LDS and Catholic view of Heaven

[IgnatianPhilo]

Jane it is not an insult to criticise my theology. I expect it from those I disagree with. Also I never said Christ in his physical body was not limited. He is limited as far as his resurrection body is concerned this despite it being more unlimited than ours. I already suggest several limitations on God’s part which you refuse to deal with.

I think focusing on one my Criticisms will help this conversation, so I can get a clear response from you. I pointed earlier to a statement in doctrines in covenants that says that marriage is essential to achieve the celestial Heaven. Can you tell me how this doesn’t make God insufficient for our ultimate salvation and ultimate inheritance? You do accept the doctrines and covenants as an authoritative resource?

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131.1-4?lang=eng#0

section 131: 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
**
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
**
Our inheritance is therefore dependant not on God alone but on our status of marriage as well as our relationship to God it seems. You cannot use the excuse that I am speculating or going beyond what your sources actually say since it is there in plain English.

 

[jane_doe]

Also I never said Christ in his physical body was not limited. He is limited as far as his resurrection body is concerned this despite it being more unlimited than ours.

So would you say that “God the Son is limited?”

I pointed earlier to a statement in doctrines in covenants that says that marriage is essential to achieve the celestial Heaven. Can you tell me how this doesn’t make God insufficient for our ultimate salvation and ultimate inheritance? You do accept the doctrines and covenants as an authoritative resource?

God chooses to honor our agency (aka our ability to choose). For example, if someone chooses to not repent, God does not force that. God does not force a person to make or honor promises with Him (such as baptism). However, in order to embrace Him, we need to honor the promises. We must be His disciples, and bend our knee to Him (He won’t force it).

The ultimate happiness is found within a marriage/family which walks with God. God does not force us into this wonderful union, but gives us the choice. If we each choose to join in this union.

God choosing not to force us into anything, but allowing us and every other person to choose is not a matter of Him being “insuffienent”, but a matter of Him being ultimately loving.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So would you say that “God the Son is limited?”

God chooses to honor our agency (aka our ability to choose). For example, if someone chooses to not repent, God does not force that. God does not force a person to make or honor promises with Him (such as baptism). However, in order to embrace Him, we need to honor the promises. We must be His disciples, and bend our knee to Him (He won’t force it).

The ultimate happiness is found within a marriage/family which walks with God. God does not force us into this wonderful union, but gives us the choice. If we each choose to join in this union.

God choosing not to force us into anything, but allowing us and every other person to choose is not a matter of Him being “insuffienent”, but a matter of Him being ultimately loving.

The Son in the fullness of his being is not limited. His humanity is however limited.

As far as marriage being what leads to ultimate happiness (the celestial Kingdom), this claim has to be examined. Does what your saying refute my notion that God by himself is shown insufficient for the believer who must marry in order to achieve the celestial Kingdom? Not at all. When approaching the gates of the celestial kingdom God is going to check if you have a partner, he is apparently forbidden or cannot physically allow someone to enter who has not been sealed with someone else. If it’s not God it’s something else which blocks their entrance.

It follows from this that God is unable to fulfil the conditions required for entering the celestial Kingdom as there is not only the one condition but two. The first being faithfulness to God and the second, having a spouse. If any of these two are not met God cannot let them into the Kingdom as per doctrine and covenants. They are stuck in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Compare this to the Christian view. God accepts all regardless if they married or not. The human being does not require union with another human to be given ultimate happiness but God alone is sufficient for that believer. His presence, his glory and grandeur satisfy ultimate human longing and desire. In him we find rest, not in another human being or created object. Here there is only one condition, surrender unto God and love him.

God is shown in the first Mormon model to be insufficient since he cannot provide what the spouse can provide for their husband or wife which is the necessary precondition of entering the celestial Kingdom. You could argue that God could provide the person a wife (speculation on your part since the LDS scripture to my knowledge doesn’t say this) but the problem still remains that God cannot let the unmarried enter the Celestial Kingdom. Nor can God coerce anyone into marrying another. Since men and women who have not married are forbidden or cannot achieve the celestial Kingdom without a relationship to each other, I do have to conclude that as per the rules of the universe in Mormonism that God is shown insufficient for any man or woman who is single and chooses to stay single. They require a spouse to achieve ultimate happiness, joy and rest, not God alone.

You have said ultimate happiness is found in union with a spouse and God. This this means that without a spouse one cannot have ultimate happiness. At the very least happiness within Mormonism is dependent on one’s relationship with God and their spouse. The Mormon God is insufficient.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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 energy, not matter.

 

[jane_doe]

The Son in the fullness of his being is not limited. His humanity is however limited.

As far as marriage being what leads to ultimate happiness (the celestial Kingdom), this claim has to be examined. Does what your saying refute my notion that God by himself is shown insufficient for the believer who must marry in order to achieve the celestial Kingdom? Not at all. When approaching the gates of the celestial kingdom God is going to check if you have a partner, he is apparently forbidden or cannot physically allow someone to enter who has not been sealed with someone else. If it’s not God it’s something else which blocks their entrance.

It follows from this that God is unable to fulfil the conditions required for entering the celestial Kingdom as there is not only the one condition but two. The first being faithfulness to God and the second, having a spouse. If any of these two are not met God cannot let them into the Kingdom as per doctrine and covenants. They are stuck in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Compare this to the Christian view. God accepts all regardless if they married or not. The human being does not require union with another human to be given ultimate happiness but God alone is sufficient for that believer. His presence, his glory and grandeur satisfy ultimate human longing and desire. In him we find rest, not in another human being or created object. Here there is only one condition, surrender unto God and love him.

God is shown in the first Mormon model to be insufficient since he cannot provide what the spouse can provide for their husband or wife which is the necessary precondition of entering the celestial Kingdom. You could argue that God could provide the person a wife (speculation on your part since the LDS scripture to my knowledge doesn’t say this) but the problem still remains that God cannot let the unmarried enter the Celestial Kingdom. Nor can God coerce anyone into marrying another. Since men and women who have not married are forbidden or cannot achieve the celestial Kingdom without a relationship to each other, I do have to conclude that as per the rules of the universe in Mormonism that God is shown insufficient for any man or woman who is single and chooses to stay single. They require a spouse to achieve ultimate happiness, joy and rest, not God alone.

You have said ultimate happiness is found in union with a spouse and God. This this means that without a spouse one cannot have ultimate happiness. At the very least happiness within Mormonism is dependent on one’s relationship with God and their spouse. The Mormon God is insufficient.

I am under the distant impression that you are not listening to a thing I say…

 

[Horton]

I am under the distant impression that you are not listening to a thing I say…

Jane - Does anyone in the LDS world ever disagree? Is this why it appears you are incapable of hearing any criticism of the LDS without understanding the person you are in conversation with does listen, does understand, and just disagrees with your beliefs?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I am under the distant impression that you are not listening to a thing I say…

I made a vigourous attempt to avoid what you call speculation i my responce. I stuck with indisputed LDS doctrine and what you yourself have said. I made what i consider a legitimate argument calling God’s suffiency for human happiness and blessedness into question. If all you can do is say that I am not bowing down to your opinion then you are not here to discuss and hear yourself be challenged but without basis accuse others of misundertanding your own faith.

Unless you can interact with my criticisms tbhis conversation is effectively over.

 

[jane_doe]

Does what your saying refute my notion that God by himself is shown insufficient for the believer who must marry in order to achieve the celestial Kingdom?

I do have to conclude that as per the rules of the universe in Mormonism that God is shown insufficient for any man or woman who is single and chooses to stay single.

You keep trying to equate the joy of love with a spouse/family that walks with God somehow makes God insufficient or small. It is most frustrating–** the love of a family that walks with God does not make God small. **

God is shown in the first Mormon model to be insufficient since he cannot provide what the spouse can provide for their husband or wife which is the necessary precondition of entering the celestial Kingdom.

God provides every opportunity for every person to have a spouse, whether that opportunity comes in this life or the one after. The only reason a person would not have a wonderful Christ-like mate in the eternities is because one refused that happiness. That is not insufficiency on God’s part. If a follower of Christ chooses not to have this joy, they may still dwell in the Celestial kingdom, just not with the highest joy. I have said all of this many times before.

Since men and women who have not married are forbidden or cannot achieve the celestial Kingdom without a relationship to each other,

No. See the above.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You keep trying to equate the joy of love with a spouse/family that walks with God somehow makes God insufficient or small. It is most frustrating–** the love of a family that walks with God does not make God small. **

God provides every opportunity for every person to have a spouse, whether that opportunity comes in this life or the one after. The only reason a person would not have a wonderful Christ-like mate in the eternities is because one refused that happiness. That is not insufficiency on God’s part. If a follower of Christ chooses not to have this joy, they may still dwell in the Celestial kingdom, just not with the highest joy. I have said all of this many times before.

No. See the above.

Jane it follows from the fact that since you argue that a married couple or group of people are more happy and blessed after death than the unmarried (since they are limited to the Terrestrial kingdom) that God is defecient in that he cannot provide his followers with a type of joy greater or equal to that which you argue is in marriage. Answer me this, how are you not dependant on yout husband to receive ultimate happiness? You have said you cannot be ultimately happy without him in the next life. Whay does henprovide which God your Heavenly Father cannot which makes him so integral to your eternal joy? If you want to suggest otherwise that God can provide eternal joy of himself alone you do away with the basis for insisting on the necessity of marriage. Why does this idea bother you?

Now where do you get the idea that the unmarried will be in the Celestial Kingdom? Doctrines and covenants implies otherwise. Where do you get the idea from the Mormon scriptures that everyone is given the opportunity to marry? Is this your own explanation or speculation? I can grant it does answer a problem but if you are allowed to speculate on such matters why am I not?

 

[sallybutler]

You keep trying to equate the joy of love with a spouse/family that walks with God somehow makes God insufficient or small. It is most frustrating–** the love of a family that walks with God does not make God small. **

God provides every opportunity for every person to have a spouse, whether that opportunity comes in this life or the one after. The only reason a person would not have a wonderful Christ-like mate in the eternities is because one refused that happiness. That is not insufficiency on God’s part. If a follower of Christ chooses not to have this joy, they may still dwell in the Celestial kingdom, just not with the highest joy. I have said all of this many times before.

No. See the above.

So you are saying Saint Paul, who held up celibacy as the ideal, was wrong and has since gotten married in the afterlife, that Jesus was wrong when he said that people will not marry in heaven and has also gotten married?

 

[jane_doe]

Jane it follows from the fact that since you argue that a married couple or group of people are more happy and blessed after death than the unmarried (since they are limited to the Terrestrial kingdom) that God is defecient in that he cannot provide his followers with a type of joy greater or equal to that which you argue is in marriage. Answer me this, how are you not dependant on yout husband to receive ultimate happiness? You have said you cannot be ultimately happy without him in the next life. Whay does henprovide which God your Heavenly Father cannot which makes him so integral to your eternal joy? If you want to suggest otherwise that God can provide eternal joy of himself alone you do away with the basis for insisting on the necessity of marriage. Why does this idea bother you?

You are trying to twist things to say “loving your spouse/family makes God weak” (me paraphrasing). That is simply untrue. God is NOT made weak by love, and you keep trying to say that it does. I don’t know what home life you have, but yes I love my family and that does NOT weaken God. Do you not love your family?

Now where do you get the idea that the unmarried will be in the Celestial Kingdom? Doctrines and covenants implies otherwise. Where do you get the idea from the Mormon scriptures that everyone is given the opportunity to marry? Is this your own explanation or speculation? I can grant it does answer a problem but if you are allowed to speculate on such matters why am I not?

The Celestial Kingdom has three degrees of glory within it, and the lower two are singles. That is scripture, the very chapter you posted- in fact you posted the exact next verse on this very thread. Did you not read what you’re quoting from? (Things like this are what make me think you’re not listening and/or don’t want to understand. I don’t know if that’s really the case, but it’s the impression I get).

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Hi Jane,

I think I understand your view point but I can see the Catholic posters perspective. I know that an unmarried person can obtain the Celestial Kingdom but NOT the highest level of the celestial kingdom. I understand that everyone has free will and is given every opportunity to get married to a spouse so that they may obtain the highest celestial kingdom. This won’t make God (from an LDS perspective weak or not loving - quite the opposite a loving God offers every opportunity to fulfill the requirements needed) However, it is still a requirement that the person be married to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom. If they are not married, they gain a lower level of the celestial kingdom or one of the other degrees of glory depending on other things.

From a Catholic perspective the goal is to obtain Heaven in the presence of God (the Trinity) and the only requirement for this is God. You don’t have to be married, you don’t even have to be baptised (baptism of desire for example). Everything is down to God and God alone.

From an LDS perspective the goal is to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom in the presence of God (the Godhead) but the difference is God is not the only requirement, whether or not it occurs in this life or the next, you have to be baptised, endowed, followed the word of wisdom, pay tithing and be married etc

I think this is the difference because there are different definitions of “heaven” in both Catholic and LDS. No marriage is not required to get to Heaven as an LDS in the general sense, however to achieve the goal of every LDS (ie the highest degree of the celestial kingdom) there are requirements. It’s not about God being weak, not loving, not giving people enough chances or free will. There are requirements other than God (marriage being one of them)

 

[sallybutler]

You are trying to twist things to say “loving your spouse/family makes God weak” (me paraphrasing). That is simply untrue. God is NOT made weak by love, and you keep trying to say that it does. I don’t know what home life you have, but yes I love my family and that does NOT weaken God. Do you not love your family?

The Celestial Kingdom has three degrees of glory within it, and the lower two are singles. That is scripture, the very chapter you posted- in fact you posted the exact next verse on this very thread. Did you not read what you’re quoting from? (Things like this are what make me think you’re not listening and/or don’t want to understand. I don’t know if that’s really the case, but it’s the impression I get).

And that is another difference. In addition to there being no marriages(per Jesus), there is only one degree.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think this is the difference because there are different definitions of “heaven” in both Catholic and LDS. No marriage is not required to get to Heaven as an LDS in the general sense, however to achieve the goal of every LDS (ie the highest degree of the celestial kingdom) there are requirements. It’s not about God being weak, not loving, not giving people enough chances or free will. There are requirements other than God (marriage being one of them)

I agree.

Also Catholicism is about serving God, and so the Mormon teaching that those in the lower area of the celestial kingdom are servants to those who are “worthy of far more”, is just wrong, in more ways than one.

First, Yes Catholicism teaches that there will be different rewards, but doesn’t teach heaven has a caste system. Servant, is more like the calling of all Catholics. Not something to dangle out there as less “worthy”. Totally upside down to Catholic thinking. We serve our God, not try to make ourselves into gods, that comes with the benefit of unmarried servants for eternity.

Second, service to “the least” is the highest calling, not the less worthy. Service to humans who style themselves gods, would look more like gently bringing them to Christ, not fetching their golden slippers for eternity.

Third, Brigham Young took this further. Teaching that because those of African lineage were not worthy for Mormon ordinance of temple marriage, they would be servants forever. This being the default position for all people with “black” skin, in Mormon teaching, until 1978.

 

[Stephen168]

The Celestial Kingdom has three degrees of glory within it, and the lower two are singles.

According to LDS.Org, there is one degree of glory on each kingdom of heaven. You must be married to get into the Celestial Kingdom; the only kingdom where you can spend eternity with God.

This is contrary to the teachings and example set by Christ and the Apostles.

 

[JMM1957]

Just my personal opinion here, but I think that rather than going into in depth discussion about the LDS view of heaven, we should be asking questions about the books themselves, that the LDS teachings about heaven come from, and why those books are considered authoritative to begin with.

 

[Horton]

Just my personal opinion here, but I think that rather than going into in depth discussion about the LDS view of heaven, we should be asking questions about the books themselves, that the LDS teachings about heaven come from, and why those books are considered authoritative to begin with.

Those books were written by the LDS for the LDS. It is just one more way Joseph Smith and his group tried to legitimize the LDS beliefs. If it is written in a book and declared “scripture” it must be true. But that “truth” is an ever changing line also, so in order to accommodate this ever changing “truth” these books, this “scripture” is also open canon.

 

[jane_doe]

Hi Jane,

I think I understand your view point but I can see the Catholic posters perspective. I know that an unmarried person can obtain the Celestial Kingdom but NOT the highest level of the celestial kingdom. I understand that everyone has free will and is given every opportunity to get married to a spouse so that they may obtain the highest celestial kingdom. This won’t make God (from an LDS perspective weak or not loving - quite the opposite a loving God offers every opportunity to fulfill the requirements needed) However, it is still a requirement that the person be married to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom. If they are not married, they gain a lower level of the celestial kingdom or one of the other degrees of glory depending on other things.

From a Catholic perspective the goal is to obtain Heaven in the presence of God (the Trinity) and the only requirement for this is God. You don’t have to be married, you don’t even have to be baptised (baptism of desire for example). Everything is down to God and God alone.

From an LDS perspective the goal is to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom in the presence of God (the Godhead) but the difference is God is not the only requirement, whether or not it occurs in this life or the next, you have to be baptised, endowed, followed the word of wisdom, pay tithing and be married etc

I think this is the difference because there are different definitions of “heaven” in both Catholic and LDS. No marriage is not required to get to Heaven as an LDS in the general sense, however to achieve the goal of every LDS (ie the highest degree of the celestial kingdom) there are requirements. It’s not about God being weak, not loving, not giving people enough chances or free will. There are requirements other than God (marriage being one of them)

Thanks for your usual very fair and even approach here, Truth_Faith13. I do understand the Catholic perspective, even though I disagree with it. For that matter, I understand the Calvinist perspective which would declare both of our view of God as having requirements other than God because Catholics and LDS both require some form of belief from that person .

 

[Horton]

Thanks for your usual very fair and even approach here, Truth_Faith13. I do understand the Catholic perspective, even though I disagree with it. For that matter, I understand the Calvinist perspective which would declare both of our view of God as having requirements other than God because Catholics and LDS both require some form of belief from that person .

I think you have missed an integral part of this debate. LDS teaching clearly states a person MUST be married to obtain the level of heaven i.e. the celestial kingdom. Of course a belief in God is necessary as well.

Catholic teaching is that our faith in God alone is all we need for salvation.

Conditions for LDS to achieve Celestial kingdom:

1. Faith
2. Being married
3. endowments

Conditions for Catholics to go to heaven:

1. Faith in God

You may disagree with Catholic belief, that is fine, but you can’t deny the truth of the basic premise of the two above statements. If you do deny the three conditions of the LDS to obtain the celestial kingdom is LDS teaching then please cite sources.

 

[JMM1957]

I think you have missed an integral part of this debate. LDS teaching clearly states a person MUST be married to obtain the level of heaven i.e. the celestial kingdom. Of course a belief in God is necessary as well.

Catholic teaching is that our faith in God alone is all we need for salvation.

Conditions for LDS to achieve Celestial kingdom:

1. Faith
2. Being married
3. endowments

Conditions for Catholics to go to heaven:

1. Faith in God

You may disagree with Catholic belief, that is fine, but you can’t deny the truth of the basic premise of the two above statements. If you do deny the three conditions of the LDS to obtain the celestial kingdom is LDS teaching then please cite sources.

Horton, I am new to this discussion, could you please direct me to the LDS source(s) that define the prerequisites for attaining the Celestial kingdom, I would like to look at it myself. Thanks.