Do LDS misrepresent what other people believe about eternal togetherness?

[Paloma]

13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

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.

 

Please provide examples of official Christian doctrinal teaching or statements  that contradict the idea that earthly relationships (these may include marriages, families, friendships, etc.) continue in heaven.  

You made that assertion.  Please provide documentation.

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

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. 

This notion runs through all of Plato- in the Republic, the lowest classes are those who work with their hands, and the highest are the thinkers.  In his ideal utopia, the world would be led by "philosopher kings"- who were educated spiritual men- of course men-  who were monarchs who were righteous and educated in the workings of the mind, politics, morality etc.

Pythagoras - yes- THE Pythagoras- was a teacher who taught Plato.  

Think of the difference between someone who contemplated the "mental and spiritual realm" of the Ideal Triangle as opposed to some farmer digging in the dirt trying to figure out how many cubits of rectangular land he can split with his neighbor.   Which job is "higher"?

Working with your hands was considered menial labor.  Next higher caste would be craftsmen, if I remember correctly, because they often spent years learning abstract ideas about the "best" way to make a shoe, or pots that were both beautiful and useful.  This required years of learning abstract principles as well as applying them- but the application was in worldly material and so tainted still by the physical

As I recall the next higher caste is the military because they are necessary to the society to survive, and need to learn principles of righteous leadership, which might help them master further righteous leadership political positions.

And the highest are the "Philosopher Kings" who sit around and think all day about the issues we do here, which means of course that we on this board should be running the world.    .  They are totally engaged in mental activity- plotting and planning and hopefully thinking about the most moral way to serve their subjects.

But you can see how this has influenced all of culture - even down to us.   Who gets paid the most- a menial laborer shoveling dirt all day or supposedly one who "has a college degree"?  Does our society value learning and skill?  Of course it does.

What about military heroes?  They are often seen as a "higher" kind of human than the rest of us.  Politically, military leadership is considered to be advantageous in seeking office.

Just remember that in ancient times there was a lot of shoveling to be done on the streets etc, .   What is a more prestigious position?  Street sweeper or politician? (oops bad analogy... )

Interestingly Plato identifies these castes with they type of soul each caste has.  Too lazy to look it up but as I recall the lowest soul is identified as brass, the next highest as silver, and of course the philosopher kings are gold.

Think of our different kingdoms of glory.

We are not totally immune from thinking this way.

But I read most of my Plato in high school and college freshman so it's been a while.... and I am too lazy to look it up, so some of the details are foggy...

I remember being in High School, a bunch of nerds hanging out in the quad for lunch and we called ourselves the "PK's".....  yuck.  How much hubris can youth create?   Ask Icarus 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Please provide examples of official Christian doctrinal teaching or statements  that contradict the idea that earthly relationships (these may include marriages, families, friendships, etc.) continue in heaven.  

You made that assertion.  Please provide documentation.

Surely you jest.  First you mention how many creedal Christian denominations there are and how many books you have on your shelf, but if you google "no marriage in resurrection" you will find the answer to your question.   It took me 2 minutes

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

"Focus on the Family" is a well known creedal Christian internet source.

Quote

 

Marriage is a picture of the union between Christ and His people

To that end, marriage, the most intimate of human unions, was designed by God as a picture of the bond between Christ and His Church. This is true of all marriage, Christian or otherwise, regardless of whether the participants recognize it as such. Instituted by God at creation, marriage offers a ubiquitous but temporary image of His final, eternal relationship with His redeemed people in the New Heaven and New Earth.

So then, there is indeed marriage in heaven – one great, ultimate consummation between the Lamb and His Bride, described at length in the book of Revelation:

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give Him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure” – for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:6-9)

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:1-4)

In heaven, the picture will be superseded by the reality

According to the Apostle John’s vision of the eternal city, there is no temple in it because God and Christ the Lamb are its temple, being intimately present with their people. Likewise there is no need for sun or moon or lamplight because the Father and the Son will be the source of light for the city. Just as a lamp is unnecessary in the light of the sun, so the sun itself will be unnecessary in the light of God.

And so it will be with the marriages of this present world, fleeting as they are and inevitably severed when death do us part. They will be superseded by that which is far more intimate and beautiful – our perfect, everlasting union with God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why then do we struggle at times with accepting this truth? Why do we fear the perceived loss of emotional and physical intimacy? It’s because we only have direct experience of the things God has given us in this life. We anticipate by faith what He has promised for the future, but we can’t begin to imagine the reality of it.

In his book, Miracles, C.S. Lewis addresses this difficulty with one of his typically insightful metaphors:

The letter and spirit of Scripture, and of all Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life; and this reduces our imagination to the withering alternatives either of bodies which are hardly recognizable as human bodies at all or else of a perpetual fast. As regards the fast, I think our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure, should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer ‘No,’ he might regard absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their raptures don’t bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing that excludes it. We are in the same position. We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the other thing which, in Heaven, will leave no room for it.

This side of heaven, we can indeed only catch glimpses of the things God has prepared for us. 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.

We have but to trust and wait and see.

© 2015 Focus on the Family (Canada) Association. All rights reserved.

 

The entire problem is that there are too many sects, too many doctrines, too many creeds for all of this to come together as "one faith and one baptism".

I love our creedal Christian brothers and sisters, but there is no one doctrine had by all other than that Christ forgives us of our sins.

That's great, but it is insufficient for most folks I am afraid, at least for me.

Edited January 2, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Paloma]

23 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Please provide examples of official Christian doctrinal teaching or statements  that contradict the idea that earthly relationships (these may include marriages, families, friendships, etc.) continue in heaven.  

You made that assertion.  Please provide documentation.

I realize that what I said above may come across as more curt than I'd intended (though I don't particularly like the idea that I'm to spend hours doing Google searches when I'd asked you to support an assertion you had made ... somehow, that doesn't quite compute in my brain!).

Teddyaware, you had wondered if the lack of teaching about the possibility of marriage and families continuing in heaven, could mean that I believe it may be so. And I'd say that Yes, anything beautiful, true and joy-filled is possible.  

I do tend to think, especially with the lack of specific teaching, that we cannot now conceive of what we'll experience in heaven.  We are told that it will be so much more than we can imagine!  And I understand the whole thrust of the Christian Gospel leads to more (restoration of our relationship with God; redemption; fulfilment; intimacy with God, etc.)  And so what that means in terms of our human relationships, I don't know.  Obviously, I don't believe in eternal progression as is taught in the LDS faith.  Without wanting to denigrate that belief in any way, I do want to state that, for those of us who are non-LDS Christians, our belief in the hereafter is very deep, purposeful, hopeful, joy-filled and is centered in God's love.  That's inconsistent with loss, and so I see that whatever we've experienced relationally here on earth will be more, whatever that continuation or fulfilment may encompass.

[cacheman]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

If I remember correctly, the Baha'i believe in eternal marriage. 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Paloma said:

I realize that what I said above may come across as more curt than I'd intended (though I don't particularly like the idea that I'm to spend hours doing Google searches when I'd asked you to support an assertion you had made ... somehow, that doesn't quite compute in my brain!).

I get it.

Thought I would help out.

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

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, cacheman said:

If I remember correctly, the Baha'i believe in eternal marriage. 

I actually have a book written for LDS people which purports to show that Joseph Smith's doctrine was true- as far as it went, but of course it was incomplete since Bahaullah - forgive incorrect punctuation-   IS what we call the "second coming" of the savior.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Cause-Surprising-Latter-Saints/dp/0879610069

The central premise is that we erred in thinking that Christ's coming in glory for the whole world to see was an incorrect interpretation-but the scriptures supposedly claiming that Christ would come "as a thief in the night" were what actually happened- and part of the "test" we are undergoing is to see who figures this out.

I didn't buy the premise. 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Marriage apparently continues after death in Chinese and other Asian ancestral religions.  From what I have read and seen portrayed in media, the afterlife is viewed as similar to this one or at least their needs to a certain extent.  Like Egyptians, possessions (often paper representations) and food are given to the deceased for their consumption.  Women who are unmarried are not connected to any family line and therefore cannot be worshipped by family or even buried in some places, therefore because of this and because of the belief that a man will want a wife to not be alone as well as some places being unmarried make the men unworthy of the family, a custom called ghost marriage (mingyan) continues even now, the wife may be living or a deceased single woman herself.  The theft of female corpses in some areas is a significant problem and there has been a case of two women murdered to sell their corpses.  I have seen a number of dramas based on the premise of the ghost marriage, so popular literary theme.  Same with virgin female ghosts with grudges.

However, many places also believe in reincarnation, so not sure how that works with the idea of marriage continuing.  And there is no guarantee even if reborn as human you become spouses again, though literary themes have eternal soul mates, but these may end up as siblings rather than lovers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ghost_marriage

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37103447

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-07/ghost-marriages-in-rural-china-continue-to-thrive/9608624

Ghost marriage is not restricted to East Asia, but occurred worldwide.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Calm

[Paloma]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

"Focus on the Family" is a well known creedal Christian internet source.

The entire problem is that there are too many sects, too many doctrines, too many creeds for all of this to come together as "one faith and one baptism".

 

"Focus on the Family" is creedal??  And yes, it is a well-known organization.

You're right, mfbukowski, that there are too many sects, too many doctrines, etc.  Earlier, when I mentioned my familiarity with Protestantism and Anabaptism, I thought to myself about how much I'm steeped in and how much I learn from Catholic and Orthodox mystics and writers.  Some of my favourite writers are Peter Kreeft, Henri Nouwen, Richard Rohr, etc.  Truth and beauty are found everywhere in the Christian faith, and unfortunately, dogmatism and unfounded teaching can be found too!  

"Focus on the Family" lost ground with me through some of its conservatism and dogmatism several years ago, though I do accept that a lot of mainstream beliefs and teachings are found there.  

For the last several years, I've been appalled at the stance of that Christian organization and others in the United States when they've (in my opinion) overstepped their bounds and exerted influence in the public sphere.  (That's all I have to say about that, and I hope to not cross into, and especially not lead myself and others into forbidden areas.)

So yes, mfbukowski, you have provided evidence of teaching by a Christian organization that would contradict the beliefs of Christians like me (and all those I've been associated with and studied under) that we cannot teach what happens in the afterlife beyond supreme joy, fulfilment and union with God.

I wonder if teddyaware wants to piggyback off what you've submitted, or if he'd like to bring proof of his own assertions.  

It's all good!

 

[Calm]

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_marriage.asp
 

Quote

According to Hinduism, marriage (vivaha) between two persons is a sacred relationship that is not limited to this life alone. It extends across seven or more lives, during which the couple help each other progress spiritually. The adage that marriages are made in heaven is very much true in case of Hinduism. Two souls come together and marry because their karmas are intertwined and they have to resolve many things together upon earth in order to ensure their mutual salvation. 

The relationship between a couple is essentially a relationship of the souls. It is not necessary that their gender roles are fixed for ever. Some times they may switch roles and the husband may become the wife and the wife the husband. Sometimes they may also temporarily part their ways and come together again after one or two lives in a grand reunion.

 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, cacheman said:

If I remember correctly, the Baha'i believe in eternal marriage. 

https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-71.html
 

Quote

As to the question of marriage, according to the law of God: First you must select one, and then it depends on the consent of the father and mother. Before your selection they have no right of interference. 

Bahá’í marriage is union and cordial affection between the two parties. They must, however, exercise the utmost care and become acquainted with each other’s character. This eternal bond should be made secure by a firm covenant, and the intention should be to foster harmony, fellowship and unity and to attain everlasting life… 

In a true Bahá’í marriage the two parties must become fully united both spiritually and physically, so that they may attain eternal union throughout all the worlds of God, and improve the spiritual life of each other. This is Bahá’í matrimony. 

Among the majority of the people marriage consists of physical relationship and this union and relationship is temporary for at 373 the end physical separation is destined and ordained. But the marriage of the people of Bahá must consist of both physical and spiritual relationship for both of them are intoxicated with the wine of one cup, are attracted by one Peerless Countenance, are quickened with one Life and are illumined with one Light. This is the spiritual relationship and everlasting union. Likewise in the physical world they are bound together with strong and unbreakable ties. 

When relationship, union and concord exist between the two from a physical and spiritual standpoint, that is the real union, therefore everlasting. But if the union is merely from the physical point of view, unquestionably it is temporal and at the end separation is inevitable. 

Consequently when the people of Bahá desire to enter the sacred union of marriage, eternal connection and ideal relationship, spiritual and physical association of thoughts and conceptions of life must exist between them, so that in all the grades of existence and all the worlds of God this union may continue forever and ever for this real union is a splendor of the light of the love of God. 

Likewise if the souls become real believers they will find themselves ushered into this exalted state of relationship, becoming the manifestors of the love of the Merciful and exhilarated with the cup of the love of God. Undoubtedly that union and relationship is eternal. 

The souls who sacrifice self, become detached from the imperfections of the realm of man and free from the shackles of this ephemeral world, assuredly the splendors of the rays of divine union shall shine in their hearts and in the eternal paradise they shall find ideal relationship, union and happiness.

 

[Calm]

Not much detail, but might be present in Polynesian beliefs:

Quote

One song sent back from the dead indicates that even the institution of marriage continues after death: Äïë ka noho mai ai ko taku avana; Äië ku noho mai ai ko Roturotu e.

My spouse was there [in the afterworld]; Roturotu was there.

https://epdf.pub/songs-from-the-second-float-a-musical-ethnography-of-tak-atoll-papua-new-guinea.html

[teddyaware]

4 hours 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.

Adam was enjoying life in the immediate presence of God prior to the fall. If he therefore wasn’t estranged from God’s immediate presence at that time, why did the God who cannot lie declare Adam was indeed alone and in need of a wife in order to effectively ameliorate his solitary condition? Thereafter, upon being joined in marital union with Eve by God himself, Adam prophetically declares (paraphrasing), “for this reason (i.e. that it’s not good for man to be separate and single) shall a man leave his father and his mother (interesting here that Adam uses the name title ‘mother’) and be joined to his wife, and though they be two separate individuals they shall become one flesh.”

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

Please provide examples of official Christian doctrinal teaching or statements  that contradict the idea that earthly relationships (these may include marriages, families, friendships, etc.) continue in heaven.  

You made that assertion.  Please provide documentation.

So you want me to do the work for you when all you have to do is perform the search I suggested and you will instantly get scores of hits from non-LDS sources that support my point? Whether the scores of search results that address this topic amount to “official” statements from the heads of individual churches I don’t know. For example, will you only be satisfied the Catholics don’t believe in eternal marriage and families if one of the popes declared it? Here’s an example of the many offerings on the subject one can find on the net

Question:

If I am a widow who remarried, what will happen to me in heaven?

Answer:

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).

Sacraments like marriage are “road signs” that point us to our final heavenly destination and give us the grace to continue that journey. But when you reach your destination, road signs are no longer needed, and so sacraments such as baptism, confession, and even marriage will not exist in heaven (though the indelible marks on our souls we receive from sacraments like baptism or holy orders will remain with us for all eternity).  Catholic.com

Edited January 3, 2021 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-71.html
 

 

I studied Baha'i fairly intensively, and I think they are quite close to us doctrinally actually but of course the vocabulary and way they interpret scripture is highly different as this quote indicates. You have to ignore the words and find their understanding of what that word means to them.

You have to ignore the rabbit and see only the duck but the image is very close to being the same

 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Paloma]

15 hours ago, teddyaware said:

So you want me to do the work for you when all you have to do is perform the search I suggested and you will instantly get scores of hits from non-LDS sources that support my point? Whether the scores of search results that address this topic amount to “official” statements from the heads of individual churches I don’t know. For example, will you only be satisfied the Catholics don’t believe in eternal marriage and families if one of the popes declared it? Here’s an example of the many offerings on the subject one can find on the net

Question:

If I am a widow who remarried, what will happen to me in heaven?

Answer:

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).

Sacraments like marriage are “road signs” that point us to our final heavenly destination and give us the grace to continue that journey. But when you reach your destination, road signs are no longer needed, and so sacraments such as baptism, confession, and even marriage will not exist in heaven (though the indelible marks on our souls we receive from sacraments like baptism or holy orders will remain with us for all eternity).  Catholic.com

Teddyaware, I appreciate your giving a specific example of what's available on the internet that teach definitively there's no marriage in heaven.

And mfbukowski has given an example ... and I don't doubt that many more could be found online.

Obviously, it's there, though, in my opinion, that teaching goes beyond what is clear in Scripture, and beyond what has been part of my own experience, study and training.

In entering into this conversation, I've wanted to show you that a living, breathing person with much experience and some credentials, finds the teaching foreign and unfamiliar.  The textbooks that I mentioned in an earlier post are widely used, recognized, reputable, textbooks in many Protestant theological colleges and seminaries.

I'm not looking for an argument here (and I'm enjoying the collegial nature of this thread!), but want to bring my own context and ideas into the conversation.

Again, not to argue, but if I were to interact with the doctrinal opinion that you found on the internet (in your quote above), I would point out to that writer who included Romans 7:2 as proof that people will not be married to anyone in heaven, that such a conclusion goes beyond the plain meaning of the text which is addressing the sinful nature and the law of the Spirit, which are at war within us.  The illustration from  marriage is used as an example that when a spouse has died in this life, only then is the remaining spouse free to remarry.  Verse 6 says:  "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code".

While I don't mean to advocate for a position one way or another, I do love the open-endedness and mystery and anticipation of joy when thinking about the afterlife!

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Paloma

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Paloma said:

"Focus on the Family" is creedal??  And yes, it is a well-known organization.

You're right, mfbukowski, that there are too many sects, too many doctrines, etc.  Earlier, when I mentioned my familiarity with Protestantism and Anabaptism, I thought to myself about how much I'm steeped in and how much I learn from Catholic and Orthodox mystics and writers.  Some of my favourite writers are Peter Kreeft, Henri Nouwen, Richard Rohr, etc.  Truth and beauty are found everywhere in the Christian faith, and unfortunately, dogmatism and unfounded teaching can be found too!  

"Focus on the Family" lost ground with me through some of its conservatism and dogmatism several years ago, though I do accept that a lot of mainstream beliefs and teachings are found there.  

For the last several years, I've been appalled at the stance of that Christian organization and others in the United States when they've (in my opinion) overstepped their bounds and exerted influence in the public sphere.  (That's all I have to say about that, and I hope to not cross into, and especially not lead myself and others into forbidden areas.)

So yes, mfbukowski, you have provided evidence of teaching by a Christian organization that would contradict the beliefs of Christians like me (and all those I've been associated with and studied under) that we cannot teach what happens in the afterlife beyond supreme joy, fulfilment and union with God.

I wonder if teddyaware wants to piggyback off what you've submitted, or if he'd like to bring proof of his own assertions.  

It's all good!

 

Yes it is creedal.

In article about "Looking For the Right Church" it gives this advice:

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/looking-for-the-right-church/

Quote

See Basic Christianity by John Stott (InterVarsity Press) if you need a refresher on the essentials of Christianity, or read through some creeds of Christianity such as the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.

We of course eschew any creeds.

One of the reasons I could not accept Protestantism ever is because of the vast differences in beliefs found in what is supposed to be "Christianity".

Just one of many.

It is hard to even understand what precisely the Protestants were protesting when some promote infant baptism and some do not-  and so many other issues-  while strongly affirming the same "Creeds" written by Catholics. I just do not understand the logic of how Protestants can see themselves as "Christians" along with Catholics while both groups accept the same creeds while differing so vastly on the differing doctrines that supposedly grew from those creeds.

As far as that goes, we LDS could accept every  principle of the Apostle's Creed which I learned as a Catholic altar boy, with a few semantic clarifications- and yet we are NOT recognized as "Christian".  

The logic defines........  logic. 

Here is the Apostles Creed.  I have crossed through the words of the original and inserted clarifying synonyms in blue text, which we could easily accept.

Quote

 

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Begotten Son, Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the overshadowing of The Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into  ministered to the spirits in Prison /Hell, the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic  universal Church of Jesus Christ, the communion spiritual community of saints, both living and dead, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

 

Yet of course we accept no creeds as such.   Yet I could easily declare these as my beliefs, as presently confirmed by the Holy Spirit within me

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Paloma said:

In entering into this conversation, I've wanted to show you that a living, breathing person with much experience and some credentials, finds the teaching foreign and unfamiliar.  The textbooks that I mentioned in an earlier post are widely used, recognized, reputable, textbooks in many Protestant theological colleges and seminaries.

In your circles. 

I don't know about others but that is certainly irrelevant to me, and MY circles. I will argue all day that it SHOULD be irrelevant to those to whom it may appear relevant.

And we are all sinners especially in the area of pride.   

Unfortunately many of us could say the same things - in OUR circles of understanding, but if we are having a, a, uh, ....  contest here I cite schools of secular philosophy which support our position and not yours.  Citing yourself as an authority is pretty dang weak, since the argument from authority itself is weak. and then citing yourself as THE authority when you know nothing about the experiences of others....   ?   Really?  While also confessing that you are selecting others as alleged "credentialed "experts who find the area of their alleged expertise "foreign and unfamiliar"??  How is that supposed to work?  How are we supposed to accept them as "experts" in something which they themselves find "foreign and unfamiliar"?

We are here discussing what the spirit has revealed to us personally, with experts being irrelevant.   And some will scoff with the erudite argument "We already have a Bible and I am an expert".   Nice, but why should we accept the Bible over the Zoroastrian Avesta, or any other particular world wide scripture?

Should we accept their claims of being "experts"??

Because each of us receive our own revelations- IF they are that- often with differing answers.

Does that mean that God makes mistakes and tells different folks different "facts"?   That God lies to some?

Or perhaps it is because YOUR revelations are better than MINE?   That is not much of a discussion.  It is unresolvable.

The only resolution I see possible is that God teaches us different paths that work better for some and not for others, but that they all are designed to lead us to Him.

He is the master tutor teaching us the parables which will best communicate to each of us personally, and yet after we pass away when things about the afterlife become clearer, and our progression continues- we will continue growing closer to truth as we all grow closer to God.

It's the only reasonable answer for why we may be taught different stories by the Spirit of Truth.

And we are the only Christian church with that approach.

We are all experts in living our own lives, thank you, but that approach is not very effective I am afraid. 

Many of us here have high degrees in theology, religion and philosophy and have been "pastors", college professors in these areas, and have studied these matters for a life time.  

Perhaps you should leave those here who feel familiar with these ideas to discuss them, and for us to ignore those who find these ideas "foreign and unfamiliar"

It is simply an issue of credibility at this point.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/2/2021 at 1:06 PM, Paloma said:

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. 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 1/2/2021 at 9:29 AM, 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

And it goes where "No Christian has gone before" and makes the Family as an entity which pervades all of human experience and theology.   

Good or bad we all have parents.

Wow!

Remember also we even see the Godhead as explained as a "forever family" itself, unified by purpose and the biblical line "God is love" which I take as paralleling the statement that "the family is love"

The family is certainly the ultimate expression of what makes humans "one" with each other, to the point of describing a married man and woman as "one flesh"

And then there is KJV Corinthians 15:40 describing different kinds of flesh, a passage that was not understood for 2000 years

Quote

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Yep.

It all just makes sense and there is even evidence for these beliefs as being ancient 

Great stuff!   Hmmmm.....   I think I'll stay in the church... ! 

Besides the Spirit hammering me with testimony experiences, others can't even dream up unified doctrine that is cohesive and a logical paradigm for how all this could work from metaphysics to the bedroom.

Nah, I ain't a goin' nowhere!  

[Paloma]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Perhaps you should leave those here who feel familiar with these ideas to discuss them, and for us to ignore those who find these ideas "foreign and unfamiliar"

It is simply an issue of credibility at this point.

Sorry for intruding, mfbukowski.

I'm not sure if you're a "tough crowd" of one, or if I'm failing to come across as I intend, in general.

Somehow, I sense there may be a few people who can understand where I'm coming from. 

But I recognize that message boards are not an easy or clear way to communicate, and then there's the fact that I very seldom contribute to the board, so I really am "unknown".  I read much more than I post and there are long periods when I don't access the board at all.  When I do read, I find people that I very much like and feel I know somewhat through having read this board sporadically for many years ... and then I realize that people don't know me at all, or very little.

Just want to add ... and this is ridiculous, i know, but I'm in tears right now.  I used to think that Navidad was too emotional about responses on this board, but now I'm getting a sense of how he felt.  I'm not cut out for this ... no responsibility but my own!

Edited January 4, 2021 by Paloma

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Paloma said:

Sorry for intruding, mfbukowski.

I'm not sure if you're a "tough crowd" of one, or if I'm failing to come across as I intend, in general.

Somehow, I sense there may be a few people who can understand where I'm coming from. 

But I recognize that message boards are not an easy or clear way to communicate, and then there's the fact that I very seldom contribute to the board, so I really am "unknown".  I read much more than I post and there are long periods when I don't access the board at all.  When I do read, I find people that I very much like and feel I know somewhat through having read this board sporadically for many years ... and then I realize that people don't know me at all, or very little.

Just want to add ... and this is ridiculous, i know, but I'm in tears right now.  I used to think that Navidad was too emotional about responses on this board, but now I'm getting a sense of how he felt.  I'm not cut out for this ... no responsibility but my own!

Very sorry. 

I am not sure how emotion figures into a discussion about logic, which to me, it was. I expected a come back straightening me out

I felt you were citing as experts on our beliefs, people you admitted did not understand our beliefs in the first place

There must have been a miscommunication, probably my fault or most likely I am just a jerk, too hardened on "anti" boards whose denizens would cite their philosophical brilliance about matters about which in reality they knew nothing.

Very sorry I have offended now you, @Navidad and @3DOP

I need to repent.

No excuses, it is not Christlike and I need to change.

[Paloma]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Very sorry. 

I am not sure how emotion figures into a discussion about logic, which to me, it was. I expected a come back straightening me out

I felt you were citing as experts on our beliefs, people you admitted did not understand our beliefs in the first place

There must have been a miscommunication, probably my fault or most likely I am just a jerk, too hardened on "anti" boards whose denizens would cite their philosophical brilliance about matters about which in reality they knew nothing.

Very sorry I have offended now you, @Navidad and @3DOP

I need to repent.

No excuses, it is not Christlike and I need to change.

Thank you for this, mfbukowski.

I realize that I haven't communicated as clearly as I'd intended, since you have misunderstood what I've been trying to do and say here.

And I won't try to explain further, as I can't be sure that I'll do any better!

If I left the impression that I'm trying to puff myself up (though I did try to explain my contribution here through a certain amount of self-description) ... that couldn't be further from the truth.  I highly respect the intelligence and depth of knowledge and experience of so many of you on this board.  I'm not a strong logical thinker, and you and others could run circles around me in a debate.  (I know ... I tried debating once, and it was absolutely terrible!  That was over 50 years ago, and I'm sure nothing has changed!)

When I think about how hard it can be to communicate clearly on a message board, I'm thinking about how wise smac is to break down the posts he's responding to, section by section, and answer as clearly, politely and respectfully as possible.

Overall, I really like this board and the people on it.  And I like the way that frequent posters have become a community, all with their different styles and quirks.  But it can be hard for people who very rarely post, to fit in.  And that's probably especially true when the 'relative stranger' comes from a different faith position.  Having said that, I also see that this board can be very welcoming and respectful of newcomers, including those who are not LDS.

I'm here to learn and to make peaceful connections where possible (my name Paloma means peace!), and sometimes to try to explain parts of my faith because I think it may be interesting or enlightening ... but I don't mean to ever be arrogant or patronizing.  It makes me sad when my attempts to 'share' are misunderstood as attempts to correct, or to argue.  

 

 

[teddyaware]

51 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Thank you for this, mfbukowski.

I realize that I haven't communicated as clearly as I'd intended, since you have misunderstood what I've been trying to do and say here.

And I won't try to explain further, as I can't be sure that I'll do any better!

If I left the impression that I'm trying to puff myself up (though I did try to explain my contribution here through a certain amount of self-description) ... that couldn't be further from the truth.  I highly respect the intelligence and depth of knowledge and experience of so many of you on this board.  I'm not a strong logical thinker, and you and others could run circles around me in a debate.  (I know ... I tried debating once, and it was absolutely terrible!  That was over 50 years ago, and I'm sure nothing has changed!)

When I think about how hard it can be to communicate clearly on a message board, I'm thinking about how wise smac is to break down the posts he's responding to, section by section, and answer as clearly, politely and respectfully as possible.

Overall, I really like this board and the people on it.  And I like the way that frequent posters have become a community, all with their different styles and quirks.  But it can be hard for people who very rarely post, to fit in.  And that's probably especially true when the 'relative stranger' comes from a different faith position.  Having said that, I also see that this board can be very welcoming and respectful of newcomers, including those who are not LDS.

I'm here to learn and to make peaceful connections where possible (my name Paloma means peace!), and sometimes to try to explain parts of my faith because I think it may be interesting or enlightening ... but I don't mean to ever be arrogant or patronizing.  It makes me sad when my attempts to 'share' are misunderstood as attempts to correct, or to argue.  

 

 

In honor of you, Paloma, I present the great Slim Whitman — the falsetto king! — belting out his unforgettable hit single Una Palmoma  Blanca! May you always be as peaceful and free as the sweet little bird in the song!

 

[Paloma]

Teddyaware, thank you!

There's a reason that I find LDS people beautiful, and you've just provided such a sweet and gracious illustration of that.