What's new
By:

The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

This is a serious question:

Are people reunited with their pets in the afterlife? Just wondering if there's anyone who thinks that might be possible. Because you know, for some people, their dog (or cat, or horse or whatever) is their best friend and truly is like family for them.
 
moevillini said:
This is a serious question:

Are people reunited with their pets in the afterlife? Just wondering if there's anyone who thinks that might be possible. Because you know, for some people, their dog (or cat, or horse or whatever) is their best friend and truly is like family for them.
Click to expand...

No. Each pet experiences a distinctive afterlife. What point would the afterlife us humans dream about be to a different creature? You think they care about the same ****?
 
moevillini said:
This is a serious question:

Are people reunited with their pets in the afterlife? Just wondering if there's anyone who thinks that might be possible. Because you know, for some people, their dog (or cat, or horse or whatever) is their best friend and truly is like family for them.
Click to expand...

But which pets? My family dog when I was a kid, who was my best friend, or my dog now who is probably the best dog we ever had? Or the dog we had in between who was so smart and fun and got ran over when he jumped a 10 foot fence and ran into the street trying to get to the school bus my kids were on? For some people they would have a regular kennel going on. It would be madness and chaos!!
 
I My idea of heaven has animals. And BBQs.
 
Last edited:
moevillini said:
This is a serious question:

Are people reunited with their pets in the afterlife? Just wondering if there's anyone who thinks that might be possible. Because you know, for some people, their dog (or cat, or horse or whatever) is their best friend and truly is like family for them.
Click to expand...

Most LDS pet owners probably believe this. Not sure if there's any official doctrine on it.
 
colton said:
Interesting. I saw the article after some of the numbers had been removed, and wondered what had actually been removed.

Anyway, assuming the 36% is correct, that's a bit higher than the 30% number you and one or two others were throwing around (and I was disputing for lack of evidence) in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ence-Fall-2013&p=668832&viewfull=1#post668832, and a little less than the 40% that was my very rough estimate a couple of days later, here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?19964-LDS-church-membership-statistics

Seems plausible. Would be very interesting to see a country-by-country breakdown.
Click to expand...

I think our primary dispute was on growth rates, although I'm glad to see you accept the 36% number. Obviously that's not a number the church really wants to get out there.

The other part of that I found fascinating was the wide disparity between adult members and members 18 and under. I've suspected for some time that the church is struggling with youth retention and I think we can infer that this is accurate from those demographic numbers combined with low real growth rates over the last 15 years.

Full disclosure: I've spent more time in LDS churches in the last year than I did the previous ten combined due to a very large spike in the number funerals and wedding receptions I've attended. That being said, I officially resigned church membership this year over the church's treatment of Kate Kelly.
 
colton said:
Most LDS pet owners probably believe this. Not sure if there's any official doctrine on it.
Click to expand...

I think Joseph Smith talked about animals testifying against us at the judgement bar for better or worse. That would lend you to believe that they are there in the afterlife.
 
I'm not as torn by the Kate Kelly issue. She knew the rules, and when she wanted to play, but play by her own rules, they removed her.

There are so many religions out there, if she really, truly felt that she should hold leadership positions, or the priesthood, I bet she can find a religion that allows her to do that.

I have my issues with the church, but at the end of the day, they have made it very clear where they stand.

All of that being said, I've hesitated responding in this thread because they have disciplined members for what they have written on message boards/facebook/etc recently. I'm not anonymous on this site at all. I've had my name on here multiple times, and I'm okay with that. BUT, I've definitely said somethings that a more "strict" member could take offense to and try to remove my standing in the church over.

Also, that's why I've been so thankful for Colton answering my questions. It's very easy to attack.
 
green said:
I'm not as torn by the Kate Kelly issue. She knew the rules, and when she wanted to play, but play by her own rules, they removed her.

There are so many religions out there, if she really, truly felt that she should hold leadership positions, or the priesthood, I bet she can find a religion that allows her to do that.

I have my issues with the church, but at the end of the day, they have made it very clear where they stand.

All of that being said, I've hesitated responding in this thread because they have disciplined members for what they have written on message boards/facebook/etc recently. I'm not anonymous on this site at all. I've had my name on here multiple times, and I'm okay with that. BUT, I've definitely said somethings that a more "strict" member could take offense to and try to remove my standing in the church over.

Also, that's why I've been so thankful for Colton answering my questions. It's very easy to attack.
Click to expand...

This does the Church an immense diservice imo. It isolates those that do have deep fundamental questions. It makes them less likely to come forward in good faith to have questions answered. It, in many cases, leads to them falling away from the church.

The people of the Church often try to have the members act perfectly and that is never going to happen. All that does is damage the very thing they proclaim to love so much.
 
green said:
I'm not as torn by the Kate Kelly issue. She knew the rules, and when she wanted to play, but play by her own rules, they removed her.

There are so many religions out there, if she really, truly felt that she should hold leadership positions, or the priesthood, I bet she can find a religion that allows her to do that.

I have my issues with the church, but at the end of the day, they have made it very clear where they stand.

All of that being said, I've hesitated responding in this thread because they have disciplined members for what they have written on message boards/facebook/etc recently. I'm not anonymous on this site at all. I've had my name on here multiple times, and I'm okay with that. BUT, I've definitely said somethings that a more "strict" member could take offense to and try to remove my standing in the church over. It was a major contributor in me leaving the LDS church.

Also, that's why I've been so thankful for Colton answering my questions. It's very easy to attack.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to be a member of an organization where you can be punished for speaking out? As I got older and I believe wiser, I realized that I didn't need a church to tell me how to live my life nor have a spiritual experience. I understand people have many reasons why they attend church beside religious beliefs i.e. family ties, social reasons, business reasons etc., but censusing what I believe or not being able to ask questions about certain doctrines just made church a less than positive experience.
 
green said:
I'm not as torn by the Kate Kelly issue. She knew the rules, and when she wanted to play, but play by her own rules, they removed her.

There are so many religions out there, if she really, truly felt that she should hold leadership positions, or the priesthood, I bet she can find a religion that allows her to do that.

I have my issues with the church, but at the end of the day, they have made it very clear where they stand.

All of that being said, I've hesitated responding in this thread because they have disciplined members for what they have written on message boards/facebook/etc recently. I'm not anonymous on this site at all. I've had my name on here multiple times, and I'm okay with that. BUT, I've definitely said somethings that a more "strict" member could take offense to and try to remove my standing in the church over.

Also, that's why I've been so thankful for Colton answering my questions. It's very easy to attack.
Click to expand...

To me the Kate Kelly issue is pretty standard church discipline. You are asked in the temple interview if you support the church leaders and your local leaders. She pretty openly defied the church leadership at every level, and fought against their authority. Whether the rules are right or wrong they are the rules and she openly defied them, so what did she expect? And the way she went about this shows she really does not at all understand how the church functions, and that she blatantly has no respect for the process of revelation that leads the church. It makes me wonder why she wants to be a member if she doesn't believe the church is lead by revelation.
 
LogGrad98 said:
To me the Kate Kelly issue is pretty standard church discipline. You are asked in the temple interview if you support the church leaders and your local leaders. She pretty openly defied the church leadership at every level, and fought against their authority. Whether the rules are right or wrong they are the rules and she openly defied them, so what did she expect? And the way she went about this shows she really does not at all understand how the church functions, and that she blatantly has no respect for the process of revelation that leads the church. It makes me wonder why she wants to be a member if she doesn't believe the church is lead by revelation.
Click to expand...

So why not also excommunicate her husband? Has he not supported her in this and openly defied the church in a similar way? Does he get a pass because he is a man?
 
heyhey said:
So why not also excommunicate her husband? Has he not supported her in this and openly defied the church in a similar way? Does he get a pass because he is a man?
Click to expand...

Good questions. Ones you and I do not have the answer to.

But no, he doesn't get a pass as a man. Men can get ex communicated as well.
 
Stoked said:
This does the Church an immense diservice imo. It isolates those that do have deep fundamental questions. It makes them less likely to come forward in good faith to have questions answered. It, in many cases, leads to them falling away from the church.

The people of the Church often try to have the members act perfectly and that is never going to happen. All that does is damage the very thing they proclaim to love so much.
Click to expand...

This is why I've appreciated Colton. He has been open and honest with me and it helps.
 
cowhide said:
Why would you want to be a member of an organization where you can be punished for speaking out? As I got older and I believe wiser, I realized that I didn't need a church to tell me how to live my life nor have a spiritual experience. I understand people have many reasons why they attend church beside religious beliefs i.e. family ties, social reasons, business reasons etc., but censusing what I believe or not being able to ask questions about certain doctrines just made church a less than positive experience.
Click to expand...

Because, I really feel the Book of Mormon is scripture. Because I like the idea of being with my family forever. Because I like the values it teaches. If me keeping my mouth shut in church allows me to feel like I can have my family forever, I'll do it. If keeping my mouth shut helps my kids to not be little ****s, I'll do it.
 
LogGrad98 said:
To me the Kate Kelly issue is pretty standard church discipline. You are asked in the temple interview if you support the church leaders and your local leaders. She pretty openly defied the church leadership at every level, and fought against their authority. Whether the rules are right or wrong they are the rules and she openly defied them, so what did she expect? And the way she went about this shows she really does not at all understand how the church functions, and that she blatantly has no respect for the process of revelation that leads the church. It makes me wonder why she wants to be a member if she doesn't believe the church is lead by revelation.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I posted what I posted.
 
scootsy said:
IMO Brigham Young was just racist and taking the Priesthood away from blacks was actually wrong/not spiritually justified.
Click to expand...

Well most of the anti-black people inside and outside of the LDS church used the bible to justify their own racists views. However, the bible does tell people they can own slaves and do other despicable things too. The BofM backed up what BY and many members of the church believed at the times. I agree about Brigham Young and there were people who left the church because of the change, similar to polygamy. For many the allure of the LDS was polygamy and their anti-black stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top