Christian view of eternal families


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope this question will be received in a positive way. I like to listen to Christian radio, and occasionally I will hear someone speak of being with a loved one in the next life. Most recently during a Focus on the Family Broadcast (Oct 22, 2010) where the Smiths speak about their experience losing a baby at birth. During their talk, they mentioned one day meeting and being with their daughter in the next life. Maybe I'm just viewing this through Mormon eyes, but it seemed to imply that they were expecting to still be a family in the next life. I guess as much as I've been told that Mormons are unique in this belief, I'm wondering if we really are unique in this belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mormons are not unique in the belief that families can be together in the heaven... If anything, Mormons are unique in the belief that families can still be broken apart in heaven, despite all of them believing in Christ and being decent people. As in anybody who wasn't sealed in a temple won't be family. Most other religions do not believe in this dividing of family. Most believe that anybody who doesn't end up in Hell, and believes in Christ, will still be family. And that anybody who was never taught to believe in Christ on earth, will be given the choice later.

I think I may be counted as a "Jack Mormon" on this issue. And I'm sure I'll be opening up a big fat can of worms by saying this, but....

I don't understand exactly what is supposed to make a family no longer a family... I believe that a family is a pair or group of people who dearly love each other, and show deep concern for the welfare of one another. Plain and simple. They don't have to be blood related, or legally related. They don't even have to be in the same place! They just have to care about each other, wherever they might be.

The only way to not be a family anymore, is to stop caring about each other. But in heaven, people always care about each other! In fact, they do so more there than they do down here. In any "kingdom" or level. That's what its all about. In some senses, everyone in heaven is just one great big family, because in heaven, we all know each other much better than we could know anyone down here.

Very FEW people have nothing but all fully active, temple-sealed LDS family members on all sides and in all extensions of relation... Actually, I wouldn't even bet my $2 writing pen that anybody has that. So if it were true that families can be torn in half-- meaning half in a higher kingdom, half in a lower kindgom-- that would mean the half in the higher kingdom would have to stop caring about the half in the lower kingdoms. But don't you have to strive for perfection to get into the higher kingdoms? Well, love for half of your family just vanishing is not perfect. Heck, that's worse than earth. At least down here, most of us love our family for good, lol.

Love should not be stronger on earth than it is in heaven. That's backward. I don't think heaven is about playing "king of the kill", being part of exclusive clique-like groups, and looking down your nose at everybody who's not in your group. That just doesn't sound like the kind of mentality that eternal, heavenly beings would have.

I also get my opinions from what my mother saw after she was "clinically dead" but then revived. I tend to take the word of someone who's actually SEEN it, more than the word of anyone else.

I may prefer the LDS church out of nostalgia from when I lived in Europe. But I don't believe that anybody is just going to stop loving people when they die. My mother still knew and loved her relatives during her experience. So I believe every decent person will.

Edited by Melissa569
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may prefer the LDS church out of nostalgia from when I lived in Europe. But I don't believe that anybody is just going to stop loving people when they die.

Who ever said that LDS believe that people stop loving people when they die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melissa doesn't quite have it right. Here is how it goes:

Almost no traditional Christian church teaches that families can be together forever. They do believe that all those who go to heaven will see each other again, not so much as family, but as children of God.

There are many individual traditional Christians who hope for eternal families, because to them it seems to be the logical solution to heaven. But their churches do not teach eternal families.

This differs very much from the LDS belief of eternal families. We believe that families can be eternal. We believe that for those sealed, they will continue in a family setting.

However, for those who are spread out in different levels of heaven, they still can visit with one another (those in the higher kingdoms can descend to visit those in higher kingdoms - D&C 76). But the "family" tie will be different, as those in lower kingdoms of glory will be unable to comprehend the glory and knowledge of those in higher kingdoms.

And while there is no specific doctrine, I still keep an open mind regarding the possibility of those in lower kingdoms able to change and receive higher kingdoms of glory later on.

Melissa, you have to realize that many or perhaps most traditional Christians have a bigger problem than this: they believe many, many people will go to Outer Darkness hell. All those who do not accept Christ as their Savior (billions of people now living) will be cast in hell. Many believe that Mormons will all go to hell. Many believe that murderers and adulterers will forever rot in hell. So, you have part of a family in heaven, while many of them are rotting forever in hell. There is no visiting or sharing of family love at all.

Meanwhile, LDS doctrine teaches that almost all people will be saved in a kingdom of heaven. They will have access to one another, albeit perhaps not full access all the time. They can manage their earthly family relationships and enjoy those relationships through eternity. But LDS "eternal families" in the Celestial Kingdom expands upon that idea by saying we will continue having children and families throughout the eternities. Those in the lesser kingdoms will be limited on their own families and progression. We even believe murderers, and even Hitler, will gain heaven!

So, when you view it from where I stand, the LDS view is much more charitable than almost all other Christian beliefs. We believe Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, Wiccans, and even atheists will be saved in a kingdom of heaven. Ask a traditional Christian if those will be saved, and watch them try to tactfully explain how they'll burn in hell unless they turn to Christ. And don't get me started on the Calvinists! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose what we'd say is that "Family is forever!" Rather than remaining in nuclear families, residents of the Kingdom will be one big family. Our love for one another will surpass the love we experience here. We know it will be different, but certainly we will gain great joy from reuniting with our loved ones in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the Christians I know believe that they will be with their family. Regardless of what the "official" belief is (which is usually just some old, fundamental thing floating around like a rumor, to make a certain religion look bad).

As for LDS, I was always given the impression that if you weren't sealed in the temple, you would never see your family members again in heaven, or at the very least, you would no longer consider them your family in your heart, and they would no longer be labeled as your family by the rest of heaven. But I don't agree with that. If that impression is incorrect, then its incorrect. But the comment about "not loving certain people anymore in heaven" was based on the idea that in order to no longer be family (like say, if you weren't sealed), you would have to no longer love them. Which I don't think a heavenly being would do.

We also have to remember that eveyone has their own idea of what a "hevenly eternity" is. As for not being able to have more children in lower kingdoms, well that's only a scary thought if you're with someone that you want to have children with. But understand, not everyone is. Earthly marriages are one thing. But I personally won't even CONSIDER getting sealed to a man, or having children with him, unless he makes me feel so loved and cherished, that I wanna crumble at his feet whenever I'm near him. And I mean makes me feel like I could burst right out of this body, and rearrange the heavens! Like there is nothing I couldn't (or wouldn't) do, lol. But the only man I've ever felt that way about is the mythical one who haunts my dreams, lol. Real relationships have just started out bland, and ended up painfully void. Thus for me, I doubt that children are going to be a big subject in this life, or the next.

I don't think any of that is a bad thing. It just means I'm not a factory duplicate of someone else (niether are people who like having kids, I'm just saying).

Edited by Melissa569
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melissa, that may have been your impression, but that is not what the scriptures teach. What exaltation means is being involved in a family unit that progresses forward continually, including spirit children of one's own. However, there will still be friendships and family ties and love for those who do not receive a fullness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be an intriguing subject as well. There are a lot of religions represented in my little area. They all, barring Catholics, claim that they will see their loved ones again and will continue relationships in the next life. While their church doctrines teach the opposite.

My uncle was a Methodist minister and I asked my aunt about it. She said that their church teaches that they might see one another, but will never recognize each other again. She knew some scripture passages that mentioned it. Most every Methodist I know does not believe this.

The same goes for the Baptists that I ask. The church teaches xyz, but we believe abc instead.

With many of the smaller congregations in the area, it depends on the current preacher, or minister. Many people will often switch from one denomination to another based upon whether or not they like the minister, how close the building is to their home, or possibly if they have friends that go there. Also, with many churchgoers in this area, if they want to know something, or have a question about the gospel, instead of reading the Bible and praying for an answer, they will simply ask their preacher.

Though when I ask Catholics about families for eternity, the response is uniform. They do not expect to carry on their relationships in the hereafter, that the love they have and express in God's presence will transcend anything we can imagine, and that we will not have time for any relationships outside of praising and worshipping God.

But, I am not worried, we will each receive a place in the kingdom that we fit best in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing in Protestant doctrine or scripture to preclude loved ones from continuing their relationships in heaven. It's just that our love will no longer be exclusive. Nevertheless, as I suggested above, of course we will rejoice to see our loved ones in Glory. It's just that we'll also rejoice to see Moses, the Apostles, the martyrs, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be an intriguing subject as well. There are a lot of religions represented in my little area. They all, barring Catholics, claim that they will see their loved ones again and will continue relationships in the next life. While their church doctrines teach the opposite.

My uncle was a Methodist minister and I asked my aunt about it. She said that their church teaches that they might see one another, but will never recognize each other again. She knew some scripture passages that mentioned it. Most every Methodist I know does not believe this.

The same goes for the Baptists that I ask. The church teaches xyz, but we believe abc instead.

With many of the smaller congregations in the area, it depends on the current preacher, or minister. Many people will often switch from one denomination to another based upon whether or not they like the minister, how close the building is to their home, or possibly if they have friends that go there. Also, with many churchgoers in this area, if they want to know something, or have a question about the gospel, instead of reading the Bible and praying for an answer, they will simply ask their preacher.

Though when I ask Catholics about families for eternity, the response is uniform. They do not expect to carry on their relationships in the hereafter, that the love they have and express in God's presence will transcend anything we can imagine, and that we will not have time for any relationships outside of praising and worshipping God.

But, I am not worried, we will each receive a place in the kingdom that we fit best in.

That's what I'm saying, hardly anybody likes to believe what almost EVERY old doctrine teaches, in alsmot every religion, that "If you're entire family is not a member of OUR church, they won't be exclusive to you in heaven."

Since they all say that, it sounds to me like one of those "We want everybody to join OUR church!" type of competitions / ploys. And that's probably why a lot of people, including myself, choose not to place very much value on it. As far as I'm concerned, its just an organization's vanity.

I (and the rest of my family) personally think that when you really peel back all the layers-- believing that God and Christ are real, and that Jesus died for our sins, and treating other people the way Jesus would treat them, is far more important than anything else in the grand scheme of things.

To me, the only truly important part of religion is the part that would survive if you and a group of people were on an airplane that crashed over an island, and you were all stranded there. As in rescuers never found you, and you had no choice but to just carry on living wherever you were. There wouldn't be all this fancy, complicated stuff. All there would be is your faith, and the way you treat each other. It may be an unlikely situation, but that's not the point. The point is to really break it down to basics.

Edited by Melissa569
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I think I'm with Melissa. Christian churches may teach one thing, but that will not necessarily change what individual Christians believe.

That being said, most Christians I've met said they do not believe in the eternal family the way Mormons believe. LDS beliefs are that we will literally be a family. Christians, even if they believe they will care for one another still, do not see families that same way, at least the ones I've met.

Weirdly enough, many pagans believe very similarly to what we believe, that loved ones will always be connected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my discussion with people of many faiths over the years,

I have found too, that many (other than Catholic, and LDS)

choose a church like one would choose a country club, or gym!

Is it close, who else goes there, is it socially accepting, etc?

Many do not even know what the official church doctrine IS!

As many pastors teach TO their congregation, to make them feel good

not to help them work to be better, :(

Well, when the pastor is a "hireling" (Paid to be a shepherd)-- he is more worried

about his pay, than about the spiritual health of his sheep. :(

--- It all gets back to people needing to read the scriptures THEMSELVES,

and praying, and ACTING on what Jesus Christ told us to do-- so in that I agree with you,

as I believe if one does that, one will come to WANT to know more about Jesus and

will keep seeking till they get their questions answered--

which they will find REAL questions in reading the Bible, like

baptism for the dead! Which many true questions are answered in the brought back to the earth by the angels as prophesied in the book of Revelation, gospel--

that if the earth already HAD the full true gospel, God wouldn't have needed to send an angel in the last days to preach to the earth! The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints, is true. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when the pastor is a "hireling" (Paid to be a shepherd)-- he is more worried

about his pay, than about the spiritual health of his sheep. :(

I understand that LDS wards run on volunteer energy alone, and that bishops often serve almost full time, also as volunteers. I look over the fence at that, and can only give you kudos.

Additionally, I have learned enough about the LDS concept of "priestcraft" to understand that there is a latent distrust of "paid clergy" in your culture.

Still...this broadbrush judgment is too dismissive and unfair. For every gaudy tv evangelist living high on the hog, there are 1000s who work for less than what public school teachers make, and yet probably double the hours. Any non-tv minister who's in it for the money is a fool. It's more lucrative, and far less stressful to teach, or sell cars.

I would further offer that none of the many many ministers I know consciously compromise truth and conviction to "tickle the ears" of their congregations. We believe we are called by God, and that we are accountable to Him, above all us. Those that do what I do because of the "filthy lucre" will receive their just reward. But, let's dispense with the broadbrush assumptions. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many pastors teach TO their congregation, to make them feel good

not to help them work to be better, :(

Well, when the pastor is a "hireling" (Paid to be a shepherd)-- he is more worried

about his pay, than about the spiritual health of his sheep. :(

This is a tired stereotype that has its roots in the early Church, and is not only offensive, it is completely unecessary.

Someone started a thread about President Hinckley, and I mentioned how much I admired him. Your post reminds me why. He once said:

We must cultivate a spirit of affirmative gratitude for those who do not see things quite as we see them,' he told one congregation. 'We do not in any way have to compromise our theology, our convictions, our knowledge of eternal truth as it has been revealed by the God of Heaven. We can offer our own witness of the truth, quietly, sincerely, honestly, but never in a manner that will give offense to others.

The bold is mine, and, I think, makes my point better than I ever could.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...As many pastors teach TO their congregation, to make them feel good not to help them work to be better, :( Well, when the pastor is a "hireling" (Paid to be a shepherd)-- he is more worried about his pay, than about the spiritual health of his sheep. :(...

I would think that if LDS can understand that it's not helpful to be described with unfair assumptions (ie more than one wife) then words should be given carefully since it's easy to think you might know how other denominations operate but are instead way off base.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a member of the LDS faith for almost my whole adult life. I have many friends who are not LDS--some of them who work in their church as assistant pastors (I think that's an appropriate title). They are very devout and godly people who want to serve God by serving His children. Anyone who attends service of another church where the pastor preaches has the opportunity to hear a sincere testimony of Jesus Christ. In fact, one of the most powerful testimonies I have heard was from a Nazarene in a New Year's Eve service.

I highly respect our own prisonchaplain for his work as a man of God. His testimony and knowledge strengthens me.

I'm proud to call non-LDS my brothers and sisters and will wholeheartedly stand up to defend their right to believe and preach as they feel called of God to do. I don't pretend to know God's ways and am more than willing to say that God uses anyone--LDS or not--who is willing to serve Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh oh! what I said was NOT meant to be taken as a slam.

I said

"Many" -- NOT -All--- or NOT even MOST-- !

I also have come across many who are righteous. :)

Yet, it is my personal experience that there are many who are not as their members believe. :(

, and even our youngest son on his mission, worked with one man who was a minister and wanted to join the church, as he said he knew it was true, but then he wouldn't have any income! Another man they tracted out, also said he believed the restored gospel, but he had decided to START a little church to make some income for himself. :(

He even told our son how two ministers would get together to help each other (This was in Texas)

and described how they did it, In a worship service, after a rousing sermon by the visiting preacher, who made suggestions like ---any who had grandchildren they wanted helped, to come forward and donate, then any who had children who wanted to thank the Lord for his help already given, to come donate, then any who had parents who needed help, any who had personally been helped by this preacher, etc etc-- all to help the OTHER preacher--and making multiple hits on the same people, in front of everyone else-- . Then the preacher would go help the preacher who helped HIM. :(

Truly we are all brothers and sisters! God loves us all the same.

And there are MANY in the LDS church, who have only come to prey on the too trusting LDS too. :(

Utah is, I understand the highest rated in scams, as the LDS are too trusting, and wolves enter into the flock after us too! I'm sure God is very sad about any who abuse their membership and especially their calling to be a shepherd of the flock.

Two of the men who hurt us financially the worst had callings as counselors in a bishopric (neither was Bishop though!)

SOOOOOO SOOOOOoooo sorry- as what I said was written in a hurry as I only had a little time this morning before I had to run out the door. I didn't realize it could be taken so bad. :( I repent!

Gramajane

Edited by prisonchaplain
Apologies---I meant to quote, and edited instead. prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, by the way--

callings in the LDS are not by volunteers, though it is service freely given.

You don't volunteer to be a bishop or even a primary teacher, or even to be the Nursery leader!

(but subbing or helping in a calling or like with a ward activity, or dinner etc, and in callings to teach, you can let the president know you are available to help out if needed :)

But anything above that is really frowned upon! That would be "aspiring" to a calling. Callings are given by inspiration from God to the leaders who are next in line responsible over the work in that area, then they suggest names to the Bishop or counselor in the bishopric over that area, who also pray, then if all is well, they extend the call in private to the individual (and also to spouse if there is one) and they can pray about it and accept or decline the calling- without anyone knowing.

It is a kind of a dread, to get a calling as Bishop or as Relief Society President etc, as there is SO much work, and stress and they really need to keep worthy and seek the Holy Spirits help to be able to do the work well.

You just know there are great men as SOME or even MOST pastors, as so much good work IS done by many churches! :) Gramajane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't deny that these experiences happen. They are bizarre to me. Again, the talents and education that go into becoming a minister (apart from the sovereign call of God, of course) lend themselves to many areas. Many ministers work full time to support their ministry. Sales is common, because ministers tend to be people persons. If they are educated, teaching is an easy transition. Many companies are interested in educated people who communicate well, and are willing learners. At the same time, I doubt that the number of clergy who refuse to convert to the LDS faith, soley because they do not want to give up their jobs is very significant at all.

For nearly 2000 years clergy have been supported by the church. They have been set apart for the ministry. MOST are paid salaries that offer no temptation to avarice, and yet which do provide for humble to decent family life. It is also common practice to bless visiting pastors and evangelists who speak at churches with a "love offering." Unless I am missing something, the above sounds like a way of encouraging people to give generously and thankfully. I would agree that it sounds as if way too much thought went into maximizing the offering. Yet, were these two pastors living extravagantly? Were they abusing the Lord's money? Or, were they perhaps guilty of relying on tactics, rather than the direction of the Holy Spirit?

The LDS aversion to paid church workers lends itself to seeing scams and disingeniousness in the fundraising of non-LDS churches. Some of evangelicalism's most well known media ministers have added fuel to that fire. I cannot deny that some of this happens, and that there are those ministers who are in it for the money. On the other hand, I would suggest that even the word "MANY" is too strong. There are a few bad apples, and God will deal with them most severely on the day of reckoning.

LDS are not the only ones who question the churches and our money. And again, we have a few who have poisoned the atmosphere for us. But, I do know too many who work too hard for very humble earthly rewards. I still remember the home missions pastor, who perhaps made $18K a year. We were chatting, and he said he was trying slow down...that he really had to discipline himself to only put in 60 hours per week at the church! This was a church of about 60 members, mostly Spanish speaking.

We also have many who, more or less like LDS bishops, work full time, so they can enjoy the blessing of being full time ministers, despite their churches have little or no income to pay them with.

Christianity Today puts out average salaries of ministers once in awhile. As best I can tell, those "wages" are very similar to what public school teachers with similar education make. Of course, ministers are on-call 24/7, and work all hours, and definitely on the weekends. While many have one official day off, they would never turn away an emergency call from a parishioner.

So, the broadbrush did strike a nerve. On the other hand, I figured that it was a casual comment that expressed the very common LDS sentiment against paid workers in the church. There is a nobility to the almost entirely volunteer LDS operation. On the other hand, I felt the need to speak up for the many colleagues of mine who do tremendous labor, mostly for the eternal rewards.

I'm very confused.

Who wrote this post, and who is being quoted?

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elphaba, reread #18. You must have viewed it while I was cleaning up the quotes.

On my screen it says Gramajane is the author of #18, but I think it's actually you responding to Gramajane. I'm not sure, though, because I can't find the post that's being responded to.

I'm so confused! :P

Elph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my screen it says Gramajane is the author of #18, but I think it's actually you responding to Gramajane. I'm not sure, though, because I can't find the post that's being responded to.

I'm so confused! :P

Elph

It appears something strange happened. The words shown in quotes are really Gramajane's words and I think you are correct Elphaba, the others are PC's. How does that happen? Is it some glitch?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my screen it says Gramajane is the author of #18, but I think it's actually you responding to Gramajane. I'm not sure, though, because I can't find the post that's being responded to.

I'm so confused! :P

Elph

I totally messed that one up. I meant to respond with quotes, but was editing her post. All unintentionally...so I just went back and took out my responses. Good catch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Major apologies to Gramajane. She posted a very nice answer to the concerns some had raised. I tried to respond, with quotes, but inadvertently EDITED her post. In so doing, I created a good deal of confuseion. So, here it is as she intended it. I also edited POST 18, taking out all my comments, so it appears as she intended it.

oh oh! what I said was NOT meant to be taken as a slam.

I said

"Many" -- NOT -All--- or NOT even MOST-- !

I also have come across many who are righteous. :)

Yet, it is my personal experience that there are many who are not as their members believe. :(

, and even our youngest son on his mission, worked with one man who was a minister and wanted to join the church, as he said he knew it was true, but then he wouldn't have any income! Another man they tracted out, also said he believed the restored gospel, but he had decided to START a little church to make some income for himself. :(

He even told our son how two ministers would get together to help each other (This was in Texas)

and described how they did it, In a worship service, after a rousing sermon by the visiting preacher, who made suggestions like ---any who had grandchildren they wanted helped, to come forward and donate, then any who had children who wanted to thank the Lord for his help already given, to come donate, then any who had parents who needed help, any who had personally been helped by this preacher, etc etc-- all to help the OTHER preacher--and making multiple hits on the same people, in front of everyone else-- . Then the preacher would go help the preacher who helped HIM. :(

Truly we are all brothers and sisters! God loves us all the same.

And there are MANY in the LDS church, who have only come to prey on the too trusting LDS too. :(

Utah is, I understand the highest rated in scams, as the LDS are too trusting, and wolves enter into the flock after us too! I'm sure God is very sad about any who abuse their membership and especially their calling to be a shepherd of the flock.

Two of the men who hurt us financially the worst had callings as counselors in a bishopric (neither was Bishop though!)

SOOOOOO SOOOOOoooo sorry- as what I said was written in a hurry as I only had a little time this morning before I had to run out the door. I didn't realize it could be taken so bad. :( I repent!

Gramajane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share