LDS Necessity of Eternal Marriage: What About 1 Cor 7?

[flyonthewall]

You are being dishonest. You must know the teaching of the Catholic Church (I’m sure you’ve seen this many times before):

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

I am not being dishonest. Do explain how man becomes god…according to your understanding.

 

[campeador]

I am not being dishonest. Do explain how man becomes god…according to your understanding.

Theosis (wiki link):

Divinization

St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, “God became man so that man might become god” (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B). What would otherwise seem absurd—that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy—has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even a necessary part of God (of the three existences of God called hypostasis).

St. Maximus the Confessor wrote, “A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God himself became man… Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man’s sake. This is what St Paul teaches mystically when he says, ‘…that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace’ (Eph. 2:7).”(page 178 PHILOKALIA Volume II)

Theoria

As God became human, in all ways except sin, He will also make humans god (Holy or saintly), in all ways except his divine essence (uncaused or uncreatedness). St. Irenaeus explained this doctrine in* Against Heresies*, Book 5, in the Preface, “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let me highlight the part that would give you more information:

Wasn’t one of the teachings of the ECF that God became man so that man could become God? I see that this position was backed away from like the plague.
The scriptures also teach that we can become one with God as Jesus is one with the Father, and that we can become joint heirs with Christ. If anything, we have restored the belief that you have discarded.

flyonethewall, I understand, I do, the desperate need to find fault in Roman Catholicism, but these sort of statements are beneath the inherent dignity that your Creator gave you. Not to mention, deny Christ’s very ministry. Perhaps someday you will regret your arrogance, until then, my prayers are for you and all Mormons.

 

[flyonthewall]

flyonethewall, I understand, I do, the desperate need to find fault in Roman Catholicism, but these sort of statements are beneath the inherent dignity that your Creator gave you. Not to mention, deny Christ’s very ministry. Perhaps someday you will regret your arrogance, until then, my prayers are for you and all Mormons.

You have it all wrong. I have no desperate need to find fault in Roman Catholicism, in fact, I search for common ground, and would welcome any as brothers in Christ.
From my experience here, the desperate need to find fault with a religion, does not come from my direction, but in my direction. Not from all, but it is there.

You accused us of backing away from the concept of theosis or deification…we do not. We stand firm in our position. I merely pointed out that Catholicism has done the same thing you accuse us of doing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Fly, you cannot compare Catholicism with Mormonism. Here at CAF we probably touch on a miniscule amount of resources.

As I shared with you, the Vatican holds the greatest library in the world…going back 2,000 years, numerous teachers and witnesses to the truth and holiness. People draw on St. Augustine alot, but many times out of context.

A saint may teach or given an opinion, but a belief is that which is held by the pope and communion of bishops in relation to St. Augustine for his teaching to be universal and in the spirit of the Church.

Put him aside, St. Thomas Aquinas aside, there is still vast, vast amount of universal Catholic teachings taught by great scholars and saints in every generation…with the same consistency of faith in our creed and practice.

People here already have explained the issues with Mormonism and they are quite different than Catholicism’s…don’t want to go back to discussing J. Smith and his band who created Mormonism’s beliefs and practices. It is continually morphing and studies the Catholic Church very well, even speaking like it although using different concepts vs how Mormonism taught 100 years ago.

I can read documents going back to 100 AD and the manner of speech and presentation is the same as spoken in the universal Church of today.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let me highlight the part that would give you more information:

Wasn’t one of the teachings of the ECF that God became man so that man could become God? I see that this position was backed away from like the plague.
The scriptures also teach that we can become one with God as Jesus is one with the Father, and that we can become joint heirs with Christ. If anything, we have restored the belief that you have discarded.

flyonethewall, indeed, this is a quote from St. Augustine. Catholic teaching is that God became Man. This is teaching of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which Mormonism rejects. It is grounded in an understanding of the Holy Trinity, which St. Augustine also teaches about. He is not teaching a form of Mormonism that got restored. That is a fantasy, that cannot be backed up. Perhaps take the time to actually read the writings of St. Augustine, rather than cherry picking one sentence out of volumes of writing? In short, how about you keep St. Augustine in context?

No one has backed away from anything, we become joint heirs with Christ. As has been explained numerous times in threads I know you have participated in, we do not take on the nature of God. This Mormon teaching is false, and idolatrous, and you should in fact avoid it like the plague, as idolatry is a sin.

It is dishonest for you to try to overlay your Mormon errors over Catholic teaching, and then claim that we have backed away from something. It is Mormonism that has added innovations that were never there.

As for grace, my experience is that Mormons have no idea what this word means. Graces are gifts from God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), not something you work for and receive as a reward. The graces given to us through the Son cannot be earned.

God has given all that He has, out of love, because God is love. Christ died for ALL. He died for you, a sinner, and there is nothing you can do to make yourself worthy of this love. Just accept it, give up this idolatry where you have made yourself a god, and follow Him.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

You have it all wrong. I have no desperate need to find fault in Roman Catholicism, in fact, I search for common ground, and would welcome any as brothers in Christ.
From my experience here, the desperate need to find fault with a religion, does not come from my direction, but in my direction. Not from all, but it is there.

You accused us of backing away from the concept of theosis or deification…we do not. We stand firm in our position. I merely pointed out that Catholicism has done the same thing you accuse us of doing.

Yes, the doctrine of theosis is more emphasized in the Eastern churches (both Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox churches) than in the Latin/Western world. I’d say that the average Roman Catholic has never heard of the idea of “becoming God” or being deified, while the Eastern Christians are more familiar with that notion.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

No one has backed away from anything, we become joint heirs with Christ. As has been explained numerous times in threads I know you have participated in, we do not take on the nature of God. This Mormon teaching is false, and idolatrous, and you should in fact avoid it like the plague, as idolatry is a sin.

Except that 2 Peter 1:4 says that we partake of the divine nature, so it doesn’t make sense to say that “we do not take on the nature of God” when the Bible says that we partake of that nature.

Athanasius stated that theosis is “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (De Incarnatione, I). So, again, how does this comport with your view that we do not take on the nature of God?

As for grace, my experience is that Mormons have no idea what this word means. Graces are gifts from God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), not something you work for and receive as a reward. The graces given to us through the Son cannot be earned.

This is a very interesting statement coming from a Catholic, when we look at the issue of merit and grace.

 

[KathleenGee]

No, BYU, it is not.

There are so many explanations of faith found in the catechism…but the Mormons latch onto ‘become a god’ like a magnet, like there is nothing else to look at in Catholicism.

To follow Christ, we must die to ourselves.

I have read St. Athanasius and he did not bear the same fruit as your slant on his writings.

He also said we are to become educated along side the teachings of our faith. That can certainly be directed to Mormonism and all its claims attributed to J.Smith the Egyptian scroll, glasses, Angel Moroni, the Indian mounds in America that was home to the Jews…where is the need for scholarly education to make these claims?

The psalms say God knew us before we were born, and we were formed to serve God.

God does not procreate Himself because He already is. We are creatures and we procreate.

Our very essence is divine in that we are made in the image of God…to have free will, to create and reason, to be aware of ourselves. But in no way does that mean we are little punky gods. That is the sin of presumption.

To want to be as God is the desire that Satan gave the first couple in the Garden of Eden. I stay away from being as god … as that is the greatest temptation to lead one to hell.

The Eucharist is the connection between God and man. The Eucharist enlightens us as well to renew our minds, souls, blood, and body to be god like, to participate in the life of grace.

What does godliness mean? You can look at the fruits of the Holy Spirit, you can follow Christ Himself by carrying your cross—which Mormons deny—and follow Him as a humble servant…Who washed the feet of His disciples.

Godliness to us is being a humble servant in the footsteps of Truth Himself,-- Jesus Christ. We are called to seek the truth, even if it means dying to ourselves and our way of looking at things.

What we believe in is what is in the depths of our heart. Do we believe in Christ or do we make Him an extension of our own passions to be gods, to be self-ordained saints? I am in no way intending to cause hurt or harm…but I see so much pride in the concept of Mormonism and no supportive evidence.

 

[ryanoneil]

RyanOneil,

I wanted to get back to you about this challenge to a comment I had made. I appreciate having been challenged about an assumption I had made that the first marriage was not “in the covenant” and therefore a widow was being advised that if she chose to remarry, she should do so “in the covenant.”

As I have thought more about this, I think it is a case where the underlying assumption made by Paul was that a couple getting married who were members would marry “in the covenant”, and that was a given–an eternal marriage as presented in the teaching that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

So a widow who had been married in the covenant might be thinking, if she were going to marry again, that it was less important for her to marry a member since she already had an eternal marriage. She might think that there were reasons that could justify such a decision. So Paul’s encouragement to marry “in the Lord” would be an encouragement to marry a member if a widow were to remarry, and the words “in the Lord” would be making that point.

This would not mean she would have a “second eternal husband”. It would mean simply that she had married a covenant member of the church for the duration of her mortal life.

Why are they only married for the duration of their mortal life in the second marriage and not the first?

I believe marriage is God’s creation after all, which is why no civil, religious, or individual authority has the power to break the bond of marriage (citing Gen 2:24).

Do you believe that marriage is God’s creation?

If so, why would God make two types of marriages (one that is indissoluble and another that dissolves at death)?

I believe God has only made one type of marriage. It is indissoluble as long as both spouses are alive.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Except that 2 Peter 1:4 says that we partake of the divine nature, so it doesn’t make sense to say that “we do not take on the nature of God” when the Bible says that we partake of that nature.

Athanasius stated that theosis is “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (De Incarnatione, I). So, again, how does this comport with your view that we do not take on the nature of God?

This is a very interesting statement coming from a Catholic, when we look at the issue of merit and grace.

BYU, I can only say that you insist and persist in viewing Catholic teaching through a Mormon lens. I wish there were a quick fix, a remedy for this, I honestly do. But after so much time talking to Mormons, here and in real life, I have come to the conclusion there is only one remedy, and that is prayer for you and all Mormons.

 

[campeador]

Except that 2 Peter 1:4 says that we partake of the divine nature, so it doesn’t make sense to say that “we do not take on the nature of God” when the Bible says that we partake of that nature.

Athanasius stated that theosis is “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (De Incarnatione, I). So, again, how does this comport with your view that we do not take on the nature of God?

My friend in Christ, you must have missed post # 80. Let me highlight a few things for you:

Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even a necessary part of God (of the three existences of God called hypostasis).

For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man’s sake. This is what St Paul teaches mystically when he says, ‘…that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace’ (Eph. 2:7).

As God became human, in all ways except sin, He will also make humans god (Holy or saintly), in all ways except his divine essence (uncaused or uncreatedness).

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Glad this thread has gone back to the “Catholics believe or should believe that they can become gods” and Flyonthewall has posted the exact same thing three times about it now and I guess he didn’t get the message the first time the moderation team deleted everything. Maybe it will all get deleted again;it doesn’t really matter.

One semi-conclusory thing I had said (and I believe Campeador has proven by providing the quotations) is that the quote from the catechism uses “terms of art” and their plain language is not to be read literally. A term of art needs to be interpreted by a learned person who is familiar with the usage, not a layperson, to be understood correctly. A term of art has a deeper, more sophisticated meaning.

I wish people wouldn’t try to make a silly, gotcha-type point.

There is only one god. There are not multiple gods. Jesus never said there were multiple gods, and the quote from the bible seeming to contradict my contention, is a quote with a term of art as well, not to be read literally.

 

[KathleenGee]

The catechism is read out of context. I read St. Thomas Summa Theologica on the Book of God and the whole point of his book is that we are creatures and no one is like God.

The catechism paragraphs leading up to the 460 are giving the context, but apparently the Mormons are continuing now with the same projection that we are ignoring our own teachings.

When I was on a progressive forum, a feminist who is very much pro abortion and free sex and a former Catholic told me how bad the Catholic church was and how St. Augustine determined the sex of a baby by waving a pendulum over a woman, and that if it went one way, the child would be a boy, and another it would be a girl.

The Catholic Church has never taught such things. And she literally invalidated anything to the contrary about the saint.

For me to consider myself as a god, and to spend the rest of my time in eternity copulating to make spirit children…for me to reject my faith to believe in such a thing would lead me to perdition.

Mormonism does not appear to value true and consecrated virginity and celibacy…total giving of self to the Lord.

It continues to center its whole meaning on the conjugal act…an expression of passion and the flesh rather than the spirit.

 

[flyonthewall]

Glad this thread has gone back to the “Catholics believe or should believe that they can become gods” and Flyonthewall has posted the exact same thing three times about it now and I guess he didn’t get the message the first time the moderation team deleted everything. Maybe it will all get deleted again;it doesn’t really matter.

I have never told anyone what they believe or should believe. Catholics are free to believe anything they want.

One semi-conclusory thing I had said (and I believe Campeador has proven by providing the quotations) is that the quote from the catechism uses “terms of art” and their plain language is not to be read literally. A term of art needs to be interpreted by a learned person who is familiar with the usage, not a layperson, to be understood correctly. A term of art has a deeper, more sophisticated meaning.

I wish people wouldn’t try to make a silly, gotcha-type point.

There is only one god. There are not multiple gods. Jesus never said there were multiple gods, and the quote from the bible seeming to contradict my contention, is a quote with a term of art as well, not to be read literally.

Sounds like a way to make words mean anything except what they actually mean.
I understand what it means for words and phrases to have deeper meaning than what is presented on the surface, but, it doesn’t involve negating the meaning or the imagery of the words used…only providing fuller, richer meaning to them.

I do hear you saying that the common man is unable to understand the scriptures, is that what your are saying?

 

[zaffiroborant]

RyanOneil,

I wanted to get back to you about this challenge to a comment I had made. I appreciate having been challenged about an assumption I had made that the first marriage was not “in the covenant” and therefore a widow was being advised that if she chose to remarry, she should do so “in the covenant.”

As I have thought more about this, I think it is a case where the underlying assumption made by Paul was that a couple getting married who were members would marry “in the covenant”, and that was a given–an eternal marriage as presented in the teaching that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

So a widow who had been married in the covenant might be thinking, if she were going to marry again, that it was less important for her to marry a member since she already had an eternal marriage. She might think that there were reasons that could justify such a decision. So Paul’s encouragement to marry “in the Lord” would be an encouragement to marry a member if a widow were to remarry, and the words “in the Lord” would be making that point.

This would not mean she would have a “second eternal husband”. It would mean simply that she had married a covenant member of the church for the duration of her mortal life.

I’m sorry I don’t find assuming assumptions on the part of someone very convincing.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

I assure you that I am very much aware that nothing I write as a response will ever by considered by any Catholic (or Protestant) to be “an inspired truth”, but could hope or at least have a bit of hope that someone might think to themselves, “well, I disagree but they seem to have their reasons for their opinion”.

I’m not trying to knock you down personally. My point is that the reason for your opinion seems to be something outside of the text. It seems you have made up your mind what the truth is, and then read the passage so as to exclude the plain meaning of the text. So, while you are entitled to your opinion, I just don’t think the opinion is well supported.

ParkerD:

But yet it is consistent with the commandment that really was important, given to Adam and Eve, as I pointed out. So the “tenuous support” idea becomes, in my mind, more than “tenuous”–it becomes consistent with a commandment of God in the very beginning of this world.

Again, what you are doing is ascribing a meaning to a text that seems to be diametrically opposed to the simplest and most straightforward meaning to be ascribed. And your interpretation of that commandment ignores Christ’s own teaching that for some, giving up the good of a marital union for the sake of the kingdom is a great good of its own. Again, I’m not saying that marriage is less sacred a calling than a life devoted entirely to building up the spiritual kingdom. And again, your comments here are diverging from the original post.
Parker:

I added that point because Paul was only one apostle, with one point of view, and it is a far stronger position to establish a basic doctrine by taking the teachings of Jesus and of as many apostles as possible, and molding them together into a defining doctrine, especially one so extremely far-reaching that overturns the first commandment given to Adam and Eve. I also added that point because I do think that Paul either wrote or was translated in ways that could be misunderstood, (just as Peter wrote about Paul’s writing), and that his teachings about the role of women should not be adhered to at face value today.

Again, this comment seems more an attack on the insipred writer than any real attempt to harmonize his epistle with the rest of scripture.
Parker:

Because verse 37 has the part I have underlined, which uses the words “keep her as his betrothed”, which means that she will still be his “betrothed” even after he has made the decision not to marry her for the present time. The word “keep” does not mean “let her depart from the relationship and marry someone else” or “let her remain unmarried forever”. It means they have an expectation, still, of marriage in their future.

Again, this is simply not supported by the text. Look at it again:

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Where does it talk about waiting until after the Second Coming to marry your betrothed? Where does it suggest something other than a commitment to celibacy, as opposed to temporarily refraining during the course of a mission calling? What you suggest is just speculation that is not supported by what is there in the text.
Parker:

I hope you have understood that I have answered that using the very simple phrase “keep her as his betrothed”. Many reasonable people would take this reasonable phrase as meaning there was a coming expectation of marriage for those two people, within a few years or a reasonable time of “betrothal”.

Not if you read to the end of the passage, where Paul says, without exception, that one who remains unmarried “will do better.” …free from anxieties, perhaps?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I certainly disagree with this sentence since the topic of this thread has been a teaching of Paul, and Paul would certainly believe in the commandments of God, and would not think he had the authority to supersede them with his own ideas, nor would he think that he was being guided by the Spirit to supersede them with a teaching that ran counter to a teaching of the Savior.

The topic was how the LDS harmonize 1Cor 7 with their teaching that eternal marriage is essential to God’s plan for humanity. And your comment really just begs the question, “Does celibacy run counter to God’s commandment?” If we assume the scriptures here are inspired, we must conclude that celibacy is a favorable alternative to the marital state amongst those devoting their life to full time ministry.

Peace,
Robert

 

[KathleenGee]

I think of the lives of so many priests I have known and how many people they have helped and nurtured in the Lord.

They all have an emotional independence. This one priest told me they do not have the constitution to revolve their lives around just one person. A nun told me if they were to get married after being priests, they would be ‘lollipops’.

God made them that way.

 

[KathleenGee]

Finally, with the various Mormon beliefs…there is a propensity to have a male dominated aspect to Mormonism, that does not exist in Catholicism…believe it or not.

I see the male clergy working in the Holy Spirit – Who is at work in all of us – and not at all heavy handed or deciding who can go to heaven --the woman, and who can’t. They tell women if a husband is abusive and heavy handed, he is not in Christ.

A priest said when we are in sin and not Christ…as practicing Catholics, we are not in the Church.

Get it? When we are in grave sin, we are outside the Church, male or female.

So when a husband is being abusive to his wife in a Catholic marriage, the priests tell us not to submit to abuse.

I know a man who married a devout Catholic woman. She would not give in to his abuse. He came from another part of the world, and believed in ghosts. He said he was going to come back to haunt her, and that he made her feel guilty, so guilty. She laughed him off.