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

[paul_c]

Paul C,
Jesus referred to Simon as Simon even in the quote you have cited, after His resurrection. Are you saying that He didn’t remember that He had "changed his name to Peter (Cephas)? (Obviously not). We disagree in every conceivable way but it is not because I have “twisted” scriptures. The words are clear in their meaning within their context, particularly when viewed along with other verses that can be compared to amplify the meaning of one text. But by bypassing the knowledge that Jesus Christ is the foundation, the corner stone, what you do is exactly what you have done–bring your own reasoning and your justification so that you can feel good about the choices you have made in your life. It’s OK to do that, if one wants to do that. But it is not following Christ’s teaching and Peter’s teaching and Paul’s teaching which was that by building one’s foundation on Jesus Christ and knowledge of Him, one can withstand the adversary and his techniques. I choose differently–I choose Christ as my foundation.

Of course Jesus is the corner stone. That is not at issue. This does not mean that he didn’t name Peter to lead the Church on earth. Notice. Jesus is the cornerstone and he appoints Peter to that position in Matthew 16. And he is also the good shepard, but he appoints Peter to that position in John 21. While Jesus is and always will be the head of the Catholic Church, he has appointed men (starting with Peter) to lead the Church on earth until he comes again.

And by the way, this concept shouldn’t be so hard for you to understand. Joseph Smith and his successors claim the same role for you Mormons. The only difference is that the Lord annointed Peter in the presence of the other Apostles and after the resurrection, Peter had the power to heal and also was able to raise Tabitha from the Dead as an ongoing sign of that appointment… In the case of Joseph Smith, well, you just have to take Joseph’s word for it, don’t you…

 

[ParkerD]

So now you are claiming that Luke is wrong because he doesn’t agree with how you interpret scriptures. You are only fooling yourself (and I guess, those that listen to you), What will it take for you to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply wrong about celestial marriage.

Paul C,
Do you have in your mind that what Luke wrote as to this experience with the Sadducees is a different circumstance that happened at a different time than the experience with the Sadducees that is described in Matthew 22?

Also, do you have in your mind that not everyone will be resurrected?

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
Do you have in your mind that what Luke wrote as to this experience with the Sadducees is a different circumstance that happened at a different time than the experience with the Sadducees that is described in Matthew 22?

Also, do you have in your mind that not everyone will be resurrected?

No, I think Luke 20, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 are all talking about the same event.

Here’s the comparison:

Matthew 22: 28-30
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her."
29 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.

Mark 12:23-25
23 At the resurrection (when they arise) whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her."
24 Jesus said to them, "Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?
25 When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.

Luke 20: 33-35
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

So , although they use slightly different wordings, the intent is clear in all three accounts: there is no marriage after the resurrection, whether it be to hell or to heaven.

And yes, there is resurrection for everyone, some to hell, some to heaven.

So just like the Sadduccees, you Mormon’s don’t know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection, there is no marriage. Marriage ends at death.(till death do you part, right?) You practice the same thing. When a Mormon dies, the remaining spouse is free to remarry, is this not true?

 

[ParkerD]

No, I think Luke 20, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 are all talking about the same event.

Here’s the comparison:

Matthew 22: 28-30
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her."
29 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.

Mark 12:23-25
23 At the resurrection (when they arise) whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her."
24 Jesus said to them, "Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?
25 When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.

Luke 20: 33-35
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

So , although they use slightly different wordings, the intent is clear in all three accounts: there is no marriage after the resurrection, whether it be to hell or to heaven.

And yes, there is resurrection for everyone, some to hell, some to heaven.

So just like the Sadduccees, you Mormon’s don’t know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection, there is no marriage. Marriage ends at death.(till death do you part, right?) You practice the same thing. When a Mormon dies, the remaining spouse is free to remarry, is this not true?

Paul C,
I didn’t place myself in the group like the Sadducees. Someone else did exactly that and does it every time they refer to these scriptures and use them to support the idea that there is no marriage in heaven, since Christ did not teach that except when referring to the Sadducees or the “children of this world.”

An LDS who marries in a temple has a marriage that is eternal if they keep their marriage covenants. If the spouse dies, they can remarry but the woman whose spouse has died is not sealed in a second marriage if she was sealed in her first marriage and that sealing was not broken by an unfaithful spouse. But some women do not remarry, such as my wife’s mother whose husband died at age 45 and she has not remarried and is now 80.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dianaiad,

Did you miss my response and questions to you? Await your response.

How much time did Brigham Young need to go over his speeches?

On April 9, 1852, BY declared that Adam is God (Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1.)

On June 8, 1873, BY made the same declaration to the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City (The Desert News, Discourse, By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.)

Was 21 years long enough to go over what was published?

In 1870, Brigham Young declared his sermons to be as good as Scripture.
(Emphasis is mine):

Brigham Young’s exact quote (Emphasis is mine):

Ironically, Brigham Young’s statement regarding “Thus Saith the Lord,” and “Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve,” came from the Journal of Discourses.

Remember, you stated, “The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons.” Does that mean the “Thus Saith the Lord” rule is not binding?

Why do you accept some of Brigham Young’s statements in the JD, and dismiss others?

(Emphasis is mine):

This has nothing to do with “trumping what you say you believe.” Quoting LDS Prophets and Apostles, from Mormon sources, does not make anyone an “anti.”

According to the LDS Church, all Christianity outside Mormonism is an “abomination,” and part of a “Great Apostasy.” I think the least you can do is answer questions about the writings of LDS leaders.

Anna

Thank you,
Anna

 

[AMDGtoo]

Christ did not teach that except when referring to the Sadducees or the “children of this world.”

Where did Christ explicitly say “the woman will be married to all seven men in the resurrection because there will be marriage in heaven”?

You know we Catholics and the LDS argue scriptures and all as if we were speaking the same language (and there was a level playing field because we all can agree on what something says). But I don’t think we are. I think we are speaking slightly differently, so there is no real understanding. (I don’t know, but maybe some definitions will help or at least help us all from citing to each other the same Scriptures over and over and over again with no understanding.

What Catholics seem to understand (and the LDS don’t so we continually talk past each other) :

children of this world = people who simply are concerned with this world and do not have Sanctifying Grace

Sanctifying Grace = a free gift of God which allows us to become “children of God” and inherit eternal life

Sadducees = a Jewish sect that did not believe in the resurrection

resurrection = after death when the person has “Sanctifying Grace”, he will go to live with God; all will die, but only those with Sanctifying Grace get to live with God

heaven = state of bliss where the resurrected live with God

marriage = what God intended for man–one man and one woman living together and helping each other work toward getting to heaven; in the Catholic Church, Jesus made marriage a Sacrament which is another conduit for God’s grace (There are seven “Sacraments” that Jesus gave us as “helps”)

And the list goes on…

 

[ParkerD]

Where did Christ explicitly say “the woman will be married to all seven men in the resurrection because there will be marriage in heaven”?

You know we Catholics and the LDS argue scriptures and all as if we were speaking the same language (and there was a level playing field because we all can agree on what something says). But I don’t think we are. I think we are speaking slightly differently, so there is no real understanding. (I don’t know, but maybe some definitions will help or at least help us all from citing to each other the same Scriptures over and over and over again with no understanding.

What Catholics seem to understand (and the LDS don’t so we continually talk past each other) :

children of this world = people who simply are concerned with this world and do not have Sanctifying Grace

Sanctifying Grace = a free gift of God which allows us to become “children of God” and inherit eternal life

Sadducees = a Jewish sect that did not believe in the resurrection

resurrection = after death when the person has “Sanctifying Grace”, he will go to live with God; all will die, but only those with Sanctifying Grace get to live with God

heaven = state of bliss where the resurrected live with God

marriage = what God intended for man–one man and one woman living together and helping each other work toward getting to heaven; in the Catholic Church, Jesus made marriage a Sacrament which is another conduit for God’s grace (There are seven “Sacraments” that Jesus gave us as “helps”)

And the list goes on…

AMDGtoo,
Thank you for posting the list of definitions. I agree with them, except perhaps the parenthetical item under “marriage”.

You probably have missed the conversation on this thread about the kind of marriage that was being discussed by Christ and the Sadducees. (That’s OK)

None of the hypothetical marriages presented by the Sadducees’ example was an eternal marriage or a covenant marriage or a marriage of the “children of God” who have received “sanctifying grace.” So what happens to them (the Sadducees, who don’t believe in the resurrection or believe in the sanctifying grace of Christ and are thus the children of this world in this example) is that none of them is married in the resurrection–neither the brothers nor the woman. They have no marriage in heaven. They rejected the covenant, and thus rejected the opportunity for a covenant marriage, so Christ answered the question specifically and honestly and forthrightly. For them, there is no marriage in heaven.

 

[AMDGtoo]

None of the hypothetical marriages presented by the Sadducees’ example was an eternal marriage or a covenant marriage or a marriage of the “children of God” who have received “sanctifying grace.” So what happens to them (the Sadducees, who don’t believe in the resurrection or believe in the sanctifying grace of Christ and are thus the children of this world in this example) is that none of them is married in the resurrection–neither the brothers nor the woman. They have no marriage in heaven. They rejected the covenant, and thus rejected the opportunity for a covenant marriage, so Christ answered the question specifically and honestly and forthrightly. For them, there is no marriage in heaven.

It’s not just “for them”. As Paul C noted, corresponding Scripture notes that there is no marriage (or taking in marriage) in the resurrection (in the heveanly bliss of living with God). Both Matthew and Mark state that those that are resurrected (and therefore enjoy the bliss of heaven) are like the angels. (And Catholics know that angels not only take their name from their purpose–“messengers”, they are pure spirits having no corporal bodies.)

Back to my question in the post: Where did Christ explicitly say “the woman will be married to all seven men in the resurrection because there will be marriage in heaven”?
(Please remember that it is you who say that Jesus claims that everyone, the worldly, the evil, and the children of God will be resurrected.)

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
I didn’t place myself in the group like the Sadducees. Someone else did exactly that and does it every time they refer to these scriptures and use them to support the idea that there is no marriage in heaven, since Christ did not teach that except when referring to the Sadducees or the “children of this world.”

You are so very desperate to defend the Mormon faith that you deny the simple facts. Jesus NEVER said there was marriage in heaven. In fact, he said there is NO marriage in heaven. He himself was celibate. If marriage was the ultimate requirement for “exaltation” as you call it, he certainly would have said so and he would have demonstrated it with his own marriage. As it is, not only does he deny that there even will be marriage in heaven, he also states that some will remain celibate for the glory of God. Further, Paul spend an entire chapter (7) on the covenent of marriage. He says he himself is not married, recommends that others don’t marry either for the glory of God.

The only one who ever claimed that marriage was an absolute necessity for heaven (exaltation) was Joseph Smith and we know he used this doctrine as an excuse for having sex with at last 33 wives and daughters of his followers. His successor, Brigham Young had 47 wives, which I learned from the Mormon tour guides at his home in Salt Lake City.

ParkerD:

An LDS who marries in a temple has a marriage that is eternal if they keep their marriage covenants. If the spouse dies, they can remarry but the woman whose spouse has died is not sealed in a second marriage if she was sealed in her first marriage and that sealing was not broken by an unfaithful spouse. But some women do not remarry, such as my wife’s mother whose husband died at age 45 and she has not remarried and is now 80.

But the man can be sealed with as many woman as he marries, right? This is the excuse that Joseph Smith used to convince women to have sex with him - they and their families would be sealed to him, who as the prophet of God would become a God himself. And a woman can be sealed only once, right. And the husband has the option once exalted, whether to remained sealed to the woman, right. Leaving the woman’s salvation completely under the control of her husband? right?

 

[paul_c]

It’s not just “for them”. As Paul C noted, corresponding Scripture notes that there is no marriage (or taking in marriage) in the resurrection (in the heveanly bliss of living with God). Both Matthew and Mark state that those that are resurrected (and therefore enjoy the bliss of heaven) are like the angels. (And Catholics know that angels not only take their name from their purpose–“messengers”, they are pure spirits having no corporal bodies.)

Back to my question in the post: Where did Christ explicitly say “the woman will be married to all seven men in the resurrection because there will be marriage in heaven”?
(Please remember that it is you who say that Jesus claims that everyone, the worldly, the evil, and the children of God will be resurrected.)

As I understand it, Parker is saying that the reason the woman isn’t married to the 7 Sadducees in heaven is because they weren’t sealed in a Mormon Temple. Plus, although men can be sealed to multiple women, a woman can only be sealed to one man.

This point of view of course, is completely counter to anything taught prior to Joseph Smith, and is not to be found in any Christian scripture or tradition.

 

[TheosisM]

But the man can be sealed with as many woman as he marries, right? This is the excuse that Joseph Smith used to convince women to have sex with him - they and their families would be sealed to him, who as the prophet of God would become a God himself. And a woman can be sealed only once, right. And the husband has the option once exalted, whether to remained sealed to the woman, right. Leaving the woman’s salvation completely under the control of her husband? right?

Yes, the sealing rules allow a man to be sealed to another woman after the first wife dies (if he chooses to). A woman can only be sealed to one man, even after he dies.

I don’t think that LDS think in terms of “and the husband has the option once exalted, whether to remained (sic) sealed to the woman”, or “leaving the woman’s salvation completely under the control of her husband”. To be exalted (theosis/deification) in Mormonism, a a man must be eternally sealed to his wife, and a woman must be eternally sealed to her husband. The exaltation of one is dependent on the other, and cannot be done alone.

 

[ParkerD]

As I understand it, Parker is saying that the reason the woman isn’t married to the 7 Sadducees in heaven is because they weren’t sealed in a Mormon Temple. Plus, although men can be sealed to multiple women, a woman can only be sealed to one man.

This point of view of course, is completely counter to anything taught prior to Joseph Smith, and is not to be found in any Christian scripture or tradition.

Paul C,
You have misunderstood in quite a major way. Of course the Jews at the time of Christ didn’t have a “Mormon Temple.” They did have marriage “under a canopy”, and that was viewed as being a covenant marriage, except that they did not understand the full meaning of the covenant unless they followed Christ when He came and showed the way of the new covenant.

Adam and Eve had a covenant marriage, and that is what Christ was clearly teaching when He said that “God” had “joined together” their marriage. God did the joining, not man. Man could put the marriage asunder, but if so then man was doing the putting asunder, not God. Abraham and Sarah had a covenant marriage, an eternal marriage, and they knew it and God knew it. This was not a mystery to them, nor was it a mystery to Adam and Eve.

It has unfortunately been made into a mystery by many, many people because of misunderstanding a few passages in the teachings of Christ that were referring specifically to a hypothetical example of Sadducees who had not accepted the new covenant nor had accepted Christ, and hence were the “children of this world”.

 

[AMDGtoo]

His successor, Brigham Young had 47 wives, which I learned from the Mormon tour guides at his home in Salt Lake City.

And I learned that it was more like 50+ from the new reports about the FLDS. (Yes, even though the LDS tried to distance themselves from that group, the news reported on the two groups same roots.)

And about that time, I have also heard of one LDS “higher up” who lived after their revelation saying that polygamy will no longer be practiced–that is until after resurrection, and who had been married three times was looking forward to his three wives in the next life. (I can only guess that that’s his “draw” instead of wanting to be with God eternally.)

 

[AMDGtoo]

Abraham and Sarah had a covenant marriage, an eternal marriage, and they knew it and God knew it.

Where is it explicitly said that a covenant marriage is an eternal marriage?

BTW, Catholics have a Sacrament marriage. I guess you might call it a covenant marriage. It cannot be put asunder. But marriage is for the couple to help each other to the resurrection. After that we dwell in bliss with God (pure spirit)–not another creature.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
You have misunderstood in quite a major way. Of course the Jews at the time of Christ didn’t have a “Mormon Temple.” They did have marriage “under a canopy”, and that was viewed as being a covenant marriage, except that they did not understand the full meaning of the covenant unless they followed Christ when He came and showed the way of the new covenant.

Adam and Eve had a covenant marriage, and that is what Christ was clearly teaching when He said that “God” had “joined together” their marriage. God did the joining, not man. Man could put the marriage asunder, but if so then man was doing the putting asunder, not God. Abraham and Sarah had a covenant marriage, an eternal marriage, and they knew it and God knew it. This was not a mystery to them, nor was it a mystery to Adam and Eve.

It has unfortunately been made into a mystery by many, many people because of misunderstanding a few passages in the teachings of Christ that were referring specifically to a hypothetical example of Sadducees who had not accepted the new covenant nor had accepted Christ, and hence were the “children of this world”.

You are trying to use all kinds of linguistics to disprove what is the simple truth… Marriage is a coveneant reliationship for the living. It is not a requirement for salvation. And there is no marriage in heaven. Jesus said this clearly. Why can’t you accept it?

 

[momor]

Either Luke wrote down something a bit incorrectly, or it was transcribed incorrectly, because the phrase “worthy to attain to the coming age and the resurrection” is a contradiction of other scriptures.

The arrogance of this comment is astounding! It looks like you are taking up Dianiaid’s habit of calling anything that doesn’t fit with your apologetics a transcription error.

The reason you have to desperately defend celestial marriage is because that’s the way you get to have your own planet and your own creation and creatures after you die and become another God, just like your own God the Father, Adam. You demean the idea of being like the angels because you think you are going to have your own angels to serve you. There is only ONE God the Father from all eternity and He not going to look kindly on the blasphemy of any of His creatures who think they can become equal to Him. Look where it got Satan and Adam.

If you truly understood the nature of God you would understand that Jesus Christ is our bridegroom and our reassurected body will be united to His in heaven. The saved will love all other creatures because they are a part of His body, but our entire devotion will be directed to the worship of the Triune God and we will be like the heavenly angels who constantly sing the praises of the One True and Only God.

 

[ParkerD]

Where is it explicitly said that a covenant marriage is an eternal marriage?

BTW, Catholics have a Sacrament marriage. I guess you might call it a covenant marriage. It cannot be put asunder. But marriage is for the couple to help each other to the resurrection. After that we dwell in bliss with God (pure spirit)–not another creature.

AMDGtoo,
You will know that Christ referred to Adam and Eve when He said,
(Matthew 19:4) Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This is what I keep repeating but it is not heard. “God hath joined together.” God is an eternal Being, with eternal power, and an eternal view of humankind–not a temporal view. We have eternal possibilities in God’s view of things, and a covenant with Him is an eternal covenant. This is a simple concept. “They twain shall be one flesh.” This is more than having children. This is becoming one in the eyes of God, and it is for an eternal purpose that should not be slighted in any way.

Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

Momor,
So I’ll ask the same question of you that I had asked of Paul C:

Do you think that not everyone will be resurrected?

Do you think that the Luke description of this experience with some Sadducees asking a question of Christ and Him answering their question, is a different experience at a different time than the experience described in Matthew 22 where Sadducees are asking Christ the same question with the same hypothetical example?

 

[TheosisM]

ParkerD, not sure if you know, but the Catholic belief is that everyone will be resurrected, with some living eternally in Heaven and some eternally in Hell.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, not sure if you know, but the Catholic belief is that everyone will be resurrected, with some living eternally in Heaven and some eternally in Hell.

TheosisM,
I have thought so and hoped that those who have quoted Luke 20 would have understood the New Testament teachings on the resurrection of the just and the unjust, but when the Luke passage about marriage in heaven is used with the words “accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection” and that is presented as truth with no “footnote”, so to speak, then I have to wonder what is really being believed–especially when I have pointed out the discrepancy and then I am called to the carpet about questioning whether the precise language is correctly transcribed or translated.