F
FCEGM
Guest
That isn’t “lore” :tsktsk: , it is authentic Catholic Doctrine (big difference!).
Do LDS Women Have to Be Married In the Temple To Make it to the Celestial Kingdom?
- Status
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Majick275, I think it’s a difficult case to make, that the Old Testament supports polygamy and the New Testament prohibits it. It is true that Jesus taught that the Mosaic law was fulfilled in him and it is no longer observed by Christians and even the Jews only observe a part of it. There’s no more Jubilees or animal sacrifices or stonings when people violate the Sabbath. But there are limits on what this means. The Mosaic Law is scruprously recorded in the books of Moses and that much of it is done away. But I don’t think you have much support in lumping polygamy in with that. It was practised before there was a Moses or a Mosaic Law.
Greater minds than ours have argued whether or not the Bible supports polygamy. I do remember reading a learned paper between a monk and a bishop (Catholic) and they quoted a very long stream of scriptures on both the Pro and Cons of the matter. They quoted both Old and New testament at length and they both made very convincing arguments but obviously, they can’t both be right.
Since I am Mormon, I am more likely to put the Bible aside and seek to know God’s mind through prayer as well as study. Or, since there is a living prophet, I can follow him. If I was a Catholic, I would recognize the Pope’s authority to decide these matters. The best I can deduce is that it is a lesser form of marriage which is condoned but it is better the less there is of it. But that’s my opion. Yours is probably not that far off.
Now I know that it is a very volatile and emotional subject for some and it’s difficult to discuss unemotionally. But I would hope that nobody would sieze upon that aspect of the subject in an attempt to criticise the Mormon church and to rouse up negative feelings towards it! I know a person who seeks to know God’s mind on this matter would not be tempted.
Greater minds than ours have argued whether or not the Bible supports polygamy. I do remember reading a learned paper between a monk and a bishop (Catholic) and they quoted a very long stream of scriptures on both the Pro and Cons of the matter. They quoted both Old and New testament at length and they both made very convincing arguments but obviously, they can’t both be right.
Since I am Mormon, I am more likely to put the Bible aside and seek to know God’s mind through prayer as well as study. Or, since there is a living prophet, I can follow him. If I was a Catholic, I would recognize the Pope’s authority to decide these matters. The best I can deduce is that it is a lesser form of marriage which is condoned but it is better the less there is of it. But that’s my opion. Yours is probably not that far off.
Now I know that it is a very volatile and emotional subject for some and it’s difficult to discuss unemotionally. But I would hope that nobody would sieze upon that aspect of the subject in an attempt to criticise the Mormon church and to rouse up negative feelings towards it! I know a person who seeks to know God’s mind on this matter would not be tempted.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Never said it was…
Do you think Polygamy is a bad thing and that God was bad for Giving David 10 wives?
The point is is what God says is right goes. If God commanded you to sacrifice your son on an altar would he be alright with it if instead you boarded a ship headed for Tarshish? Even though he has previosuly issued you the 10 commandments?
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Yes it is Catholic doctrine… by twisting scripture making it Lore.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
O.K. I re-read section 132 in its entirety. Here is what it says regarding a woman who marries outside of the temple:15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight and glory.
Sounds to me like no temple marriage on earth means no chance for eternal marriage later on in heaven. Furthermore, this person will be an angel in heaven, serving those who did marry eternally back on earth and are now living that out in heaven.
Now on to something else. I find something very odd regarding section 132’s justification of Abraham having a concubine.
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.Now wait just a second here. God commanded Abraham to take Hagar as a wife? That’s not what’s in the bible. Sarah didn’t have faith that she could bear a child as was promissed by God, so she asked Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine. Abraham reluctantly agreed. Because Abraham and Sarah lacked faith that God would deliver them their own child as promissed, Abraham had sex with Hagar and she bore Ishmael, and that really worked out great for the human race, didn’t it? Out of this lack of faith was created one of the worst hate relationships in all of history–Arabs vs Jews, which still exists today. When did God command Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine?
T
tTt
Guest
I had read that a Mormon couple sealed in a Temple, each know a special phrase or word. After death of both, the man could wake up his wife into the Celestial kingdom with him with the special phrase IF he so desired. Can anyone elaborate??
R
rmcmullan
Guest
It’s true that there’s no record of the Lord commanding Abraham to accept Hagar as a second wife but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen that way, even if Sarah also asked him.
As for the birth of Ishmael and how his life turned out–that was Ishamel’s decision. If we hesitated to father or bear children because they might turn out wrong, where would we all be? Both marriage and child rearing takes a certain amount of faith in your partner and the future.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
I just wanted to say something about that “eternal baby-sitter” crack! I know it was just a funny thing to say but I think that it’s a possible model for understanding the after-life. God the Father is our “eternal baby-sitter” and if it were in my power to be helpful to Him, I would…
A
amgid
Guest
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.
I detect a certain tinge of racism here, as well as considerable ignorance of history. Allow me to enlighten you on both:
(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.
This prophecy has been fulfilled; and modern scripture affirms:
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.
Furthermore, Hagar was not the only additional wife that Abraham had. The Bible tells us that he had many more:
Genesis 25:
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
1 Chronicles 1:
32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
33 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah.
This not only makes the Arabs the seed of Abraham, but also many of the other tribes and nations that currently live in the Middle East region, including the Medes and the Persians, who built the great Persian Empire, which under Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon and freed Israel, thus enabling them to return to their homeland and rebuild Jerusalem and their temple, as prophesied by their prophets including Isaiah. Modern scripture also affirms:
D&C 132:
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded …
There is little reason to doubt that all of Abraham’s wives and concubines were given him by God, in fulfilment of the promises that He had made to him that He should multiply his seed as the stars of heaven. Abraham was a mighty prophet and patriarch of God, and he was in direct communion with God all his life, and whatever he did was at the commandment of the Lord. There is no doubt about that.
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
(b) You seem to need some history lessons too. Firstly, the great bulk of the nations that are currently classified as “Arabs” are not really Arabs at all in the strict sense of word. They are not of the Arab race. The reason why they are called Arabs is because they all speak Arabic, and they have an Arab/Middle-Eastern culture and religion; and they reason for that is because once upon a time the Arabs conquered all these areas, imposed their own culture, language, and religion on them, and built a great empire and civilization that lasted many centuries.
The Egyptians are not Arabs; they are Egyptians. They just speak Arabic. In the time of Christ, they spoke Greek! That is because previously they had been conquered by the Greeks, and the Greek culture and language had been imposed on them for many centuries. Alexandria, one of the greatest centers of Greco-Roman (and Christian) learning in NT times, was in Egypt, and its language was Greek. Now they all speak Arabic, so they are called Arabs!
The Syrians are not Arabs either. They are Syrians, the same ones as mentioned in the OT. They are called Arabs because they all speak Arabic. The Moroccans are not Arabs. They are ancient North African tribes who just happen now to converse in Arabic. Even the Palestinians are not true Arabs. They are probably remnants of the old Philistines and other tribes that occupied those areas in biblical times. Now they are all speak in Arabic, and are called Arabs.
The historical animosities and jealousies that exist among these nations and towards Israel date back to biblical times, and have nothing to do with the descendents of Ishmael. The true Arabs, who are mostly true descendents of Abraham’s son Ishmael, are those who occupy the Arabian Peninsula, of which the most prominent nation is that of Saudi Arabia. They too at the present times are not friendly towards Israel; but viewed in historical perspective, this amounts to nothing more than a family squabble. In biblical times, Israelite tribes often fought each other. Ephraim and Judah in particular had many wars and quarrels. That does not mean that Judah or Ephraim therefore shouldn’t have been born! In historical terms, that is just a bit of family squabble which will eventually work itself out in good time.
Secondly, the Arabs have indeed been a great blessing to mankind. For about a thousand years during the Dark Ages, when Western civilization in Europe was in decline, the Arabs conquered all the nations stretching from Spine to the borders of India, and established a great empire and civilization that rivaled the best of anything that preceded it, and researched and studied and preserved the ancient wisdom of the Greeks, thus preserving it from destruction until the European nations were ready, after the Renaissance, to regain the initiative (at the time when the Arab civilization had begun to decline), and continue the onward march of human civilization to the present day. That is (one of) the great contribution of “Ishmael” to human history. It did not lead to “the worst hate relationship in human history,” as you have alleged. You are very sadly mistaken I am afraid. Your knowledge of history is as deficient as is your understanding of Christian doctrine.
amgid
(b) You seem to need some history lessons too. Firstly, the great bulk of the nations that are currently classified as “Arabs” are not really Arabs at all in the strict sense of word. They are not of the Arab race. The reason why they are called Arabs is because they all speak Arabic, and they have an Arab/Middle-Eastern culture and religion; and they reason for that is because once upon a time the Arabs conquered all these areas, imposed their own culture, language, and religion on them, and built a great empire and civilization that lasted many centuries.
The Egyptians are not Arabs; they are Egyptians. They just speak Arabic. In the time of Christ, they spoke Greek! That is because previously they had been conquered by the Greeks, and the Greek culture and language had been imposed on them for many centuries. Alexandria, one of the greatest centers of Greco-Roman (and Christian) learning in NT times, was in Egypt, and its language was Greek. Now they all speak Arabic, so they are called Arabs!
The Syrians are not Arabs either. They are Syrians, the same ones as mentioned in the OT. They are called Arabs because they all speak Arabic. The Moroccans are not Arabs. They are ancient North African tribes who just happen now to converse in Arabic. Even the Palestinians are not true Arabs. They are probably remnants of the old Philistines and other tribes that occupied those areas in biblical times. Now they are all speak in Arabic, and are called Arabs.
The historical animosities and jealousies that exist among these nations and towards Israel date back to biblical times, and have nothing to do with the descendents of Ishmael. The true Arabs, who are mostly true descendents of Abraham’s son Ishmael, are those who occupy the Arabian Peninsula, of which the most prominent nation is that of Saudi Arabia. They too at the present times are not friendly towards Israel; but viewed in historical perspective, this amounts to nothing more than a family squabble. In biblical times, Israelite tribes often fought each other. Ephraim and Judah in particular had many wars and quarrels. That does not mean that Judah or Ephraim therefore shouldn’t have been born! In historical terms, that is just a bit of family squabble which will eventually work itself out in good time.
Secondly, the Arabs have indeed been a great blessing to mankind. For about a thousand years during the Dark Ages, when Western civilization in Europe was in decline, the Arabs conquered all the nations stretching from Spine to the borders of India, and established a great empire and civilization that rivaled the best of anything that preceded it, and researched and studied and preserved the ancient wisdom of the Greeks, thus preserving it from destruction until the European nations were ready, after the Renaissance, to regain the initiative (at the time when the Arab civilization had begun to decline), and continue the onward march of human civilization to the present day. That is (one of) the great contribution of “Ishmael” to human history. It did not lead to “the worst hate relationship in human history,” as you have alleged. You are very sadly mistaken I am afraid. Your knowledge of history is as deficient as is your understanding of Christian doctrine.
Who knows, God didn’t tell us the date. I would say sometime in the OT! But if you want to know where He said it, I can tell you. It is in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. If you don’t want to accept that as a revelation from God, you have that choice. I happen to know that it is a revelation form God, and I accept it as such. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to.
amgid
M
Mom_of_5
Guest
As much as we may try to visualize and “know” how “heaven” will be, we cannot. We are told that no one know the wonders that await us in His heavenly kingdom. I accept that and pray that God will see me worthy of spending all eternity praising and worshipping Him with all the angels and saints. I could not be any religion that tells me what heaven (or the kingdoms) will be like because Jesus already told us it will be a “surprise”. He even tells us that we shall be surprised at who is and who is NOT in heaven. To be married, giving birth to and raising spirit children, sharing my husband with another heavenly mother or two or three, just does not sound very heavenly. All we know is that Heaven is a place of complete love and praise to God. How could I be attentive to God as I am raising this huge family and what if I didn’t like my hubby’s other wives? Jealousy in heaven…not good, not peaceful. Chaos in Celestial Heaven? Of course I realize that through the process of progression, God would be my hubby, and I would be his goddess, one of them anyway, and so the notion of “God” is not the same in LDS and Catholic /Christian verbage. In order for a women to “enjoy” all this chaos, she has to be sealed to a man either here on earth or in the spirit world.
LDS speak of the afterlife as the “spirit world”. Catholic/christians relate to the afterlife as heaven—hell. (If we go to purgatory we are assured of going to heaven.) Interesting concepts, both of them. I prefer the pleasant, beautiful concept of praising God for all eternity. Besides, I have had enough “babies” and “work” here on earth to last for all eternity.
Love and peace
Mom of 5
LDS speak of the afterlife as the “spirit world”. Catholic/christians relate to the afterlife as heaven—hell. (If we go to purgatory we are assured of going to heaven.) Interesting concepts, both of them. I prefer the pleasant, beautiful concept of praising God for all eternity. Besides, I have had enough “babies” and “work” here on earth to last for all eternity.
Love and peace
Mom of 5
M
majick275
Guest
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.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Yep… the typical Christian Heaven is much different than how LDS Heaven is envisioned. Last week My wife and I layed down for a nap and some how our 3 kids eventually ended up there with us. When we all woke up becuase our one year old was laying sideways on the bed and kicking everybody I turned over and smilled at my wife and said, “Who needs heaven. Ive got it all right here right now.”
The typical Christian beleif of heaven is sitting around on clouds, playing harps, eating cream cheese bagles and having angles wait on you while you dawn your best singing voice and kiss Gods invisible feet for the rest of eternity.
I beleive Christians miss all the promises he has given us. What ever happened to the saints sitting on thrones judging Nations. Ruling over Gods creations? Judging Angels?
Rev. 2: 7
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the aSpirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev. 2: 11
11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev. 2: 17
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev. 2: 26
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev. 3: 5
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the ebook of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Rev. 3: 12
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is bnew Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
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.
Rev. 21: 7
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
1 Cor. 6: 2 -3
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
There’s much more to do in heaven than sitting around on clouds singing to God!
The typical Christian beleif of heaven is sitting around on clouds, playing harps, eating cream cheese bagles and having angles wait on you while you dawn your best singing voice and kiss Gods invisible feet for the rest of eternity.
I beleive Christians miss all the promises he has given us. What ever happened to the saints sitting on thrones judging Nations. Ruling over Gods creations? Judging Angels?
Rev. 2: 7
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the aSpirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev. 2: 11
11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev. 2: 17
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev. 2: 26
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev. 3: 5
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the ebook of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Rev. 3: 12
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is bnew Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
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.
Rev. 21: 7
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
1 Cor. 6: 2 -3
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
There’s much more to do in heaven than sitting around on clouds singing to God!
M
majick275
Guest
your flippant comments suggest a complete lack of even a cursory glance at what most christians beleive about heaven.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Mom of 5:
Am I understanding you properly? God will become your new husband and he’ll be married to all the women in heaven? Are you just speculating?
Z
Zakuska
Guest
On the contrary… it followed exactly what Mom of 5 said. She wants to sit around in heaven and sing koombi-ah for the rest of eternity.
M
Mom_of_5
Guest
No, Mom of 5 did NOT say that…I said that no one knows what will play out in our eternal life. Of course, if God and the choirs of angels think I qualify for the heavenly choir, then, I shall be honored to do so. I will accept whatever God gives me and be happy to sing His praises, if that if His wish. Right now it is important that we live the life that will get us to heaven, not worry about who we are going to be with. All any of us can do is IMAGINE and speculate what eternity might be in the company of Jesus the angels and saints.On the contrary… it followed exactly what Mom of 5 said. She wants to sit around in heaven and sing koombi-ah for the rest of eternity.
Love and peace
Mom of 5
A
arieh0310
Guest
The LDS eternity seems so pedestrian, so greedily infantile.On the contrary… it followed exactly what Mom of 5 said. She wants to sit around in heaven and sing koombi-ah for the rest of eternity.
What will be that glory, and how great the joy of being admitted to the sight of God! to be so honored as to receive the joy of eternal light and salvation in the presence of Christ the Lord, your God! to greet Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the patriarchs, apostles, prophets, and martyrs! to rejoice with the just and with the friends of God in the kingdom of heaven, in the delight of the immortality that will be given! to receive there what eye has not seen nor ear heard, what has not entered into the heart of man!–St Cyprian
The glory of heaven is simply that God had condesended to allow His creation to see Him.
M
Mom_of_5
Guest
Thank you! How beautifully you have expressed the Catholic/christian “vision” of eternal life with our Lord and Savior.
Love and peace,
Mom of 5
M
majick275
Guest
notice how this polarizes. The LDS view, prideful and looking past God to the exaltation of men. Hence a faovorite hymn “praise to the man” where "brother Joseph mingles with Gods and plans for his bretheren.
The Christian view. Humble, penitents seeking mercy only wanting to worship God. Hence the hymns that unanimously praise God.
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?
The Christian view. Humble, penitents seeking mercy only wanting to worship God. Hence the hymns that unanimously praise God.
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?
- Status