What if you want the church to be true,

[charity]

Dill, I think we are going around in a useless circle here. I do not think Church = God.

Lets define terms here. God is the Heavenly Father TBM's worship, and acknowledge as the Head of His Kingdom on Earth, the Church. The God , accepted by others, not TBM's, is a different being, who does not promise an eternal marriage, a Celestial Kingdom, etc.

Now, with that definition, how can Redman say he still believes in God, but no longer accepts His Kingdom on Earth, the Church?

If Redman now says he believe in God then he has denied the covenants he made in temple because they were not made before God, but before God.

The only way Redman and his wife can be together in the Celestial Kingdom, is if he has a change of heart, and accepts God again, because God has no such kingdom or promise.

[Corky Wallace]

Charity,

Unless something escapes me, you're saying the God TBMs worship is distinctly superior to the God other people worship? (Or maybe its more accurate to say the TBM concept of God is more binding to redman's marriage than are other concepts of God?)

I understand you're trying to make a point about a man's commitment to his wife & to a particular concept of God, but I would say that distilled notion is part of why so many people find the LDS faith objectionable.

What if God was looking down at this exclusionary, contrived clubhouse in His name constructed by TBMs and shaking his head in disagreement?

[ave maria]

I would say that distilled notion is part of why so many people find the LDS faith objectionable.

What if God was looking down at this exclusionary, contrived clubhouse in His named constructed by TBMs and shaking his head in disagreement?

Exactly.

[mnn727]

I think eveyone here the last 2 pages is missing the point of what Charity is saying.

LDS believe that marriage is eternal and that only together can a couple enter the Celestial Kingdom. Mrs Redman married Mr Redman in a Temple, thus they were eligible for the CK. Now Mr Redman is breaking his part of the Covenant by not staying true to the faith (listen to a sealing), thus leaving Mrs Redman without her (once) eternal companion. The earthly marriage is still intact, but its now just 'til death'. It doesn't matter what non-believers think of the whole eternal marriage thing. Any believing Mormon that was married in the Temple is going to feel betrayed.

Having married my wife for all eternity, I certainly would feel short changed and betrayed if she stopped believing. If she fell away, I would have lost my eternal companion

That is what Charity is trying to get across.

[Corky Wallace]

MNN - thanks for the clarification & explanation. Within the TBM framework of thought, the point makes sense - the terms of the deal were broken & now there is angst, regret, anger & profound disappointment.

I can understand the sentiment.

My point - if we back up out of the "close up" view of this situation, there are some disturbing observations. Somehow I have a hard time grasping the notion that God approves of His religion being such a negative, divisive aspect in a relationship as important as marriage, especially if there are children involved.

It's not a problem confined to TBMs, but I think people far too often get wrapped up within the ideological frameworks of religion & miss the larger point entirely.

[charity]

Mnn said what I was saying.

And to Corky and Ave, you are missing this: There is no exclusive "clubhouse." God invites all who want to come to Him to join the "club." But if someone says, "I don't want to join your club," He won't force them. And if they futher say, "I want to join that club over there instead," they are perfectly welcome to do that. But club membership has its responsibilities and privileges. If you want the privileges you have to take the responsibility, as well.

There is no other religious denomination that teaches that there is an eternal marriage with increase in a Celestial Kingdom. Until fairly recently there were no Christian marriage ceremonies that offered anything beyond death. Now, by what revelation and by what authority are some denominations offering "forever" marriages? And if they have changed their minds, then what about the couples who were married "until death" before? Are they out of luck?

People who do not believe there is a true Church, or that the LDS Church is true if there is one, should really care less about our concept of eternal marriage.

[ave maria]

I think eveyone here the last 2 pages is missing the point of what Charity is saying.

LDS believe that marriage is eternal and that only together can a couple enter the Celestial Kingdom. Mrs Redman married Mr Redman in a Temple, thus they were eligible for the CK. Now Mr Redman is breaking his part of the Covenant by not staying true to the faith (listen to a sealing), thus leaving Mrs Redman without her (once) eternal companion. The earthly marriage is still intact, but its now just 'til death'. It doesn't matter what non-believers think of the whole eternal marriage thing. Any believing Mormon that was married in the Temple is going to feel betrayed.

Having married my wife for all eternity, I certainly would feel short changed and betrayed if she stopped believing. If she fell away, I would have lost my eternal companion

That is what Charity is trying to get across.

I'm not sure anyone has missed that point.

However:

1) That's only true if the LDS Church is true, and is what it says it is, the authentic Church of Jesus Christ. We accept as a given that those LDS posters posting here believe that to be the case; it should be acknowledged that there are those of differing views, who feel just as strongly that their church is true and correct. (If, on the other hand, the LDS Church is not true, it's a horse of a different color altogether.)

2) Like others here, I think you might be somewhat incorrect in representing LDS belief in "eternal marriage" as it relates to the "Celestial Kingdom." If there is a belief that a marriage once sealed is unsealed by a spouse's inactivity, that's certainly news to me, and makes a mockery of proxy sealings. Further, while it might be true that LDS members believe that to get into the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom, eternal marriage is required, it is certainly not a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom itself (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the "Celestial Kingdom" even exists).

3) It's already been established here that the LDS Church is not unique in believing that marriage is meant to be permanent. There might be those members who believe that is the case, or that the LDS Church has trademarked the term "eternal marriage," but many Christians believe in a just and loving God who intends loving relationships to continue beyond the grave.

I don't think anyone intends to minimize whatever mrs. redman might or might not "feel," but that changes not at all the truth or fiction of the matter, or whether or not she's attached to something valid or invalid.

[ave maria]

Mnn said what I was saying.

And to Corky and Ave, you are missing this: There is no exclusive "clubhouse." God invites all who want to come to Him to join the "club." But if someone says, "I don't want to join your club," He won't force them. And if they futher say, "I want to join that club over there instead," they are perfectly welcome to do that. But club membership has its responsibilities and privileges. If you want the privileges you have to take the responsibility, as well.

There is no other religious denomination that teaches that there is an eternal marriage with increase in a Celestial Kingdom. Until fairly recently there were no Christian marriage ceremonies that offered anything beyond death. Now, by what revelation and by what authority are some denominations offering "forever" marriages? And if they have changed their minds, then what about the couples who were married "until death" before? Are they out of luck?

People who do not believe there is a true Church, or that the LDS Church is true if there is one, should really care less about our concept of eternal marriage.

charity--

With respect, I think you and I are on the same wavelength, just members of different faiths.

I believe quite strongly that I belong to the true and authentic Church of Jesus Christ, and you believe the same. Both of us believe the other to be in error.

Both of us believe that marriage is sacred, solemn, and intended to be permanent.

Both of us acknowledge that it is a challenge if a couple is, or becomes, "unequally yoked," and that heartbreak can come from a family member leaving a faith community.

We're just looking at the same diamond from two different sides of it.

And with respect, you're incorrect regarding other faiths believing in marriage being permanent. We've been over this on other threads, and it isn't necessary for us to derail this one to discuss it further. Just because the LDS Church likes to profess that it has the market cornered on that particular commodity does not make it true.

[Dill Pickles]

Dill, I think we are going around in a useless circle here. I do not think Church = God.

Lets define terms here. God is the Heavenly Father TBM's worship, and acknowledge as the Head of His Kingdom on Earth, the Church. The God , accepted by others, not TBM's, is a different being, who does not promise an eternal marriage, a Celestial Kingdom, etc.

Now, with that definition, how can Redman say he still believes in God, but no longer accepts His Kingdom on Earth, the Church?

If Redman now says he believe in God then he has denied the covenants he made in temple because they were not made before God, but before God.

The only way Redman and his wife can be together in the Celestial Kingdom, is if he has a change of heart, and accepts God again, because God has no such kingdom or promise.

from the Pickle jar: wow. A blue God and a red God. That's a new one on me. On what basis do you posit the existence of two Gods, charity? All this time, I thought LDS worshipped the only God. Do you perhaps have some authoritative sources to back this up (on another thread, of course)?

Now as far as Redman is concerned, back on the first page he gave us a laundry list of things about the LDS church that bother him. Nowhere on that list is God. Evidently it's not the LDS concept of God that bothers him (your blue God); it's the way God's representatives have adminstered the Kingdom here on earth that he objects to. So, since he's not broken his vows, and his covenants are still in place, maybe we can let him work out his issues with God's representatives, huh? Just because he has issues with the church doesn't mean he has issues with God.

I don't know if Redman even believes in God (of whatever color) anymore. He's not said anything about that. All he's said is that he doesn't believe in the claims of the LDS church anymore. Just because he doesn't believe in the claims of the LDS church doesn't mean he doesn't believe in God (of whatever color), nor does it mean his temple vows are broken, nor is his eternal marriage in jeapardy, since he made no vows to the LDS church when he was sealed to his wife. He made vows to his wife; she made vows to him; they made vows to God (of whatever color). It seems to me that since no vows were made between Redman and Mrs Redman to the LDS church, there were no covenants that could be broken.

[charity]

Dill, how many times have we TBM's heard from others, "You don't worship the same God I do!" And we don't. Our God is a glorified resurrected being of flesh and bone, with body, parts, and passions. You know all this. And so whatever it is that others worship, it isn't the same being we do.

So you are saying that Redman is worshipping God as described above, and feels that Church is in apostasy? So God is okay, but the Church is wrong? Then if that is so there was no authority to seal him and his wife, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Corky Wallace]

Charity,

Regarding exclusivity of the "clubhouse" (probably a poor choice of words on my part), I would argue there is indeed some exclusivity.

Not trying to derail the thread, but isn't it an act of exclusion to prohibit non-TBM parents from attending their TBM children's wedding ceremonies?

I have a hard time believing this is God's desire. If a temple worker explains to those parents that they can't attend, is the Lord up there saying "that's right, good job. That's my rule - they can't go in there"

Is that really God's rule, or is this some human interpretation?

[Dill Pickles]

Dill, how many times have we TBM's heard from others, "You don't worship the same God I do!" And we don't. Our God is a glorified resurrected being of flesh and bone, with body, parts, and passions. You know all this. And so whatever it is that others worship, it isn't the same being we do.

So you are saying that Redman is worshipping God as described above, and feels that Church is in apostasy? So God is okay, but the Church is wrong? Then if that is so there was no authority to seal him and his wife, so it doesn't matter anyway.

from the Pickle jar: and because someone says we worship a different God, you accept that we do? I cannot speak for anyone except myself, but I, Dill Pickles, worship God, my Heavenly Father. Just because someone doesn't understand that God has a body, etc., doesn't mean we don't worship the same being. It just means they don't understand God the same way I do, not that we worship different Gods.

As for Redman and his relationship with or worship of God, he can give us the information as he deems it necessary. And since the priesthood authority wasn't on his list on the front page, I can't say where he is on that either. From what he's said, it sounds like he believes in God, he accepts the concept of priesthood authority, but he disagrees with the administrative decisions that were made by some of our leaders. If that's not the case, no doubt he'll tell me I'm all wet (although of course I'm all wet! I'm a Pickle! Brine is my home!) As for the church being in apostacy, we've had prophets tell us that for years, some since the early days of the church. Seems like that used to be a favorite theme for Pres Benson when he wanted the members to read the BoM more. I can't see where things have changed all that much since then. No sense in taking offense at his words now though.

[charity]

Dill, I don't for one minute believe your brain is pickled. However, I think it is fair to say that if we worship God, our Heavenly Father, as we know him to be, someone who worships an ephemeral puff of smoke isn't worshipping the same being we are. Is there something hard about that concept?

[Dill Pickles]

Dill, I don't for one minute believe your brain is pickled. However, I think it is fair to say that if we worship God, our Heavenly Father, as we know him to be, someone who worships an ephemeral puff of smoke isn't worshipping the same being we are. Is there something hard about that concept?

from the Pickle jar: no matter what men (and the occasional pickle) believe, God is God. He is who and what he is, even if man's wrong about the details. You do think that there is only one God and that is Heavenly Father, right? So no matter who anyone prays to, the prayers all go to the same place, right? And even if someone doesn't get the name quite right or the other details quite right, it's still the same Being who answers our prayers, right? And we're all his children, right?

So no matter who tells you that Mormons don't worship the right God, even if someone thinks they're worshipping a cloud of smoke or a pillar of fire or, like us, a resurrected man, it's all the same God, because there is only one God. Right? So as long as Redman keeps in touch with God, I'm not too worried about the details of his salvation. I'm sure he and God can work it out between the two of them.

[charity]

Dill, the scriptures are rife with references to people worshipping false gods, and what happens when they do. I see what you are saying, but I am not sure how much latitude we are allowed. I am sure Heavenly Father, in His ultimate love for His children, will do the best He can for all of us.

But this is a time of testing. Can we say at the judgement, "I didn't read the assigned text material, but I want a passing grade anyway!"

[ave maria]

So God is okay, but the Church is wrong? Then if that is so there was no authority to seal him and his wife, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Bingo.

:lightbulb goes off over charity's head:

[ave maria]

Dill, I don't for one minute believe your brain is pickled. However, I think it is fair to say that if we worship God, our Heavenly Father, as we know him to be, someone who worships an ephemeral puff of smoke isn't worshipping the same being we are. Is there something hard about that concept?

Who worships the "ephemeral puff of smoke?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

[charity]

A friend in a non-denominational Christian church told me that since God was everywhere he couldn't have a reality that you could reach and touch. She always thought of him like a puff of smoke. You could see it, but you couldn't put your hand around it.

[Dill Pickles]

Dill, the scriptures are rife with references to people worshipping false gods, and what happens when they do. I see what you are saying, but I am not sure how much latitude we are allowed. I am sure Heavenly Father, in His ultimate love for His children, will do the best He can for all of us.

But this is a time of testing. Can we say at the judgement, "I didn't read the assigned text material, but I want a passing grade anyway!"

from the Pickle jar: who heard the prayers to the false gods? God did. Was he ticked? Yup. Did he answer their prayers? Yup, just not like they wanted. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and God by any other name is still God.

[Boniface]

A friend in a non-denominational Christian church told me that since God was everywhere he couldn't have a reality that you could reach and touch. She always thought of him like a puff of smoke. You could see it, but you couldn't put your hand around it.

If she thought that you could not "put your hand around it" then obviously she has never taken part in the Sacrament of the Eucharist or a Eucharistic adoration, where we believe Christ is truly present.

I consider God to be a lot like the air I breathe every day. I can't see the air I breathe, but I see the proofs of its existance every day, everywhere around me. I see how the air works and nurtures life. Likeways, I can't see God, but I can see evidence of God's presence every day, all around me. Personally, I don't believe that God has a physical body because I believe that would put a limit on God. He could not be present in all places if he were confined to a body. I can understand why LDS believe that God has a body, and it makes sense to me - I just don't believe it to be truth. Just my 2 cents.

[mnn727]

1) That's only true if the LDS Church is true, and is what it says it is, the authentic Church of Jesus Christ.

What anyone but Mrs Redman thinks is irrelivant and since she married an RM in the temple, I can only assume she believes it is.

[ave maria]

1) That's only true if the LDS Church is true, and is what it says it is, the authentic Church of Jesus Christ.

What anyone but Mrs Redman thinks is irrelivant and since she married an RM in the temple, I can only assume she believes it is.

The point is that individual belief has no impact whatsoever on truth.

I didn't say it's only true if "mrs. redman believes the LDS Church is true." I said it's only true "if the LDS Church is true."

The two are not the same.

[mnn727]

Ava, you're still not getting it.

A believing Mrs Redman is going to feel betrayed by a non-believing Mr Redman.

She married him specifically in a Temple to get a certain end result (ie Celestial marriage). It makes zero diference whether the LDS Church is true or false if she believes it is and that he betrayed his covenants. Part of the Covenants is about 'enduring to the end' which I don't see Mr Redman doing.

[ave maria]

Ava, you're still not getting it.

A believing Mrs Redman is going to feel betrayed by a non-believing Mr Redman.

She married him specifically in a Temple to get a certain end result (ie Celestial marriage). It makes zero diference whether the LDS Church is true or false if she believes it is and that he betrayed his covenants. Part of the Covenants is about 'enduring to the end' which I don't see Mr Redman doing.

I completely get that.

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't reading my posts.

But redman could be a Scientologist, and mrs. redman could have married him thinking he'd be a faithful Scientologist, and now he could be thinking, hey, this Scientology stuff just doesn't seem right, and maybe I should get out and see if there isn't something better.

Is he wrong to leave? Is he unfaithful to his spouse to do so? If he thinks Scientology isn't right, should he try to get his whole family out, or leave them there?

[Boniface]

Ava, you're still not getting it.

A believing Mrs Redman is going to feel betrayed by a non-believing Mr Redman.

She married him specifically in a Temple to get a certain end result (ie Celestial marriage). It makes zero diference whether the LDS Church is true or false if she believes it is and that he betrayed his covenants. Part of the Covenants is about 'enduring to the end' which I don't see Mr Redman doing.

I completely get that.

Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't reading my posts.

But redman could be a Scientologist, and mrs. redman could have married him thinking he'd be a faithful Scientologist, and now he could be thinking, hey, this Scientology stuff just doesn't seem right, and maybe I should get out and see if there isn't something better.

Is he wrong to leave? Is he unfaithful to his spouse to do so? If he thinks Scientology isn't right, should he try to get his whole family out, or leave them there?

Ave, from what I am gathering, it is only OK to leave any OTHER church EXCEPT the LDS church. Redman is at fault here because, though he still loves his wife and wants to remain with her, he also swore allegience to the church at his wedding day - therefore, he isn't living up to his end of the deal. Poor, poor redman.