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

[TheosisM]

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

No it isn’t. An annulment states that a valid marriage did not exist, while a sealing cancellation begins with the premise that a valid marriage did exist. A sealing cancellation “undoes” something, while an annulment says that there is nothing to undo (since there was no valid marriage in the first place).

 

[PaulDupre]

No it isn’t. An annulment states that a valid marriage did not exist, while a sealing cancellation begins with the premise that a valid marriage did exist. A sealing cancellation “undoes” something, while an annulment says that there is nothing to undo (since there was no valid marriage in the first place).

That is correct.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

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. )

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?

No problem.

Jay53,
Thanks for your wishes, sorry to have come across as condescending, and if you really want me to I’ll find the posts where I had already discussed Luke 20:35 in detail, but be that as it may it sounds like you will have the kind of situation you desire in the eternal worlds in the presence of God, and this is fine with me. (I certainly don’t view marriage as not putting God first, and if that’s condescending then I don’t know how to say it in a non-condescending way). I think being true to one’s marriage and an eternal covenant of marriage does not preclude putting God first in any way. My wife spoke about love of God several weeks ago in our LDS sacrament meeting for our local ward, and emphasized placing God first in our lives–so her priorities are similar to mine on that subject, and there is no dilemma about it.

If a woman has been sealed to a first husband who dies faithful to their covenant, and the woman remarries and ends up loving her second husband more than her first husband, then in the spirit world the question of whose wife she is in eternity will be decided by her and God. God will of course retain His always-held power and authority to loose in heaven under that particular circumstance. The first husband in that situation, having been faithful to his marriage covenant, will be allowed to choose another wife from among the many unmarried and faithful women in the spirit world if that first wife chooses her second husband for her marriage in eternity, and it will be worked out by God whose keys were being used to perform the sealings, and that not by force but by personal choice, always.

I re-looked at Matthew 18:18. There is a hint of something else going on in Matthew 18:19, with these words:

“Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”

This is not a forced covenant, this eternal marriage covenant. It is only done on an “asked-for” basis. “Any thing that they shall ask”, “it shall be done for them”. The basis of that eternal marriage covenant is desire, and asking. If the thing is not desired nor asked for, it certainly shall not be done for them. But if it is, then the promise is there that the Father does for them that for which they have asked.

Not everyone wants that, which is their right and their privilege to desire what is innermost in their own desire and not feel bad if it doesn’t match what someone else wants. (I hope that makes sense to you.) We can want something different, and that be fine in the eyes of God who grants according to one’s desires.

Have a wonderful Sunday, and peace to all with joy in the things you have desired and are being fulfilled in your lives.

 

[zerinus]

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.

That might be true of a case where one side or the other objects to that situation. It might be a legitimate grounds for a divorce or annulment. But that is not the kind of situation that I am talking about. I am talking about a case where both sides willingly and happily consent live together as husband and wife in that kind of situation. I Can’t understand how any church could consider that kind of marriage invalid. How would they even know? If the couple are happy about it, how can anybody else object?

If that is true in the Catholic Church, it should be stipulated in the Canon Law or something comparable. Can somebody show me such a law in the Catholic Church?

 

[TheosisM]

That might be true of a case where one side or the other objects to that situation. It might be a legitimate grounds for a divorce or annulment. But that is not the kind of situation that I am talking about. I am talking about a case where both sides willingly and happily consent live together as husband and wife in that kind of situation. I Can’t understand how any church could consider that kind of marriage invalid. How would they even know? If the couple are happy about it, how can anybody else object?

If that is true in the Catholic Church, it should be stipulated in the Canon Law or something comparable. Can somebody show me such a law in the Catholic Church?

Perhaps this article will be helpful:

jimmyakin.org/2005/05/impotence_vs_in.html

Here are relevant canons:
*
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.*

It is also important to realize that a marriage is still valid even when it is not consummated.

*Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.*

What consummation does is make the marriage un-dissolvable:
*
Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.*

Taken from here: jimmyakin.org/sacraments/ (scroll down to “Sacramental Marriage”).

So in answer to your question, the Catholic Church still considers such a marriage to be valid and unconsummated, since consummation is not what makes the marriage valid. However, consummation is expected (and assumed) when one enters into marriage. This is why the Church has such a view on impotence and the validity of a marriage, since what is needed is the possibility to consummate it, whether or not this is actually done (though it is assumed that it is).

 

[AMDGtoo]

I re-looked at Matthew 18:18. There is a hint of something else going on in Matthew 18:19, with these words:

“Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”

:

You do realize that Matthew 18:19 has nothing to do with eternal marriage. It needs to be read in context. Matthew 18:15 deals with an offense against brothers and indicates that first it’s a matter between them. Matthew 18:16 indicates that if that doesn’t solve the matter, it should be dealt with by one or two more people. Matthew 18:17 indicates that if that doesn’t solve the problem, the issue should be taken to the church. Verses 18 and 19 seem to deal with the authority the Church has.

You know, when coming to a problem in translation, usually the simpler answer is the correct one. One doesn’t have to embellish things or make them more complicated.

 

[ParkerD]

You do realize that Matthew 18:19 has nothing to do with eternal marriage. It needs to be read in context. Matthew 18:15 deals with an offense against brothers and indicates that first it’s a matter between them. Matthew 18:16 indicates that if that doesn’t solve the matter, it should be dealt with by one or two more people. Matthew 18:17 indicates that if that doesn’t solve the problem, the issue should be taken to the church. Verses 18 and 19 seem to deal with the authority the Church has.

You know, when coming to a problem in translation, usually the simpler answer is the correct one. One doesn’t have to embellish things or make them more complicated.

AMDGtoo,
I agree that verse 19 deals directly with the authority the apostles have received by receiving the keys to “bind” and “loose”, but that does not mean that their authority only pertains to allowing for membership in the church. If you’re saying that it does not pertain to what your church calls the “sacraments”, then if I have understood correctly that would not be in line with what is said about your church’s authority to perform the “sacraments”.

Verse 17 has finished a complete thought about dealing with a brother who has “trespassed” and who has not accepted to “hear the church” after not repenting when the matter was brought up in private. Verse 19 is a new thought about the authority described in verse 18, and pertains to a greater scope of responsibility than dealing with “trespasses” and membership in the church alone.

 

[dianaiad]

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

On one level, you could be right. On another level…the point is that a sealing cancellation is a sealing cancellation. We don’t do one sort for a civil annulment and another sort for a divorce.

 

[dianaiad]

No it isn’t. An annulment states that a valid marriage did not exist, while a sealing cancellation begins with the premise that a valid marriage did exist. A sealing cancellation “undoes” something, while an annulment says that there is nothing to undo (since there was no valid marriage in the first place).

Thank you, Theosis. You said that a lot better than I did.

 

[momor]

No it isn’t. An annulment states that a valid marriage did not exist, while a sealing cancellation begins with the premise that a valid marriage did exist. A sealing cancellation “undoes” something, while an annulment says that there is nothing to undo (since there was no valid marriage in the first place).

My mistake. What you are describing sounds like a church-sanctioned divorce.
“What God has joined together let no man put asunder”

 

[momor]

… I am talking about a case where both sides willingly and happily consent live together as husband and wife in that kind of situation. I Can’t understand how any church could consider that kind of marriage invalid. How would they even know? If the couple are happy about it, how can anybody else object?
If that is true in the Catholic Church, it should be stipulated in the Canon Law or something comparable. Can somebody show me such a law in the Catholic Church?

I think the reason you have so much trouble understanding this is because you don’t understand that Catholics view marriage as a God instituted sacrament. It is the same relationship that God intended for Adam and Eve when he blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply. It is about the natural law that governs our physical existence. It’s not just about 2 people and what they want. It is a commitment to enter into a trinitarian relationship that includes Jesus Christ in the marriage and an openness to procreation as co-creators with Jesus. That is why we reject birth control and divorce and polygamy. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you Theosis for your interesting reply:

Perhaps this article will be helpful:

jimmyakin.org/2005/05/impotence_vs_in.html

The problem with that article is that it ignores the case where a couple (let’s say an elderly couple) enter into that kind of relationship for companionship, but both of them knowing in advance of their inability to consummate the marriage, and being perfectly happy with that kind of arrangement before entering into it. I don’t see much difference between that and a situation where a couple who married young and consummated their marriage, grow old together and both of them become impotent, but still love each other every bit as much as before, and want to live with each other happily as much as they did when they were young and were sexually active.

Here are relevant canons:

I find a couple of these interesting and somewhat puzzling:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.*

If that is the case, then it means that an elderly couple who love each other and want to get married but are past the age of sexual activity effectively cannot do so under the Canon Law! I can’t understand that.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

That is even more puzzling! It means that if it became certain that such a situation existed in a marriage, that marriage would automatically declared null! It means that our hypothetical “elderly couple” cannot honestly and honorably get married in the Catholic Church. Well, they can always become Mormons I guess. They would have no problems doing that in Mormonism!

 

[SteveVH]

So you are telling me that every 95 year old man and 85 year old woman who might get married are able to “consummate” their marriage?

First of all Ididn’t say that every 95 year old man and 85 year old woman who might get married are able to “consummate” their marriage. I was trying to say that it may be possible (even if improbable) therefore no one would be ruled out of marriage simply because of their age. I would also say that you have had many posts here that explain the Church’s position better than I did. I’m trying to remember the last time I heard of a 95 year old man and an 85 year old woman entering into marriage. The primary purpose of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply”. To enter into a relationship purely for companionship would not necessarily require marriage, although if they were “living together” it is almost a certainty that it would cause scandal. Technically, my understanding is that they could live together as “brother and sister” and that no sin would be committed.

You did not respond to my second question. Would you please explain Joseph Smith’s prophecy about the Temple and the New Jerusalem. As I quoted, Joseph Smith said that it would be done within his generation and he began the statement with a “thus saith the Lord” type of comment which means, at least in his mind, he was making a prophecy. Would not this alone make him a flase prophet?

Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

SteveVH,

There is an added thought for your question about the following:

D&C 84:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The added thought (besides the quote by Zerinus that also makes sense) is that you identify the clauses of the “prophecy and commandment”, (as you might wish to call it either way). Clause #1 is that the New Jerusalem shall be “built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place” which was at the place where they were gathered and where they began the work of building the New Jerusalem and gathering the saints (you see, the gathering of the saints begins the work of building the New Jerusalem, since the New Jerusalem is the fulfillment of Zion and Zion begins to be built wherever the saints gather in a place of holiness and peace with a temple in their midst).

Clause #2 is the phrase “which temple shall be built in this generation”, and that temple was built indeed, in Nauvoo, IL, where the saints received their endowment with power from on High before their journey west to escape those who had robbed them. God had commanded them to build a temple, and they did despite the opposition of the forces of destruction in the world–the forces which always oppose the building of Zion wherever the saints go to with their might and build it. They find a way, and they did find a way, and indeed the New Jerusalem will be built during the latter days in America, the land of a latter-day Zion (among others in the world). But it is a long process. Not a problem–an opportunity, day by day and year by year. The building up of places of Zion in the world fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah.

Steve VH,
Perhaps you had missed the part where Zerinus addressed your question, and where I added a comment as well about your question about the temple and the New Jerusalem.

So, here you go. Have a good day.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve VH,
Perhaps you had missed the part where Zerinus addressed your question, and where I added a comment as well about your question about the temple and the New Jerusalem.

So, here you go. Have a good day.

I didn’t think zerinus answered my question. I’ll look again. Since JS said it would be built in “the State of Missouri” I thought that it what he meant. The New Jerusalem will not be built by man but by God as it is a heavenly city. Sorry, I’m at work and don’t have time to research right now but I’ll get back to you on that one.

 

[zerinus]

The primary purpose of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply”. To enter into a relationship purely for companionship would not necessarily require marriage, although if they were “living together” it is almost a certainty that it would cause scandal. Technically, my understanding is that they could live together as “brother and sister” and that no sin would be committed.

That is absurd. Suppose they loved each other and wanted to get married so they can live together like husband and wife. They wanted to be able to see each other’s nakedness without committing sin. They wanted to sleep in the same bed without causing a “scandal” as you say. But they are past the age of sexual activity. And both of them are aware of that situation and agree to it. What are they supposed to do?

You did not respond to my second question. Would you please explain Joseph Smith’s prophecy about the Temple and the New Jerusalem. As I quoted, Joseph Smith said that it would be done within his generation and he began the statement with a “thus saith the Lord” type of comment which means, at least in his mind, he was making a prophecy. Would not this alone make him a flase prophet?

I did reply, but I like to keep my replies as short as I can, as you might have noticed!

 

[Jay53]

That is absurd. Suppose they loved each other and wanted to get married so they can live together like husband and wife. They wanted to be able to see each other’s nakedness without committing sin. They wanted to sleep in the same bed without causing a “scandal” as you say. But they are past the age of sexual activity. And both of them are aware of that situation and agree to it. What are they supposed to do?

What?!? What would be the point of this without sexual activity?

 

[AMDGtoo]

They wanted to be able to see each other’s nakedness without committing sin.

You know we are talking about the elderly here–the ones who have fought the battle of gravity and have lost.) As to Mormons wanting this? A little hard to do since Mormons wear their garments 24/7.

I don’t know about you, but this part of the conversation seems to me to be uncomfortable and rather unnecessary.

 

[Jay53]

You know we are talking about the elderly here–the ones who have fought the battle of gravity and have lost.) As to Mormons wanting this? A little hard to do since Mormons wear their garments 24/7.

I don’t know about you, but this part of the conversation seems to me to be uncomfortable and rather unnecessary.

Very bizarre as well!

 

[SteveVH]

Very bizarre as well!

I couldn’t agree more.