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

[flyonthewall]

Setting aside the fact that nowhere in 1 Cor does Paul limit his discussion to “serving as a missionary”… there’s an interesting point I want to make here:

It occurred to me after my last post that there is simply no LDS equivalent to the full time religious life (ministerial priests, monks, nuns, relious brothers, etc.) that exists within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. A full time clergy member - according to Paul - would be in the best position if he remained celibate for the remainder of his life. The LDS reading of 1 Cor as celibacy being temporary (i.e. while serving your “calling” or mission work) seems to assume that an individual christian would remain in that “mission” status only temporarily. Thus, LDS seem to be viewing the encouragement of Paul to remain celibate as relating only to a temporary situation. (And please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect here)

It is true that we have no positions that equate to the priests, monks, nuns, etc of the Catholic church. The closest we could compare would be our General Authorities, but that is not without already being married. The higher calling, so to speak, is being married and raising a family in the Lord.

So, my question back to any participating LDS members is this: Assume that a young, unmarried adult LDS member chooses to devote his or her remaing life entirely to doing mission work or some other purely religious calling. Under that circumstance, it seems to me that would have to read Paul in 1 Cor 7 as encouraging such a person to remain in the unmarried state for the duration of their life? I think that the LDS position would have to concede this point.

That is the thing, if one rejects marriage, it matters not the reason. It would be similar if someone chose to follow the Lord but rejected baptism.

So, that seems to bring the question around to one of whether or not a full time religious life (i.e. priests, nuns, monks, brothers, etc.) is proper. Now, I understand that in practice the LDS church has no full time ministry and members are called to service as required (mission work, teaching, leading, community assistance, ward and stake leadership positions, etc.), for a temporary period of time. But as a general principle, do LDS members see anything doctrinally improper about a full-time career-type calling to the religious life as is the case in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. And, if so, then would not Paul’s teaching be calling such people (as far as they are able) to commit to a lifetime of remaining in the unmarried state?

Any thoughts on this?

Peace,
Robert

There is no need for that type of choice as, there are many opportunities to serve in the church without it being a full time position. Some positions are busier than others and come close to being a second full time job, even though the pay is not monetary.
There is nothing doctrinally improper that I can think of about a full-time career-type calling, but not to the exclusion of marriage.
Our General Authorities are the closest thing to full-time career-type callings, and all are either married or widowed. There is no position in our church that would require marriage to be abstained from on a permanent basis.

 

[ParkerD]

I guess I’m still confused, so please bear with me. If He was once as we are now, then how is He not an exalted human being who would be required to marry in order to attain His exalted state? As far as suggesting that I ask Jesus the meaning of “beginning”, forgive me, but I asked you. I’m interested in what you believe it means. Thanks.

SteveVH,

I don’t agree that He was “once as we are now”, unless one qualifies that statement with the understanding that Christ became a Child of Holiness and then a Man of Holiness, and was thus “fully man” and “fully God”. The Son was like the Father, perfect always. That is not us. That is not “human”. It is to be much more than human, of course. It is to have done something completely beyond human capacity.

But as you know, we do believe that “truth is reason, truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.” We just don’t know any of the details, including what “offspring” means.

As for “beginning”–I really do think He desires that you get the answer from Him directly, so why would I go against His will? I simply won’t do it now that I understand His will in the matter.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I don’t agree that He was “once as we are now”, unless one qualifies that statement with the understanding that Christ became a Child of Holiness and then a Man of Holiness, and was thus “fully man” and “fully God”. The Son was like the Father, perfect always. That is not us. That is not “human”. It is to be much more than human, of course. It is to have done something completely beyond human capacity.

But as you know, we do believe that “truth is reason, truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.” We just don’t know any of the details, including what “offspring” means.

As for “beginning”–I really do think He desires that you get the answer from Him directly, so why would I go against His will? I simply won’t do it now that I understand His will in the matter.

Are you saying that you disagree with your founding “prophet”? Are you saying that explaining your beliefs and defining your terms are contrary to God’s will? I’m really just trying to understand your position, Parker, but I cannot imagine someone asking me to define a fairly simple term for the sake of communication and my answer being “go ask God”. It seems to be a pretty straight forward question to me.

 

[ParkerD]

Are you saying that you disagree with your founding “prophet”?

SteveVH,

No–I have read the King Follett Sermon many times. His quote is often taken out of context. I added the context, by the qualifier that he included in his sermon, but in words that could hopefully make sense to you with a different background than the people to whom he was speaking.

Are you saying that explaining your beliefs and defining your terms are contrary to God’s will?

For you, at this time, yes. I said His will is that you ask Him about the words “In the Beginning” if you want to know what they mean. He inspired the words to be written as they are written.

When He is ready for you to know more than that or what those words mean, if you ask sincerely and purely and patiently, then He will make it known to you, in His own way and in a way that you’ll understand.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Because, given the choice of waiting to be married and thus “keeping” their betrothed, by making the choice of waiting and being able to devote themselves in an unencumbered way to the preaching of the gospel, they will be able to focus in a more immersed way on teaching, visiting, strengthening, and revisiting, reteaching, and strengthening some more.

When they marry, it will be expected that they devote a good deal of time and energy in bringing joy to their marriage, and that will be a good thing, also.

But see my other comment. What if one is devoting their whole life to their ministry… Would it not make sense to remain in the former state, as opposed to the latter - given the rationale and the express recommendation that Paul is making. In my other post, I made the point that LDS do not have a full time religious like Catholics and the Orthodox, although I don’t believe that position is doctrinal. So, your response is pregnant with the admission that a lifetime ministry requires lifetime celibacy. It is only where you make the assumption that ministry “ends” that you can find any support at all for the LDS position.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It is true that we have no positions that equate to the priests, monks, nuns, etc of the Catholic church. The closest we could compare would be our General Authorities, but that is not without already being married. The higher calling, so to speak, is being married and raising a family in the Lord.

Is it the “higher” calling, or is it just another calling. My point from the start is that this assumption you are making is contradicted by Paul’s encouragement to those unmarried people in ministry to remain as they are… free from anxiety, etc. You haven’t really addressed this. You’ve stated it as if it were self-evident from Scripture when indeed it does not seem to be. Yes, marriage is wonderful and sacred and a good that God desires; but it is not a necessary step in God’s eternal plan for us from Paul’s (and Christ’s) teaching. It appears that those who wish to devote their life to ministry, and choose a celibate life are not sacrificing anything from the afterlife, as it seems LDS doctrine would teach. You keep skirting this. Why don’t you tackle it head-on?

flyonthewall:

That is the thing, if one rejects marriage, it matters not the reason. It would be similar if someone chose to follow the Lord but rejected baptism.

No, I don’t think it’s the same. Paul does not say that one who is not baptised does better. He speaks of those in the ministry who forego marriage for the sake of building up the kingdom. And as I recently pointed out, among many christian communities and the Catholic and Orthodox there are those who devote a lifetime (as opposed to a short time) to this ministry. In such a case lifetime celibacy seems to be Paul’s recommendation - which would be contrary to the LDS position on marriage and how central it is to God’s plan. So, no the analogy you make here is not even close.

flyonthewall:

There is no need for that type of choice as, there are many opportunities to serve in the church without it being a full time position. Some positions are busier than others and come close to being a second full time job, even though the pay is not monetary.

You’re avoiding the question. I agree that there are many opportunities to serve without a full time position. That’s true in every faith community. But my question was whether or not LDS doctrine found such positions to be improper. My guess would be no, although that creates a real inconsistency insofar as Paul’s teaching goes.

flyonthewall:

There is nothing doctrinally improper that I can think of about a full-time career-type calling, but not to the exclusion of marriage.

But don’t you see how that undercuts your earlier reading of 1 Cor 7? If one is facing the choice of devoting their life to the Lord and/or a spouse, then Paul’s teaching on celibacy would be applicable on a lifetime scale. Which raises the problem I pointed out at the beginning of this thread.

flyonthewall:

Our General Authorities are the closest thing to full-time career-type callings, and all are either married or widowed. There is no position in our church that would require marriage to be abstained from on a permanent basis.

But if someone chose to follow Paul’s advice and abstain from marriage and devote a life - free of anxiety for a spouse - to the LDS Church would that be looked upon as a good thing or a bad thing? And would not that person point to Jesus, and Paul, as examples to follow?

Peace,
Robert

 

[ryanoneil]

RyanOneil,

As far as “one flesh”, then there is a spiritual meaning to those words that is far more important than the physical meaning usually perceived.

I agree.

I think Father Cantalamessa used carefully planned words with specific meaning that had to do specifically with married people in their resurrection, in such sentences as:

I agree in regards to the love they have for one another, but a “follow-up” to marriage in the next life does not necessitate something exclusive to two individuals. The whole church is the bride of Christ and she will be united “in God.”

 

[ParkerD]

Setting aside the fact that nowhere in 1 Cor does Paul limit his discussion to “serving as a missionary”… there’s an interesting point I want to make here:

It occurred to me after my last post that there is simply no LDS equivalent to the full time religious life (ministerial priests, monks, nuns, relious brothers, etc.) that exists within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. A full time clergy member - according to Paul - would be in the best position if he remained celibate for the remainder of his life. The LDS reading of 1 Cor as celibacy being temporary (i.e. while serving your “calling” or mission work) seems to assume that an individual christian would remain in that “mission” status only temporarily. Thus, LDS seem to be viewing the encouragement of Paul to remain celibate as relating only to a temporary situation. (And please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect here)

So, my question back to any participating LDS members is this: Assume that a young, unmarried adult LDS member chooses to devote his or her remaing life entirely to doing mission work or some other purely religious calling. Under that circumstance, it seems to me that would have to read Paul in 1 Cor 7 as encouraging such a person to remain in the unmarried state for the duration of their life? I think that the LDS position would have to concede this point.

So, that seems to bring the question around to one of whether or not a full time religious life (i.e. priests, nuns, monks, brothers, etc.) is proper. Now, I understand that in practice the LDS church has no full time ministry and members are called to service as required (mission work, teaching, leading, community assistance, ward and stake leadership positions, etc.), for a temporary period of time. But as a general principle, do LDS members see anything doctrinally improper about a full-time career-type calling to the religious life as is the case in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. And, if so, then would not Paul’s teaching be calling such people (as far as they are able) to commit to a lifetime of remaining in the unmarried state?

Any thoughts on this?

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

These are complicated questions. You are familiar no doubt with Paul’s teachings about a “bishop should be the husband of one wife…” and so forth. I view the word “ministry” as having different connotations depending on the particular calling. A “bishop” would definitely have a “ministry” among the people where he serves. So that would not mean a bishop “should be celibate” given the teachings of Paul.

A “calling” is not a “self-calling”. It should be by revelation to the one authorized to present the calling or, it appears in certain New Testament passages, voted on by the members. So a decision by an individual to “choose to devote his or her remaining life entirely…to some religious calling” is not something that an individual in the LDS church is able to do or authorized to do, unless one is speaking about some devoted service to humankind outside of a church calling, which would be fine.

Take a case of a young person who feels very “devoted” and perhaps enjoys teaching the gospel to youth. If he or she wants to teach church classes to youth on a full-time basis, then they will need to find a companion and marry before they would be able to be considered for a faculty position as a teacher of religion class students in high school or college. Then the candidate selection committee would also go through the “search for the best candidate” selection process. Only single young men under age 26 are called on LDS full-time missions for two years. For single women, there is not that age restriction other than older than age 20. But the calling is only for a year-and-a-half or a year. Single young men and women can certainly fill many callings (not bishop which means lay pastor) in wards and branches, and devote much time in service within those callings–perhaps three to six average service hours per week, (unpaid of course).

Most LDS young people (with but few exceptions if any of which I personally know of none) are encouraged to prepare themselves for marriage so long as their health allows for this in their life. It is not viewed that marriage is ultimately a distraction from service to others in significant church responsibilities and callings. They are reminded to be devoted to family life also, and these two aspects of life are viewed as complementary if done in the right way, although there are time sacrifices away from family and thus time with family needs to be considered as “quality time”.

 

[ParkerD]

I agree.

I agree in regards to the love they have for one another, but a “follow-up” to marriage in the next life does not necessitate something exclusive to two individuals. The whole church is the bride of Christ and she will be united “in God.”

RyanOneil,

I think that Father Cantalamessa’s words were carefully and sincerely chosen by inspiration, and I think they did indeed contain a dimension of “exclusivity” which I think was intended, and as I noted, was spiritually inspired. He didn’t use the words of your last sentence, at all, in describing the union beyond this life of married people.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

These are complicated questions. You are familiar no doubt with Paul’s teachings about a “bishop should be the husband of one wife…” and so forth.

I’m sure you are aware that this statement is not a minimum, but a maximum - i.e. a bishop may marry only once; not “a bishop must be married to one woman at a time.” Latin Rite Catholics, and most orthodox bishops may not be married; and the discipline has been imposed regularly since the Apostolic age, consistent with Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 7.
Parker:

I view the word “ministry” as having different connotations depending on the particular calling. A “bishop” would definitely have a “ministry” among the people where he serves. So that would not mean a bishop “should be celibate” given the teachings of Paul.

Paul encouraged celibacy. Peter was unmarried when he was an Apostle.
Parker:

…So a decision by an individual to “choose to devote his or her remaining life entirely…to some religious calling” is not something that an individual in the LDS church is able to do or authorized to do, unless one is speaking about some devoted service to humankind outside of a church calling, which would be fine.

OK. Assume this to be the case. Shouldn’t this person listen to Paul’s encouragement to be free from anxiety and devoted entirely to the Lord?

Parker. I understand what you are describing here. And it painfully illustrates to me that there is no LDS equivalent for a calling to the religious life. Nuns and other religious do wonderful things within their vocation - whether it is to health care, teaching, preaching, etc. But that is not their calling. The calling to a religious life is a complete devotion of all aspects of one’s life. It’s not a church job that the local bishop assigns to you. It is the spiritual equivalent to marriage - a sacrament in itself - not merely a complimentary aspect of the marital sacrament. So, through no fault of your own, you’re not really answering the call of the question.
Parker:

They are reminded to be devoted to family life also, and these two aspects of life are viewed as complementary if done in the right way, although there are time sacrifices away from family and thus time with family needs to be considered as “quality time”.

This is what Catholics called to the sacrament of marriage do. It is quite different for those called to the priesthood or the religious life. And I guess unless you are willing to truly consider this you won’t really see that Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 7 has lifelong application to such persons.

Peace,
Robert

 

[stormy99]

According to what the Lord has revealed in this dispensation, this is how that verse is to be understood:

D&C 132:

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

This necessarily does not mean that there are no marriages in heaven at all. It means that those who failed to abide by this law here on earth when they had the opportunity to do so, cannot experience those blessings in the hereafter.

Then why are ordiances done for the dead…for people who are not LDS…is it so they can join in the progression? They weren’t LDS on earth…does that lock them out of the Celestial Kingdom?

I hope I explained this ok…

stormy

 

[stormy99]

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.

Well said…!!!

stormy

 

[ParkerD]

…
Paul encouraged celibacy. …
Peace,
Robert

Robert,

As you have hopefully been made aware (though disagreeing), I think this is your opinion and is contrary to Paul’s other teachings on the subject of marriage, so we have reached the impasse that was evident when I first replied to your question.

I also noted that callings within the New Testament were always shown to be either by revelation to the appropriate leader, or by the vote of a congregation, and never by self-calling. So a person would not come forward and nominate themselves to devote themselves to the kind of “religious life” you described under the New Testament scenario.

Therefore, since the kinds of situations where “celibacy” was taught as acceptable by the Savior–where the person had decided that for the sake of their reaching the “kingdom of heaven” and since they didn’t think they could live by the “higher law” of marriage with no divorce as an option for righteous people–and not by way of some “calling” or expectation made by others, there is not a matching situation in what you described, and LDS wouldn’t look for that kind of application of “celibacy” nor would they call someone wherein the calling implied long-term celibacy.

 

[zerinus]

Then why are ordiances done for the dead…for people who are not LDS…is it so they can join in the progression? They weren’t LDS on earth…does that lock them out of the Celestial Kingdom?

I hope I explained this ok…

stormy

The rule is similar to baptism for the dead. Just as everyone needs to be baptized to be exalted, everyone needs to receive all the other sacraments of the gospel to be exalted, such as confirmation, ordination to the priesthood, and eternal marriage. And since this can only be performed here on earth, and by those having proper authority from God, God has arranged it to be performed vicariously on their behalf if they did not have that opportunity during their lifetime. It is then up to them to accept or reject the work that has been done on their behalf in the next life.

 

[KathleenGee]

One of the marks or conditions that make us human is that God has given us a free will.

The greatest creativity comes about when we follow moral freedom. God did not create puppets. He speaks to us in numerous ways 24 hours a day.

There are people out there who willfully refuse the graces or ‘speaks’ of God 24 hours a day. We do not want to serve the Lord a plate of spoiled beans by baptising people who are dead to sin, have refused God, have refused to love their neighbor with the life God gave them.

St. Paul says people know from ancient times that God exists through nature and reason. You cannot baptize people and bring them into a spiritual life when they already refused it.

St. Paul very clearly states, without any ambiguity, that a life fully and totally consecrated to the Lord is better because it frees one from the cares and whims of this passing world, but elevates the person into things solely of the Lord, that allows the person to think of God and be with Him 24 hours a day.

The cloisters are the places of contemplation of God alone. And they pray for the entire world. We will never know how much effect and grace their prayerful lives have blessed ours until we are with the Lord in the next life.

St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote the Summa, was obviously a man of great and gifted reflective thinking on the existence of God. He was given a number of honors because of his work, but refused them. When he was stationed in Naples, Italy, he was praying before the Cross. Suddenly, Christ became alive on the cross.

Christ told Thomas that he had written many good things about Him. And the Lord then asked Thomas what He could give Him in return. All Thomas could say was that he did all his work for the Lord. At that moment, Thomas was drawn into mystical ecstasy.

When the Dominican friars came into the chapel, they witnessed St. Thomas lifted up high in the chapel in levitation. After the experience encountering the Lord, St. Thomas said then said all his works in comparison to this experience of contemplative prayer made his writings seem as straw.

I know a missionary sister who worked with a Jesuit priest. He passed away in time. She said that for 3 weeks she felt his presence, and it was as if he was saying, ‘Sylvia, Jesus is tremendous, Jesus is tremendous…Jesus is tremendous.’

Since Mormons do not read or know about the life of the Church, and how the Word incarnates within a Catholic soul, they do not know about Mary, Christ’s mother and our greatest help and advocate before the throne of God, the work of the Holy Angels, the lives of the saint. About the Dominican founder, St. Dominic, he was given the miraculous healing of even raising the dead back to life.

People are hearing all the time about people having near death experiences…and although they have this encounter with the return of former members of their families…as yet, I have to hear of one of marriage in the next.

God is so great. As St. Paul said after his experience similiar to St. Thomas’, for those who persevere in the Lord, we have no idea of the splendor of God, of heaven, and eternal life awaiting us. God will fulfill all our needs. All our relationships that were founded on Christ and His love will endure, but the focus will not be continual marriage of propagation…that is already done here on earth…but communion with God and the saints.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

No–I have read the King Follett Sermon many times. His quote is often taken out of context. I added the context, by the qualifier that he included in his sermon, but in words that could hopefully make sense to you with a different background than the people to whom he was speaking.

For you, at this time, yes. I said His will is that you ask Him about the words “In the Beginning” if you want to know what they mean. He inspired the words to be written as they are written.

When He is ready for you to know more than that or what those words mean, if you ask sincerely and purely and patiently, then He will make it known to you, in His own way and in a way that you’ll understand.

Again, I was asking for your understanding, Parker. I know perfectly well the meaning of the words “In the beginning”. It is your understanding that I believe falls short and has been adjusted to fit the preconceived notions your faith promotes. At once you say you believe in an eternal God and at the same time seem to give a starting point for His existence. The question is relative to the conversation and your refusal to answer it says much. Your condescending attitude toward me does not help foster any meaningful discussion.

 

[ryanoneil]

RyanOneil,

I think that Father Cantalamessa’s words were carefully and sincerely chosen by inspiration, and I think they did indeed contain a dimension of “exclusivity” which I think was intended, and as I noted, was spiritually inspired. He didn’t use the words of your last sentence, at all, in describing the union beyond this life of married people.

The article states:

Some will ask of course about those who have been legitimately married to different people, widowers and widows who have remarried. (This was the case presented to Jesus of the seven brothers who successively had the same woman as their wife.) Even for them we must repeat the same thing: That which was truly love and self-surrender between each of the husbands or wives, being objectively a good coming from God, will not be dissolved.

No doubt the love that two people shared in life is particular them, but he doesn’t say anything about “exclusivity”

Some will ask of course about those who have been legitimately married to different people, widowers and widows who have remarried. (This was the case presented to Jesus of the seven brothers who successively had the same woman as their wife.) Even for them we must repeat the same thing: That which was truly love and self-surrender between each of the husbands or wives, being objectively a good coming from God, will not be dissolved. In heaven there will not be rivalry in love or jealousy. These things do not belong to true love but to the intrinsic limits of the creature.

Fr. Cantalamessa might not use the words “Communion of Saints” (from a Catholic perspective) but he describes it when he says this.

According to this vision, marriage does not come to a complete end at death but is transfigured, spiritualized, freed from the limits that mark life on earth, as also the ties between parents and children or between friends will not be forgotten.

Our ultimate union with God in heaven is the fulfillment of all the sacraments and covenants we have on earth. They prepair us for the ultimate marriage of Christ and His bride which is the Church. In this marriage all of us are united in the Communion of Saints, which is why he includes parents, children and friends. All are one in Him. Couples are more aware of their union at this point because the sacrament their union is fulfilled. Their marriage is “transfigured” into our union with God, which is not exclusive.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Again, I was asking for your understanding, Parker. I know perfectly well the meaning of the words “In the beginning”. It is your understanding that I believe falls short and has been adjusted to fit the preconceived notions your faith promotes. At once you say you believe in an eternal God and at the same time seem to give a starting point for His existence. The question is relative to the conversation and your refusal to answer it says much. Your condescending attitude toward me does not help foster any meaningful discussion.

Steve I think Parker will explain further but until then, a hint to his understanding of “in the beginning” can be seen in this post, it seems to me there is a different understanding of the word “eternity” which can’t help but lead to a different take on “in the beginning”. As to the condescension, if you want to converse with Parker you will just have to learn to deal with it, Parker uses condescension like other people use sarcasm.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

As you have hopefully been made aware (though disagreeing), I think this is your opinion and is contrary to Paul’s other teachings on the subject of marriage, so we have reached the impasse that was evident when I first replied to your question.

I think the impasse is not based upon a difference of my opinion v. your opinion, but based upon your inability to see what Paul is teaching in 1 Cor. It’s not a matter of merely my opinion on this. The language is clear. 2,000 years of church history on the issue is clear. And the LDS attempts to take Paul’s teaching and harmonize it with the necessity of marriage are ultimately self-defeating.

ParkerD:

I also noted that callings within the New Testament were always shown to be either by revelation to the appropriate leader, or by the vote of a congregation, and never by self-calling.

You have not shown that at all… All of the Apostles were called directly and personally by Christ. Paul is a clear example of this. You are narrowly defining “calling” here. But “calling” in a spiritual sense is something much more life-altering, like in the case of Paul’s dramatic conversion. (Acts 9, 22, 26)

ParkerD:

So a person would not come forward and nominate themselves to devote themselves to the kind of “religious life” you described under the New Testament scenario.

Really? Isn’t that exactly what Paul did when commanded directly by the Lord - without any third-party revelation to Peter or James, and without a vote being taken by the Apostles? (Acts 26:14-20)

ParkerD:

…there is not a matching situation in what you described, and LDS wouldn’t look for that kind of application of “celibacy” nor would they call someone wherein the calling implied long-term celibacy.

Yes. That’s what I thought you would say. The LDS have no room for nuns, ministerial priests, or others (brothers, monks, hermits, etc.) totally devoted to the Kingdom and without the anxieties and concerns of a family pulling them in another direction. No Mother Theresa. No St. John of the Cross. No St. Faustina Kowalska. No John Paul the Great.

I think the lack of a concrete, yet mystical, human example of Christ’s sacrificing love and union with His Church is a huge gap within the LDS church. And I’m not saying this to condemn you. Many LDS practice their faith and their values in a way that puts Catholics and other Christians to shame. It is simply my observation. But I would ask you to consider whether or not you feel some lacking in your spirituality for not having those human beings among your members who live out a life of complete self-giving to the Kingdom of God - and if so, whether that lack arises from LDS theology on the subject we’ve been discussing.

Peace,
Robert

 

[zaffiroborant]

ParkerD:

I also noted that callings within the New Testament were always shown to be either by revelation to the appropriate leader, or by the vote of a congregation, and never by self-calling.

You have not shown that at all… All of the Apostles were called directly and personally by Christ. Paul is a clear example of this. You are narrowly defining “calling” here. But “calling” in a spiritual sense is something much more life-altering, like in the case of Paul’s dramatic conversion. (Acts 9, 22, 26)

Really? Isn’t that exactly what Paul did when commanded directly by the Lord - without any third-party revelation to Peter or James, and without a vote being taken by the Apostles? (Acts 26:14-20)

I think Acts shows a number of occasions where God by-passed leaders and called individuals directly.