You are welcome, and thank you for the reference. I donāt think Iāve heard of this author before.
In Mormon understanding the man and woman who have been sealed and who have endured to the end, will, by the grace of Christ, inherit exaltation. The man and the woman, together, will be given āpower over the nationsā and they will together āsit with [Christ] in [His] throne.ā In life and in eternity, a husband and a wife are equal partners (Family Proclamation).
So, a man cannot become a god without a wife, and a woman cannot become a goddess without a husband?Good evening zaffiroboran. Good to see you today!
In Mormon understanding the man and woman who have been sealed and who have endured to the end, will, by the grace of Christ, inherit exaltation. The man and the woman, together, will be given āpower over the nationsā and they will together āsit with [Christ] in [His] throne.ā In life and in eternity, a husband and a wife are equal partners (Family Proclamation).
Kind Regards,
Finrock
That is what us Mormons believe, yes.
What comes to mind immediately, since your first questions resembles this scripture in form, is 1 Cor. 11:11 (although this is technically Paul teaching and not Jesus, but considering he was an apostle, his words are as good as gold):
But if you read 1 Cor. 11 in itās entirety thatās not what it says at all, as a matter of fact verse 12 goes on to explain it further and no where does it suggest that marriage is a requirement for gaining heaven. You have as you say below the D&C but you are distorting Corinthians when you say it implies a marriage requirement for salvation.Good evening RebeccaJ! Iām glad to see you.
Thanks for reading my post and for your questions.
That is what us Mormons believe, yes.
What comes to mind immediately, since your first questions resembles this scripture in form, is 1 Cor. 11:11 (although this is technically Paul teaching and not Jesus, but considering he was an apostle, his words are as good as gold):
āNevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.ā
I keep telling Parker that this is a big difference between theosis and exaltation he doesnāt seem to agree. In a nut shell in LDS theology only some are deified, made joint heirs as opposed to Catholic theology where all who make it to heaven are deified, made joint heirs. Not a subtle difference more of a stomping big difference.Being that we are speaking of the LDS perspective, we also have D&C 132 (too much to quote) where we believe Jesus makes it explicitely clear.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that itās important to distinguish here the difference between being in Godās Kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom, and exaltation. A non-married person can inherit Godās Kingdom, in the sense they will be in the Celetial Kingdom, but only married people will be able to receive exaltation, which is the fullness of Godās glory. This is a sublte, yet important distinction to keep in my when speaking of Mormon soteriology.
To be clear, of course, I understand that Catholics have a different interpretation and they rejet the D&C scripture altogether. But, Iām only describing what Mormons believe.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
Finrock, please read this verse in context. Paul is teaching that women and men are equal in the site of God. āin the Lordā He never relates this equality to a requirement of being married in order to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
Well Finrock, this is also where your doctrine of polygamy is laid out. My advice is, you should not listen to such false teachings. It isnāt good for your soul.
Yet another invention. One that was never taught by Jesus Christ, or His Apostles.
To be clear, of course, I understand that Catholics have a different interpretation and they rejet the D&C scripture altogether. But, Iām only describing what Mormons believe.
Yes, I know this. Perhaps one day you will compare what Jesus actually taught, while alive, in His ministry to the errors that have come from a false prophet.
Like I said verse 12 (the one immediately following your quote) elaborates just as RebeccaJ explains.
Not to mention that D&C threatens Emma Smith by name. Oddly enough it was Sarah who instigated Abrahams sexual intercourse with Hagar (not his wife) and as we know it did not turn out well. But she chose it (agency and all) but poor Emma had to be threatened with destruction. Why is that?
Finrock, Thank you for your response.Good afternoon datamonkey! It is nice to meet you.
I appreciate your perspective. Iām sure many people would like to nominate Richard Abanes book as the ādefinitiveā book on Book of Mormon History and JS. Reviews of Abanesā book isnāt very abundant from non-biased sources (i.e., groups who havenāt already determined that a portrayal of Jospeh Smith as a fraud is, ipso facto, undeniably true). However, the few relatively objective (non-Mormon) sources of criticism is fairly consistent: Well documented, yes, but highly negatively biased.
There is, of course, several Mormon critiques of Abanesā work, that delve in to more detail as to some of the many problems with his book (such as here).
I understand what you are saying.
You are correct in that not everyone who is āsavedā in Mormon theology are also exalted. However, theosis doesnāt appear to be as clear cut as you are presenting it either. Iām no expert on theosis, but from what I have understood from my studies is that not everyone who experiences theosis will experience it to the same degree. So, even in theosis there are various ālevelsā. In other words, some will experience theosis to a greater degree than others.
Thanks Parker! Yep, Iāve been sick on and off and Iām trying to get some things done for work. You Ok?
What I mean by redeemed is rescued from the penalty of sin on some level. I guess more specifically Iām asking if LDS believe that only they and people who have accepted JS and the BOM will enter into some level of heaven. Another angle on the question would be, do LDS believe that Catholics and Protestants go to hell?
āā¦as to what kingdom each person will inherit and receiveā¦ā this is another example of a extra-biblical idea.
So youāre saying that Jesus gave us the power to bind and loose partly in order āā¦to help the person realize they had lost something very precious because of their deliberate sinful action.ā
About that shift in approach, I was just saying that it was interesting how dramatically things changed from that point on. The movement was dwindling. There were less than 300 missionaries in the world at that time. When I saw this idea presented, it seemed to be suggesting that all converts were supposed to make a permanent move to Utah - Is this accurate, or was it simply a pilgrimage?
Yeah, I always have a hard time with Revelations. I think it is difficult to come to the conclusions that the LDS church has about that verseā¦ It would be interesting to know where the information I presented came from. I have to admit that I have only seen that idea presented once. I have some anti LDS material that I havenāt listened to that, from its titles, makes me think it might present those ideas. Those things are from Walter Martin.
No, absolutely notāthey go to heaven. Some will undoubtedly desire the covenants necessary for exaltation, and some wonāt but will receive the just reward of a kingdom of wonderful glory beyond our imagination.
We believe in the ālaw of restorationā, including that your resurrected body will reflect the kind of person you were in this life. What I look forward to in the hereafter is no longer ālooking through a glass darklyā and instead finding the āheavenly city whose builder and maker is God.ā I donāt care a whit about what the song you mentioned talked aboutāwhy should I care about any of that sort of thing? Heaven is not about earthly things at all.
See 1 Corinthians 15:40-42
One thing is that we need to be real careful with are terms and their definitions, because they do not always mean the same thing in āMormon speakā as it may mean in a more ātraditionalā context. There are two general understandings of āhellā. Hell can be a temporary place where the unrepentent suffer for their sins temporarily, and hell is also a permanent location for those who are āsons of perdition.ā
I agree with your sentiment and so does the Mormon church. The imagery of crowns, thrones, and such in scripture are symbolic. Mormons arenāt looking forward to getting all this āstuffā literally in heaven. That simply isnāt the case. But, also, the scriptures describe heaven to us and our reward in heaven because God wants us to have a hope of a better life than this. I think scriptures use earthly terms to describe heavenly things. Our desires should not be about wanting āstuffā in the way that we might covet earthly things. But, God has said that our desires should be for āheavenly thingsā because if we are striving for heavenly things, we are striving for that which God wants us to be striving towards. Our eye is looking heavenward, and not downward. In that sense, we should desire Godly things. God desires for us is to have His glory and that is a part of us conforming to His will and His desire, so that we also desire what He desires.
Mormons believe that personal progression is ultimately an individual responsibility. Godās church is intended to help bring about Godās purposes, which the LDS believe to be the bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind (Moses 1:39). Mormons speak of the threefold mission of the Church: Pefect the saints, proclaim the gospel, and redeem the dead. At the local level, church leaders are lay members. A bishop is generally only a bishop for about 5 years, and then usually another lay person is ācalledā as a bishop. This means that in LDS congregations leadership responsibility is shared amongst the members.
You are welcome! And thank you for reading my post and taking the time to provide a response.
I think it is fair to say that if the Book of Mormon isnāt true, then the LDS church isnāt true either. I do think all of your other criteria becomes validated if the Book of Mormon is true.
I donāt think Abanes is automatically disqualified because he is a journalist. I do think that a historian is more of an authority on history than a journalist is.
Perhaps the best approach is to read the book without any presuppositions?
You are welcome.
This is speculation on Vajdaās part. Though, I think it is reasonable to believe that how we experience our communion with God will differ as individuals, just as our experiences of faith differ. However, communion is, as the word implies, done as a community. The community of the people of God are made holy by His graces. To believe that you can work your way into different levels of holiness, is rather, well, materialistic.
Iām not sure how you determined Vajda is speculating. If he is speculating then so are the other Orthodox theologians, because this is their understanding of theosis. In any case, claiming that Vajda is speculating about a matter of Orthodox theosis, and then proceeding to describe a Catholic understanding of theosis is to make an irrelevant conclusion.
According to Orthodox understanding of theosis it isnāt a matter of āworking your wayā in to different levels of holiness. That isnāt what Vajda was suggesting and neither was I. It is a matter of how receptive you are to the requirements of theosis. In the same way, in Mormon soteriology you receive that portion of Godās glory you are willing to accept and align your life to.
More appropriately, in theosis you partake of Godās divine energies. Also, Orthodox understanding of theosis is that you become all that God is by grace, except His essence, or nature. Orthodox theosis is about becoming a god. When you share in the divine energies, you will have all the attributes of god, although you will retain your human nature, you will be, nonetheless, simultaneously āunoriginate and eternal.ā
How Western Catholicism understands theosis differs from the Orthodox understanding. The beatific vision isnāt the same as Orthodox theosis. In fact, the West has largely relagated the doctrine of theosis to a point where it isnāt recognizable when contrasted with how the Orthodox understand it. But, by describing the Catholic understanding of salvation, you arenāt addressing my point, which I stated in my last post (hence the irrelevant conclusion). I was careful to distinguish between Catholic and Orthodox perspectives.
Okay Finrock, this is one place where I really donāt understand the Mormon conception of God. How could God have once been a man? I believe that the whole Universe was created by God. There is only one God, forever and ever, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.Yes, the understanding of human nature between Mormonism and Orthodoxy (Catholicism as well) is ontologically different. In one case, Mormonism, we understand we are the same species as God, therefore our nature isnāt fundamentally different from Godās nature. In contrast, in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, human nature is fundamentally different from Godās nature. However, in the context of my argument, this point is irrelevant. Nothing I suggested in my post was contigent on the contradiction of this distinction in human natures. In fact, itās already an established distinction. As far as Iām concerned, you can safely assume in future conversations with me that I have already taken this distinction in to account.
In LDS theology, God is a man. It isnāt that he was once a man. This should not be understood to mean, however, that God is anything less than perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. God is a Man of Holiness, an Exalted Man, a Glorified Man. Again, allow me to borrow from Vajdaās thesis because I think the explanation he uses will be helpful in understanding this LDS position: