J
jane_doe
Guest
So? Neither Catholics nor LDS believe all Truth is confined to just what’s in the Bible.
- Status
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Which has nothing to do with my statement, in the context of the dialogue I was responding to.
J
jane_doe
Guest
I see it as very much on topic, but ok.
M
Marie5890
Guest
It’s important to remember that Jesus was a Jew and spoke as a Jew.
Here is the Jewish understanding of the meaning of binding and loosening
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
G
gazelam
Guest
It is likely that some LDS belief about heaven was provided as part of the Restoration via Joseph Smith. However, as with many beliefs that are uniquely LDS there is evidence of this belief in the Bible and among the good ol’ ECFs.
1 Corinthians 15:40-42* There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 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. So also is the resurrection of the dead.*
Whether you call it layers of glory or kingdoms of glory, there are definitely three of them.
John Chrysostom wrote:
And having said this, he ascends again to the heaven, saying, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon.” For as in the earthly bodies there is a difference, so also in the heavenly; and that difference no ordinary one, but reaching even to the uttermost: there being not only a difference between sun and moon, and stars, but also between stars and stars. For what though they be all in the heaven? yet some have a larger, others a less share of glory. What do we learn from hence? That although they be all in God’s kingdom, all shall not enjoy the same reward; and though all sinners be in hell, all shall not endure the same punishment. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:4, in NPNF Series 1, 12:251.)
Origen said:
Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. (Origen, De Principiis 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294.)
Origin also alluded to LDS belief that the Father presides over the Celestial Kingdom, the Son over the Terrestrial kingdom, etc. He even refers to Outer Darkness!
And some men are connected with the Father, being part of Him, and next to these, those whom our argument now brings into clearer light,** those who have come to the Saviour** and take their stand entirely in Him. And third are those of whom we spoke before, who reckon the sun and the moon and the stars to be gods, and take their stand by them. And in the fourth and last place those who submit to soulless and dead idols. (Origen, Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:324-325.)
Clement of Alexandria spoke of the three heavens and suggested that whoever attains the highest degree becomes like God:
Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed . . . . These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel–the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to “a perfect man,” according to the image of the Lord . . . . To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14, in ANF 2:506.)
Clement also preached that the three gradations of glory are procured by virtue of three types of actions:
[Clement of Alexandria] reckons three kinds of actions, the first of which is . . . right or perfect action, which is characteristic of the perfect man and Gnostic alone, and raises him to the height of glory. The second is the class of . . . medium, or intermediate actions, which are done by less perfect believers, and procure a lower grade of glory. In the third place he reckons sinful actions, which are done by those who fall away from salvation. (*ANF 2:506*.)
G
gazelam
Guest
I assume the same understanding of speaking as a Jew holds for John 6.
J.G. Davies explains how the Hebrew mind would have assimilated such statements:
“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
No, sin in heaven makes no sense.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I’ve mentioned the first part before and the second I’ve commented on a number of occasions, I’m tired of their presenting their disfigured picture of heaven as an equivalent to the Christian view of heaven.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Catholics have already explained that people are rewarded differently but that it is not Catholic teaching that people are segregated into different “heavens”. It is also Catholic teaching that heaven is living in the presence of God, what you present is not that so it is simply not heaven to us.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
But still nothing on the children of a woman who was married to and had children with 2 wonderful men. Which dad gets to have all the children, the dad the mom decides on, what if the children want the other dad? Love is at least crippled or cast aside if not ground to worthless ash in LDS after life thought.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
God is our judge. No one in the Catholic Church has ever declared that anyone is in hell. Not once.
Everyone is counseled to work out their own salvation, which means, aligning oneself to the will of God. Is it the will of God that a marriage is indissoluble, as Jesus Hismself taught? If a person claims to be Catholic shouldn’t they seek to follow the will of God, and not their own will?
All this discussion of a Mormon afterlife is unimportant, as Jesus taught there is no marriage in heaven. He also taught that divorce is not recognized by God. Mormonism teaches the complete opposite, calling it “revelation”. Our relationships in this life are what matter. Following God is what matters. Mormons do so according to their understanding. Catholics do so according to their understanding. In the end one must follow one’s own conscience, in seeking to follow God, NOT one’s own will.
While you throw around “hearing” of Catholics who seek annulment and don’t get one, I know Catholics whose spouse have divorced them and they will never seek to remarry again. Mormonism would never suggest that such a sacrifice is good in the sight of God. No, one must always be chasing after marriage, remarrying, and multiple marriages at the same time, even when God has not called everyone to marriage at all.
While Mormons will leave a spouse for not being Mormon enough, in this life and the next, so they can remarry a better catch.
Our salvation is not reliant on a spouse. It is reliant on God.
I have no idea what criteria you are using to determine what religion you are going to follow. It is seeking the will of God, that should be the prime factor, not seeking one’s own will. God is love, and it is God’s love that I seek to follow. Not the love for any man or ideas that have come from any man firing up his own “church”. (And there are a lot of those, including Mormonism.)
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
To the point of proving a marriage is illicit to obtain a degree of nullity. Of course, the Church views all marriages between a man and a woman as valid. This is the assumed position taken. It would be odd for the Church to assume any marriage is invalid .
The trials and struggles that couples face does not make a marriage invalid. It is possible that some behaviors indicate a violation of consent occurred, as no marriage is valid without the consent of both people. Consent cannot be coerced, and coercement can include hiding past facts. Such as, a history of violence, a hidden marriage or children, not disclosing incarceration, etc.
A decree of nullity is not a right. Neither is receiving the Eucharist. Since Jesus taught divorce is not allowed, it is prudent for the Church to look at a civil divorce, when a person requests they do so, to determine if the marriage was valid. If the marriage was valid, then why would the Church decree something that goes against the teachings of Jesus? That would not make sense.
We view marriage as a calling. Not all are called to marriage and no one is called to marry another while still married. This touches on discerning the will of God for one’s life. If anyone says they have discerned something that goes against the teachings of the Curch, what we call doctrines, then we know that the discernment is off. So no one can discern that God’s desire for their life is to remarry while someone they are married to is still living. Doing so is following one’s own will, not the will of God.
The trials and struggles that couples face does not make a marriage invalid. It is possible that some behaviors indicate a violation of consent occurred, as no marriage is valid without the consent of both people. Consent cannot be coerced, and coercement can include hiding past facts. Such as, a history of violence, a hidden marriage or children, not disclosing incarceration, etc.
A decree of nullity is not a right. Neither is receiving the Eucharist. Since Jesus taught divorce is not allowed, it is prudent for the Church to look at a civil divorce, when a person requests they do so, to determine if the marriage was valid. If the marriage was valid, then why would the Church decree something that goes against the teachings of Jesus? That would not make sense.
We view marriage as a calling. Not all are called to marriage and no one is called to marry another while still married. This touches on discerning the will of God for one’s life. If anyone says they have discerned something that goes against the teachings of the Curch, what we call doctrines, then we know that the discernment is off. So no one can discern that God’s desire for their life is to remarry while someone they are married to is still living. Doing so is following one’s own will, not the will of God.
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
No I was christened in a Methodist Church. I am trusting God, or at least I will in the long run, I’m just unsure how to recognise the path he wants me to take. I don’t trust in “feelings” like the LDS say too. Oh and please don’t think I’m learning about Catholic theology from LDS, I’m not. The majority of my books are written by Catholic authors. I ask LDS about their faith and interpretations and Catholics or Catholic sources about Catholicism. That doesn’t mean I know or understand both faiths though so may have some things wrong but I won’t ask an LDS to explain catholic theology to me.
I know enough about Catholicism to know I’m in a valid non sacramental marriage though (husband is not baptised)
H
Horton
Guest
The passage you quote from 1Corinthians does not in anyway state what you claim above. This passage is St Paul writing to the Church in Corinth regarding resurrected bodies. When you read the whole passage and understand who the writer is addressing it makes far more sense and you are less likely to take a verse or two out of context.
1 Corinthians 15:36-49
The Resurrection Body.
36 You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies.
37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind;
38 but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body.
39 Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish.
40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another.
41 The brightness of the sun is one kind, the brightness of the moon another, and the brightness of the stars another. For star differs from star in brightness.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible.
43 It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious. It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.
45 So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
46 But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven.
48 As was the earthly one, so also are the earthly, and as is the heavenly one, so also are the heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, we shall also bear the image* of the heavenly one.*
Stephen168
New member
I’ve heard this before:
I bolded the parts which you, other Mormons, and the Mormon website had removed from Chapter 14.
In Chapter 13 Clement tells us “there is one unchangeable gift of salvation given by one God, through one Lord, benefiting in many ways” to the Jews and the Greeks. He tells us about the three levels of the Church, Deacon, Priest, Bishop which imitate the three levels of glory in heaven.
In Chapter 14, Clement tells us there are various abodes; one is the Church and the three highest abodes reflect the Parable of the Sower (Mathew 13:1-23). As we know the 30, 60, and 100 are all good Christians just like Bishop, Priest and Deacon are all in the Church. Clement is not saying there are three heavens. In fact abodes, does not have anything to do with heaven specifically. Reading Wisdom 3:14, there is the (one) temple of the Lord; therefore one Church, one God, and one Heaven.
Clement did say there is only one God and the highest level in the Church is the Bishop. I think he also said God is not human. I don’t think these are Mormon beliefs, which might be why they were left out.
The early Church Fathers were Catholic, which is why so many people become Catholic after reading them; not proof-texting them, but reading them. They were not Mormon.
H
Horton
Guest
RebeccaJ gave you a beautiful and sincere explanation of marriage, seeking God’s will, and discernment. The discernment part is the essential part of this. If God were calling you to the LDS, do you think you would be having this struggle?No I was christened in a Methodist Church. I am trusting God, or at least I will in the long run, I’m just unsure how to recognise the path he wants me to take. I don’t trust in “feelings” like the LDS say too. Oh and please don’t think I’m learning about Catholic theology from LDS, I’m not. The majority of my books are written by Catholic authors. I ask LDS about their faith and interpretations and Catholics or Catholic sources about Catholicism. That doesn’t mean I know or understand both faiths though so may have some things wrong but I won’t ask an LDS to explain catholic theology to me.
I know enough about Catholicism to know I’m in a valid non sacramental marriage though (husband is not baptised)
This whole issue between Catholic & LDS is basically one of two opposites. If one is true the other can not be. The Catholic Church was given to the followers of Christ in 33AD. They were called to spread the Word of God throughout the world. There is historical evidence of the continuity of the Church Christ left us from 33AD to present day. The Catholic Church has been here and strong for more than 2000 years. The gates of hell have not prevailed. The New Testament tells the Truth of Christ’s work and the results of that work.
I was raised a Christian Protestant and converted to Catholicism as an adult. I don’t think I can explain all the reasons why I know the Catholic Church is true, but I know in my heart, my mind, and my soul Christianity is true, Catholicism is true. It’s not just a feeling, although it does feel good & right. But it is reason & logic. My mind knows why my heart feels good in the presence of God, why going to Mass is the highlight of my day/week. My mind knows why soul is nourished by the body & blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
I don’t live my life the way I do in order to please a panel of men, to receive a recommendation to enter a certain place. I don’t live as a Christian for earthly reward. I live my life as I do because it is the will of God. I live my life as a Christian because I love God.
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
Thank-you for your posts! My criteria is truth. I want to be a part of the Church that Jesus Christ established here on earth.
I
in_servitude
Guest
I’ve been reading carefully through this thread. I find it interesting that the quote from Corinthians 11:11 would be brought up again on page 15 when it has been effectively addressed on page 2 (and, in my memory, there has not been an argument that Horton has this wrong).
Also, I find it interesting that there has not been any attempt to address St. Paul’s teaching that it is better to avoid marriage. This has been brought up before on this thread. It would seem that St. Paul was not aware of the need for marriage to attain exaltation, otherwise, he would not be telling people that they should not be married if they can handle it.
H
Horton
Guest
It’s likely it won’t be. These are truths many LDS either won’t or can’t address.
H
Horton
Guest
Look at the one & only Church Christ established on earth.
- Status