The doctrine of eternal families has this contradiction that has always rubbed me. You're promised "eternal life" including living with your family forever if you are righteous. But don't all of your family members have to be righteous also in order for that to work out? That's pretty lame because that's out of your control.

I believe I've heard a GA say that parents who "remain faithful" will eventually see their LA kids return to TSCC. Seems like a pretty weak band-aid.

“I've heard a GA say that parents who "remain faithful" will eventually see their LA kids return to TSCC”

I’ve heard that too. I’ve given up on anything in Mormonism making any sense. It’s hard to take seriously an out of control sex addict like Joseph Smith.

TSCC is a business. They only want your family as hostages.

You're not supposed to ask what it means exactly for a woman to be sealed to her birth family and also sealed into her husband's family. Obviously she's not going to be spending all of her time with both humongous extended families, so does "sealing" simply mean having a pass card that allows you to visit some people and, if you aren't sealed to, say a friend and that friend's family, are you eternally separated from them? It's retarded. (Sorry, some people think "retarded" is politically incorrect, so I'll replace that with idiotic, imbecilic or moronic, if that's preferable.)

You're also not supposed to ask what it meant exactly when some of the big shots in Mormon leadership (such as Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, etc.) were actually poaching eternal wives from lower status guys. If the Church was set up to help the members of the flock advance in the plan of eternal progression, why were the top dogs taking opportunities away from the members of their flock? For example, when Bishop Snow poached away Thomas Lewis's girlfriend, so that Snow could take her as an additional plural wife, leaving Lewis single and castrated, how was this example of polygamy based afterlife empire building of, for and by the top leaders doing anything to help the afterlife prospects of the ordinary members of the flock that the leaders were supposed to be "serving" and "assisting"?

Everything connected with ChurchCo is conditional.

If U wanna be a churchco employee, I believe a TR is needed down to the lowest paid individual / most menial occupation-position.

There are certain LA neighborhoods that seem to preclude any possible return to TSCC.

the temple marriage ceremony is laughable, it's almost 100% about the church instead of the couple:


youngers who might later model the positive aspects of the social gathering are EXCLUDED, thus short-circuiting family continuity.

Women: Veiled (still?)

NO writing your own vows, NO-SIR-REE-BOB!

many survivors say it's a deeply de-personalizing ceremony, more like an assembly line process than a wedding. Chances are, you've never seen let alone met/know the officiant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 01:53AM by GNPE.

I went attended a temple sealing on my mission once. The "advice" from the officiant ranged from common-knowledge to slightly offensive. Not to mention boring the entire time. And funny looking XD

When our RM son announced that he and fiancee would be sealed in the temple, I made a quick assessment of who, in the family, had even the remotest chance at getting a temple recommend.

Son's bio mom had been exed. DH has never had a TR in the three decades or so that I have known him. My bio son is an atheist. Daughters no longer attended, and were, shall we say, socially active. That left me.

It seemed very sad that son should be married and nobody from the family would be there. So I went on a temple-worthiness rampage that was cringeworthy. The truth of it was that I was already edging toward the EXIT sign. But I put on a happy face, attended every meeting for months, paid every cent of tithing, refrained from watching R-rated movies until AFTER I got through the interviews with bish and SP, and got my recommend.

That wedding was so dry and tedious. I was shocked. No music, no flowers, no pretty bridesmaids' dresses - just words, dry as sawdust. None of us even knew the guy who officiated, so there wasn't any personal warmth from the "clergy." There was a reception held in the gym, of course, and new DIL had a pretty wedding dress that was worn for that occasion only, not in the temple. There was music and dancing and a lovely wedding cake, plus fruit punch for those who cared to participate.

Looking back, considering that there are diabetics in both families, there was nothing to drink that didn't contain sugar, and the only edibles that I recall that would be remotely diabetic-friendly were a couple bowls of mixed nuts, which I wouldn't touch because heaven only knew whose germy hands had been in them.

Theirs has been the most successful marriage among our kids. They are happy and have two terrific kids, and best of all, they, too, have left the church. They were disillusioned by the business of not allowing children of gay couples to receive ordinances. LDS Corp screwed the pooch on that one, big-time.

I felt seriously let down. The way the church hypes temple weddings, you'd think there would be more substance to them.

familiesarekindaforever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe I've heard a GA say that parents who
> "remain faithful" will eventually see their LA
> kids return to TSCC. Seems like a pretty weak
> band-aid.


When we left, we heard this all the time.

Wait, well not at first. First it was that sad, patronizing voice that passive-aggressively tried to make us feel bad, “we will miss you in our family when we are with our Heavenly Father. We will all be together with Heavenly Father’s love, and you guys won’t be there...sniff...sniff...”

Then, when they came to accept that we weren’t coming back, ever, it turned into: “oh, that’s alright; we have enough faith and righteousness among ourselves for all of us to get to heaven, including you guys.”

I had primary teachers telling me explicitly that I would never see my eternal family because of the choices of my older siblings. They had stopped attending when I was 9. That kind of talk really screwed up any sense of comfort when attending church. This type of mindfuck is criminal at that age.

At first they said: "Families ARE forever",

then it magically/mystically changed to:

"Families CAN BE forever"

yup, that's mormonism for ya...

when did this change take place

Families are forever if everyone plays along and doesn't think too much.

If you are with your parent's family and they are each with their families and you are with your children...well, at some point it's a giant ward house of confusion.

Don't worry or concerned, 'it will all be taken care of / explained LATER!'

That is one of the illogical part of the house of cards that fell for me.

Being part of a family is a fact most of us have in one way or another.

You don't need to be so called-sealed for that. It just is.

That is how I feel. I sure feel much more at peace with whatever will happen with my family after I die. If there is an afterlife (which I like to believe there is, but don't know for sure), then I'll see my family and be with them.

This was my greatest fear! I have said before I remember looking up in the cupboard and seeing my dad's coffee as a 5-year-old and worrying about us being together forever. This was the big reason I believed and lived like I did.

So in January, I will be again facing my daughter getting married in the temple. The sister I don't talk to will be with my daughter in the temple. (She won't be assisting my daughter, though.) BUT, BUT, BUT my sister's 3 children and her 8 grandchildren will be on the outside with me. So if mormonism were true, then I'd be in the 3rd degree with all her kids/grandkids, etc., and my daughter will have to be with my sister. That would be a very bad fate for my daughter!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 07:19PM by cl2.

When I look at the doctrine, and based on what Mormons always default to, it's really about the idea that marriage continues on after death. No "for as long as you both shall live", or "until death do you part".

Which, if one wants to view it in one Mormon way, is a continuation of polygamy for a man if he is a widower and remarries,

Or for a woman, if she is a widow, is violating the commandment of not committing adultery.

It has it's roots, IMO, in polygamy, yet again.

Of course conditions apply. Conditions always apply in Mormonism. Otherwise how can the member always be the one at fault and NEVER the organization?

God/ Nature is/ You are unbridled.
What is bigger? Better? Best?
Your natural way of being, or LDScrap?
The Spirit, or nature/ good fortune

The one that gives them to you
The one that takes them away

My mother informed me that I would be with her in the CK no matter what because I was sealed to her. Not kidding. I said nothing but was thinking, 'Why would you threaten me like that Mom?"

She assumes I will be "fixed" and finally give her spirit grandchildren since she didn't get any from me in this life.

I heard many times as the Three Degrees of Glory were explained that the people from the CK could go slumming and visit the lower kingdoms so everybody still gets to see each other. See? Families ARE forever.

Can you imagine having to put the relatives up from the CK in your happy TK home for lengthy periods of time? Hiding the coffee for eternity?

"We can keep your family together in the Hereafter" is a weak argument when they always offer the caveat, "...but only if you use our product." By now there should be a generic.