MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no maore twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Jesus, Matt 19:4-6) Marriage through the priesthood is eternal and there is no substitute.

And what of baptism? “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:13-15) “And now if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy to be baptized, yea, even by water!” (2 Ne 31:5) Baptisim is also required, as Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” That does not leave room for strange exceptions like I have heard on this site.

No Catholic is in dispute that Jesus was baptized. Baptism and marriage are not the same thing.

And no doubt, marriage is divinely ordered (as in God ordered the world).

Marriage as being a requirement for being one with God in His Kingdom…neither of these scriptures say anything of the sort.

Why imagine that marriage is required? Why not just believe Jesus, who is the Word of God?

Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it. Mat 19:11-12

 

[Porknpie]

Marriage as being a requirement for being one with God in His Kingdom…neither of these scriptures say anything of the sort.

Why imagine that marriage is required? Why not just believe Jesus, who is the Word of God?

Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it. Mat 19:11-12

So how do Mormons view those who are called to celebacy? They won’t inherit the kingdom??

1 Corinthians 7:8
“Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,”
1 Corinthians 7:32

32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. **An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. **33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
36 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
37 The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

Matthew 19:12

12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; *some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” **

 

[Janderich]

No Catholic is in dispute that Jesus was baptized. Baptism and marriage are not the same thing.

And no doubt, marriage is divinely ordered (as in God ordered the world).

Marriage as being a requirement for being one with God in His Kingdom…neither of these scriptures say anything of the sort.

Why imagine that marriage is required? Why not just believe Jesus, who is the Word of God?

Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it. Mat 19:11-12

So is this how the Catholic church takes that verse out of context? Jesus has just affirmed that marriage makes two who were twain one flesh. He solidifies the doctrine by saying “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.” The Pharisees understand the teaching because in the next verse they ask why Moses allowed divorce. Jesus then gives the very strict requirement, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” The issue at hand then, is that Jesus has taken marriage and elevated it to such heights that one who was once married cannot marry another. To do so is to commit adultery.

Now, having solidified the marriage covenant, a question comes from the disciples, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

Christ’s response, in essence, declared, “You’re right, for those who understand and receive the full meaning of the law of celestial marriage, it is better not to marry at all than to make the mistake of violating the covenants of your first marriage in marrying another. For example, there have been men who understood this doctrine and made themselves eunuchs rather than take the risk of violating this holy law.” This response was not meant to justify the mutilating act required to become a eunuch nor to condone a celibate lifestyle but to acknowledge their understanding of the supreme solemnity of the covenant of celestial marriage.(Jonathan M. Chamberlain, Ensign, Jan. 1993, p. 60)

This scripture re-enforces marriage as ordained of God. It does not as you suggest indicate marriage is not required.

 

[TexanKnight]

So is this how the Catholic church takes that verse out of context? Jesus has just affirmed that marriage makes two who were twain one flesh. He solidifies the doctrine by saying “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.” The Pharisees understand the teaching because in the next verse they ask why Moses allowed divorce. Jesus then gives the very strict requirement, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” The issue at hand then, is that Jesus has taken marriage and elevated it to such heights that one who was once married cannot marry another. To do so is to commit adultery.

Now, having solidified the marriage covenant, a question comes from the disciples, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

This scripture re-enforces marriage as ordained of God. It does not as you suggest indicate marriage is not required.

Do you work hard to taje things out of context? Nowhere is Jesus saying one MUST be married, just how to proceed IF one marries. I challenge you to find me ONE verse that says Jesus was married or that people NEED to be married.

My first marriage ended in divorce because I was LDS. Back after my mission, I never wanted to get married. I was not sure I EVER wanted to be married. B ut it was drilled into me that I could never get to Celestial Kingdom if I was not married. So, I married. It was a horrible marriage. We married for wrong reasons and stayed married for 20 years for wrong reasons. We were miserable.

That teaching is not Biblical.

 

[Janderich]

Do you work hard to taje things out of context? Nowhere is Jesus saying one MUST be married, just how to proceed IF one marries. I challenge you to find me ONE verse that says Jesus was married or that people NEED to be married.

I just found it. Read my above two posts.

TexanKnight:

My first marriage ended in divorce because I was LDS. Back after my mission, I never wanted to get married. I was not sure I EVER wanted to be married. B ut it was drilled into me that I could never get to Celestial Kingdom if I was not married. So, I married. It was a horrible marriage. We married for wrong reasons and stayed married for 20 years for wrong reasons. We were miserable.

That teaching is not Biblical.

No one should rush into marriage. It is one of the most important decisions you will ever make in this life. I think you are very unfair in saying that your marriage problems were because you were LDS? Did It have nothing to do with you and your wife?

I think you do not understand the doctrine. Here is what Bruce R. McConkie said,

I am perfectly aware that there are people who did not have the opportunity [of celestial marriage] but who would have lived the law had the opportunity been afforded. Those individuals will be judged in the providences and mercy of a gracious God according to the intents and desires of their hearts. That is the principle of salvation and exaltation for the dead.(Bruce R. McConkie, “Celestial Marriage,” The New Era (June 1978): 17)

 

[dchezik]

"This is what Brigham Young (JS’s successor) said “Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?..when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271) "

Thank you for this post – very interesting! It fits nicely into the critical thinking book I am writing in the chapter on Absurd Beliefs and why people believe them. I am truly amazed by the range of outlandish things the human mind can conjure up – and BELIEVE! I know that Johannes Kepler used the same reasoning for intuiting that Jupiter was inhabited. He declared that the little moons that circled Jupiter had been created for the enjoyment of the Jovians, not us, (Paul Davies, 1993) otherwise he thought there would be no reason for their existence! He inferred from this with “the highest confidence” that Jupiter must be inhabited! The notion that everything is created to serve a purpose for sentient beings (usually humans) has been used to justify belief in all kinds of things.

Regarding Mitt Romney: I have long advanced the theory that being smart is no guarantee against believing dumb things. The question is: Is there any belief that a person could hold that would convincingly show that their response to unrelated problems could not be relied on? If a person believed the earth was flat, would that mean they couldn’t be a good president? If a person believed that God used to be a man who perfected himself would that? If a candidate believed beings lived in the center of the sun? Should candidates be willing to take a test for absurd beliefs? I don’t know. I wrestle with the paradox that some people who believe dumb things, have towering achievements and that being smart doesn’t preclude you from believing stupid things. Maybe we should look at other criteria? Nah! I don’t want a president who believes outrageously stupid things. Thank God (or whoever) Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are out of the race.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So is this how the Catholic church takes that verse out of context? Jesus has just affirmed that marriage makes two who were twain one flesh. He solidifies the doctrine by saying “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.” The Pharisees understand the teaching because in the next verse they ask why Moses allowed divorce. Jesus then gives the very strict requirement, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” The issue at hand then, is that Jesus has taken marriage and elevated it to such heights that one who was once married cannot marry another. To do so is to commit adultery.

I agree with you to this point. Of course I’m not in agreement that I’ve taken the two passages out of context.

As a side note: Your last two sentences are interesting in light of the Mormon doctrine of polygamy, no?

Here is where you begin to make things up:

You’re right, for those who understand and receive the full meaning of the law of celestial marriage,

I think it would be beneficial if you could just once, in your life, try to not reference Smith’s imagination when reading the Bible. As that is where your “law of celestial marriage” comes from. Look again, it isn’t there in the Bible passage.

Now, having solidified the marriage covenant, a question comes from the disciples, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

Jesus answered this statement of the disciples by telling them. “Not all can accept this word but only to those who it is granted.”

This is an agreement to the statement “it is not good to marry” with the clarification that such a state is granted. Either by an accident of birth, having been made a eunuch by another, or because a person has renounced marriage for the Kingdom of God. The first two are examples of people who would not marry because of circumstances they had no control over. The last is most certainly an example of a person who has made a choice. Would you deny a person this choice that Jesus has described as valid?

Your Chamberlain quote does not address those who have renounced marriage for the Kingdom of God. So let’s look at what he is asserting. He says, “This response was not meant to justify the mutilating act required to become a eunuch”. Well, no one would say it does, but he seems to be implying that one who has “renounced marriage for the Kingdom of God” is the same as one who has become a eunuch by the hand of another. Do you think that comparison is accurate? What do you think Jesus means when he says those who have renounced marriage for the Kingdom of God are granted “this word”?

"This scripture re-enforces marriage as ordained of God. It does not as you suggest indicate marriage is not required.

I don’t know what you mean by “ordained”. But I’ll say I agree with you that marriage between one man and one woman is divinely ordered (as it was in the beginning).

You still have not shown, Biblically, that marriage is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This scripture most certainly says that some are granted a life without marriage. I hold no belief that a person who is not married will be barred from the Kingdom of God. Why do you?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I just found it. Read my above two posts.

No one should rush into marriage. It is one of the most important decisions you will ever make in this life. I think you are very unfair in saying that your marriage problems were because you were LDS? Did It have nothing to do with you and your wife?

I think you do not understand the doctrine. Here is what Bruce R. McConkie said,

TK can correct me, but I believe what he is conveying are the two different approaches to life.

A Catholic is free to choose marriage, a religious life, priesthood (for men) or a single life. We call these choices “vocations”. The process of choosing one’s vocation is one of prayer, seeking God’s guidance, and discerning what His will is. We hold no belief that marriage is the one and only vocation that God calls people to.

The Mormon approach is that all are called to the same vocation: marriage. A Mormon is not given the choice of discernment for themselves, for following their own conscience, and living a life devoted to God outside of a marriage. Mormons view a single life as spiritually impoverished. Even morally wrong if the choice was made, rather than being an “unfortunate” circumstance of not being able to find a suitable mate.

Your McConkie quote reflects this, addressing the poor unfortunate Mormon who has not found a suitable mate. It says nothing to what TK was saying, that is, he would have chosen to not marry at all, ever. A single life is perfectly acceptable to a Catholic, and to God.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The issue at hand then, is that Jesus has taken marriage and elevated it to such heights that one who was once married cannot marry another. To do so is to commit adultery.

I find it interesting that you point this out yet Mormons can divorce and remarry at will.

Also, the fact that divorce/remarriage is forbidden has nothing to do with whether or not someone is required to get married in the first place.

 

[TexanKnight]

I just found it. Read my above two posts.

I did. It did not say what you claim it says…as usual. Jesus NEVER ordered snyone to get married.

No one should rush into marriage. It is one of the most important decisions you will ever make in this life. I think you are very unfair in saying that your marriage problems were because you were LDS? Did It have nothing to do with you and your wife?

I am saying that I never wanted to get married. I was told I had because without it, I would not get to Celestial Kingdom. So, I got married. We should not have. I should not have. I WOULD not have if I had not been told I had to.
I think you do not understand the doctrine. Here is what Bruce R. McConkie said,

The same Bruce R. McKonkie who said the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable Church and was from Satan? That Bruce R. McKonkie?

 

[Janderich]

…You still have not shown, Biblically, that marriage is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This scripture most certainly says that some are granted a life without marriage. I hold no belief that a person who is not married will be barred from the Kingdom of God. Why do you?

Rebecca,
Your interpretation is flawed and leads to serious consequences. Once this scripture is understhood the importance of marriage is clear. And once the importance of marriage is established you will find yourself on difficult ground trying to say it is simply an earthly union.

Now then, this is how I believe the scripture should be understood.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

What case? The case that a man cannot divorce his wife for any cause but unfaithfulness, or marry one who has been divorced. To the disciples minds, If the law of marriage was ever so strict, then it would be better not to marry at all.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

Which saying can they not receive? *It is not the disciples words “it is better not to marry” as you say. That is not the word of the Lord! * That is the disciple’s comment, based on confusion. Christ is not establishing the truth based on such a flimsy foundation. As always, God’s word sets the firm foundation. The statement that all cannot receive is this strict law of marriage as given by God , “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. Certain men cannot accept such a covenant because of the difficulty that may arise between husband and wife and the resultant consequences involving divorce and re-marriage as given by God.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

Therefore this type of marriage is not given unto all. But for “they to whom it is given” how strict is it?

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Well, there are eunuchs due to birth, eunuchs because of men, and eunuchs because of choice. These people having accepted God’s law of marriage will not break the vow they have made. They will not commit adultery by marrying a divorcee. Nor being divorced, re-marry and commit adultery. These people having been married may not be able to live with their wives for a number of reasons. However, they will not break God’s law and re-marry and commit adultery. Instead they remain alone after their first marriage has dissolved in order to obtain the kingdom of heaven. For those that can receive and live God’s strict law of marriage they should receive it.

This scripture is not truly about some people avoiding marriage. The vitally important point has to do with the covenant. Once, under God’s covenant of marriage the vow should not be broken. Now, if Jesus felt mortals should live God’s law of marriage, what of those in Heaven? Do you believe that such a union should be dissolved?

 

[Janderich]

I find it interesting that you point this out yet Mormons can divorce and remarry at will.

Also, the fact that divorce/remarriage is forbidden has nothing to do with whether or not someone is required to get married in the first place.

While I don’t quite agree that the LDS church accepts divorce and marriage at will, it is true that there is divorce. Unfortunately many people cannot yet live to this high standard, even within a temple marriage. My belief is that during the millennium people will more fully live this law.

 

[wussup]

… I hold no belief that a person who is not married will be barred from the Kingdom of God. Why do you?

You are correct. One does not have to be married to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Your interpretation is flawed and leads to serious consequences. Once this scripture is understhood the importance of marriage is clear. And once the importance of marriage is established you will find yourself on difficult ground trying to say it is simply an earthly union.

Now then, this is how I believe the scripture should be understood.

What case? The case that a man cannot divorce his wife for any cause but unfaithfulness, or marry one who has been divorced. To the disciples minds, If the law of marriage was ever so strict, then it would be better not to marry at all.

Which saying can they not receive? It is not the disciples words “it is better not to marry” as you say. That is not the word of the Lord! That is the disciple’s comment, based on confusion. Christ is not establishing the truth based on such a flimsy foundation. As always, God’s word sets the firm foundation. The statement that all cannot receive is this strict law of marriage as given by God , “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. Certain men cannot accept such a covenant because of the difficulty that may arise between husband and wife and the resultant consequences involving divorce and re-marriage as given by God.

Therefore this type of marriage is not given unto all. But for “they to whom it is given” how strict is it?

Well, there are eunuchs due to birth, eunuchs because of men, and eunuchs because of choice. These people having accepted God’s law of marriage will not break the vow they have made. They will not commit adultery by marrying a divorcee. Nor being divorced, re-marry and commit adultery. These people having been married may not be able to live with their wives for a number of reasons. However, they will not break God’s law and re-marry and commit adultery. Instead they remain alone after their first marriage has dissolved in order to obtain the kingdom of heaven. For those that can receive and live God’s strict law of marriage they should receive it.

This scripture is not truly about some people avoiding marriage. The vitally important point has to do with the covenant. Once, under God’s covenant of marriage the vow should not be broken. Now, if Jesus felt mortals should live God’s law of marriage, what of those in Heaven? Do you believe that such a union should be dissolved?

“Renounce marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven”. You seem to keep ignoring this.

re·nounce**
/riˈnouns/
Verb
Formally declare one’s abandonment of (a claim, right, or possession).
Refuse to recognize or abide by any longer.
Synonyms
relinquish - repudiate - disclaim - waive - abdicate

Until you can address this in context of scripture as a whole, you are spinning in circles that have no meaning.

(scripture = the Bible)

And again, you still not have shown that marriage is required to enter into the Kingdom of God.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Rebecca,
Your interpretation is flawed and leads to serious consequences. Once this scripture is understhood the importance of marriage is clear. And once the importance of marriage is established you will find yourself on difficult ground trying to say it is simply an earthly union.

And you are standing on thin air trying to say that marriage is required in order to live eternally in the presence of God the Father at the “highest level” in heaven.

 

[TexanKnight]

Jandrich, I pray for you. It must be very difficult to be in a church where one must take verses out of context, change the meaning of verses, add words to verses, take words away from verses, and believe on the non-existant just to be able to accept their doctrine…

 

[TexanKnight]

and I noticed you did not respond to my earlier post. I am guessing it is because I exposed McKonkie for what he was?

 

[Ben_F]

Using the logic that we´re afraid to vote for someone because he´s a (fill in the blank), is like saying we´re afraid to elect Obama because he´s a (fill in the blank). I prefer to say that I´m afraid to vote for someone because he did this and did that. Makes more sense. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Ben_F]

Indeed. Here is what Joseph Smith had to say about it.

June 16, 1844
from: History of the Church 6:473-479; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 369-376

weblink here: emp.byui.edu/jexj/courses/sermon_in_the_grove.htm

At least Joseph Smith was unhesitating in declaring that he always preached that there were three Gods. Mormons should do the same – it is the obvious logical conclusion to saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings, hence Joseph Smith’s statement “who can contradict it?”

Joseph Smith says 1+ 1+ 1 = 3. The Church says 1+1+1=1. The Church is correct. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Porknpie]

Joseph Smith says 1+ 1+ 1 = 3. The Church says 1+1+1=1. The Church is correct. God bless:thumbsup:

Ben, small correction… Christianity says 1+1+1 = 1, Catholic Christians included.