LDS - Celestial Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ59
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My biggest problem with LDS theology and the religion itself is logic and credibility. I’ve heard on this thread and in my dealings with Mormons and reading their theology for years that the Catholic Church somehow twisted and warped the theology and truths set down by the Apostles and so naturally Joseph Smith was given the task of making God’s real intentions and truths clear anew for mankind after nearly 1,800 years of perverse lies and twists.

I always think the following questions:

Why would a kind, gentle, forgiving, all-powerful, and loving God let His people wander in the wilderness bewildered, lost, twisted, and confused for 1,800 years?

Why would God go through the salvation history of Israel from Adam and Eve through Abraham through Moses and into Jesus’s time, thousands of years in this big anticipation for Christ the King to come and bring us the reconciliation of the Cross and the Gospel only to then let the ball be dropped right after this highly-anticipated event and we go right back to being dumb, lost sheep with no saviour?

Why would God ever retro-baptize dead folks? There’s no precedent for it whatsoever?

If the early church was LDS in beliefs, why is there not a trace of this in the early stages? Why do we read Clement, Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and the rest and we see NOTHING of plural marriage, Kolob, celestial spirit babies, polytheism, baptizing corpses, brass plates, and anything about lost tribes?

Joseph Smith had a very dubious history to say the least. And the most humorous incident in his life, IMO, was claiming to translate the “Book of Abraham” from an Egyptian scroll buried with a mummy that turned out, thanks to Egyptologists, to be a hypocephalus, nothing like what JS claimed it was. That proves he lied right there?

The “Book of Mormon” is replete with anachronisms that are obviously written by a man who didn’t know the real history of the land in which he was “revelating.” Horses in the new world? Elephans? Goats? Iron? Chariots? Compasses? Scimitars? Silk? Wheat and barley? The use of the term “Christ” and “Messiah” also didn’t exist at the time that the supposed New World adventures of this lost tribe happened, etc. Using the word “adieu” that obviously didn’t exist then and there as well as the harlot named “Isabel” whose name didn’t exist until the Middle Ages in France as well. Joseph Smith sure liked the French! And even baptism didn’t really exist until John the Baptist’s time yet they make it sound like the ancient Nephites were baptizing. 🤷

There is nothing in scripture ever to suggest preexistence for anyone except Our Lord

The beliefs about black people and attitudes about blacks being unable to be priests for decades is troubling

It’s obvious that Joseph Smith borrowed heaps of traditions from Masonic type rituals with handshakes and secret names and incorporated them into the religion

JS claims he translated “Reformed Egyptian” yet Egyptologists and historians as well as linguists say no such language ever existed

JS seemed to have plagiarized different writings such as “The Wonders of Nature” and “View of the Hebrews” and some other works.

Joseph Smith being taken to court over fraud and peep stone controversies and treasure-hunting. He seems like he was a bizarre figure with strange hobbies and a mind for imagined, fantastical sci-fi.

Kolob? What the heck? Is Klingon or Romulus in Mormonism as well?

There isn’t a SHRED of evidence archaeologically to support Lamanites, Nephites or any other “phites” in the New World period? With ancient Israel and the early Christians we have tons of archaeological items that could fill countless museums. We have catecombs, pottery, altars, wall paintings, tombs, images, you name it. With Mormonism we have nothing but one man’s word and no plates to see to back it up.

Mormonism just sounds invented and like something off sci-fi channel. Heck, Glen Larson who made Battlestar Galactica (which was loaded with Mormon storylines) was a Mormon! I remember watching Battlestar with the whole space angels thing chasing the Galactica and them telling the humans “as you are we once were, and as we are someday you will be!” and lost tribes, etc. LOL


🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷
 
Grandfather,

I’d be honored to buy you a beer sometime.

Paul (also a grandfather - isn’t it wonderful?)
Grandparenthood is one of the only things in life that is what its cracked up to be.

You can send along beer money anytime you feel the need.
 
Grandparenthood is one of the only things in life that is what its cracked up to be.

You can send along beer money anytime you feel the need.
Are you guys throwing out beer references just to tick off the Mormons with their anti-alcohol prohibitions!? LOL naughty naughty! 😃
 
But everyone is entitled to their own belief right 😉
grandfather;5914609:
My saying “Catholics do not believe in Divine Revelation” was meaning “Continued Revelation.” So thank you for clarifiying.
Everyone believes what they will. Logic says that when two religious beliefs contradcitct one another, one or both are false.

Catholics do believe in continuing revelation. There are two types of revelation. There is public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation is everything that happened in the Old Testament, Jesus coming to earth and it ended with the death of the last apostle. It contains everything that is needed to be known for salvation.

God can and does reveal things to people now and might even do so with large groups out in public, but that is called private revelation. Whether or not we believe it is up to the individual. You don’t need it. There can be no more public revelation, because it is completed in Jesus Christ, God among us. He is the fulfillment and completion of revelation. God might speak to you tonight.

Private revelation is always less reliable than public revelation.

We believe in it, but certainly do not believe God revealed anything to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.
 
Just saying, those of us who aren’t secretly married, get at least to be like angels, that’s all.
Xavierlives,
“That’s all” appears to me to be exactly what you want, what you envision for yourself, what you are striving for by living as you do in this life. So why gripe that the LDS belief is that you get what you want and what you have aimed for?

You (collective) don’t want eternal marriage, whether in a sacred temple in a sealing that is done by the authority to “bind on earth and in heaven” or anywhere by even someone with pretend authority. Why gripe that the LDS are striving for something you don’t want, don’t need, and don’t envision as being important or even desirable?

Eternal marriage, by the way, is vastly misrepresented as has been done on this thread when people place a sexual connotation into the main focus or even part of the relationship, since that is an unknown and there will be far more important and joyful actions and sharing than that in eternity. That may or may not be part of the relationship of eternal marriage, but if part then only a tiny part of it and perhaps not at all.
 
Even this is not completely accurate. Catholics believe that revelation from Heaven continues, and many of our canonized saints were also prophets and prophetesses. Catholic history is rich with visits from many Heavenly beings. Catholics believe that all that was necessary for salvation has already been revealed, hence there is no more “public revelation”. However all people can and do receive private revelations, and God can and does choose to reveal various messages through certain people. Marian apparitions are one major grouping of such events in Catholicism. Any new revelations (which cannot contradict what has already been revealed from apostolic times) are not required for salvation, however they can of course help one on their journey.

I hope this helps.
That helps me understand from what is commonly stated as Catholics not believing in continued revelation. But what you’re saying is that all doctrine and principles and ESSENTIALS you believe are already revealed and no more will be revealed.

Although I do not share these beliefs with you ( as i believe that the Bible contains errors of man) I will defend you and correct others when i hear that you do not believe in continued revelation.
 
That helps me understand from what is commonly stated as Catholics not believing in continued revelation. But what you’re saying is that all doctrine and principles and ESSENTIALS you believe are already revealed and no more will be revealed.
Yes, it is Catholic belief and understanding that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. He is the final and Perfect Revelation.

What is this something you believe is not Perfect about this Revelation?
 
mrparker;5914677:
But everyone is entitled to their own belief right 😉
Everyone believes what they will. Logic says that when two religious beliefs contradcitct one another, one or both are false.
Amen to that my friend. And I am fully confident in my beliefs as i am sure that you are as well in yours. And although our differences are irreconcilable, i respect your freedom of choice. And we all know that that one day, (some are closer to that day than the rest of us on here) we will discover what is truth.
We believe in it, but certainly do not believe God revealed anything to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.
What about the 14 after that? haha jk i didnt think you did believe that, no worries
 
Yes, it is Catholic belief and understanding that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. He is the final and Perfect Revelation.

What is this something you believe is not Perfect about this Revelation?
I don’t understand what you’re asking, try rephrasing, or quoting what you’re talkin about. Then i will try to answer.
 
I don’t understand what you’re asking, try rephrasing, or quoting what you’re talkin about. Then i will try to answer.
Catholic belief, from the Catechism:

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on *Hebrews *1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

So my question: What is this something you believe needs to be Revealed that is not found in God’s Perfect Revelation: Jesus Christ?
 
That helps me understand from what is commonly stated as Catholics not believing in continued revelation. But what you’re saying is that all doctrine and principles and ESSENTIALS you believe are already revealed and no more will be revealed.

Although I do not share these beliefs with you ( as i believe that the Bible contains errors of man) I will defend you and correct others when i hear that you do not believe in continued revelation.
Here is some examples of Private revelation :
catholicforum.com/churches/cathteach/divinemercy1.htm
our.homewithgod.com/divinemercy/
angelfire.com/ca3/rafaelmarie/ThePieta/athepieta.html
jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION6.htm#CHAPTER%20LIX
cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a013.html
my.homewithgod.com/gertrude/purgatory/
trumpetersmission.com/messages_purgatory.php
 
JJ59,
Hi, and God bless you also. I hope you won’t mind my chiming in as well.

It would seem pretty important to look at the context of passages of scripture where the Savior is speaking to specific groups–especially when a question has been “set up” to try and trap Him, as was the case with the question by the Sadducees, “which say that there is no resurrection.” They wanted to give Him a complicated case to see how He would prove that there is indeed a resurrection but yet answer their question.

Remember, the Sadducees would be part of a group of Jews who were hung up with the law and were not looking for a Redeemer and Savior, nor believed in the resurrection. So these men, by asking about “there were with us seven brethren”, were already providing a specific context for their question, and it did not have to do with every marriage in the world. It had to do with a particular marriage of a particular Sadducee, who by being a Sadducee means he does not believe in the resurrection and therefore has rejected the coming of a Savior to the world. He would be disqualified from having an eternal marriage, right off the bat, because of unbelief.

Note how the multitude “were astonished at his doctrine” (v. 33), and I’m sure were astonished at how deftly He answered the question. “They” (meaning the Sadducees brothers) “neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” So the answer means that the Sadducees will be resurrected, but will not have eternal marriages because (1) they have already rejected the Savior in life, and (2) there is not going to be a second chance for eternal marriage in the resurrection for those who have rejected the Savior’s grace in life while knowing about Him. All they can attain is the stature of angels (which is fine and glorious, but not all they could have attained if they had embraced the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and rejected the traditions of their fathers.)

The question actually shows that the Sadducees were aware that there was a doctrine of eternal marriage, which would be why they asked the question in the first place–“whose wife shall she be of the seven?”

The Savior gave, of course, a brilliant response, and put them “to silence.”

I hope that has given you something to think about. Read the whole passage a few times, and remember the Savior’s specific audience for the answer to the question He was asked. He wasn’t talking to future Catholics, nor to future LDS. He was talking to Sadducees only in that particular instance.
To the general reader here:

No one really dealt with explaining how the Catholic “early fathers” could miss such basic understanding conveyed by the Matthew text of scripture for this encounter that the Savior had with the Sadducees, and could lead every Catholic since the time they brought forward their philosophy about marriage, to believe that the institution of marriage is not divinely appointed with the ultimate intent that it be preserved into eternity.

One reader made an attempt, but did so without any real explanation and without dealing with the precise words of the text of Matthew 22.
 
To the general reader here:

No one really dealt with explaining how the Catholic “early fathers” could miss such basic understanding conveyed by the Matthew text of scripture for this encounter that the Savior had with the Sadducees, and could lead every Catholic since the time they brought forward their philosophy about marriage, to believe that the institution of marriage is not divinely appointed with the ultimate intent that it be preserved into eternity.

One reader made an attempt, but did so without any real explanation and without dealing with the precise words of the text of Matthew 22.
Sorry, about to run out the door, but could you clarify? Not sure I’m understanding your question. What is the “basic understanding” of the passage? Also, Catholics believe that marriage is divinely appointed. All seven of our sacraments are divinely appointed in our belief, and grace is involved in every single one.
 
Sorry, about to run out the door, but could you clarify? Not sure I’m understanding your question. What is the “basic understanding” of the passage? Also, Catholics believe that marriage is divinely appointed. All seven of our sacraments are divinely appointed in our belief, and grace is involved in every single one.
TheosisM,
I do realize that Catholics believe that marriage is divinely appointed, but only for this life, it would appear from all that I’ve read and from responses from Catholics about eternal marriage. My statement included the phrase “with the ultimate intent that it be preserved into eternity.”

In the Matthew, text, the Savior is clearly addressing Sadducees, and it is clear that what He said brought them to silence and astonished bystanders such as some Pharisees. “They were astonished at His doctrine.” It is also clear that the Sadducees were aware by their very question, that the teaching of the Savior was that marriage endured past this life into the next life. Why else ask the question they asked? This is a basic text that is not difficult to look at in an orderly way.

The Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrection, which means they didn’t believe in a divine mission of a Savior.

They asked a question involving marriage enduring into the next life. “Whose wife shall she be?” They thought they were trapping Him. Maybe they had the Book of Tobias in mind–who knows? It has no bearing on the question or the answer.

He told them that “they” (the Sadducees") “neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels…” Angels don’t have marriage. Neither would the Sadducees, because in the resurrection (which the Savior indicated they, the Sadducees, would receive whether they believed in it or not) they would be “as the angels.” The Savior was not talking to future Catholics–He was talking to the Sadducees, and they didn’t believe He was the Savior, nor did they believe there would be a Savior nor a resurrection at all.
 
That helps me understand from what is commonly stated as Catholics not believing in continued revelation. But what you’re saying is that all doctrine and principles and ESSENTIALS you believe are already revealed and no more will be revealed.

Although I do not share these beliefs with you ( as i believe that the Bible contains errors of man) I will defend you and correct others when i hear that you do not believe in continued revelation.
So you claim certain people can receive revelation? Odd with no prophet and no revelation received for Catholicism. Who are the certain people as you claim?
 
He told them that “they” (the Sadducees") “neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels…” Angels don’t have marriage. Neither would the Sadducees, because in the resurrection (which the Savior indicated they, the Sadducees, would receive whether they believed in it or not) they would be “as the angels.” The Savior was not talking to future Catholics–He was talking to the Sadducees, and they didn’t believe He was the Savior, nor did they believe there would be a Savior nor a resurrection at all.
wow. You have ignored entirely the context of the question. Jesus was addressing the question, which was about a woman who was married seven times. The question being, who will she be married to in heaven?

What you have going here is making up out of thin air what is not there to read. No ECF explains this passage in this way because it is utter nonsense.
 
He told them that “they” (the Sadducees") “neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels…” Angels don’t have marriage. Neither would the Sadducees, because in the resurrection (which the Savior indicated they, the Sadducees, would receive whether they believed in it or not) they would be “as the angels.” The Savior was not talking to future Catholics–He was talking to the Sadducees, and they didn’t believe He was the Savior, nor did they believe there would be a Savior nor a resurrection at all.
If He was only meaning to refer to the Sadducees, He would have said “you” not “they.” He said “they” meaning those people who will be resurrected. He was correcting their false ideas. They were belittling the concept of the resurrection by imagining it to be like this life. The situation described would be awkward and difficult in this present life, but according to Jesus, the situation won’t even exist in the resurrection.
 
wow. You have ignored entirely the context of the question. Jesus was addressing the question, which was about a woman who was married seven times. The question being, who will she be married to in heaven?

What you have going here is making up out of thin air what is not there to read. No ECF explains this passage in this way because it is utter nonsense.
simply a differing of interpretation of the third person pronoun “they”
 
So you claim certain people can receive revelation? Odd with no prophet and no revelation received for Catholicism. Who are the certain people as you claim?
All Christians can receive private revelation.
A few Catholics who have received private revelations:
St. Francis of Assissi
St. Juan Diego
ST. Faustina
St. Dominique
St. Teresa of Avila

There are many, many more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top