LDS and Catholic view of Heaven

[jane_doe]

Jane, if the highest level of the celestial kingdom requires marriage and exaltation should be the aim of all LDS, doesnt that make your eternal life in the fullest sense dependent on your spouse?

No, we actually talked about this earlier. If a person’s spouse chooses not to walk with God, then that person may choose to walk with a different spouse.

 

[JMM1957]

Actually two things of matter can occupy the same spot (remember what we consider “matter” is >99% empty space). For example, light is matter (and energy). Every time you shine a light through your hand, that light is occupying the same space as your hand.

Light is not matter. Photons do not have mass.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

No, we actually talked about this earlier. If a person’s spouse chooses not to walk with God, then that person may choose to walk with a different spouse.

But its still dependent on another human being? So its not deoendent on a specific person as, as you say they can choose to walk with a different person but a “person” is still required.

 

[jane_doe]

I have a question for you just out of curiosity. On the one hand we know that many Mormon sources speak of God the Father having once been a mortal man on some ancient world who achieved exaltation and became the God of this universe.

“Many” = two primary sources. Both non-scriptural and not declared official doctrine. These two sources are speculations, and a Mormon may choose to believe/disbelieve/not-care/not-know about them and be 100% in good standing. These speculations are extremely seldom even talked about in LDS church.

Yet on the other hand, Mormons maintain, as you have pointed out, that God is infinite and eternal. I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is it thought by some that once achieving exaltation, even if one had previously been a finite, mortal man, one enters into eternity so that one always existed? Once one becomes infinite, there is no beginning or end, even if, in some other universe and some other time, now forgotten, one was not infinite. Does that make sense?

(As practically nothing is known about the Father’s history, I will answer this in regards to our potential)

The miraculous ways one grows through the marvelous gift of God are indeed mind boggling. I’m afraid I cannot explain how God works His miracles, for I do not understand it myself.
(It might also be revenant to note that in LDS theology, a person’s existence does not be begin at birth or conception, but a person’s spirit has always existed before then. Every person will also continue to exist forever).

 

[jane_doe]

But its still dependent on another human being? So its not deoendent on a specific person as, as you say they can choose to walk with a different person but a “person” is still required.

I’m unsure of your question. A man is not without the women, and vise versa. This is not a “dependency” but a joy.

 

[jane_doe]

Light is not matter. Photons do not have mass.

Actually light is transmitted electrons. Each electron has a mass of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms. Protons are substantially heavier (1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms).

 

[Stephen168]

I’m unsure of your question. A man is not without the women, and vise versa. This is not a “dependency” but a joy.

You are dependent on another person as a requirement to spend eternity with God. Whether the dependency is joyful or not is irrelevant.

 

[JMM1957]

Actually two things of matter can occupy the same spot (remember what we consider “matter” is >99% empty space). **For example, light is matter (and energy). ** Every time you shine a light through your hand, that light is occupying the same space as your hand.

Light is light, and does not contain matter. I think you need to come up with a better example of what you are trying to show than light shining through a hand. Every scientific source that I just looked at, says that light does not have matter. Energy does, but not light itself.

 

[twf]

Light is light, and does not contain matter. I think you need to come up with a better example of what you are trying to show than light shining through a hand. Every scientific source that I just looked at, says that light does not have matter. Energy does, but not light itself.

Light may not be matter but it’s still energy. Energy and matter are both comprised of quarks of various sorts. Light is specifically comprised of photons.

 

[Stephen168]

In LDS theology “spirit” is refined matter.
D&C 130:7, 8: There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
I do not believe there exist any beings on Earth, in Heaven, or in Hell, or anywhere else that are not composed of some sort of matter, whether that matter be refined, attenuated, or something else. So to your challenge of how anything but an immaterial being can be with all the faithful in Heaven always, I just turn it around and ask how can an immaterial being be anywhere ever?

I can always count on you to stand up for Mormon beliefs and not deny them.
The God of Christianity is not created but the creator. He is transcendent to creation. He is pure spirit. This is not the God of Mormonism which seems to be a very limited being; not God at all.

 

[jane_doe]

Light is light, and does not contain matter.

Light has particles (as well as wave properties). I recommend Einstein’s work on the subject, particularly in regards to relativity.

 

[Horton]

I’m unsure of your question. A man is not without the women, and vise versa. This is not a “dependency” but a joy.

The question is quite simple. In LDS belief, does one NEED a spouse (of any sort) to get to the highest level of Celestial Kingdom? It is a yes or no question.

In other words man requires at least one wife, whether in earthly life or 1000 year time period, in order to obtain the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

 

[Stephen168]

The question is quite simple. In LDS belief, does one NEED a spouse (of any sort) to get to the highest level of Celestial Kingdom? It is a yes or no question.

According to LDS.org, the answer is Yes.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Looking through a pagan lens will only distort your view of LDS theology. Same with Catholic lens, Muslim lens, Baptist lens, Hindu lens, etc. The only effective way to understand a group’s theology is through that group’s view.

Lens are impossible to avoid and we all have our influences. Comparing a Baptist lens or Catholic lens to a Muslim lens is silly since they are two totally different ideas. You might dismiss God’s being beyond being as Greek in origin but that doesn’t disprove the idea. God to me is the ultimate existence to which all other created entities, matter, the universe, us and etc owe their existence, morality and rationality from. As for putting on LDS lens to see God, I have been doing exactly that throughout this entire thread. I have been assuming an LDS worldview and I conclude that the worldview makes God lesser than he actually is and worse limits him severely.

LDS theology: your epistemology is faulty here, Man may speculate on Truth but those are always flawed speculations incredibly inferior to Truth. Truth is given by God, when and how He chooses. Man and his flawed speculations does not determine doctrine, God does.

You might call what I’m saying speculation but that doesn’t disprove it or show that I have in some way been contradicting LDS belief. For instance it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is possible for the LDS God to have multiple wives. Why would I say this? God approved of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy and Polyandry even if he won’t let modern Mormons do the practice. It is therefore possible that Heavenly Father like Joseph Smith has been united to multiple wives and they will serve in the purpose of propagating spiritual children. This comes to bear on the LDS view, that if a man or woman is sealed to multiple partners in this life they will have multiple partners in the text. We can perhaps also conclude that since Heavenly Father is married and marriage on earth is what is required to give birth to Children that your God requires his wife(s) in order to propagate spiritual descendent.

This is “Speculation” but it is not unwarranted from basic Mormon beliefs. Simply dismissing it out of hand doesn’t do away with the logical conclusion. Appeals to “Mystery” do not refute what I have said as a distinct possibility. The real problem here is that you find these conclusions troubling enough to dismiss them. Why is what I have said concerning the LDS God fundamentally bad for the LDS religion? Perhaps you see the LDS as absurdly as I do if we actually think about the basic beliefs.

Again, having a body of flesh does not limited or confine God. Prime example: Christ.

Well Christ’s physical body is limited. I explained this before and simply denying it doesn’t constitute a proper response. Christ in his body is limited spatially, he is not here on earth is he? He is in heaven. The size and shape of the body is also seemingly limited to what it is at the time. This doesn’t impact my trinitarianism since Christ also has a divine nature which transcends his body he took. It does however impact Mormonism int hat there are some questions that need to be asked. Is God susceptible to the biology of his own body? Gazelam has said that there is nothing but material matter, alright and we know our thoughts and impulses are the result of the brain and the chemical reactions in it. Since the Spiritual doesn’t exist and there is a material cause for all our actions it seems that God is trapped by his own earthly biology, whatever that biology looks like. He is not a free agent but is rather an entity susceptible to whatever his biology tells him to do.

Another way in which your God is limited seems to be in how he is able to create. It seems very much implied that since your heavenly Father requires some wife(s) to be the God he is at the moment (like you require a spouse to be in the Celestial Kingdom) that would suggest that he requires intercourse with his wife(s) in order to bear Spiritual descendants. This is not an unreasonable speculation and logically follows from the basic beliefs of Mormons.

Compare this to a transcendent God who is beyond the material universe, who is not dependant on a physical brain to determine what is what and who is who. This God is not limited in any meaningful sense since he is utterly free to act according to his own perfect nature. He is able to create at will from nothing and his own power the universe and humanity. The LDS God is limited in that he requires (seemingly) multiple conditions to be met before he can do this. He requires pre-existent matter, a wife and or wives and ascension to divinity in order to make use of the eternal intelligence to create life.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In LDS theology “spirit” is refined matter.

D&C 130:7, 8: There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

This is similar to Tertullian’s view of of what makes up “spirit” per Leo Donald Davis.

Leo Donald Davis states “Though a step forward in Trinitarian thought, it is clear that Tertullian’s view is still somewhat immersed in the sensible. Spirit is for him really only attenuated matter, and imagination so pervaded his thinking that he could explain the unity of the divine substance in terms of an organic continuity and of accord within the human monarchy. His view as father and Son as of one quasi-material substance is different from the consubstantiality (homoousian) that will form the basis of Nicaea’s pronouncements.” (Leo Donald Davis, SJ, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Liturgical Press, pg 45)

I do not believe there exist any beings on Earth, in Heaven, or in Hell, or anywhere else that are not composed of some sort of matter, whether that matter be refined, attenuated, or something else. So to your challenge of how anything but an immaterial being can be with all the faithful in Heaven always, I just turn it around and ask how can an immaterial being be anywhere ever?

If we go about asking the “how” of each other we will find ourselves both unable to answer. How is it we have not been able to capture the soul as of yet? Since the soul is physical is it’s movement dependant on it’s own will or is it automatically carried across Space to Heavenly Father? How does it get there? Does it get there through faster than light speed travel?

As to how God the transcendent is omnipresent I cannot explain that function of how the divine works yet I am convinced of as the most reasonable interpretation of several important scriptures and the Christian tradition as a whole. This doesn’t invalidate the concept or idea. The Atheist can ask how God raised Jesus from the dead, what was the process, what did he do? The Atheist can ask how Mary conceived without sex, the answer is we don’t know.

 

[in_servitude]

Actually light is transmitted electrons. Each electron has a mass of 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms. Protons are substantially heavier (1.6726219 × 10-27 kilograms).

I risk thread derailment. But, a correction is needed:

When people talk about “light”, they are usually referring to photons that are oscillating in the visible light frequency range.

Electrons and protons are nothing like photons. They are matter, and carry negative and positive charge, respectively.

I don’t know what a “transmitted electron” is. Maybe you are saying that photons are created or destroyed when the electrons change their orbital state. That would be accurate.

I had to jump on this before I work on my response to your most recent post on my comments.

 

[jane_doe]

Lens are impossible to avoid and we all have our influences. Comparing a Baptist lens or Catholic lens to a Muslim lens is silly since they are two totally different ideas.

That silliness is exactly my point: a person is silly for trying to apply a Muslim concept to Catholic faith (just to name two example faiths). A Muslim is naturally inclined to due that exact silliness, because that’s their worldview. But in order to understand the Catholic faith, a Muslim must learn to look through a Catholic lens. Such takes time and communication, but is extremely important.

You might dismiss God’s being beyond being as Greek in origin but that doesn’t disprove the idea. God to me is the ultimate existence to which all other created entities, matter, the universe, us and etc owe their existence, morality and rationality from.

I am not trying to prove to you that anything is the ultimate Truth. I respect your right to believe as you believe. I’m just trying to set the record straight on what LDS believe.

As for putting on LDS lens to see God, I have been doing exactly that throughout this entire thread.

That may have been your intention, but it has not been your result. For example, every time you talk about “transcendence” you are completely forfeiting understanding the LDS view. I’ll you some more example is second–

You might call what I’m saying speculation but that doesn’t disprove it or show that I have in some way been contradicting LDS belief.

This is “Speculation” but it is not unwarranted from basic Mormon beliefs.

This is not an LDS lens. Many things you have been saying here are simply not LDS beliefs. If a person wishes to understand actual LDS beliefs, a person needs to quit speculating and go study the actual beliefs. A person cannot “expand” doctrine via speculating, as you are trying to do.

Simply dismissing it out of hand doesn’t do away with the logical conclusion. Appeals to “Mystery” do not refute what I have said as a distinct possibility.

Just because something a possibility does not make it true, let alone True. Do you understand that distinction?

The real problem here is that you find these conclusions troubling enough to dismiss them.

I dismiss any human attempts to declare their speculations to be Truth. Truth comes from God, not human flawed speculations.

Why is what I have said concerning the LDS God fundamentally bad for the LDS religion?

You’re not God. You’re trying to “inform” Truth and say “LDS believe this”. Reality is not so.

Well Christ’s physical body is limited.

In your theology, is Christ, the Son of God, limited? Yes or no.

This doesn’t impact my trinitarianism since Christ also has a divine nature which transcends his body he took. It does however impact Mormonism int hat there are some questions that need to be asked.

Are you using a duel standard here?

Since the Spiritual doesn’t exist

Spiritual does exist. It is very refined matter. Gazalem explained this earlier.

Compare this to a transcendent God who is beyond the material universe, who is not dependant on a physical brain to determine what is what and who is who. This God is not limited in any meaningful sense since he is utterly free to act according to his own perfect nature. The LDS God, being merely a superman is not.

You are being silly again: trying to interject Catholic and pagan lens into LDS beliefs. Silly, silly.

 

[Stephen168]

…, every time you talk about “transcendence” you are completely forfeiting understanding the LDS view.

Every time you reject the idea of transcendence you are completely forfeiting any understanding of the Christian view of God.
For example:

** Compare this to a transcendent God who is beyond the material universe, who is not dependent on a physical brain to determine what is what and who is who. This God is not limited in any meaningful sense since he is utterly free to act according to his own perfect nature. He is able to create at will from nothing and his own power the universe and humanity.**

The LDS God is limited in that he requires (seemingly) multiple conditions to be met before he can do this. He requires pre-existent matter, a wife and or wives and ascension to divinity in order to make use of the eternal intelligence to create life.
You are being silly again: trying to interject Catholic and pagan lens into LDS beliefs. Silly, silly.

The bolding is a description of the God of Christianity and Judaism. There is nothing Mormon about it.
The unbolded is the description of the god of Mormonism.
There is nothing silly about it. It is a compare and contrast. And it shows that the god of Mormonism is not the God of Christianity.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Jane I am not Catholic, I am Orthodox and yes I am using that lens to examine the LDS because that lens is the truth of reality. Much in the way you would use your lens to judge and determine Eastern Orthodoxy false on many issues I do the same to the LDS. The difference is that I am taking the mormon resources at their word. Try as you might I am not actually contradicting what they say and you have yet to demonstrate have I have misconstrued Mormonism on a basic level. Your only objection is to my making conclusions that you find untasteful or embarrassing to Mormonism. Instead of proposing a counter view, you simply want me to shut up and I won’t abide by that.

This is a thread meant to compare LDS concepts and Christian concepts of the life and so it is fair game to look at the theology of both and ask which makes more sense and which is more reasonable. The fact that there are so many possibilities which arise out of Mormon theology I think shows how perilous such a belief system is. You have yet to engage with some of my main arguments, namely that the God of the LDS is limited (you deny the charge but don’t deem it worth while to refute), that marriage being a necessity to attain the celestial kingdom makes our salvation not dependant on God alone but on our relationship with a spouse (You deny it but are not actually saying why I am wrong) and that a transcendent God is not limited like your Mormon God in accomplishing his goals.

To all of these you have responded with some variant of “You need to learn what we actually believe!” “That’s speculation!” “That’s not what I believe.” Present an argument please. Show me how your God is unlimited, show me how your God is not dependant on external factors in order to do the things he does, show me how a transcendent God is inferior to your God of Flesh and Bone.

Now was I using a double standard in regards to Christ’s limitations? Criticising the LDS for a problem that is present within Christianity? Not at all. Since Christ has two natures within Christian understanding we can recognise the limitations of his humanity, though much more unlimited than our own is still limited and that his divine nature contains absolutely no limits since he is the eternal God. The Mormon isolates Christ’s and the Father’s existence to their Physical bodies, in there lies the problem that fundamentally limits them physically within the universe they inhabit. Heavenly Father is seemingly unable to be in two places at once, he is since he is physical a creature bound by his material biology. True divinity is not like this, as I shared before. Simply dismissing the argument is not a true response.

 

[jane_doe]

(Focusing the big points)

Jane I am not Catholic, I am Orthodox and yes I am using that lens to examine the LDS because that lens is the truth of reality. Much in the way you would use your lens to judge and determine Eastern Orthodoxy false on many issues I do the same to the LDS.

What are X beliefs? Are X beliefs True?
Those are two very different questions. I am attempting to answer the first in regards to LDS beliefs. When I investigate another faith, I am also looking for answers to the first question, in regards to that faith. Whether or not I think those beliefs are True is a different issue. For example, this last Sunday I visited a Christian Scientist church and learned about their beliefs for a time.

Try as you might I am not actually contradicting what they say and you have yet to demonstrate have I have misconstrued Mormonism on a basic level.

(LDS perspective here)
Basic level: you are going beyond the doctrine declared by God.
Do you understand the difference between what a human speculates and what God declares?

I am happy to discuss actual LDS doctrine, not your speculations.

Show me how your God is unlimited, show me how your God is not dependant on external factors

From the words of God: " 35 Now have we not reason to rejoice? Yea, I say unto you, there never were men that had so great reason to rejoice as we, since the world began; yea, and my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, and he is a merciful Being, even unto salvation, to those who will repent and believe on his name." source: lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/26.35?lang=eng#34

show me how a transcendent God is inferior to your God of Flesh and Bone.

1. I’m not going to insult your concept of God. That is disrespectful and I am not an expert in your beliefs.
2. We have already established that neither of us believe having body means God is limited (example Christ). Unless you are going to tell me “Christ is limited” please quit repeating this tired point.