The following quotes are from the LDS Church’s Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual published by the Church Educational System, copyright 1976.
—
In the relationships of husband and wife and parent and child we begin to approach the divine calling of godhood. Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children. (page 1)
—
God Became God by Obedience to Law
It was late afternoon as we sat in my office, but I felt the time had been well spent. He sat silently now, obviously contemplating the ramifications of the things we had been discussing…Finally he spoke…
[Student:] “Then what you are saying is that God became God by obedience to the gospel program, which culminates in eternal marriage.”
[Teacher:] “Yes. Do you realize the implications of this doctrine as far as you are concerned?”
[Student:] “I think so. If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god.”
[Teacher:] “Right.”
(page 4)
—
The Law Which Brings Eternal Life Is Temple Marriage
Law requires that certain objectives be accomplished if we are to become like God. Look at the chart at the bottom of this page.
Why is each step necessary in the acquisition of godlike attributes? Under each step list the thing gained which is necessary for godhood.
[The accompanying diagram is in the form of 8 steps: Birth, Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Temple Marriage, Resurrection, Eternal Life.] (page 5)
—
…God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality. The Prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as “the great secret.”…The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles, ‘for he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.” (page 129)
—
GOD WAS ONCE A MORTAL MAN
He Lived on an Earth like Our Own
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. (page 129)
—
He Experienced Conditions Similar to Our Own and Advanced Step by Step
Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is. (page 129)
—
…even as the infant son of our earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages of aeons, of evolving into a God. (page 130)
—
So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. (page 131)
Gundek:
just to set the record straight here is a verse from 2Nephi2: 28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit
So if you have not heard it before from a Mormon, you have it from me. I actually hear this at least daily.
Jesus gave a very definitive answer on this topic in the Bible. No "hints" about it so as to avoid any possibility of confusion on the issue. Job did not have 2 wives waiting for him in heaven. Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:29-30).
This doctrine of plural marriages in the CK developed out of the perverted mind of one JS so as to justify his own wicked desires. A. W. Tozer (a great American preacher and theologian of the mid-1900's) once said, "A god begotten in the shadows of a fallen heart will quite naturally be no true likeness of the true God. 'Thou thoughtest,' said the Lord to the wicked man in the psalm, 'that I was altogether such as one as thyself.' Surely this must be a serious affront to the Most High God before whom cherubim and seraphim continually do cry, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.' Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it. The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him" (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, pp.3-4).
Jesus gave a very definitive answer on this topic in the Bible. No hints about it so as to avoid any possibility of confusion on the issue. Job did not have 2 wives waiting for him in heaven. Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:29-30).
This doctrine of plural marriages in the CK developed out of the perverted mind of one JS so as to justify his own wicked desires. A. W. Tozer (a great American preacher and theologian of the mid-1900's) once said, "A god begotten in the shadows of a fallen heart will quite naturally be no true likeness of the true God. 'Thou thoughtest,' said the Lord to the wicked man in the psalm, 'that I was altogether such as one as thyself.' Surely this must be a serious affront to the Most High God before whom cherubim and seraphim continually do cry, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.' Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it. The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him" (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, pp.3-4).
I wonder what role 1 Cor 7 plays in this? Paul seems to suggest that marriage is to be had only for those who cannot 'control' themselves, and should be entered into so that one might not sin in that regard. That he even discusses it in that way suggests something other than it being a command.
Gloria! I am so happy for you! about your husband… My wife was born and raised LDS and left the church almost a year ago. I never thought it would happen. So just keep chugging along!!! Love for you and your family!
Ralph, you said "there is no real discussion – you Evs have your mindset and we LDS have ours" – I would like to have a real discussion with you. What is the LDS take on I Cor. 7? If Mormonism is a restoration of original Christianity, why did the 1st century apostle teach it was better to remain single?
I think I know more than you give me credit for. Am I an expert? Hardly, probably enough to be dangerous though, lol. But alas… In seriousness, I use hyperbole to demonstrate a trend, and as Aaron says, far too much has to happen.
The trend is that Mormons want to be seen more and more as Christians, just like the rest of us.
Just a quick example, outside of the doctrines that have been dropped or modified, is that you advertise on TV the Bible sent free to those wanting to know more about the gospel of Jesus while saying very little about the BoM or Mormonism.
SteveH,
If your reason for saying that Paul was married was that he was a member of the Sanhedrin you will should read D A Carson or Ben Witherington on the subject before making bold claims.
Ralph,
Does this mean that there continues to be a (for lack of a better term) pool of intelligence for future gods?
Don't you find the Job example slim? It does not speak of marriage for time and all eternity or of any temple rituals. I understand that I am making an argument based on the absence of a ritual but the lack of a set marriage ritual set out in the Old Testament seems to show that marriage is not essential to salvation.
By the way this is the same reason the the reformers did not include marriage in the sacraments, keeping only baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Maybe in a future thread we will have the opportunity to discuss the role of a mediator in your tradition.
Still unable to post anything longer than a sentence. May opt for other sites.
Seriously, DITCH INTERNET EXPLORER and try Google Chrome or Firefox. 🙂
Gundek,
Are D.A. Carson or Ben Witherington Jewish? No? I didn't think so.
I appreciate the correction. Why the possibility of going beyond your 'parents' is not there seems illogical to me and an inconsistency in your theology. It also begs the question of how you know you can't or won't. Was this view JS' and BY's as well ?? Just wondering. Thanks for the adjustment.
If your view is correct, every subsequent god will have a slightly diminished glory than the one who preceded him/her. Do you see where this is headed ?? This seems to be improvement in reverse.
Aaron, Thanks for the tip on Google Chrome- will give it a shot.
The same claims are made over and over so many times by LDS critics that it really becomes a disincentive for some LDS to engage in conversation. The whole faith vs. works discussion is repeated so many times. And not once do any critics here accurately OR fairly relate our doctrine on this topic after several extensive discussions. Why is this? I can only conclude that people will believe what they want to believe about us, even it is not true and even if they are shown differently over and over. Does this persistence in stance fulfill some function? There must be some fulfillment in feeling that you have shown fault in the LDS doctrine- that is honestly all I can figure. I truly believe it is a kind of religion in and of itself. Why else say the same falsehood over and over and over and over? It appears so dishonest.
Part of this religion claims that the LDS church changes its doctrine to appeal to the world. Look at homosexual marriage- how many churches have bent over to the gay lobby- countless. Gambling, drinking, morality, feminism, female ordination, unmarried cohabitation, etc. The larger church organizations are caving in large measure to worldy trends. Yes- there are smaller organizations- churches- that haven't, but they are more local in nature. Not many churches as big as the LDS church have not drifted.
WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS- any version of Christianity that claims otherwise is a fairytale. AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR WORKS SAVE US. But we must obey God to be saved. CHRIST SAVES US 100%. IS THIS REALLY TOO COMPLICATED?
MichaelP,
Regarding LDS doctrine, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Don't feel too bad, neither do any of the other evangelicals who post here. seriously, why do you assume that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants "to be seen more and more as" {evangelicals}? We know who we are and who we represent. We know that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church. We know that we are lead by true prophets of God. The vain philosophies of men (ie. the ever changing theology of evangelicals) do not interest us.
Don't flatter yourself my friend. I know no LDS who desire to become evangelicals or even to be accepted by them. We simply want ya'll to be fair in how you represent us.
A thought I had today- What does an evangelical have that a LDS doesn't? Nothing. What does a LDS have that an evangelical doesn't? Where do I start. Don't mean to say we are better or anything like that.
Here is what I mean: If the EVs are right, the bible is the only and complete word of God. There is no priesthood and no authority outside the Bible. The bible is the only thing we have from God today. So, if you are right, we still have everything that you have because we too have the Bible. Follow?
BUT, if LDS are right, then there are many huge and important things that you are missing out on- Priesthood, eternal marriage, Book of Mormon, modern prophets, etc.
AND if evangelicals are correct that the Bible is the sole authority in the world, then you have no more authority than any LDS to say who is saved and what the Bible means. You are left with your opinion, and that is it.
And although you believe, or say the LDS are not "saved," you are basing that on incorrect information. I say that because no EV has ever stated accurately here to my knowledge what we believe about faith vs. works. I can only conclude you do not understand our doctrine. In other words, if what you say about salvation is true- the LDS qualify for salvation by your own definition.
Aaron- it's working- thanks!
Gundeck,
Check out Dr. Ben Witherington's website He introduces himself with photos from "The Top Ten Redneck Awards".
Is this man is a scholar of Judaic culture and traditions. I think not. D.A. Carson is no more authoritative on the subject of Judaism. Why do you cite these buffoons?
Lautensack,
Thanks for the response. My comments were not qualified in any way. We believe we are saved by grace 100% by Christ, and by that I mean exaltation. Our works do not save us, but are necessary for salvation (exaltation). I am not hiding behind any definition of salvation. Christ will save those who repent and obey Him. This doesn't mean that the obedience saves, it is Christ who does 100% of the saving.
It is interesting how EVs can simplify salvation to the point of saying we must "believe in Christ" to be saved. Then turn around and complicate it according to their definitions. What you are saying is that even though we may believe and have faith in Christ as the Savior of the world and the only means of salvation, we do not have the correct belief in who He is. Am I correct? Do you see that this could be seen as a double standard?
LDS are accused of "adding" things required for salvation (temple marriage, priesthood, etc). Are you not doing the same thing? Show me in scripture where Christ connects your specific "objective" criteria to salvation. Don't get me wrong- I believe there are specific things required for salvation- for which you may find fault. I am simply applying the same standard.
The Bible- sorry if I was not clear. I was saying that the Bible is viewed by EV as the only authority on earth in relation to God- am i right? If there is no priesthood, or persons commissioned from an authority higher than themselves, then I am correct in saying that all anybody has is their interpretation of the Bible. And my interpretation is just as legitimate as any other. I can just as easily say that your understanding of the complete collection of holy writ found in the Bible is incorrect. I can give just as many examples of evangelical doctrines that contradict the Bible according to my interpretation. There is no way around this.
Thanks for the response!
SteveH,
Another very broad stroke with little support. I know you know what you believe, but what you believe, from what I see, tries to look very much like the rest of Christendom. Feel free to disagree, but all I can do is state what I see. What I see is what I said. There may be truth in it, there may not be. But it is interesting to watch the trend, isn't it? Do you want to discuss or are you going to give the strokes you have given?
Steven, you do not have to like what I say. I will never force anyone into that. I am also open to correction, and welcome a cordial debate.
So, given part of the discussion here, and part of the above post, what is your thought on 1 Cor 7? What did he mean when he said that we should only get married to keep us from sinning?
faith of fathers said:
A thought I had today- What does an evangelical have that a LDS doesn't? Nothing. What does a LDS have that an evangelical doesn't? Where do I start. Don't mean to say we are better or anything like that.
What LDS do not have, as Christians believe, is a proper concept of God as eternally trinitarian in nature (didn't Joseph Smith say that a proper view of the nature of God was the first principle of the gospel? King Follett, maybe? If someone could corroborate me, I'd be grateful. God's nature then is not a peripheral doctrine, as a Mormon recently tried to convince me). LDS do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, other than a distant Mormon Jesus that is a distant exemplar and elder brother who makes up the difference for a Mormon's imperfections. For goodness sake, the way I've heard Mormons talk (and obviously this would not qualify as official Mormon doctrine), "Brother Joseph" is a more personal entity to Mormons than Jesus. Isn't he described in "Praise to the Man" as serving the Mormons in some "mediator" form in heaven? LDS do not have total forgiveness of sins, their high priests and prophets are apparently also simply men with opinions, depending on the circumstance (My living Prophet and high Priest is Jesus Christ: Hebrews 1:1-2, 4:15 and everything He says is official doctrine), and LDS do not have the joy of glorifying God (1 Peter 1:8), as they are too busy magnifying their callings… the list goes on. Forget temples, eternal marriage, imperfect prophets and priests, or even the MoTab choir (by far the greatest blessing of the LDS, in my opinion). I'm experiencing eternal life NOW (John 3:36), and the blessings thereof, spiritually united with ALL believers, not just my family, and most of all, to Jesus Christ.
And you probably disagree that EV's have these blessings. Which is just the point. The reason why we believe we have so much more blessings than the other is because we believe that each other's blessings don't exist.
Nate
So, FoF, to restate your first paragraph, Christ will only save you if you do certain things. Am I being accurate with that? Does it make sense to you why we see that as saying the works save you?
Lets outline what you wrote: Christ saves 100%, but will only save if you do X. Conversely, if you do not do X, Christ will not save. Thus, it makes sense to say X saves because Christ's decision is based on the act of X.
And as I said earlier, all I need is Christ to save, and my salvation is not dependant on X.
So, FoF, to restate your first paragraph, Christ will only save you if you do certain things. Am I being accurate with that? Does it make sense to you why we see that as saying the works save you?
Lets outline what you wrote: Christ saves 100%, but will only save if you do X. Conversely, if you do not do X, Christ will not save. Thus, it makes sense to say X saves because Christ's decision is based on the act of X.
And as I said earlier, all I need is Christ to save, and my salvation is not dependant on X.
WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS- any version of Christianity that claims otherwise is a fairytale. AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR WORKS SAVE US. But we must obey God to be saved. CHRIST SAVES US 100%. IS THIS REALLY TOO COMPLICATED?
To me, that sounds like saying, "I will pay for your new car, but you must pay me to get your new car." Unintentional equivocation?
You are absolutely right. We are commanded to keep the commandments (Deuteronomy 6:17). However, have you ever kept the commandments? I don't think I have. None of us have (Romans 3:23). So, if "we must obey God to be saved", as you said, and none of us have obeyed God, then none of us will be saved. Unless you're saying that a perfectly just God will overlook sin, and I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Don't Mormons teach that we cannot be saved in our sins? (Alma 11:37) Well, are you out of your sins? I'm not. Why would Jesus need to save us if we were already out of our sins? To use that famous lifeguard/salvation analogy, that would be like a lifeguard throwing an inner tube to someone who was already on the shore. In conclusion: If we must obey God to be saved, and none of us obey God, then none of us can be saved. And if Jesus Christ cannot save us in our sins, then He cannot save any of us. So let me ask you: Is this really too complicated?
I thank God that He is not afraid of getting His hands dirty, that He is with us in the sewers of our lives (Matthew 9:11), and takes us worthless, rabid, filthy rats home with Him and washes us clean (1 Corinthians 6:11) and makes us into entirely new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is a far better plan of salvation than a God who passes out soap to us rats and exhorts us to wash ourselves clean before He'll pick us up and take us home, because He can't wash us if we're too dirty.
My apologies all. I fear I started something that will only allow each side to dig in their claws. I fear I made comments that insulted peoples' pride. That's never a good thing. I do not turn from the statements made about your faith making an effort to be Christians like 'us', I wish I'd approached the idea differentle. I know most Mormons have given all they can to your faith. I appreciate that. I wonder if you appreciate what it is that we believe, and what we see. Believe it or not I always try to view an idea from the way you present it. I really do. And no matter how much I try, I see you forget the one most important thing we can ever have: God. I don't need eternal marriage to be with my wife in heaven for eternity. I don't need baptism by one of authority to be baptized by the holy spirit. I don't need anything but to allow Christ into my heart. And the thing is, neither do you. See allowing Christ into your heart will show you all that you are missing. You don't have to believe me, all you have to rely on is God. He's all we have.
My apologies all. I fear I started something that will only allow each side to dig in their claws. I fear I made comments that insulted peoples' pride. That's never a good thing. I do not turn from the statements made about your faith making an effort to be Christians like 'us', I wish I'd approached the idea differently. I know most Mormons have given all they can to your faith. I appreciate that. I wonder if you appreciate what it is that we believe, and what we see. Believe it or not I always try to view an idea from the way you present it. I really do. And no matter how much I try, I see you forget the one most important thing we can ever have: God. I don't need eternal marriage to be with my wife in heaven for eternity. I don't need baptism by one of authority to be baptized by the holy spirit. I don't need anything but to allow Christ into my heart. And the thing is, neither do you. See allowing Christ into your heart will show you all that you are missing. You don't have to believe me, all you have to rely on is God. He's all we have.
I am still curious the Mormon take on 1 Corinthians 7.
I have seen absolutely nothing on the chapter. Any thoughts from anyone on the Mormon take of 1 Cor 7?
faithoffathers,
The difference here is language I believe. While no Christian here may not have ever stated what the LDS believe about faith and works regarding to "salvation", the definition of salvation they were using was not "general resurrection" rather of what you would call exaltation. So unless you are willing to say that exaltation is by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast, and thus God is simply more gracious to those He exalts than He is to those He does not, not on any basis of works that they had done in righteousness but according to His own mercy; saying that the LDS system of salvation, which would include exaltation, is based on works, future ones as they may be, at least in part.
Also you say that LDS qualify for Christian salvation based upon our own definitions. Here is were you show that you do not understand Christian Theology. Faith is both Objective, that which is believed, and subjective, ones act of belief in the Objective. The LDS have a different object (or objects) of faith, thus are not at this point saved.
As for your reasoning about the bible, it's interesting, but built upon false premises, the first being that the bible is the only authority, There is no Christian who actually believes this, to use a human example Christians actually stop at stoplights even though there is nothing about stoplights in the bible. When a Christian says they believe in sola scriptura it means that scripture is the supreme authority, this ought not be confused with solo scriptura which would mean scripture is the only authority. What does this mean for Christians, first that every doctrine, tradition, matter of faith and practice, must be taken in light of tota scriptura, or all of scripture. I submit to you that the LDS belief structure cannot withstand the weight of tota scriptura, not leaving us with our "opinion" rather with what the bible actually teaches against what the LDS assume it teaches based upon their presuppositions that there was a great apostasy, and that Joseph Smith restored the "one true church."
Lautensack
faithoffathers,
The difference here is language I believe. While no Christian here may not have ever stated what the LDS believe about faith and works regarding to "salvation", the definition of salvation they were using was not "general resurrection" rather of what you would call exaltation. So unless you are willing to say that exaltation is by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast, and thus God is simply more gracious to those He exalts than He is to those He does not, not on any basis of works that they had done in righteousness but according to His own mercy; saying that the LDS system of salvation, which would include exaltation, is based on works, future ones as they may be, at least in part.
Also you say that LDS qualify for Christian salvation based upon our own definitions. Here is were you show that you do not understand Christian Theology. Faith is both Objective, that which is believed, and subjective, ones act of belief in the Objective. The LDS have a different object (or objects) of faith, thus are not at this point saved.
As for your reasoning about the bible, it's interesting, but built upon false premises, the first being that the bible is the only authority, There is no Christian who actually believes this, to use a human example Christians actually stop at stoplights even though there is nothing about stoplights in the bible. When a Christian says they believe in sola scriptura it means that scripture is the supreme authority, this ought not be confused with solo scriptura which would mean scripture is the only authority. What does this mean for Christians, first that every doctrine, tradition, matter of faith and practice, must be taken in light of tota scriptura, or all of scripture. I submit to you that the LDS belief structure cannot withstand the weight of tota scriptura, not leaving us with our "opinion" rather with what the bible actually teaches against what the LDS assume it teaches based upon their presuppositions that there was a great apostasy, and that Joseph Smith restored the "one true church."
Lautensack
SteveH wrote: We know who we are and who we represent. We know that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church. We know that we are lead by true prophets of God.
How do you know? Isn't your knowledge based upon the philosophical idea that God cannot supernaturally interact and preserve His church, though He promised it would never fail? If that assumption is wrong then do you actually know anything regarding your church?
Lautensack
So you need to be a Jew to be able to speak authoritatively about Judaism? Do you need to be English to speak authoritatively on Shakespeare? Do you need to be Greek to speak authoritatively on Greek mythology? Linage has little to do with ones ability to know and understand history, and granted both men have Ph.D's in New Testament studies from prominent English universities, I'd say they are reputable sources.
Lautensack
Actually Lautensack, one has to be Klingon to fully appreciate and speak authoritively on Shakespeare, or didn't you know that?
Germit,
This is only an imperfect example as I can think of explaining it no other way. Think of it like a pyramid scheme – Heavenly Father "progresses and increases" eternally as more of His children achieve exaltation. His glory increases more as His childrens' children achieve exaltation and so on and so forth. So our glory will never be more than His. But like I said, this is an imperfect example as I am trying to understand something that is infinite with a finite mind. Then again, my thoughts may also be incorrect.
MichaelP,
Your right, Paul SUGGESTS. If you read all of those sections where he teaches this he says that it is HIS OPINION, not from God. In fact there is another verse that says that in the last days there will be churches/people teaching against marriage and these are apostate churches/people – ie not of God.
So yes, it's Paul's personal opinion, not something he received from God.
MichaelP,
First, it is clear from your comments that your knowledge of LDS doctrine is at best limited if not mostly flawed. This probably comes from reading too many writings from Mormon "critics'" who again do not know the subject matter and only create a gross caricature of Mormonism so as to more easily attack it.
I sincerely believe that you would benefit from a visit to the local LDS church in your neighborhood some Sunday. Many of your misunderstandings would be clarified and you benefit from the educational experience.
The issue of whether or not the Apostle Paul (and Jesus for that matter) was married has been debated through the ages. Many (if not most) biblical scholars of different faiths are of the opinion that Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul before his conversion) was married given his status as being a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the cultural norms of the time. For a man to be singe in Jewish society during that period would have been quite an anomaly if not an outright scandal. Indeed, that is still much the case in today's culture (both Jewish and Islamic) in the Middle East.
There are also a number of evidences which suggest that Jesus was also married – but I will leave that topic for another discussion.
Regarding 1 Cor 7: 8-9
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them to abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
From this scripture I gather that Paul was a widower at the time.
Why do you presume that Paul said that we only should get married to keep us from burning? That is such a gross and unwarranted interpretation. Paul is not advocating not getting married but rather he advocates abstinence and self-control for those who are single. To suggest that Paul is advocating against marriage would be a profound perversion of his words and would constitute a complete renunciation of some four thousand years of biblical revelation on the subject wherein marriage is a sacred covenant ordained of God.
I am truly boggled in how anyone could possibly entertain the notion that Paul is advocating "that we should only get married to keep us from burning". Then again, it is out such an utter perversion of the scriptures that we have evangelical theology.
TXNathan,
You clearly do not understand LDS Doctrine. If I may repeat myself, I sincerely believe that you would benefit from a visit to the local LDS church in your neighborhood some Sunday. Many of your misunderstandings would be clarified and you benefit from the educational experience.
The LDS do indeed have a very personal relationship with Jesus Christ who is indeed worshipped as their personal Saviour. Don't believe the propaganda of Mormon "critics" who only seek to obfuscate the matter. Find out for yourself.
Good question, one that I have never thought about because I am just thinking about this life right now, not the eternal future I might have. But I have thought of something over the last few days about this.
I think we have a difference in the meaning/use of the word 'God'. You Evs use it to mean The Being who is God. We LDS use it as a title for Heavenly Father and not The Being. As we think of Him as Father we can believe in an eternal future as a family and having a family and becoming parents to other spirit children just as God is the father of our spirits. Thus my comment earlier about your child calling you daddy. Does this make it clearer? My spirit children will call me father just as I call Heavenly Father father and give Him the worship/respect/reverence/etc as a father – but because of all that He has done fo me, which is much more than my mortal father, He also has the title and position of God over me and this world. And He is the only God of this world and me and all who live here.
Hope I made sense. Also these are my thoughts, not an official doctrine so please don't quote it as such.
JessicaJoy,
I have now answered this further down the page but I'll also put a little in here for you.
If you read all the versess correctly when Paul says this, he states rather unequivocally that this is his OPINION and not from God. So, yes, while he is advocating this position, he is not teaching that it is from God.
There is another scripture in the Bible (can't remember off the top of my head) that states that in the last days there will be churches teaching against marriage, and these churches are not from God. So unless Paul is just stating his opinion, then there is a contradiction in the Bible.
No, he is not necessarilly saying marriage is bad, but that if you can refrain from sex, you ought to not get married so you can focus on God.
Read it with that perspective, and see what you think. It might also help if you read some other versions, a tool that helps interpretation.
Do you care to give any examples of how I do not understand LDS views? I have stated that I am not an expert, and you have an area that A) I have misrepresented and can correct me and B) makes logical sense, I am more than willing to revisit these areas.
But you must also understand where I am coming from, and I try to lay this out for you. In other words, show me specifics rather than saying I am wrong on your beliefs.
And I have to ask, do you ever try to consider these things from our viewpoint?
Germit,
We focus more on gaining the Celestial Kingdom and living with God for the rest of etermity, not becoming like God. Yes we teach and have as doctrine this principle, but it is not the 'major focus'. Just getting back to Heavenly Father's presence is the main thing we should worry about now, not what the final reward He will give us is going to be.
OK, Ralph, so, let me step a bit broader now. You say that Paul is suggesting somethhing, and the Mormon claim is that it is the restored church. Was Paul suggesting that people go against what God had commanded in the early church? If so, why would that make any sense?
My point is that there are other ways this section is important in a discussion of LDS beliefs.
And if it is his suggestion, why would he suggest something against a commandment? Paul was supposedly privy to all God's commandments, right? Or is that not right? Is this part of the ongoing revelation? And if it is, how can we trust any command in the Bible? And this leads to the conclusion that Mormons don't think it as important as the newer books.
I've asked before, and I'll ask again about these things and my comments, but does the logic make sense to you? Do you see the connections I make? If I am unclear, what don't you get?
Steve H,
I ask sir, that your stop your personal insults. I have not attacked you nor insulted you. I am disturbed that each time I try to engage with you you resort to insulting the reputations of theologians that I site.
D A Carson is a highly regarded New Testament scholar, Missionary and Churchman. Among his works are An Introduction to the New Testament (Carson, Leon and Moo 1st ed, sadly just Carson and Moo for the 2nd), New Bible Commentary, in the era of Jewish Studies, Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol. 1&2: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.
Ben Witherington, while not as conservative as I am, is a fine scholar and Minister in the Methodist Church. His commentary series of New Testament books focusing on the "Socio-Rhetorical" show a keen insight into the historical and social setting of 1st century Palestine.
There are 4 reasons sited to question the Paul's membership in the Sanhedrin. 1 Paul never claimed to be a member of the Sanhedrin, even during his defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-6). Paul also does not claim to be a member of the Sanhedrin when proving his Jewish credentials (Gal 1:14). Paul also does not use membership in the Sanhedrin to bolster his ministry to Jews in the Diaspora. 2 Paul's teaching on marriage (1 Corinthians 7:25-31) brings into question if Paul was married. 3 Estimates of Paul's age show him to probably be to young to be a member of the Sanhedrin. This is based on a 40 year old requirement to be a member of the Sanhedrin and an estimated 20+ year ministry. 4 It is doubtful that a ruling member of the Sanhedrin would have been actively involved in the persecution of the Church (Acts 9). If Paul was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin it is doubtful that he would have needed letters from the High Priest (Acts 9:2) in order to have authority in Damascus.
I am sure that you can argue against each of these 4 points, but taken as a whole it is interesting.
I understand that this is a doctrinal issue for you and that Paul's marital status can be seen to either support or undermine the LDS position on Celestial Marriage. You should also understand that this is frankly not an issue that I feel compelled to fight about much less engage in the style offensive slurs that you stoop to.
Unfortunately Sir, do to your unprovoked, personal and frankly childish attack on two Godly men, I must ask again that you act like a gentleman and debate the ideas that I present and refrain from the ad hominem attacks.
Jessica,
Of course Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was married – as any Jewish scholar will tell you.
Michael,
I concur, you are crazy with this idea. Plus you obviously do not know much about LDS doctrine or culture.
Steve, you can read more about Carson and Witherington here and here.
I have read much of Witherington's book-response to the Da Vinci Code, and Carson's commentary on the Gospel of John. Great scholars, I highly recommend them. And yes, much of what they do has required a good knowledge of ancient Judaism (consider the debate on the New Perspective on Paul, for example).
A little while back I interacted with a GA, Elder Wood, and he cracked jokes with me. I certainly didn't think that made him a buffoon.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
There are too many institutional checks and balances for that to be realistic apart from an institution-wide miracle.
He might have been married before or after the writing of I Cor 7, but at the time of that writing he was single and advocating the position. "For I would that all men were even as I myself… But if they cannot contain, let them marry" (I Cor. 7:7-9).
WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS- any version of Christianity that claims otherwise is a fairytale. AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR WORKS SAVE US. But we must obey God to be saved. CHRIST SAVES US 100%. IS THIS REALLY TOO COMPLICATED?
To me, that sounds like saying, "I will pay for your new car, but you must pay me to get your new car." If I'm not mistaken, saying, "we must obey God to be saved" is the same as saying "We are saved because of (or by means of, or by reason of) our works." But you say this is not so. Unintentional equivocation? Or do you not think works and obedience are the same thing?
You are absolutely right; we are commanded to keep the commandments (Deuteronomy 6:17). However, have you ever kept the commandments? I don't think I have. None of us have (Romans 3:23). So, if "we must obey God to be saved", as you said, and none of us have obeyed God, then none of us will be saved. Unless you're saying that a perfectly just God will overlook sin, and I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Don't Mormons teach that we cannot be saved in our sins? (Alma 11:37) Well, are you out of your sins? I'm not. Why would Jesus need to save us if we were already out of our sins? To use that famous lifeguard/salvation analogy, that would be like a lifeguard throwing an inner tube to someone who was already on the shore. In conclusion: If we must obey God to be saved, and none of us obey God, then none of us can be saved. And if Jesus Christ cannot save us in our sins, then He cannot save any of us. So let me ask you: Is this really too complicated?
I thank God that He is not afraid of getting His hands dirty, that He is with us in the sewers of our lives (Matthew 9:11), and takes us worthless, rabid, filthy rats home with Him and washes us clean (1 Corinthians 6:11) and makes us into entirely new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is a far better plan of salvation than a God who passes out soap to us rats and exhorts us to wash ourselves clean before He'll pick us up and take us home, because He can't wash us if we're too dirty.
Nate
Lautensack,
My knowledge that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) comes from direct personal experience independent of any outside source. I know that Christ lives. Furthermore, this sure knowledge is available to any one who is humble of heart and willing to have faith in Christ. The key of course is humility and a willingness to listen to Jesus.
FoF,
To answer your question, “I was saying that the Bible is viewed by EV as the only authority on earth in relation to God- am i right?"
Well Yes and No. You see as plainly stated in the WCF Chapter I Part VI “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
But that is not the entire story. Christ has seen fit to give us, “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.” (Chapter XXV Part I).
Chapter XX on Christian Liberty tells us that it is an abuse of Christian Liberty to “oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical…” Chapter XXX tells us that there is church discipline. Chapter XXXI tells of synods or councils “For the better government, and further edification of the Church…”
So you see, Yes the Holy Scripture is the final authority but there is the Church and ecclesiastical leaders and councils to guide and discipline us on our way.