Views on Mormonism?

[truthsave]

.

OK, that’s 2 things we agree on, at least if you’re really being honest, and not just saying what he wants to hear, just because you’re on this Catholic forum. Actually, he never gave you any indication of what he thought it meant, he was just asking your opinion of what it meant, so you can’t accuse him of being ‘wrong’ on that account.

Telstar you are absolutely right and thank you for answering to my place since your answer is my answer. Infact I stated it was just to know a mormon way of interpreting this scripture that I wanted to know. I was curious if they (mormons) went more toward the (Book of Enock and other writings) or more traditional interpretation. Would have been interesting to me to know it, since apparently mormons orsome of them consider the writings found in the Dead Sea ( Dead Sea Scrolls I guess their neme in english is).
Some mormons claim they are a kind of support in their believs.

What Naf623 gave me is a traditioal answer, thank you Naf623.
I don’t get Naf623 being I am wrong as an accuse since the atmosphere here can too easily drive him thinking what it is not.
And I was not wrong since I was just asking… so just bad interpretetion of my will. It can happen.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Naf623,

Let me address one of the items you brought up:

So God was just talking to Himself?
I suppose eternities of being alone does that to you…
Nonsense.
The fact He said anything at all (other than anything He may have said relevant to His work of creation) shows there was definitely someone else with Him. What you are saying is that two elements of the same being still have some need (even when there were none of us there who needed an example set for) to discuss, despite already being of the same mind. And this is my problem with the idea of the Trinity: that on regular occasions it has been clearly documented that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate and distinct, and communicate with each other even when there should be no need were they One God as you claim.

Only God can completely know Himself, Naf623. God tells us in the Old Testament that He is One. There are not multiple gods - there is One God. In the New Testmant, it is revealed that there are 3 Divine Persons in One God. Christ tells us that He is the Son of God (the Father spoke at Christ’s Baptism and at the Transfiguration) and that there is the Holy Spirit that Christ promised would guide His Church (the Catholic Church He founded on Peter [Matt 16:18]).

No one can fully explain this because this would require the knowledge that only God has of Himself. For us humans - we have one being (human being) or nature and one personality (excluding any psych-pahology of multiple personality disorders). Chrst has two natures (Divine and Human) and One Person - and that would be the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

God is inspiring humans to write the message that God wants to give to mankind. The message must be understandable - and we can see a developmental quality to the way God is revealing Himself. Note - God could have sent His Son to atone for our sins immediately after Adam and Eve sinned - but, God chose a different way. So all through the OT we have God promising us a Savior - a Messiah to bring us sinful people back to Him. No one can tell you why He did it this way - but, this is what we believe as Catholics.

So when you dismiss the idea of Three Persons in One God - you really have to address the Scripture that is involved in this.

God bless

 

[Naf623]

If you don’t know for sure what those laws really are, how can you know for sure that you’re following them correctly?

But we do know what they are; the questions that are being asked have not been about any of what we believe we should/ shouldn’t do (possibly as a lot of the basics are very similar to your own), rather they are around doctrines that relate to God and The Plan of Salvation; nether of which affect our actions in this life, as I pointed out before.

Without having any “official doctrine” that comes directly from God, you can never be sure what you’re supposed to do.

But we do have plenty of Official Doctrine, directly from God and we are very sure about what we are/are not supposed to do.

That’s the problem with the ‘revolving door’ of Mormon ‘doctrine’. It changes with the whims of any man that claims to have had a new ‘revelation’.

Far from it, nobody can receive revelation outside of his own area of responsibility for which he holds priesthood keys. Only the president of the church can receive revelation that would affect the entire church; Stake Presidents can receive revelation for the running of the Stake they are called to preside over, and for the wards and branches within it (this may include budget planning, curriculum, activities, callings); Bishops or Branch Presidents can receive revelations for the Ward or Branch (respectively) over which they preside (similar to that which a Stake President is entitled to, but for their congregation only); Elders’ Quorum Presidents (and Teachers’ and Deacons’ quorum presidents), Relief Society Presidents, Primary Presidents, teachers etc. can receive revelations for those they have responsibility for, and within the responsibilities they have.
The channels of revelation are clearly defined, and anybody claiming anything outside of this can immediately known to be wrong.

Today it’s ‘doctrine’, tomorrow it’s just some guy’s personal opinion that we don’t need to pay any attention to, if we don’t ‘feel like it’. That’s never been God’s way of doing things. God’s Laws are etched in stone, not written in the sand.

No, we have no doctrines that this has happened to.

OK, that’s 2 things we agree on, at least if you’re really being honest, and not just saying what he wants to hear, just because you’re on this Catholic forum.

I count three: nested quotes, remember

Actually, he never gave you any indication of what he thought it meant, he was just asking your opinion of what it meant, so you can’t accuse him of being ‘wrong’ on that account.

No, that’s the clear interpretation of the scripture as it is written. What he posted as the scripture (I wasn’t clearmid it was supposed to be translation or interpretation) seemed very wrong.

Hmmm… was that a Freudian slip? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/twisted.gif

Odd that my AutoCorrect didn’t pick it up lol.

I am of the mind that there are no GODS, other than what we ourselves create or imagine. There is only One God.
[1 Chronicles 16:26](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Chronicles+16:26&version=NASB)
For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens
Jeremiah 16:20
Can man make gods for himself? Yet they are not gods!
[2 Kings 19:18](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=2 Kings+19:18&version=NASB)
and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. So they have destroyed them.
[2 Kings 17:29](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=2 Kings+17:29&version=NASB)
But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the houses of the high places which the people of Samaria had made, every nation in their cities in which they lived.
Deuteronomy 4:28
There you will serve gods, the work of man’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.

None of those scriptures conclusively deny the existence of other gods, merely state that the gods worshipped by other nations round about at the time were not gods.

Oh by the way! Don’t these two contradict each other.
Book of Abraham.
Chapter 4.
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Versus

[1 Chronicles 16:26](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Chronicles+16:26&version=NASB)
For all the gods of the peoples are idols, **But the LORD made the heavens
**

Not at all, as previously pointed out.

 

[Naf623]

First of all, let me say there is nothing shoddy or second rate about the ads I have seen from the LDS organization.

Secondly, I have always been impressed with the missionaries that dress up neatly and go from door to door spreading what they consider to be the truth. Would that there was more of this missionary spirit evident in the Catholic Church.

Thirdly, I personally appreciate that position taken by the LDS organization concerning the sacredness of life and the principle that marriage is between one man and one woman. These basic Christian beliefs have been under enormous attack from those who would destroy them. The Mormons have, to the best of my knowledge, stood quite firm on these matters and supported others in this effort.

Thank you very much

What I personally find distressing is that if Mormons agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Who died for our sins, and has given us the way to Salvation - then, as I see it, He has given us everything we need.

This idea does not automatically follow logically. Just because Christ came and said things, however important, does not mean that this was everything that we needed to know, and nowhere is it said that it is. If it had been everything that is necessary for our salvation, Jemwould not have found it necessary to give ‘some apostles, [and] some prophets’ (Ephesians 4:11); if everything we needed had been said, the purpose of a prophet was fulfilled and obsolete.

The (missing) Golden Tablets add nothing to the salvation message delivered by Christ - and of necessity, establishing a second book establishes conflict and tension with the First Book - The Bible.

What conflict and tension does the Book of Mormon bring about. It provides further testimony and evidence of Jesus Christ, it was written with the express purpose (just the same as the Bible) to bring people to the knowledge of Christ. The fact that people make conflict over it cannot be brought as evidence of its invalidity.

What Naf623 gave me is a traditioal answer, thank you Naf623.
I don’t get Naf623 being I am wrong as an accuse since the atmosphere here can too easily drive him thinking what it is not.
And I was not wrong since I was just asking… so just bad interpretetion of my will. It can happen.

I’m sorry, what you wrote seemed strange to me, I didn’t understand if it was quoted scripture, but an unusual translation; or an idea of how you expected we might interpret the scripture.

So when you dismiss the idea of Three Persons in One God - you really have to address the Scripture that is involved in this.

But I’m not aware of any scripture that actually says this, otherwise I would believe it.
To me the scriptures clearly show God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being separate and distinct, but having the same goals and desires in their missions. Being one in mind and purpose. Even without latter-day revelations confirming this, it is still what I find cleary presented, very simply, in the words of The Bible.
Three persons, separate and distinct in personage, each having the power of Deity; one Godhead. But only one God (Elohim, God The Father, who’s direct dealing with men are few, and therefore of the greatest importance when they do occur: Jesus’ baptism, Stephen’s stoning, Joseph Smith’s First Vision) who we direct our worship towards.

 

[bz5]

;

So God was just talking to Himself?
I suppose eternities of being alone does that to you…
Nonsense.
The fact He said anything at all (other than anything He may have said relevant to His work of creation) shows there was definitely someone else with Him. What you are saying is that two elements of the same being still have some need (even when there were none of us there who needed an example set for) to discuss, despite already being of the same mind. And this is my problem with the idea of the Trinity: that on regular occasions it has been clearly documented that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate and distinct, and communicate with each other even when there should be no need were they One God as you claim.

.

Isn’t the very next verse after the verse in question that “God made them in His image.” Not “their image”? It seems you’re getting a little literal in the explanation above. Did He really say anything aloud at all?

 

[bz5]

My ‘official’ answer is that we do not teach anything more than that we will live forever still as the family units we are a part of in this life. Further official doctrine has not been provided: some members interpret it as you have, others do not.
However, I do not understand why this matters?
Does the destination change how you would behave on a bus/plane/train? Your and our doctrines of what has been, or what is to come are of little importance, because all we can do at the present time is to live our lives according to Gods laws, assured that He has everything else in hand and planned for our good.

I think you make a very good point in the last paragraph. Most of us probably know LDS members who are living moral lives, loving their family, working for charity, trying to share their faith, all of which is admirable. And I too, understand that there are certain truths I’ll not understand fully in this life as a limited human. But you must understand that the whole idea that we will become gods of our own earths one day, being worshipped by our own spirit children, is fascinating and bizarre to Catholics and Protestants. To strict monotheists, it is polytheistic, no matter how gently you try to couch the terms. And when you’re as evangelistic as the LDS church is, the question must come up. You’re not just trying to bring people into a wholesome lifestyle. You are teaching them about God, based on the revelations of Joseph Smith, and it’s important to be right.

 

[bz5]

Hi, bz5,

I hope you are doing well.

To be with “families forever” means to be living in extended familial relationships, like on this earth only with more knowledge about and rejoicing together with our ancestors also–not all in one large “mansion” but having frequent interaction with each other, and all living in one “Celestial kingdom” place. I would expect to visit with my parents and my children “every day” (though time will have a different dimension than we have here on earth.)

An important aspect of those extended family relationships is that what enables the fullness of those relationships is the sealing ordinances that bind the generations together.

Any governing or organizing of new “earths” will be done from the Celestial glory through the power of faith and the power of the everlasting priesthood, wherein those who receive that opportunity will have become one with God and with Christ.

'Wishing you well, sincerely.

Thank you for the well wishes, Parker, and the same to you!
Now, mustn’t all of your family be in the same level of heaven for you to see them? And where does the idea of the sealing ordinances come from? How does that blend with Jesus’s teaching in Mark 12:25? Thanks

 

[Naf623]

I think you make a very good point in the last paragraph. Most of us probably know LDS members who are living moral lives, loving their family, working for charity, trying to share their faith, all of which is admirable. And I too, understand that there are certain truths I’ll not understand fully in this life as a limited human. But you must understand that the whole idea that we will become gods of our own earths one day, being worshipped by our own spirit children, is fascinating and bizarre to Catholics and Protestants. To strict monotheists, it is polytheistic, no matter how gently you try to couch the terms. And when you’re as evangelistic as the LDS church is, the question must come up. You’re not just trying to bring people into a wholesome lifestyle. You are teaching them about God, based on the revelations of Joseph Smith, and it’s important to be right.

Oh, I understand the fascination; I have some queries of my own that I intend to start up a thread about when i have some time.
And in general (after a somewhat bumpy start) I do appreciate most posters’ attitude of discussion rather than argument/controversy.
As to our ‘…theism’, look up Henotheism. While the term may not be an exact fit (being more generally applied to something akin to Mt Olympus where there are many venerated gods, but one main personage, I believe), or Monolatrism, a sub-division that probably applies better.
John 17:11 fits our belief in God well: where Jesus asks that His disciples may “be one, as We are”. Clearly, being only human, these men cannot be one in the sense of the Trinity: therefore there must be a different meaning of being one that applies to both…

 

[Naf623]

Thank you for the well wishes, Parker, and the same to you!
Now, mustn’t all of your family be in the same level of heaven for you to see them? And where does the idea of the sealing ordinances come from? How does that blend with Jesus’s teaching in Mark 12:25? Thanks

I think it relates to the fact that the Jews did not have the priesthood authority to perform the sealings (bound on earth, bound in heaven as Jesus said when He gave Peter this power) necessary to bind husband and wife together into eternity. Therefore the Jews (as they were when Jesus answered the question) would not expect to be together still after death.
But I’m not certain I will admit, further research

 

[truthsave]

What conflict and tension does the Book of Mormon bring about. It provides further testimony and evidence of Jesus Christ, it was written with the express purpose (just the same as the Bible) to bring people to the knowledge of Christ. The fact that people make conflict over it cannot be brought as evidence of its invalidity.

Personally I don’t think the BO brings anything more. What more? The BO importance was just the “miracle” of Joseph Smith to give him in same way credibility. Without it what else would have given him credibility to his claims?

But I’m not aware of any scripture that actually says this, otherwise I would believe it.
To me the scriptures clearly show God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being separate and distinct, but having the same goals and desires in their missions. Being one in mind and purpose. Even without latter-day revelations confirming this, it is still what I find cleary presented, very simply, in the words of The Bible.
Three persons, separate and distinct in personage, each having the power of Deity; one Godhead. But only one God (Elohim, God The Father, who’s direct dealing with men are few, and therefore of the greatest importance when they do occur: Jesus’ baptism, Stephen’s stoning, Joseph Smith’s First Vision) who we direct our worship towards.

I understand that the comprehension of the Holy Trinity is hard, infact it is impossible.
Our goal as christians is not getting away from the truth no going to the truth. Going to the truth belongs to His Grace.
So if our intellect cannot grasp a concept it doesn’t mean it has to reduce the nature of something so can be understood. This is an act of arrogance. We have to accept with humility that what belongs to God is behond our capacity of rationalizing. Is either infra or ultra rational.
Getting things more right is surely important if not Jesus would have not spoken and explained things to His disceples.

Reading John 's Gospel can give you a certain insite to the relation of Jesus with the Father and the Spirit.

One day I asked my wife (ex LDS) how come she coudn’t read and understand certain things that were for me clear and she unswered me that when she was LDS and she was reading the Bible or the Gospels, if she was reading something that could even in a far way remember mormonism she would immediately retain it and considering it as valuable and the immediate following sentence that was saying clearly the contrary would just slip over her brain and heart like irrelevant.
For me was much easier to convert to Christianity since I had not to defend any doctrine.

 

[TexanKnight]

I think it relates to the fact that the Jews did not have the priesthood authority to perform the sealings (bound on earth, bound in heaven as Jesus said when He gave Peter this power) necessary to bind husband and wife together into eternity. Therefore the Jews (as they were when Jesus answered the question) would not expect to be together still after death.
But I’m not certain I will admit, further research

Could you please point to the Biblical reference to Temple Sealings?

 

[Telstar]

But we do know what they are; the questions that are being asked have not been about any of what we believe we should/ shouldn’t do (possibly as a lot of the basics are very similar to your own), rather they are around doctrines that relate to God and The Plan of Salvation; nether of which affect our actions in this life, as I pointed out before.

But, that’s my point. When your very definition of God is so far from reality, then it’s obvious that you really can’t have any idea what any of the rest of it means, either.

But we do have plenty of Official Doctrine, directly from God and we are very sure about what we are/are not supposed to do.

Most of your ‘official doctrine’ comes from the faulty interpretations of the Bible and the vivid imagination of one man, Joseph Smith. They’re very far from being ‘directly from God’. They’re no more than hearsay that would never even be allowed in a court of earthly law, much less by the infallible Judgement of God.

Far from it, nobody can receive revelation outside of his own area of responsibility for which he holds priesthood keys. Only the president of the church can receive revelation that would affect the entire church;~~~

I was just referring to your ‘prophets’, not the rest of the hierarchy of the church. If the current prophet decided to throw out half of your doctrines because he claimed to have a major ‘new revelation’, more than likely there wouldn’t be any room for argument, as long as he was very convincing to the ‘quorum of 12’ or the ‘70’, as unlikely as that might seem to be.

No, we have no doctrines that this has happened to.

So, do you still practice polygamy, and are blacks still denied the ‘priesthood’? Or, are you saying that those things are still active doctrines that are just waiting to be reinstated when someone else gets a new ‘revelation’ that God wants it to happen?

I count three: nested quotes, remember

I sit corrected.

No, that’s the clear interpretation of the scripture as it is written. What he posted as the scripture (I wasn’t clearmid it was supposed to be translation or interpretation) seemed very wrong.

I thought it was fairly clear that he was paraphrasing, and I knew exactly which passage he was referring to. You have to remember that English is not his native language, so he sometimes has a problem saying things as clearly as those of us that were brought up speaking English.

(BTW… you might need to get your ‘spellchecker’ checked for updates. It’s been a tad deficient in quite a few of your posts, lately.)

Odd that my AutoCorrect didn’t pick it up lol.

See above…LOL

None of those scriptures conclusively deny the existence of other gods, merely state that the gods worshipped by other nations round about at the time were not gods.

I really don’t see any difference between those examples and LDS beliefs about God, but your opinion will most likely be very different than mine.

Not at all, as previously pointed out.

I rest my case.

 

[Telstar]

Oh, I understand the fascination; I have some queries of my own that I intend to start up a thread about when i have some time.
And in general (after a somewhat bumpy start) I do appreciate most posters’ attitude of discussion rather than argument/controversy.
As to our ‘…theism’, look up Henotheism. While the term may not be an exact fit (being more generally applied to something akin to Mt Olympus where there are many venerated gods, but one main personage, I believe), or Monolatrism, a sub-division that probably applies better.
John 17:11 fits our belief in God well: where Jesus asks that His disciples may “be one, as We are”. Clearly, being only human, these men cannot be one in the sense of the Trinity: therefore there must be a different meaning of being one that applies to both…

Jesus was telling them to be “one body” of men, in full agreement with each other, in the same way that He is One in Being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He wanted them to be One Body of Christ on earth (aka One Church in the Communion of Saints), made up of all of the individual followers of Jesus, in the same way as there is only One God consisting of three distinct Persons. It was a confirmation of the concept of the Church being an earthly reflection of the Holy Trinity of God. His Church is the Body of Christ, with Jesus being the Head of that Body. They, and we, are inseparable, as long as we remain in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. The Holy Eucharist is the ‘glue’ that binds us all together in that perfect harmony, and imbues us with a true share in His Divinity because it truly is the real Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus, Himself.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Naf623,

Let’s take a look at a major difference between the Catholic and the Mormon belief in God.

What conflict and tension does the Book of Mormon bring about. It provides further testimony and evidence of Jesus Christ, it was written with the express purpose (just the same as the Bible) to bring people to the knowledge of Christ. The fact that people make conflict over it cannot be brought as evidence of its invalidity.

From my understanding of the Mormon belief:
1.) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are seen as three DISTINCT beings,
2.) God the Father has a body,
3.) Son of God was created as a spirit being

From my understand of the Catholic belief:
1.) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Three Persons in One Being
2,) God the Father is not material body
3.) God the Son is not created

So, let us see what Scriptural proofs can be brought to foucs our attention on these differences.

In the Old Testament, God emphasizes that He is One as opposed to many pagan tribes that are polytheistic.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy32:39, 2 Samuel 7:22 ,1 Kings 8:60, . 2 KINGS 5:15 and Is 6:8

But, there are references to more than one Person as in:
The Spirit of God (Gen 1:2)
Multiple Persons (Gen 1:26)
The Son of God (Ps 2:7)

The concept of Trinity is developed in the New Testament
God the Father (John 3:16)
God the Son (Phil 2:5-8, John 1:1,John 12:35, Acts 28:23, Col 2:9)
God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, John 16:12-15)

The Trinity Itself
The Baptism of Jesus Matt 3:16-17
The Great Commission Matt 28:19
Paul’s blessings to the Corinthians (IICor 13:14)

Finally, if you think you can figure it out - you can’t! Rom 11:33 “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”

There is no way to understand or to give an example about The Blessed Trinity - it is totally beyond our human comprehension.It isn’t that we are stupid - but, in the sense that it would be more possible to put all the water in the oceans in a bucket then it would be to understand the Trinity. I read an interesting analogy that, however, may be of some help. While we can say that 1 PLUS 1 PLUS 1 equals 3 - when it comes to the Trinity we can say that 1 TIMES 1 TIMES 1 equals ONE.

The Book of Mormon flies right in the face of God’s relevation about Himself - this is just part of the conflict I am talking about. The two books (The Bible and the Book of Mormon can not be reconciled concerning the Trinity.) The Mormon book can not bring people to a real knowledge of Christ if Christ tells us in John 14:8-9 that He and the Father are One

8Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father,* and that will be enough for us.”d 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

This is not incidental bickering over an inconsequential detail - this is a major item: the very nature of God as revealed by God Himself. Either we believe what Christ tells us, or we believe what Joesph Smith tells us. Both groups believe that Christ rose from the dead. Joseph Smith has not risen from the dead. The evidence looks very strong to me on who we should place our Faith in. If we can not agree on this we can not agree on what is really important.

God bless

 

[bz5]

Could you please point to the Biblical reference to Temple Sealings?

Or to any practice of it in the early church?

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for the well wishes, Parker, and the same to you!
Now, mustn’t all of your family be in the same level of heaven for you to see them? And where does the idea of the sealing ordinances come from? How does that blend with Jesus’s teaching in Mark 12:25? Thanks

bz5,

Having a fullness of joy would mean that if one of my children chose differently than to be married and sealed through temple ordinances, or chose not to be faithful to their sealing covenants and chose not to repent, then I would expect that I would be given to know of their joy in that which they did choose, and although it would not be “with us” and “with Heavenly Father”, we would know that that child was resurrected to a good place, with a glorified body but not a fullness of glory. Our will would and will be completely in accordance with Heavenly Father’s will, and we will rejoice in knowing that each person chose that which they truly, deep-down desired as they had the opportunity to repent and grow to the measure of that which they desired.

You of course know about the authority to bind on earth and it be bound in heaven. “Sealed” is another word for “bound”. The promise of Elijah’s return to earth and to turn hearts of fathers to the children, and children to the fathers, relates to this also.

I have had numerous conversations about the Matthew version of what is in Mark 12:25.

The Sadducees were attempting to use the teachings of Moses to prove that Moses did not believe in the resurrection, and that the law of Moses did not teach the resurrection as true doctrine. The “seven brethren” had made their choice about marriage such that it was a “Mosaic law” marriage, and the Savior as recorded in Matthew 19:3-8 explained that a “Mosaic law” marriage was not what God intended, but allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, “but from the beginning it was not so.” (v. 8) That teaching applies to the “divorce allowance”, but also to the “marriage to raise up seed” allowance and the marriage choice those brothers made, since the making of the covenant of an eternal marriage needs to be done on earth, under the proper priesthood authority to bind on earth and thus bind in heaven.

“What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” applies to the kind of marriages God intended for those who choose such, but it is not forced upon anyone and there are options for other kinds of “earth-only” or “time-only” marriages, which just means that was the choice those who have this kind of marriage are making.

 

[Miriam1947]

Then why did Jesus say that there is no marriage in heaven?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:29-30
[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[bz5]

Could you please point to the Biblical reference to Temple Sealings?

I think it relates to the fact that the Jews did not have the priesthood authority to perform the sealings (bound on earth, bound in heaven as Jesus said when He gave Peter this power) necessary to bind husband and wife together into eternity. Therefore the Jews (as they were when Jesus answered the question) would not expect to be together still after death.
But I’m not certain I will admit, further research

Is this passage in Matthew 16:19 what you’re referring to?
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
If so, obviously, we’ll have a different interpretation of that. Jesus just changed Simon’s name - always a significant event in the Bible - to Peter (rock) and promises that on “this rock” Jesus will build His church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Then He gives Peter the keys to heaven. Please see Isaiah 22:20-22 to see what real authority that gave - when a king gave keys and the power to bind and loose, it was an actual power. That man could act in the king’s name. So the fact that Jesus builds His church on Peter, giving him the keys to heaven and the power to bind and loose says much more about how this church is strong and blessed by God and has real authority (and will not be losing all authority in an apostasy in a few years) rather than anything about an idea not yet to be practiced for 1800 years.

 

[ParkerD]

Then why did Jesus say that there is no marriage in heaven?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:29-30
[/BIBLEDRB]

Miriam,

Jesus was teaching the Sadducees using the example they gave. Their question pertained to the resurrection as a doctrine. He assured them there is a resurrection, but also noted those who choose a “Mosaic law” marriage are choosing to be resurrected as angels for their resurrection, rather than as “sons of God” which is often talked about in the New Testament.

If you sort out the pronouns, “they” was specific to the case presented to Jesus. He didn’t change the subject to a “universal they”–that would be poor grammar, and Jesus was the most perfect user of language to ever walk the earth.

(I might add that He also knew exactly what He was praying for in the Intercessory prayer, and didn’t need help getting the words made into something different than what they specifically express as His prayer for His covenant followers.)

 

[Tony888]

tqualey,
I must disagree with the slant of your summary, so I will add some depth

From my understanding of the Mormon belief:
1.) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are seen as three DISTINCT beings united in one Purpose,
2.) God the Father and Christ have bodies, the Holy Spirit does not
3.) Son of God was created as a spirit being and is the ‘only begotten’ son of God the Father

From my understand of the Catholic belief:
1.) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Three DISTINCT Persons in One Being
2,) God the Father and Holy Spirit do not have material body but Christ does have a material body
3.) God the Son is not created, but is the ‘only begotten’ son of God the Father

I agree that scriptures don’t present a clear picture of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
However, I do feel the LDS definition is in alignment with scripture, with less confusion than the Nicene Trinity.

Since our Godhead is completely united in purpose, we are also 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

Personally, I have not seen where Scripture clearly articulates a distinct person versus a being. My ask is for you provide references on this particular point, so crucial to our different views.

I understand John 14:8-9 as stating their complete unity in purpose. To work in your favor, there should be context in the scripture that explains the common being of God vs the separate and distinct Persons of God

I think agreeing on God’s laws, which we are to follow is what is really important,