Many LDS members find comfort in the idea that Families can be together forever. But does it have a darker side? What happens when a family member leaves the Church? In our next conversation with Christ’s Church apostle David Patrick and Seventy Benjamin Shaffer, we’ll find out that both were former members of the LDS Church. Have they been cut off from their families? Do you believe that people who leave the church are breaking up families?
Benjamin: Right. So we believe that families are forever. But I view this statement that families can be together forever as essentially one of the most vile and apostate teachings that has ever been perpetrated upon the Latter-day Saints.
GT: You just offended all of my LDS listeners. {chuckling}
Benjamin: I’m so sorry. Let me explain the difference…So families are forever is what I believe. The Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear that the same sociality which exists amongst us here will exist amongst us hereafter, which basically means that if you’re viewing the sealing ceremonies, if you’re viewing these concepts of the eternity of families as an eternity of association, then I think we’ve got a really big problem. Because essentially, what they’re then saying is, is that if you don’t follow our rules, if you don’t make it to the temple, then you’re not promised an eternity of association with your loved ones. That would mean, you’d have to have some kind of enforcement method where people can’t be with their families anymore. This is kind of what I would call the geographic view of the Three Degrees Of Glory, like they’re separated so fundamentally by geography, that people in one Kingdom can’t visit the people in another. If that’s the view that you take, then God’s a monster by that kind of reasoning. Essentially, what you’re saying is, is that the single mother who didn’t pay her tithing and didn’t get sealed to her child, or the single mother, therefore, who isn’t sealed to the Father, and therefore, dies without having those opportunities–you’re saying that you’re going to tear these children from their mother’s arms. This is worse than the slave auction block. We’re not just talking about separation for life. There’s a separation for eternity. It’s just absolutely heinous.
…
David: Benjamin, do you think the most Latter-day Saints are not going to be as maybe literal about the word can be together forever, and you may be a little bit more literal than they are?
Benjamin: Perhaps, but I think that the thing is, is that when you have your whole family, everybody’s in good standing with the church. It’s true. You don’t really think about it that way. But the moment anybody leaves the church, the moment someone apostasizes, people do start to panic. I’ve seen it over and over again.
David: Yeah.
Benjamin: If somebody starts leaving the church, they say, “Well, but does that mean I won’t be with you in eternity?” It’s like one of the first things that a lot of LDS people immediately go to when somebody, even if somebody just drinks a beer or something, is “Oh my goodness, you’re putting our eternal family at jeopardy”. That’s why I think it’s a really invidious doctrine. It’s not that your average LDS family when everyone’s in good standing is even thinking about it. They’re all just feeling happy. They’re going to be together forever. It’s all good. But yeah, when someone leaves, I think it is fairly universal for people immediately to go to that more terrifying understanding of, “Wait, does this mean then that we are separated?” I think that’s why it’s dangerous.
Have you thought of it that way before? Are forever families a two-edged sword that both provides comfort and pain? David & Benjamin talk about the impact on their families, and argue that this idea of forever families springs out of the Adam-God doctrine, which is one of the most controversial doctrines in Mormonism. Has it always been that way? Christ’s Church apostle David Patrick and Seventy Benjamin Shaffer will talk about why it is popular, and which LDS leaders have embraced and opposed it.
Benjamin: If somebody’s struggling with this, we don’t say, “Oh, no, you have to accept this.” If you’re not getting it, that’s okay. But I believe that as your faith progresses, as Franklin D, Richard said, you’ll find a place eventually, where you kind of have to realize, am I really a child of God or not? Then it starts making more and more sense and eventually it’ll come into its place and you’ll get it. But in the meantime, don’t worry about it. Don’t let it trouble you too much. One of the last things I do want to say about Adam-God, is that I believe that–and the purpose of my presentation yesterday was really about Joseph Smith being the origin of Adam-God teachings. The more you don’t like it, the more….
GT: Because a lot of people attribute it to Brigham Young, is that right?
Benjamin: That is right. So the more you don’t like this doctrine, the more you want to compartmentalize it, make it as fringe and as small as possible because you want to keep the rest of the stuff. You want to keep singing “I Am a Child of God” in primary, but you just but you don’t want…
GT: So all the bad things go with Brigham.
Benjamin: All the bad things go with Brigham and we say, “Brigham, there was some bad stuff here. You take the bad stuff, we’re keeping the rest.” Whereas I view this as an expansive doctrine, which I think I can teach out of the New Testament very effectively, even without Joseph Smith. But Joseph Smith, as the origin of the Adam-God teachings can really challenge people, because they want to say this was just Brigham Young. So the last thing I kind of want to say is that I believe that it’s very clear from the historical and the doctrinal record, that Joseph Smith was the origin of these Adam-God teachings.
…
Benjamin: We don’t deny that polygamy is part of this great big, beautiful, diverse mess we call Mormonism. We, to a certain extent have to take ownership of that and understand it, we believe, and so it is part of our doctrine.
David: Yeah, and we recognize, however, that people, when they start to research things, and they say, “Well, wait a minute. Why isn’t my church teaching me this?” Apparently, it was once taught, and now they’re not teaching it? That leads to other doctrines that have been put aside. But we say, we’re taking those off the shelf and here they are for you. We realize that that can be a conflict and why they would then say, “Well, this gateway doctrine of the Adam-God Doctrine, we’d better shut that down.”
GT: I’m going to call Adam-God the Marijuana of fundamentalism.
David: Cannabis. We prefer cannabis. {Chuckling}
What are your thoughts on the Adam-God doctrine? Do agree that is a the gateway drug to fundamentalism?
Wheat & Tares 
You missed the problematic flip side of forever families. The anxiety of being stuck with family members that are hurtful or abusive to you. My wife dreads the idea of an eternal relationship with her sister, and to a lesser extent her mother. Both have caused severe emotional trauma in her life and she wants nothing to do with them in the eternities.
IMHO, as a church we spend way too much time dreaming of our mansion above and not nearly enough time making heaven a place on Earth. Forever families is part of this misplaced focus. Instead, we should focus on lifting the human family.
I joined the church over 30 years ago, and when I did, I thought it was a cool idea that families were reunited in the afterlife, despite my own family situation being less than ideal. But after 30 years in the church and seeing the gaslighting, manipulation, lying about history, etc., I’ve come to believe that this is one of the most insidious forms of emotional blackmail I’ve ever encountered. I’ve seen so many people freak out and families being torn apart, not by a spouse or a child deciding not to go to church anymore, but by the repercussions of that decision. I cannot conceive of a god that punishes someone by cutting them off from their family forever if they happen to make a deliberate, conscience-led decision to no longer be a member of this church because of its many problems, especially those concerning its racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Nor can I conceive of a god who rewards people for just “sticking it out” in a relationship that isn’t healthy for them. And if the highest degree of Heaven is reserved for people who often have to endure the abuse, infidelity and soul-crushing boredom that can be found in many marriages (because they are often counseled by their leaders to do so), all for the sake of just being able to obtain the so-called “highest degree of glory”, well, more power to them, I suppose, but that’s just not a place that I’m interested in. Benjamin’s comment in particular about the single mother really illustrates this. And, if indeed it’s true what leaders say when you bring this up, that “God will work everything out”, then why on earth, if we’re leaving it up to God to “work things out” are we so insistent on these sealings and ordinances when they can be trumped at God’s whim if he deems them invalid, or inappropriate or not the best option for all involved?
JLM…Here, here! When I was in a Primary Presidency years ago, we had an extremely qualified person as our music person..”chorister” who refused to teach or sing the song Families Can Be Together Forever for the very reason you wrote about. She is a mother of ten and realized the affect this could have on children who were in homes where the scenario was not…all that. Needless to say, our Primary President chose to hurt everyone and had her…placed elsewhere. It was a significant event in my life and church experience to see how our inner workings operate! Lovingly!
What can be inferred from church teachings is actually more the message that families can’t be together forever. It is already common belief in the US that you’ll be reunited with loved ones after you die. So the church’s teaching that you can see a dead family member after you die is nothing novel. What is unique are the teachings that you have to go through a series of elaborate rituals in very expensive buildings in order to qualify to see your family after you die. If you couldn’t do this while living then you have to wait for someone to do it for by proxy. There are an estimated 100 billion people to have ever lived on earth. If we did 3,000 proxy ceremonies a day (and I’m pretty sure it is not even close to being that high), it would take us 100,000 years to save all of humanity.
The Mormon concept of God is one who is very particular, demanding, and either has hands tied by a bunch of fine details of the properness of ceremonies, or who is a black-and-white thinker who values fine details of ceremonies and rituals over someone’s overall character in order to judge and assess them. Mormons tend to believe this God is easily offended and feel that a spouse or child leaving the church puts them in the utmost predicament and is akin to the departer disowning the family.
The eternal families doctrine isn’t the good news that many Mormons think it to be. In fact it is very bad news.
“So the church’s teaching that you can see a dead family member after you die is nothing novel.”
I’ve been hearing this from a lot of people, but I just can’t agree with it at all. Protestant/Catholic ideas are more along the lines of “there is no marriage in heaven.” The idea that Mormons believe that marriage lasts after death IS NOVEL! No other Christian religion believes this.
While it is true that some Christians may believe they will see their loved ones after death, it is (1) not part of their theology like it is in Mormonism, (2) they won’t be family. Mormonism is VERY unique in this regards.
Having said that, JLM and Ally have brought up the idea of abusive families. We did not cover that in the interview, but that is another interesting perspective on the idea of forever families. While some in abusive situations may choose not to be sealed to abusive families, I think the hope is that even if one was raised in a less than ideal situation, they can choose to be sealed to a celestial partner and be sealed to that person forever, which should strike some hope in everyone.
Well, to some it seems that, if you actually listen to the rhetoric about being kings and priests and ruling and reigning forever and look at early Mormon ideas about patriarchal families/kingdoms and the patriarch having greater “glory” dependent upon the number of his wives and descendants, the idea of family sealings then had as much to do with bossiness and owning people as it did with loving, supportive family relationships. I have wondered.
Rick, Your comment seems to have confused the idea of seeing family members hereafter and being in a marriage in the hereafter. Yes, marriage in the eternity has some unique aspects in Mormon theology, but lack of marriage does not imply never seeing or being with a loved one. And, no, eternal marriage is not entirely unique — even the founder of the Oneida Community at one point tried to insist that he was in an “immortal marriage” with a woman who had married another. What else could “immortal marriage” mean.
I’ve always found it fascinating and often repugnant that the church makes personal agency such a central tenet, but then creates this cosmology in which acting on that free agency in any way other than a very narrowly prescribed set of behaviors and rituals is the equivalent of committing spiritual suicide. Imagine a God that creates his children as emotional, mostly illogical beings with big brains that process tons of information. He also gives them hormonal and emotional drives that function largely independent of the ability to rationally make decisions. This God makes them kind of preternaturally inclined to seek an unconstrained life where exploration, discovery and creativity are priorities. Then, in a cruel twist, he says that the only way to achieve everlasting life is to do lifelong battle with many of your desires, tendencies and dreams and to follow this narrow, confining, often stultifying path. That God is a sadistic narcissist not worthy of veneration.
Wondering, the Oneida community is long since dead and hardly representative of mainstream Christianity.
Eternal marriage is a unique idea to Mormons. Some Christians may embrace the idea but it is at most a folk doctrine and not embraced by any biblical scriptures or creeds.
“Until death do you part” is pretty standard verbiage among Christians.
Some of us find it ironic that LDS (full disclosure: I’m active LDS) are known for their family values when in fact we place more restrictions on post-mortal family life than any other Christian religion. As far as I know, virtually all other Christian religions do NOT have a theology that provides for eternal families, but they also don’t have a theology that prevents eternal families. On the other hand, LDS has a specific theology that supports eternal families but only under certain rules and regulations. And as I look around, I see more and more LDS families with inactive LDS family members which implies post-mortal separation. In a way, we (members of families) have more hope for eternal togetherness in a faith tradition that does not prescribe the exact rules for how to get there. Honestly, there’s more hope for eternal togetherness within the average Catholic family than there is the average Mormon family because the Mormon rules to get there are so restrictive. Sad.
jaredsbrother… There is quote attributed to Henri Rousseau, “God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.” (Similar quote attributed to others) . All religions do this. All scripture, doctrines and policies can never be God’s true word in the ultimate sense. Rather these written and spoken words are man’s subjective attempt to represent God’s objective truth. We need to humbly acknowledge our limited understanding while trying our best to seek and follow God’s will. A problem in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the tendency to establish and maintain concise and exact answers to life’s fundamental questions many of which can be very, very messy. With priesthood keys in hand, we then proclaim with absolute and infallible authority that “such-and-such” is God’s will and command. Perhaps we should instead admit that we just don’t know the answers but that we trust in the Lord.
tomirvine, perhaps we should do just that. I appreciate the generosity of your response. And in acting humbly and trusting the lord, why would we assume the COJCOLDS represents the will of the lord? I mean, if our most evolved linguistic capacities can’t capture the magnificence and grandeur of being–and it can’t … it absolutely cannot–why would we then take literally the idea that families can be forever only so long as every member of the family remains in the fold? This is the conundrum, I think. The nature of God and the universe is unknowable, but that God wants everyone to be Mormon so people can stay together in the afterlife is knowable to the people that want to hold families hostage to tithe paying and temple attending. I’ll believe that someone is a prophet when that person says, “I know who God’s chosen people are, and it’s those guys over there.”
This is what happens when folks confuse beliefs for doctrine. The institution that manages the Church has inserted beliefs in so many places, that I t is sometimes difficult to tease out what is doctrine and what is belief.
Saints lose spiritual sight when beliefs turn faith into fetish.
Travis: I agree with you about confusing beliefs (ex.: diet coke is against the WoW) and doctrine. But what part of the “Families can be Together Forever” narrative is not doctrine? The Church teaches this so it’s the doctrine. Maybe I agree with it maybe I don’t. But it’s the doctrine.
joshuah asked: what part of the “Families can be Together Forever” narrative is not doctrine?
The sealing ordinance teaches a doctrine that transcends family as we understand it. The jargon, “families can be together forever,” can also read, “friends and total strangers can be together forever.”
The implication that families-cannot-be-together is the required starting point for the “belief” that families can-be together. That starting point is not doctrine.
The sealing ordinance covers everybody. The eternal covenant preexisted the creation of the world. All the children of Adam followed the pattern of the Fall because we were promised restoration, resurrection.
Sometimes we talk past each other with words like “unique” and “doctrine” thinking we are talking about the same thing. “Doctrine” is particularly troublesome to me. In English it commonly seems to mean exactly what joshua h said: “The Church teaches this so it’s the doctrine.” But in Mormon-speak it is commonly said that “the doctrine never changes”. and so, for some, the word takes on a meaning something like “pure, absolute, unchangeable truth.” Speaking English, the Church’s doctrine has clearly changed over time on a number of points. It would seem that, in Mormon-speak, the earlier Church teachings that have been changed were not “doctrine,” even if someone called them that. Maybe there’s a way to understand “doctrine” that I haven’t discovered. I wonder what is meant every time I encounter the instruction that we are to teach “pure doctrine” or to “keep the doctrine pure.”
I honestly have to say that I absolutely do not understand the idea that the “families forever” or the sealing doctrine is in someway hurtful or controversial. The principal behind the doctrine is to have all couples sealed together and all individuals sealed to their parents. It’s a doctrine of unity, not separation, and the purpose is to have the entire human family sealed together, not just some families. The only problem I can see is that there are a lot of beliefs about “family forever” that are not supported by the doctrine. But that’s true of pretty much every aspect of the gospel.
I have no reason to believe that the members of our family here on earth will not be our family members in the eternities. From a COJCOLDS doctrinal perspective, the key difference is that in the eternities, you will either have increase, or you won’t. Maybe a better way to phrase “Families are Forever” would be to say that in the hereafter,, “Families are Forever Static “ or “Families are Forever Increasing”.
What is doctrine? Elder Bruce R. McConkie published a book definitely titled “Mormon Doctrine” which was received by many members as an authoritative reference for many years. I won’t rehash all the controversial statements Elder McConkie made, especially in the earlier versions. But his book was largely his subjective understanding of doctrine.
Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reminded church members in the April 2013 general conference that “not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.”
Well, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet”
During my lifetime, I have seen may doctrine/policies changes in regards to whether Blacks can hold the priesthood, a Black may marry a white, eternal fate of those who commit suicide, tolerance towards LGBTQ, etc., reportedly directed by a God who is the “same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” Hebrews 13:8
tomirvine999, Are those simply examples of varied use of “doctrine” by prominent Mormons? Or are you making a point about “doctrine” that I have missed?
tomirvine, those are all good examples of how doctrine has shifted. So, there seems to be an inherent contradiction. So many members remain so for the certainty of knowing what God wants and where they are going. I think the COJCOLDS wants to promote that perspective. But, given the contradictory “doctrinal” statements leaders have made since the church was founded, is there such a thing as Mormon doctrine? Are most members just not paying attention?
“Families can be together forever” is fanciful, vague, and leaves pretty much everything to the imagination. It’s heartwarming. But how many turkeys do you buy for Thanksgiving?
We may be “Forever Families” but we will no more occupy the same space in the eternities than we do now with our earthly families – my siblings have families of their own as do my grown kids (who also have in-laws). The doctrine has us out fiddling with our own “worlds without end”. And we don’t know how the two Sister Oaks’s will work out their housing arrangements.
Broader Christian tradition has us all connected as “friends” in the afterlife – which is just great by me. I heard a Presbyterian pastor say that Mormons are the only ones that envision a heaven that separates families.
Last year Pres. Nelson told us about “sad heaven” where there are empty chairs at the table when family members have strayed off the covenant path. Weaponized is, perhaps, too strong a word, but not having “Forever Families” is used as the most terrifying outcome of mortality. We don’t believe in fire and brimstone so you can’t beat us with that stick. But taking away your family association (with limited visiting privileges) is unthinkable to most.
Rick B: “Having said that, JLM and Ally have brought up the idea of abusive families. We did not cover that in the interview, but that is another interesting perspective on the idea of forever families. While some in abusive situations may choose not to be sealed to abusive families, I think the hope is that even if one was raised in a less than ideal situation, they can choose to be sealed to a celestial partner and be sealed to that person forever, which should strike some hope in everyone.”
Situations where someone decides that they do not want to be sealed to an abusive family member presents a challenge to our doctrines and our practices.
How does someone that is born in the covenant go about cancelling a sealing to a parent or sibling?
How we practice vicarious sealings also presents a challenge. A person may express desires to not be sealed to a family member but once that person dies it would seem that all bets are off. There’s no easy answer to that particular problem. A well meaning family member that knows the person’s wishes may go ahead with the ordinances anyway, figuring that people will repent and all wounds will be healed. Family members in that knew the person’s wishes will eventually pass away themselves. Who is going to prevent an ordinance after anyone that remembers the person is long dead? 50 years after the person passes away their name will probably show up in the Gilbert Arizona Temple and the ordinance will be done.
Maybe the answer for some is, “If you’re dead why does it matter?” Maybe the answer for others is, “Eventually everyone will be sealed to everyone.”
At one time in my life I was in this camp and had those questions. It’s a tough thing to wrestle with. Is it my responsibility to repent such that I will want to be sealed to an abusive family member? That may ultimately be where the theology leads us, where all parties involved will eventually progress, repent, and heal, but in the acute stages of suffering it feels like yet another layer of abuse.
I’ve since landed on the actual ordinances being more symbolic than some literal thing that binds us. I can’t imagine a God that would force people to be together simply because they are sealed and I can’t imagine a God that would force people to remain apart simply because they are not sealed.
Rick B: “Eternal marriage is a unique idea to Mormons. Some Christians may embrace the idea but it is at most a folk doctrine and not embraced by any biblical scriptures or creeds.
“Until death do you part” is pretty standard verbiage among Christians.”
It’s hard for me to say just how unique this is to Mormons in the year 2020. My grandparents were Christians but not members of the church and they had a wide range of beliefs on the subject.
One set of grandparents took being with family in the afterlife as the default, assumed position. I’d say that most Christians I know have an expectation that they’ll be reunited with their parents and other deceased family members when they die. If they believe that they’ll be reunited with their parents in the afterlife, it stands to reason that at some level they probably believe that their marriage relationships will also remain intact. How else could there be parents to reunite with if not for the marriage relationship?
Maybe the distinction to be drawn is that the majority of Christians believe that they will be reunited with loved ones but the relationships will be fundamentally different than spouse, child, sibling, etc. I would ask, what makes a relationship a “marriage?” Marriage is just a label we’ve given to a relationship, what does a “marriage” actually entail in heaven?
The other set of grandparents were harder to pin down. One grandparent believed that we’d become a generic angel, devoid of personality or anything that defines us as individuals. There would be no reunions with anyone because you wouldn’t be able to distinguish one angel from another. That belief was not comforting when their spouse passed away, in fact it caused a great deal of anguish. They were unsure about what their denomination’s position actually was.
In reflecting on this, I think the thing that sets us Mormons apart in this department is that we have a correlated answer and we believe this answer is the definitive answer. Certainly there are other Christian denominations with official answers, but many Christians I know are all over the board. There are pros and cons to any approach. Definitive answers offer comfort. Having loosely defined teachings can leave people unsure but it can also give people room to create new beliefs that address the holes in definitive doctrines.
It’s true that “until death do you part” is standard verbiage in other Christian denominations. I think another thing that sets us apart is perhaps an unhealthy obsession with the state of our relationships in the afterlife. We’re constantly thinking about it and constantly talking about it, it’s at the forefront of our minds. Meanwhile I think most other Christian denominations say, “until death do you part” once in a marriage ceremony, forget about it, and move on with the rest of their lives as if the relationship will continue after death.
Sad how folks don’t recognize the difference between belief and doctrine. Institutional beliefs are about as good as opinions, but what strikes me is that so many LDS have their testimonies built upon sandy beliefs, instead of the stones of doctrine and ordinance.
“Families Can Be Together Forever” is an institutionalized belief, not a doctrine. Doctrine informs the belief.
Earlier it was stated, “The implication that families-cannot-be-together IS THE REQUIRED STARTING POINT for the “belief” that families can-be together. THAT STARTING POINT IS NOT DOCTRINE.”
If we are not careful, beliefs will take on a life of their own, turn inside-out, and become merely tools for social management.
It’s hard to say to somebody, “you are upset because you can’t differentiate between belief and doctrine,” but it is even harder to say “you can’t differentiate because the institution muddies the clear water.”
Travis, What exactly do you mean by “doctrine.”? How do you determine what you think qualifies for that appellation?
Wondering: Doctrine is the language that establishes and identifies an ordinance with its divine purpose.
So we should not find doctrine where there is no established ordinance(s).
Beliefs will arrive on site just like opinions, to modify doctrine in order to fit man’s preference.
Over time, beliefs evolve. Then suddenly, the saint is confronted with beliefs, or a belief system that misrepresents the love of Jesus Christ, and faith crisis ensues.
Got to be able to differentiate between doctrine and belief.
Thanks, Travis. That’s a definition I’d not previously encountered. Did you develop it yourself? or find it somewhere and adopt it?
The British statistician George E. P. Box declared “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” We use this saying in my engineering profession to keep ourselves humble, grounded and honest.
I submit that “All doctrine is wrong, but some is useful.” Doctrine that helps us grow in faith, hope and charity is very useful.
The “Families can be forever together” doctrine is mixed. It can strengthen loving bonds within a family and give us hope when loved ones have passed away. But it also has a potentially devastating downside as has been well discussed in the preceding comments.
My conclusion is that life can be very messy and that we need to be very sensitive to those who have experienced family trauma, divorce, abuse, mental illness, etc.
Many of our disputes and misunderstandings would go away if we just focused on the two greatest commandments of loving our Lord God and our neighbor. Easier said than done for most LDS folk.
Wondering, I was influenced by Derrida’s logical deconstruction as a method of determining text, in this case, doctrine. (J. Derrida, “The Gift of Death”).
Travis, OK, What text or whose textual usage of “doctrine” are you deconstructing to come to your definition: “Doctrine is the language that establishes and identifies an ordinance with its divine purpose.”? Are we to understand that your use of “ordinance” is intended to be roughly the same as its current use by the COJCOLDS? Is all of the endowment presentation an “ordinance”? If so, what does it mean for application of your definition of “doctrine” when the language of the endowment presentation is changed? Does it make any difference to your understanding of what is “doctrine” whether an ordinance is claimed to be necessary to salvation or exaltation rather than optional (e.g. a blessing for healing or comfort of the sick or dedicating a grave)?
Wondering, thank you for asking. When Adam was commanded to offer sacrifice, he was instructed the ordinance BEFORE the doctrine was revealed to him.
After this pattern, we get to doctrine from ordinance, not from belief. Deconstruction is a method to “check” our beliefs against doctrine; it aims to reduce the object/subject to its original form, generally to abstraction. We measure the accuracy of doctrine by the way it either clouds or reveals the (abstract) meaning and purpose of the ordinance.
There is a common LDS “belief” that ordinances themselves bring either salvation or exaltation. This is pure fetish. Salvation and exaltation come with mortal remembrance: we perform ordinances to remember, not to save or be saved. The act of remembering is personal salvation, personal communion. Some folks “believe” that performing a ritual brings some magical effect, like karma, or blessings. That isn’t faith, it’s superstition.
An ordinance without remembrance is empty, so remembering is more than the ordinance itself. I cannot think of a better way to reconstruct remembrance than by ordinance.
The changes in the LDS endowment are a result of deconstruction: reducing temple ordinances to their original form—getting rid of the Masonic parts—confirms to me that LDS leadership recognizes the difference between doctrine and belief.
What took so long, I cannot say. But I do believe that temple ordinances will continue to change to portray more of a coronation (king/queen) ritual rather than an initiation (mason) ritual.
Travis – interesting and thought provoking definition of doctrine especially the idea of doctrine being purpose. I like it. I personally wouldn’t limit it to ordinances though I think the way you’ve related doctrine to ordinances is probably spot on. I also agree that your take on beliefs vs doctrine is spot on. Beliefs can indeed be a sandy foundation which most testimonies are build upon. I agree that many members become upset because they can’t differentiate between belief and doctrine and it is unfortunate that doctrine is often muddied by leaders who themselves don’t always differentiate between belief and doctrine. I believe this lack of differentiation between belief and doctrine is the cause of many faith crises.
Travis, This is fascinating, however little it may have to do with common English usage or common Mormon-speak usage of “doctrine.”
It seems you distinguish “doctrine” from teaching (belief) – rejecting that common English definition. It seems that you acknowledge that doctrine can be wrong – rejecting that version of Mormon-speak that insists that doctrine never changes. (Measuring “the accuracy of doctrine” implies that it can be inaccurate.)
While there may be “a common LDS ‘belief’ that ordinances themselves bring either salvation or exaltation,” I have found it more common among those I know to believe certain ordinances necessary but not sufficient. You say “[s]alvation and exaltation come with mortal remembrance…” Remembrance or remembering what? What does it mean to “reconstruct remembrance”? I suspect I’d understand your approach better after studying Derrida.
Some changes in the LDS endowment got rid of some Masonic parts. Others are still there. Some changes to the text/presentation and covenants were not changes to Masonic parts. What part of the endowment is an “ordinance” in your view? You “believe that temple ordinances will continue to change.”
So, it seems for you, “doctrine” is something different from belief or teaching; “doctrine” can be accurate or inaccurate; “doctrine” is derived from ordinances, but “ordinances” can change and have changed. Perhaps you’re saying that what is important is the “remembering” [of what] prompted by participation in an ordinance. Is that right? (“An ordinance without remembrance is empty…”) If so, do you also mean that “doctrine” is a very individual thing depending greatly on what one remembers in that context? How then is it to be distinguished from “beliefs” of that individual?
Why bother to try to communicate with others about doctrine without acknowledging your special definition, when that definition is clearly different from what they mean whether speaking English or Mormon-speak?
Wondering suggests “I have found it more common among those I know to believe certain ordinances necessary but not sufficient.”
That is my sense as well. Ordinances open a door; whether I step through the doorway is then up to me. Whether that ordinance is always and absolutely necessary I do not know; the mercy of Christ and the power of his atonement can make all right things right. Why have ordinances at all? It is for obedience for those to whom obedience has been appointed. An example is Moses and the snakes. Those who obeyed to look at his staff on which were wrapped snakes, were healed; those that refused, were not healed. Prior to that, and subsequent to that, looking at a staff with snakes on it has no magical power at all.
The magic is in humility and obedience. Not snakes, not a hot tub filled with water, not olive oil. It is hardly surprising that the most difficult of all, revealed by Jesus himself if I remember right, is a broken heart and contrite spirit.
Fred VII asks “Marriage is just a label we’ve given to a relationship, what does a “marriage” actually entail in heaven?”
The significance of marriage isn’t just companionship because everyone will enjoy companionship. What makes Mormonism unique [among other things] is
D&C 132:19 “and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”
Presumably the children you bear in this world have better things to do than hang around your house for all eternity. They have their children, and their children also have children, one vast family reunion that never ends! With you at the apex or top. Um, no, that would be Adam and Eve. You and your spouse are to be seated at table number 7,544,232,877.
Wondering – I understood Travis’ take on doctrine differently than you. To me, Travis was saying that doctrine is unchanging but ordinances are derived from doctrine and do change. Ordinances communicate the purpose of the doctrine. In other words, the purpose of baptism is what constitutes the doctrine of baptism; the purpose of sacrifice is what constitutes the doctrine of sacrifice, etc. Ordinances will change as our understanding of the doctrine, or their purpose, changes. I like this way of understanding both doctrine and ordinances.
I don’t understand what he means by mortal remembrance though. That one is a mystery to me.
DB, thank you. I said:
“There is a common LDS “belief” that ordinances themselves bring either salvation or exaltation. This is pure fetish. Salvation and exaltation come with mortal remembrance: we perform ordinances to remember, not to save or be saved. The act of remembering is personal salvation, personal communion. Some folks “believe” that performing a ritual brings some magical effect, like karma, or blessings. That isn’t faith, it’s superstition.”
Ordinances have in common the goal of bringing us to remembrance. “Remembering” seems to be at the core of ordinances—“do this in remembrance,” “by this do you remember,” are explicit phrases. Elsewhere, the act of remembrance is implied. Everything points to remembering Him.
In this way, it is through remembrance that we experience “salvation” (when we feel cleansed and purified) and “exaltation” (when we feel clothed with the Spirit, or when our eyes are “opened” to KNOWLEDGE THAT BRINGS JOY).
How else can a mortal experience salvation or exaltation except through remembrance?
Perhaps I begin to understand Travis is talking about mortals feeling cleansed and purified and/or clothed with the Spirit, and not about being saved from physical and/or spiritual death in the hereafter (“salvation” in most LDS usage — though LDS usage is all over the map as to what after-death condition is referred to as “salvation”) or about entering the highest degree of the celestial kingdom after death and resurrection (“exaltation” in most LDS usage). Now we see that the “remembrance” Travis writes of is remembering Christ. It’s not hard to find that explicitly in the sacrament/eucharist/communion — whatever a Christian sect calls it. It is also not hard to find it in baptism. But for many it’s a real stretch to suppose it is implied in any LDS temple ordinances; some may infer it in parts of the endowment presentation. That simply brings the question back to what part of the endowment presentation and ritual is “ordinance” and what part is something else.
Travis initial attempt at defining “doctrine” (“the language that establishes and identifies an ordinance with its divine purpose.” ) remains opaque to me. Specific examples could help, but maybe this tangent has gone on long enough.
Travis, I will reuse the phrase “pure fetish” in relation to some of these subjects, if you don’t mind.
This is interesting to me. Could I extrapolate, then, that any kind of ordinance done repeatedly and with required seriousness then creates a form of remembrance that dwells in the very flesh of the practitioner? There is physical evidence, for example, that Buddhist monks who have meditated for years show decreased activity in the more hyperactive parts of the brain; over many years of meditation and chanting (ordinances?) they embody calm and collected. Put another way, the monks remember that everything is temporary, life is painful, and letting go is a key to avoiding suffering.
Is the supposed authority of the Mormon priesthood (another fetish, IMO) necessary for the ordinances to have relevance?
Jaredsbrother asks a loaded question: “Is the supposed authority of the Mormon priesthood (another fetish, IMO) necessary for the ordinances to have relevance?”
When I hear a priesthood holder speak about “power” and “authority” I hold my breath. Anybody who claims there is any power or any authority outside the Spirit is mistaken. All authority is received and manifested by the Spirit. IF THERE IS NO SPIRIT, THERE IS NO PRIESTHOOD.
The Holy Spirit is emblematic of priesthood. An ordinance can have relevance without priesthood, but is empty and without “affect.”
Wondering asks: “what part of the endowment presentation and ritual is “ordinance” and what part is something else?”
The pattern of a coronation ritual differs from tribe to tribe, kingdom to kingdom, so many parts can be added or taken away. Whether the ceremony be elaborate or simple, no matter, so long as it teaches the son/daughter how to “ascend to the throne.”
Essentially, the temple experience is an apocalyptic ascension and coronation ceremony patterned after what Joseph Smith saw in vision.
All the parts, and also some of the parts contribute to the overall ordinance.
For Catholics dogma is what must be believed. Doctrine is what the Church teaches in faith and morals. Thus, a Catholic must believe in the dogma of the Trinity , one God in three Persons, but need not believe in Purgatory in order to be saved, although said doctrine should be believed as part of the discipline of the Magisterium
Travis, you’re answering in a Mormon context, I would assume, meaning the spirit gives legitimacy to the Mormon priesthood. Perhaps I’m assuming more than you’re stating. That said, I’ve had spiritual experiences in and out of the church, and the spirit lent the experience legitimacy. I don’t know that the priesthood was necessary.
Jaredsbrother, who said spiritual experiences can’t be had outside the church? Do you mean to think the LDS priesthood has ownership or dominion over the Spirit? Heaven forbid. The Spirit dictates to the priesthood, the priesthood does not dictate to the Spirit.
When the apostles complained to Jesus about the stranger preaching in His Name, Jesus told the apostles to let the stranger alone (Mark 9:38-39). The apostles supposed that they had some kind of exclusivity where there was none.
Travis – ok, I see what you mean by remembrance but you and I will have to differ on that count and also on our understanding of priesthood and the specific purposes of ordinances. But I do agree with you that salvation does not come through the ordinances, that comes through Christ alone.
DB, I think the only point of difference is whether we are talking about the “affect” of an ordinance versus the “effect” of an ordinance.