Do LDS misrepresent what other people believe about eternal togetherness?

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, “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”? I included that line in recognition of the fact that I’ve actually had rank and file members of those churches tell me that they privately believe they will be reunited as families in the hereafter, and that they believe it even though such notions are contrary to official church doctrine.

Years ago I saw an interview with Theodore Hesburgh, then president of Notre Dame University, where he was asked why there is an insistence within the Catholic Church that priests and nuns remain unmarried and celibate? Hesburgh’s answer was that it was the role of priests and nuns to remain unwed in order to set an example to the members of the church of the “higher and more holy” way of life that they will enjoy while living in heaven, for there will be no marriage and family life in in the world to come.

Edited January 2, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

On 1/1/2021 at 12:32 AM, 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. 

With respect, I disagree.  Swedenborg believed that marriage could survive death, maybe.  But AFAICS, I think the Church is unique insofar as it has a systematic, expressly doctrinal, non-suppositional set of beliefs on this subject.

That's not to deny that some individuals believe that family relationships survive death.  But it seems they do so in contravention of the doctrines of the sects, or as a matter of guesswork/conjecture.  I think that's wonderful.  I even think the Light of Christ may have a hand in such beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

To our Catholics...first off, you need to do something about the Vatican website. It is harder to find stuff on there than it is to find it on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website. In the end I had to resort to google.

Second, from the Catechism:  

Quote

Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." the elect live "in Christ,"598 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.599

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.600

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven to us. the life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."601

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision":

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.602

1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."603

 

This last part, “1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation”, suggests to me Catholics likely anticipate heaven as being more than just being engaged without physical action in contemplation of the Beatific Vision (describing it as sitting around ‘visioning’ seems derogatory, but I cannot find a word to describe what one’s body is doing at the time that doesn’t feel like it is cheapening the experience).  It seems to me it is viewed as possible to be in contemplation while doing other activities or service that God desires one to do.  If so, perhaps the range of the possibilities of what heaven is like has great overlap between the two positions, especially given another part of the Catechism:  “They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face:596”.

But perhaps I am assuming too much given the fundamental difference in my view between the two faiths, which is man is a pure creation of God in one and coexistent for eternity with God in the other, even though God molds that eternal being into a greater ultimate creation than man might achieve somehow on their own. 

PS: the reference to the true identity, their own name resonates with certain aspects of the temple ordinances.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  Swedenborg believed that marriage could survive death, maybe.  But AFAICS, I think the Church is unique insofar as it has a systematic, expressly doctrinal, non-suppositional set of beliefs on this subject.

That's not to deny that some individuals believe that family relationships survive death.  But it seems they do so in contravention of the doctrines of the sects, or as a matter of guesswork/conjecture.  I think that's wonderful.  I even think the Light of Christ may have a hand in such beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

We should limit discussion to Christianity in that it may be possible there are nonChristian faiths where continuation of marriage and family is doctrinal.  It is also possible there are small denominations that have this as doctrinal, but they haven’t been noticed yet by the wiki editors. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Calm

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Years ago I saw an interview with Theodore Hesburgh, then president of Notre Dame University, where he was asked why there is an insistence within the Catholic Church that priests and nuns remain unmarried and celibate? Hesburgh’s answer was that it was the role of priests and nuns to remain unwed in order to set an example to the members of the church of the “higher and more holy” way of life that they will enjoy while living in heaven, for there will be no marriage and family life in in the world to come.

I've encountered this exact same idea with someone I know who is an Anabaptist.  He and I engaged in many interesting conversations about the LDS church and its teachings, and about Christian beliefs in general when we both discovered we had a common interest in the writings of the early Christian Fathers.  But one of the BIG points of contention he had against Latter-day Saint beliefs was over our high regard for marriage.  In his view, marriage is good, but singleness and devotion to the Lord is better.  He, of course, pointed to some of the common arguments used to promote celibacy with verses from the Bible and writings in early Christian teachings, and we both had a very interesting and informative series of conversations on the topic.  He was a married man, but in his view marriage is for those who can't control their sexual desires and celibacy is the higher way of life that gets one closer to God.   

I had a lot of things to say to him to demonstrate why that reasoning is flawed, of course (i.e. even the whole overall example of God himself as our "Heavenly Father" and the symbolisms throughout the Bible of the "family" of God), but I really enjoyed the discussion because it got me to take a close look at how the teaching on that topic shifted through the early Christian writings.  It was all very interesting.

Edited January 2, 2021 by InCognitus

[teddyaware]

Duplicate 

Edited January 2, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

We should limit discussion to Christianity in that it may be possible there are nonChristian faiths where continuation of marriage and family is doctrinal.  It is also possible there are small denominations that have this as doctrinal, but they haven’t been noticed yet by the wiki editors. 

Sounds good.  Do you know of any non-Christian religions that believe in marriage continuing after death?

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I've encountered this exact same idea with someone I know who is an Anabaptist.  He and I engaged in many interesting conversations about the LDS church and its teachings, and about Christian beliefs in general when we both discovered we had a common interest in the writings of the early Christian Fathers.  But one of the BIG points of contention he had against Latter-day Saint beliefs was over our high regard for marriage.  In his view, marriage is good, but singleness and devotion to the Lord is better.  He, of course, pointed to some of the common arguments used to promote celibacy with verses from the Bible and writings in early Christian teachings, and we both had a very interesting and informative series of conversations on the topic.  He was a married man, but in his view marriage is for those who can't control their sexual desires and celibacy is the higher way of life that gets one closer to God.   

I had a lot of things to say to him to demonstrate why that reasoning is flawed, of course (i.e. even the whole overall example of God himself as our "Heavenly Father" and the symbolisms throughout the Bible of the "family" of God), but I really enjoyed the discussion because it got me to take a close look at how the teaching on that topic shifted through the early Christian writings.  It was all very interesting.

It’s great the two of you were able to go into such great depth in your discussions without things becoming uncivil.

My ‘go to’ defense of eternal marriage is to recount that in the beginning God said it was not good for man to be alone, and that his divinely ordained solution to the problem was for Adam to marry a woman for all eternity (If there had been no fall, Adam and Eve would have remained a married couple living in the immediate presence of God forever). It’s very interesting to note that non-LDS Christians believe when men are redeemed from the fall that they will be restored to a state of innocence, sinlessness, immortality and a life enjoyed in the immediate presence of God. Yet for some reason they leave eternal marriage and the commandment to have children out of the list of things that will be restored through the redemption of Christ.

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.  Do you know of any non-Christian religions that believe in marriage continuing after death?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm wondering about Islam?  It seems like, with teachings about people inheriting virgins in the afterlife, that there is something doctrinal about relationships after death there, but I don't know enough to really say.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

To our Catholics...first off, you need to do something about the Vatican website. It is harder to find stuff on there than it is to find it on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website. In the end I had to resort to google.

Second, from the Catechism:  

This last part, “1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation”, suggests to me Catholics likely anticipate heaven as being more than just being engaged without physical action in contemplation of the Beatific Vision (describing it as sitting around ‘visioning’ seems derogatory, but I cannot find a word to describe what one’s body is doing at the time that doesn’t feel like it is cheapening the experience).  It seems to me it is viewed as possible to be in contemplation while doing other activities or service that God desires one to do.  If so, perhaps the range of the possibilities of what heaven is like has great overlap between the two positions, especially given another part of the Catechism:  “They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face:596”.

But perhaps I am assuming too much given the fundamental difference in my view between the two faiths, which is man is a pure creation of God in one and coexistent for eternity with God in the other, even though God molds that eternal being into a greater ultimate creation than man might achieve somehow on their own. 

PS: the reference to the true identity, their own name resonates with certain aspects of the temple ordinances.

Dunno if anyone has mentioned that presently, for the last several hundred years, priests are not married.  The implication seems to say that  marriage would taint the priests higher calling.

That alone  speaks volumes about the lack of importance of marriage in their paradigm.  And remember that the purpose of marital love is reproduction only.  Those points alone illustrate the lack of importance  placed upon sex and physical love in marriage.  The ban against contraception is another prime indicator of this line of thought.

 One of the reasons I left the   Catholic church was because of what appeared to me to be a total lack of understanding of these issues.

 There is no question that physical love and really anything physical or having to do with the body is denigrated.

 Will you believe on the other hand that having a body and as correct use within God's parameters is the greatest gift that we have. We come to Earth in order to obtain a body and that is part of our immortal progression.

 These are differences that go down to the core of the opposing theologies.

 

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.  Do you know of any non-Christian religions that believe in marriage continuing after death?

Thanks,

-Smac

 Much of Hinduism is based on the spiritual aspects of physical love, especially Shiva devotion.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s great the two of you were able to go into such great depth in your discussions without things becoming uncivil.

My ‘go to’ defense of eternal marriage is to recount that in the beginning God said it was not good for man to be alone, and that his divinely ordained solution to the problem was for Adam to marry a woman for all eternity (If there had been no fall, Adam and Eve would have remained a married couple living in the immediate presence of God forever). It’s very interesting to note that non-LDS Christians believe when men are redeemed from the fall that they will be restored to a state of innocence, sinlessness, immortality and a life enjoyed in the immediate presence of God. Yet for some reason they leave eternal marriage and the commandment to have children out of the list of things that will be restored through the redemption of Christ.

 

 This is related to the old Greek prejudice and bifurcation against anything physical. Straight Platonism.  Anything physical cannot be spiritual.

 I once tried to have a conversation with a Catholic priest regarding present nature  of the body of Jesus Christ and he could not answer any questions about Christ's resurrected body as it presently exists 

 It's all a mystery.

 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.  Do you know of any non-Christian religions that believe in marriage continuing after death?

Thanks,

-Smac

Haven’t studied anything in depth, more interested in mythology than doctrine. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

that in the beginning God said it was not good for man to be alone

When man is one with God, he is not alone, correct?  If Adam hadn’t fallen, he would not have participated in the Beatific Vision, I am guessing...believers in the Vision or something like it, please express your belief on this.  If not, he would have truly been alone without Eve.  So I am guessing a nonLDS Christian might say if Adam was forever in the Garden, he needed companionship, but that need no longer exists for anyone who abides in heaven in contemplation and companionship with God.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

When man is one with God, he is not alone, correct?  If Adam hadn’t fallen, he would not have participated in the Beatific Vision, I am guessing...believers in the Vision or something like it, please express your belief on this.  If not, he would have truly been alone without Eve.  So I am guessing a nonLDS Christian might say if Adam was forever in the Garden, he needed companionship, but that need no longer exists for anyone who abides in heaven in contemplation and companionship with God.

Why wouldn't' God wait until Adam had fallen to create Eve then?  Shouldn't wouldn't' have been necessary until that point.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm wondering about Islam?  It seems like, with teachings about people inheriting virgins in the afterlife, that there is something doctrinal about relationships after death there, but I don't know enough to really say.

See here:

Quote

Paradise, which includes all kinds of spiritual and emotional bounties, also contains all kinds of bodily and material bounties. Eating, drinking and marrying are regarded among the highest bounties of Paradise. According to the statements of the Quran and hadiths, the family life that is established in the world will continue forever if both spouses deserve to go to Paradise; their marital relations will go on endlessly. However, the spouses that did not believe and died as unbelievers will be separated from their spouses and they will suffer the punishment for their unbelief by staying in hell forever...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Will you believe on the other hand that having a body and as correct use within God's parameters is the greatest gift that we have.

I am not sure we should phrase it like that as we had gifts given to us before mortality and it seems those would be just as important and valued if necessary for eternal progression.

Also without the Atonement having a body is a burden, possibly one we might regret taking up....though perhaps “within God’s parameters” is meant to include the Atonement.  
 

I see the Atonement as the greatest gift as I don’t care for a fallen nature and if this fallen state was also immortality...that would end up being hell in my view.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why wouldn't' God wait until Adam had fallen to create Eve then?  Shouldn't wouldn't' have been necessary until that point.

Because he was limited in Paradise according to our belief, was he not?  He was not described as one with God...perhaps something we can’t do without the Atonement even if not fallen.  Plus if the veil had already been placed on him...

Depends on how literal we want to make the story and fill in the gaps, I expect.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks!  So now we know we can include Islam as teaching about eternal marriage as well.

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

Because he was limited in Paradise according to our belief, was he not?  He was not described as one with God...perhaps something we can’t do without the Atonement even if not fallen.  Plus if the veil had already been placed on him...

Depends on how literal we want to make the story and fill in the gaps, I expect.

I'm talking about from the Catholic point of view that you seemed to be speaking from.  If I'm misunderstanding let me know, it wouldn't' be the first time.  

If in the Catholic point of view one cannot be described as being alone when they are one with God, and if Teddy is wrong about Eve being created because God believes marriage is essential, then it seems like one question is, why would God create Eve to stop Adam from being alone, if Adam wasn't actually alone?  Adam wouldn't need Eve to fulfill her purpose until after the Fall, something which wouldn't have happened without Eve.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm talking about from the Catholic point of view that you seemed to be speaking from.  If I'm misunderstanding let me know, it wouldn't' be the first time.  

Was thinking more generically, in both how Saints would have viewed what Adam was capable of in the Garden before Eve showed up and how nonLDS might view him (Catholics are not the only ones who believe in a form of the Beatific Vision). 

From the Catholic view I am guessing it would be even more so, because Adam was not a preexistent being and was not created as able to be one with God or the angels at the time it seems, but only having dominion over lesser animals.  There is an gap between man the created and God the creator that is not just development, but type of being.  God was present at times as well in genesis, but he is not always there.  There could have been very long gaps between the times God was in the garden in a way that Adam was aware of him.

[Paloma]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, “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”? I included that line in recognition of the fact that I’ve actually had rank and file members of those churches tell me that they privately believe they will be reunited as families in the hereafter, and that they believe it even though such notions are contrary to official church doctrine.

Years ago I saw an interview with Theodore Hesburgh, then president of Notre Dame University, where he was asked why there is an insistence within the Catholic Church that priests and nuns remain unmarried and celibate? Hesburgh’s answer was that it was the role of priests and nuns to remain unwed in order to set an example to the members of the church of the “higher and more holy” way of life that they will enjoy while living in heaven, for there will be no marriage and family life in in the world to come.

Teddyaware, you wrote this in response to Teancum's words:  "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."

I do want to say that I understand it's hard to know what non-LDS Christians teach about this subject, as there really isn't any official teaching about it, from my perspective.  I know you referred above to having heard from rank and file members.  While I'm a rank and file member of the Christian faith, I also have a lot of experience, reading, study and training.  I grew up Presbyterian, married a Baptist, spent almost 15 years serving with an interdenominational mission agency in Africa, and am a retired pastor of an Anabaptist church.  I have a Masters of Theological Studies, and am an ordained minister in my church denomination.  

In all of my study and experience, I have never come across any teaching about whether or not there is marriage in heaven.  I have studied both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelburg Catechism.  Both refer to eternal joy with God in heaven.  I have taken several courses in Systematic Theology at a master's level, as well as courses in Biblical Theology.  Sitting here right now, I can glance at my bookshelf and find 4 large, comprehensive texts on Theology that are a small fraction of my books on theology,  biblical studies and the Christian life (Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath; Systematic Theology by Augustus Hopkins Strong; Systematic Theology; An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Walter A. Elwell).  There is no mention in any of them about marriages and family life in heaven... which means that there is no teaching about these not existing in heaven.  it simply means that there is no teaching or doctrine concerning matters we do not and cannot know.  

Christian churches and Christian parachurch organizations such as mission agencies typically have Doctrinal Statements.  I have seen many of these and "signed on" with some.  I have never seen any reference to the status (or lack thereof!) of family relationships in the hereafter.

And so, Teddyaware, i would really like for you to support your assertion above that "such notions are contrary to official church doctrine".  What doctrine???  Where???

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I'd be very interested to know where it does exist and what it says, as I haven't come across it, and I do have quite broad experience and leadership in the non-LDS Christian faith ... at least in the Protestant and Anabaptist spheres.  

[teddyaware]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 This is related to the old Greek prejudice and bifurcation against anything physical. Straight Platonism.  Anything physical cannot be spiritual.

 I once tried to have a conversation with a Catholic priest regarding present nature  of the body of Jesus Christ and he could not answer any questions about Christ's resurrected body as it presently exists 

 It's all a mystery.

 

The thing I’d like to know is what’s so darn special and superior about so-called immateriality? Is it not true that these folks believe Satan and his followers are immaterial, yet didn’t they somehow screw things up most royally? So then, where’s the supposed superiority of immateriality? It seems to me life is always going to be full of problems, challenges and contradictions as long as there are self existing intelligences who are capable of making up their own minds, whether they happen to be “immaterial” or not. It all distills down to what goes on within the workings of the mind, as it’s obvious “immateriality” doesn’t help when it comes to avoiding making poor decisions. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by teddyaware

[Paloma]

2 hours ago, Douglas Avans said:

Also in a related subject.....Is There Sex in Heaven?

I really appreciate this article written by Peter Kreeft.  I've often thought that when it comes to sex, the core principles of intimacy, other-centredness, sheer pleasure, and delight in the beloved will be part of our eternal joy with God and loved ones in heaven.

[teddyaware]

9 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Teddyaware, you wrote this in response to Teancum's words:  "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."

I do want to say that I understand it's hard to know what non-LDS Christians teach about this subject, as there really isn't any official teaching about it, from my perspective.  I know you referred above to having heard from rank and file members.  While I'm a rank and file member of the Christian faith, I also have a lot of experience, reading, study and training.  I grew up Presbyterian, married a Baptist, spent almost 15 years serving with an interdenominational mission agency in Africa, and am a retired pastor of an Anabaptist church.  I have a Masters of Theological Studies, and am an ordained minister in my church denomination.  

In all of my study and experience, I have never come across any teaching about whether or not there is marriage in heaven.  I have studied both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelburg Catechism.  Both refer to eternal joy with God in heaven.  I have taken several courses in Systematic Theology at a master's level, as well as courses in Biblical Theology.  Sitting here right now, I can glance at my bookshelf and find 4 large, comprehensive texts on Theology that are a small fraction of my books on theology,  biblical studies and the Christian life (Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath; Systematic Theology by Augustus Hopkins Strong; Systematic Theology; An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Walter A. Elwell).  There is no mention in any of them about marriages and family life in heaven... which means that there is no teaching about these not existing in heaven.  it simply means that there is no teaching or doctrine concerning matters we do not and cannot know.  

Christian churches and Christian parachurch organizations such as mission agencies typically have Doctrinal Statements.  I have seen many of these and "signed on" with some.  I have never seen any reference to the status (or lack thereof!) of family relationships in the hereafter.

And so, Teddyaware, i would really like for you to support your assertion above that "such notions are contrary to official church doctrine".  What doctrine???  Where???

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I'd be very interested to know where it does exist and what it says, as I haven't come across it, and I do have quite broad experience and leadership in the non-LDS Christian faith ... at least in the Protestant and Anabaptist spheres.  

So are you saying it may turn out that there really will be a continuation of earthly marriages and families in the Christian heaven because there’s nothing you’ve read in non-LDS Christian theology that contradicts the idea? Interesting...

I suggest you do a simple Google search under the search terms, “Will there be married couples and families in heaven?” and see what turns up in the results. It should keep you busy for quite some time.