Do LDS misrepresent what other people believe about eternal togetherness?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Common law marriage works when it works only because some 3rd party has made it that way with that common law.  I don't know much about Greek or Roman laws but suspect it worked the same way, only because the government leaders approved/authorized that it work that way.

Nope.

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

In what country or kingdom?  And who is allowing/approving/authorizing that it work that way in that country or kingdom?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Nope.

Actually, yes.  Things work the way they work only because there are laws which, when followed, make them work that way.  And every kingdom or country has a law, actually many laws, which, when followed, make them work the way the lawmakers approved/authorized that they work.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Actually, yes.  Things work the way they work only because there are laws which, when followed, make them work that way.  And every kingdom or country has a law, actually many laws, which, when followed, make them work the way the lawmakers approved/authorized that they work.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Looks to me like what you need is a hobby to keep you from being bored.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

"Until death do you part." That phrase that is part of so many marriage ceremonies may not mean what many LDS claim it means (shameless PB paraphrase). I've been to enough non-LDS funerals to know that many people believe they will be reunited with their loved ones in heaven in the next life. Even yesterday on Facebook one of my friends (non-LDS) announced the passing of his pet cat and talked about how he looked forward to reuniting with his beloved pet in heaven.

Back to "Until death do you part."

Here is just one of the many examples of a Church leader explaining that it means the marriage ends with death.

I was once at a non-LDS wedding and the pastor explained that once married the couple was to spend time together and not look for reasons to be apart. Of course there will be things that the couple may not do together. The husband may participate in recreational basketball or the wife may like to participate in local theater. The pastor warned about finding too many things that would keep the husband and wife from spending time together. Only death would separate them...temporarily. I realized at that wedding ceremony that the people who used that phrase as part of the marriage ceremony were not using it to end or cancel the marriage. It was an admonition to be together until one of them dies. In heaven, when both have passed from this mortal life, there will be a glorious reunion, and there may even be some pets.

There are a lot of people who like the idea of togetherness forever, including their pets (Orson Pratt included the animals), but that is not the same thing as saying that formal Christian doctrine in any way supports that notion.  Ordinary people love the idea of eternal marriage, and one hears it celebrated in song, but where do we find it in mainstream Christian doctrine?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I have a few questions to begin with. First, what does it mean to be married vs. not married in heaven? If a couple were married on earth, but aren't sealed, what will be their state be in one of the kingdoms? Will they recognize each other but be forcibly kept apart? (What kind of heaven/degree of glory is that, honestly... that sounds like hell.) Or if they are allowed to be in each other's presence (what does that mean in heaven, anyway), what does not being married mean? That they can't keep a house together or have sex? What do married people get to do in heaven that non-married don't, and why can't non-married choose to do those things?

I think before you analyze and criticize other Christian faiths' views on familial relationships in heaven, you should clarify your own beyond the very abstract: if you're sealed you're together, if you're not you're not.

Now, for my view, I take it on faith that heaven will be exactly perfect. As the Catechism teaches:

It wouldn't be heaven if I was pining away after my friends and family. That's not supreme happiness. So, whatever the state of familial (and other) relationships in heaven, it will be perfect. I will either be with them, or it won't matter, or some other arrangement that I am not aware of or even cannot conceive of.

The Catechism continues:

We don't know, cannot know in this current state, how wonderful and perfect it will be. I have faith in a God who will offer supreme happiness to those who love and follow Him. The details are beyond us now.

To answer the bold I'm going to quote Nehor's post where he said:  "A fulfilled marriage is a divine union, not in the sense that it is sanctioned by God, but because it leads the two (or more?) parties to becoming a God in their unity."

That really is the whole crux of the issue.  You are right in that we don't know the details of how it all will work, but for those couples who are sealed and that sealing is confirmed through the Holy Spirit, they become exalted, gods in their unity, and joint-heirs with Christ in receiving all that the Father has.  

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

"Until death do you part." That phrase that is part of so many marriage ceremonies may not mean what many LDS claim it means (shameless PB paraphrase). I've been to enough non-LDS funerals to know that many people believe they will be reunited with their loved ones in heaven in the next life. Even yesterday on Facebook one of my friends (non-LDS) announced the passing of his pet cat and talked about how he looked forward to reuniting with his beloved pet in heaven.

Back to "Until death do you part."

Here is just one of the many examples of a Church leader explaining that it means the marriage ends with death.

I was once at a non-LDS wedding and the pastor explained that once married the couple was to spend time together and not look for reasons to be apart. Of course there will be things that the couple may not do together. The husband may participate in recreational basketball or the wife may like to participate in local theater. The pastor warned about finding too many things that would keep the husband and wife from spending time together. Only death would separate them...temporarily. I realized at that wedding ceremony that the people who used that phrase as part of the marriage ceremony were not using it to end or cancel the marriage. It was an admonition to be together until one of them dies. In heaven, when both have passed from this mortal life, there will be a glorious reunion, and there may even be some pets.

I addressed this back in 2015:

Quote

Quote

Just anecdotal. Nearly every person I've ever spoken with about eternal families - including thousands as a missionary - believes that they will be with their family in the eternities. How many people you met who say they do not believe this?

Oh, plenty:

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-heaven.html

Quote

The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)? Evidently, there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven. This does not mean that a husband and wife will no longer know each other in heaven. This also does not mean that a husband and wife could not still have a close relationship in heaven. What it does seem to indicate, though, is that a husband and wife will no longer be married in heaven.

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/sex-in-heaven

Quote

Randy, we know from the Bible, there’s no marriage in heaven, and no child bearing either.

http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2003/july/17.18.html

Quote

 

Q. Since the recent death of my wife, a godly "Proverbs 31" woman, I have been wondering if our marriage will continue in heaven. What does the Bible say about this?

A. May God bless and comfort you, John, on the loss of your dear wife. You can be confident that we will someday be reunited with our believing loved ones.
...
So, I think it's safe to say you will see your wife again. Your question, however, is more specific: will your marriage continue in heaven?

Most Protestant commentators since the Reformation have not been comfortable going that far.
...
Although we can't imagine how the marriage relationship might appear in heaven, it's enough to know that we will see and enjoy our believing friends and family again.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodandtruth/2012/09/is-there-marriage-in-heaven/

Quote

One final note: it is not only Swedenborgians (and Mormons) who entertain the possibility of marriage (or something spiritually analogous) continuing in the resurrection. Eastern Orthodoxy allows for that possibility; several Protestant Bible scholars have made similar arguments to the one I make above (e.g. Ben Witherington in Women in the Ministry of Jesus); and even some staunch Calvinists hold it out as a possibility.

http://christianity.net.au/questions/will_my_marriage_and_other_relationship_be_the_same_in_heaven

Quote

So, according to Jesus, people won’t be married in heaven.

http://www.nancyguthrie.com/i-know-we-wont-be-married-in-heaven-but-will-we-know-and-love-each-other/

Quote

We know that Jesus said we won't be married in heaven. But that does not mean we won't have rich, meaningful, intimate relationship with each other in heaven. Certainly we will. It is not that we won't be married. We will all be married to the same person as the bride of Christ and be completely fulfilled.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/marriageinheaven.html

Quote

Contrary to the Mormon view of heaven, it doesn't seem that people in heaven will be either male or female.
...
The idea that we will no longer be married is disturbing to some people. Personally, I like to be married. From an earthly perspective, the dissolution of marriage in heaven doesn't sound like a good thing. However, in heaven, we will be "married" to Jesus, who will be our spiritual "husband."

https://C***.org/will-there-be-marriage-in-heaven

Quote

Christians who were married here on earth will not be married in Heaven. The Bible tells us that marriage is dissolved at death.

http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/theres-no-marriage-in-heaven-luke-2027-38-david-smith-sermon-on-jesus-teachings-113894.asp

Quote

 

Luke Chapter 20 – Jesus tells us that there is no marriage in heaven.

 

 

A few more:

https://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/will-i-still-be-married-to-my-spouse-in-heaven.html

Quote

Although Scripture can be a bit enigmatic about the nature of heaven, Jesus does make one thing clear in the Gospel of Luke: even if we marry on this earth to an earthly spouse, we will not stay married to them in heaven.

https://www.focusonthefamily.ca/content/why-is-there-no-marriage-in-heaven

Quote

Of all the Scriptures dealing with marriage, this is probably one of the least likely to appear on a wedding program. And no surprise there. After all, what young couple embarking on the most important relationship of their lives wants to hear that it won’t last into eternity?
...
We cannot grasp what it will be like to no longer be married or given in marriage, or how that could possibly be better than the relationships we now enjoy.

But we have our Lord’s assurance of His eternal, intimate union with us, and that it will be as far superior to our current state as the light of the sun is to a lightbulb.

https://oklahoman.com/article/3162596/ideas-on-marriage-in-heaven-vary-with-faiths

Quote

Q:Billy Graham recently said that he expects to be with his wife in heaven, but I have seen where other so-called Bible experts say that we will not really know each other in heaven. I have always felt that my husband and I will be together forever, and it upsets me greatly when I hear something like this. Would you please consider doing a column on what Christianity says about this subject?
Carol, Oklahoma City

A:There is tremendous disagreement among New Testament-based faiths on the question of whether couples will remain married and know each other in heaven. Differences are pronounced even among members of the same church or denomination.

Very few Christian traditions officially answer the question whether believers will know their earthly spouses in heaven. The issue usually is not considered an essential teaching, such as the nature of Christ or the effect of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_160.cfm

Quote

Husband-wife relationships will not be destroyed, they will take on a new meaning. We will no longer live in the same married state as we do here upon the earth. However we should not assume this means deprivation. We will retain memory of our loved ones and enjoy fellowship with them.

https://testeverythingblog.com/will-you-be-married-to-your-spouse-in-heaven-ea76e94a6fd2

Quote

What throws us is this notion of “not being married.” In this life, no longer being married to your spouse means separation and divorce. It means division and rupture. In fact, it’s the opposite of how I just described what your relationship will be like in heaven. But Jesus is not talking about this life. He’s talking about the resurrection. And after the resurrection, marriage won’t exist — not because it’s been undone, as if it never happened — but because it has been fulfilled. Marriage won’t exist because marriage won’t be needed.

https://www.epm.org/blog/2017/Jul/7/marriage-christ-heaven-earth

Quote

One of the most frequent questions I’ve been asked about Heaven over the years is about the nature of marriage there. As I share in my book Heaven, there will be one marriage in Heaven {to Christ}, not many. 

https://questions.org/attq/will-we-still-be-married-in-heaven/

Quote

Jesus made it clear that no one will be married in heaven: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30 NIV).

But this doesn’t mean that we won’t know each other or will cease cherishing our earthly relationship. The rich man recognized Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, even though he was in a different place and separated by a “great gulf” (Luke 16:19-31 NKJV). The disciples recognized Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration, even though these two men had lived many centuries before (Matthew 17:1-5). Finally, we recall the striking promise made by our Lord to the repentant thief in Luke 23:43, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with Me in paradise” (NIV).

The apostle Paul said we will have more knowledge in heaven than we have now (1 Corinthians 13:12). This implies that we will know and recognize people more fully in heaven than here on earth. He also said it was “far better” to depart and to be with Christ than to remain in the body on earth (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:22-23).

In all of these passages, heaven is depicted as a place of greater experience than we now know on earth and a place where we will have more knowledge and understanding. This would lead us to believe that we will recognize other members of our family, even though we will not live in family units. Instead, all believers in this age will be united in the bride of Christ and in fellowship with our Savior as the heavenly Bridegroom (Ephesians 5:22-33; Revelation 19:7,9).

Scripture leads us to believe that we will enjoy such a state of wonderful intimacy with our glorified brothers and sisters that there will no longer be a need for the exclusive relationships that protect us from loneliness and despair in a fallen world. 

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/heaven-marriage-resurrection/

Quote

Marriage is a love relationship for sure.  But it is also an institution that is bound up with realities of mortal life. Reproduction is necessary because we someday will die and need to raise up replacements to carry on.  In heaven, we won’t need to worry about the survival of the species or the family name.  Paying the bills and balancing the budget is a big part of the institution of marriage and family as we know them.  But keep in mind we’ve got to go to work to pay bills that we just won’t need to worry about in the afterlife.   Medical insurance is just not necessary when you are immortal.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-marriage-in-heaven-5038

Quote

{M}arriage does not come to a complete end at death but is transfigured, spiritualized, freed from the limits that mark life on earth, as also the ties between parents and children or between friends will not be forgotten. In a preface for the dead the liturgy proclaims: "Life is transformed, not taken away." Even marriage, which is part of life, will be transfigured, not nullified.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/theology-heaven/marriage-heaven

Quote

At the resurrection people will not get married, because in the absence of death there is no need to perpetuate the human race through reproduction. In that sense humans will be like the angels, who don’t have to marry because they don’t die.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/marriage-heaven.html

Quote

Matthew 22:30 provides a clear answer to the question of whether there will be marriage in heaven. Jesus stated, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Jesus personally stated that marriage would not exist in heaven.

Many have speculated as to why marriage will not exist in heaven. 

https://christianity.net.au/questions/will_my_marriage_and_other_relationship_be_the_same_in_heaven

Quote

So, according to Jesus, people won’t be married in heaven. 

https://catholic.net/op/articles/4566/what-do-you-mean-theres-no-marriage-in-heaven.html

Quote

The reality is, is that I have to take Christ at His words.  He says there is no marriage in heaven and I have to believe Him.  When I calm down enough to think about it, I know it must be true because of what marriage means here on earth.  Marriage is a sacrament where a man and woman join together to become one flesh. 

https://chastity.com/qa/did-jesus-say-that-everyones-marriage-would-be-ended-in-heaven-i-thought-that-what-god-has-joined-no-one-could-separate/

Quote

Marriage is intended both for the raising of children and to promote the good of the spouses, including their growth in holiness. Since everyone is perfected in holiness in heaven and everyone will already have been born, the purposes of marriage will have been completed. So where does this leave married couples when they get to heaven? Because sin will be gone and everyone will be filled with God’s love, those who were husband and wife in this life will be able to love one another with an intensity never known to them while on earth. They will live like the angels, in continual worship of God. They are the bride of Christ, and even if their earthly marriage was not made in heaven, it will be fulfilled there.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/no-marriage-in-heaven

Quote

St. Paul says, “A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband” (Rom. 7:2). This means that the marital bond ceases with the death of either spouse, and the marriage has ended. Even if you were married to multiple people in this life, you will not be married to anyone in heaven. Jesus taught that we will not be married in heaven: “When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25).

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/is-there-marriage-in-heaven

Quote

Like every sacrament, marriage was instituted by Christ to help us achieve eternal life. And while marriage—properly speaking—ends in this life, the noblest aspiration of the married couple is achieved in the next.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/are-men-and-women-married-in-heaven/

Quote

But when we get to heaven, there is no need to populate heaven with children. Heaven is populated by those who believe in Jesus. Only those who believe in Jesus go to heaven. Those that go to heaven live there forever. There is no death or suffering. There is no marriage in heaven either according to Jesus.

There are some sources that hold out the possibility that marriage, in some sense, may exist in heaven.  See, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And then there's the reasoning from Swedendborg.  See here, here, here, and here.  However, this assessment seems to be more speculative than declaratory.

In 2015 I noted: "The LDS Church is more or less unique in having a systematic, expressly doctrinal, non-suppositional set of beliefs on this subject."  This still seems to be the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I addressed this back in 2015:

A few more:

https://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/will-i-still-be-married-to-my-spouse-in-heaven.html

https://www.focusonthefamily.ca/content/why-is-there-no-marriage-in-heaven

https://oklahoman.com/article/3162596/ideas-on-marriage-in-heaven-vary-with-faiths

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_160.cfm

https://testeverythingblog.com/will-you-be-married-to-your-spouse-in-heaven-ea76e94a6fd2

https://www.epm.org/blog/2017/Jul/7/marriage-christ-heaven-earth

https://questions.org/attq/will-we-still-be-married-in-heaven/

https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/heaven-marriage-resurrection/

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-marriage-in-heaven-5038

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/theology-heaven/marriage-heaven

https://www.compellingtruth.org/marriage-heaven.html

https://christianity.net.au/questions/will_my_marriage_and_other_relationship_be_the_same_in_heaven

https://catholic.net/op/articles/4566/what-do-you-mean-theres-no-marriage-in-heaven.html

https://chastity.com/qa/did-jesus-say-that-everyones-marriage-would-be-ended-in-heaven-i-thought-that-what-god-has-joined-no-one-could-separate/

https://www.catholic.com/qa/no-marriage-in-heaven

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/is-there-marriage-in-heaven

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/are-men-and-women-married-in-heaven/

There are some sources that hold out the possibility that marriage, in some sense, may exist in heaven.  See, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And then there's the reasoning from Swedendborg.  See here, here, here, and here.  However, this assessment seems to be more speculative than declaratory.

In 2015 I noted: "The LDS Church is more or less unique in having a systematic, expressly doctrinal, non-suppositional set of beliefs on this subject."  This still seems to be the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sad that the LDS church puts asunder that love if one spouse leaves. I've heard of people being told that when one spouse or both leave the church, sadly. 

[Paloma]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

"Until death do you part." That phrase that is part of so many marriage ceremonies may not mean what many LDS claim it means (shameless PB paraphrase). I've been to enough non-LDS funerals to know that many people believe they will be reunited with their loved ones in heaven in the next life. Even yesterday on Facebook one of my friends (non-LDS) announced the passing of his pet cat and talked about how he looked forward to reuniting with his beloved pet in heaven.

Back to "Until death do you part."

Here is just one of the many examples of a Church leader explaining that it means the marriage ends with death.

I was once at a non-LDS wedding and the pastor explained that once married the couple was to spend time together and not look for reasons to be apart. Of course there will be things that the couple may not do together. The husband may participate in recreational basketball or the wife may like to participate in local theater. The pastor warned about finding too many things that would keep the husband and wife from spending time together. Only death would separate them...temporarily. I realized at that wedding ceremony that the people who used that phrase as part of the marriage ceremony were not using it to end or cancel the marriage. It was an admonition to be together until one of them dies. In heaven, when both have passed from this mortal life, there will be a glorious reunion, and there may even be some pets.

Yes, to answer the question of this topic, LDS do misrepresent what other people believe about eternal togetherness.  And, as has been recognized in the comments here, we all tend to misunderstand and misrepresent others' beliefs.

When LDS friends have mentioned their thoughts about "till death do us part"  referring to husband and wife not being together after death, I've tried to explain that there's no thought or intention of that by the actual people making those vows.

In a non-LDS wedding ceremony, the emphasis is much more on togetherness and permanence than otherwise.  "Till death do us part" is first and foremost a call to lifelong faithfulness (as mentioned in the opening post I quoted here).  Secondarily, it is both a recognition that death comes to all of us, and understanding that death may create the circumstance for the bereaved spouse to remarry if the desire and opportunity were present in the future.

I have officiated at many non-LDS Christian weddings.  I would say that most of the time the words "until death do us part" are not even included in the vows spoken by the bride and groom nowadays.  Most often, the concept is not even present.  Or it may be alluded to in something like "... for all the days God gives us together".  That sentiment presupposes that there will be faithfulness to each other in this life, and infers nothing about the next life.  

When pronouncing the marriage, the Christian minister says something like "Inasmuch as the bride and groom have chosen to enter the marriage relationship and have pledged their vows here today, it is my privilege to declare them husband and wife according to the ordinance of God and to the law of the land.  What God has joined together, let no person separate."

As for the next life ... I'm in complete agreement with what has been mentioned in some previous posts about heaven bringing supreme joy.  Eternal life with God cannot be "less than" what we experience now, or even what we can imagine!  Relationships cannot be "less than".  And so, I believe that we will not only know each other and have familial bonds, but it will all be "more than".  Just what that means, and what it will look like, I don't know.  

 

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sad that the LDS church puts asunder that love if one spouse leaves.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've heard of people being told that when one spouse or both leave the church, sadly. 

So keeping covenants is, for you, optional?  Unnecessary?

And how do you get to blaming the Church if someone breaks their covenants?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

More than likely.  Most people I have found don’t understand others’ religious beliefs very well, a superficial knowledge at best.  Saints are unfortunately no different in this case that I have seen.  It is not intentional IMO.  It is just that religion is usually a rather nuanced set of beliefs and members interpret the basic faith core in their own way and add the twist of their own experiences.  It can take a lot of work to have a good grasp.  I think the best solution is to find good believing sources of info and point people to that and leave out the comparisons between faiths unless you were a past believer and have experienced both...though having see how many exmormons talk about the faith, previous membership is no guarantee of even a basic understanding IMO.

It is very charitable for you to assume most people understand their own faith.  

[2BizE]

Yes, I think LDS folks and the church misrepresent this saying.  I think the LDS church blindly believes it has cornered the market for marriage after death. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Yes, I think LDS folks and the church misrepresent this saying.  I think the LDS church blindly believes it has cornered the market for marriage after death. 

Nah, I am just happy that we are the only ones with the madness and arrogance to take it and throw in apotheosis.

Edited January 1, 2021 by The Nehor

[Amulek]

Quote

Do LDS misrepresent what other people believe about eternal togetherness?

I think Latter-day Saints have a pretty accurate understanding of what is taught by most other religions with respect to eternal togetherness. 

Whether or not that corresponds to what people actually believe...that's a different story.

I remember meeting a couple on my mission who believed in eternal families, just as we teach (as opposed to what their church taught) - they just happened to think that their church was wrong about that part. 

 

[3DOP]

On 12/31/2020 at 7:18 AM, teddyaware said:

It’s no secret that the reason why the Catholic and Protestant churches do not believe there will be marriage and eternal families in heaven is because of a misinterpretation of the following oft-cited verses of scripture found in Matthew 22. 

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22)

Whatever individual Catholics and Protestants might privately believe about how human beings are going to relate to each other in eternity, the fact is that the Churches they belong to do not teach that there will be married couples, families, and childbearing in heaven. In fact, Catholic and Protestant defenders will consistently quote the above verses from Matthew to “prove” the Latter-Day Saints are wrong about their belief in the continuation of marriage and family life in heaven. 

I believe whatever the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches. If the Catholic Church taught your interpretation of the passage you quote, I would believe that interpretation.

I don't expect biblically literate non-Catholics to be persuaded with the Bible. I am certainly confident that biblical "proofs" would be useless in convincing any knowledgeable LDS that there is only one plausible interpretation of a passage even if we could limit ourselves to the Catholic Scriptures alone. How much more complicated would that be when I would need to contend with Latter-day Revelation? The first lesson that led me to the Roman Catholic Church was this: The Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. As a Protestant, I became profoundly troubled after having become familiar with so many conflicting, but plausible, and even brilliant interpretations of Scripture. The Catholic Church relieved me of the impossible task of resolving doctrinal controversies with the Bible. 

To the original question? From a non-Catholic point of view, Catholic heaven seems much worse than has been stated. If certain Catholics try to soften "hard truths", I think it is the wrong way to "defend" Catholic heaven. 

3DOP     

 

[teddyaware]

11 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I believe whatever the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches. If the Catholic Church taught your interpretation of the passage you quote, I would believe that interpretation.

I don't expect biblically literate non-Catholics to be persuaded with the Bible. I am certainly confident that biblical "proofs" would be useless in convincing any knowledgeable LDS that there is only one plausible interpretation of a passage even if we could limit ourselves to the Catholic Scriptures alone. How much more complicated would that be when I would need to contend with Latter-day Revelation? The first lesson that led me to the Roman Catholic Church was this: The Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. As a Protestant, I became profoundly troubled after having become familiar with so many conflicting, but plausible, and even brilliant interpretations of Scripture. The Catholic Church relieved me of the impossible task of resolving doctrinal controversies with the Bible. 

To the original question? From a non-Catholic point of view, Catholic heaven seems much worse than has been stated. If certain Catholics try to soften "hard truths", I think it is the wrong way to "defend" Catholic heaven. 

3DOP     

 

One of the things that gives me great confidence that the eternal union of husbands and wives is the Lord’s will and eternal design is because Adam and Eve were joined in Holy Matrimony by God himself, and that if our immortal first parents had not partaken of the forbidden fruit they would have remained a married couple forever. It’s equally significant that the eternal marriage of husbands and wives was the archetypal divine remedy to it not being a good thing that the man was alone.. In the Savior’s redemption from the fall, why shouldn’t the restitution of the principle of eternal marriage be among the lost blessings that are restored?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

From a non-Catholic point of view, Catholic heaven seems much worse than has been stated.

What is wrong with the idea of the Beatific Vision if a nonbeliever?  What do you see as unappealing to nonCatholics?

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

What is wrong with the idea of the Beatific Vision if a nonbeliever?  What do you see as unappealing to nonCatholics?

Hi cal.

The Beatific Vision is not without appeal. It is the price that is unappealing to many minds, including my own at different times in my life. In my opinion, defined Catholic teaching concludes that the Beatific Vision is incompatible with attachment to legitimate earthly joys and temporal blessings. The Beatific Vision supplies for all former desires. Allow me to reproduce what I had decided to withhold if not prompted. The context is Teddyaware's quote of our proposed misinterpretation of Mt. 22 and his reasonings as found in this post: 

Quote

 

It’s no secret that the reason why the Catholic and Protestant churches do not believe there will be marriage and eternal families in heaven is because of a misinterpretation of the following oft-cited verses of scripture found in Matthew 22. 

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22)

Whatever individual Catholics and Protestants might privately believe about how human beings are going to relate to each other in eternity, the fact is that the Churches they belong to do not teach that there will be married couples, families, and childbearing in heaven. In fact, Catholic and Protestant defenders will consistently quote the above verses from Matthew to “prove” the Latter-Day Saints are wrong about their belief in the continuation of marriage and family life in heaven.

 

Here was my full reply, not given mainly because of unedited rambling, until now not posted. It isn't like we are competing for the Nobel Prize here. But I would ordinarily rewrite this over and over:

"Someone, a Catholic below, tries to say that marriage in heaven is transfigured. I think that's sentimentalism that isn't reckoning with the known beliefs of the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church, the angels don't die and they don't reproduce after their kind. Angels are non-physical beings. This gives an idea of what Catholics must believe about marriage in heaven. The Church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Nobody dies, and heaven consists of filling up the finite number of places in "the angel choir" of those who had fallen with Lucifer. No more babies needed. What kind of "marriage" is that? That's transfiguration? The secondary purpose of marriage is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge. No help is needed anymore and it would be impossible that there would be a sex urge where there is no need for procreation.

I don't think LDS could misrepresent the necessary Catholic position. Catholics today are more likely to misrepresent the necessary Catholic position. People make heaven in to what they like on earth. They like golf? The golf courses are wonderful. They like Johnny Cash? You can listen to Folsom Prison Blues over and over and over for the rest of eternity. I love my family and if I make it, my good wife will probably have been my salvation. I trust I will be eternally grateful and filled with unspeakable joy if I should behold my own children or grandchildren securely in God's kingdom. It thrills the soul to think of it. But the earthly relations between parents and spouses and children makes no sense in a Catholic eternity. I do not know how anyone could arrive at such a place, but IF in someone's search for the true church, they have already reached the conclusion that eternal marriage and reproduction in eternity is true, they would have to give up such a conviction to become Catholic.

I hold that eternal marriage and reproduction has an understandable appeal to desires and attachments of this life that has an expiration date. We want our cats and horses and hamburgers and pizza too. Animals do not have free will or eternal souls. If they can merit the blessed face to face vision of God, it is because they could also merit hell. Not being made originally in the image of God, they wouldn't even be cats or horses anymore if they found themselves in heaven or hell. Does a person in heaven starve if they don't eat? Food isn't necessary. Nor is the bathroom. What about the bedroom? Do we get weary and in need of sleep (a figure of death)? God intends to deify His children and liberate them from the desires of the earthbound body for good food, comfortable rest, and many other blessings of this life which are good and necessary here, but unnecessary and even inappropriate for an adopted child of God, possessed with a glorified body that cannot suffer anymore. Distractions will cease plaguing the soul as it gropes to pray. Sometimes, God gives the frustrated soul below, faith in, and the desire to be introduced perfectly in to the life of God. Such souls could not have an aversion for the Catholic heaven. Not knowing what it will be like, could not mean pining for any other treasure.  

So, to repeat...I certainly don't feel misrepresented. I suspect that from an LDS point of view, Catholic heaven is even worse than you imagined it!" 

--------------------- 

So Cal, I re-read your comments from Chrysostom and the Indian priest, and you are trying hard to be fair as always. I think you even succeed. But ultimately, I think many or most folks in our times desire a heaven that looks more earthly than the reality. It is easier to desire heaven when earth obviously stinks! I think it is a grace to perceive this mortal life as  "a vale of tears" as the Catholic prays in the Hail Holy Queen. It makes one ready to be loosed from every earthly tie. Marriage is, for Catholics, an earthly tie. If one had a good marriage that resulted in both spouses attaining heaven, in Jesus Christ, the spouses would no doubt rejoice forever, and together, at the fruits of their earthly union. Is that good enough? Can we dispense with sex, food, rest, more babies, and innocent entertainments and still be satisfactory according to the LDS point of view? If only you should answer in the affirmative, I will happily retract that "from an LDS point of view, Catholic heaven is even worse than you imagined it!" I would recognize that all LDS points of view are not similar. If ALL LDS would answer in the affirmative, I would say that my suspicion was without warrant.     

 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/31/2020 at 2:01 AM, Thinking said:

"Until death do you part." That phrase that is part of so many marriage ceremonies may not mean what many LDS claim it means (shameless PB paraphrase). I've been to enough non-LDS funerals to know that many people believe they will be reunited with their loved ones in heaven in the next life. Even yesterday on Facebook one of my friends (non-LDS) announced the passing of his pet cat and talked about how he looked forward to reuniting with his beloved pet in heaven.

Back to "Until death do you part."

Here is just one of the many examples of a Church leader explaining that it means the marriage ends with death.

I was once at a non-LDS wedding and the pastor explained that once married the couple was to spend time together and not look for reasons to be apart. Of course there will be things that the couple may not do together. The husband may participate in recreational basketball or the wife may like to participate in local theater. The pastor warned about finding too many things that would keep the husband and wife from spending time together. Only death would separate them...temporarily. I realized at that wedding ceremony that the people who used that phrase as part of the marriage ceremony were not using it to end or cancel the marriage. It was an admonition to be together until one of them dies. In heaven, when both have passed from this mortal life, there will be a glorious reunion, and there may even be some pets.

So? Yes we interpret it differently.

Is that supposed to be news?

What will change in discussing it? 

Edited January 2, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

If only you should answer in the affirmative, I will happily retract that "from an LDS point of view, Catholic heaven is even worse than you imagined it!"

I cannot say from an LDS view what appeals because just because we may be anticipating much the same thing, we may be anticipating it for different reasons...appeals to me is different than resonates or makes sense, but is more in line with pleasure or joy.

I also am not locked into ‘it has to be this way, or it just won’t be that great’.  I have heard of several different ideas of heaven that I consider heavenly.

I think as an individual that if the Beatific Vision is what heaven is, I see that as a glorious possibility.  Face to face with God constantly, eternally, ‘viewing’ the ultimate being that exists....I think of how I feel watching a wonderfully performed dance routine where body blends into music such that sound and movement is one.....and that would be tapped into all my senses full throttle.  And what if I could not only watch but perform it perfectly myself without pain or weariness? Wouldn’t that be pretty much the ultimate high and one never ending, never growing dimmer due to tolerance building up, never growing less sweet than the first experience of it, with everything we have in full out engagement.  Boredom would be impossible because perfection would not fatigue whatever receives and processes the experience for us as happens for our mortal bodies (the first taste of sweetness is sweeter, our eyes tire, touch begins to irritate rather than stimulate or comfort...mortal bodies need rest and change, heavenly do not).  Even if that level of connection were to be all that happened, that experience of perpetual joy...what could be sweeter?  If more than just me was experiencing it, that might make it more meaningful....but if already as sweet as can be, while it would be evidence of God’s mercy and love, still perhaps unnecessary for me in my own engagement with God.  Maybe I am misunderstanding what it is anticipated to be and it is not eternal ecstasy, but as far as I understand it, the Vision qualifies for me as a version of heaven I could very much look forward to.

I think I used to be more demanding about what heaven should be like.  Older I get the simpler my desires are.  Right now if it includes no pain and no boredom, it is on my list of acceptable.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Calm

[3DOP]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I cannot say from an LDS view what appeals because just because we may be anticipating much the same thing, we may be anticipating it for different reasons...appeals to me is different than resonates or makes sense, but is more in line with pleasure or joy.

I also am not locked into ‘it has to be this way, or it just won’t be that great’.  I have heard of several different ideas of heaven that I consider heavenly.

I think as an individual that if the Beautific Vision is what heaven is, I see that as a glorious possibility.  Face to face with God constantly, eternally, ‘viewing’ the ultimate being that exists....I think of how I feel watching a wonderfully performed dance routine where body blends into music such that sound and movement is one.....and that would be tapped into all my senses full throttle.  And what if I could not only watch but perform it perfectly myself without pain or weariness? Wouldn’t that be pretty much the ultimate high and one never ending, never growing dimmer due to tolerance building up, never growing less sweet than the first experience of it, with everything we have in full out engagement.  Boredom would be impossible because perfection would not fatigue whatever receives and processes the experience for us as happens for our mortal bodies (the first taste of sweetness is sweeter, our eyes tire, touch begins to irritate rather than stimulate or comfort...mortal bodies need rest and change, heavenly do not).  Even if that level of connection were to be all that happened, that experience of perpetual joy...what could be sweeter?  If more than just me was experiencing it, that might make it more meaningful....but if already as sweet as can be, while it would be evidence of God’s mercy and love, still perhaps unnecessary for me in my own engagement with God.  Maybe I am misunderstanding what it is anticipated to be and it is not eternal ecstasy, but as far as I understand it, the Vision qualifies for me as a version of heaven I could very much look forward to.

I think I used to be more demanding about what heaven should be like.  Older I get the simpler my desires are.  Right now if it includes no pain and no boredom, it is on my list of acceptable.

cal...I have been admiring dancing lately too. A most enjoyable and thoughtful post. Thanks very much.

I retract what it was that I thought all LDS would dislike about the Beatific Vision. I am sure you and I both think that heaven is better than the mere absence of pain from bodily ailments and the boredom that arises from the repetition of that which is imperfectly conceived or performed. I concede that liberty from pain and boredom surely goes a long, long way.

God bless, wishing you a Happy 2021 and forever,

3DOP 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I concede that liberty from pain and boredom surely goes a long, long way.

It is, I would say the minimal requirements.   If there is God, then it will be much more than the minimum surely?  Why would he stop with so little?

Edited January 2, 2021 by Calm

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So? Yes we interpret it differently.

Is that supposed to be news?

What will change in discussing it? 

Mark, hey.

That seems kind of rough on a presumably L.A. Dodger fan tonight. I am re-reading The Boys of Summer which I think I read in high school. You must have some memory of the coming of the Dodgers to So Cal? I was not above two years old yet. I don't think Los Angeles will ever appreciate what Brooklyn lost when that happened. I had been a S.F. Giants fan as a boy. Golden West Radio Network carried them out of Portland. We were always second place to Koufax and Drysdale no matter how much more hitting we had with Mays, McCovey, Cepeda, and others. I dropped them finally with Barry Bonds. I don't think New York could miss the Giants like Brooklyn missed the Dodgers. I went to Dodger Stadium maybe seven or eight years ago. I can't find my expensive Dodger hat that I bought. It was a great experience of a mediocre ball game. Nobody cared if the Dodgers lost. Beach balls were flying around. People came late and left early. I don't know why but there were fireworks after the game for those who stayed. It was a good time. I liked that Vin Scully still spanned both eras. He called games for Pee Wee Reese, Maury Wills, and the new guys...uh...uh...Bill Russell was a decent shortstop after Wills. I can't remember much after the 70's. I belong more in So Cal, and I think not at all in Brooklyn. But maybe the Dodgers were more beloved and appreciated in Brooklyn. 

Do we only discuss what is new and certainly changeable through discussion? Let's only talk about the Dodgers or anything else if it is news or we can change it? I love to talk about Traditional baseball vs. Novus Ordo baseball. Baseball seems to be as fully committed to modernism as any of the popes of my lifetime after Pius XII. Sadly for me, there are no promises from Our Lady of Fatima that when baseball goes Novus Ordo (what besides diabolical disorientation could have conceived the new extra inning rules?) she will eventually triumph anyway. I don't pray for the Dodgers to go back to Brooklyn. But we should be able to talk about whether the Dodgers and Los Angeles now have an immutable relationship.

I wish you and yours a very Happy New Year, Mark, and God bless. All the above intended with good cheer and confidence in your patience with some lightly edited, silly, and very random midnight musings prompted by a Christmas present about what is now and probably will be until the end of time, your Los Angeles Dodgers. Or do you prefer, please say no, the expansion Angels?

Rory

Edited January 2, 2021 by 3DOP
comma to separate Happy New Year Mark

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Mark, hey.

That seems kind of rough on a presumably L.A. Dodger fan tonight. I am re-reading The Boys of Summer which I think I read in high school. You must have some memory of the coming of the Dodgers to So Cal? I was not above two years old yet. I don't think Los Angeles will ever appreciate what Brooklyn lost when that happened. I had been a S.F. Giants fan as a boy. Golden West Radio Network carried them out of Portland. We were always second place to Koufax and Drysdale no matter how much more hitting we had with Mays, McCovey, Cepeda, and others. I dropped them finally with Barry Bonds. I don't think New York could miss the Giants like Brooklyn missed the Dodgers. I went to Dodger Stadium maybe seven or eight years ago. I can't find my expensive Dodger hat that I bought. It was a great experience of a mediocre ball game. Nobody cared if the Dodgers lost. Beach balls were flying around. People came late and left early. I don't know why but there were fireworks after the game for those who stayed. It was a good time. I liked that Vin Scully still spanned both eras. He called games for Pee Wee Reese, Maury Wills, and the new guys...uh...uh...Bill Russell was a decent shortstop after Wills. I can't remember much after the 70's. I belong more in So Cal, and I think not at all in Brooklyn. But maybe the Dodgers were more beloved and appreciated in Brooklyn. 

Do we only discuss what is new and certainly changeable through discussion? Let's only talk about the Dodgers or anything else if it is news or we can change it? I love to talk about Traditional baseball vs. Novus Ordo baseball. Baseball seems to be as fully committed to modernism as any of the popes of my lifetime after Pius XII. Sadly for me, there are no promises from Our Lady of Fatima that when baseball goes Novus Ordo (what besides diabolical disorientation could have conceived the new extra inning rules?) she will eventually triumph anyway. I don't pray for the Dodgers to go back to Brooklyn. But we should be able to talk about whether the Dodgers and Los Angeles now have an immutable relationship.

I wish you and yours a very Happy New Year, Mark, and God bless. All the above intended with good cheer and confidence in your patience with some lightly edited, silly, and very random midnight musings prompted by a Christmas present about what is now and probably will be until the end of time, your Los Angeles Dodgers. Or do you prefer, please say no, the expansion Angels?

Rory

All my best my good buddy, I guess I was in one of my grumpy moods!

Yes I am older than you, but I still have the same view against sports and novels - I see no value for either unless they are cultural classics. I like to get to the point, think it through, create and define my position and keep it forever until I see the error in my ways, then redefine the process.  Seriously.

But being a New Yorker as well, I do remember the move from Brooklyn as a news item, but nothing that would affect my life.  Boring, huh? My family has to tie me down to get me to play a game for fhe or whatever. I just am not motivated by games I guess.

But I don't want  to get down to the serious stuff right down. It's 1:45 a.m.

But I will catch you tomorrow 

Luv ya, but not just because your name is just one letter off of "Rorty".

 

[Teancum]

On 12/31/2020 at 8:18 AM, teddyaware said:

It’s no secret that the reason why the Catholic and Protestant churches do not believe there will be marriage and eternal families in heaven is because of a misinterpretation of the following oft-cited verses of scripture found in Matthew 22. 

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22)

Whatever individual Catholics and Protestants might privately believe about how human beings are going to relate to each other in eternity, the fact is that the Churches they belong to do not teach that there will be married couples, families, and childbearing in heaven. In fact, Catholic and Protestant defenders will consistently quote the above verses from Matthew to “prove” the Latter-Day Saints are wrong about their belief in the continuation of marriage and family life in heaven. 

I wonder how many non LDS Christians you have discussed this with. I can assure you they do believe that family members saved in heaven will maintain some form of familial relationships.  Obviously it will be different to them than what the LDS Church believes because they don't believe in eternal procreation like the LDS Church teaches.