A serene mother with her child, overshadowed by time, representing a mother's near-death experience.

Motherhood, Mortality, and the Myth of Control

A near-death experience at 39 leads a mother to challenge her perceptions of entitlement, faith, and mortality.

Sorry to be dramatic, but a few weeks ago, I had a heart attack.

Yes, seriously. I never dreamed middle-aged moms’ coronary arteries suddenly shredding themselves was a thing, but apparently, it’s a thing. One moment, I was brushing my hair; the next moment, I collapsed, I couldn’t breathe or see, and my right arm went totally limp. My four little children were still in their beds, waiting for Mommy to come get them up. The fear they would find me dead is the most terrible thing I’ve ever felt.

Technology, wealth, and peace have insulated me from the tragedy that has been perfectly ordinary throughout human history. I felt like I owned my life as long as I did a pretty good job with it; I raise my kids pretty good, I live the gospel pretty good, and I don’t get in knife fights or hang glide or do drugs.

But now, my illusion of entitlement is shattered. I’ve no right to be here. I’m not entitled to be alive. I own nothing because the ancient wisdom was always true: The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away (but didn’t go through with it this time). Blessed be the name of the Lord.

I’m besotted with gratitude that He let me stay. There’s nothing like a brush with death to make you count your blessings. But I’m also reeling with dismay that it happened (and that it has an uncomfortably high chance of an encore). I guess I’m grieving my old illusion.

I’m not entitled to be alive.

If I had died that morning, I imagine I would have arrived in the spirit world absolutely spitting fire. Struck down at age 39, with no warning, leaving four little children motherless before my baby even reached his first birthday? I had been a bit impatient with my daughter at bedtime the night before—that was to be her last memory of me? My husband, who was out of town, wouldn’t even get a chance to say goodbye? I was killed by a freak of biology that Jesus could have healed without even blinking? How could a loving God possibly allow this?

Maybe I’m the only one impertinent enough to imagine “How dare you, Sir” -ing the Almighty, but plenty of others have as good and better reasons to beat down the door at the heavenly Complaints Department. The longer I experience life as a mother, the more I can’t help crying when I read about mothers losing babies and babies losing mothers. I don’t dare read many headlines out of Israel, Yemen, or Sudan. I used to love visiting historic sites, but Alice Frary’s gravesite on Antelope Island wrecked me last summer. A friend my age who was born in a developing country told me both her and her brother’s names mean “good health.” Did it ever occur to you to name your children “good health” as a prayer they’d survive to adulthood?

We think we’re normal and boring. But a peaceful, prosperous life with my loving husband and children, growing old in good health, as a member of latter-day covenant Israel, is such an absurdly lucky stroke when considered in historical context that I might as well be a Powerball winner. There’s an entire Millennium coming just to give everyone else the chance to have the life I’m already living.

I’m grieving my old, uncomplicated outlook where I took for granted a seamless transition from a happy life to a happy eternity. Untimely death and tragic separation from my little kids, who need me so much, is too terrible to contemplate, but I have to. I thought I trusted the Lord, but I don’t really, not with them.

So I’m alive and grateful but suffering ongoing symptoms, a bit paranoid about a recurrence, and wrestling with a feeling of vexation with God (and sheepishness for being vexed with God). Happiness is not very high on my current list of feelings. It will be again, but it’s not right now.

Sorry to be dramatic, but a few weeks ago, I had a heart attack. Yes, seriously. I never dreamed middle-aged moms’ coronary arteries suddenly shredding themselves was a thing, but apparently, it’s a thing. One moment, I was brushing my hair; the next moment, I collapsed, I couldn’t breathe or see, and my right arm went totally limp. My four little children were still in their beds, waiting for Mommy to come get them up. The fear they would find me dead is the most terrible thing I’ve ever felt. Technology, wealth, and peace have insulated me from the tragedy that has been perfectly ordinary throughout human history. I felt like I owned my life as long as I did a pretty good job with it; I raise my kids pretty good, I live the gospel pretty good, and I don’t get in knife fights or hang glide or do drugs. But now, my illusion of entitlement is shattered. I’ve no right to be here. I’m not entitled to be alive. I own nothing because the ancient wisdom was always true: The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away (but didn’t go through with it this time). Blessed be the name of the Lord. I’m besotted with gratitude that He let me stay. There’s nothing like a brush with death to make you count your blessings. But I’m also reeling with dismay that it happened (and that it has an uncomfortably high chance of an encore). I guess I’m grieving my old illusion. If I had died that morning, I imagine I would have arrived in the spirit world absolutely spitting fire. Struck down at age 39, with no warning, leaving four little children motherless before my baby even reached his first birthday? I had been a bit impatient with my daughter at bedtime the night before—that was to be her last memory of me? My husband, who was out of town, wouldn’t even get a chance to say goodbye? I was killed by a freak of biology that Jesus could have healed without even blinking? How could a loving God possibly allow this? Maybe I’m the only one impertinent enough to imagine “How dare you, Sir” -ing the Almighty, but plenty of others have as good and better reasons to beat down the door at the heavenly Complaints Department. The longer I experience life as a mother, the more I can’t help crying when I read about mothers losing babies and babies losing mothers. I don’t dare read many headlines out of Israel, Yemen, or Sudan. I used to love visiting historic sites, but Alice Frary’s gravesite on Antelope Island wrecked me last summer. A friend my age who was born in a developing country told me both her and her brother’s names mean “good health.” Did it ever occur to you to name your children “good health” as a prayer they’d survive to adulthood? We think we’re normal and boring. But a peaceful, prosperous life with my loving husband and children, growing old in good health, as a member of latter-day covenant Israel, is such an absurdly lucky stroke when considered in historical context that I might as well be a Powerball winner. There’s an entire Millennium coming just to give everyone else the chance to have the life I’m already living. I’m grieving my old, uncomplicated outlook where I took for granted a seamless transition from a happy life to a happy eternity. Untimely death and tragic separation from my little kids, who need me so much, is too terrible to contemplate, but I have to. I thought I trusted the Lord, but I don’t really, not with them. So I’m alive and grateful but suffering ongoing symptoms, a bit paranoid about a recurrence, and wrestling with a feeling of vexation with God (and sheepishness for being vexed with God). Happiness is not very high on my current list of feelings. It will be again, but it’s not right now.

What does God want?

Our society doesn’t care much about what God wants except to self-servingly proclaim God wants us to be happy.

God isn’t going to rewrite His commandments to ease modern woes.

Which is true but too vague and misleading to be useful. Does God care about my happiness more than someone like me who was born a hundred years ago? She got stillbirths and deadly hemorrhage, where I got Rhogam and urgent surgery. What about the 500,000 children who die from malaria each year and their parents? What about my own children, left in grief if I had died?

It’s tempting to answer a different, much easier question—of course, God loves everyone just as much as everyone else, the unfortunate perhaps even more than the fortunate. But the actual question—how does God prioritize our happiness?—is difficult. The answer is that He does care, surely, but not necessarily in the way we’d ignorantly prefer. He weeps for us but seems more moved by our self-inflicted spiritual suffering than our hardships in life. There are plenty of miracles, but far more often, He allows events to take their course. The Savior came to earth to be one of us in order to suffer with us and succor us, not to bippidi-boppedi-boo our troubles away.

C.S. Lewis called it: “I’m not sure God wants us to be happy. I think he wants us to love and be loved. But we are like children, thinking our toys will make us happy and the whole world is our nursery. Something must drive us out of that nursery and into the lives of others, and that something is suffering.” Pain is instrumental, necessary. Hope in the Millennium and eventually the Celestial Kingdom is our comfort, not deliverance from difficulties now. God really will reunite families, give parents the chance to raise their children, allow those who didn’t have the chance in life to finally marry and have children, and wipe all tears from our eyes. But we have to wait for it.

Where wealth and technology make life Instagrammable and seemingly risk-free, we’re lulled by the flippant God wants us to be happy, or its dark corollary, any suffering proves there is no God because if there were a God He’d want us to be happy. The path from the first to the second, from flippant faith to angry atheism, is not long when pain interrupts an assumption of entitlement.

Instagram theologians, including many Christians who ought to know better, pile on even more flippant assertions: God wouldn’t want and God would never.

God wouldn’t want me to be alone.
God would never expect me to live inauthentically.
God wouldn’t want me to deny myself love.
God would never inspire His prophet to endorse a vaccine I oppose.

This is obvious nonsense to anyone who takes the scriptures seriously. We strive to follow a Savior who told us to take up our own crosses, to cut off our own hands, to observe our covenants by every sacrifice which the Lord shall command. The God who dragged our ancestors across a continent on foot and allowed horrific infant and maternal mortality rates isn’t going to re-write His commandments to ease modern woes.

We’re here to be proven, much more than to be happy.

In my current mordant, post-heart attack mood, “God would never” provokes me to mutter back, “He jolly well might.” God let my family stand on the brink of tragedy, nearly blighting my children’s lives with agony. Other families, millions of them, have plunged over the brink, still trusting in Him. “God would never” is an infantilizing theology designed to keep us in the spiritual nursery. It sets us up to abandon faith completely when things get real.

In October, President Nelson urged us to “think Celestial.”

“When someone dies prematurely, think celestial …

“Consider the Lord’s response to Joseph Smith when he pleaded for relief in Liberty Jail. The Lord taught the Prophet that his inhumane treatment would give him experience and be for his good. “If thou endure it well,” the Lord promised, “God shall exalt thee on high.” The Lord was teaching Joseph to think celestial and to envision an eternal reward rather than focus on the excruciating difficulties of the day.”

If we don’t try to see from God’s eternal perspective, the sorrows meant to purify us will instead only fester. We’re here to be proven, much more than to be happy. We’re here to learn happiness on God’s terms, not ours.

What does God want? For us to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him. To be grateful for succor in times of hardship. To enjoy our blessings without feeling entitled to them. To choose difficult obedience over unscriptural platitudes about happiness that will inevitably turn to ashes.

To trust Him, though He slay us.

About the author

Cassandra Hedelius

Cassandra Hedelius has a law degree from the University of Colorado. She is board chairman of FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response), homeschools her four children, and writes at cassandrahedelius.substack.com.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Dali-styled surreal painting of a scale balancing religious and public symbols, indicating the equilibrium aimed by public accommodation laws.

The Future of Anti-Discrimination

Does 303 Creative v. Elenis permit discrimination? The Supreme Court’s ruling navigates a complex intersection of free speech and Public Accommodation Laws, ultimately shielding expressive activities while leaving open important questions of anti-discrimination law for we the people to debate.

Under the Banner of Heaven Episode 3 Discussion and What’s True?

Summary – The episode opens with Detective Pyre leading a group of officers up the mountain to rescue Taba, who is completely fine and sitting on the ground outside one of the cabins. (The episode doesn’t explain how he got there after having a gun pointed at his face at the end of episode 2.) Pyre calls for more backup and finds a little girl wandering in the woods, lost and scared. The officers apprehend her and she tells Pyre about how things function up at the “fort” and about “Uncle Allen and Auntie Brenda” when her mother Sara arrives. Pyre questions Sara about Brenda’s experiences in the temple. The episode then depicts the beginning of an endowment session in a pretty good imitation of the garden room in the Salt Lake Temple. Brenda shares with her sisters-in-law her worries about making a covenant to “surrender” to her husband. One of the signs is shown as well as the penalty motion. Sara claims the end of the world is nigh, that her husband Sam’s job is to separate the wheat from the tares, and that Brenda was subject to the doctrine of blood atonement. A large squadron of police officers prepares to storm the Lafferty “fort,” when Pyre realizes that the situation resembles the Haun’s Mill Massacre and decides to instead approach unarmed. A wild-looking Sam and his family are taken into custody while one man escapes into the woods.  Meanwhile, Pyre’s mother with dementia is recovered after she wandered out during the twin’s birthday party. We see a flashback to Father Lafferty confronting Dan about refusing to pay taxes and beating him with his belt. The next day, Dan receives a “revelation” that he is the rightful leader of the family. In the present, Pyre and his wife take the girls to their baptismal interview with their bishop, and Pyre stays behind to discuss his mother’s health with the bishop. He also brings up how his current case ties into difficult church history topics, which the bishop encourages him to “put on a shelf.” At home later, Pyre and his wife fight about whether to postpone the girls’ baptism until after the case is closed.  At the police station, Sam Lafferty is ranting and raving. Pyre corners Allen about his criminal record due to unpaid parking tickets. He shares how his brothers pressured him into it, and as a result, he was arrested and missed Brenda’s graduation from BYU. Brenda’s anger about this led her to confront Dan about his beliefs (which involve a lot of strange reasoning about the constitution and separation of powers), and during the confrontation, Dan reveals his plan to run for sheriff and eventually pull down most government institutions from the inside. Allen ties this story to Brigham Young encouraging Joseph Smith to fight persecution, but Allen says he made a deal with Brenda that he would leave their influence if she gave up her career to start a family.  Pyre and Tab interrogate Sam Lafferty, who claims to be the Lord’s destroying angel, murdering those who are on his “holy list.” Robin Lafferty, still in custody, overhears Sam’s rants and demands to know if Brenda and her daughter are okay. Pyre shows him pictures of their deaths and Robin breaks, revealing that the Lafferty’s are likely also planning an attack on their bishop and stake president, who tried to stop their apostasy. Flashback to Brenda finding out she is pregnant and deciding to try to help the Lafferty family back onto the path of the mainstream church. Church History – This episode has a violent depiction of the Haun’s Mill Massacre, which most members will readily recognize. Less well known is the obscure early church concept of blood atonement, which the Lafferty’s appear to believe is still in force and to be enacted by them. Allen also pins violence in the early church on Brigham Young’s influence on Joseph Smith, with Emma Smith being against it. This neatly parallels the Lafferty situation, but it’s a significant simplification of the complex web of influences and responses to constant violence against the early Saints. We also get a mention of Joseph Smith running for president, which from my understanding he mostly did to draw attention to the plight of the church rather than expecting to win and reform the government. The show also alludes to the alleged assassination attempt on Governor Boggs by Porter Rockwell. Shibboleths – Sara Lafferty asks Pyre if he “follows his covenants.” This phrasing is off: LDS members would say “keep your covenants” or “honor your covenants.” (A search for the phrase “follow the covenants” on the church website yields only one result.) In the temple, Robin’s wife remarks on the importance of “keeping our agency strong,” another formulation that makes no sense. To Latter-day Saints, agency means the God-given ability to choose. This isn’t something we can strengthen, but an inherent condition of mortality. During their fight, Sister Pyre worries that delaying the baptism will shame her in front of their “congregation.” Members would never use this word, especially in private. We exclusively refer to our congregation as a “ward.” Her concern about people wondering if her daughters “failed” their interview seems off as well. Finally, let’s talk about LDS family size. Several times in this episode we get references to “at least 10” or “dozens” of kids as though this is the typical size of an LDS family. But in actuality, in 1980, only 12% of Utahns had a family of 6 people or more, and only a fraction of that 12% would have 10+ children. The wards I have lived in have maybe one family that has more than 5 kids. It’s just not that typical. I Don’t Love to See the Temple – Alright, here we are at the biggest controversy of the series: the decision to portray sacred temple ordinances. The temple scene takes place from timestamp 14:00 to 17:00. Only three minutes long, yet

The New Yorker Falls to Old Anti Tropes

Drawing your attention to this piece published yesterday in the New Yorker, “Our Obsession with Ancestry Has Some Twisted Roots.” The article has some interesting insights but ultimately tries to paint the Church of Jesus Christ’s influential role in genealogical work as somehow “twisted” as the title implies. The article has much larger targets than the Church, but it unfortunately demonstrates how casually some journalists subscribe to centuries-old tropes casting Latter-day Saints as somehow sinister.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This