LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[LongJourney]

Yes he was.

Diana, YOU believe he was. You have that right. Most of the rest of us on this board believe that he wasn’t. We have that right.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, YOU believe he was. You have that right. Most of the rest of us on this board believe that he wasn’t. We have that right.

Well, LJ, YOU Got the point. It remains to be seen whether 1holycatholic does.

After all, what you just said to me is equally applicable to him…and he wrote his declaration first.

 

[Jay53]

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.

Re-read post #290. Rebecca explained it very well.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

The “till death do you part” thing has been explained (most recently by Rebecca) over and over and over and over again. You refuse to accept our understanding of our own faith. Maybe I’ll stop in the WoW thread and expound on how it really is about the addictive substance caffeine in coffee and tea, as pointed out in the LDS church publication “For the Strength of Youth”

Every relationship is this “(a special relationship unshared by anybody else)” and none of them will be “utterly dissolved” upon entering heaven.

And again it is hypocritical of you to question Catholics on their explanations of their faith when you are adamant about our accepting the responses of LDS.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“Until death do us part” does not have anything to do with what we believe about the life to come, other than, those who have been parted by death will rise again together.

We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day. (CCC 989)

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you…but I don’t think you are getting the point I was arguing, sir, which is…that you believe that marriage ends at death.

Jesus states that there is no marriage after death. I believe Jesus over you any day.
[bibledrb]Matthew 22:29-30[/bibledrb]

 

[dianaiad]

The “till death do you part” thing has been explained (most recently by Rebecca) over and over and over and over again. You refuse to accept our understanding of our own faith. Maybe I’ll stop in the WoW thread and expound on how it really is about the addictive substance caffeine in coffee and tea, as pointed out in the LDS church publication “For the Strength of Youth”

Every relationship is this “(a special relationship unshared by anybody else)” and none of them will be “utterly dissolved” upon entering heaven.

And again it is hypocritical of you to question Catholics on their explanations of their faith when you are adamant about our accepting the responses of LDS.

I don’t see Rebecca’s posts, guys.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t see Rebecca’s posts, guys.

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?

Mormons believe the same thing about the marriage contract ending at death. Otherwise, why would they allow their members to remarry?

 

[dianaiad]

(quoting Rebecca)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?

For those members who have ‘until death do you part’ weddings, the marriages are precisely as described above.

For those of us who have “Temple,” or “time and all eternity” marriages, this isn’t quite so. For instance, I am married to Jim. I was married to Jim while he was alive, and I’m still married to Jim. It is possible for me to marry again, but if I do, I can only do it “for time,” or 'until death do you part," at which time I am still married to Jim.

It is, in fact, one of the reasons I remain a widow.

A man may marry more than one woman 'for time and all eternity," but that results in a situation that would have to be taken care of later, when his first wife can pull him aside and talk to him about it.

So in a very real way, Rebecca is right; marriage for eternity does cause a few …inconveniences…for the mortals left behind. However, not as many, I think, as the Catholic position on divorce does.

Both positions on marriage depend upon a religious POV that require faith.

…here’s the thing, though. Rebecca’s position here, which talks about leaving someone free to remarry, actually confirms my point; if you are freeing someone to remarry, then the first marriage is indeed disolved–and the partners do NOT have a relationship that is unique and special to themselves in heaven.

 

[zaffiroborant]

For those members who have ‘until death do you part’ weddings, the marriages are precisely as described above.

For those of us who have “Temple,” or “time and all eternity” marriages, this isn’t quite so. For instance, I am married to Jim. I was married to Jim while he was alive, and I’m still married to Jim. It is possible for me to marry again, but if I do, I can only do it “for time,” or 'until death do you part," at which time I am still married to Jim.

It is, in fact, one of the reasons I remain a widow.

A man may marry more than one woman 'for time and all eternity," but that results in a situation that would have to be taken care of later, when his first wife can pull him aside and talk to him about it.

So in a very real way, Rebecca is right; marriage for eternity does cause a few …inconveniences…for the mortals left behind. However, not as many, I think, as the Catholic position on divorce does.

Both positions on marriage depend upon a religious POV that require faith.

…here’s the thing, though. Rebecca’s position here, which talks about leaving someone free to remarry, actually confirms my point; if you are freeing someone to remarry, then the first marriage is indeed disolved–and the partners do NOT have a relationship that is unique and special to themselves in heaven.

Then the fact that LDS men can have multiple wives in heaven also means the “the partners do NOT have a relationship that is unique and special to themselves in heaven”. only that the man is able to retain all the “special relationships” with women he loved in this life. Lucky women they get to choose which relationship/marriage they want to have leaving any others “utterly dissolved”.

 

[dianaiad]

Then the fact that LDS men can have multiple wives in heaven also means the “the partners do NOT have a relationship that is unique and special to themselves in heaven”. only that the man is able to retain all the “special relationships” with women he loved in this life. Lucky women they get to choose which relationship/marriage they want to have leaving any others “utterly dissolved”.

Whether you like the idea or not, the fact is, we believe that marriage can be eternal…and that the marriage partners (even if there is more than one wife involved) have a relationship that is unique to themselves.

You don’t.

Or rather, many of you DO, but it is a belief that is a hope in spite of rather plain language in your wedding vows. I find it interesting to see that the defenses are not the ones I asked for, that is…something official that shows that marriages DO survive, or rather, that husbands and wives stay together with a relationship that they don’t have with anybody else. Those defenses are, as are Rebecca’s, that disolving the marriage at death leaves the mortal spouse free to remarry, or that the idea that the marriage is disolved at death is scriptural…

All of which support MY point, not yours!

That Catholics instinctively believe that such relationships continue is very good; and they are, I firmly believe, quite right to believe it. However, you don’t do this because of any official statement, but in spite of very official language that says quite the opposite.

Unless someone can, indeed, find something for me?

I will quite happily take something from Sacred Tradition as well as from scripture.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is ridiculous.

The fact is, a LDS person is not free to marry anyone else, in any manner, unless they divorce or one of the spouses die. Period.

Add into that beliefs counter to the teachings of Christ, and top it off with arrogant claims of “we’re more special than you” because we believe something NON-BIBLICAL.

OUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, WHO IS OUR HOPE, IS NOT CAUSE FOR YOU TO MAKE UP NONSENSE AND CALL IT BETTER THAN HOPE IN HIM.

Thick headed fools, read ROMANS 8.

 

[jdwood983]

So after 2 pages no one from the LDS church has acknowledged my post?

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 1:6-9[/BIBLEDRB]

In case you don’t know, anathema means ecclesiastically cursed. So those that preach the “gospel” presented by Joseph Smith are completely erroneous and are damned to Hell if they don’t repent (unless, that is, you believe that St Paul was also in complete apostasy, which would then invalidate pretty much all of the NT (including the above Letter to the Galatians) and the Bible shouldn’t be part of your accepted library).

Note: the Gospel St Paul means when he says “besides that which we have preached to you” are the 4 Gospels that have always been canonical: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

 

[dianaiad]

So after 2 pages no one from the LDS church has acknowledged my post?

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 1:6-9[/BIBLEDRB]

In case you don’t know, anathema means ecclesiastically cursed. So those that preach the “gospel” presented by Joseph Smith are completely erroneous and are damned to Hell if they don’t repent (unless, that is, you believe that St Paul was also in complete apostasy, which would then invalidate pretty much all of the NT (including the above Letter to the Galatians) and the Bible shouldn’t be part of your accepted library).

Note: the Gospel St Paul means when he says “besides that which we have preached to you” are the 4 Gospels that have always been canonical: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

The answer from us, of course, is this: we aren’t the ones preaching ‘another gospel.’

 

[1holycatholic]

The answer from us, of course, is this: we aren’t the ones preaching ‘another gospel.’

You aren’t preaching anything coherent. LDS preach of the existence of multiple gods - a logical impossibility.

 

[dianaiad]

You aren’t preaching anything coherent. LDS preach of the existence of multiple gods - a logical impossibility.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Basing your opinions upon what we actually do believe and teach would be more effective and useful, however…given what you think we DO believe, I’m not a bit surprised that you don’t see coherence. It’s the lack of coherence anyone would see in a strawman.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Basing your opinions upon what we actually do believe and teach would be more effective and useful, however…given what you think we DO believe, I’m not a bit surprised that you don’t see coherence. It’s the lack of coherence anyone would see in a strawman.

I can only go by the teachings that are listed the official LDS website, not by an LDS who repudiates official LDS teaching when it is shown to be nonsensical.

 

[jdwood983]

The answer from us, of course, is this: we aren’t the ones preaching ‘another gospel.’

Right. So when you come to my door and talk about the Book of Mormon, you’re not “preaching another gospel”…okay.

By this statement, I take it that you would believe that Joseph Smith, then, is preaching another gospel and is in anathema. Then by your following this false gospel, you are turning yourself away from God and cannot be saved.

 

[LongJourney]

By this statement, I take it that you would believe that Joseph Smith, then, is preaching another gospel and is in anathema. Then by your following this false gospel, you are turning yourself away from God and cannot be saved.

…unless you repent and move into line with the Gospel that the true Jesus taught."

jdwood states this in a harsh and inflammatory way, but it is correct.

 

[jdwood983]

…unless you repent and move into line with the Gospel that the true Jesus taught."

jdwood states this in a harsh and inflammatory way, but it is correct.

Yeah, sorry. I should have added that statement in there. Didn’t mean to upset anyone, just didn’t think twice about what I was writing