LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pahoran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dianaiad said:
There is NOTHING in what you have posted that states that family and spouses will be together in any manner that is different from ‘being with’ your neighbor four doors down who also will see you in heaven.

In other words, if everybody has the same relationship to one another, then what would be special about seeing your spouse, as opposed to seeing someone you never knew in mortality?
Click to expand...
As we see from the quotes, we will retain our identities in Heaven, and will rejoice in seeing those that we were parted from by death (two of the quotes provided clearly state this). This means that we will still remember who we were on earth, and who we were with (i.e. our families and friends). The Catholic belief is that in Heaven, we will be part of the one family of God. As you are already aware, we do not believe that marriage continues into Heaven, however we won’t forget our spouses (since they will hopefully be there with us), nor will we forget our relationships with them (or our children, friends, etc). We will all be united as one family through Jesus Christ. The family is therefore fully realized in Heaven, as Jesus’ marriage to His Bride, the Church.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
As you are already aware, we do not believe that marriage continues into Heaven, however we won’t forget our spouses (since they will hopefully be there with us), nor will we forget our relationships with them (or our children, friends, etc). We will all be united as one family through Jesus Christ. The family is therefore fully realized in Heaven, as Jesus’ marriage to His Bride, the Church.
Click to expand...
I wonder how Mormons justify their position which is contrary to Scripture?
[bibledrb]Matt 22:30[/bibledrb]
 
zaffiroborant said:
From the catechism and the encyclopedia:

We remember who we were, live in community, joyfully reunited with those we were separated from in death. Nothing here gives any credence to you assertion that we believe families will be utterly dissolved at death. I will remember your unfounded assertions about our faith (you haven’t provided any citations for the “utterly dissolved”) when I read your future posts.
Click to expand...
Good post.

As Jesus came “not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it”, he also came not to abolish the family, but to fulfill it. There is nothing in the bible about people being married forever, but there is plenty about everyone being together in harmony and peace - one big family.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
As we see from the quotes, we will retain our identities in Heaven, and will rejoice in seeing those that we were parted from by death (two of the quotes provided clearly state this). This means that we will still remember who we were on earth, and who we were with (i.e. our families and friends). The Catholic belief is that in Heaven, we will be part of the one family of God. As you are already aware, we do not believe that marriage continues into Heaven, however we won’t forget our spouses (since they will hopefully be there with us), nor will we forget our relationships with them (or our children, friends, etc). We will all be united as one family through Jesus Christ. The family is therefore fully realized in Heaven, as Jesus’ marriage to His Bride, the Church.
Click to expand...
So we will remember who they are/were, but our special relationships with them are severed, becoming the same as our relationships with everybody else? Remember, we can not speak of ‘hope,’ here, or what you THINK happens, but what the Catholic Church actually states happens in its official teachings.
 
dianaiad said:
So we will remember who they are/were, but our special relationships with them are severed, becoming the same as our relationships with everybody else? Remember, we can not speak of ‘hope,’ here, or what you THINK happens, but what the Catholic Church actually states happens in its official teachings.
Click to expand...
Please show where we teach that our “special relationships” will be severed.
You are mighty strident in you objection to non-lds defining lds belief, it seems you think the reverse is just fine though.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Please show where we teach that our “special relationships” will be severed.
You are mighty strident in you objection to non-lds defining lds belief, it seems you think the reverse is just fine though.
Click to expand...
Z, it’s in the wedding vows. “Until death part you” or “until death do you part.”

It’s, y’know, right THERE.

Anything we might hope for is hope in spite of the rather plain wording. If death parts you, that is a severence.

If it were not, then why do the wedding vows SAY that?Where does it say, anywhere at all, “oh, yeah,by the way, the wording in the wedding vows doesn’t count?”
 
We are all parted at death. At that point, why would you hold the living person to the marital contract? Doing so would mean that person was not free to remarry.

1 Cor 7:39

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.

The words “until death do us part” means the contract of two living people is no longer in effect. The widow/er is “free to be married”.

Mormons believe the same thing about the marriage contract ending at death. Otherwise, why would they allow their members to remarry?
 
RebeccaJ said:
We are all parted at death. At that point, why would you hold the living person to the marital contract? Doing so would mean that person was not free to remarry.

1 Cor 7:39

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.

The words “until death do us part” means the contract of two living people is no longer in effect. The widow/er is “free to be married”.

Mormons believe the same thing about the marriage contract ending at death. Otherwise, why would they allow their members to remarry?
Click to expand...
because they believe in polygamy. The Manifesto that ended polygamy, only ended the PRACTICE of polygamy. Polygamy is still a doctrine and will continue in heaven.
 
SirThomasMore said:
because they believe in polygamy. The Manifesto that ended polygamy, only ended the PRACTICE of polygamy. Polygamy is still a doctrine and will continue in heaven.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, even after the manifesto, it was found to be practiced at upper levels.
 
dianaiad said:
Z, it’s in the wedding vows. “Until death part you” or “until death do you part.”

It’s, y’know, right THERE.

Anything we might hope for is hope in spite of the rather plain wording. If death parts you, that is a severence.

If it were not, then why do the wedding vows SAY that?Where does it say, anywhere at all, “oh, yeah,by the way, the wording in the wedding vows doesn’t count?”
Click to expand...
Others have explained this to you over and over, but you keep insisting on defining our beliefs as YOU please. Rather hypocritical of someone who so stridently objects to the same treatment of her beliefs.
 
Pahoran said:
This is a very brief overview of a large and complex subject. Its relevance to Catholic Answers may not be readily apparent, but it is relevant because of a number of recent threads.
  1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.
  2. These teachings are found in their authoritative form only in the following sources:
  • The Holy Bible;
  • The Book of Mormon;
  • The Doctrine and Covenants;
  • The Pearl of Great Price. These four volumes are collectively referred to as “the Scriptures” or “the Standard Works of the Church;” and
  • Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.
  1. These teachings may be expounded upon, explained, announced or interpreted in other media, such as:
  • Official Church periodicals;
  • Official Church curriculum materials such as lesson manuals to be used in adult, youth or child classes;
  • The two official Church websites, www.lds.org and www.mormon.org;
  • Talks by Church presidents, apostles and other General Authorities in General Conference;
  • The published records of such talks;
  • Talks by local leaders and members in local Church meetings such as Stake Conferences and Sacrament meetings;
  • Books written by Church leaders and members;
  • Discussions by Church members in various formal and informal settings.
Such sources may be taken as representing the views of those who make them, and as evidence of what the Church’s position may be upon the subjects discussed. None of these sources are held by the Church to be infallible, and as such are not binding upon the Latter-day Saints in matters of faith and morals.
  1. Latter-day Saints believe that prophets are those to whom the Lord may choose to reveal His will on specific subjects from time to time. Latter-day Saints have never believed, and the Church has never taught, that God somehow takes over a prophet’s mind so that he is henceforth incapable of error. Such a view is unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue. Put simply: there is no doctrine of “prophetic infallibility” in the Church.
  2. The nearest thing to such a doctrine is the oft-quoted statement that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray. However, this is in nowise a claim that the Prophet’s statements would never lead anyone to hold a doctrinally incorrect opinion, because it is not our belief that we will be judged for the doctrinal purity of our opinions. Rather, it asserts that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to turn the Saints away from their duty. Orthopraxy, rather than orthodoxy, is the “gold standard” for the Latter-day Saints; and orthopraxy is mostly viewed in terms of covenant keeping.
  3. From time to time, various Church leaders have taught that Latter-day Saints ought to follow the Prophet’s counsel faithfully in all things. These statement do not affirm or imply that the Prophet is actually infallible, but rather must be understood in terms of point (5) above. Inasmuch as the Lord will not permit the Prophet to lead the Church astray, the Saints will at all times be safe in following the Prophet’s counsel.
What this means for Catholic Answers is this: there is, in some quarters, a popular and rather mean-spirited game that is played wherein a handful of sentences are excerpted from statements made by leaders of the Church, ripped from the context that gives them meaning, and then flung in our faces exclusively for their shock value.

The value of such an approach is limited exclusively to the entertainment it provides to those who are hostile to the Church. It does not help anyone to better understand LDS life and teaching in any way. Believing Latter-day Saints are rightly offended by this tactic, the sole purpose of which is to inflame rather than to inform. Furthermore, to the extent that any less-informed person believes such statements to have any doctrinal force, the game is misleading. Informed, believing Latter-day Saints have a positive duty to not permit such a campaign of misrepresentation to go unchallenged, but vigorously oppose it.

Even if it is protected by moderation policy.

And besides that, it seriously lowers the tone of what is otherwise a rather good forum.

Regards,
Pahoran
Click to expand...
I think all of the above references are needless. Mormon theology can be easily evaluated. If, after reading about Joseph Smith objectively. you can accept the idea that he was a prophet…you can be a Mormon. If, on the other hand, you think, as I do, that he was a charlatan…you can save yourself a lot of reading and endless LDS sales talk.🤷
 
zaffiroborant said:
Others have explained this to you over and over, but you keep insisting on defining our beliefs as YOU please. Rather hypocritical of someone who so stridently objects to the same treatment of her beliefs.
Click to expand...
I have asked many times for the specific references that TELL Catholics that their families will be together, that husbands and wives will keep their relationships, and that those relationships will be special–different from a relationship they will have with everybody else they find in heaven with them.

I get two answers: one is…“everybody is family in heaven,” and “It isn’t logical to think that we WON’T have special relationships with those we knew in mortality, like our spouses and children.”

While I admire the ideas put forward here, and I happen to think that you are RIGHT if you believe them, the point of this whole thing is…if you will have such special relationships, why are the words ‘until death part you’ in the wedding vows? Don’t they mean anything?

If they do, why is your defense such that those words are, for all intents and purposes, invalidated?

I’m not telling you what you believe. I am taking what YOU tell me you believe, and pointing out that if this is indeed what you believe, you do it without any substantive support from your own official sources, and by doing so, you are actually being circular; you believe that your family will be together in spite of some very specific language in your own sources, and we believe the same BECAUSE of specific language in our official sources…

and we are the ones being criticized for so believing, even though you believe it too…and you are here, in this very post, yelling at me for telling you that you don’t have any official reason to believe as you claim you do.

But we believe that families can be together, and husbands and wives can remain husbands and wives (with a special relationship unshared by anybody else)…and you criticise us for this, because YOU can’t find any official scriptural reason for it, so you tell us that we shouldn’t believe it, but you believe the same thing even though you can’t find scriptural reason for believing it, which lack of finding is the reason you criticize us for believing it.

It’s dizzy making.
 
twopekinguys said:
Unfortunately, even after the manifesto, it was found to be practiced at upper levels.
Click to expand...
Not just upper levels but the uppermost level: as the Reed Smoot Congressional hearings progressed, the topic turned to polygamy which eventually lead to prophet Joseph F. Smith being charged with violating Utah’s anti-polygamy laws, having fathered 11 children in the context of plural marriage after the Manifesto was issued. This resulted in the “Second Manifesto,” which most Mormons know nothing about.

So I thus ask again: if the rules don’t apply to the very prophet of the church, to whom do they apply?
 
Returning_Home said:
Not just upper levels but the uppermost level: as the Reed Smoot Congressional hearings progressed, the topic turned to polygamy which eventually lead to prophet Joseph F. Smith being charged with violating Utah’s anti-polygamy laws, having fathered 11 children in the context of plural marriage after the Manifesto was issued. This resulted in the “Second Manifesto,” which most Mormons know nothing about.

So I thus ask again: if the rules don’t apply to the very prophet of the church, to whom do they apply?
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Really?

So you can tell me they’re out of context? Or, that the JoD is personal opinion? Your own teachings are that your prophet’s words are the same as scripture. That is what I see being taught during Young’s time.

However, what modern LDS disagree with, is now opinion.

I’ve asked, seriously and sincerely, on LDS forums, how you know that what your prophet is saying today isn’t just opinion. There is no answer to this question that is reasonable or trustworthy.

BCSpace gives some on the thread of this same title at MADB. I get the impression that he/she is LDS.

🤷 You might think that. But I was raised LDS, and what I was taught as God given divine teachings, is now called opinion by people like yourself.

I see. It is the fault of others for not putting in enough effort. How Mormon of you.

I don’t think you realize how heavily my perspective relies on my own experience, raised in the LDS church and then leaving and paying no attention to it for 20 years or so. When I talk about what I was taught then, y’all tell me it isn’t doctrine. So, what to think of this? Was I taught false doctrine? Or, was I taught opinion? Either way, why should I believe anything your church has to say after that experience?

You (the collective you) can’t address it sufficiently. It is only a casting about for blame from those nasty Evangelicals, or “anti-Mormons”, when it is yourselves that have brought yourselves to this point.

It’s the place all LDS go when they don’t want to actually address what is being said.
Click to expand...
We need a “like” button like on Facebook 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top