you don’t believe in eternal families, you’ll still come to next year’s family reunion?
Assistant Pig-feeder love is a good kind of love, by the way.
And I certainly don’t think you are deluded or a silly blind child- that would be rankly hypocritical of me given that I faithfully believed for years and years.
The idea of eternal families sounds really nice, especially when you’ve got a good family (like we do). It even seems ot make sense in the context of LDS teachings, and seems like the most beautiful thing we can imagine. I thought so too, and letting go of the idea of eternal families was the hardest thing for me.
But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that the doctrine, at least as it is presented in the LDS church, doesn’t really make sense. It’s possible that I’m just missing some critical information that would put it all into logical order, I’ll grant you that.
But the more I thought about it, the more it didn’t make real sense, and I don’t know that I am personally comfortable anymore with just accepting on faith things that don’t make sense. At least not without something more to go on than “I like this idea and I hope it’s true.”
If you feel like God has revealed the truth of eternal families to you, then I’ve got nothing to say about it. In a way, I envy you because it gives you certainty that I don’t really have anymore.
I also came to the same conclusion after thinking about the logistics of the whole thing. My guess is that most people who think about it also come to the same conclusion.
The ultimate irony is that the one coherent idea in the whole idea of eternal marriage, that eternal marriage = eternal breeding license, is the one part that modern Mormonism can’t seem to leave fast enough. Women object to the whole concept of being eternally pregnant, I think for obvious reasons. On top of that, it really sets back the LDS church’s attempts to be part of the orthodox Christian club, because of the logical conclusions it has for the nature of God and Jesus (that they are doing this as well).
So this leaves the church still trying to put eternal families forward as a big selling point, but unable to actually affirm the one coherent part of that doctrine.
“Together Forever” sounds great and punches emotional buttons, but what does it actually mean, and what’s the alternative?
Well, like I said on Tim’s blog, I think it actually did mean something in the 19th century. Most Mormons today don’t like that meaning anymore, so it’s never mentioned.
I don’t think there are any good alternatives for the church. By good I mean not alienating either much of the current membership or alienating potential converts or both.
My point is that the Church sells “Together Forever” really hard to both members and proselytizees. It’s supposed to be one of the big, comforting, eternal truths of the gospel that let you know it’s true.
Eternal procreation, whether or not Mormons believe in it, is not what they’re pitching. They’re pitching Together Forever.
The problem is that Together Forever, and the supposed alternative of not-together-forever, don’t make a whole lot of sense. It is simply not clear how Together Forever is supposed to be any different from the alternative.
I think the whole Eternal Marriage thing is symbolic. I don’t believe that people who aren’t married in the temple will be forever separated, but I do appreciate that my husband and I have committed to be with each other forever.
That’s how I approach most of this stuff. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Who knows? Somehow, I doubt that it’s literally necessary. But given that I love Jesus, I want to be baptized as a symbol of my commitment. I don’t see ordinances and rituals as The Only Way In; just physical manifestations of my inward beliefs and commitments that provide life meaning.
Katie, that’s a fine way to interpret the doctrine, but you have to admit it’s not at all the way the Church sells it and the way most members understand it.
And if you are right, then you and your husband can be committed to each other for eternity without a priesthood ordinance. If a real effect is not produced, then the difference is arbitrary.
For sure it’s not the way the church sells it nor how most members understand it.
For me it’s not a question of whether or not my husband and I need the ordinance, because I believe in the efficacy of the ordinance and am perfectly happy to have it and want to have it. But I have no need to believe in the exclusivity of the ordinance. In other words, I believe it’s efficacious and does as advertised, but who am I to say it’s the only way God seals people to each other? It’s a symbol, I believe, of a greater and more profound truth that is probably deeply mysterious from our limited human perspective.
Sure. But when I wrote this four years ago, I was still in the process of my initial exit from the Church, and the threat of “losing your eternal family” was a big deal. Not only because other people threw it in my face, but because it was an emotional thing for me, too–I had been raised to think that eternal families, meaning being Together Forever, were pretty much the biggest blessing of the gospel. It’s a line we led with in the mission field: “do you want to be with your family forever?” It’s something that is really important for Mormons and keeps a lot of Mormons in. I’m not accusing the Church of something intentionally sinister, but it has an extremely chilling effect on apostasy. Who wants to risk that?
Totally. It’s way chilling. Also, most people don’t like the idea that their religious beliefs aren’t exclusively, or especially, Right. They ask, “Then what’s the point?”
I think that’s an unfortunate way to approach faith, but it’s the way our culture is wired right now (though I believe that’s changing).
Way late to your party, but glad I found this eventually.
http://notveryusefultruths.blogspot.com/2010/12/families-can-be-together-forever.html
bunk.
Nice post! Well-said.
For me it was extremely important to realize that the threat of “losing” my eternal family was empty, because neither the carrot nor the stick actually made any sense. If I can’t figure out what it actually means to have or not-have an eternal family, and what the real, practical difference would actually be between the two, I can’t be held hostage to it.
I feel pretty sure that families can be together forever, and I have no plans of ever becoming LDS. (My religion is very much up in the air right now.) If there is an eternity, what’s the point if we can’t be with those we love?
I find the implication that God would rip a family apart for making a mistake — in a lifetime that is supposed to be filled with mistakes and experiences that lead to growth — a ridiculous and manipulative fear tactic.