LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[momor]

I am not really sure how to take that answer. Are you suggesting that an elderly couple who are past the age of “consummation” want to get married “sacramentally” in the in the Catholic Church, are not allowed or able to do so?

Yes. There are scriptural conditions to be met for a sacramental marriage. In reality, if a couple presented themselves to a priest for marriage prep they would be informed of the conditions. At that point it is up to their own conscience as to whether they meet the conditions. The priest is going to trust but not verify.

 

[Jay53]

Now, by going back to Christ's teaching about marriage and divorce, it would be well to re-read His words in Matthew 19:6: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." God is an eternal Being with an eternal view of humankind. The Mosaic law allowed man to put marriage--which God had "from the beginning" (v. 8) made an eternal covenant by doing the "joining" that is the joint covenant of marriage itself when done by God--into a lesser contract status, a contract status that allowed for divorce "because of the hardness of [their] hearts." (v. 8) "...but from the beginning it was not so."
Now, re-read the words of Christ to the apostles in Matthew 18:18: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This means that they are acting with the authority of God and that what they do with that authority is just as if God were doing it. Add to that the teaching, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” and it leads to an eternal view of the marriage covenant–not a “for time only” view, not a “for this life only” view, but an eternal view.

At the same time, bear in mind that one of Christ’s purposes was to preserve the complete freedom of choice of humankind even as He taught eternal principles. If one re-reads 1 Corinthians 2 one can discern that not every principle of the gospel was intended to be gleaned and understood through man’s wisdom. Spiritual understanding and wisdom require gaining the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So this entire set of conditions for differences in the resurrection, although taught by Christ, is not going to jump out at you because He would not do that–He does not force belief nor would He jeopardize the sacredness of the eternal marriage covenant by allowing it to be “copied” by people who would take pure principles and make them less than pure. This is why He taught in a way that “seeing, they see not.” Those things that are spiritually discerned as one is spiritually ready to discern them, will be seen whereas those unready will “see them not.”

Parker, thank you for the long explanation, but it really didn’t answer my question. I don’t know if perhaps you were trying to answer the question I should have asked.

You said that Jesus’ explanation to the Sadduccees was intended only for them because they did not believe in the resurrection. Then you tried to point out that Jesus singled out others for a specific explanation by pointing to Luke 20:45-47.

From Post #332

Originally posted by ParkerD
If you’re saying that Christ never singled out specific groups of people such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes and never discussed the consequences of their unbelief in specific ways, then I disagree and I would say that Luke 20:45-47 illustrates this fact–Christ’s message was a similar one about the scribes as about the Sadducees.

I then pointed out that Luke 20:45-47 is* not* intended only for the Scribes, it is a message that applies to all of us. We should not act like the Scribes and if we do, we should expect a similar punishment.

You then agreed and said that those who act like the Sadduccees, rejecting Christ and the Resurrection can expect a similar “status in Resurrection” (to be like the angels). You have also intimated that Catholics will experience a similar status because we don’t believe in “celestial marriage”, however I am pointing out that Catholics are not like the Sadduccees, we DO believe in Christ and in the Resurrection, so your interpretation does not hold.

Matthew 19:6 has to do with divorce. You seem to be operating under the assumption that when we die, somehow Catholics believe “man” is putting asunder what God joined; when instead, it is God who has ended the marriage because Heaven and what God has planned for us is greater than we can imagine.

Matthew 18:18 has to do with confession and the authority that God gave His apostles and priests to forgive sins on earth. If you read Matthew 18:15-18 you will see the context where Jesus gave His disciples this authority. He was not speaking of marriages, but of sin and transgressions.

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

I also don’t agree with your insinuation that those who do not agree with Mormon interpretations are somehow “spiritually unready to discern”. The Apostles did not teach these concepts - they did not come about until Joseph Smith. You cannot possibly lead me to believe that people such as St. Padre Pio and St. Therese of Lisieux were somehow “spiritually unready” when the evidence of God’s blessings and presence in their lives was fully evident.

I think part of the problem is that you are adding in Joseph Smith’s “revelations” about celestial marriage, and then trying to apply Scripture to fit those teachings; where those who do not believe Joseph Smith, do not interpret it the same way. I would contend that if Joseph Smith did not come up with this whole concept, then you would not interpret that Scripture in that way either because that was not what Jesus’ words mean.

Hope you have a great day, too!

 

[Jay53]

The Luke passage about “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” is Luke 20:35. As I have noted, “worthiness” does not qualify a person to receive the resurrection, but does qualify what kind of resurrection a person will receive. Luke 20:35 was rendered from the Greek (Textus Receptus) with several choices made by a translator. One choice is the use of the word “world” or “kingdom” or “place” after the word “that”. Another choice is the insertion of a comma (not in the Greek) and the insertion of the word “the” in front of the word “resurrection”. It makes more sense from the Greek to be true to the meaning conveyed in Greek by saying, “worthy to be given that place and resurrection from death, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of resurrection.” Note the contrast between “children of God” (which Christ says those dead Sadducees are when they are resurrected). Why are they “children of God” in their resurrection but yet were described earlier as “the children of this world”? (v. 34).

Another quick note regarding Luke 20:35. I think “children of this world” simply means humans/mortals/people living on earth who have not died. “Children of God” or “Children of the resurrection” are those who have died and are alive in Christ.

From the KJV:

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Those who are human and on earth, marry and are given in marriage, but those who have died and are worthy to reach Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage.

 

[Monte1945]

Second, Yes, there are places in the Catholic church that the general public is not allowed. I know of one of them right here in the valley–a monestary that has a lovely visiter’s center, gift shop and chapel, but where the monk’s private chapel, living and work areas are very much off limits to anyone but the monks. They are a cloistered order (I don’t think many of those still exist, do they?). If you are not a monk of that order, or a visiting priest, you simply do not get in.

Yes, and no… but I think we have to make some “details” known before we can really
match these two together…

I have heard, that in the LDS church there are places and events which take place
in certain temples and that only church members of a certain degree are allowed
entrance and participation.

The Monastic areas of a monastery, are not forbidden for people to enter into regardless of christian denominations because of lacking some degree of their faith… but to maintain the “silence” of the order. If any person wants to go into a monastic area during a service (an Office) he/she just has to make that known, and when they agree to not be loud or interrupt the service in any way they are allowed in.

The Monks are not performing any secret service of any kind… Actually if one wanted
to be part of a religious service… they would do better to go to a parish… A monastic
office is merely just reading and singing the psalms.

Monks obey certain rules which they live by… one of the main rules they hold but do
not advertise… is that if anyone comes to them, they feel God may be leading them to
the monastery and if that person is to ask for hospitality or to pray with them they will not only allow it, they can not refuse… Next time you go to that monastery just request to
be part of the service and you will be allowed in…

There are a lot of people who think that Monks are kind of “out there” and often they are treated like some kind of freaks, where people will come climb over the walls and attempt to take their photos… etc… and they have areas which are forbidden for people to just wander in and disturb them.

A monk is called for one thing… to pray… he is called from the world, to be pure in heart
and to try to live as sinless a life as he can by being away from distractions and or to be tempted by the things of the world… He goes to pray one pacific prayer… and that prayer
is for God to NOT end the world until all men find God’s Salvation… regardless of what church or religion… he prays that prayer all the waking hours he has… and during the time he is working etc… and to disturb him is just going against his purpose…

There are some people who feel that it is only because of the Monk’s prayer that this world is still in existence which gives lost people the chance to find God’s love… and that within those thousands of monks throughout the world… there might just be one among them who has the sanctification to have his/her prayer answered… As a Christian I would not want to be the person to disturb that prayer!.

He or she are not against anyone coming to their religious services… it may seem that way too you… but it really isn’t…

 

[sablouwho]

If a couple gets an annulment civilly, the Temple sealing is cancelled just as it would be if they had divorced.

I had thought otherwise. I have an LDS friend who was sealed in the Temple, and later divorced. His ex-wife wants the sealing canceled, but he doesn’t want to do it. Apparently, she doesn’t have a choice in the matter–it is up to him.

Diana, can you please clarify your understanding of the above?

 

[zerinus]

Yes. There are scriptural conditions to be met for a sacramental marriage. In reality, if a couple presented themselves to a priest for marriage prep they would be informed of the conditions. At that point it is up to their own conscience as to whether they meet the conditions. The priest is going to trust but not verify.

Can that be verified from the Canon Law or Catechism?

 

[zerinus]

I had thought otherwise. I have an LDS friend who was sealed in the Temple, and later divorced. His ex-wife wants the sealing canceled, but he doesn’t want to do it. Apparently, she doesn’t have a choice in the matter–it is up to him.

Don’t take my word for it, I believe that is correct. However, if she remarried to an LDS man, and wanted to be sealed to her second husband in the temple, then she could apply for her previous sealing to be canceled, and it would be done. That is a vague knowledge I have of the matter.

 

[momor]

Can that be verified from the Canon Law or Catechism?

Time for you to answer the original question.

 

[ParkerD]

Don’t take my word for it, I believe that is correct. However, if she remarried to an LDS man, and wanted to be sealed to her second husband in the temple, then she could apply for her previous sealing to be canceled, and it would be done. That is a vague knowledge I have of the matter.

Zerinus and Sablouwho,
That is the correct application of the LDS handbook of general instructions to priesthood leaders about this subject. She applies to the First Presidency, who hold the keys of sealing power.

Sablouwho,
The other case you described needs no sealing cancellation because the two have not lived up to their covenants anyway so it is a moot point altogether, other than to make her feel better or prove a point, which is not why sealings are done. Sealings are only efficacious if the sealed couple are faithful to their marriage and to each other in building their marriage.

 

[AMDGtoo]

This means that they were aware of such a teaching among certain of the Jews, including Christ’s close followers.

No, it simply means that they didn’t believe in the resurrection.

 

[zerinus]

Time for you to answer the original question.

I am still not convinced that what you have described is the correct Catholic theological position; but to answer your question, that is not a requirement in a Mormon “sacramental” marriage (which would be equivalent to our temple marriage). In Mormonism, if a couple love each other enough that they want to get married and live together as husband and wife, but are not able to consummate the marriage either because of old age or for some other reason (but still love each other enough to want to live together in that kind of arrangement), there is nothing to stop them from getting married and being sealed in the temple. Don’t forget that in Mormonism “sacramental” (temple) marriages are eternal, and continue beyond death. If for some reason they are not able to consummate the marriage in this life, they will be able to do so in the next life when such impediment will be removed.

 

[sablouwho]

I am still not convinced that what you have described is the correct Catholic theological position;

Zerinus–I was in my RCIA class today and we were covering this exact topic. To prepare for class we had to read a book called Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West, based on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. To summarize what was discussed in the book and in class today–yes, it does appear that consummation is expected/a requirement. In the books Q&A, for example, it said that impotence is an impediment to marriage.

I have seen similar question asked and answered in the Ask An Apologist section of CAF, whose answer echoes what I have relayed to you above.

I hopt that this helps.

 

[dianaiad]

Same here.

Neither do we, actually. Only civil authorities offer “annulments”. What you mistakenly refer to a Catholic “annulment” is really a “decree of nullity”. After the person gets a civil divorce and applies to have his/her marriage investigated by the Marriage Tribunal so as to see if a decree of nullity can be granted. The Tribunal looks at the couple’s vows–at the moment they made them–to see if there was some impediment (“free will”–even age may compromise this, blood relation, etc.) in them that we didn’t know about. (Yes, this is noted in the Bible by Paul–not the words but the concepts behind them.)

We don’t “do” divorce (just as Jesus said).

“Annulment” “degree of nullity” same thing. The root word does describe the whole thing; it is a declaration that the marraige never really was.

We do not issue degrees of nullity.

 

[dianaiad]

Zerinus–I was in my RCIA class today and we were covering this exact topic. To prepare for class we had to read a book called Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West, based on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. To summarize what was discussed in the book and in class today–yes, it does appear that consummation is expected/a requirement. In the books Q&A, for example, it said that impotence is an impediment to marriage.

I have seen similar question asked and answered in the Ask An Apologist section of CAF, whose answer echoes what I have relayed to you above.

I hopt that this helps.

I see…and in a way it makes sense. IIf one’s marriage and association with one’s spouse ends at death, then physical problems that prevent sex between the spouses are a lot more important. It also makes sense that Mormons do not have this idea. Since we believe that marriage IS eternal, whatever impediments that may cause problems here are a great deal less important; after all, they will not cause problems eternally. Marriage is an eternal alliance between a man and a woman, part of an eternal family. One is only HERE a century or less; one spends a lot more time in the eternities; some strictly physical problem that may affect one HERE won’t do so there and then.

 

[ParkerD]

Another quick note regarding Luke 20:35. I think “children of this world” simply means humans/mortals/people living on earth who have not died. “Children of God” or “Children of the resurrection” are those who have died and are alive in Christ.

From the KJV:

Those who are human and on earth, marry and are given in marriage, but those who have died and are worthy to reach Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage.

Jay53,
I suppose that I would be going around in circles by trying to respond to this since I already have to others, but thanks for thinking about the subject and God bless you with what you want.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, thank you for the long explanation, but it really didn’t answer my question. I don’t know if perhaps you were trying to answer the question I should have asked.

You said that Jesus’ explanation to the Sadduccees was intended only for them because they did not believe in the resurrection. Then you tried to point out that Jesus singled out others for a specific explanation by pointing to Luke 20:45-47.

From Post #332

I then pointed out that Luke 20:45-47 is* not* intended only for the Scribes, it is a message that applies to all of us. We should not act like the Scribes and if we do, we should expect a similar punishment.

You then agreed and said that those who act like the Sadduccees, rejecting Christ and the Resurrection can expect a similar “status in Resurrection” (to be like the angels). You have also intimated that Catholics will experience a similar status because we don’t believe in “celestial marriage”, however I am pointing out that Catholics are not like the Sadduccees, we DO believe in Christ and in the Resurrection, so your interpretation does not hold.

Matthew 19:6 has to do with divorce. You seem to be operating under the assumption that when we die, somehow Catholics believe “man” is putting asunder what God joined; when instead, it is God who has ended the marriage because Heaven and what God has planned for us is greater than we can imagine.

Matthew 18:18 has to do with confession and the authority that God gave His apostles and priests to forgive sins on earth. If you read Matthew 18:15-18 you will see the context where Jesus gave His disciples this authority. He was not speaking of marriages, but of sin and transgressions.

I also don’t agree with your insinuation that those who do not agree with Mormon interpretations are somehow “spiritually unready to discern”. The Apostles did not teach these concepts - they did not come about until Joseph Smith. You cannot possibly lead me to believe that people such as St. Padre Pio and St. Therese of Lisieux were somehow “spiritually unready” when the evidence of God’s blessings and presence in their lives was fully evident.

I think part of the problem is that you are adding in Joseph Smith’s “revelations” about celestial marriage, and then trying to apply Scripture to fit those teachings; where those who do not believe Joseph Smith, do not interpret it the same way. I would contend that if Joseph Smith did not come up with this whole concept, then you would not interpret that Scripture in that way either because that was not what Jesus’ words mean.

Hope you have a great day, too!

Jay53,
I had thought you had read some of the LDS doctrines to the extent of understanding that there are three “heavens”. I had never meant to infer that Catholics would inherit the glory that the unbelieving (in this world) Sadducees would be expected to inherit, unless the Sadducees had such a sincere heart and the kind of trust in their peers that Saul had before he became Paul, that they finally saw the light and repented in the spirit world right away upon going there and finding out that life continues after all. Catholics would inherit either the Terrestrial glory, in the presence of the Son of God and in a state of great peace and happiness, or perhaps even a glory within the Celestial kingdom but without marriage unless they had desired an eternal marriage and just “did not know where to find it” and upon finding it, chose it after all in the spirit world.

The words “greater than we can imagine”, by implying that marriage could not be a part of that, suggests that marriage for you is something less than what it is for me, I would have to suppose. I cannot imagine anything “greater than we can imagine” that would not include the wonderfulness of marriage. I think it is out of harmony with God’s purposes to give His children covenant marriages and expect those marriages to be built into something wonderful and uplifting and inspiring, then take that away in the Celestial glory of heaven. Again, God gave Adam and Eve a covenant marriage, with no feeling of “at death you part.”

As far as “man” having put asunder what God joined, it would be a case where God didn’t join the kind of marriage that wasn’t an eternal covenant marriage, but if He had, then man by putting such a marriage as “for this life only” would indeed be putting asunder what God had joined together.

I’ll think about the “bind on earth to bind in heaven” passages and come back later on about that, as I’ve got to run right now, but you made a valid point about the context, so it will be a fun subject to figure out how it all relates. I certainly am aware of the aspect of the keys to membership in the church with the apostles, and keys to covenant baptism and hence keys to loose on earth when an unrepentant member has sinned grievously.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[dianaiad]

I had thought otherwise. I have an LDS friend who was sealed in the Temple, and later divorced. His ex-wife wants the sealing canceled, but he doesn’t want to do it. Apparently, she doesn’t have a choice in the matter–it is up to him.

Diana, can you please clarify your understanding of the above?

Oh, it is not up to him. If she wants out, she can get out. In any case, if she wishes to marry again, she WILL get a sealing cancelation, whether he likes the idea or not.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I suppose that I would be going around in circles by trying to respond to this since I already have to others, but thanks for thinking about the subject and God bless you with what you want.

I just want to do God’s will, so thank you for your well wishes.

I’m afraid I haven’t seen your responses to others on this, but hopefully with my post I have given you some insights as well as some Scripture interpretations to think about, particularly regarding the fact that your interpretation of Luke 20:35 is not in line with Apostolic teaching, and also regarding the sacrament of Reconciliation, the authority God gave His priests to forgive sins and its scriptural basis. If you have time, you really should look into the life of St. Padre Pio. (This is a good website: ewtn.com/padrepio/priest/index.htm) I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you to His Truth.

Hope you have a good night!

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I had thought you had read some of the LDS doctrines to the extent of understanding that there are three “heavens”. I had never meant to infer that Catholics would inherit the glory that the unbelieving (in this world) Sadducees would be expected to inherit, unless the Sadducees had such a sincere heart and the kind of trust in their peers that Saul had before he became Paul, that they finally saw the light and repented in the spirit world right away upon going there and finding out that life continues after all. Catholics would inherit either the Terrestrial glory, in the presence of the Son of God and in a state of great peace and happiness, or perhaps even a glory within the Celestial kingdom but without marriage unless they had desired an eternal marriage and just “did not know where to find it” and upon finding it, chose it after all in the spirit world.

I have read about the LDS belief in 3 heavens, but since I don’t agree with this belief, nor do I find any support for it in Scripture or Apostolic teaching, I don’t find it particularly relevant. And since God is One, I don’t see any credibility in a separate Heaven where only Jesus is.

The words “greater than we can imagine”, by implying that marriage could not be a part of that, suggests that marriage for you is something less than what it is for me, I would have to suppose. I cannot imagine anything “greater than we can imagine” that would not include the wonderfulness of marriage. I think it is out of harmony with God’s purposes to give His children covenant marriages and expect those marriages to be built into something wonderful and uplifting and inspiring, then take that away in the Celestial glory of heaven. Again, God gave Adam and Eve a covenant marriage, with no feeling of “at death you part.”

Your assumptions regarding marriage and how I view it are extremely arrogant and condescending. The fact that you “cannot imagine anything “greater than we can imagine” that would not include the wonderfulness of marriage” is exactly my point! I certainly hope to be with my husband in Heaven, but simply being in the presence of God will be more than enough fulfillment/joy/peace. To suggest that God is not enough and that one would need a marital relationship to be complete is borderline blasphemous. (or at the very least it comes close to violating the 1st commandment - putting something equal to or more important than God. )

As far as “man” having put asunder what God joined, it would be a case where God didn’t join the kind of marriage that wasn’t an eternal covenant marriage, but if He had, then man by putting such a marriage as “for this life only” would indeed be putting asunder what God had joined together.

Again, God is the one who decides. As someone else pointed out, when a spouse dies, the living spouse is free to remarry. I think that was what Jesus was explaining in Luke 20:35, that we don’t need to worry about legalities/formalities etc regarding marriage - to worry about whether one would be bound to a first wife, second wife, etc. in heaven, because there is no marriage in Heaven.

In a Mormon perspective, then - if a spouse is “sealed” to their spouse who then dies and the widow/widower subsequently remarries, what happens to that second relationship? What if the person has a better/more fulfilling relationship with the second spouse? Can they be sealed to the second spouse? And if so, where does that leave the first spouse?

I’ll think about the “bind on earth to bind in heaven” passages and come back later on about that, as I’ve got to run right now, but you made a valid point about the context, so it will be a fun subject to figure out how it all relates. I certainly am aware of the aspect of the keys to membership in the church with the apostles, and keys to covenant baptism and hence keys to loose on earth when an unrepentant member has sinned grievously.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

No problem.

 

[momor]

Oh, it is not up to him. If she wants out, she can get out. In any case, if she wishes to marry again, she WILL get a sealing cancelation, whether he likes the idea or not.

You say your church doesn’t do annulments but your sealing cancellation sounds like the same thing. Semantics.