LDS and Catholic Theological Differences - The Family

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello all;

I would like to start a discussion that stemmed from a comment made by an LDS member, who posted in another blog that Catholic theology has no understanding of the importance of family.

I believe the implication was that the LDS Church’s theology has a very developed understanding of the importance of family. But I have a very limited understanding of the LDS position. I invite any LDS members present to share what their faith teaches regarding the theological importance of family, so that we can dialogue about where there are similarities and differences. My hope is that LDS members will see that Catholic theology does indeed have a very developed understanding of family and its role, albeit a different understanding from that of the LDS Church.

It seems to me that (despite the doctrinal differences) our two faiths share many common points when it comes to protecting the institution of marriage and the family unit. Certainly both have been actively involved in shaping the political landscape to protect the traditional family unit. So, starting from that position of mutual cooperation and support, let’s discuss.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Here’s a link to an article in New Advent about “Family” discussing the Church’s recognition of the family as holy:
From the New Advent Website - Family:

Christ not only restored the family to its original type as something holy, permanent, and monogamous, but raised the contract from which it springs to the dignity of a sacrament, and thus placed the family itself upon the plane of the supernatural. The family is holy inasmuch as it is to co-operate with God by procreating children who are destined to be the adopted children of God, and by instructing them for His kingdom.

Read the article here.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church does have a developed understanding of family within its theology, albeit a different understanding from the LDS Church. My limited understanding is that individual families play a large role in eternal progression, but I am a poor representative of that position and don’t want to misstate it. I would like to hear an LDS member present their Church’s position on the family so we could compare and contrast.

Peace,
Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here, I’ll pump it up for you.

LDS essentially believe in an eternal codependency (which is not to be confused with a healthy marriage).

Discuss.

 

[ParkerD]

Here’s a link to an article in New Advent about “Family” discussing the Church’s recognition of the family as holy:

Read the article here.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church does have a developed understanding of family within its theology, albeit a different understanding from the LDS Church. My limited understanding is that individual families play a large role in eternal progression, but I am a poor representative of that position and don’t want to misstate it. I would like to hear an LDS member present their Church’s position on the family so we could compare and contrast.

Peace,
Robert

Robert in SD,
I had seen your post about this subject, and had thought it might be an area that could present too many obstacles from having a friendly and uplifting discussion about core differences. You may have already read some of my posts discussing the eternal marriage covenant, and that such a covenant is not precluded by the teachings of the Bible, but is in fact proclaimed very directly as the intended pattern for humankind for both the “natural family” and for the “eternal family”.

If any readers are unfamiliar with the LDS position brought out succinctly in the document described as the Proclamation on the Family, then here are some excerpts and the entire document can be read by following a link from the first page of lds.org under that heading:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

One would need to read the entire “Proclamation” to understand all the issues brought out by it.

No doubt the Catholic church advocates strong families in the world, and advocates family as the basic unit of society–and rightly so. There are differences that follow even from links within the article you had cited, and those differences are profound and both implicit and explicit. The LDS has a simply stated position that flows directly from its theology and teachings about the eternal nature of the family and the essential purposes of marriage and family life. Articles on strengthening families and marriages are manifold within its primary adult magazine, the Ensign, and talks on these subjects are frequently given in the LDS general conferences that are broadcast every successive six months throughout the world during the first Saturday and Sunday of April and October.

Peace to all, and may the intents of strengthening natural families throughout the world be fulfilled through continued cooperative influences toward those ends by both religious organizations.

 

[Tmaque]

Hello all;

I would like to start a discussion that stemmed from a comment made by an LDS member, who posted in another blog that Catholic theology has no understanding of the importance of family.

Pope Benedict:
God is Trinity", he added. “He is communion of love, and the family - with all the difference that exists between the Mystery of God and His human creature - is an expression thereof which reflects the unfathomable mystery of God-Love. … The human family is, in a certain sense, the icon of the Trinity because of the love between its members and the fruitfulness of that love”.

The LDS idea of “families forever”, only works if all family members make it to the Celestial kingdom. The Catholic(and true) teaching is that everyone in heaven is and will be a family in every sense of the word.

 

[AaronPaul]

As a former Mormon, I can tell you they do place a very big emphasis on family. Now to say that Catholics don’t do the same shows a simple lack of knowledge on that persons part and no matter what you say they won’t change their mind.

I think Tmaque said it best:

The LDS idea of “families forever”, only works if all family members make it to the Celestial kingdom. The Catholic(and true) teaching is that everyone in heaven is and will be a family in every sense of the word.

AaronPaul

 

[ParkerD]

As a former Mormon, I can tell you they do place a very big emphasis on family. Now to say that Catholics don’t do the same shows a simple lack of knowledge on that persons part and no matter what you say they won’t change their mind.

I think Tmaque said it best:

AaronPaul

Indeed, everyone in heaven will be family–the family of Adam and Eve and the family of God, and they will love each other as family. This is an important teaching, and a good one to love. I’m glad for the teaching among Catholics.

The LDS belief that those in the Celestial kingdom who are exalted as husband and wife will be fully able to visit those in the Terrestrial or in the other degrees of the Celestial, adds to the breadth of the understanding about the nature of families in the hereafter. They do indeed continue, and indeed Adam and Eve had a posterity who are all family. What family togetherness there can indeed be within the resurrection.

 

[Tmaque]

Christ clearly taught there is no marriage in heaven.

Matthew 22:
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 **For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. **

Since the LDS Church teaches otherwise I refer you to this verse:

Galations 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[ParkerD]

Christ clearly taught there is no marriage in heaven.

Matthew 22:
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 **For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. **

Since the LDS Church teaches otherwise I refer you to this verse:

Galations 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Tmaque,
I agree that Christ taught that there is no marriage in heaven for unbelieving Sadducees. “The Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection)” are “they” to whom Christ was referring when in His language He used the understood subject from their question and answered their question with a sentence referencing the question’s subject. This is basic grammar. So indeed, to preach anything about a generalization about marriage in heaven for everyone on earth using Matthew 22:30 as the source text, is to preach an “other gospel” than the one Christ taught. To preach any other doctrine about marriage than the doctrine “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” is to preach an “other gospel” than the one Christ taught.

What a beautiful day it was today.

 

[Jay53]

Tmaque,
I agree that Christ taught that there is no marriage in heaven for unbelieving Sadducees. “The Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection)” are “they” to whom Christ was referring when in His language He used the understood subject from their question and answered their question with a sentence referencing the question’s subject. This is basic grammar. So indeed, to preach anything about a generalization about marriage in heaven for everyone on earth using Matthew 22:30 as the source text, is to preach an “other gospel” than the one Christ taught. To preach any other doctrine about marriage than the doctrine “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” is to preach an “other gospel” than the one Christ taught.

What a beautiful day it was today.

Then by this same reasoning, Luke 20:45-47 refers only to the scribes and we should be able to act like them and expect no punishment. Jesus clearly says “These [meaning the scribes] will receive greater condemnation”.

And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples,

“Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

And again, man is not putting anything asunder at all. I still don’t know where you get that idea. Divorce within the context of a valid sacramental marriage is man putting something asunder. The "‘til death do us part’ vow in a wedding ceremony indicates that a widow/widower is free to remarry in this world. I thought it was the same for Mormons (that when a spouse dies, the remaining spouse is free to remarry another.) God is who decides what happens in the next world and He is the one who told us there is no marriage. Mormons are the ones who think His teaching doesn’t apply to them.

 

[ParkerD]

Then by this same reasoning, Luke 20:45-47 refers only to the scribes and we should be able to act like them and expect no punishment. Jesus clearly says “These [meaning the scribes] will receive greater condemnation”.

And again, man is not putting anything asunder at all. I still don’t know where you get that idea. Divorce within the context of a valid sacramental marriage is man putting something asunder. The "‘til death do us part’ vow in a wedding ceremony indicates that a widow/widower is free to remarry in this world. I thought it was the same for Mormons (that when a spouse dies, the remaining spouse is free to remarry another.) God is who decides what happens in the next world and He is the one who told us there is no marriage. Mormons are the ones who think His teaching doesn’t apply to them.

Jay53,
Jesus did not say “there is no marriage in heaven” for everyone, but did for the Sadducees and for the “children of this world” (who follow the ways of the world and are not the “children of light”). God certainly is Who decides what happens in the next world, and He “joined together” with no clause about “'til death do you part.” He added no such clause, and just because people can remarry on earth when their spouse dies, does not mean their original marriage was not the kind that Adam and Eve had. It means God has shown that “neither the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” and that with a long life ahead of one person whose spouse has died, the “help meet” promise can still be valued as a promise among the living and the living person can remarry and be blessed in their second marriage with the many blessings a marriage brings into one’s life.

Peace to you.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
Jesus did not say “there is no marriage in heaven” for everyone, but did for the Sadducees and for the “children of this world” (who follow the ways of the world and are not the “children of light”). God certainly is Who decides what happens in the next world, and He “joined together” with no clause about “'til death do you part.” He added no such clause, and just because people can remarry on earth when their spouse dies, does not mean their original marriage was not the kind that Adam and Eve had. It means God has shown that “neither the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” and that with a long life ahead of one person whose spouse has died, the “help meet” promise can still be valued as a promise among the living and the living person can remarry and be blessed in their second marriage with the many blessings a marriage brings into one’s life.

Peace to you.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, then we should all feel free to act as the Scribes did without fear of repercussion because Jesus was only speaking to them.

I’m afraid we’ll have to just agree to disagree on this point. As I said before, you are trying to fit Joseph Smith’s revelations about marriage into the Scriptures which is why you have to twist/reinterpret Jesus’ words to fit that belief. None of the Apostles, nor early Christians taught this theory because they understood that Jesus’ words were not intended only for the Sadduccees. Jesus’ teachings and lessons are for all of us if we choose to listen.

I am happy that your marriage is such that you need to cling to this belief that it will continue as it is now into eternity. That in itself isn’t so bad - I often tease my husband that he’s “stuck with me for all eternity”. I guess it’s just all the other falsehoods that go along with the Mormon belief - procreating spirit children etc. which Jesus clearly never taught that give lie to the original belief. I suppose if Mormons simply believed that they would be eternally married and would just spend eternity with God in Heaven with their spouses that would be one thing. (Although I still believe that God is everything to and for us - we will have no need of such relationships.) It’s all the rest of it that is so blatantly false.

Peace to you as well.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Don’t forget that the Communion of Saints is family. We honestly have a big, big family. (And yes, there is no marriage in heaven–in the resurrection. There’s Jesus’ word for it.)

 

[ParkerD]

As I pointed out in my earlier post, then we should all feel free to act as the Scribes did without fear of repercussion because Jesus was only speaking to them.

I’m afraid we’ll have to just agree to disagree on this point. As I said before, you are trying to fit Joseph Smith’s revelations about marriage into the Scriptures which is why you have to twist/reinterpret Jesus’ words to fit that belief. None of the Apostles, nor early Christians taught this theory because they understood that Jesus’ words were not intended only for the Sadduccees. Jesus’ teachings and lessons are for all of us if we choose to listen.

I am happy that your marriage is such that you need to cling to this belief that it will continue as it is now into eternity. That in itself isn’t so bad - I often tease my husband that he’s “stuck with me for all eternity”. I guess it’s just all the other falsehoods that go along with the Mormon belief - procreating spirit children etc. which Jesus clearly never taught that give lie to the original belief. I suppose if Mormons simply believed that they would be eternally married and would just spend eternity with God in Heaven with their spouses that would be one thing. (Although I still believe that God is everything to and for us - we will have no need of such relationships.) It’s all the rest of it that is so blatantly false.

Peace to you as well.

Jay53,
Neither my wife nor I have the belief of “procreating” spirit children if by that you mean birthing a spirit child from the womb of the woman during the eternities to come. But the idea and purposefulness of nurturing a spirit child in his or her development, in a motherly way for her, and guiding that spirit child’s growth in knowledge with love and encouragement as a role I can have, is very logical and meaningful. Doing this as an eternally married husband and wife with unique characteristics but a joint oneness of purpose and spiritual intimacy, is a completely logical follow-up from having been a parent on this earth who was in partnership with God in bringing and nurturing children within the world God created for all of us as His spirit offspring.

I still don’t get why I keep reading the notion that the Scribes received a punishment in their resurrection that others who may be “like” them would also receive (which is true), yet that the similar notion that the Sadducees receive a “world” or a place in the resurrection that others who may be “like” them would also similarly receive (which is also true) is scoffed at. Why scoff at the Sadducees’ situation and example as described by Christ, and yet accept the Scribes’ situation and example as described by Christ?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Jay53,
Neither my wife nor I have the belief of “procreating” spirit children if by that you mean birthing a spirit child from the womb of the woman during the eternities to come. But the idea and purposefulness of nurturing a spirit child in his or her development, in a motherly way for her, and guiding that spirit child’s growth in knowledge with love and encouragement as a role I can have, is very logical and meaningful. Doing this as an eternally married husband and wife with unique characteristics but a joint oneness of purpose and spiritual intimacy, is a completely logical follow-up from having been a parent on this earth who was in partnership with God in bringing and nurturing children within the world God created for all of us as His spirit offspring.

I still don’t get why I keep reading the notion that the Scribes received a punishment in their resurrection that others who may be “like” them would also receive (which is true), yet that the similar notion that the Sadducees receive a “world” or a place in the resurrection that others who may be “like” them would also similarly receive (which is also true) is scoffed at. Why scoff at the Sadducees’ situation and example as described by Christ, and yet accept the Scribes’ situation and example as described by Christ?

Why not, that is what “literal offspring” are.

 

[ParkerD]

Why not, that is what “literal offspring” are.

Zaffiroborant,
I think I can understand the logic of your question, and it follows from an assumption about the use of the words “offspring” or “child”. But a spirit has no physical body, and also the LDS belief is that the spirit was organized to a more progressed state of being from an “intelligence” that already existed–so the idea of reproduction and growth within a womb is not a logical assumption that follows since the spirit “offspring” does not have a physical body when he or she becomes a spirit. We don’t know the process of organizing a spirit from an intelligence, and there is no point in making an assumption about it because we have no basis from which to make any assumption at all, but that one would definitely be incorrect.

Christ is the “Father” of the earth by being the Creator of the earth, and also the “Father” of our spiritual rebirth by being the Redeemer and our Advocate with Heavenly Father–so the use of a word describing parenthood can mean something spiritually that it does not mean in a mortal, temporal way, and it has to do with bringing forth growth and spiritual development.

 

[Jay53]

I still don’t get why I keep reading the notion that the Scribes received a punishment in their resurrection that others who may be “like” them would also receive (which is true), yet that the similar notion that the Sadducees receive a “world” or a place in the resurrection that others who may be “like” them would also similarly receive (which is also true) is scoffed at. Why scoff at the Sadducees’ situation and example as described by Christ, and yet accept the Scribes’ situation and example as described by Christ?

You are the one who is separating/changing the situations! You agree that the lesson about the scribes is for everyone, even though Jesus is speaking only of them, but that the lesson for the Sadduccees is only for them (the Sadduccees). As to why you do that, I already answered - because you need some way to confirm Joseph Smith’s “revelations” in your mind because otherwise he doesn’t agree with Scripture.

 

[ParkerD]

You are the one who is separating/changing the situations! You agree that the lesson about the scribes is for everyone, even though Jesus is speaking only of them, but that the lesson for the Sadduccees is only for them (the Sadduccees). As to why you do that, I already answered - because you need some way to confirm Joseph Smith’s “revelations” in your mind because otherwise he doesn’t agree with Scripture.

Good morning, Jay53,
I hope you are having a great day. I meant to say that the lesson for the Sadducees is precisely for them and for anyone like them in their attitude and beliefs, just as the lesson about the Scribes is for everyone who is like them in their attitude and beliefs. This is what I have meant all along in looking at the verses about the Sadducees and resurrection and the conditional possibility of marriage in the resurrection. The Sadducees didn’t live for it, didn’t believe in it, and they didn’t accept Christ who offers eternal life to believers who accept and live by eternal covenants, but provides resurrection to all humankind regardless of their beliefs.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
I think I can understand the logic of your question, and it follows from an assumption about the use of the words “offspring” or “child”. But a spirit has no physical body, and also the LDS belief is that the spirit was organized to a more progressed state of being from an “intelligence” that already existed–so the idea of reproduction and growth within a womb is not a logical assumption that follows since the spirit “offspring” does not have a physical body when he or she becomes a spirit. We don’t know the process of organizing a spirit from an intelligence, and there is no point in making an assumption about it because we have no basis from which to make any assumption at all, but that one would definitely be incorrect.

Christ is the “Father” of the earth by being the Creator of the earth, and also the “Father” of our spiritual rebirth by being the Redeemer and our Advocate with Heavenly Father–so the use of a word describing parenthood can mean something spiritually that it does not mean in a mortal, temporal way, and it has to do with bringing forth growth and spiritual development.

This still seems to make one a “creation” not an literal “offspring”. Though I suppose you could call it a mystery and leave it at that.

 

[Jay53]

Good morning, Jay53,
I hope you are having a great day. I meant to say that the lesson for the Sadducees is precisely for them and for anyone like them in their attitude and beliefs, just as the lesson about the Scribes is for everyone who is like them in their attitude and beliefs. This is what I have meant all along in looking at the verses about the Sadducees and resurrection and the conditional possibility of marriage in the resurrection. The Sadducees didn’t live for it, didn’t believe in it, and they didn’t accept Christ who offers eternal life to believers who accept and live by eternal covenants, but provides resurrection to all humankind regardless of their beliefs.

Then all Christians, Muslims, and any other faiths that believe in the Resurrection, (although Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God, so I’m not sure how that factors in) would experience this “eternal marriage”. This would also then make the “sealing” ordinance in Mormon temples superfluous. For your interpretation to hold, you have to add in all the other falsehoods that Jesus never taught, i.e. “sealing”, 3 different heavens, procreating spirit children, etc. You have to add in the “other” gospel which we were warned about.

Hope you have a great day!