Do LDS Women Have to Be Married In the Temple To Make it to the Celestial Kingdom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
majick275:
You get a “secret” name when you go through the temple. (it’s the same for everyone that day though, all the men get a biblical guy name and all the women get a biblical gal name) The husband when he’s sealed to the wife is told her secret name when he pulls her through the veil in the temple ceremony. When they arew resurected he will call her by this name and pull her into his kingdom.
I’ll just add one thing to this: The husband knows his wife’s “temple name” but the wife is not allowed to know her husband’s “temple name”. If the husband judges his wife unworthy and decides not to take her into his kingdom, there is nothing she can do about it, because she doesn’t know his celestial name.

Paul
 
40.png
majick275:
I think we see the divergence of these paths starting right there in the garden of Eden. “ye shall be as Gods” now who’s doctrine follows that guys plan?
Majick275, I don’t know what’s with you. Most of the time you seem to be an intelligent and well informed person but then you go off the cliff. What are you saying here, that the Mormon heaven is really the devil’s? That’s just crazy talk and you know it! I think you try to reason intelligently for awhile just so you can get your little digs in. Kind of like that guy who tells a million truths to get you to believe that one lie !!! Now who does that and what is his plan?
 
40.png
rmcmullan:
Majick275, I don’t know what’s with you. Most of the time you seem to be an intelligent and well informed person but then you go off the cliff. What are you saying here, that the Mormon heaven is really the devil’s?
He never mentioned the devil, do you have a complex?
 
rmcmullan,
I think we see the divergence of these paths starting right there in the garden of Eden. “ye shall be as Gods” now who’s doctrine follows that guys plan?
I had to chuckle at this too… Apparently… according to majick275 God is the Devil.

Gen. 3: 22
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Is it Not Gods doctrine for his Children to become like him.

Matt. 5: 48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Gods doctrine and command is for his children to become like him.

Who is being prideful?

Rom. 8: 17
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Apparently Pauls doctrine comes straight from the Devil… at least according to majick275.

Lets see Johns Doctrine.

1 Jn. 3: 2
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

WHOA! Johns teaching Devil doctrine too!!!
We will be like him Just Like Satan said.

:eek:

I never realized how much Devil doctrine there was in the BIble! Thanks for pointing that out to us… majick275 .

More Devil doctrine!

Ps. 82: 6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.

John 10
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are agods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Don’t you just love it when Christians break scripture!

If you’ll all leave your Bibles in the courtousy trash bins as you leave it would be greatly appreciated!
:rolleyes:

So just who is it teaching Devil doctrine? Those who stick with the Bible and say we can be like God our father, or those like majick275 who says we cant?
 
Originally Posted by arieh0310
The LDS eternity seems so pedestrian, so greedily infantile.
The glory of heaven is simply that God had condesended to allow His creation to see Him.
:confused:

Rom. 8: 17
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Mormons don’t sell they’re birth right for a pot of stew. Like the Prodigal did. We are destined to become “what our father is himself”. 😉

Rev. 2: 26
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
 
Okay, we have two competing views of what salvation is. Mom of 5 has expressed it (and please correct me if I misunderstood) as a rest from her labours. And it sounds like she has laboured as a Mom, StepMom and GrandMother. And this seems like the Catholic POV although I don’t think it’s part of the catechism. So it’s all fairly speculative.

The other point of view is the Mormon one where you don’t receive rest but you go on labouring for eternity and your labour is in the service of your God–mostly saving souls and helping them to become perfect. What salvation means is refuge from your enemies. This isn’t exactly official doctrine either but it is occasionally mentioned.

In Mom of 5’s concept, it’s more like winning the lottery so you don’t have to go to work anymore. The Mormon concept is more like, uh, moving your family and all your friends to Salt Lake City where no one will persecute you or destroy your works.
 
40.png
amgid:
I agree that that is not what is in the Bible; but just because it is not in the Bible, that does not mean that it didn’t happen. The Lord has revealed to us in modern scripture that that is what happened. If you don’t want to accept the validly of modern LDS scripture, you have that choice; but that does not invalidate our belief in it.
…Here we go again–modern “scripture” changing the meaning of ancient scripture.
I detect a certain tinge of racism here, as well as considerable ignorance of history. Allow me to enlighten you on both:
Now you say I’m a racist and ignorant. Great debate technique–boy you got me listening now.
(a) The birth of Ishmael to Abraham was a blessing to him (and the rest of mankind), and not a cursing. God made special promises to Abraham through Ishmael, as He had done concerning Isaac:
Genesis 17:
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Nobody doubts this is true. What I’m saying is that Abraham took Hagar as a concubine out of a lack of faith in God’s promiss that Sarah would become pregnant and bear Abraham a son. It was Sarah who convinced him to do it, not God. It was Sarah’s lack of faith that led her to doubt God’s promiss that ***she ***would bear a son. The point of the story was that Abraham and Sarah jumped the gun when they decided on their own way to beget offspring rather than trusting in the Lord’s promiss regarding Sarah. The result was a family in immediate conflict as soon as Isaac was born to Sarah. Isaac got the inheritance and the family name, not Ishmael. Abraham forced Hagar and Ishmael to leave. Like it or not, Ishmael is the founding father of the Arab race, and they have been in conflict with their Israeli brothers ever since.

Now, you seem to think that one reason God demonstrated his approval for Abraham taking Hagar as a concubine was the way in which He blessed Ishmael. That’s silly. Just because Abraham did something he wasn’t supposed to doesn’t mean that God wouldn’t bless all of Abraham’s seed. It wasn’t Ishmael’s fault. And once again, God always uses whatever happens for His own purposes.

Thanks for the extensive Arab history lesson by the way. You went through a lot of trouble to only prove my point. The Arabs (Saudi’s) are still in conflict with their Israeli brothers. You call it a family squabble. I call a family squabble one in which we have an argument every now and then. I would hardly call several thousand years of pure hatred a family squabble.
 
40.png
rmcmullan:
Okay, we have two competing views of what salvation is. Mom of 5 has expressed it (and please correct me if I misunderstood) as a rest from her labours. And it sounds like she has laboured as a Mom, StepMom and GrandMother. And this seems like the Catholic POV although I don’t think it’s part of the catechism. So it’s all fairly speculative.

The other point of view is the Mormon one where you don’t receive rest but you go on labouring for eternity and your labour is in the service of your God–mostly saving souls and helping them to become perfect. What salvation means is refuge from your enemies. This isn’t exactly official doctrine either but it is occasionally mentioned.

In Mom of 5’s concept, it’s more like winning the lottery so you don’t have to go to work anymore. The Mormon concept is more like, uh, moving your family and all your friends to Salt Lake City where no one will persecute you or destroy your works.
How rude! if you read my post you see that our “job” will be to praise and glorify our Lord in whatever way HE chooses. Yes I have labored, still labor and intend to die with my boots on. If God wanted me to, I’d do it all through eternity as His obedient servant. HOWEVER, it does not seem to be His intention to have me bear thousands of spirit babies and raise them. There are enough posts in this thread to explain, I don’t need to waste my time. See you in the south corner of HEAVEN. 10/23/2095 for an “I told you so” session. Don’t bother to come back and tell me that there is no “time” in the “spirit world”, we all know that. I will ask an angel to remind me of the appointed time of our meeting.

Love and peace

Mom of 5
 
40.png
Zakuska:
Mormons don’t sell they’re birth right for a pot of stew. Like the Prodigal did. We are destined to become “what our father is himself”. 😉
The prodigal son didn’t sell his birthright for a bowl of stew, Esau did.
*
Matthew 20:16
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”*

If you think that being glorified in heaven by being allowed to see God in all his majesty (like Moses did and his face glowed) is a pot of stew you are really missing out.
*
Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear.* Revelation 19:6-8

I look forward to the wedding feast of the Lamb where we, His bride, are united for eternity with God. Not usurping His glory and claiming to “to be as He is”.
 
Chris-WA,
…Here we go again–modern “scripture” changing the meaning of ancient scripture.
What do you mean… Kind of like the NT?

Matt. 5: 21
21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Matt. 5: 27
27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Matt. 5: 33
33 ¶ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Lev 11
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Acts 11: 8-9
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath acleansed, that call not thou common.

I wonder how many changes we can count that the Apostles made.

1 Cor. 14: 28
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep asilence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1 Cor. 14: 34
34 Let your awomen keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under dobedience, as also saith the law.

1 Tim. 2: 11
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Tim. 2: 12
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Heck… I wonder how many verses Modern Churchs disregaurd completely! :eek:
 
40.png
arieh0310:
The prodigal son didn’t sell his birthright for a bowl of stew, Esau did.
Luke 15: 13
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

He took his birthright/inheritance and squandered it. Ended up a servant in his fathers house. (Note: Selling it for stew is a figure of speech) Rather than siiting at the table with the rest of the guests he ended up eating the crumbs and corn husks that not even the pigs would eat. Only after that did he come home and ended up with nothing. His faithful brother inherited all his father had.
If you think that being glorified in heaven by being allowed to see God in all his majesty (like Moses did and his face glowed) is a pot of stew you are really missing out.
I don’t plan on merely “seeing him afar off”. I plan on sitting down next to him as Christ did.

Rev. 3: 21
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
I look forward to the wedding feast of the Lamb where we, His bride, are united for eternity with God. Not usurping His glory and claiming to “to be as He is”.
That fine with me if you don’t want to measure up to your define potential. Reminds me of the servant who hid his talent . He got everything taken away and ended up a servant too.
 
40.png
Zakuska:
That fine with me if you don’t want to measure up to your define potential. Reminds me of the servant who hid his talent . He got everything taken away and ended up a servant too.

You bet, I will never measure up to the infinity beautiful God. Reminds me of an Augustinian story:

He saw a little boy on the beach. He approached him to see what he was doing. The child had dug a small hole in the sand. With his little hands he was carrying water from the ocean and was dumping it in the little hole. St. Augustine asked, “What are you doing, my child?” The child replied, “I want to put all of the water of the ocean into this hole.” Once more St. Augustine asked, “But is it possible for all of the water of this great ocean to be contained in this little hole?” And the child asked him in return, “If the water of the ocean cannot be contained in this little hole, then how can the Infinite God be contained in your mind?” And the child disappeared. He was actually a little angel.

LDS theology teaches that the Father was once like we were, just one of the guys. How can one worship a god so small? You may think I am trading my “true” eternity for a pot of stew but you have traded the True God for fodder, just like the prodigal.
 
40.png
Zakuska:
Chris-WA,

What do you mean… Kind of like the NT?

Matt. 5: 21
21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Matt. 5: 27
27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Matt. 5: 33
33 ¶ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Lev 11
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Acts 11: 8-9
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath acleansed, that call not thou common.

I wonder how many changes we can count that the Apostles made.

1 Cor. 14: 28
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep asilence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1 Cor. 14: 34
34 Let your awomen keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under dobedience, as also saith the law.

1 Tim. 2: 11
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Tim. 2: 12
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Heck… I wonder how many verses Modern Churchs disregaurd completely! :eek:
Do you just quote random scriptures when you write your posts? Because none of your quotes support the point you were trying to make.

Genesis clearly records that Sarah convinced Abraham to take her slave Hagar as a concubine. Then, thousands of years later, Joseph Smith claims new revelation that it was actually God who ordered Abraham to do it. This is used as a preface in justifying the new revelation regarding polygamy–the argument being that if God ordered Abraham to do it, why wouldn’t He do the same with Joseph? Not only does God order Joseph to commence polygamy, but He also adds that if Joseph’s wife Emma doesn’t accept it, she will be destroyed. Elsewhere in section 132, “destroyed” seems to carry the connotation of “sent to hell” (or outer darkness).

So can you step into our shoes and see why one might be very suspicious of this revelation by Joseph? The preface for section 132 states that even though the revelation was recorded in 1843, Joseph knew of its doctrines and principles since 1831. So Joseph had been secretly engaging in polygamous relationships for a number of years before the revelation was recorded, Emma knew it and didn’t like it, and then Joseph records this revelation that not only makes polygamy legal, but says that God is ordering it. And then the actual revelation states that Emma better accept it or else she will be “destroyed.”
 
Mom of 5:
How rude! if you read my post you see that our “job” will be to praise and glorify our Lord in whatever way HE chooses. Yes I have labored, still labor and intend to die with my boots on. If God wanted me to, I’d do it all through eternity as His obedient servant. HOWEVER, it does not seem to be His intention to have me bear thousands of spirit babies and raise them. There are enough posts in this thread to explain, I don’t need to waste my time. See you in the south corner of HEAVEN. 10/23/2095 for an “I told you so” session. Don’t bother to come back and tell me that there is no “time” in the “spirit world”, we all know that. I will ask an angel to remind me of the appointed time of our meeting.

Love and peace

Mom of 5
Sorry Mom o’ 5, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I think what you’re saying is that no one knows what heaven is like and cannot know. And then you say what it’s not like. Also, I dunno where that crack about bearing thousands of spirit babies came from.
 
40.png
rmcmullan:
Majick275, I don’t know what’s with you. Most of the time you seem to be an intelligent and well informed person but then you go off the cliff. What are you saying here, that the Mormon heaven is really the devil’s? That’s just crazy talk and you know it! I think you try to reason intelligently for awhile just so you can get your little digs in. Kind of like that guy who tells a million truths to get you to believe that one lie !!! Now who does that and what is his plan?
You assume a belief in a “Mormon” Heaven. I do not. I beleive that Mormon teaching on exaltation is Satan’s original temptation “spun” to appear “godly”. I think that the emphasis on exalting the individual comes at the expense of WORSHIPPING God. I think some Mormons will end up in the REAL heaven and unfortunately some Catholics will not. I think the RCC provides significant advantages to those seeking God. Satan tries to counter this by tempting Catholics to not take advantage of this. The lazy Catholic will much to answer for. I think on the other hand the LDS church leads people away from the true gospel and makes it dificult for them to develpo the proper realtionship with God.

I reason to the best of my ability to preach the true gospel. “for I am not ashamed of the gospel”. I don’t seek to get “digs” in or debate points or anything like that. That is why you will not see me on fairboards or bashboards or any of those “competetive” forums. I stay here where I can learn and teach Catholic Answers about LDS. Many LDS come here for “fun”, others trolling for missionary opportunities and very rarely one comes sincerely seeking Catholic Answers. I don’t know what category you fit in and I don’t get to make the rules here but I will continue to post the truth. If I am mistaken about something I said I will be glad to look at your proof that my comments aren’t accurate but I will not recant about matters of belief alone.

I pray the lords blessing on you and your family that you might have joy all the days of your life and that you will have wisdom to thank him for it.
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
Do you just quote random scriptures when you write your posts? Because none of your quotes support the point you were trying to make.
What about the verse Don’t support my position?

You said “modern scripture” was changing ancient Scripture. I was just pointing to the fact that the NT did the same thing so your point was Idiotic at best.
Genesis clearly records that Sarah convinced Abraham to take her slave Hagar as a concubine. Then, thousands of years later, Joseph Smith claims new revelation that it was actually God who ordered Abraham to do it. This is used as a preface in justifying the new revelation regarding polygamy–the argument being that if God ordered Abraham to do it, why wouldn’t He do the same with Joseph? Not only does God order Joseph to commence polygamy, but He also adds that if Joseph’s wife Emma doesn’t accept it, she will be destroyed. Elsewhere in section 132, “destroyed” seems to carry the connotation of “sent to hell” (or outer darkness).
Lets work on your reading comprehension skills shall we?

D&C 132
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it?** Because this was the law;** and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

God commanded Abraham’s grand father Noah to Mulitply and replenish the earth and all his generations after him. Sarah was barren. So what was the LAW in Geneis. What did the LAW require if a woman was barren to do?

Sarah obeyed the Law and gave her handmaid to Abraham.

You can read about Abraham breaking the command not to kill yet it was counted as righteousness in Heb 11:17-25.

The law of the levertite was also instituted by God through Moses. If a brother died and had no children his Brother was to marry his wife (the sister in law) and do the deed. I thought everyone had heard how angry God got at Onan for not performing his duty, in a Polygomous union. (Gen. 38: 9)
So can you step into our shoes and see why one might be very suspicious of this revelation by Joseph? The preface for section 132 states that even though the revelation was recorded in 1843, Joseph knew of its doctrines and principles since 1831. So Joseph had been secretly engaging in polygamous relationships for a number of years before the revelation was recorded, Emma knew it and didn’t like it, and then Joseph records this revelation that not only makes polygamy legal, but says that God is ordering it. And then the actual revelation states that Emma better accept it or else she will be “destroyed.”
I’ve been in your shoes before. Ive come to understand the principle that what God says goes. Even if that command goes against something that he commanded not to do earlier.
 
40.png
majick275:
You assume a belief in a “Mormon” Heaven. I do not. I beleive that Mormon teaching on exaltation is Satan’s original temptation “spun” to appear “godly”. I think that the emphasis on exalting the individual comes at the expense of WORSHIPPING God. I think some Mormons will end up in the REAL heaven and unfortunately some Catholics will not. I think the RCC provides significant advantages to those seeking God. Satan tries to counter this by tempting Catholics to not take advantage of this. The lazy Catholic will much to answer for. I think on the other hand the LDS church leads people away from the true gospel and makes it dificult for them to develpo the proper realtionship with God.

I reason to the best of my ability to preach the true gospel. “for I am not ashamed of the gospel”. I don’t seek to get “digs” in or debate points or anything like that. That is why you will not see me on fairboards or bashboards or any of those “competetive” forums. I stay here where I can learn and teach Catholic Answers about LDS. Many LDS come here for “fun”, others trolling for missionary opportunities and very rarely one comes sincerely seeking Catholic Answers. I don’t know what category you fit in and I don’t get to make the rules here but I will continue to post the truth. If I am mistaken about something I said I will be glad to look at your proof that my comments aren’t accurate but I will not recant about matters of belief alone.
QUOTE]

I hope you know I wasn’t serious about you being the devil, I was just playing on your rhetorical device. You do seem to present a radical and sensationalized version of Mormonism that most LDS members wouldn’t be very familiar with though. Enough said on that.

Why did I come here? Good question, I almost forgot myself. I discovered this board when someone linked to a little essay I wrote on Faith Hope and Charity. I saw this board on the referrer list. I took a look around and was very impressed. And then when I saw the LDS forum, I thought I’d check it out. I was raised Catholic but converted to Mormon at the age of 24. I was wondering how much I still had in common with my old teachers. But I guess you’re right, I really don’t belong here. Mom of 5 already tells me I’m going to Mormon hell.

I still am most impressed with the knowledge and courteousness of everyone here. It’s really hard to have a civil conversation about religion at times. Gentlemen, I bid you adieu!
 
40.png
rmcmullan:
Why did I come here? Good question, I almost forgot myself. I discovered this board when someone linked to a little essay I wrote on Faith Hope and Charity. I saw this board on the referrer list. I took a look around and was very impressed. And then when I saw the LDS forum, I thought I’d check it out. I was raised Catholic but converted to Mormon at the age of 24. I was wondering how much I still had in common with my old teachers. But I guess you’re right, I really don’t belong here.
You very much “belong here,” especially as an ex-Catholic. If you genuinely have an opinion to express on the topics being discussed, you stay here and say it, and don’t let it trouble you what other people say. Most of the people whom you are complaining of are just apostates from LDS Church, and they are acting true to their character. They are not ordinary run of the mill Catholics. These do not manifest the same kind of spirit that the apostates do. There are enough honest and decent Catholics around here who from time to time ask honest and sincere questions for you to engage in a serious and responsible conversation. If somebody becomes mean spirited, malicious, or hateful, the answer is to simply ignore them, and only respond to posts that are not like that. It does not mean that you have lost the argument if you don’t respond to a malicious or hateful post. You should learn a lesson from Samuel the Lamanite. He didn’t stop delivering his message just because they shot arrows at him, and slung stones at him. He stood his ground and delivered his message, and the Lord protected him until he finished delivering it. You should do the same.

As for the apostates, don’t let them worry you one little bit. If they want to come here and corrupt themselves, and display their true colors, and foam out their own shame, and bring disgrace on themselves and on the Catholic Church, let them. Who cares? I am not bothered by it, and neither should you be. As Peter said, “The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire” (2 Peter 2:22).
Mom of 5 already tells me I’m going to Mormon hell.
I have been here for nearly three months, and I have posted more than 300 posts. But so far I don’t recall having posted anything in response to “Mom of 5”. She has never said anything that felt I needed to respond to. If you don’t like how someone engages in a discussion, just don’t respond to them. That is easy enough.
I still am most impressed with the knowledge and courteousness of everyone here. It’s really hard to have a civil conversation about religion at times. Gentlemen, I bid you adieu!
You stay right here and say what you want to say, and don’t let any of that bother you.

amgid
 
In asking why LDS are here it should not be seen as implying that they (or anyone else) is unwelcome here. It is to determine their purpose thus enabling more focused dialogue and also establishing credibility.

Someone (LDS) coming here to ask why their Catholic aunt prays the rosary is easy to assist. someone (Catholic) asking why they cannot attend their LDS nephews wedding is also easy.

Comparing beliefs is a little trickier as there are established “start points” at Catholic Answers. Here is where purpose is very important. If an ex LDS wanted to go and “bash” LDS there are plenty of bashboards out on the internet where folks seem to enjoy spewing rhetoric at each other that would be more appropriate. If a current LDS wants to do “missionary” work then they would do well to go to LDS sites where those seeking LDS answers are likely to go. This is Catholic Answers where one should expect a Catholic perspective to be conveyed. Coming here to mock Catholic beliefs and practices like Zakuska and coming here to attack Catholicism because it’s “fun” as amgid does serves no useful purpose.

Labeling people as apostates is nothing more than a blanket ad hominem designed to wave off the verified facts presented here by knowledgeable people that prove the Catholic position on the Mormon church to be correct.

Now, getting back to the OP, I think we have established that LDS doctrine is that single people can make it to the celestial kingdom but will be servants there. However, people who otherwise qualify for maximum exaltation but were unalbe to marry a worthy person in the Temple through no fault of their own will be given the chance to marry during the millenium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top