LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[lynnettejane]

Hi Rainman 10
The covenant of everlasting marriage was not protected. Celestial marriage was inextricably linked with polygyny, and this was initially practiced secretly. And far from it being practiced by an apparently select few, it was encouraged as absolutely necessary for salvation and exaltation, and don’t forget god had restored this with the restoration of the original church.
However things became difficult through its practice and Utah wanted to become a state in the Union, so the mormons were told they had to stop the practice of polygyny. So the lord relented and allowed the practice to be abandoned, although many leaders of the church continued its practice whilst repeatedly swearing they had abandonned it. So eternal marriage, celestial marriage whatever, is not what it used to be even though it had been restored in these last days. Now if it was as important as it was made out to be, then why did the lord allow it to stop. It is because of this inconsistency in the LDS church that it is still practiced by splinter groups who feel that now the offical LDS church is apostate.
By the way Christ also may have many wives, and God the father definitely does, that’s how he populated the earth. So polygyny is at the heart of this heresy, and many mormons believe it will be restored…again.
So god is a polygynist, as was his god, you can’t have mormonism without it.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Rainman 10
The covenant of everlasting marriage was not protected. Celestial marriage was inextricably linked with polygyny, and this was initially practiced secretly. And far from it being practiced by an apparently select few, it was encouraged as absolutely necessary for salvation and exaltation, and don’t forget god had restored this with the restoration of the original church.
However things became difficult through its practice and Utah wanted to become a state in the Union, so the mormons were told they had to stop the practice of polygyny. So the lord relented and allowed the practice to be abandoned, although many leaders of the church continued its practice whilst repeatedly swearing they had abandonned it. So eternal marriage, celestial marriage whatever, is not what it used to be even though it had been restored in these last days. Now if it was as important as it was made out to be, then why did the lord allow it to stop. It is because of this inconsistency in the LDS church that it is still practiced by splinter groups who feel that now the offical LDS church is apostate.
By the way Christ also may have many wives, and God the father definitely does, that’s how he populated the earth. So polygyny is at the heart of this heresy, and many mormons believe it will be restored…again.
So god is a polygynist, as was his god, you can’t have mormonism without it.

LynetteJane,

If that is what your ward was teaching in England, then someday, fortunately, it will be found out and the people teaching the false doctrine will be told to stop teaching the false doctrine. For the time being, I suppose that that filter works just as well as any other to sift hearts, since discerning false teachings is one of the operations of the Holy Ghost and those without it are left to their own devices and the seed of faith won’t flourish.

A wish of peace.

 

[SteveVH]

My remark had to do with critical thinking, yes, and with the use of pronouns and verbs and construction of sentences and paragraphs (i.e. if one takes the verses and puts them into paragraph format). I didn’t say anything about an “apostate church”. But people often will not take words of a scriptural passage and think about them as an "experience’ where people were actually there, on the scene, listening.

Jesus was the absolute Master teacher, the absolute best user of language who has ever walked upon the earth. One who thinks He would take the subject of a paragraph, use the verb that continued with the theme and the subject and greatly expand the subject without inserting a new subject, does not give Him much credit for being a Master teacher or a Master user of language. I know of no precedent in any other passage in the New Testament where “they” suddenly embraces a universal meaning when just before it had a specific meaning about a specific, clearly identified subject. The pronoun “they” is added for us in English, but in many languages the pronoun is understood within the verb conjugation.

Put another way, “Sadducees” is a small subset of the “set” that is “all of humankind”. If a subject begins with a subset, a good user of language stays with that subset to make their meaning clear, if they are using understood pronouns in the way Jesus used them. He doesn’t change to the “universal set” without announcing that there is now a new, expanded, “universal” subject for what He is about to say and teach.

Parker, what you are saying is that Catholic exegetes over the last two thousand years did not have the ability to use or understand simple grammar. Do you really expect us to believe that?

The Saduccees denied the resurrection. This is the point on which they were attempting to trap Jesus. The subject of marriage was only the vehicle they chose to use. It was purely an argument to refute the ressurection, not for a subset of humanity, but for all of humanity. So for Jesus’ response to only be applicable to a subset of humanity does not, in any way answer their argument. I don’t think any of us believe Jesus just missed their point or didn’t have an adequate answer. The example that the Saduccees use in their argument (the woman married seven times) would be valid if anyone remained married in the resurrection. Your interpretation not only doesn’t make sense it makes Jesus out to be a fool, or at best a poor teacher.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, what you are saying is that Catholic exegetes over the last two thousand years did not have the ability to use or understand simple grammar. Do you really expect us to believe that?

SteveVH,

Of course I don’t expect you or any Catholic to believe that.

As Kathleen pointed out, the scripture that Peter gave to the world to tell us to be careful about “private interpretation” as compared with the “holy men of God” who were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and spoke truth and wrote truth, has been used to make it so that not one Catholic would feel free to think about scripture beyond what they have been taught to think. So it only took a few to “take the reins”, give the explanation they needed and wanted to teach, and everyone else follows.

The grammar was simple. The need to have the passage say what they wanted it to say was greater than the simple grammar, so the simple grammar didn’t prevail.

The Sadducees denied the resurrection. This is the point on which they were attempting to trap Jesus. The subject of marriage was only the vehicle they chose to use. It was purely an argument to refute the resurrection, not for a subset of humanity, but for all of humanity.

Yes, they denied the resurrection, but their example was specific. They spoke of seven brothers and a woman, who it appears by their use of the words “with us” to have been Sadducees also. Jesus stayed with their subject, and didn’t change the subject.

So for Jesus’ response to only be applicable to a subset of humanity does not, in any way answer their argument.

It absolutely does answer their denial of the resurrection. It answers specifically about the condition of those seven Sadducees brothers and of the woman. It tells plainly that they will indeed be resurrected, and be as the angels in their resurrection.

I don’t think any of us believe Jesus just missed their point or didn’t have an adequate answer. The example that the Saducees use in their argument (the woman married seven times) would be valid if anyone remained married in the resurrection. Your interpretation not only doesn’t make sense it makes Jesus out to be a fool, or at best a poor teacher.

Jesus had a very adequate answer about unbelieving Sadducees–that they will be resurrected, and will not have marriage. They asked a specific question, and received a specific answer. That is how good language use works.

Jesus was not “a fool” to answer their specific question with the correct doctrine about the condition of unbelievers in their resurrection. He should have answered with the correct doctrine, and did, of course.

 

[Jay53]

SteveVH,

Of course I don’t expect you or any Catholic to believe that.

As Kathleen pointed out, the scripture that Peter gave to the world to tell us to be careful about “private interpretation” as compared with the “holy men of God” who were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and spoke truth and wrote truth, has been used to make it so that not one Catholic would feel free to think about scripture beyond what they have been taught to think. So it only took a few to “take the reins”, give the explanation they needed and wanted to teach, and everyone else follows.

The grammar was simple. The need to have the passage say what they wanted it to say was greater than the simple grammar, so the simple grammar didn’t prevail.

Yes, they denied the resurrection, but their example was specific. They spoke of seven brothers and a woman, who it appears by their use of the words “with us” to have been Sadducees also. Jesus stayed with their subject, and didn’t change the subject.

It absolutely does answer their denial of the resurrection. It answers specifically about the condition of those seven Sadducees brothers and of the woman. It tells plainly that they will indeed be resurrected, and be as the angels in their resurrection.

Jesus had a very adequate answer about unbelieving Sadducees–that they will be resurrected, and will not have marriage. They asked a specific question, and received a specific answer. That is how good language use works.

Jesus was not “a fool” to answer their specific question with the correct doctrine about the condition of unbelievers in their resurrection. He should have answered with the correct doctrine, and did, of course.

This response, however, doesn’t address soren’s earlier point about the importance of angels and how LDS seem to change and diminish their importance with this incorrect explanation. If you need me to find the specific post to reference I will look for it.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Of course I don’t expect you or any Catholic to believe that.

Parker, when I said “any of us” I was not just referring to me or other Catholics. The Catholic Church is responsible for starting the higher education system throughout the world. It can claim some of the most educated and greatest thinkers in the world. But you would have us believe that they have all been duped by corrupt Catholic teaching and have lost the ability to think for themselves. Please.

As Kathleen pointed out, the scripture that Peter gave to the world to tell us to be careful about “private interpretation” as compared with the “holy men of God” who were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and spoke truth and wrote truth, has been used to make it so that not one Catholic would feel free to think about scripture beyond what they have been taught to think. So it only took a few to “take the reins”, give the explanation they needed and wanted to teach, and everyone else follows.

The grammar was simple. The need to have the passage say what they wanted it to say was greater than the simple grammar, so the simple grammar didn’t prevail.

And, of course, you came up with your argument all on your own, with no other influences, and the fact that it happens to be in line with Mormon theology is just a happy accident.

Again, your view is patronizing and elitist. All of us poor Catholics are running around without a unique thought in our little brains, no more, really, than robots programmed with Catholic doctrine to which we have not given a second thought. Poor Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, John Paul, II, to mention few. Just a bunch of parrots towing the Catholic line void of any ability to think for themselves.

Yes, they denied the resurrection, but their example was specific. They spoke of seven brothers and a woman, who it appears by their use of the words “with us” to have been Sadducee also. Jesus stayed with their subject, and didn’t change the subject.

An example, by its very definition, is specific. The point to be made by using an example is always more encompassing than the example itself used. Jesus would have been dodging their question concerning the issue of the resurrection in general had He only been referring to the example.

It absolutely does answer their denial of the resurrection. It answers specifically about the condition of those seven Sadducees brothers and of the woman. It tells plainly that they will indeed be resurrected, and be as the angels in their resurrection.

Again, there is nothing in Jesus’ statement that even hints that he is speaking only of the Sadducees. They are speaking of the idea of the resurrection in general, not as it applies only to them.

Jesus had a very adequate answer about unbelieving Sadducees–that they will be resurrected, and will not have marriage. They asked a specific question, and received a specific answer. That is how good language use works.

Unbelievers will not be resurrected to enjoy heaven in any state, Parker. That is a Mormon fallacy as well. They will spend eternity exactly as they chose; without God.

Jesus was not “a fool” to answer their specific question with the correct doctrine about the condition of unbelievers in their resurrection. He should have answered with the correct doctrine, and did, of course.

Jesus did not qualify his answer to only “unbelievers”. He addresses the example of the seven brothers, not the Sadducees. If he only meant unbelievers he would have been a poor teacher indeed if he did not make that point clear and say, “Unbelievers will not be married in the resurrection but those who are faithful to my word will remain married in the resurrection.” This is absolute speculation and twisting of scripture on the part of the LDS church. And it certainly is not your own unique idea or revelation received by you personally. It is you who are towing the Mormon line and not thinking out of the LDS box; exactly what you accuse Catholics of doing.

 

[ParkerD]

This response, however, doesn’t address soren’s earlier point about the importance of angels and how LDS seem to change and diminish their importance with this incorrect explanation. If you need me to find the specific post to reference I will look for it.

Jay53,

I have looked for Soren1’s post that you are referring to, and couldn’t find it.

Let’s see–a few days ago, SteveVH seemed to think the saying “be as the angels” was diminishing the importance of one in that situation. So I guess I don’t know what answer you are looking for.

Angels are important, and worship God and give glory to Him. They may serve as messengers for Him. I don’t know how that diminishes their importance.

Peace to you, and have a wonderful, beautiful day. (Since it is beautiful where I live today, I thought I should add that in.)

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, when I said “any of us” I was not just referring to me or other Catholics. The Catholic Church is responsible for starting the higher education system throughout the world. It can claim some of the most educated and greatest thinkers in the world. But you would have us believe that they have all been duped by corrupt Catholic teaching and have lost the ability to think for themselves. Please.

SteveVH,

I disagree that I implied “they have all been duped.” People tend to reiterate in their own mind that which reinforces their own desired belief. That doesn’t mean they are “duped”. It means they do what people do.

And, of course, you came up with your argument all on your own, with no other influences, and the fact that it happens to be in line with Mormon theology is just a happy accident.

Actually, the more common Latter-day Saint position is as was noted in the link provided by someone earlier on. It is quite a bit different than what I wrote, by highlighting the words “given in marriage” as not being done after the resurrection.

An example, by its very definition, is specific. The point to be made by using an example is always more encompassing than the example itself used. Jesus would have been dodging their question concerning the issue of the resurrection in general had He only been referring to the example.

No, He would have been answering their specific question with a specific answer that had to do with the very question that had been asked.

Unbelievers will not be resurrected to enjoy heaven in any state, Parker.

So, if I understand you correctly then Jesus was saying those seven brothers were believers, even though the passage highlighted that the Sadducees don’t believe in the resurrection, which means they don’t believe in a Redeemer? So then how did Jesus teach these Sadducees about the need for repentance and for believing in Him as their Redeemer, if He was saying those brothers would go to heaven?

Jesus did not qualify his answer to only “unbelievers”. He addresses the example of the seven brothers, not the Sadducees.

Matthew reminded us readers that the Sadducees don’t believe in the resurrection. The words “with us” mean that the seven brothers were also Sadducees.

If he only meant unbelievers he would have been a poor teacher indeed if he did not make that point clear and say, “Unbelievers will not be married in the resurrection but those who are faithful to my word will remain married in the resurrection.”

That was my earlier point–that Jesus knew perfectly that His words would be taken and be misunderstood, but He gives free will choice, even about so important a thing as eternal marriage.

He answered the Sadducees’ question brilliantly, specifically, and they went on their way understanding that the seven brothers would be “as the angels” in their resurrection.

This is absolute speculation and twisting of scripture on the part of the LDS church.

Again, it is very simple grammar. It is taking a subject, understanding the use of verbs and pronouns with an understood subject, and seeing how the subject is carried through in the entire conversation.

My earlier point was that free will choice allows you and anyone to have that situation in the resurrection that you desire. God can do that. He does do that. Marriage is a desired condition for some in their resurrection–not for others.

The marvelous thing is that God preserves free will choice all along the way toward that resurrection that gives people what they have desired and lived for.

 

[Peter_John]

ParkerD;8033349:

Those people who had not been keeping the commandments

during their life, go to “spirit prison” when they die which would be somewhat similar to “purgatory” for some, and they will find redemption from their sins as they repent of them and find Christ and His redemption and His redeeming grace.

They don’t need to “wait” until their baptism for the dead is completed for them personally. What counts is their personal repentance. Christ rescues them from being “behind” the gates of hell, and they are set free when they repent and come unto Him with full purpose and with complete change and sincere intent in their inner being.
You frequently fall back on calling things your opinion when they seem to conflict with LDS doctrine. Please defend the statements in these two paragraphs with refeerences from official LDS sources, as they differ extremely fromwhat the Church taught for most of the last 40 years.

Even if they are valid, it means that if the people I described have a wonderful and complete afterlife in the Spirit World, unless they accept LDS baptism they can never enter into the presence of God the Father in the Celestial kingdom, because by LDS standards they were never validly baptized, no matter how much they suffered for their faith in Christ. Is that not true?

 

[Peter_John]

Angels are important, and worship God and give glory to Him. They may serve as messengers for Him. I don’t know how that diminishes their importance.

You may be unaware that Catholics consider Angels a separate creation from Man and one created before Man. They existed a long time before man was created, and we do not come into existence until our conception. We comprehend little of the nature of their existence other than that they are spiritual beings, not physical beings. They are not human, never were human, and never will be human. Scriptures make it clear that while spiritual beings they can still interact with the physical world, and disguise their forms.

Joseph Smith taught that no angels serve this Earth that are not asssigned to it in mortality. Michael the Archangel incarnated as Adam, Gabriel as Noah. Moroni from your Book of Mormon became an Angel afterward. There are no angels that did not or will not live on Earth as human beings. Or has that teaching also changed in the last five years?

 

[ParkerD]

You frequently fall back on calling things your opinion when they seem to conflict with LDS doctrine. Please defend the statements in these two paragraphs with references from official LDS sources, as they differ extremely from what the Church taught for most of the last 40 years.

Even if they are valid, it means that if the people I described have a wonderful and complete afterlife in the Spirit World, unless they accept LDS baptism they can never enter into the presence of God the Father in the Celestial kingdom, because by LDS standards they were never validly baptized, no matter how much they suffered for their faith in Christ. Is that not true?

Peter John,

Here is the Gospel Essentials lesson linked about this topic:

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

I can have a difference of opinion about the meaning of the word “righteous” as used by Alma and as cited in that lesson from Alma’s teaching about this topic, than the meaning that it means “only those who have the full gospel covenants”. That means I can disagree about the sentence that uses the words “spirit prison” to describe the condition of people who lived good lives and repented of their sins knowing of the atoning grace of Christ, but who didn’t have the authorized priesthood ordinance of baptism. What matters is what was in their heart with their repentance, their love, their faith in Christ, their treatment of others, their keeping of the commandments–in short, their righteousness. Doctrine and Covenants 137 reminds those aware of this section, that God judges “according to the desire of their hearts”.

The same would be true of those needing an authorized baptism by valid priesthood authority. Of course someone who has sincere intent about following Christ, as they draw close to God and seek the Holy Ghost, desire an authorized baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. They “get over” mortal concerns about having to have been “right” with all their mortal choices, and rather realize that what they really want is to please God, have the gift of the Holy Ghost and valid priesthood authority if they are a male, and enter into covenants that enable them for God to give them what they truly desired in life and desire while in the spirit world.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Backing up a bit, I see so much focus within Mormonism on man and woman family relationships but not much of those living the single life.

I hear you saying the practice of polygamy was not right.

But Bringham Young and Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

Also, I would like you to read about the topic of the ‘catacombs’ and the martyrs of ancient Rome; there are references to the Bishop of Rome and later popes…

I do see Peter the Rock’s place at Rome. He died at the place of the pulpit at John Paul II’s funeral. I noticed the breeze moving the pages of the Bible…and as soon as Mass was done, the bible closed by the wind…

I think of the ancient Christians who witnessed the daily coming of Light and Life of Christ being said in the catacombs…in the place of death and corpses…where the rock of Peter began. Ancient Mass was said in the darkness of the dead…but establishing Rome…the center of the evil empire and enslavement in those days also the place of victory over sin and death…where Christianity began to be established…

I find such drama much more credible of how Christianity began than of any secret message or messenger…

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

I find such drama much more credible of how Christianity began than of any secret message or messenger…

Hi, Kathleen,

Yes, I know about how people like the drama of all that…

As far as a messenger with a message about revealed truth coming in the latter days, it wasn’t much of a secret since the apostle John foresaw it and wrote about it, and now anyone can read about it who has a Bible in hand. They would find out about it in Revelation 14:6-7, and it would no longer be “secret”.

But unfortunately the Bible is one of the world’s best kept 'secrets" for some people who would rather read something else, or not read at all except maybe text messages and “quick reads”. (Not saying you’re one of them–I have to assume you read the entire Bible and enjoy it.)

Peace to you, Kathleen.

 

[Peter_John]

Of course I don’t expect you or any Catholic to believe that.

But apparently you do believe that, and for your argument to prevail it must be valid that over the centuries people could not understand their own basic language.

As Kathleen pointed out, the scripture that Peter gave to the world to tell us to be careful about “private interpretation” as compared with the “holy men of God” who were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and spoke truth and wrote truth, has been used to make it so that not one Catholic would feel free to think about scripture beyond what they have been taught to think. So it only took a few to “take the reins”, give the explanation they needed and wanted to teach, and everyone else follows…

The way you interpret that justifies Catholic protectiveness of access to the written word at certain times.

The grammar was simple. The need to have the passage say what they wanted it to say was greater than the simple grammar, so the simple grammar didn’t prevail…

This sounds like a claim that they did not have a laguage capable of simply communicating complex ideas, basically suggesting they were a sub-civilized society.

Yes, they denied the resurrection, but their example was specific. They spoke of seven brothers and a woman, who it appears by their use of the words “with us” to have been Sadducees also. Jesus stayed with their subject, and didn’t change the subject. …
Jesus had a very adequate answer about unbelieving Sadducees–that they will be resurrected, and will not have marriage. They asked a specific question, and received a specific answer. That is how good language use works.

Jesus was not “a fool” to answer their specific question with the correct doctrine about the condition of unbelievers in their resurrection. He should have answered with the correct doctrine, and did, of course

This response shows that you do not realize where the question came from. The Sadducees refer to a story from the Book of Tobit. It was so implicit in the culture of the day that anyone in the culture would have recognized it and made the association. “They”, the brothers, are a part of the Lord’s coveneant people from the day the story was set, and qualify as believers.

Were I an LDS apologist i would say that the Lord knew the answer was obvious: The wife could only be eternally married to the first husband, and even under Jewish Law the subsequent marriages were to raise up seed in the name of the first brother. AS now, when an LDS woman is married in the Temple, the children are sealed to her. If she remarries ahe cannot re-marry in the Temple. Should she have children in a later marriage they will be sealed to her, and hence while they have an earthly father their father in eternity would be the first husband.

However, Romans 7:1-4 throws it out the window.

SOME INTERESTING IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DOCTRINE IN LDS HISTORY
(Slightly diversionary of topic, but interesting)
That has particular significance in your ecclesiastical history. No literal sons of Joseph Smith ever became President of the Church. However Rachel Ridgway Ivins was sealed to Joseph Smith before marrying Jedediah M. Grant for time only. He died shortly after she bore their only child. The status of this child as eternally sealed, through Rachel to Joseph Smith himself may speak to Grant’s calling to the Seventy at age 15 and the Council of the Twelve at only the age of 26. From 1918 he served 27 years as LDS President, longer than anyone but Brigham Young.

With the LDS eternal perspective, all of his colleagues had to recognize Grant as one already recognized for Eternity as a son of “The Prophet”.

This doctrine adds an additional name to the list of LDS presidents related to Joseph Smith.

Lorenzo Snow – Brother-in-law to Joseph Smith (from marriage to Eliza R. Snow)
Joseph F. Smith – literal nephew of Joseph Smith
Heber J. Grant - Son of Joseph Smith (eternal sealing)
Joseph Fielding Smith – great-nephew of Joseph Smith
George Albert Smith - natural 3rd Cousin
Spencer W. Kimball – great-nephew of Joseph Smith (Aunt was married to him)

That accounts for much of the 20th Century. I expect there are others, but these are the only ones I recall off the cuff.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Here is the Gospel Essentials lesson linked about this topic:

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng

I can have a difference of opinion about the meaning of the word “righteous” as used by Alma and as cited in that lesson from Alma’s teaching about this topic, than the meaning that it means “only those who have the full gospel covenants”. That means I can disagree about the sentence that uses the words “spirit prison” to describe the condition of people who lived good lives and repented of their sins knowing of the atoning grace of Christ, but who didn’t have the authorized priesthood ordinance of baptism. What matters is what was in their heart with their repentance, their love, their faith in Christ, their treatment of others, their keeping of the commandments–in short, their righteousness. Doctrine and Covenants 137 reminds those aware of this section, that God judges “according to the desire of their hearts”.

The same would be true of those needing an authorized baptism by valid priesthood authority. Of course someone who has sincere intent about following Christ, as they draw close to God and seek the Holy Ghost, desire an authorized baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. They “get over” mortal concerns about having to have been “right” with all their mortal choices, and rather realize that what they really want is to please God, have the gift of the Holy Ghost and valid priesthood authority if they are a male, and enter into covenants that enable them for God to give them what they truly desired in life and desire while in the spirit world.

From your link:

In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.

It deserves note that it specifies that ordinances need doing to avoid spirit prison. Since the ancient Christian martyrs believed a very different set of teachings than what Mormonism teaches, in LDS terms they would have died without accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It sounds like you are saying that in your opinion the official LDS manual is wrong, and that you also disagree with this statement by one of your late prophets and his son-in-law:

“If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 1-350/ Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 670)

If when someone dies for their testimony of Christ without a valid baptism, it has no effect on their place in the Spirit World, what is the rush to get their temple work done all about. Sounds like they do not need it.

Are you honestly saying you consider the Church publications and advanced doctrine wrong on this? (No issue for me if you do: My grandfather thought the “Moderation in all things is wisdom in my sight” summarized the fulness of the Word of Wisdom, as the bottles of rum we found moderately hidden around the house after he died proved )

 

[Peter_John]

As Kathleen pointed out, the scripture that Peter gave to the world to tell us to be careful about “private interpretation” as compared with the “holy men of God” who were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and spoke truth and wrote truth, has been used to make it so that not one Catholic would feel free to think about scripture beyond what they have been taught to think. So it only took a few to “take the reins”, give the explanation they needed and wanted to teach, and everyone else follows.

I need to further comment that your remark about Catolics not feeling free to think about scripture beyond what they have thought is not really valid, but to the degree it is it applies as well to Mormons. That’s what the whole New Order Mormon movement is about. InCatholicism it is the freedom to consider different possible interpretations of scripture that brings about the Ecumenical counsels. The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was the result of a lot of people thinking freely, and encouraged free-thinking within boundaries. Problems arose because people disregarded some of those boundaries: Recognizing that some interpretations of scripture are culturally relative to the times they were written does not mean that all values are culturally relative in Biblical interpretation…

 

[KathleenGee]

Tonight on EWTN, we listened to this couple who converted to Catholicism.

The man learned to love his wife more deeply by how Christ has loved His church.

 

[ParkerD]

But apparently you do believe that, and for your argument to prevail it must be valid that over the centuries people could not understand their own basic language.

Peter John,

We all understand (I have to assume) that the Bible wasn’t “written in our own basic language”. Those who know Spanish are aware of use of understood pronouns which are part of the verb conjugation. Those who have researched the language Jesus would have been using, and the languages of compilations and original translations, would be aware that that same pattern as occurs in Spanish (with the pronoun understood and not stated because the verb conveys the meaning by including the pronoun as a “given”) occurred in the language that would have been originally used.

The way you interpret that justifies Catholic protectiveness of access to the written word at certain times. This sounds like a claim that they did not have a language capable of simply communicating complex ideas, basically suggesting they were a sub-civilized society.

If that’s where your mind goes in thinking about what I wrote, then that is your fault, not mine. I was not thinking that, nor does it convey that in any sense of those words.

This response shows that you do not realize where the question came from. The Sadducees refer to a story from the Book of Tobit. It was so implicit in the culture of the day that anyone in the culture would have recognized it and made the association. “They”, the brothers, are a part of the Lord’s covenant people from the day the story was set, and qualify as believers.

So this would mean that both Jesus and the Sadducees knew the story perfectly well, and yet

1. the Sadducees used words that mean “there were with us” which directs attention away from that story and to a hypothetical situation which was their learned attempt to show that the law of Moses had no belief in the resurrection, and
2. it also shows that the Sadducees knew perfectly well that Jews who believed in the resurrection also believed in eternal marriage, or the hypothetical circumstance had no bearing on “trapping” Jesus, at all.

So this would mean that Jesus waited until near the very end of His ministry on earth to overturn the long-standing Jewish belief in eternal marriage, and did it by referring to a “story” which was brought forward not by Him, but by unbelievers with no good motive in their minds.

This does not sound like the Master teacher–to announce a major doctrinal change by letting the Sadducees lead Him toward making the point. This would mean He was being led by unbelievers–not leading them. It is as though He were saying, “By the way, there is not marriage in heaven which I forgot to tell anyone about until just now.”

It also would mean that He used poor grammatical construction to convey that doctrinal change as having universal application.

There is no other precedent for that kind of poor grammatical construction within His use of language–He who uses language better and more precisely than any other who ever has walked on the earth because of His wisdom and intelligence and knowledge.

 

[ParkerD]

From your link:

It deserves note that it specifies that ordinances need doing to avoid spirit prison. Since the ancient Christian martyrs believed a very different set of teachings than what Mormonism teaches, in LDS terms they would have died without accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It sounds like you are saying that in your opinion the official LDS manual is wrong, and that you also disagree with this statement by one of your late prophets and his son-in-law:

“If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 1-350/ Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 670)

Those who died after the fullness of the priesthood was on the earth, thus after valid baptisms and the gift of the Holy Ghost, would go to the spirit world where whatever repentance they had done on earth still counts completely, so their condition relates to their state of repentance and faith in Christ.

The spirit world, as that lesson says, is near us on this earth, for all people in the spirit world, and there is communication happening among them. The words “spirit prison” convey a meaning that can be easily misunderstood by someone who has not studied the whole doctrine the spirit world and what those words mean–so rather than have to explain all about that the “prison” is a situation of non-progress and waiting, in the case of people who were righteous but still needed ordinances of entry and covenant making, and that it doesn’t mean a “prison” like mortal life “prisons”–I have no issue with writing about it in a different way than that lesson as I had already noted with regard to the words “spirit prison”. “Spirit prison” and paradise are both near us on this earth, in varying degrees with regard to their knowledge and progress as that lesson notes depending upon each individual’s choices in life and choices there.

I am fully aware that since one needs the gift of the Holy Ghost for sanctification and other ordinances for exaltation, that those over age eight would need the temple ordinances done for them and thus need those for “exaltation” which replaces the word “salvation” in the quote you presented if understood for how the word “salvation” is sometimes used in the scriptures.

Are you honestly saying you consider the Church publications and advanced doctrine wrong on this?

I think the words “spirit prison” can be easily misunderstood and thus would need a much fuller explanation than the usual brief explanations such as the sentence you quoted from that lesson. “Spirit prison” and “paradise” would be one and the same place for those who had been righteously repenting and living by fully keeping the commandments while living their mortal lives, with the exception that the lesson conveys that “paradise” means the person has the gift of the Holy Ghost and thus moves on in their learning at a much faster pace. I think a spirit waiting in “spirit prison” as used in those sentences you quoted but under the circumstance of having had faith and having been repenting all during their life, are “at rest” and are learning and loving, so I think that more closely matches the word “paradise” than the words “spirit prison” for those people.

But it does mean they were waiting, yes, and are happy to have the choice offered to them, yes, and can then move forward gaining more knowledge through the Holy Ghost faster, yes.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

I have looked for Soren1’s post that you are referring to, and couldn’t find it.

Let’s see–a few days ago, SteveVH seemed to think the saying “be as the angels” was diminishing the importance of one in that situation. So I guess I don’t know what answer you are looking for.

Angels are important, and worship God and give glory to Him. They may serve as messengers for Him. I don’t know how that diminishes their importance.

Peace to you, and have a wonderful, beautiful day. (Since it is beautiful where I live today, I thought I should add that in.)

The post was in a different thread so you might not have seen it. Sorry about that.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7983356#post7983356

Originally posted by soren1
Kathleen,

You make an excellent point here. Something that is largely overlooked is dialogue with Mormons is the contrast in how each religion understands the unity of Christians. Mormonism ecclesiology does not have a doctrine of a “mystical body,” but thinks of the church only as an organized whole but not go further by considering it as real unity, that is, literally one body. Consequently, they cannot, on the basis of their ecclesiology, think of a more profound union of human of persons than a biological family, and so it seems to them a great loss that we should cease to be married to our spouses in heaven. If one understands that the divine sonship in which all Christians participate constitutes us as a real family, and that unity in the Holy Spirit is a deeper unity than union in the flesh, than it is impossible to see how the continuation of a marriage would be anything but superfluous. But Mormons don’t get that, so they think continued marriage is necessary for happiness and they interpret the end of marriage in death simply as a loss, with not further context.

One remarkable sign of this blindness in Mormonism is the amazing exegesis the give of Matt 22:30. For them, those who are not married and given in marriage are not the exalted persons in the celestial kingdom, but the less worthy “children of this world” who serve the exalted persons and inhabit the lower kingdoms. This exegesis can be demolished easily, because it does not fit the nature of the argument Christ is making against the Sadducees, but even more simply, it underrates angels. Nowadays, our modern notion of angels is shaped b their depiction on sentimental greeting cards, but biblical angels are heavy duty business. If you look at the glorious and frightening manifestation of the angels to Ezekiel, the power displayed in wiping out the firstborn of Egypt, the presiding role of the angels over heavenly worship of Revelation, etc., one sees that to be “like the angels” is a very big deal. In fact, more than a few observant exegetes have understood that when the Letter to the Hebrews Claims that Christ is greater than angels, it is claiming that he is divine, simply.

In Second Temple Judaism, these things were well understood, and there is no way anyone could here “they will be like the angels” as meaning anything other than achieving the most exalted condition available to a creature. What is Christ is revealing, therefore, is not merely that marriage ends in heaven, but that the end of of marriage constitutes a higher state of life. This is good news. The Sadducees have reveal the carnality of their thoughts, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God, by thinking of the resurrection as a return to the conditions of mortal experience, in which marriage is taken for granted.