Today I was cornered by some Mormons...

[Inishfree]

Yes that’s pretty much the vision. That starts to break down though when you have members with a less than ideal marriage who say “wow I get to be criticized by this guy FOREVER?” or “I have to be nagged about the garbage by her FOREVER”. Then you think, “wow Im not sure that WOULD be Heaven”

This and what about the child who was abused by her family? Will she suffer this for eternity? I was abused by a relative and have no relationship with them now.

 

[SteveVH]

EVERY SINGLE LDS MISSIONARY that knocks on my door and they come once a year every year, believes this. Who is telling them that no one else believes that they will be with their family in heaven? Some one is teaching all these young people lies about other faiths. I find the uniform understanding of other faiths presented by these missionaries to be absolute proof that the LDS church does indeed spend a considerable effort in teaching mis-truths about other religions in spite of the claims of LDS on this board.

That never really occurred to me, but you may have a point. I attributed it to never really hearing the other side of things, but it would seem, with all the door knocking that goes on, that at some point they would have to return to their Wards and report that most, if not all Christians believe this, though not in the way the Mormons understand it.

 

[valient_Lucy]

If any Mormon missionary asked me that, I would say, “The only thing that gets me out of bed every morning is knowing that most of my family will burn in Hell and I’ll never have to see them again.”

 

[JRKH]

If any Mormon missionary asked me that, I would say, “The only thing that gets me out of bed every morning is knowing that most of my family will burn in Hell and I’ll never have to see them again.”

I must admit that, even though such an attitude makes me sad, I’d love to see the facial reaction of the Mormon Missionary upon hearing it…

Peace
James

 

[SteveVH]

I understand that they will say that, because D&C 132:15-17 interprets Matt 22:29-30 in exactly that way:

*Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.*

The point of my earlier post was to give one reason why this interpretation fails. While Mormons may *assert *that Jesus only speaks of unworthy persons, Catholics can demonstrate that he does not, and that Christ really is teaching what it sounds like he is teaching.

I only gave one of the arguments for this. I pointed out that the Mormon reading requires us to take a much lower view of angels that would have been thinkable for first century Jews. According to D&C 132, being made “like the angels” is a penalty for not abiding God’s law, yet the entire Jewish and biblical notion of angels, as the highest of all created beings (they are even called “elohim” in the Old Testament) clashes directly with this view. To say, “If you don’t get a Temple sealing you only get to be like an angel,” is an un-Jewish type of claim that would have seemed incoherent to Jesus’ hearers, who would only have understood likeness to an angel as a promotion. One must totally ignore biblical teaching about angels to not be struck by this point.

I think that this, as a stand-alone argument, is sufficient, but it might not even be the best reason. Even without knowing about historical and biblical angelology, and just reading the text on its own, one can see that if Jesus is saying what Joseph Smith claims, he is making an illogical, bad argument. The story is that the Saduccees, who deny the resurrection, try to trap Jesus by showing an absurdity in the very notion of resurrection itself: if people are resurrected, and all who have died are alive together again, then those who remarried after the death of a spouse would rise again to a state of polygamy - or polyandry in the example that the Saduccees give. This argument has no reference to who does or does not receive an exaltation - it is an argument against resurrection* as such*. Thus, for Jesus to respond by citing a loophole in a specific example says nothing whatsoever to the actual problem the Saduccees are alleging in Christ’s teaching.

The exact fallacy that Jesus commits on the Mormon reading is non-topicality: he responds to an objection against all resurrection as such by considering one distinct type of resurrection. At best Jesus shows that not all people will be married in the resurrection, but problem that the Saduccees rasie will hold if anyone is married in the resurrection. If the Saduccees understood Jesus’ argument in the way Smith does, then they could refute him easily, by simply pointing out that he has dodged the question, for the same problems would apply in the case of someone who did keep the law. Can anyone really think that the gospels are presenting Jesus - himself the author of the Mosaic law - as dodging such a clear question on the topic of the law itself? Of course, not, yet that is the conclusion that the Mormon interpretation would drive us to.

These are all excellent points, Soren. It also demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the nature of angels and the nature of humans, as if we will somehow morph from one to the other. At the resurrection we will have glorified bodies, but they will be glorified human bodies for eternity. Angels have no bodies as they are pure spirit. They were also created for a different purpose. There seems to be a general lack of understanding of essence, between human, angelic and divine natures, as if we are all made from the same “stuff”. They do not seem to distinguish between the Creator and his creatures.

I have noticed an unusual silence from Mormon posters on this thread. This is not the first time this issue has been raised, but I would be interested in their rebuttal to the points you made.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I must admit that, even though such an attitude makes me sad, I’d love to see the facial reaction of the Mormon Missionary upon hearing it…

Peace
James

Exactly! And it would certainly shut them up.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Kathleen,

You make an excellent point here. Something that is largely overlooked is dialogue with Mormons is the contrast in how each religion understands the unity of Christians. Mormonism ecclesiology does not have a doctrine of a “mystical body,” but thinks of the church only as an organized whole but not go further by considering it as real unity, that is, literally one body. Consequently, they cannot, on the basis of their ecclesiology, think of a more profound union of human of persons than a biological family, and so it seems to them a great loss that we should cease to be married to our spouses in heaven. If one understands that the divine sonship in which all Christians participate constitutes us as a real family, and that unity in the Holy Spirit is a deeper unity than union in the flesh, than it is impossible to see how the continuation of a marriage would be anything but superfluous. But Mormons don’t get that, so they think continued marriage is necessary for happiness and they interpret the end of marriage in death simply as a loss, with not further context.

One remarkable sign of this blindness in Mormonism is the amazing exegesis the give of Matt 22:30. For them, those who are not married and given in marriage are not the exalted persons in the celestial kingdom, but the less worthy “children of this world” who serve the exalted persons and inhabit the lower kingdoms. This exegesis can be demolished easily, because it does not fit the nature of the argument Christ is making against the Sadducees, but even more simply, it underrates angels. Nowadays, our modern notion of angels is shaped b their depiction on sentimental greeting cards, but biblical angels are heavy duty business. If you look at the glorious and frightening manifestation of the angels to Ezekiel, the power displayed in wiping out the firstborn of Egypt, the presiding role of the angels over heavenly worship of Revelation, etc., one sees that to be “like the angels” is a very big deal. In fact, more than a few observant exegetes have understood that when the Letter to the Hebrews Claims that Christ is greater than angels, it is claiming that he is divine, simply.

In Second Temple Judaism, these things were well understood, and there is no way anyone could here “they will be like the angels” as meaning anything other than achieving the most exalted condition available to a creature. What is Christ is revealing, therefore, is not merely that marriage ends in heaven, but that the end of of marriage constitutes a higher state of life. This is good news. The Sadducees have reveal the carnality of their thoughts, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God, by thinking of the resurrection as a return to the conditions of mortal experience, in which marriage is taken for granted.

It seems to me that Mormons think of the church as a big family, wheras Catholics see the family as a domestic Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church, through Mary, is God’s family on earth, we experience the communion and fraternity of our saints and faithfully departed, the Church itself as sacrament of Christ.

The Church’s members is a breathing, living entity that is being carried by Christ to union with God in heaven. We go to Sunday Mass, we stand in our pew; we respond appropriately to the parts of the Mass. But our direction is faced towards the altar, we are actually being carried together by the Holy Spirit towards the Heavenly Father through Jesus every day of our life.

And our God is the God of love. The message of Christ centered around love of God and neighbor. Heaven only fulfills and perfects this.

So we can experience not only heaven in the next life, we can experience heaven now on earth. As Catholics, through the Eucharist, and maturing in the Eucharistic Lord, we can experience such peace on this earth, our scales removed, that we can see God’s presence and tranquility and love today.

St. Theresa of Avila infers us when she prays that nothing can remove God from this world, that He is here, so let nothing disturb our peace…even Mormonism’s ideas.

 

[Rence]

I was walking home from university today when a Mormon walked towards me. It’s the 2nd time I’ve been cornered by them within the last 6 months, and my housemates have also been approached by them on different occasions so my street is a regular “hunting” ground for them as there is quite heavy pedestrian traffic.

Anywho, as soon as he said Hello I said Good afternoon, and then

Mormon - “Please can I have a moment?”

Me - “No sorry, I’m not interested.” (after I saw his badge)

Mormon - “I just want to talk to you for a minute about Jesus Christ” (or similar)

Me - “No sorry I’m not interested in talking to you, I’m a practicing Roman Catholic.”

Mormon - “Before you go, can I please ask you one question?”

Me - “Okay go on then.”

**Mormon - “As a Catholic, would it be important to you to be able to still be with your relatives even after death?” (or similar). **

What does that mean? As a British person, while I have seen LDS Churchs they’re not very common and not talked about nearly as much as in the USA. I replied “that would be nice but sorry, I don’t want to talk” and then I said goodbye, etc.

Well, I don’t know what he meant by that. But it wouldn’t have stumped me. I would have just said, "Of course it is. Have a nice day! "

 

[Link0126]

I haven’t encountered any Mormans. Where I live. Too far away from the temple.

There is one temple in the state of Maryland. Seriously, it likes like emerald city from the Wizard of Oz. Someone had even spray painted. “Surrender Dorothy” on the bridge before it. Marylanders got a kick out of that. It was there for years, before the bridge got repainted.

Haha. Yup, I grew up in Maryland saw that bridge and temple many times. So cool…

 

[LemonAndLime]

Haha. Yup, I grew up in Maryland saw that bridge and temple many times. So cool…

I had to research it, as I’m British.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_Dorothy

Quite funny. Nah, actually, really funny. I can see what you mean, it does look a lot like the Emerald City. They even have green lights in some of the pictures!

 

[soren1]

That never really occurred to me, but you may have a point. I attributed it to never really hearing the other side of things, but it would seem, with all the door knocking that goes on, that at some point they would have to return to their Wards and report that most, if not all Christians believe this, though not in the way the Mormons understand it.

I suspect (and I emphasize suspect) that much of what Mormon missionaries learn about other religions comes not from the people who challenge them and seek to clarify Christian teaching, but from their converts. For instance, when they explain eternal marriage to an enthusiastic investigator who replies, “Wow, they never taught me that at my Church!” it is very gratifying and makes a deep impression. This is not to say they don’t learn from others (I have discussed this very topic with missionaries before and I am sure they listened to me carefully), but I think they believe that their converts are the most discerning folks that they have met, that these people are being moved by the spirit, and so they give more credit to what those people tell them.

 

[soren1]

It seems to me that Mormons think of the church as a big family, wheras Catholics see the family as a domestic Church.

I don’t agree with that. I would say it is the other way around. Mormons emphasize the spiritual headship of fathers, based upon priesthood authority, and indeed, it is normal for fathers to baptize their children. Since most of my extended family is Mormon, I have seen many LDS households from the inside, and they definitely have a churchly notion of what they are doing in the home.

However, because Mormons have a less expansive notion of covenantal kinship than Catholics do, they don’t grasp the familial character of the Church as clearly. They do have it of course, as can be seen in the fact that they call each other “brother” and “sister,” and give out patriarchal blessings, etc., but they don’t go the radical distance of understanding the Church itself as the definitive eternal family, thinking instead of the domestic family as eternal and centering their values upon that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I suspect (and I emphasize suspect) that much of what Mormon missionaries learn about other religions comes not from the people who challenge them and seek to clarify Christian teaching, but from their converts. For instance, when they explain eternal marriage to an enthusiastic investigator who replies, “Wow, they never taught me that at my Church!” it is very gratifying and makes a deep impression. This is not to say they don’t learn from others (I have discussed this very topic with missionaries before and I am sure they listened to me carefully), but I think they believe that their converts are the most discerning folks that they have met, that these people are being moved by the spirit, and so they give more credit to what those people tell them.

I don’t know, I’ve read time and time again on NOM and particularly FE a poster mention his/her surprise that others believe they will be with family members in heaven. This is followed by others on the thread posting of their own surprise over it. I’ve seen threads started asking directly whether or not other religions teach/believe they’ll be with their families in “heaven” It seems to me to be an understanding of others beliefs so pervasive and firmly held that I find it hard to believe it is “accidentally” ingrained. If it is an outside influence I suspect it is the ubiquitous “till death do us part”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know, I’ve read time and time again on NOM and particularly FE a poster mention his/her surprise that others believe they will be with family members in heaven. This is followed by others on the thread posting of their own surprise over it. I’ve seen threads started asking directly whether or not other religions teach/believe they’ll be with their families in “heaven” It seems to me to be an understanding of others beliefs so pervasive and firmly held that I find it hard to believe it is “accidentally” ingrained. If it is an outside influence I suspect it is the ubiquitous “till death do us part”.

I had a lengthy discussion with one of the Mormons here once, regarding “till death do us part”. It didn’t matter at all what it is we believe. Several Catholics tried to get it through that yes, we are parted at death (duh, really), this does not mean we are lonely and pining for our loved ones when we are with God in heaven.

Mormons need to believe they have a special “restored” idea that no one else has. No amount of explaining will change what they have been taught by their church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I had a lengthy discussion with one of the Mormons here once, regarding “till death do us part”. It didn’t matter at all what it is we believe. Several Catholics tried to get it through that yes, we are parted at death (duh, really), this does not mean we are lonely and pining for our loved ones when we are with God in heaven.

Mormons need to believe they have a special “restored” idea that no one else has. No amount of explaining will change what they have been taught by their church.

Yes, if it’s the same thread, I posted quotes from the CCC and other Catholic sources to no avail. LDS willfully ignore actual Catholic teaching and stick to what they think we believe. Just another reason that I don’t believe LDS get their understanding of other faiths from converts. The mis-truths are too uniform, universal and too firmly held to be taught by hearsay.

Added:
I read a thread on Post Mormon talking about the great and abominable church, seems missionaries still associate it with the Catholic Church, no matter the back peddling on McConkie.

 

[soren1]

I don’t know, I’ve read time and time again on NOM and particularly FE a poster mention his/her surprise that others believe they will be with family members in heaven. This is followed by others on the thread posting of their own surprise over it. I’ve seen threads started asking directly whether or not other religions teach/believe they’ll be with their families in “heaven” It seems to me to be an understanding of others beliefs so pervasive and firmly held that I find it hard to believe it is “accidentally” ingrained. If it is an outside influence I suspect it is the ubiquitous “till death do us part”.

Let me add some clarification. I am the last person who will say that Mormon misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine (and Protestant too) is due just to innocent misunderstanding, or that LDS leaders do not have a vested interest in propagating very specific and identifiable errors about the teachings of virtually any religion that poses an apologetic threat.

I have had experiences similar to yours. One that comes to mind is thread where a poster expressed surprise that Catholics think man is made in God’s image and asked if any other Christian religions teach this. The reason confusions like this happen is that Mormons learn how to argue for their own position long before learning how to understand any of the alternatives. As a result, they acquire certain assumptions about the positions they think they know how to critique, and the criticisms they learn then become hermeneutical principles. Thus they approach an orthodox explanation of the Trinity with a fixes assumption that it is an actual denial that God is three persons, rather than as as affirmation of that fact; having learned only how to argue against modalism, they only hear those things in Trinitarian theology that could be taken with a modalist meaning. Likewise they think that God is only a figurative or metaphorical Father in our theology, because they have been taught to distinguish their own teaching as a belief that God is Father literally, implying very falsely that it is a metaphor in the traditional creeds. Etc., etc., etc.

The question I was attempting to answer was not “Why do these false understandings exist?” but rather “Why do they persist in the face of correction?” One way that I think such errors continue to be reinforced in Mormon thinking in spite of exposure to correct explanations of Catholic doctrine is that when they find that the arguments they have learned actually work to convert certain people, that validates the argument for them, and helps solidify their errors even in the face of correction. If it works it must be right.

 

[SteveVH]

I suspect (and I emphasize suspect) that much of what Mormon missionaries learn about other religions comes not from the people who challenge them and seek to clarify Christian teaching, but from their converts. For instance, when they explain eternal marriage to an enthusiastic investigator who replies, “Wow, they never taught me that at my Church!” it is very gratifying and makes a deep impression. This is not to say they don’t learn from others (I have discussed this very topic with missionaries before and I am sure they listened to me carefully), but I think they believe that their converts are the most discerning folks that they have met, that these people are being moved by the spirit, and so they give more credit to what those people tell them.

I’ve certainly experienced this with the Jehovah’s Witnesses who love to quote former “Catholics” who have converted. They give them a high degree of credibility when, in fact, these are Catholics who understood little, if anything, about Catholicism. So I would agree that this is probably a factor. I also agree, however, that falsehoods are promoted and taught within their church. It is why, very often, it feels like we are speaking a different language while using the same words when conversing with Mormon posters.

 

[valient_Lucy]

If any Mormon missionary asked me that, I would say, “The only thing that gets me out of bed every morning is knowing that most of my family will burn in Hell and I’ll never have to see them again.”

I must admit that, even though such an attitude makes me sad, I’d love to see the facial reaction of the Mormon Missionary upon hearing it…

Peace
James

Just in case it wasn’t clear beforehand, I’m being facetious.

True, I don’t have a great relationship with most of the people in my family, but I don’t think about them in Hell, and it certainly doesn’t get me up in the morning.

That being said, the look on their faces would be priceless. I wish some Mormon would ask me just so I could see them.

 

[TheExorcist]

Added: I read a thread on Post Mormon talking about the great and abominable church, seems missionaries still associate it with the Catholic Church, no matter the back peddling on McConkie.

Mostly bc I think that many Mormons still believe that McConkie actually believed that but took it out as a result of pressure from other church leaders.