Final thought on this matter for now. I state this as observation, not judgment.Steve, you are very confused. Perhaps this turn of phrase will help you understand
It’s the Catholics who insist their Pope is infallible, while everyone else claims he is not
It’s the LDS who inisist their President/Prophet is a mere sinful man, while everyone else claims he is not
The LDS do not believe everything uttered by the president is the divine world of God!
If you want to quote official doctrine, then please refer to official sources.
The JOD is not LDS Doctrine.
I think this is a good place to interject the differences in LDS and Christian understanding of conditions in eternity. We both believe in the physical resurrection. Mormons however believe that everything we associate with having a body here, including sexuality an continuing to have children (spirit children though LDS believe they will be), will continue in that Celestial state.SteveVH,
“They” certainly would have gotten to the point of “asking [you] to read scripture and pray” if the conversation had continued for very long–more than twenty minutes or so.
My response wasn’t suggesting I was presenting what you “are taught to believe”. You may call those intimate relationships in eternity whatever you choose to call them, and no doubt they will be joyful and fulfilling–wonderfully so–but they won’t be an eternal marriage and they will be what you desired and chose for yourself, so it’s just fine and is as it should be.
I’m not going to belabor the point, Parker. They knocked on my door to influence what you call my “free will choice” with the ultimate goal of converting me.SteveVH,
“They” certainly would have gotten to the point of “asking [you] to read scripture and pray” if the conversation had continued for very long–more than twenty minutes or so.
My response wasn’t suggesting I was presenting what you “are taught to believe”. You may call those intimate relationships in eternity whatever you choose to call them, and no doubt they will be joyful and fulfilling–wonderfully so–but they won’t be an eternal marriage and they will be what you desired and chose for yourself, so it’s just fine and is as it should be.
Peter John and anyone else who read his post,I think this is a good place to interject the differences in LDS and Christian understanding of conditions in eternity. We both believe in the physical resurrection. Mormons however believe that everything we associate with having a body here, including sexuality an continuing to have children (spirit children though LDS believe they will be), will continue in that Celestial state.
ParkerD means that unless you are married in an LDS temple you will only be able to have a platonic relationship with anyone you knew here, even a spouse, and will not be able to share in the perpetual joy of continuing to raise spiritual rugrats (cloud rats?) until you can also provide bodies for them in a mortal world, sharing the same relationship with them that our Father in Heaven shares with us. They perceive that the experience of sexual union and both physical and emotional intimacy will be magnified and enhanced through living in a Celstial condition.
In Catholicism that is not an option anyway. We will be in greater bliss of intimacy in communion with God and each other than any physical relationship will achieve. We will have no secrets from each other, because that is total communion with God, sharing in the nature of his existence, sharing in his perception. That is part of what the Song of Solomon is about, but you have to see past the superficial smokescreen it presents to understand it.
SteveVH,… What I have yet to hear is the Mormon take on the marriage feast of the Lamb found in the Book of Revelation. Would you mind giving me your understanding of this and how it relates to the human institution of marriage in heaven.
Thanks.
Don’t get hung up on our defining the trinity as made up of three distinct persons (hence 1/3 reference). I understand the RCC teaches that one of the three persons of the Trinity initially did not have a body of flesh and bone, but now does. This is the same teaching for Jesus as the LDS.That is a misconception. Catholics do not believe that such a thing as 1/3 of the Trinity can exist. The Trinity is one, indivisible.
Your statement of LDS belief is also not completely accurate, as you do not believe that Jesus always had a body, and you believe that the Holy Ghost will someday get a body.
The first major differnce in LDS/Catholic perception of the Incarnation of Christ is that Mormons believe Jesus HAD TO get a body. To do this he HAD TO be born of woman. They believe the Holy Ghost HAS TO get a body some day, and for that matter, that the Father HAD TO get a body before he gained the status he has now. Is that incorrect?
Catholics believe God’s omnipotence is complete, not relative. He could have created himself a body anyway that he chose, even from absolutely nothing. He chose to be born of woman. He chose to be raised in a family. This was what the whole Creation was about.
The second major difference is only because Mormons do not believe what their own Book of Mormon says about it, affirming that Jesus the person was not the Eternal Father himself. As Alma says in your Book of Mormon, Jesus is the Very Eternal Father. As God told the Brother of Jared in your Book of Mormon, he did not have a physical body, but showed himself to the Brother of Jared in the form he would have when he took on a physical body (this by the way negates the value of any Biblical reference to the body parts of God, or to Moses seeing God as evidence that the Father has a body). As the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon states, Mary is “the Mother of God after the manner of the flesh.”
I must vigorously admit there are numerous LDS who are not clear on what is or is not official doctrine Both our faiths suffer from members who lack adequate catechism and thus make mistakes in doctrine.Final thought on this matter for now. I state this as observation, not judgment.
It is interesting to see how differently sources like the Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine (Bruce’s Bible), and some of the writings of other early LDS leaders get used when Mormomons diccuss things among themselves compared to when they discuss LDS teachings with non-members. Among themselves, particularly in the west, they are quick to cite these sources to authoritatively support their positions in doctrinal specualtion and debate. With outsiders the same references quickly become non-authoritative.
Yes, I am familiar with all of this, Parker, and Hosea as well. The point I am trying to make is that all of this imagery concerns an intimate relationship with our God which can only be compared in human terms to a loving relationship between a husband and wife, but even then, human marriage is only a shadow of the the relationship we will have with God and each other, including our families.SteveVH,
Here are pertinent verses from Revelation:
21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God…
I would remark that someone reading those verses ought to also be familiar with Hosea, and thus understand the whole symbolism of a faithful marriage as compared with an unfaithful spouse.
Thus, those passages are talking about a person entering into the Celestial city and seeing its glory through being completely faithful to one’s covenants with Jesus Christ, the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world.
Being faithful to their covenants means having done all that He taught and showed that should be done when one is faithful, as He taught through His parables and as John also taught by means of relating the vision he received with its many teachings about “he that overcometh” (meaning overcometh the influences of the adversary).
It is solid LDS doctrine that advancement to Godhead requires a physical body. That is why Joseph Smith tsught that Cain will rule over Satan, because Cain had a physical body. In LDS doctrine Jesus had no physical boidy in the pre-existence, as did the Father, even though He had status in the Godhead (at least after the Council in Heaven). Jesus, in LDS Doctrine, cannot fulfill His Eternal mission without a body. He therefore HAD TO get a body. He could, I suppose have chosen not to, but then someone else would have to have been resurrected for everyone else to be, right?Don’t get hung up on our defining the trinity as made up of three distinct persons (hence 1/3 reference). I understand the RCC teaches that one of the three persons of the Trinity initially did not have a body of flesh and bone, but now does. This is the same teaching for Jesus as the LDS.
I’ve never heard the LDS teach the Holy Spirit will get a body. Can you provide a reference.
What’s all this talk about only the LDS think Jesus “Had to get a body” I think you are fabricating differences when there are plenty of real ones. Both faiths teach Jesus had to get a body for several reasons, not excluding the attonement that saves us all. Our salvation is a pretty big HAD TO.
How long have you been LDS? I was taught this at the age of six, and heard this taught consistently in wards and branches in Vermont, Connecticut, Florida, Utah (MTC), Washington State, Colorado, Brazil, England, and Korea over a 30 year period.I’ve never heard the LDS teach the Holy Spirit will get a body.
Peter John,How long have you been LDS? I was taught this at the age of six, and heard this taught consistently in wards and branches in Vermont, Connecticut, Florida, Utah (MTC), Washington State, Colorado, Brazil, England, and Korea over a 30 year period.
It is not the same teaching for Jesus as the LDS formal doctrine. Rather it is almost identical to what the Book of Mormon teaches about it, but which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denied.Don’t get hung up on our defining the trinity as made up of three distinct persons (hence 1/3 reference). I understand the RCC teaches that one of the three persons of the Trinity initially did not have a body of flesh and bone, but now does. This is the same teaching for Jesus as the LDS…
SteveVH,Do you not find it strange that nowhere in Scripture is there mention of eternal marriage between humans? And even more so when you consider that your faith holds this as an absolute necessity in reaching the highest heaven? Why did the Apostles never discuss it? Why did Christ not mention it, except to say it does not exist? If eternal marriage held such an important role in our eternal destiny, Christ should not only have mentioned it but he should have emphasised it. He didn’t. Not a word except to deny it. The Mormon answer that Jesus was only referring to a particular group of people is really nonsensical. Eternal marriage either exists or it does not. The evidence that it does is nowhere to be found in Scripture.
So you have chosen equivocation, and this another doctrine the LDS church is backpedaling on, like everyone’s potential to be a god.Peter John,
It was speculation by a couple of people, or one who others believed and repeated. If you heard it “taught”, then they were repeating the speculative belief and there would not be any scripture that backs them up on their speculation.
I’m afraid your beliefs about the trinity aren’t Trinitarian at all, you’re speaking of modalism, which is a heresy that has been denounced by the church countless times.It is not the same teaching for Jesus as the LDS formal doctrine. Rather it is almost identical to what the Book of Mormon teaches about it, but which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denied.
In Christianity there is no distinction between the three personalities of God in Trinity. There is nos such thing as 1/3 of the Trinity. The Trinity is all one God. Trinity represents God’s internal dialogue. It is not that one member of the Trinity used to have no body and now does, Jesus is how the Father manifests in the Flesh, as Alma in your Book of Mormon explains. The Father has no body apart from the Incarnation as Christ, as Ether in your Book of Mormon expounds.
I am not expressing modalism. I am not expressing myself clearly enough because I am trying to put it in terms that will make the concept a little more clear to a Mormon.I’m afraid your beliefs about the trinity aren’t Trinitarian at all, you’re speaking of modalism, which is a heresy that has been denounced by the church countless times.
Parker, it is exactly this type of attitude that sticks in my craw. I mean nothing personal here, by the way. I realize that this comes from your faith tradition. This, my friend, is gnosticism. The idea that only a select group of people are worthy enough to have the truth unveiled for them; secret knowledge that you can only attain when you become as enlightened as they. If you don’t agree it is because you are not yet worthy and you will become worthy only when you join the group.SteveVH,
I find that the fact that it is veiled enough to be hidden from some is completely logical.
Jesus taught us about the sacredness of marriage and that no man should divide what God has joined. It is a sacrament; a source of grace to lead us to our eternal destiny. But when we have reached our eternal destiny there will be no more need for it. Yes, we treasure our relationships with our spouses here on earth, but I will make my point again. If eternal marriage were the necessary factor determining the level of happiness we might obtain in heaven, Jesus was remiss in not making that point very clear. Jesus did not hide the truth because of the risk that some might not live it out.Remembering that God is all-knowing about the history of this world, and understanding that Jesus would protect this most sacred covenant of eternal marriage by not having it “taken in vain” or in other words, done by thousands of people without authority and without knowledge about what they were doing and thus having them all be deceived by thinking something that was going to be untrue for them, then it makes sense that He would provide an answer to the Sadducees that laid the question to rest for those wanting to choose a justification for having no marriage in what they describe as “heaven”.