What is the book of Mormon all about

[ParkerD]

“If you’re saying the men you compared with Joseph Smith have written a book comparable to the Book of Mormon, I’d like to read their book and see if that is really a valid assertion, because I think not one of them has (of course they haven’t).”

Check with Scientology, They had a prolific author who claims to know the truth - L.Ron Hubbard.

Besides the obvious, whereby Joseph Smith stole many of the components of Freemasonry’s rituals and hence this makes me question some of his other claims. The mere thought that one could become a god bothers me even more. I also question the mormon’s use of the words Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are implying some connection to Jesus, yet Jesus said no one would enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. He is the One and Only Savior. The whole LDS thing seems like false advertising. Bait and Switch if you like.

Oneheartway,
May I first say that I think it’s great if you’re joining the Catholic church. I write here to explain my beliefs, not dissuade other from theirs.

Any piece of writing, especially religious but even in literature, can be gleaned for meaning and gleaned for the truths of human existence by using the light of Christ to discern truth from error, and particularly by listening within our hearts to the inner voice of the Holy Ghost whispering to our souls. I don’t care to read Ron Hubbard’s writings so I will not just to prove any particular point, but by his fruits I would know him already, so again your comparison not only holds no water but just shows that you have no concept of what it means to hear the impressions of the Holy Spirit, which is what Paul wanted all of the saints in his day to be able to hear and understand so they would never be misguided. James wrote that some “lie in wait to deceive,” and Hubbard would clearly be one of those.

I understand why you would be reluctant about the concept of “becoming a god” since that sounds presumptuous in the extreme on the face of it, but as I’ve written several times the clear teaching of the Savior was that those who are faithful become a “ruler”, and the apostle John in the Book of Revelation expanded on that to explain not only become a “ruler” but become a “joint heir” with the same inheritance as the literal heir, who is Jesus Christ, and gain a joint throne but only do that because of His grace and through His atonement. The faith spoken about in Hebrews 11, the perfect love spoken about in 1 Corinthians 13, the purity spoken about in 1 John 3:3, are all qualities that are needed for a “joint heir” to do and to be what is promised for those who receive such an inheritance, and those qualities are all about being totally focused on the will of the Father, the will of the Son, and being completely unselfish and filled with perfect love.

 

[RebeccaJ]

but just shows that you have no concept of what it means to hear the impressions of the Holy Spirit, which is what Paul wanted all of the saints in his day to be able to hear and understand so they would never be misguided. James wrote that some “lie in wait to deceive,” and Hubbard would clearly be one of those.

I am so tired of this broken record. Constantly telling people they do not know how to discern God’s voice. Why the constant need to tell people they are not in tune with God. What purpose does this serve for you?

I understand why you would be reluctant about the concept of “becoming a god” since that sounds presumptuous in the extreme on the face of it, but as I’ve written several times the clear teaching of the Savior was that those who are faithful become a “ruler”, and the apostle John in the Book of Revelation expanded on that to explain not only become a “ruler” but become a “joint heir” with the same inheritance as the literal heir, who is Jesus Christ, and gain a joint throne but only do that because of His grace and through His atonement. The faith spoken about in Hebrews 11, the perfect love spoken about in 1 Corinthians 13, the purity spoken about in 1 John 3:3, are all qualities that are needed for a “joint heir” to do and to be what is promised for those who receive such an inheritance, and those qualities are all about being totally focused on the will of the Father, the will of the Son, and being completely unselfish and filled with perfect love.

And yes, again, it must be pointed out to you that the correct understanding is that we become joint heirs with Christ. This in no way describes the mormon error of becoming as God is. THAT is a false teaching. The correct understanding is that we partake of God’s divine nature, we do not become this nature.

 

[ParkerD]

I am so tired of this broken record. Constantly telling people they do not know how to discern God’s voice. Why the constant need to tell people they are not in tune with God. What purpose does this serve for you?

And yes, again, it must be pointed out to you that the correct understanding is that we become joint heirs with Christ. This in no way describes the mormon error of becoming as God is. THAT is a false teaching. The correct understanding is that we partake of God’s divine nature, we do not become this nature.

Rebecca J,
When someone brings up the kind of people that have been brought up to compare with Joseph Smith, then I have to assume they are being sincere and that the comparison they are making is one they have thought about. I am only responding to their apparent misunderstanding, and suggesting that if they think that is an apt comparison, then they haven’t experienced the Holy Spirit because it is completely different than following some charismatic or wordy person who has a group of followers. That is not to say Catholics in general fall into that category. It is a response specific to those who make the comparison they have made.

As to your second point here, your opinion is your opinion, but it is in no way suggested by the scriptures on that topic. Those verses are very clear and specific. They can be “reasoned away” to mean something other than what the words say, but that is a choice someone is making or that their tradition is making for them. The words say what the words say.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
When someone brings up the kind of people that have been brought up to compare with Joseph Smith, then I have to assume they are being sincere and that the comparison they are making is one they have thought about. I am only responding to their apparent misunderstanding, and suggesting that if they think that is an apt comparison, then they haven’t experienced the Holy Spirit because it is completely different than following some charismatic or wordy person who has a group of followers. That is not to say Catholics in general fall into that category. It is a response specific to those who make the comparison they have made.

This is your opinion.

As to your second point here, your opinion is your opinion, but it is in no way suggested by the scriptures on that topic. Those verses are very clear and specific. They can be “reasoned away” to mean something other than what the words say, but that is a choice someone is making or that their tradition is making for them. The words say what the words say.

What I gave you is the teaching of the One True Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded. There is no need to insert false teachings in order to appease your personal interpretation.

 

[zaffiroborant]

RebeccaJ;5353720:

I am so tired of this broken record. Constantly telling people they do not know how to discern God’s voice. Why the constant need to tell people they are not in tune with God. What purpose does this serve for you?

And yes, again, it must be pointed out to you that the correct understanding is that we become joint heirs with Christ. This in no way describes the mormon error of becoming as God is

. THAT is a false teaching. The correct understanding is that we partake of God’s divine nature, we do not become this nature.Rebecca J,
When someone brings up the kind of people that have been brought up to compare with Joseph Smith, then I have to assume they are being sincere and that the comparison they are making is one they have thought about. I am only responding to their apparent misunderstanding, and suggesting that if they think that is an apt comparison, then they haven’t experienced the Holy Spirit because it is completely different than following some charismatic or wordy person who has a group of followers. That is not to say Catholics in general fall into that category. It is a response specific to those who make the comparison they have made.

As to your second point here, your opinion is your opinion, but it is in no way suggested by the scriptures on that topic. Those verses are very clear and specific. They can be “reasoned away” to mean something other than what the words say, but that is a choice someone is making or that their tradition is making for them. The words say what the words say.

You claim specific could you please direct me to the verses that support this:

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

Your co-religionist Zerinus has basically come out and said it is not LDS doctrine and he flat doesn’t believe it. But then again it is what your church teaches to all new members. So where are the verses that support it, if there aren’t and Zerinus seems to imply that there aren’t even any LDS “scriptures” to support it, what is your church teaching? Looks to me (an apparently Zerinus) like they are teaching false doctrine. Will spirit children with “the same relationship to us that we have with HF” go the way of Adam God, Polygamy, Blacks and the priesthood and Blood Atonement?

 

[ParkerD]

You claim specific could you please direct me to the verses that support this: (i.e. being a joint heir means an inheritance as Christ inherits)

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

Your co-religionist Zerinus has basically come out and said it is not LDS doctrine and he flat doesn’t believe it. But then again it is what your church teaches to all new members. So where are the verses that support it, if there aren’t and Zerinus seems to imply that there aren’t even any LDS “scriptures” to support it, what is your church teaching? Looks to me (an apparently Zerinus) like they are teaching false doctrine.

Zaffiroborant,
For what it means to be a joint heir, see Revelation 2:7 and 26, Rev. 3:5 and 21, and Rev. 21:7.

I don’t particularly agree with the wording of that sentence in the Gospel Essentials manual, but I think it means those who inherit being on a throne with Christ do become co-creators of a new separate world (under the guidance of God the Father and Christ) and do help bring spirits into the condition whereby they are ready to go to an earth and gain a physical body and thus progress from being a spirit to being prepared to become a resurrected soul. I don’t think they will be worshiped as Heavenly Father is worshiped.

The verse, “I will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” means a great deal to me about what God intends for those who are faithful to the everlasting covenant.

 

[datamonkey]

Rick O,

I say Joseph Smith was a prophet because I have read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and know both by prayer and by reasoning that **it was not and could not be written by a man or men or women. It is too complex a work. **It has too much fullness of truth, at too many levels of meaning, to have been written by a mortal person or people. Plus I have the witness of the Holy Ghost that IT CAME FROM GOD.

QUOTE]

I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy is as complex if not more so and is written far better than the BOM (having read both). If the standard for divinely inspired works is an intricate plot and brilliant details, then Lord of the Rings must be considered one of best revealed new gospels.uncovered in the last 100 years.

I don’t think anyone denies the JS wasn’t a gifted individual, but it doesn’t mean he was a prophet and the BOM is the inspired word of God.

 

[datamonkey]

You are creating a false dichotomy. The historical data simply doesn’t allow for the scenario you paint that there is but two choices: One must either believe Joseph Smith is a fraud, or they are brainwashed and intellectually blind. There is at least a third option, strongly supported by historical data, that Joseph Smith was a flawed man, but not a charlatan, and despite his flaws, he was overall a good man and he was a man who accomplished many great things, who was sincere in his beliefs in being a prophet and was motivated by a desire to do what he truly believed was God’s will. A reasonable person can make this claim without any reliance on “emotion” because it is firmly supported by historical data.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I am interested in what you consider a flaw. You say Rickard Bushman’s book ‘Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling’ is the definitive book on JS without substantiating your claim. I think one of the most researched and documented books on Mormon Church history is Richard Abanes book ‘One Nation Under Gods’. I would nominate this book as the definitive book on Mormon History and JS.

In ‘One Nation Under Gods’, Richard Albanes documents events in JS life which clearly show what a charlatan JS was. How do you explain his money digging activities? How do you explain his Kirkland Bank fraud? Are these merely the flaws you referred to above? Is Bernie Madoff merely flawed and not a crook? Is Rob Blagojevich merely flawed and misunderstood?

Help me understand what standards you are using to determine what is a flaw and what a person has to do to be considered a dubious character?

 

[swplan76]

… The mere thought that one could become a god bothers me even more.

The idea exists in Christianity, but not in the same way. We are co-heirs with Christ. There is the idea that we become children of God through accepting the invitation He offers us. The Bible presents the idea that we will be in heaven, but we won’t be gods. **The use of the word ‘gods’ seems a bit like a scam to me because it is attempting to lure us to believe that we will be given power - for us to desire God like power is a selfish motive for being redeemed. **There are other selfish reasons that people come to around salvation, but those are not ideal and I don’t believe we will be able to cling to those ideas once we are in Heaven.

I also question the mormon’s use of the words Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are implying some connection to Jesus, yet Jesus said no one would enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. He is the One and Only Savior.

The LDS implies that they have the only connection to Jesus. Many Christian groups have started this way. Yep, the lure of the one true church is a problem. If I could gain salvation just by figuring out which building to go into and which people to agree with, this whole thing would be a lot simpler. The fact is, that God does not want us to affiliate with a theology. God wants us to affiliate ourselves with Him. God is aware of each person across various denominations of Christianity who are sincere in their desire for Him. God is not impressed with our affiliation with human theology or denomination - God wants our sincerity. “He is the One and Only Savior.” The church won’t save us; He will. I am not advocating that we stay away from church - I am advocating that we seek God and as we do this, regardless of our denominational affiliation, we will become more and more the people that He desires us to be (maybe the walls that divide us will begin to come down in amazing ways). In many Protestant churches the walls are coming down. I know many Protestants and Catholics who are increasingly coming together. We don’t have to agree on everything. “Now we see but a poor reflection, then we shall see fully.” We will not figure everything out perfectly now, perfect understanding and agreement will come later, when we can all see with perfect vision.

The whole LDS thing seems like false advertising. Bait and Switch if you like.

I have often felt this way. They like to come off as though they are very much like protestants, but they don’t present some of the more off the track stuff until much later.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
For what it means to be a joint heir, see Revelation 2:7 and 26, Rev. 3:5 and 21, and Rev. 21:7.

I don’t particularly agree with the wording of that sentence in the Gospel Essentials manual, but I think it means those who inherit being on a throne with Christ do become co-creators of a new separate world (under the guidance of God the Father and Christ) and do help bring spirits into the condition whereby they are ready to go to an earth and gain a physical body and thus progress from being a spirit to being prepared to become a resurrected soul. I don’t think they will be worshiped as Heavenly Father is worshiped.

The verse, “I will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” means a great deal to me about what God intends for those who are faithful to the everlasting covenant.

*2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations

3:5 He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.*

I don’t see any support for what you’ve laid out in the verses you cite. I’ve read Revelation before and reading your citations again, I see nothing that lends itself in support of what you stated.

As for not agreeing with the sentence in the manual, it’s approved and published by your church. It is the required manual for the instruction of its’ new members. In a church where the prophet is concerned about how many earrings a woman wears I find it hard to believe this same prophet would be so caviler as to let something incorrect be published in its’ name and taught to new members.

And again I suggest you read Jordan Vajda’s writing on theosis, perhaps then you will quit misstating our beliefs on “joint heirs”. You make a great deal of noise about us “thinking outside the box” and understanding your beliefs but I see no effort on your part to reciprocate.

 

[ParkerD]

*2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations

3:5 He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.*

I don’t see any support for what you’ve laid out in the verses you cite. I’ve read Revelation before and reading your citations again, I see nothing that lends itself in support of what you stated.

As for not agreeing with the sentence in the manual, it’s approved and published by your church. It is the required manual for the instruction of its’ new members. In a church where the prophet is concerned about how many earrings a woman wears I find it hard to believe this same prophet would be so caviler as to let something incorrect be published in its’ name and taught to new members.

And again I suggest you read Jordan Vajda’s writing on theosis, perhaps then you will quit misstating our beliefs on “joint heirs”. You make a great deal of noise about us “thinking outside the box” and understanding your beliefs but I see no effort on your part to reciprocate.

Zaffiroborant,
Jordan Vajda wrote the following in his thesis on the subject:

“…as the [LDS] doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means “becoming a god.” Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant “becoming a god.” It seems that if one’s soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and “gotten it wrong” on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a “great apostasy” on fundamental doctrinal questions.” (All are his words, not mine.)

I agree that theosis was taught in the early church. I don’t get the feeling from the way people react that theosis is taught in the current church doctrinal explanations that Catholics in general rely on. Otherwise, why would so many be so critical of the LDS belief on this particular subject?

“He shall be my son” means to me that just as Christ is His rightful heir and sits on a throne, we can become unmerited joint heirs and be called sons who also sit on a throne and inherit “all things” meaning all the qualities and powers that Christ rightfully has and is and exercises in heaven and on earth–always preserving the agency of spirits to choose for themselves.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
Jordan Vajda wrote the following in his thesis on the subject:

“…as the [LDS] doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means “becoming a god.” Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant “becoming a god.” It seems that if one’s soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and “gotten it wrong” on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a “great apostasy” on fundamental doctrinal questions.” (All are his words, not mine.)

A careful reading shows he is not saying Catholics don’t believe in theosis.

I agree that theosis was taught in the early church. I don’t get the feeling from the way people react that theosis is taught in the current church doctrinal explanations that Catholics in general rely on. Otherwise, why would so many be so critical of the LDS belief on this particular subject?

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

*460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: [2 Pt 1:4] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939] “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” [St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4] *[1265, 1391, 1988]

Imprimi Potest
+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church

This shows we currently teach theosis and the quotes given show we have taught it all along. It is just one entry in the CCC of many that discuss this subject.

 

[ParkerD]

A careful reading shows he is not saying Catholics don’t believe in theosis.

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

*460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: [2 Pt 1:4] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939] “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” [St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4] *[1265, 1391, 1988]

Imprimi Potest
+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church

This shows we currently teach theosis and the quotes given show we have taught it all along. It is just one entry in the CCC of many that discuss this subject.

Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for citing those and quoting them. I think they are very good quotes on the subject. I hope many, many readers happen to read (or re-read as the case may be) those quotes and then allow in their minds that the LDS position on this matter is not something they need to think is so strange. What people think in their minds is sometimes different than what may have been intended to have been taught. But I agree with you based on those quotes, theosis is taught in the Catholic church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for citing those and quoting them. I think they are very good quotes on the subject. I hope many, many readers happen to read (or re-read as the case may be) those quotes and then allow in their minds that the LDS position on this matter is not something they need to think is so strange. What people think in their minds is sometimes different than what may have been intended to have been taught. But I agree with you based on those quotes, theosis is taught in the Catholic church.

But the LDS position is strange from our point of view, Heavenly Mother, deification as a couple only, and only for a limited few of those who make it to heaven, spirit children, man and God being the same “species” for lack of a better word. None of these are part of our thinking on the subject and I think it’s these theachings of yours that people are denying so vehemently.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for citing those and quoting them. I think they are very good quotes on the subject. I hope many, many readers happen to read (or re-read as the case may be) those quotes and then allow in their minds that the LDS position on this matter is not something they need to think is so strange. What people think in their minds is sometimes different than what may have been intended to have been taught. But I agree with you based on those quotes, theosis is taught in the Catholic church.

Sometimes I think the problem between Mormons and Catholics is terminology, more than a true difference in what we believe. For example, we will become immortal when when we are in heaven. Immortality itself suggests a sense of being a god. Gods are immortal but earth creatures die, thus they are mortal. All Christian religions have the belief of immortality after death.

Now some of the particulars of Catholicism and Mormonism differ. Like the three heavens, celestial, terrestrial and tellestrial. I think this is an elaboration on what Paul spoke of, about the three heavens. Catholics have Heaven, Purgatory and until recently, Limbo. Mormons have Outer Darkness, Catholics have Hell. These are terms to explain things that are rather inexplicable, but they are just terms.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Joseph Smith copied transcripts written by Solomon Spaulding, and added several word for word passages from the King James Bible. That’s where the BoM comes from.

The first group, the Jaredites, were destroyed as a result of corruption and apostasy. The second group were good Jews, their leader being Lehi. This group divided into two warring factions: the Nephites and Lamanites. Constant warfare between the two nations eventually brought them the same fate as the Jaredites.

The Book of Mormon also describes how Jesus visited the American continent immediately after His Ascension, revealed Himself to the Nephites, preached the gospel to them, instituted baptism, the communion service, the priesthood and other ordinances. Thus Jesus set up His true church a second time here on the American continent - so the book claims.

. The Nephites were annihilated by the Lamanites in a great battle near the hill Cumorah at Palmyra, New York about 385 A.D. Mormon, the last great Nephite leader of his people, gave the golden plates containing the history of his people, to his son, Moroni, who buried them in the ground a short time later. There they remained until Smith was told by the angel to unearth them.

 

[ParkerD]

But the LDS position is strange from our point of view, Heavenly Mother, deification as a couple only, and only for a limited few of those who make it to heaven, spirit children, man and God being the same “species” for lack of a better word. None of these are part of our thinking on the subject and I think it’s these teachings of yours that people are denying so vehemently.

Zaffiroborant,
You may remember that the LDS practice in temples is to try and do temple ordinances for their ancestors who have died, with the hope being that eventually everyone who has lived without getting a full opportunity to understand the doctrine of “sealing” or “binding in heaven” including “turning the hearts of the children to their fathers” and the hearts of the fathers to their posterity because of this sealing union that becomes a part of being “one with Christ”, will receive that full opportunity when they are ready to make such a decision. So I would say that this differs from a notion of a “limited few”. It could be upwards of a billion people (including in that number all young children who died before age eight during all the history of the world).

The LDS emphasis on marriage acknowledges that families are the basic unit of what God wants to happen to His spirit children–for them to learn and progress by the means of being in a family where they will learn so much more than if they were to live on their own, partly by having to deal with their own imperfections and learning to love and forgive within the context of the “real world” rather than what one could call “staying in hiding” or in other words, not having to confront the common issues that come up in marriages and having children to raise. To say that the love bonds of families are preserved after death, seems to me to be very much in keeping with how God has designed this life we live in.

I don’t understand what role Catholics believe there is for women in the eternities to come. I haven’t read anything about that.

To say that Christ was resurrected with a tangible body, and that He was like His Father in Heaven, and that we are asked to become like Christ and promised that we will and asked to keep that as our hope, seems to me to be saying that God does intend for us to become the “same species” as Christ, which is to become one with Them and be like Them.

 

[Catholic20064]

Zaffiroborant,

I don’t understand what role Catholics believe there is for women in the eternities to come. I haven’t read anything about that.

As far as I know there will be no different role for women than for men in the eternities. We will praise and worship God in His presence. We don’t really have to speculate on what we will be doing in the eternities because we can trust God that we will be happy with whatever He has planned for us.

 

[swplan76]

I’m not sure they think they will be gods. Maybe this is true.

However, as a human being, ( and as a Catholic), who has lost loved ones, I certainly hope I will be reunited with them in heaven. I think they are in heaven. I also know God is in heaven and we will be so happy to be with Him and finally see Him face to face. I don’t think the belief that Mormons will be reunited with loved ones in heaven as being strange.

Hey Christine,

     Check on the gods thing... 

     Its not that Mormons will be just reunited with loved ones, but that they build their own celestial kingdom.  Heaven is not about God for them, though He will be there, for them Heaven will be about themselves and about building their own Kingdom.  Whats strange for me is that they build their own kingdom and keep having spirit children as they build their kingdom.  God is the over all King, but they get to develop their own kingdoms and it starts with what they develop here on earth.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
You may remember that the LDS practice in temples is to try and do temple ordinances for their ancestors who have died, with the hope being that eventually everyone who has lived without getting a full opportunity to understand the doctrine of “sealing” or “binding in heaven” including “turning the hearts of the children to their fathers” and the hearts of the fathers to their posterity because of this sealing union that becomes a part of being “one with Christ”, will receive that full opportunity when they are ready to make such a decision. So I would say that this differs from a notion of a “limited few”. It could be upwards of a billion people (including in that number all young children who died before age eight during all the history of the world).

Well since there are almost 7 billion people now and I’ve seen guesstimates that 106 billion have lived on Earth with more to come it seems like a limited few to me. It also stands in stark comparison with theosis where all who attain heaven are deified.

The LDS emphasis on marriage acknowledges that families are the basic unit of what God wants to happen to His spirit children–for them to learn and progress by the means of being in a family where they will learn so much more than if they were to live on their own, partly by having to deal with their own imperfections and learning to love and forgive within the context of the “real world” rather than what one could call “staying in hiding” or in other words, not having to confront the common issues that come up in marriages and having children to raise. To say that the love bonds of families are preserved after death, seems to me to be very much in keeping with how God has designed this life we live in.

And nothing in our teaching says the bonds of love will not survive, nor is the bond of love between husband and wife a requirement for gaining heaven.

I don’t understand what role Catholics believe there is for women in the eternities to come. I haven’t read anything about that.

I’ve never heard of any sex specific role in heaven being taught. In contrast again I have read from some LDS that women will not participate in the creation of worlds because they lack the priesthood. They were quite emphatic about this. Quite frankly I find the LDS view of the role women have in heaven less than appealing.

To say that Christ was resurrected with a tangible body, and that He was like His Father in Heaven, and that we are asked to become like Christ and promised that we will and asked to keep that as our hope, seems to me to be saying that God does intend for us to become the “same species” as Christ, which is to become one with Them and be like Them.

Catholics do not believe this.