Things in common: LDS and the Assumption of Mary

[Catholic20064]

When I was LDS, l can remember hearing about the belief that after Christ rose from the dead many souls were raised from the dead and walked in the streets of Jerusalem. As an LDS I believed these souls were taken into heaven. I also believed that it was possible that others had been raised from the dead like Peter and James because they came and ministered to Joseph Smith to give him priesthood authority.

The thought struck me there is no reason an LDS would deny the Assumption of Mary into heaven. Of all of the people in the world it would make sense that Jesus would bring his mother with him into heaven at the end of her life. An LDS probably believes he would raise Mary just like he had done for others.

As a Catholic I don’t profess to know what happened to the souls of those raised after Jesus rose from the dead. Did they go into heaven or did they go back to the grave? I don’t know. I do believe in the Assumption of Mary. I don’t see any reason why an LDS person would deny the Assumption either.

This also makes me wonder if an LDS could believe in the Marian appearances at places like Fatima and Lourdes. Since LDS would at least have to admit the possibility of Mary’s Assumption, it seems they might also believe that Mary could appear to people today with a message from God.

 

[Finrock]

Good morning Catholic20064! Thank goodness its Friday, eh?

If I understand the Assumption of Mary correctly, it is that her spirit and body was taken immediately to heaven after her “work” here on earth was done. I understand this to mean that she didn’t “die” and was just taken in to heaven. Is my understanding correct?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Catholic20064]

Good morning Catholic20064! Thank goodness its Friday, eh?

If I understand the Assumption of Mary correctly, it is that her spirit and body was taken immediately to heaven after her “work” here on earth was done. I understand this to mean that she didn’t “die” and was just taken in to heaven. Is my understanding correct?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I don’t know that Catholics know whether or not Mary died. The Eastern Orthodox say she was originally buried in a grave somewhere. I think people are free to believe what they want to about whether or not she died. I simply say, '“I don’t know.” The best I can give you is this from Catholic Answers:

Historians-Catholic and non-Catholic-agree that there is a great deal of ancient material on the Assumption that is unreliable. A prime example of this is the Transitus Mariae stories, which were written as homilies in the fifth and sixth centuries. These are often fantastic and legendary accounts, devoid of historical accuracy. Some examples include the Obsequities of the Holy Virgin, and the text of Pseudo-Melito. But these apocryphal writings have no bearing on the Church’s dogma of Mary’s Assumption.

The Church Fathers provide a much more balanced approach. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary’s earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

“Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires” (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary’s miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary’s Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary’s unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary’s death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary’s entrance to heaven, “The Memory of Mary,” also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary’s last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary’s remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ’s Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary’s Assumption.

The entire article can be found here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

I take from all of this that she may have died and then immediately been taken to heaven. She could have also been raised by God after she was in the tomb. In any event the LDS should not be surprised to learn that Mary was assumed into heaven since they readily admit God has already begun resurrecting various people from the dead.

 

[Finrock]

I don’t know that Catholics know whether or not Mary died. The Eastern Orthodox say she was originally buried in a grave somewhere. I think people are free to believe what they want to about whether or not she died. I simply say, '“I don’t know.” The best I can give you is this from Catholic Answers:

I take from all of this that she may have died and then immediately been taken to heaven. She could have also been raised by God after she was in the tomb. In any event the LDS should not be surprised to learn that Mary was assumed into heaven since they readily admit God has already begun resurrecting various people from the dead.

I gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose I don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary died, has now been resurrected, and dwells in heaven. If the Assumption of Mary implies that she made it to heaven based on her own merits (in that she was sinless and perfect, therefore needing no Savior), then I think the LDS reject that. “Mary, like all mortals, returns to the Father only through the Atonement of her son Jesus Christ” (E of M).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Catholic20064]

I gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose I don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary died, has now been resurrected, and dwells in heaven. If the Assumption of Mary implies that she made it to heaven based on her own merits (in that she was sinless and perfect, therefore needing no Savior), then I think the LDS reject that. “Mary, like all mortals, returns to the Father only through the Atonement of her son Jesus Christ” (E of M).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

That’s what Catholics believe – she was only preserved from sin through the merits of Christ alone. She was sinless, but it was Jesus who preserved her from sin. The analogy I have heard is the idea that of a person falling into a puddle of mud and having to be cleansed. All of us except Mary fell into the puddle of mud and need to be cleansed. In Mary’s case God kept her from falling into the mud, but it was due to the merits of Christ this was possible. So Mary needed Christ just as much as everyone else does. It is more likely in my mind that Mary died and then was assumed into heaven. Mary was preserved from sin, but not from death and needed Christ’s resurrection in order to rise from the dead.

 

[Finrock]

That’s what Catholics believe – she was only preserved from sin through the merits of Christ alone. She was sinless, but it was Jesus who preserved her from sin. The analogy I have heard is the idea that of a person falling into a puddle of mud and having to be cleansed. All of us except Mary fell into the puddle of mud and need to be cleansed. In Mary’s case God kept her from falling into the mud, but it was due to the merits of Christ this was possible. So Mary needed Christ just as much as everyone else does. It is more likely in my mind that Mary died and then was assumed into heaven. Mary was preserved from sin, but not from death and needed Christ’s resurrection in order to rise from the dead.

I understand what you are saying. To me this seems unfair/unjust that God would supernaturally protect Mary from sin but not the rest of His children. But, in the sense that Mary lived as all mortals live, died as all mortals die, was resurrected as all mortals will be resurrected, was judged as all mortals will be judged, and received her crown of glory in Heaven based on her faith in Christ and through His grace, in that sense I can agree with the Assumption of Mary.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Catholic20064]

I understand what you are saying. To me this seems unfair/unjust that God would supernaturally protect Mary from sin but not the rest of His children. But, in the sense that Mary lived as all mortals live, died as all mortals die, was resurrected as all mortals will be resurrected, was judged as all mortals will be judged, and received her crown of glory in Heaven based on her faith in Christ and through His grace, in that sense I can agree with the Assumption of Mary.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from sin to make sure that she was a clean vessel to receive the body of Christ. As part of her mission as the Mother of God she needed to be completely pure not only to receive Christ’s body, but also to have the ability to raise Christ to accomplish his mission.

 

[Finrock]

Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from sin to make sure that she was a clean vessel to receive the body of Christ. As part of her mission as the Mother of God she needed to be completely pure not only to receive Christ’s body, but also to have the ability to raise Christ to accomplish his mission.

Catholic20064,

I just wanted to acknowledge to you that I read and understood your post here. I appreciate your attempt to help me understand Catholicism better.

I think Catholicism and Mormonism has many things in common and I can agree that atleast in some sense, Mormonism can agree with the Assumption of Mary.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[swplan76]

I gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose I don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary died, has now been resurrected, and dwells in heaven. If the Assumption of Mary implies that she made it to heaven based on her own merits (in that she was sinless and perfect, therefore needing no Savior), then I think the LDS reject that. “Mary, like all mortals, returns to the Father only through the Atonement of her son Jesus Christ” (E of M).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

LDS think of Heaven as a place where we get to be with Family. I’m not too clear on how we engage with God in the LDS view while we are in Heaven. I know the member of an LDS church aims to live in such a way that one becomes a god. Humans can also become angels in the LDS view. If we are to become gods does that mean that we will also get our own planets and our own following/religion/people who worship us? I’ve heard that LDS believe that Adam was God and lived as a man at first, but became God over time and moved off to a planet somewhere. The LDS know the name of the planet. When it came time for Mary to be impregnated, Adam-God came back to Earth and impregnated her through sexual intercourse. If Heaven is a place for us to hang out with our family, it would make sense that Jesus would bring Mary there and show preference for her.

In the Catholic view, from extra-Biblical sources, Mary is divine through having carried Jesus and through the relationship of being His mother. Is there more to that?

In scripture we get a bit of a different picture of Mary.

In Luke 11 we are given this picture:
Jesus has been talking to the people about the way evil spirits effect and…
Luke 11:27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
28He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
29As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation.

Are we to think that it is wicked to think of Mary as more blessed than us simply because she mothered Jesus? It may be that the woman who called out to Jesus here had an evil spirit and interjected for that reason. Jesus may have responded this way because Mary was not blessed as a result of having been his mother… Maybe she had a hard time believing in Him because she changed His diapers and saw Him go through puberty.

In Mark 3 we see Jesus’ mother and brothers relating to Him:
Mark 3:20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Clearly Jesus family are not on His side and just don’t seem to understand Him. Who is this passage referring to when it says, “family?”

Mark 3:31Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.

34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

From this passage it seems fairly clear that Jesus has no preference for his family which includes his brothers and Mary. Later on, James (Jesus’ brother) becomes one of the leaders of the early Church, but at first, there is no mentioning of family support and Jesus doesn’t claim to need it. It could be said that Jesus is actually snubbing his brothers and Mary, saying that because they do not believe in Him, they are not part of His Kingdom and therefore not part of His eternal family.

I think Jesus used a bunch of average people. Mary became pregnant out of wedlock. Jesus was born in Nazareth, a place known for producing losers. Jesus was born in a barn and was put in a feeding trough for a crib. Jesus chooses followers who were not scholars - many were fishermen and castaways from society. Most Rabbis chose the best of the best to be their followers, but Jesus doesn’t do this. He goes after the average person. I think He does this to show us that God can, does and will do great things with each and everyone of us… it may be easier for God to use people who are not celebrated by society. Mary was one of those - she was like you and me - average.

The NT tells us that we have been made sons of God through adoption, through Jesus. He says, “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” We are on equal footing as members of His family.

I just don’t see where Mary is given divinity in scripture - can someone help me with that?

That said, I don’t think that believing in Mary will damn anyone. I don’t think it helps, but I don’t think it will keep people out of Heaven (I could be wrong though).

Blessings,
SW

 

[swplan76]

In ‘The Great Divorce’ C.S. Lewis presents the idea that virtues or things of virtue can be mistaken more easily for God than things that have little or no virtue. Another way to put it is, brass can be made to look like gold more easily than clay can. Lewis says that “Mother-love” is something that can be deified (we can consider it sacred). Mothers can especially begin to take this view, that their right to their children is a sacred right.

Lewis doesn’t attempt to say this is even a real possibility, but in his story, he presents a mother who stands just outside of heaven demanding to see her son. She meets with a redeemed being who tells her that heaven is not a place where she comes to see her son, but a place where we come to be with God. In order to enter into Heaven, she must first want God for Himself and for no other reason.

She cannot accept this kind of God who would keep her from her son. She basically says, If this God will not let me have my son, then this God is not God. She goes on to request that God release her son to her, so she can care for him as she descends to Hell. “Mother-love” is not God. Family love is not God.

It may be that when we enter into Heaven, we will be so consumed with the presence of God, that we won’t be concerned with anything, but being in His presence. Will I be concerned with where my wife is if I am completely absorbed in worship of God? If in my heart I desire to reform heaven so that it fulfills my earthly needs instead of fulfilling His needs and following His way, maybe I won’t actually find myself in Heaven. Maybe I’ll be on the outside looking in until I can make a choice to surrender. It may be that it is on earth where that choice must be formulated - if I don’t learn to surrender here, maybe I won’t be able to surrender there and then Heaven wouldn’t be the place for me.

A famous painter also approaches Heaven in Lewis’ book. He asks a redeemed being, are there any famous people of our line of work in there? The redeemed being says, yes, but in Heaven, were all equally famous, there is no hierarchy there. I think the same can be said for Mary. Is Mary, in heaven, I don’t think its any of our concern… God will sort it out.

It may be that Mary had a hard time believing in Jesus because she changed His diapers and saw Him go through puberty. Might it be that He was too much her little boy (in her mind) to be the Son of God? Maybe she died refusing to believe. I have a hard time imaging this to be the case, but it may be.

 

[Religio71]

swplan, Catholics do not believe that Mary is/was Divine.

 

[Cluny]

I don’t know that Catholics know whether or not Mary died.

Yes, they do.

The teaching is that she died. All the Eastern Catholic churches teach this; note I said Eastern Catholic, NOT Eastern Orthodox.

In the Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused.” [that is, physical death] Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.

 

[Catholic20064]

Yes, they do.

The teaching is that she died. All the Eastern Catholic churches teach this; note I said Eastern Catholic, NOT Eastern Orthodox.

In the Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused.” [that is, physical death] Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.

I believe Mary died. I have had some Western Catholics disagree with me.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I understand what you are saying. To me this seems unfair/unjust that God would supernaturally protect Mary from sin but not the rest of His children. But, in the sense that Mary lived as all mortals live, died as all mortals die, was resurrected as all mortals will be resurrected, was judged as all mortals will be judged, and received her crown of glory in Heaven based on her faith in Christ and through His grace, in that sense I can agree with the Assumption of Mary.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

It’s not unfair for the Father to want the Son to come into the world by way of an absolutely pure vessel. It was to reflect the glory of the Lord that Mary was kept free from all stain of sin, and not because she (being a mere creature like the rest of us) deserved such treatment. Having said that, it is also understandable that, having been chosen from among all women of all time as the one woman to bear and raise the Lord, and having accomplished that task so well, she would be greatly honored by Him who fulfilled all of the commandments, including the commandment to honor thy mother.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Peter_J]

It’s not mandatory for Catholics to believe that Mary died, but the theory that she didn’t die is a pretty novel idea in Church history.

 

[Roy5]

Hope this isn’t too far off the thread.

One problem I have had is with the Catholic view of Mary and many other saints, especially women. It seems to equate virtue, purity and ‘cleanliness’ with virginity. I don’t see the connection.

I don’t find anyone more pure and more virtuous than a devoted mother whose children were conceived in the normal way. The church seems to be suggesting that sexual relations between married couples is somehow impure. That old canard and falsehood should have been tossed aside centuries ago. It detracts from the beauty and joy of expressions of conjugal love.

Of course, I also am inclined to think that the scriptures suggest that Mary and Joseph may have had children. See, for example, Matt. 1:25 - plus various references to the brothers of Jesus. But I know the arguments on all sides of that question.

Fortunately, in America today we have the right to come to our own conclusions when it comes to such questions… Much is unknown, of course, and we’re called to walk by faith and not by knowledge. Yet, I personally do need a reasonable faith.

 

[Catholic20064]

Hope this isn’t too far off the thread.

One problem I have had is with the Catholic view of Mary and many other saints, especially women. It seems to equate virtue, purity and ‘cleanliness’ with virginity. I don’t see the connection.

I don’t find anyone more pure and more virtuous than a devoted mother whose children were conceived in the normal way. The church seems to be suggesting that sexual relations between married couples is somehow impure. That old canard and falsehood should have been tossed aside centuries ago. It detracts from the beauty and joy of expressions of conjugal love.

Of course, I also am inclined to think that the scriptures suggest that Mary and Joseph may have had children. See, for example, Matt. 1:25 - plus various references to the brothers of Jesus. But I know the arguments on all sides of that question.

Fortunately, in America today we have the right to come to our own conclusions when it comes to such questions… Much is unknown, of course, and we’re called to walk by faith and not by knowledge. Yet, I personally do need a reasonable faith.

The Catholic Church agrees that sex within marriage when open to life is absolutely beautiful. There are many married people who are canonized saints. I think you are mis-characterizing the position of the Catholic Church.