LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[SteveVH]

Hi, Soren1 and SteveVH,

I suppose that you may want a response about the marriage analogy Paul used in his epistle to the Romans.

It again is somewhat of a surprise, but perhaps “not very” since you certainly have free will choice to believe that his analogy meant the Jews having been “married” to the old law, were now free from the old law.

I suggest that he wasn’t saying that, at all, as many verses point out. They still needed to view the commandments as needing to be lived and obeyed–so there were still aspects of the old law and covenant that were still in effect under the new covenant and under “grace”.

He seemed to be writing about a problem among the Roman converts, that they were thinking they could sin, break the commandments, and still have grace apply because of the new covenant.

He refuted that belief, while using the analogy of Jewish marriage under the law, which said a woman could remarry after her husband had died; Paul was writing that elements of the “old marriage” were still in effect with the “new marriage”–so the “old marriage” to the law wasn’t completely dead, and wasn’t completely gone away. (Some aspects were, such as circumcision–but not the entire “marriage”.) The Ten Commandments are as eternal as God.

So to say that the old covenant was “dead” seems to me to be an incorrect understanding of the analogy and certainly of the doctrine. They still needed to look at the Ten Commandments and the great commandments which had been given under the “law”, as still in full effect, and that they should not “sin, that grace abound.”

So we have completely different views and perspectives, and never the twain shall meet.

I would only say that you need to read my response, and especially Soren1’s comments that followed, one more time. You are not addressing the issue, Parker. Paul was saying that we are no longer subject to the old law. We are now subject to the law of love. He uses the analogy of marriage, (not “marriage to the law” in some metaphorical sense) as Soren1 has pointed out, because it was something they already understood; that upon death, one is freed from the marriage covenant with the deceased spouse. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we are freed from the marriage covenant with the deceased spouse then we certainly are not married for eternity. He is demostrating a truth being taught by using a truth already understood by those to whom he was speaking.

Any other interpretation of this is simply illogical based upon the simple purpose of analogies; to demonstrate an unkown truth by comparison to a known truth. If the unkown truth is compared to a premise which is not true to begin with the analogy fails completely.

 

[ParkerD]

I would only say that you need to read my response, and especially Soren1’s comments that followed, one more time. You are not addressing the issue, Parker. Paul was saying that we are no longer subject to the old law. We are now subject to the law of love. …

SteveVH,

Paul was not saying “we are no longer subject to the old law”. He used many means of saying the Roman converts should still be thinking in terms of keeping the commandments, which had been given under the “old law”.

Just because they had the “new covenant” (which was not “love” since the “old law” included the two Great Commandments which were love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, as Jesus reminded)–didn’t mean they were “no longer subject to the old law” in terms of the commandments and that to break the commandments meant there was a “sin” that needed to be rectified.

The “new covenant” didn’t retain the sacrifice of animals or physical circumcision or the many “lower law” parts of Leviticus, but did certainly retain the Two Commandments and the Ten Commandments, and that “sin” was still “sin” with respect to those commandments.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Can I comment on a few scriptures that have been bantered about? Maybe another perspective, huh?

How about this one:

First off, I don’t see any problems with this as stated. There is obviously some sort of progression after we die. That much is clear. The “advantage” would certainly be in the amount of progress one has made in attaining eternal life. If you have applied the grace of Christ more frequently and more fully in your mortal life, then you would be closer to attaining eternal life when you die. Isn’t that the goal?

To answer your question, yes and no.

First the no: There is no progression to “attaining eternal life”, no spirit prison, no 1000 years of missionary work. All of that is earthly, I think what Mormons call temporal. At death, the race is over, to paraphrase St. Paul.

the yes part: The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is sometimes confused with Mormon spirit prison. They have a similar concept, but are not the same thing. Those in purgatory have already been judged as being with God. Purgatory is a state of purification, and in this state, God purifies our souls, as nothing unclean can enter heaven. There are acts done in this life towards helping souls in purgatory. Masses are said and we pray for the dead.

It appears we also will keep principles of intelligence

You would have to explain what this is. Even as a Mormon I could never figure it out.

Is the question whether “the resurrection” and “the world to come” are the same? Wouldn’t the world to come refer to the Spirit World? I personally don’t know of any scripture or LDS teaching that explains how or when progression occurs “in the world to come.” We just know that it does.

“Spirit World” is a Mormon phrase, which has packed into a lot of Mormon thought, belief and doctrine. I can’t think of a Catholic parallel to go with it.

We don’t believe in the Mormon idea of progression.

I give it as my opinion that any progress must be made before one is resurrected. One of the scriptural reasons I believe that is because of the other disputed scripture that says:

It is sufficiently clear that St. Paul is describing our bodies now as something less than they will be in the resurrection. A difference between Adam (earthly) and Jesus (heavenly).

Coupling these two passages, it is a stretch to argue that Paul has suddenly digressed into some random discussion about astronomy.

I don’t know of anyone who thinks he is.

He is clearly saying that resurrected bodies come in varying “degrees” of glory. Only celestial and terrestrial degrees are mentioned in this rendering, but then he adds a third type of glory when he compares these bodies to the sun, moon, and stars.

He says nothing of glory or progressing after we die. Read the rest of the chapter please. He is describing two states, one early, one heavenly. We are in an earthly state now, and at the resurrection will be in a heavenly state.

Verse 9 Just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one.

And yes, we are exhorted in scripture to conform to the image of the Heavenly One.

God transforms us from our earthly state to our heavenly state at the resurrection. Just as there are differences now among us, there will be differences then, but your idea of progressing in “glory” is non-scriptural.

The resurrection is sort of the judgment before the judgment. If we know that our star-like body pales in comparison to the glory of the sun, then how humiliated and embarrassed will we be to stand before the glory of God? We will shrink before his brightness and cower before his light. Would we feel comfortable in the presence of celestial beings if we had an unchangeable and permanent reminder of our unworthiness to be there?

We are judged at the time of our death. Which is the judgement before the judgement. Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead. At this time, all will be laid bare before God.

God transforms us, there is no reason to believe that He will transform us into being uncomfortable around Him. There is no such belief about heaven in all of Christianity.

But again, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory aligns to your idea of being “embarrased to stand before God”. While no, we won’t be embarrassed, but yes God will purify us.

There must needs be a place prepared for those who cannot dwell in the presence of God. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that there might be places with the glory of the moon, places with the glory of the stars, and perhaps a dark place for Satan and his angels to reside for eternity?

Those who will not be in the presence of God will be in hell. That is what makes it hell, a permanent separation from God.

The Mormon idea of different kingdoms is just levels of separation, which appear more to Christian eyes as levels of hell, not heaven. Not to mention Mormon divide God in order to come up with different levels of heaven. God does not make a place for us where we are separate from Him. He has prepared a place in heaven for all of us, Jesus teaches this quite clearly when He teaches that there are many mansions in his house. No one is existing outside of His house, in different levels. This is wholly a Mormon invention of the 19th century, and not Apostolic in origin.

 

[Miriam1947]

Scriptorian:

Can I comment on a few scriptures that have been bantered about? Maybe another perspective, huh?

How about this one:

Quote:
18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:18-19)
First off, I don’t see any problems with this as stated. There is obviously some sort of progression after we die. That much is clear. The “advantage” would certainly be in the amount of progress one has made in attaining eternal life. If you have applied the grace of Christ more frequently and more fully in your mortal life, then you would be closer to attaining eternal life when you die. Isn’t that the goal?

It appears we also will keep principles of intelligence when we are resurrected. I don’t think anyone should have a problem with that either. Is the question whether “the resurrection” and “the world to come” are the same? Wouldn’t the world to come refer to the Spirit World? I personally don’t know of any scripture or LDS teaching that explains how or when progression occurs “in the world to come.” We just know that it does.

Since I am a Catholic I don’t read this as scripture. I read this as a way for you to use Mormon arguments as if they were true.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Scriptorian:

Since I am a Catholic I don’t read this as scripture. I read this as a way for you to use Mormon arguments as if they were true.

“Absolutely”
In Christ
www.utahmission.com

 

[ParkerD]

Scriptorian:

Since I am a Catholic I don’t read this as scripture. I read this as a way for you to use Mormon arguments as if they were true.

Miriam,

He was responding to Peter John, who had a wrong idea in his mind about that scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants. Peter John, a Catholic, was the one who brought up the passage. You might as well blame it on him that it became a point of conversation.

 

[CEM5]

Please get your facts straight. Polygamy is a crime rather than a sin. You should Google Christians for Polygamysin. Even the founder of the Protestant movement thought it not a sin

Hi Tony,

Yes, Polygamy is a crime according to our laws, however, it is also a sin, according to God’s law. God is quite clear that adulterers do not go to heaven. Will not inherit the kingdom of God. Neither will liars, thieves, etc…

It matters not what any person on earth believes in contradiction to God’s words/laws - it doesn’t make it “right” or acceptable if it contradicts what God has taught.

1 Corinthians 6:9 NRSA

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

Hebrews 13:4 NRSA

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

James 4:4 NRSA

Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

veritas,

CEM

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Tony,

Yes, Polygamy is a crime according to our laws, however, it is also a sin, according to God’s law.

CEM5,

You have Abraham, Moses, and Jacob (Israel) not going to heaven because of “sin” as you have described polygamy; yet here just recently two posts confused an analogy of Paul with an analogy that the Ten Commandments were “dead” as part of the “old law” and had been replaced by the “law of love” because Paul wrote that after a woman’s husband died, she could remarry. Maybe both of these situations should be re-thought and re-evaluated from the perspective of the Bible. (Jesus didn’t condemn Abraham for having more than one wife, nor certainly Israel.)

God seems to have accepted both Abraham and Israel into His confidence, also, as did Paul write about the great faith of Abraham.

 

[Peter_John]

Hi Tony,

Yes, Polygamy is a crime according to our laws, however, it is also a sin, according to God’s law. God is quite clear that adulterers do not go to heaven. Will not inherit the kingdom of God. Neither will liars, thieves, etc…

It matters not what any person on earth believes in contradiction to God’s words/laws - it doesn’t make it “right” or acceptable if it contradicts what God has taught.

1 Corinthians 6:9 NRSA

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

Hebrews 13:4 NRSA

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

James 4:4 NRSA

Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

veritas,

CEM

This is where I have to insert a bit of something: Nothing in the Old Testament restricted polygamy, but the New Testament makes it clear that God raised the bar with the Mission of Christ. The Book of Mormon concurs on this, though it raises the bar sooner. The Lord states centuries before Christ that he was not happy that earlier Old Testament figures kept wives and concubines, says he put up with it, and reserved the practice for when he needed to “raise up seed”. In the meantime, he specifically instructs the Nephites that they are to have but one wife and no concubines.

Nothing changes this before jesus comes. The New testament makes it clear how he laid down the law in the Holy Land. If I believed the Book of Mormon true, I could argue that jesus did not have to specify the change to the ancient Americans, because it was already the same. He told them, no polygamy unless I command it, and he never commenaded it through the extent of their civilization.

Since I do not believe the Book of Mormon, I need not answer for Mormons having failed to follow this injunction on polygamy.

However, both Jesus and the leaders he assigned to carry his gospel on to the rest of the world condemned polygamy.

 

[Peter_John]

CEM5,

You have Abraham, Moses, and Jacob (Israel) not going to heaven because of “sin” as you have described polygamy; yet here just recently two posts confused an analogy of Paul with an analogy that the Ten Commandments were “dead” as part of the “old law” and had been replaced by the “law of love” because Paul wrote that after a woman’s husband died, she could remarry. Maybe both of these situations should be re-thought and re-evaluated from the perspective of the Bible. (Jesus didn’t condemn Abraham for having more than one wife, nor certainly Israel.)

God seems to have accepted both Abraham and Israel into His confidence, also, as did Paul write about the great faith of Abraham.

Old Law/New Law. Your standard answer will be that not one jot or tittle of the old law would pass away until all was fulfilled. That happened on the Cross.

 

[CEM5]

CEM5,

You have Abraham, Moses, and Jacob (Israel) not going to heaven because of “sin” as you have described polygamy; yet here just recently two posts confused an analogy of Paul with an analogy that the Ten Commandments were “dead” as part of the “old law” and had been replaced by the “law of love” because Paul wrote that after a woman’s husband died, she could remarry. Maybe both of these situations should be re-thought and re-evaluated from the perspective of the Bible. (Jesus didn’t condemn Abraham for having more than one wife, nor certainly Israel.)

God seems to have accepted both Abraham and Israel into His confidence, also, as did Paul write about the great faith of Abraham.

Hi Parker,

You have to realize that before Moses, there were no “laws” - and not only that, polygamy and divorce was never God’s plan, but man’s. We do not follow the old ways of the Old Testament saints, because Jesus, God incarnate, came to us and set things right. Divorce is not permitted, but under certain conditions married couples can separate, but they are not allowed to remarry unless one spouse dies. Jesus told us that “because of the hardness of man’s hearts” God allowed divorce under the old laws, but Jesus came to show us the way and correct what man made wrong and permitted. Polygamy is not allowed under the New Testament, (and by the way, by the time Jesus came to us as God incarnate, polygamy was no longer practiced by Jewish peoples). Divorce is not permitted under the New Testament/Covenant. We are not living under the Old Covenant.

blessings,
CEM

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker,

You have to realize that before Moses, there were no “laws” - and not only that, polygamy and divorce was never God’s plan, but man’s. We do not follow the old ways of the Old Testament saints, because Jesus, God incarnate, came to us and set things right. Divorce is not permitted, but under certain conditions married couples can separate, but they are not allowed to remarry unless one spouse dies. Jesus told us that “because of the hardness of man’s hearts” God allowed divorce under the old laws, but Jesus came to show us the way and correct what man made wrong and permitted. Polygamy is not allowed under the New Testament, (and by the way, by the time Jesus came to us as God incarnate, polygamy was no longer practiced by Jewish peoples). Divorce is not permitted under the New Testament/Covenant. We are not living under the Old Covenant.

blessings,
CEM

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker,

You have to realize that before Moses, there were no “laws” - and not only that, polygamy and divorce was never God’s plan, but man’s. We do not follow the old ways of the Old Testament saints, because Jesus, God incarnate, came to us and set things right.

Hello to you, CEM5,

(I took a break for a few days from responding to this, because I didn’t feel like getting into that kind of discussion as I knew I had little time and knew it could get complicated, but here goes

This is one of those cases that I had expressed to Lax16 several days ago (different thread), of an inconsistency in beliefs compared with the Bible and compared with “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Enoch “walked with God”, and Noah was “perfect in his generation” and had laws of God he was aware of. So to say that "before Moses, there were no ‘laws’ seems to be dealing only with the Mosaic law, which was given as a “lesser law” and was given after the children of Israel had rejected the idea of seeing the “face” of God for fear.

Abram communed with God, entered into covenants with God, and certainly knew both the voice of God and that he should keep the covenants he made and the laws given to him by God. Abraham is listed by Paul as a man of great faith, and Sara is also listed by Paul as a woman of great faith (Hebrews 11:11). There is no evidence within Genesis that God either reprimanded or considered it sinful that Abraham obeyed Sara’s expressed wish that he raise up seed by means of taking Hagar to wife. Neither is there evidence that God reprimanded Jacob (Israel) for accepting that he needed to keep Leah as his wife (despite having been deceived by Laban) and would be able to marry Rachel also, whom he had intended to marry. It is clear that these marriages were for the purpose of raising up seed as had been promised by God to these men.

It is also clear that both Abraham and Jacob communed with God in a relationship that was a two-way relationship where God spoke to them, and they listened and were obedient, even when asked to do hard things.

It is contradictory to think that Paul would cite the example of Abraham as a man of great faith and obedience, and yet to think that Paul had in his mind that Abraham was either grievously sinning or was doing something that needed Jesus to come and “set things right,” when the expressed belief I have seen and noted is that Jesus is Jehovah, the Great I Am (with which I agree), so certainly He could have “set things right” with Abraham and with Jacob without needing to wait until He came to earth personally in the flesh.

What Jesus did in regard to marriage is re-establish the idea of eternal marriage, through God having “joined together”, and establish that the law of Moses allowing a “writing of divorcement” was a lesser law situation, and reflected marriage for the duration of this life only, and did not reflect a kind of marriage that “God hath joined together”.

Divorce is not permitted, but under certain conditions married couples can separate, but they are not allowed to remarry unless one spouse dies. Jesus told us that “because of the hardness of man’s hearts” God allowed divorce under the old laws, but Jesus came to show us the way and correct what man made wrong and permitted.

I agree about this, the “old laws” being specifically the Mosaic law, not the earlier law known by Adam, by Noah, and by Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

Polygamy is not allowed under the New Testament, (and by the way, by the time Jesus came to us as God incarnate, polygamy was no longer practiced by Jewish peoples).

I think if you were to research polygamy within the Jewish culture, you might take a different point of view as to it having been “no longer practiced” “by the time Jesus came”.

Divorce is not permitted under the New Testament/Covenant. We are not living under the Old Covenant.

I agree that we are not living under the Old Covenant, and that divorce is not the planned way for eternal marriage covenants nor for the kinds of marriage covenants that are not viewed as eternally binding but are viewed as sacred and holy.

blessings,
CEM

Thanks, and same to you, CEM.

 

[RebeccaJ]

God gave to Moses the Law in order that the people could be perfected. There is nothing in this that changes the immutablity of God. Holiness in the sight of God has been the Will of God since Adam and Eve.

The Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, in Whom we are perfected through.

 

[ParkerD]

God gave to Moses the Law in order that the people could be perfected. There is nothing in this that changes the immutablity of God. Holiness in the sight of God has been the Will of God since Adam and Eve.

The Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, in Whom we are perfected through.

RJ,

There is a built-in inconsistency in those statements, taken together.

The “lesser law” was not given so the people could be “perfected”, as Jesus noted when He said the practice of the “writing of divorcement” was something that had been permitted but that “from the beginning was not so.” They had not been ready for a “higher law.” Jeremiah prophesied that there was going to be a “new covenant”.

I agree that parts of “the Law” (since it appears you mean the Mosaic law) were “fulfilled in Jesus Christ”, because they were supposed to point the people toward the law of sacrifice and Jesus was the Ultimate sacrifice–but parts of “the Law” were retained and are believed and followed today: the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments.

Forgiveness was also part of “the Law”, and is still followed hopefully by believers in Jesus Christ today. Showing mercy was also part of “the Law”, as was caring for the poor, specifically, which is why the Savior dealt with the money changers in the temple in such a direct and powerful way. He knew they had “the Law”, and should have known better than what they were doing in His Father’s house.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,

There is a built-in inconsistency in those statements, taken together.

The “lesser law” was not given so the people could be “perfected”, as Jesus noted when He said the practice of the “writing of divorcement” was something that had been permitted but that “from the beginning was not so.” They had not been ready for a “higher law.” Jeremiah prophesied that there was going to be a “new covenant”.

I agree that parts of “the Law” (since it appears you mean the Mosaic law) were “fulfilled in Jesus Christ”, because they were supposed to point the people toward the law of sacrifice and Jesus was the Ultimate sacrifice–but parts of “the Law” were retained and are believed and followed today: the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments.

Forgiveness was also part of “the Law”, and is still followed hopefully by believers in Jesus Christ today. Showing mercy was also part of “the Law”, as was caring for the poor, specifically, which is why the Savior dealt with the money changers in the temple in such a direct and powerful way. He knew they had “the Law”, and should have known better than what they were doing in His Father’s house.

ParkerD…first, stop reading polygamy and divorce as something that is of a divine order. It isn’t. It is the failure of humans, which God allows. He never commanded either one.

The ten commandments are retained because Jesus retained them, clarified, and brought around to what they fulfill in the Beatitudes.

Forgiveness and mercy are fulfilled in the commandment, the greatest of all, to love your neighbor as yourself.

Stop trying to be Jewish, and work instead to be a disciple of Christ. If you are going to take the approach that Jesus did not fulfill the law, why don’t Mormons follow the 600-700 order of the Mishnah?

 

[catholic-rcia]

RJ,

.

“Relationship”

Dear Parker, we really are in two completely different worlds when we speak about Jesus. It amazes me how these conversations can continue on while speaking of Him as if he was the same Him you are speaking about. I find that a bit crazy at times, in all sincerity. The Jesus that turned over the tables at the temple is not the same Jesus you speak of. I think we all need to be reminded of this from time to time. For Christians, you take away Jesus you take it all away. Nothing would be in existence. Please read the following and try to get into a Christian mind set. Take off your LDS Glasses if only for a moment.

The Catholic Church, using explicit Scriptures, has always found that the basis of a personal relationship with Jesus begins at the origin of the Christian life. The Church, from Pentecost onward, examines the language of Christ and Sacred Scriptures and the content of that language for God’s desire for the Christian’s relationship to Him. The Church begins at the beginning of life as a Christian.
The origin of the life of a Christian and of Christian perfection to which the Bible constantly calls us, is the Heavenly Father, Who communicates His life through the Son, and through the Son, the Holy Spirit.
1 Jn 4:7-10
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins.
The initiative for the life of a Christian is a movement descending from the Father to men: the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit sanctifies man.
1 Jn 4:10
In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us …
2 Cor 13:13
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of you God and the fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of you.
1 Pet 1:2
… in the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification by the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: …
The movement descending from the Father to man touches man first in baptism.
Rom 6:3-5
Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Heb 10:5-7 For this reason, when he came into the world, he said: “… a body you prepared for me … ‘As is written of me in the scroll, Behold, I come to do your will, O God.’” Jn 4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.”

Jesus teaches us that obedience to the will of the Father is our calling. Mt 6:9-10 This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Mt 12:50 For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.

The total earthly servitude of Christ consummated on the cross was praise and glory to God. Jn 17:4 I glorified you (Father) on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do.

Just as with Christ, the servitude of the Christian is simultaneously praise to God. 1 Cor 10:31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Eph 1:11-12 In him we were also chosen, destined in accord with the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will, so that we might exist for the praise of his glory, we who first hoped in Christ.

The gift of the self for the Christian is the denial of self. Mk 8:34-35 He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.” Mt 19:21 Jesus said to him (the young man), “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

In the life of the Father through Christ, charity/love holds first place. Mt 22:36-40 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” 1 Cor 12:31-13:13 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.

But I shall show you a still more excellent way. If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. … So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love. Gal 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Rom 13: 8-10 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments,

“You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

[CEM5]

Can I comment on a few scriptures that have been bantered about? Maybe another perspective, huh?

How about this one:
Quote:
18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:18-19)

First off, I don’t see any problems with this as stated. There is obviously some sort of progression after we die. That much is clear. The “advantage” would certainly be in the amount of progress one has made in attaining eternal life. If you have applied the grace of Christ more frequently and more fully in your mortal life, then you would be closer to attaining eternal life when you die. Isn’t that the goal?

It appears we also will keep principles of intelligence when we are resurrected. I don’t think anyone should have a problem with that either. Is the question whether “the resurrection” and “the world to come” are the same? Wouldn’t the world to come refer to the Spirit World? I personally don’t know of any scripture or LDS teaching that explains how or when progression occurs “in the world to come.” We just know that it does.

Hi Scriptorian,

How about this Scripture:
1 Cor 13:
8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for** tongues, they will cease**; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

See, all things will pass except faith, hope and love - love being the greatest. Love is the modern word for “charity” - charity being the love that Christ showed us.

I give it as my opinion that any progress must be made before one is resurrected. One of the scriptural reasons I believe that is because of the other disputed scripture that says:

Quote:
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (1 Corinthians 15:40-42)

While the scripture is sufficiently clear to an LDS scholar, others may want to remember the question Paul was trying to answer:

Quote:
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? (1 Corinthians 15:35)

Coupling these two passages, it is a stretch to argue that Paul has suddenly digressed into some random discussion about astronomy. He is clearly saying that resurrected bodies come in varying “degrees” of glory. Only celestial and terrestrial degrees are mentioned in this rendering, but then he adds a third type of glory when he compares these bodies to the sun, moon, and stars.

From what I have read of answers here, no one here said Paul was discussing astronomy. Paul is making comparisons of differing “glories”. Our resurrected bodies will have a differing “glory” than that of angels, stars, or other earthly things. Paul is assuring us that we will be raised and have glorious, new, resurrected bodies, just as Christ has now, and these new bodies will be immortal - “incorruptible”. The “corruption” is what happens when die now: our bodies return to the dust of the earth.

to be continued…

 

[CEM5]

continued…

For discussion’s sake, let’s say these names are unimportant. Perhaps you don’t like the idea of named “glories”. Okay. You cannot argue, though, that Paul was not trying to identify different body types that are resurrected. In the resurrection, you cannot trade in your body for a different model. There are no upgrades. If you are raised up with a celestial body, that is your state forever. You likewise cannot fall once you are resurrected. There are no downgrades, either. Paul says that resurrected bodies are incorruptible:
Quote:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (1 Corinthians 15:42)

The resurrection is sort of the judgment before the judgment. If we know that our star-like body pales in comparison to the glory of the sun, then how humiliated and embarrassed will we be to stand before the glory of God? We will shrink before his brightness and cower before his light. Would we feel comfortable in the presence of celestial beings if we had an unchangeable and permanent reminder of our unworthiness to be there?

There must needs be a place prepared for those who cannot dwell in the presence of God. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that there might be places with the glory of the moon, places with the glory of the stars, and perhaps a dark place for Satan and his angels to reside for eternity?

No, the ressurection is not “sort of the judgment before the judgment”. We are all judged BEFORE the ressurection. Upon death, we are immediately judged: this is the “particular judgment”, and we are judged as going to heaven (eternal life), or to hell (eternal damnation). Those who haven’t attained perfection upon death (for nothing ‘unclean’ enters heaven) - those with venial sins - will go to the place (or state) of purgatory (see 1 Cor 3:15). At the end of time, when Christ comes again (the Parousia), ALL will be judged: both the living and the dead, and this is called the general judgment: This is when EVERYONE gets their resurrected, immortal bodies for all eternity. Those in heaven and those in hell. St. Peter also tells us that the heavens and the earth will be cleansed with fire, leaving us a new heaven and new earth. This occurs at the end of time. Those in heaven will dwell with the Lord forever - we do not get our own planets and we do not become “gods/goddesses” begetting spirit children forever. When we die, there is no marriage: we are the children of God.

blessings,
CEM