What if you want the church to be true,

[charity]

Ave asks: "The question is, would God prefer that the partners in a marriage stay together despite differences in faith, or to separate over them in order to preserve the objective of the individual."

Paul answers with 1 Cor. 7:14

[ave maria]

Ave asks: "The question is, would God prefer that the partners in a marriage stay together despite differences in faith, or to separate over them in order to preserve the objective of the individual."

Paul answers with 1 Cor. 7:14

Yes. I believe I cited that passage earlier in this thread, if I'm not mistaken.

So then, if Paul is correct, redman and Mrs. redman should stay together, and the whole is greater than the individual concerns here.

Do you agree?

[charity]

I always think couples should stay together if there are children, unless there are issues of abuse. Mrs. Redman will be given the blessings she has worked for, but she will have a harder life if she unequally yoked than if she had gotten the husband she thought she was getting.

[1dc]

The question is, would God prefer that the partners in a marriage stay together despite differences in faith, or to separate over them in order to preserve the objective of the individual?

Speaking of false dilemmas . . .

[ave maria]

I always think couples should stay together if there are children, unless there are issues of abuse. Mrs. Redman will be given the blessings she has worked for, but she will have a harder life if she unequally yoked than if she had gotten the husband she thought she was getting.

I agree about the "unequally yoked" part, as I don't advocate it, and thank God daily for a husband with whom I can worship.

However, I still wonder if this is more about the "getting" or the "giving."

None of us really get our spouses off an assembly line.

[charity]

As you said, Ave, you are very grateful that you and your husband share that most important part of your life. Mrs. Redman can be a wonderful wife to Redman and give and give and give, and grieve every day that she does not have a husband she can worship with. I am sure she did not expect that there would never be conflicts or problems. But when you marry an active member of the Church in the temple, it has to be a shock when the person turns away from that.

Haven't we been here, done that with this discussion?

[ave maria]

As you said, Ave, you are very grateful that you and your husband share that most important part of your life. Mrs. Redman can be a wonderful wife to Redman and give and give and give, and grieve every day that she does not have a husband she can worship with. I am sure she did not expect that there would never be conflicts or problems. But when you marry an active member of the Church in the temple, it has to be a shock when the person turns away from that.

Haven't we been here, done that with this discussion?

I think the point, expressed elsewhere earlier on this thread, is that some faiths would find the word "grieve" inappropriate and somewhat extreme in this situation.

In my own faith, for example, my own salvation, or exaltation if you will, is not dependent in any way upon my husband, so if he chose another faith path, it would not affect me personally in the sense that a hypothetical LDS temple bride might be affected (or believe she is affected) by a change in religious direction in her husband (or vice versa).

And yes, the discussion has come full circle.

My concern is that anyone is making redman feel less of a person for doing what he considers to be correct. Guilt and fear are I believe being employed by some on this thread, and my own view is that the emphasis should be on support, and love.

[charity]

Ave wrote: "I think the point, expressed elsewhere earlier on this thread, is that some faiths would find the word "grieve" inappropriate and somewhat extreme in this situation."

If, and its a big if, Redman never comes back to the Church she will have lost a husband she no doubt loves, for eternity. Is that too extreme to use the word grieve?

[ave maria]

Ave wrote: "I think the point, expressed elsewhere earlier on this thread, is that some faiths would find the word "grieve" inappropriate and somewhat extreme in this situation."

If, and its a big if, Redman never comes back to the Church she will have lost a husband she no doubt loves, for eternity. Is that too extreme to use the word grieve?

As others have pointed out to you, that is not necessarily an accurate depiction of LDS belief, let alone reality.

[charity]

Ave, we can disagree on whether or not the LDS view is correct. You obviously, along with many others, do not accept the LDS view. But I believe that LDS who understand the doctrine will agree with what I said as representing the LDS view. A person who rejects the Gospel in this life does not merit entrance into the Celestial kingdom, if they do not repent.

[juliann]

Again, my observation is that this seems more "self-" oriented than "other-" oriented. While your last sentence could reflect the traditional Christian view of the "Body of Christ," but otherwise, it does appear that LDS practice (if not theology) is more oriented to the individual, rather than the whole, and to the self, rather than the other, and has more to do with completion of a task, rather than the process.

More distortion by the self-appointed spokesperson for "Mormonism". Our theology is and always has been predicated on the human and heavenly family. That is why we do work for our ancestors. That is one of your more outrageous summations of someone else's religion. Stick to your Catholic websites.

[ave maria]

Ave, we can disagree on whether or not the LDS view is correct. You obviously, along with many others, do not accept the LDS view. But I believe that LDS who understand the doctrine will agree with what I said as representing the LDS view. A person who rejects the Gospel in this life does not merit entrance into the Celestial kingdom, if they do not repent.

What makes you think the "grieving spouse" merits the "Celestial Kingdom?"

[ave maria]

That is why we do work for our ancestors.

I'd respectfully suggest that's up for debate.

[Boniface]

Ave, we can disagree on whether or not the LDS view is correct. You obviously, along with many others, do not accept the LDS view. But I believe that LDS who understand the doctrine will agree with what I said as representing the LDS view. A person who rejects the Gospel in this life does not merit entrance into the Celestial kingdom, if they do not repent.

Charity, that is fine that you believe that, but I have to admit that I take issue with it. I can't speak for all the other ex-Mormon posters here, but in my case, I left the LDS church because I really and truly felt I was being prompted and guided by God to do so. In *my* case, I left because I HONESTLY THINK I did what GOD wanted me to do. Do you think that God would give me, as well as possibly others, a revalation that would have eternal consequence? Why would a loving God play such a cruel, heartless trick?

[juliann]

That is why we do work for our ancestors.

I'd respectfully suggest that's up for debate.

Debate all you want. You have shown very little accurate knowledge of Mormonism to date. I see little chance for improvement. What you will do is go back and bicker over the definition of words to wiggle out of the corners you back yourself into. Mormonism depends on the hearts of the children turning to the fathers, etc.

[charity]

Ave, as Redman described his situation he was thinking of leaving the Church, but his wife was not. If she stays true to her covenants, since she was married in the temple, she would merit the Celestial Kingdom.

[ave maria]

You have shown very little accurate knowledge of Mormonism to date.

What happened to your "Your arrogance knows no bounds" post?

My knowledge of Mormonism, and my experience with it, far exceeds any you have of or with Catholicism, which you speak on with some regularity.

[charity]

Boniface wrote: "Do you think that God would give me, as well as possibly others, a revalation that would have eternal consequence? Why would a loving God play such a cruel, heartless trick?"

No, I don't believe that would happen. If you have had what you really believe is a revelation, and you live up to it to the best of your ability, I believe Heavenly Father will reward with all the blessings He yearns to give you.

[juliann]

As others have pointed out to you, that is not necessarily an accurate depiction of LDS belief, let alone reality.

As others point out every day, LDS belief is a wide spectrum. And you are rarely on it. We are the experts in what we believe. Your arrogance is overwhelming.

(I responded to the wrong quote on this, Charity...my apologies...I edited out the original post and made this one with the right quote)

[ave maria]

Ave, as Redman described his situation he was thinking of leaving the Church, but his wife was not.  If she stays true to her covenants, since she was married in the temple, she would merit the Celestial Kingdom.

Now you're being an optimist, charity.

Even when I was LDS, my understanding of LDS theology was that very few people would actually "make it" to the Celestial Kingdom, and that we might even be surprised who actually did and who didn't.

Perhaps your understanding is different.

I somehow doubt that being unsupportive of her spouse would qualify. But as I don't believe in a Celestial Kingdom, the point is moot.

[charity]

Thanks, Juliann. I was hit to the core there for a minute, thinking you were calling me to task. Whew!

[ave maria]

We are the experts in what we believe.

And what is that, exactly?

Shall we expect that if you are ever post-LDS that you will be effectively mum on the topic, and unauthoritative, from that point forward, that your experience or perspective will be rendered void?

Nonsense.

[Boniface]

Ave, as Redman described his situation he was thinking of leaving the Church, but his wife was not.  If she stays true to her covenants, since she was married in the temple, she would merit the Celestial Kingdom.

Now you're being an optimist, charity.

Even when I was LDS, my understanding of LDS theology was that very few people would actually "make it" to the Celestial Kingdom, and that we might even be surprised who actually did and who didn't.

Perhaps your understanding is different.

I somehow doubt that being unsupportive of her spouse would qualify. But as I don't believe in a Celestial Kingdom, the point is moot.

Before anyone thinks ave is simply spreading a skewed version of Mormon beliefs, let me add a personal experience. One day, I was returning from a stake speaking assignment with a member of the stake high council. We got on the subject of the afterlife and he openly admitted that he was nervous about the judgement day. He based his fears on a talk he once heard at general conference that said that the second highest kingdom (forgive me if I can't remember the name right now - my head is currently spinning with geographical terms that I have been studying for an exam Tusday evening) would be the most populus kingdom. He said that this was based on the fact that so many members (as well as non-LDS, of course) of the church were so lacksidasical with living their faith. So, I also heard a simular teaching while in the church. It may not be endorsed as official doctrine, but ave isn't the only one who heard it.

[juliann]

We are the experts in what we believe.

And what is that, exactly?

Shall we expect that if you are ever post-LDS that you will be effectively mum on the topic, and unauthoritative, from that point forward, that your experience or perspective will be rendered void?

Nonsense.

I see no evidence that you ever had a grasp on Mormonism when you were in it...although I am certainly open to the possibility that you are simply making stuff up on purpose. As for me...if I make a career out of harrassing and misrepresenting a religion that is no longer mine you can just shoot me...my life would obviously have little meaning at that point.

[juliann]

Before anyone thinks ave is simply spreading a skewed version of Mormon beliefs, let me add a personal experience.

Eh....that is not the problem. You recognize the diversity of LDS belief. Ave is spreading the misinformation that Mormonism is her narrow vision and nothing else. There is no doctrine on how many "make it". Everyone is going to have their particular take on it. Only Ave is insisting her take is the way it is. This kind of inflexibility is not admired in our religion (we consider it "contentious" when people argue anything in church) and I find it increasingly interesting how many of those with fundamentalistic worldviews cannot handle Mormonism.