Elizabeth Smart's father announces he is gay

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I only posted this to show that I had enough interest in a CAF member’s comment to research the meaning of Sacrament of Matrimony. I learned it is "marriage… between two baptized persons."
 
Last edited:
The CCC, like all publications, has authors and was written with an audience in mind. A lot of the times it implicitly addresses specific heresies or errors.

All of the “unity and indissolubility of marriage” language is about not getting divorced…because that action against marriage is of concern to our shepherds.

There is no teaching about Mormon eternal marriage in the CCC because it is not a Catholic concern. Marriage is in the image of the unity and indissolubility of our life in heaven, where our unity with God has been achieved. So a widow or widower is free to remarry because their spouse is united with God, in heaven. (We hope.)

So when we all are in heaven, we participate in the wedding banquet together. We are in unity with God, each one, and through God, in communion with each other. Marriage thus is not ended, it is fulfilled.

So no need for the CCC to cover eternal marriage, as Mormons believe. What we believe, is that we are the Church and our eternal marriage, is with our bridegroom, Jesus.

Revelations 19
Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,

“Hallelujah!
For the Lord our God
the Almighty reigns.
7 Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8 it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
 
Last edited:
I just meant to say, I was not quoting out of context and I did not think that quote would be offensive to anyone.
 
I know that and never said otherwise. My interest was the definition of Sacrament of Matrimony. That was something I did not know. The qoute I posted said it was “marriage… between two baptized persons”.
 
Last edited:
I am only trying to show what I believe is biblical evidence for eternal marriage.
But is your conclusion rational.
Actually, no, it is irrational. Had it been rational, you would have been able to explain how it all works in Mormon heaven. But instead both Mormon answers were basically:
Not really. We are taught to make the best choices we can, but Jesus will be the final Judge.
God is rational. Christian marriage is rational. Mormon ‘eternal marriage’ is irrational.
 
Actually, no, it is irrational. Had it been rational, you would have been able to explain how it all works in Mormon heaven.
My biblical evidence for eternal marriage is rational.

If the bible says that Adam and Eve were married by God before the fall and Jesus Christ completely overcame the fall of Adam, eternal marriage is biblical.
 
40.png
Stephen168:
Actually, no, it is irrational. Had it been rational, you would have been able to explain how it all works in Mormon heaven.
My biblical evidence for eternal marriage is rational.

If the bible says that Adam and Eve were married by God before the fall and Jesus Christ completely overcame the fall of Adam, eternal marriage is biblical.
Rational means logical. Non sequiturs, like yours here, are logical fallacies. Therefore an irrational argument. Especially when considering Jesus’ teaching (from scripture).

Mark 12:25 When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.
 
My biblical evidence for eternal marriage is rational.

If the bible says that Adam and Eve were married by God before the fall and Jesus Christ completely overcame the fall of Adam, eternal marriage is biblical.
I’m sorry, but if eternal marriage was rational and biblical there would be a clear description of how it all worked out once in heaven.

I love my family and I hope to see them in heaven, however, when I get to heaven I will get to see Jesus Christ face to face. I will be able to ask God questions. I will be able to partake of a joy that is not known here on earth. That will be so much better than any marriage here on earth.
 
Yes, our destiny, our goal, is God. Not each other.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
 
True

Besides there is only marriage in heaven, the marriage between the Lamb and his Church.
 
So are you saying that my argument for eternal marriage is not rational because God did not marry Adam and Eve before the fall?

Or is it not rational because Jesus Christ did completely over come the fall of Adam?
 
So are you saying that my argument for eternal marriage is not rational because God did not marry Adam and Eve before the fall?
I am saying it is irrelevant. That Adam & Eve were married at all has no bearing on eternal marriage, only marriage on earth.
Or is it not rational because Jesus Christ did completely over come the fall of Adam?
Again it is irrelevant. If marriage had meant to be eternal there would have been clear teaching of it and all Christians would practice it. No Christians believe in eternal marriage, and never had. It is a peculiar belief of the LDS only.
 
Some participants here complain of the Latter-day Saint belief in multiple heavens (in spite of Paul referring the “third” heaven"). Latter-day Saint blogger Robert Boylan shared the following here referring Biblical references to multiple heavens:

New Testament scholar, Frank J. Matera, wrote:

The mention of the “third heaven” indicates that Paul like many of his contemporaries, thought of heaven as comprising multiple levels. But how many? Expressions such as “heaven and the heaven of heavens” (Deut 10:14) and “heaven and the highest heaven” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chr 2:6; 6:18) imply that there are at least two levels of heaven, a notion also found in 1 En. 71:5. Certain intertestamental writings, however, reckon with even more levels. The Testament of Levi (chap. 3), for example, refers to three heavens: the first contains the spirits that will carry out God’s judgement; the second holds the armies of God that are prepared for the day of judgment; and in the third the great glory of God dwells in the Holy of Holies. In Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (7-11), however, Isaiah journeys through seven heavens, and when he arrives at the seventh, he sees a wonderful light, innumerable angels, and all the righteous. Finally, the J Recension of 2 Enoch speaks of ten heavens, identifying the tenth as the place where Enoch views the face of the Lord that is not to be talked about since it was so marvelous (chap. 22). Since Paul is intent upon showing the surpassing character of his own ecstatic experience, and since he appears to identify the third heaven with paradise, he likely thinks of the third heaven as the highest heaven, the place where God dwells. Unlike the writers of the intertestamental books, however, he steadfastly refuses to describe the different levels of heaven or his journeys through them. (Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians [New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002], 280)
 
It’s true that during that period there were multiple theories of multiple layers of heaven but they also thought these various layers began just below the moon and each were located above that layer…the sun, then the stars then the outer reaches…depending on their view. As knowledge became more accessible, heaven just became above the atmosphere or beyond the stars, then eventually in a different plane of existence. It’s kind of silly, in my view, to try to hold to multiple layers of heaven when we understand heaven as completely different than they did.
 
It’s kind of silly, in my view, to try to hold to multiple layers of heaven when we understand heaven as completely different than they did.
Who are the “they” you are referring to? Are you suggesting that we understand Heaven better that an Apostle of Jesus Christ?
 
Maybe don’t take the symbolism of heaven so literally. St. Paul was a mystic and describing mystical experiences is often done via realism, or conversely, poetic means. The experience he describes was being taken up into the presence of God. “Third Heaven” is a descriptor that people of his time and background would understand as that.

Numerical symbolism in the OT is something I recommend you read up on. 3, 7, 10 are symbolic.

Catholic teaching is that there is one heaven, and the various descriptions of levels teaches us that one heaven will be experienced differently. The same for heaven having many mansions, is Jesus teaching that there is a glorious place for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Who are the “they” you are referring to? Are you suggesting that we understand Heaven better that an Apostle of Jesus Christ?
We understand where heaven is located better than they do…just as we understand diseases better, heliocentrism and astronomy and much else. “They” are those that lived at the time of Paul and the Gospels. The apostles knew more about heaven and how to get there. But, they didn’t know more about its location.

Various places in the Bible speak of a three layered heaven and a seven layered heaven and a single heaven…which is it? Or, do we just understand the location of heaven better?
 
Catholic teaching is that there is one heaven, and the various descriptions of levels teaches us that one heaven will be experienced differently. The same for heaven having many mansions, is Jesus teaching that there is a glorious place for everyone.
Is this Catholic teaching a dogma, or a non-infallible teaching? Just curious…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top