LDS and Catholic Theological Differences - The Family

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
The whole passage is talking about a woman and a husband and his brothers who were living by the Mosaic law. I think the words “with us” indicate the intent of the Sadducees who asked the question was that they were talking about Jewish Sadducees living under the Mosaic law, which included the law about raising up seed but also included allowing for divorce, and was a lower law than the Adamic law of an eternal marriage covenant.

The words “with us” definitely do not imply what you assert; as I predicted you have performed some dangerous eisegesis. There is no reason to believe (especially based on this text) that only Sadducees can be found “with” Sadducees, Pharisees and Sadducees are seen together [Mt 3:7; 16:11], and ordinary Jews can be “with” Sadducees, correct? My point is that we have to take Christ’s words at face value: there is no marriage in heaven. My question to you is, why would God deny celestial marriage to Sadducees only? You say this account only refers to the Sadducees not being able to participate in celestial marriage, but I think you’ll agree that Muslims cannot enjoy celestial marriage, and me either; why has God singled out the Sadducees, Parker? But just for kicks and giggles, I’ll throw you a bone:

Mark 12:18-25
And there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying: Master, Moses wrote unto us, that if any man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no issue. And the second took her, and died: and neither did he leave any issue. And the third in like manner. And the seven all took her in like manner; and did not leave issue. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

Notice the qualifier “with us” does not appear which would mean my analysis would hold for this passage, and since this passage is a parallel passage to Mt 22:23-30 which would imply these passages mean the same thing . . . only my interpretation makes sense of both of these passages which should have the same meaning which would imply that my interpretation is the correct one (and that’s disregarding the fact that the Catholic Church would agree with me here).

But you won’t see that. No way will you see that. It’s OK–as I’ve noted earlier, that would mean you have no desire for such an eternal marriage covenant anyway, so you will receive in heaven that which you have desired and lived for. That is just fine. It is the reward of the righteous Eunuchs.

And you won’t see what I’m saying because you have to believe that the LDS church is right. What it really comes down to is just explaining our own sides as much as possible.

Peace and warm wishes to you.

Oh the biting sarcasm!

Warm wishes to you too.

 

[ParkerD]

I understand grammer well enough, thank you. But you need to understand that your grammatical analysis of this passage is faulty, and has led you to incorrect conclusions. I understand the desperate desire for Mormons to find biblical passages that support peculiar doctrines like eternal marriage, but often LDS will completely twist a passage, as you have done here, to find meaning that just isn’t there. In this case, we have Jesus telling the Sadducees quite simply and directly that there is no marriage in heaven, and somehow you have twisted it to mean that He is implying there is marriage in heaven, just not for the Sadducees. The context doesn’t support eternal marriage, nor does the practices and beliefs of the day.

For one, my wife is Mormon, so obviously these kinds of issues impact me on a daily basis. Secondly, and more importantly–truth matters. I am trying to show you the problems associated with certain LDS doctrines. I think most Mormons don’t think about the ramifications of some of their more peculiar beliefs, especially eternal marriage and the quest for godhood. Mormons don’t think about the logical extrapolation of this belief which Joseph Smith himself preached–that God the Father has another god above Him and so on back into eternity. At best these are serious theological errors, and at worst–lies. Delving into these serious errors exposes the LDS Church for what it really is–a counterfeit of the one true faith that has never left the earth–the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Chris-WA,
The unique situation you are in means that I would think it would be important to you to understand the difference between speculation and LDS doctrine. Joseph Smith didn’t teach that God the Father has what you described “above Him.” This is simply not true. To be “omnipotent” really means to be “omnipotent”, and to be the Supreme Ruler of the universe means exactly that.

I hope that in your situation, when you find descriptions such as that you will look it up on lds.org and find out what is really taught about a subject. It seems counter-beneficial (unless one is merely trying to prove someone wrong–but to do so with wrong information only adds to the frustration in communication).

I hope the two of you can be supportive of each other, and that she will follow the counsel of many articles in LDS Ensigns that guide in how to do that in a marriage of two faiths. She need not worry (though she probably will, but the Holy Spirit can guide her away from the worry) about “marriage in heaven”, for her most important covenants on earth are her covenant to be a help-meet to you, and her covenant to love God with all her heart which will help her be guided in being a peace-maker in your home. I hope your love of God and love of her will help you be a peace-bringer also. I think it will help if you can set the “marriage in heaven” thing aside and focus on each other’s good qualities and how strengthening the good qualities can bring both toward becoming more Christ-like each day.

I don’t know what else to say. I wish you both much joy and peace in your life here and now. The spirit world will take care of itself in your kind of case. We’re talking one step at a time, not looking way out there when the here and now are so vitally important.

 

[ParkerD]

The words “with us” definitely do not imply what you assert; as I predicted you have performed some dangerous eisegesis. There is no reason to believe (especially based on this text) that only Sadducees can be found “with” Sadducees, Pharisees and Sadducees are seen together [Mt 3:7; 16:11], and ordinary Jews can be “with” Sadducees, correct? My point is that we have to take Christ’s words at face value: there is no marriage in heaven. My question to you is, why would God deny celestial marriage to Sadducees only? You say this account only refers to the Sadducees not being able to participate in celestial marriage, but I think you’ll agree that Muslims cannot enjoy celestial marriage, and me either; why has God singled out the Sadducees, Parker? But just for kicks and giggles, I’ll throw you a bone:

Mark 12:18-25
And there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying: Master, Moses wrote unto us, that if any man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no issue. And the second took her, and died: and neither did he leave any issue. And the third in like manner. And the seven all took her in like manner; and did not leave issue. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

Notice the qualifier “with us” does not appear which would mean my analysis would hold for this passage, and since this passage is a parallel passage to Mt 22:23-30 which would imply these passages mean the same thing . . . only my interpretation makes sense of both of these passages which should have the same meaning which would imply that my interpretation is the correct one (and that’s disregarding the fact that the Catholic Church would agree with me here).

Warm wishes to you too.

Zach Dunn,
Christ didn’t say “there is no marriage in heaven.” If He had wanted to say that, He would have said it, but in His language He didn’t say that. He talked about “they,” and it was answering a specific question so “they” had a specific reference point, in Matthew or in Mark.

But the more important issues are two things: (1) Celestial marriage is for those who make the Adamic covenant of eternal marriage, where God has done the joining and where there was no lesser provision such as for a “writing of divorcement” (the Mosaic law being an imperfect and temporary law for people unprepared to live the higher covenant law, as taught by Christ). Muslims don’t have such a covenant nor the authority to even pretend to do it. (2) The authority needed is the keys of “binding in heaven” which only the apostles had. If you’re married, then you weren’t married under an eternal covenant, nor does it appear you would want one if it were presented to you as an option (if I am understanding you correctly). So as I’ve noted, you have embraced the teachings that lead you to what you desire most fervently in your heart, and God will give you exactly what you desire and have been taught will be your heavenly reward.

 

[Jay53]

Hi, Jay53,
I think I’m going to need to give succinct answers, given the time and a whole bunch of other questions.

The LDS belief from the Doctrine and Covenants is that the Celestial glory has three categories, with only one involving married couples, so single people who have made holy covenants and kept them and have been sanctified (such as the Eunuchs spoken of by Christ) can be Celestial persons, but would not have eternal increase yet be in the presence of God the Father.

I did read later about that Mormon belief - that there are 3 levels in the celestial kingdom and only married people get the highest level. Again, I don’t believe that Jesus ever taught this, but in reading many of your posts I understand that you need to hold on to this belief. I hope you are not too disappointed when you find out things are not as Joseph Smith said.

That is what being a “ruler over many things” means. It is in the book of Revelation and in the parable of the talents. It is to enter into the joy of the Lord, to really experience His joy. But always of course anyone can make any other meaning they want out of any such verses.

Just as you have made your own meaning out of these verses to fit what Joseph Smith taught.

Experiencing the joy of Heaven and of the Lord does not mean “eternal increase”, etc etc. I fear that a discussion on this will simply be circular. This is an “agree to disagree” topic.

One who has lived righteously will receive according to their desires, because their desires are righteous desires. See Psalms 37:4; 1 Corinthians 14:1; Matthew 18:19 (the righteous ask, seek, and desire righteousness and it is fulfilled). What happens when a person is really filled with the Holy Spirit is that God can work with their heart such that it really is changed and sanctified and begins to desire heavenly things, totally other-centered things, and Christ can lead them along and prepare them to be a son of God, through a lot of growing and changing. ; all the verses I had noted from Revelation before relate to one another in John’s vision of the heavenly New Jerusalem and the “joint heirs” with Christ. To be a “son” means to be an “heir”, which means to receive the glory of an heir and the ruling righteous power of an heir. That power is always other-centered.

Again, for our desires to be fulfilled they need to be in line with God’s Will. Just because something may seem “righteous” does not mean that it is in line with God’s Will.

And I disagree with your statement that “The goal of the scriptures is to bring people to as high a glory and joy as they are desirous and willing to receive”. The goal of scripture is to bring us to God. Period. We are all equal in the eyes of God and He desires the same for each of us. You may desire ruling over a planet and eternal marriage and eternal increase, but if that’s not what is God’s Will, it’s not going to happen. Again, these are doctrines that Joseph Smith taught - NOT what Jesus or His apostles taught.

You have given me the impression that just as in the parable of the vineyard workers (Matthew 20), Mormons expect greater things for themselves just because they “desire” it, when in fact God is good and will give to each of us what He wants. I am also getting the impression that Mormons are similar to Muslims in their belief that the afterlife and Heaven are just an extension of life on earth - just without sin. (Except Muslims get lots of wives and Mormons (I think) only get one.)

I disagree, having experienced the Holy Spirit and His promptings. They lead to change, to a higher degree of love, and to desiring righteous qualities and attributes and to figure out what still needs to be changed in the future. Without the desire, one will not put forth the effort to seek the Spirit and do the prompted changes. Faith and desire work hand in glove.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I wrote. I agree that the Holy Spirit leads us to desire Heaven and to be with God. That has nothing to do with desiring to “rule” or have “eternal increase” etc. which again, I contend that Jesus never taught us.

Excellent point. To love God is to seek to serve Him, and to seek to serve Him is to seek to serve His children as well as to seek to glorify Him by doing whatever His will guides us to do. To love God with all one’s heart leads to sanctification by the Holy Spirit, which leads to becoming “like Christ” as John taught. The expectation is born out of love of God, and it leads to faith in Christ that empowers in righteousness and in being totally other-centered.

I agree.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
Christ didn’t say “there is no marriage in heaven.” If He had wanted to say that, He would have said it, but in His language He didn’t say that. He talked about “they,” and it was answering a specific question so “they” had a specific reference point, in Matthew or in Mark.

When Christ says humans will not marry in heaven (the “they” in the text), that kind of implies that there is no marriage in heaven . . .

But the more important issues are two things: (1) Celestial marriage is for those who make the Adamic covenant of eternal marriage, where God has done the joining and where there was no lesser provision such as for a “writing of divorcement” (the Mosaic law being an imperfect and temporary law for people unprepared to live the higher covenant law, as taught by Christ). Muslims don’t have such a covenant nor the authority to even pretend to do it.

Where is this Adamic Covenant in the Bible? Is it even in there? Anyway, you obviously agree that marriage is a covenant, and I’m sure you also know that covenants are dissolved by death (“Til death do us part”) so it’s not man that ends marriage as I believe you insinuated in an earlier post . . . it’s just the ending of a covenant.

(2) The authority needed is the keys of “binding in heaven” which only the apostles had. If you’re married, then you weren’t married under an eternal covenant, nor does it appear you would want one if it were presented to you as an option (if I am understanding you correctly).

Haha, I’m not married, I’m only eighteen . . . but I’d like to get married earlier on in my life rather than later.

So as I’ve noted, you have embraced the teachings that lead you to what you desire most fervently in your heart, and God will give you exactly what you desire and have been taught will be your heavenly reward.

What I desire most fervently in my heart is to know God’s Truth and do His will, that’s why I’m here talking to people. I believe God’s Truth resides in the Catholic Church and I want to share it with other people. Every time I come on the forums, beforehand I say a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit to show me His Truth, and every time I come on the forums, I feel all the more stronger about the Catholic faith . . .

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi, Robert in SD,
I hope this thread has not gone off on a tangent you would not have been OK with. I guess it “goes with the territory”. Peace to you also.

The LDS don’t take that symbolism as literally as Catholics do. In the Old Testament, there are many references where the “bride” whom it is hoped Israel will be “betrothed” to is the Lord, and instead Israel has gone after “false gods” and thus committed “whoredoms” (Biblical word–see, for example, Hosea 2:2) The image is teaching that one needs to keep their faithful covenant with the Lord, just like a marriage covenant, and not be drawn away after the worship of other worldly things or idols or any object of “false worship”, since where our heart needs to be is loving God "with all our heart, might, mind, and strength.

So the image of a betrothal and a marriage and of the ten virgins going out to meet the bridegroom all bring to mind a sacred image and a sacred, holy covenant (a vow) that should be taken most seriously. Yet, to think of really being “married” to Christ is never implied in the Biblical verses when taken in the context of the teaching from the Old Testament about the faithful bride. See Hosea 2:18-23 as an example.

I hope this has helped explain the difference in beliefs. Again, peace to you, and thanks for being a bringer of peace to these threads.

You’re welcome.

As for your comments, I would not dispute that the “marriage” terms in relation to the Church and Chirst are not speaking of a literal physical marital relationship. However, the scriptural use of the terms denotes the deepest of relationship that is in some non-sexual sense “consummated” at the end of a life lived in faith. So that in a very real way (symbolized as a marital relationship) Christ becomes the head of all of us in a real way, and we (all of us together) are His body, just as in a marriage the husband is the head of the wife and children, who become our body in a sense. So, to my Catholic understanding, if that is indeed the case, then it seems to me that the LDS concept of separate eternally married couples conflicts strongly, because then our focus is divided from Christ and His Body. Heaven becomes not a unified family of God, but one in which every two “exalted” persons supplants the role of Creator and, in a sense, become a new “godhead” producing spirit children. I see no scriptural warrant for it, and nothing from the early Church supporting such a plan. The only support I see for this notion of eternal progression is the restored church teaching. What part of Scripture do you see as supporting eternal families.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

You’re welcome.

As for your comments, I would not dispute that the “marriage” terms in relation to the Church and Chirst are not speaking of a literal physical marital relationship. However, the scriptural use of the terms denotes the deepest of relationship that is in some non-sexual sense “consummated” at the end of a life lived in faith. So that in a very real way (symbolized as a marital relationship) Christ becomes the head of all of us in a real way, and we (all of us together) are His body, just as in a marriage the husband is the head of the wife and children, who become our body in a sense. So, to my Catholic understanding, if that is indeed the case, then it seems to me that the LDS concept of separate eternally married couples conflicts strongly, because then our focus is divided from Christ and His Body. Heaven becomes not a unified family of God, but one in which every two “exalted” persons supplants the role of Creator and, in a sense, become a new “godhead” producing spirit children. I see no scriptural warrant for it, and nothing from the early Church supporting such a plan. The only support I see for this notion of eternal progression is the restored church teaching. What part of Scripture do you see as supporting eternal families.

Peace,
Robert

Robert in SD,
Abraham was told he would have posterity “like the stars” and “like the sands”. His daughter-in-law was told “be thou the mother of thousands of millions.” You may think that only pertains to this earth-life, but I don’t, and I don’t think Abraham did as one thinks of how he responded to the commandment to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice, yet knew that through Isaac he was to have an innumerable posterity.

The strange idea of “supplanting” shows a non-reading of the parable of the talents, wherein the faithful ones are told “enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” “Thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things.” This is not a situation being described of “supplanting”. It is a situation of “sharing” and of having grown to the fullness of stature desired by the Lord who gave the talents originally, asking that they be enlarged.

This would not have been a doctrine talked about in general congregational meetings, nor written about other than by allusion such as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 2. It was too sacred, and perhaps the apostles didn’t even understand it themselves, except John late in his mortal life. John wasn’t hesitant to use the word “ruler” and the word “throne”. But the daily walk and talk of the members of the church was to follow Christ and to become like Him in word and deed. The focus was on daily living, not on a mysterious hereafter, and certainly never on becoming somehow “married” to Christ in a way that could ever be described as “consummated.”

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD,
Abraham was told he would have posterity “like the stars” and “like the sands”. His daughter-in-law was told “be thou the mother of thousands of millions.” You may think that only pertains to this earth-life, but I don’t, and I don’t think Abraham did as one thinks of how he responded to the commandment to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice, yet knew that through Isaac he was to have an innumerable posterity.

I think that what the Lord promised to Abraham is present today where the three great religions of the world all point to Abraham as their spiritual father in the faith. I don’t think we need to read into the ancient world the novel notion of Mormonism. But I understand that you see it there, and for you this is enough. Thanks for the explanation from your point of view.

ParkerD:

The strange idea of “supplanting” shows a non-reading of the parable of the talents, wherein the faithful ones are told “enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” “Thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things.” This is not a situation being described of “supplanting”. It is a situation of “sharing” and of having grown to the fullness of stature desired by the Lord who gave the talents originally, asking that they be enlarged.

Again, I think that the scriptures speak of a deeper relationship and sharing in the divinity of Christ, but I don’t see any scriptural warrant for the notion of becoming a god, as described by the LDS doctrines… In other words, God is One and is not just the current link in a chain of deity with endless regression. At least, I think that’s what the Scriptures teach.

ParkerD:

This would not have been a doctrine talked about in general congregational meetings, nor written about other than by allusion such as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 2. It was too sacred, and perhaps the apostles didn’t even understand it themselves, except John late in his mortal life. John wasn’t hesitant to use the word “ruler” and the word “throne”. But the daily walk and talk of the members of the church was to follow Christ and to become like Him in word and deed. The focus was on daily living, not on a mysterious hereafter, and certainly never on becoming somehow “married” to Christ in a way that could ever be described as “consummated.”

I don’t think there’s a basis for saying that something was “too sacred” for the scriptures that it must be hidden away from the writings of the Church. Authentic christianity has always been opposed to the “hidden truths” of a gnostic or mystery religion that keeps secrets from all but the “initiated” few.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

When Christ says humans will not marry in heaven (the “they” in the text), that kind of implies that there is no marriage in heaven . . .
…

Zach Dunn,
Here also is a reply from you as well:

Originally Posted by ParkerD
Zach Dunn,

Here is your post 63:

. . .

I understand that, but I believe in talking until I can’t breathe anymore, catching my breath, and going through the same process over again, I don’t ever give up!

Quote:
It was you who said “humans will not marry in heaven”–not Christ.

I suppose you are technically correct, Christ said “they” but was referring to humanity.

Quote:
Christ used a verb with an understood subject, and the understood subject was either “Sadducees” (my view) or a larger subset of “unbelieving Jews” (your view), but to say that the understood subject is suddenly “all humans” is to make an extreme grammatical error because that subject was never implied in the passage, at all.

If it is “an extreme grammatical error” to insinuate that “they” is a generalization referring to all humans in heaven, then I suppose the same would go for all of Jesus’ parables such as the Prodigal Son, etc., etc., correct? I don’t think you will agree though, let’s show these texts again:

Matthew 22:28-30
At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:23-25
In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

Luke 20:33-36
In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife. And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

These passages are so obvious, you cannot wriggle out of them on false technicalities. The brothers are not necessary Sadducees, and even if they were it wouldn’t matter, it wouldn’t make sense that the only people in the whole world who couldn’t marry were the Sadducees, it simply doesn’t hold water. I think the most telling verse in all of these is Luke 20:36, Christ says that the children of God — the ones who would be in the highest heaven no doubt — are the ones who are equal to the angels and therefore will not marry; your word craft cannot help you here, because the “they” is referring to the children of God, too, and I’m assuming you believe that the children of God will be married, correct? Celestial marriage just doesn’t fit with the teaching of the Bible, if marriage is as important as LDS make it out to be (I’m not trying to belittle marriage, it is a very sacred covenant, but I don’t believe it is required to be married to get into heaven and achieve exaltation), why would St. Paul tell Christian followers to not marry at all, that is assuming that St. Paul does not want some people to be in heaven and be exalted!

Quote:
By Adamic covenant, I meant the specific covenant that Adam and Eve had when God joined them in marriage and they had the knowledge that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” That gives great perspective to the decision of Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had partaken, knowing they would thus go into a condition where they would die, but knowing also that God had joined their marriage together and thus Adam could not keep the covenant and commandment regarding his marriage by letting her die alone. As far as he knew, they were going to die, it is true–but Christ’s mission was to break the bands of that death, and still Christ used the example of Adam and Eve to exemplify marriage.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here, it would seem paul c was on the mark when he said that you are implying that Adam chose to disobey God so that Eve would not be alone . . . care to explain some more?

Quote:
God does covenant making for eternity–not for this life only, ever. So I would never agree that covenants are “dissolved by death.” Earthly contracts can be (many times they continue by contract law), but not heavenly covenants, ever.

Ok . . . have you ever heard of the New Covenant?:

Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus ushered in a New Covenant, dissolving the old . . . I have to go though, I’ll answer the rest of the post later.

---

Zach Dunn

Zach,
The Mosaic law was a “temporary covenant” because the people weren’t ready to live by the “everlasting covenant”. I agree that the New Covenant dissolved the old Mosaic law covenant, but as Christ taught when He answered about divorce and marriage, with Adam and Eve the Mosaic law covenant was not in place.

Righteous “Eunuchs” can go to the Celestial glory, where they will indeed be angels. All who are resurrected to glory are the “children of the resurrection” and thus “children of God”. So I am certain that you will attain in the resurrection that which you desire and live for. All the best to you in figuring out what your desires are during your life, and covenanting with God that He may grant you them as you seek, knock, and ask.

Peace to you.

 

[ParkerD]

Here is a recent quote by Elder Glenn Pace, an LDS Seventy who was speaking at BYU, about this subject of families and the importance of marriage:

“I believe the Father’s statement ‘It is not good that the man should be alone’ (Genesis 2:18) had a much more profound meaning than the obvious biological implications,” he said. “It also went further than providing Adam with company. Adam’s ability to obtain the purification necessary to get back into the presence of God was dependent upon his continuous association with Eve.”

In order for men and women to obtain the highest degree of celestial glory, there is need to be married, Elder Pace said.

“There is a limit to our spiritual development as long as we are single. There is a spiritual development which can only be obtained when a man and a woman join their incomplete selves into a complete couple,” he said. “Just as conception requires the physical union of male and female, perfection requires the union of the very souls of male and female.”

Although single men and women can accomplish great things on their own, they are incomplete until united intellectually, emotionally, physically and most important, spiritually, he said.

“The world we live in has gone awry with its focus on the physical part of the male and female relationship. If there is too much focus on the physical, the vital areas of intellectual, emotional and spiritual union are not being placed in an environment where they can flourish and grow.”

 

[Marie5890]

“Although single men and women can accomplish great things on their own, they are incomplete until united intellectually, emotionally, physically and most important, spiritually, he said.”

Oh Please.

“Sorry God. You arent enough. I have to be married in order to be a whole human being”

Such BS, Parker. And it flies in the very Face of God. Flies in the face of scripture.

“incomplete” = something is wrong with you if you are single God isn’t enough.

 

[ParkerD]

“Although single men and women can accomplish great things on their own, they are incomplete until united intellectually, emotionally, physically and most important, spiritually, he said.”

Oh Please.

“Sorry God. You arent enough. I have to be married in order to be a whole human being”

And it flies in the very Face of God. Flies in the face of scripture.

“incomplete” = something is wrong with you if you are single God isn’t enough.

Marie5890,
The passage was not talking about becoming a “whole human being”.

“Incomplete” does not mean “something is wrong with you.” It means “there is something you can do to become complete or in other words, perfect (eventually).”

This does not “fly in the face of scripture.” If you wish, you may cite the scriptures that you think it “flies in the face of”.

Have a peaceful day.

 

[guanophore]

Elder Glenn Pace:

Although single men and women can accomplish great things on their own, they are incomplete until united intellectually, emotionally, physically and most important, spiritually

The further modern ecclesial communities drift from the Apostolic succession, the more likely they are to be further departed from their Teachings.

This statement represents a failure to apprehend the powerful gift of celibacy,and basically asserts that Christ, as an unmarried man, was incomplete, as well as Paul the Apostle, who was celibate, and encouraged this state as “better” than the married state.

 

[Marie5890]

The further modern ecclesial communities drift from the Apostolic succession, the more likely they are to be further departed from their Teachings.

This statement represents a failure to apprehend the powerful gift of celibacy,and basically asserts that Christ, as an unmarried man, was incomplete, as well as Paul the Apostle, who was celibate, and encouraged this state as “better” than the married state.

The more I can stand back and look at Mormonism without rose colored glasses, the more I see just how corrupt of a belief system when it comes to Christian belief , esp when one considers the Bible.

Oy.

 

[guanophore]

Christ didn’t say “there is no marriage in heaven.” If He had wanted to say that, He would have said it, but in His language He didn’t say that. He talked about “they,” and it was answering a specific question so “they” had a specific reference point, in Matthew or in Mark.

It seems to me that such a conclusion requires quite a bit of twisting.

Mat 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.”

He is saying that our resurrected bodies, whatever form they may take, will be fashioned for worship, not procreation.

But the more important issues are two things: (1) Celestial marriage is for those who make the Adamic covenant of eternal marriage, where God has done the joining and where there was no lesser provision such as for a “writing of divorcement” (the Mosaic law being an imperfect and temporary law for people unprepared to live the higher covenant law, as taught by Christ). Muslims don’t have such a covenant nor the authority to even pretend to do it. (2) The authority needed is the keys of “binding in heaven” which only the apostles had. If you’re married, then you weren’t married under an eternal covenant, nor does it appear you would want one if it were presented to you as an option (if I am understanding you correctly). So as I’ve noted, you have embraced the teachings that lead you to what you desire most fervently in your heart, and God will give you exactly what you desire and have been taught will be your heavenly reward.

Parker, you have been misled about what the Apostles believed and taught. Human marriage is “until death do us part” because death dissolves human marriage. It was never intended to be “eternal”. The only eternal marriage for christians is the wedding supper of the Lamb.

1Co 7:39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The more I can stand back and look at Mormonism without rose colored glasses, the more I see just how corrupt of a belief system when it comes to Christian belief , esp when one considers the Bible.

Oy.

It is of course Jesus Christ who completes us. LDS seem to have moved their focus to worshiping each other.

Psalm 62
2 My soul rests in God alone, from whom comes my salvation. 3 God alone is my rock and salvation, my secure height; I shall never fall.

Hebrews 10
14 For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated. 15 The holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying: 16 “This is the covenant I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord: ‘I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them upon their minds,’” 17 he also says: “Their sins and their evildoing I will remember no more.” 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer offering for sin. 19 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary 20 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, 21 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,” 22 let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. 23 Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy.

“He has made perfect forever”…it is not a spouse who makes us perfect.

 

[lax16]

Here is a recent quote by Elder Glenn Pace, an LDS Seventy who was speaking at BYU, about this subject of families and the importance of marriage:

ParkerD- I agree that marriage and family are important.

But the presssure to get married young is not good. Women should not be made to feel like old maids just because they are not married by 22 (actually it’s more like 20).

Is it possible for a Mormon to say that “maybe marriage isn’t for everyone?”

 

[SteveVH]

The scriptures speak of only one marriage in heaven, that of Christ and His bride, the Church.