The Three Levels of Heaven

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

he has asked that I share with him what I am learning and I can hardly deny him that.

Very true, don't deny him anything.

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you so much, and you are right, my husband takes his faith very seriously and right now he thinks my soul is in danger.  And he does know the bible very well. I wasn't trying to 'prove LDS doctrine to him' I was super excited to show him from the bible the truth of the Three Heavens, all that happened was he showed me a few very good reasons to question this doctrine.    My Hubby is wise and kind and very loving and extremely well educated and very successful in his career.  He provides me with a wonderful life and I would never disrespect him.

And to answer @JohnsonJones hubby was NOT using Latin at all, his interlinear translation of the bible is from Hebrew and Greek directly into English, which he is quite insistent that is how you should be reading it, especially if you are going to base doctrine on the interpretation of what you are reading.

I will keep praying and reading the Book Of Mormon and attending both Mass and LDS church (I literally have no Sunday left at all LOL) but I can't hide my studies from my Husband, he has asked that I share with him what I am learning and I can hardly deny him that.

Is he Catholic?

Is he discarding Catholicism in favor of his own religion of his own creation.  Catholicism has had it's own Biblical translations for a LOOONG time and they don't exactly seem to correspond with his reaction.  On the otherhand, if he's Baptist, what he stated actually corresponds much more closely with their dogma than Catholicism...which is...curious.

The reason is abundantly clear, because in Catholicism, his statement really doesn't make sense in his arguing that Celestial and Terrestrial are inaccurate descriptions (ala, refer to the vulgate I posted above).  This can be shown as per the translation via the Vulgate which uses the same terminology that is utilized in other Biblical translations in general, that of the words Celestial and Terrestrial.  The more accurate translation is as per the vulgate, rather than the English translation of the Vulgate for most translations. 

Thus, he is basing his idea off a translation of a translation (the Catholic Bible in English, rather than straight from the originals which are used in Rome and such).  In the Vulgate, he would have a similar problem with his own Catholicism, which is the irony.  That is probably because he does not understand the context of why it is translated as it is.  The words Celestial and Terrestrial, for Catholicism, is almost a straight up transference of the words.  However, if we take the literal translation (which I believe is in the English Catholic bible) the words do indeed mean Heavenly and Earthly.  In essence, one method is to try to relate it as closely as it is to the original (celestial and terrestrial) while the other is to try to make it easier to understand in the modern English Language (heaven and earth, which is a common phrase and one may have heard it before) even if any slight inferences from the original could be lost accidentally.

To put it in this light, the three degrees of Heaven in LDS theology are based upon the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as per verse 41 though one can use the terms (and heaven and earth would still be applicable in this light) in application from verse 40, and one could even say it's integral to a better understanding via LDS theology.  In this it is that the Sun creates it's own light.  The moon, like other terrestrial bodies in our solar system (which also includes the earth if you were to look at it from the Moon, or another planet in our system) reflects that light and hence is of a lesser glory, but is still normally brighter than the stars when viewed in our sky.  Hence the LDS analogy. 

This does not make it the only interpretation of that verse there of, just how LDS generally interpret it.  The Catholics interpret it other ways, as do also the Baptist (and to throw interests into the Catholic interpretation, it is not just the resurrection, but I believe also in regards to the different bodies that Angels have, which are distinctly different than what us mortals have which is another specific difference among Catholics than LDS).

However, in arguing about verse 40 (celestial and terrestrial vs. Heaven and Earth) is basically more semantics than anything dealing with doctrinal differences between the LDS and Catholics in that verse.  As an example, it's like trying to state...Using the word water is inaccurate for H20 because it is actually dihydrogen monooxide.  It's the exact same thing in different references.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Took out an unnecessary comment of mine and clarifications

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you so much, and you are right, my husband takes his faith very seriously and right now he thinks my soul is in danger.  And he does know the bible very well. I wasn't trying to 'prove LDS doctrine to him' I was super excited to show him from the bible the truth of the Three Heavens, all that happened was he showed me a few very good reasons to question this doctrine.    My Hubby is wise and kind and very loving and extremely well educated and very successful in his career.  He provides me with a wonderful life and I would never disrespect him.

And to answer @JohnsonJones hubby was NOT using Latin at all, his interlinear translation of the bible is from Hebrew and Greek directly into English, which he is quite insistent that is how you should be reading it, especially if you are going to base doctrine on the interpretation of what you are reading.

I will keep praying and reading the Book Of Mormon and attending both Mass and LDS church (I literally have no Sunday left at all LOL) but I can't hide my studies from my Husband, he has asked that I share with him what I am learning and I can hardly deny him that.

I'm glad you guys have such a great relationship!  I'm also super excited that you guys study together so much and take your faith so deeply. 

One thing Catholics and LDS agree on is that the Bible isn't supposed to just be standing out on it's own (no sola scriptura).  Rather, it requires proper interpretation by the Holy Spirit and God's servants in His Church.  Obviously LDS and Catholics disagree on which group of people are His Church and His servants giving His answers, but we do agree that such interpretation and servants are needed.

What you're seeing here with the different interpretations of the Corinthians passage is just that at work: he showed you the Catholic interoperation, LDS folks will show you the LDS one.  Ultimately the big question is which group is His True Church giving the True interpretations.  

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Is he Catholic?

Is he discarding Catholicism in favor of his own religion of his own creation.  Catholicism has had it's own Biblical translations for a LOOONG time and they don't exactly seem to correspond with his reaction.  On the otherhand, if he's Baptist, what he stated actually corresponds much more closely with their dogma than Catholicism...which is...curious.

The reason is abundantly clear, because in Catholicism, his statement really doesn't make sense in his arguing that Celestial and Terrestrial are inaccurate descriptions (ala, refer to the vulgate I posted above).  This can be shown as per the translation via the Vulgate which uses the same terminology that is utilized in other Biblical translations in general, that of the words Celestial and Terrestrial.  The more accurate translation is as per the vulgate, rather than the English translation of the Vulgate for most translations. 

Thus, he is basing his idea off a translation of a translation (the Catholic Bible in English, rather than straight from the originals which are used in Rome and such).  In the Vulgate, he would have a similar problem with his own Catholicism, which is the irony.  That is probably because he does not understand the context of why it is translated as it is.  The words Celestial and Terrestrial, for Catholicism, is almost a straight up transference of the words.  However, if we take the literal translation (which I believe is in the English Catholic bible) the words do indeed mean Heavenly and Earthly.  In essence, one method is to try to relate it as closely as it is to the original (celestial and terrestrial) while the other is to try to make it easier to understand in the modern English Language (heaven and earth, which is a common phrase and one may have heard it before) even if any slight inferences from the original could be lost accidentally.

To put it in this light, the three degrees of Heaven in LDS theology are based upon the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as per verse 41 though one can use the terms (and heaven and earth would still be applicable in this light) in application from verse 40, and one could even say it's integral to a better understanding via LDS theology.  In this it is that the Sun creates it's own light.  The moon, like other terrestrial bodies in our solar system (which also includes the earth if you were to look at it from the Moon, or another planet in our system) reflects that light and hence is of a lesser glory, but is still normally brighter than the stars when viewed in our sky.  Hence the LDS analogy. 

This does not make it the only interpretation of that verse there of, just how LDS generally interpret it.  The Catholics interpret it other ways, as do also the Baptist (and to throw interests into the Catholic interpretation, it is not just the resurrection, but I believe also in regards to the different bodies that Angels have, which are distinctly different than what us mortals have which is another specific difference among Catholics than LDS).

However, in arguing about verse 40 (celestial and terrestrial vs. Heaven and Earth) is basically more semantics than anything dealing with doctrinal differences between the LDS and Catholics in that verse.  As an example, it's like trying to state...Using the word water is inaccurate for H20 because it is actually dihydrogen monooxide.  It's the exact same thing in different references.

He is not basing anything off a translation of a translation, and he has an issue with the LDS interpretation of verse 40 AND 41, he says that the whole idea is completely out of context with chapter 15, and to say that he is discarding Catholicism for his own religion is insulting, he is Catholic, has been his whole life and he knows his faith and his bible extremely well.  

His statement is that the LDS interpretation of these passages is inaccurate, which he backs up by the original Greek the new testament was written in.  I was told by the missionaries teaching me that verse 40 backs up verse 41 in teaching the doctrine of 3 Heavens, so he was just answering me based on the basic points that mormon missionaries teach.  And Heavenly and Earthly IS a lot closer to what was originally meant than Terrestrial and Celestial.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Blossom76

[Blossom76]

39 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm glad you guys have such a great relationship!  I'm also super excited that you guys study together so much and take your faith so deeply. 

One thing Catholics and LDS agree on is that the Bible isn't supposed to just be standing out on it's own (no sola scriptura).  Rather, it requires proper interpretation by the Holy Spirit and God's servants in His Church.  Obviously LDS and Catholics disagree on which group of people are His Church and His servants giving His answers, but we do agree that such interpretation and servants are needed.

What you're seeing here with the different interpretations of the Corinthians passage is just that at work: he showed you the Catholic interoperation, LDS folks will show you the LDS one.  Ultimately the big question is which group is His True Church giving the True interpretations.  

Yes this is so true! We can agree that Sola Scriptura is inaccurate.  Although he does wonder why the LDS church use a protestant version of the bible, the bible had 73 books until Martin Luther took out 7 of them, because those books did not support his view of Sola Scriptura (actually he took out a lot more than that but eventually put some of them back).  Then of course there is the massive issue of Authority but a faith and works based doctrine is something that we have in common that should be celebrated, after all faith without works is dead  

Thanks for finding a positive common ground, I really appreciate it.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Well Bible Study didn't go my way

1st Corinthians 15:40-42 - my husband explained to me that this is about the resurrection and it is talking about the difference between our heavenly and earthly bodies.  I was a bit blindsided so I asked him to show me, we have an interlinear bible so he could show me in the original Greek.  The words they use is 'epourania' which literally means Heavenly but in the king james was translated as celestial, the other word is 'epigeia' which literally means 'on land' or 'earthly' again the king james translates it as terrestrial.

"There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;"

I tried not to get upset because I couldn't argue it because he was factually correct so I moved onto 2nd Corinthians 12:2 - if Paul was called up to the third Heaven obviously there is a 1st and 2nd Heaven right?  Apparently not, to ancient Jews the third heaven just meant actual heaven, to them the first heaven was the clouds, the second heaven was the stars, and the third heaven was heaven where God and Jesus was.  So when a Jew said the third heaven that's what they meant. My husband is very well educated and I just felt silly in the end, he wasn't mean about it, in fact he was very understanding, and could see how someone would misinterpret these verses.  I just let him lead the rest of the study.

Can anyone help me with any other passages that help prove the validity of the teaching of the three heavens? Please help.

Blossom, without having read the other responses (so I apologize if I'm repeating what others have said), let me offer you my own view.

I expect (only my opinion) that your husband is mostly right about Paul and his language. What Joseph Smith received was a revelation, opening new truths to us. That's what prophets do. He may have couched it in language similar to Paul's, using imagery similar to Paul's. That does not mean he was reinterpreting Paul's teachings. Rather, it means he was expanding Paul's metaphor to encompass a better understanding of the nature of heaven.

The fundamental question is not whether Paul taught this or that. That is actually irrelevant. The fundamental question is: Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? That is the only important question. Nothing else matters. Whether Paul meant "three degrees of glory" or not has nothing at all to do with the truthfulness (or falsity) of Joseph Smith's revelation.

My own opinion (again) is that Paul likely did not have the nuanced understanding of the nature of heaven as has been revealed to us in these latter days. On the other hand, Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible puts these latter-day ideas into Paul's words; I personally understand that to be Joseph's prophetic clarification of doctrine, not an attempt to reinterpret what Paul may have actually said. Not sure I could do a good job of defending such an opinion, but that's my current belief, more or less.

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Blossom, without having read the other responses (so I apologize if I'm repeating what others have said), let me offer you my own view.

I expect (only my opinion) that your husband is mostly right about Paul and his language. What Joseph Smith received was a revelation, opening new truths to us. That's what prophets do. He may have couched it in language similar to Paul's, using imagery similar to Paul's. That does not mean he was reinterpreting Paul's teachings. Rather, it means he was expanding Paul's metaphor to encompass a better understanding of the nature of heaven.

The fundamental question is not whether Paul taught this or that. That is actually irrelevant. The fundamental question is: Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? That is the only important question. Nothing else matters. Whether Paul meant "three degrees of glory" or not has nothing at all to do with the truthfulness (or falsity) of Joseph Smith's revelation.

My own opinion (again) is that Paul likely did not have the nuanced understanding of the nature of heaven as has been revealed to us in these latter days. On the other hand, Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible puts these latter-day ideas into Paul's words; I personally understand that to be Joseph's prophetic clarification of doctrine, not an attempt to reinterpret what Paul may have actually said. Not sure I could do a good job of defending such an opinion, but that's my current belief, more or less.

Thank you, this really helps me.  I will study and pray more about Joseph Smith  

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

 I was told by the missionaries teaching me that verse 40 backs up verse 41 in teaching the doctrine of 3 Heavens, so he was just answering me based on the basic points that mormon missionaries teach.  And Heavenly and Earthly IS a lot closer to what was originally meant than Terrestrial and Celestial.

Blossom, keep in mind that our missionaries are instructed to teach Church doctrine. They are not scriptural scholars; their familiarity with the scriptures comes from constant reading and (often) four high school years of seminary. They do not speak or read ancient languages; they do not receive deep scriptural linguistic instruction; and since they are quite young, almost none of them has built a deep reservoir of knowledge comparable to your husband's. They are sincere young men and women trying to teach simple truths. They bring you the truth, but they do not attempt to prove the truths to you. Rather, they encourage you to read, study, and then go before your Father to find out.

Note that "theology" is a Catholic invention. Latter-day Saints will sometimes talk about "Mormon theology", but in a strict definition of the word "theology", there is no such animal as "Mormon theology". We do not have a systematic structure of belief like Catholicism does. We do not formally "canonize" scripture, though that term is used in Mormondom. Much of the academic structure and philosophy built up around Catholicism for over 1500 years now simply does not exist in Mormonism -- though there are certainly those who are trying to establish it.

This total lack of theological development is not an accident, nor is it an unfortunate consequence of a relatively young religious tradition. It is central to the LDS view of receiving divine truths through revelation. We don't get our religious understanding primarily through learned scholars earnestly debating linguistic nuances and exhaustively comparing various ancient manuscripts. In fact, though such things do occur in Mormondom, they are a sideshow. None of it matters, and most Mormons (when they're paying attention and not furiously riding their hobby horses) understand that. Theology does not define truth; the Spirit defines truth. When the prophet and apostles speak, that's what counts. Each of us is expected to develop himself or herself so that we can understand these things, come to a unity of heart and purpose, and receive instruction directly from the Lord.

tl;dr -- If you try to take a Catholic view of the Mormon religion, it simply does not work. We don't play by the Catholic rules developed over the centuries.

PS The word "celestial" comes from the Latin cælum "sky, heaven", and the word "terrestrial" comes from the Latin terra "earth". Paul's "bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial" mean just that; heavenly bodies (like the sun, moon, and stars) and earthly bodies (those things all around us). Again, God's revelations to us through Joseph Smith are intended to help us understand things in a grander and more complete way, not to explain what Paul was "really trying to say".

[Blossom76]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Blossom, keep in mind that our missionaries are instructed to teach Church doctrine. They are not scriptural scholars; their familiarity with the scriptures comes from constant reading and (often) four high school years of seminary. They do not speak or read ancient languages; they do not receive deep scriptural linguistic instruction; and since they are quite young, almost none of them has built a deep reservoir of knowledge comparable to your husband's. They are sincere young men and women trying to teach simple truths. They bring you the truth, but they do not attempt to prove the truths to you. Rather, they encourage you to read, study, and then go before your Father to find out.

Note that "theology" is a Catholic invention. Latter-day Saints will sometimes talk about "Mormon theology", but in a strict definition of the word "theology", there is no such animal as "Mormon theology". We do not have a systematic structure of belief like Catholicism does. We do not formally "canonize" scripture, though that term is used in Mormondom. Much of the academic structure and philosophy built up around Catholicism for over 1500 years now simply does not exist in Mormonism -- though there are certainly those who are trying to establish it.

This total lack of theological development is not an accident, nor is it an unfortunate consequence of a relatively young religious tradition. It is central to the LDS view of receiving divine truths through revelation. We don't get our religious understanding primarily through learned scholars earnestly debating linguistic nuances and exhaustively comparing various ancient manuscripts. In fact, though such things do occur in Mormondom, they are a sideshow. None of it matters, and most Mormons (when they're paying attention and not furiously riding their hobby horses) understand that. Theology does not define truth; the Spirit defines truth. When the prophet and apostles speak, that's what counts. Each of us is expected to develop himself or herself so that we can understand these things, come to a unity of heart and purpose, and receive instruction directly from the Lord.

tl;dr -- If you try to take a Catholic view of the Mormon religion, it simply does not work. We don't play by the Catholic rules developed over the centuries.

PS The word "celestial" comes from the Latin cælum "sky, heaven", and the word "terrestrial" comes from the Latin terra "earth". Paul's "bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial" mean just that; heavenly bodies (like the sun, moon, and stars) and earthly bodies (those things all around us). Again, God's revelations to us through Joseph Smith are intended to help us understand things in a grander and more complete way, not to explain what Paul was "really trying to say".

I dont know why everyone keeps on about the latin origins of certain words, my husband used a interlinear bible to establish original context - Which is a literal translation side by side original Greek (New Testament) or Hebrew (Old Testament) to English translation, no latin translation of the bible was involved AT ALL.  Also his explanation of what the ancient jews meant when they said 1st 2nd or 3rd heaven is factually correct.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Blossom76

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I dont know why everyone keeps on about the latin origins of certain words, my husband used a interlinear bible to establish original context - Which is a literal translation side by side original Greek (New Testament) or Hebrew (Old Testament) to English translation, no latin translation of the bible was involved AT ALL.  Also his explanation of what the ancient jews meant when they said 1st 2nd or 3rd heaven is factually correct.

Hm? I don't understand your reaction. I was agreeing with your husband, not debating him. I mentioned the etymology of "celestial" and "terrestrial" to illustrate that they mean what he said they mean. In English, those words come from Latin (through Norman French, as nearly half of English words do), and the words themselves are an evolution of terms that literally mean "sky" and "earth". That's all I was saying.

[Blossom76]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hm? I don't understand your reaction. I was agreeing with your husband, not debating him. I mentioned the etymology of "celestial" and "terrestrial" to illustrate that they mean what he said they mean. In English, those words come from Latin (through Norman French, as nearly half of English words do), and the words themselves are an evolution of terms that literally mean "sky" and "earth". That's all I was saying.

Sorry I am feeling a bit defensive of my husband right now, not everyone has been as nice or as quick to agree that my husband is right on this topic as you have been.  His main point was when this section of the bible was written it meant heavenly and earthly not celestial and terrestrial

Edited November 1, 2017 by Blossom76

[Midwest LDS]

Hi @Blossom76 I would like to say right off the bat I'm glad you and your husband have a great relationship! Per your original question, while there are several biblical scriptures I could reference, some have been mentioned others haven't (1 Peter 3 :18-20 talks about the spirit world for example), the problem is you can't prove our religion is true, or any Christian church for that matter, strictly by an appeal to the Bible. Interpretations of scripture vary so widely, and you can find arguments against every position by some very learned men. How do you know which one is correct? I'll share a personal experience that I feel is relevant to this discussion. When I was a missionary, a gentleman invited me into his home, for the hidden purpose of bashing with me. He refused to call me Elder and explained why by sharing a scripture with me, 1 Timothy 3, that in his version of the Bible explained that an Elder needed to be the husband of one wife. I was not married, so his argument was that I did not rightfully hold the title of Elder. I flipped open my version, the King James, and showed him that in my Bible those verses say Bishop not Elder. As he refused to accept my interpretation, I explained that he was proving my point. Our understanding of those simple verses differed so widely, to say nothing of more complicated doctrines, as to destroy all hope of deciding if I was right or wrong by an appeal to the Bible. The only way to know if I was right or wrong was and is to read the Book of Mormon and to ask God if it's true. When you receive a witness of it's truthfullness, it resovles problems with interpretation by letting you know that there is someone with authority to speak in the name of God on Earth again. Because I have received a witness of the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon, I know that Joseph Smith spoke with God's direct authority when he received revelation about the number of heavens. Today we have men that speak with God's direct authority when discussing issues of doctrine. You can't find that knowledge through Biblical discussion alone, you have to find it directly from God. Unless and until you (generic you) read the Book of Mormon and receive that spiritual knowledge that only God can give, no scriptural argument alone will convince you. (FYI I think it's great you and your husband have regular scripture study☺).

Edited November 1, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[JoCa]

14 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you so much, and you are right, my husband takes his faith very seriously and right now he thinks my soul is in danger.  And he does know the bible very well. I wasn't trying to 'prove LDS doctrine to him' I was super excited to show him from the bible the truth of the Three Heavens, all that happened was he showed me a few very good reasons to question this doctrine.    My Hubby is wise and kind and very loving and extremely well educated and very successful in his career.  He provides me with a wonderful life and I would never disrespect him.

Absolutely; I completely understand.  It would be almost exactly the same if the situation were reversed (i.e. your husband was LDS and you were studying Catholicism).  In fact, I would expect nothing less of an individual who is 100% committed to their faith and believes it. 

Excepting one difference:  In the LDS faith we believe that men and women don't have to rely upon the learning of others to gain knowledge about the truth of things.  There is one source of Truth and Light, it is to Him that we ultimately look.  James 1:5:  If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 

We believe that you and your husband can directly go to the source of all Truth, to God directly.  You can pray and directly ask Him and that God will give you an answer.  Sometimes the answer is no, sometimes yes, sometimes the answer is not immediately forthcoming and might take years to get.  

Moroni 10: 3-5 : 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things

Quite frankly, you will never be able to convince your husband of the truth of the Book of Mormon or of the LDS Church by going back and forth in the Bible.  The Truth about the LDS Church is found only by reading The Book of Mormon.  And the Book of Mormon is based on a very simple principle and doctrine that requires a change in perspective to really know the truth of.

The simple truth and principle is:

Can God call specific men to be Prophets that have the power, the authority, the gift to receive direct Revelation from God and that can be God's mouthpiece on this earth to the world?

That is it.  Upon that principle rests everything about the LDS Church.  If one does not truly believe that principle, one will never be a member of the Church.

Honestly, it is very, very, very easy to believe in a book that was written by men that lived 2000-4000 years ago.  It is much harder to believe that a man who lived only 200 years ago could have been a prophet and even harder to believe that men today could be Prophets.

And honestly there is no scripture verse that can solve the above question, no wrestling the scriptures that can answer it.  Either you believe that God can talk to men and call them to do Holy works or you don't. If one believes that God can actually talk to men and that men can receive direct communication from God then the only way to find out whether a man is a true Prophet of God is to study what they wrote and what they did in their lifetime and then to ask God.  By their fruits shall ye know them.  Does the Book of Mormon (the fruit) lead people to a better understanding and faith of Jesus Christ and God the Father?

The Book of Mormon is the fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith.  It is the work that upon everything about the LDS Church rests, if it is not of God the LDS Church falls completely apart.  But if it is of God . .. wow . .. just wow that changes everything!

In sum, you can't resolve this issue by only going to the Bible, it can only be resolved by reading the Book of Mormon, pondering about it, looking at how it fits in with the other Testaments and by asking God.  That's it.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JoCa

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Sorry I am feeling a bit defensive of my husband right now, not everyone has been as nice or as quick to agree that my husband is right on this topic as you have been.  His main point was when this section of the bible was written it meant heavenly and earthly not celestial and terrestrial

Ive studied this extensively through the years and you should find comfort in that both you and your husband are correct. It is true that the quoted scriptures in the NT do indeed mean the difference between earthy and heavenly. The term "third heaven" is to be properly understood as the transformation of this earth as it passes from one heaven under the stars (the one we are now in) to the next (the second heaven during the millennium) and then finally the last or "third heaven". Consider these verses-

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
            13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:12-13)

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Rev. 21:1)

8 Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when the earth shall pass away.
            9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new. (Ether 13:8-9)

22 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you that when the thousand years are ended, and men again begin to deny their God, then will I spare the earth but for a little season;
            23 And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. (D&C 29:22-23)

In the end we all are truly focused on making it to this third heaven which will be when this earth is transformed into the celestial or "heavenly" kingdom. Thats all our focus is on. It doesnt matter what our belief is of heaven vs. the Catholics, they are one and the same heaven. The difference however is that we believe we have the proper authority to save one into this heavenly kingdom whereas other religions like the Catholics have lost this authority.

 

[person0]

16 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

if I can't show him from the bible that the LDS church is the only true church on earth and not the Catholic Church he will not allow me to be baptised

This is impossible.  Only the Spirit can witness the truth, no amount of study can, that's why there are so many churches.  So basically it sounds like he won't allow you to be baptized unless he decides to get baptized also?  Cause if you 'prove' the LDS Church is true, then that's what he would do right?

Also, your husband is correct about the passages in Corinthians referring to the state of the physical body and not the actual different heavenly degrees themselves.  Many members of the Church do not even realize this about that passage.  The passage is an indirect reference to the three degree's because it indicates that people of different glory will be resurrected to bodies of different glory.  There are celestial/heavenly bodies, there are terrestrial bodies, and there are telestial bodies (those that differ in glory such as the stars).  The body with which you are resurrected, and the glory that pertains to that physical resurrected body, is dependent on what your final state will be after judgement.

Also, Mat 16 talks about the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church.  It say's nothing about the Church not falling into apostasy.  What do gates do?  They open and close.  The gates of hell are opened to all because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, they can not prevail.  Gates are not the same as minions, or acolytes, gates only open and close.  Without Christ's atonement and the saving ordinances made available through the Church, the gates of hell would remain closed, and no one could leave hell.  However, because of those things we can leave hell.  I have no idea what that has anything to do with an apostasy happening or not?  Sounds like an incorrect interpretation to me, which probably stems from something. . . hmm. . . the apostasy perhaps?    (Promise I'm not trying to be mean; my bluntness is meant in more of a comedic manner).

I haven't read the entire thread so someone might have already said this.  I'll see what's comes next.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thanks, I did actually say something similar to him, which started a discussion on Authority, which I ended up not being able to prove the great apostasy or that the LDS church had the Authority.  Hubby showed me from the bible (Matthew chapter 16, the whole chapter) if that is true then Jesus lied and he couldn't believe that Jesus would lie - that was kinda the end of bible study for the night.

I dont want to start trouble in my marriage, but if I can't show him from the bible that the LDS church is the only true church on earth and not the Catholic Church he will not allow me to be baptised (he says I'm already baptised, I'm already confirmed so I have the holy spirit with me) It's hard because his faith is so important to him and our church life together is a cornerstone of our marriage. 

Sorry to bother you all with my marriage problems, I appreciate all your support.

@Blossom76, I am sorry to say that you are going about this completely wrong.

YOU CAN'T ARGUE SCRIPTURES.  Apologetics is well and good but apologetics IS NOT THE WAY TO CONVERSION.  

I am born and raised Catholic - went to Catholic Schools from Kindergarten through 5 years of college - very devout and active in the faith.  I'm LDS now.  I did not become LDS because my husband showed me scriptures.  I know my scriptures backward and forward and upside down.  The Catholic interpretation of such scriptures is solid.  The Catholic faith in Priesthood Authority is solid.   There is NO WAY you can convince a devout Catholic to see the truthfulness of the LDS restored gospel by "proving" that the Catholic faith is wrong.  That is impossible.

The only way to soften your husband's heart is through the Holy Spirit.  And this can only happen if you HONESTLY, DILIGENTLY, PATIENTLY, AND HUMBLY seek the Truth to all things.

For example:  The Catholic claim to Priesthood Authority is Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, Bishop of Rome to the next Bishop of Rome, Pope Linus.  A Catholic believes that Apostolic Authority was handed down from Peter to Bishop Linus.  The LDS do not believe this.  The LDS do not believe that Apostolic Authority can be handed down to Bishops.  The Authority of an Apostle is separate and different from the Authority of the Bishop.  Therefore, Pope Linus has the authority of a Bishop but not of an Apostle.  Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was given Apostolic Authority by Peter, therefore, Joseph has the proper keys to lead the Church.

Now, WHICH ONE IS TRUE?  Can you "prove" that Apostolic Authority transferred to Linus?  Can you "prove" that Apostolic Authority transferred to Joseph Smith?  NOBODY can prove this.  This is a matter o FAITH.  Faith questions can only be answered by the Holy Spirit.

Another example:  Matthew 16.  Matthew 16 deals with Revelation.  For a Catholic who doesn't believe in ordinances for the dead, Matthew 16 holds a different interpretation than an LDS.  A Catholic believes that the "gates of hades shall not overcome it" means that Satan cannot overcome the Church built on the rock (revelation) of Peter which to them then interprets to the infallibility of the Catholic Church.  To an LDS who believe in salvation past death and the great apostasy, Matthew 16 holds a deeper interpretation.  The gates of hades means DEATH cannot stop revelation so that even the dead will know that Jesus is the Messiah.

Now, WHICH ONE IS TRUE?  Can you "prove" the proper interpretation of these verses?  NOBODY can prove this.  This is a matter of FAITH.  If you have faith that Pope Linus is the true Apostle and Joseph Smith is not, then you would put your faith on the Catholic interpretation.  But if you have faith in the authority of Joseph Smith, then you would put your faith on the LDS interpretation.  

So, as it seems that at least your husband is supportive of your choice to seek the truth of the restored gospel, then I suggest you DON'T WORRY about debating scriptures with him.  This is futile.   What you need to do is build a testimony of the restored gospel FOR YOURSELF and seek and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you and your family to the TRUTH.  Learning happens line upon line, precept upon precept.  You first have to exercise faith before learning can happen.  You first have to gain a testimony and a solid understanding of scripture before you can teach it.

Be extra patient with your husband.  For a Catholic, leaving the faith after having learned of the Catholic teachings is a straight ticket to the fires of hell that would make it very difficult for Christ's mercy to save.  This is a very frightening thing, especially for the people you love.  I took this leap, not because my husband (who is LDS) showed me the truth of the restored gospel, but because I sought the truth for myself.  I sought the truth because my husband testified of what he believes to be true and I saw how my husband was a great husband and father and did his very best to live as a good Christian.

Edited November 1, 2017 by anatess2

[e-eye]

Great conversation.

I spent the first 6 months as a missionary studying the bible in an effort to learn all the scriptures necessary to go toe to toe with investigators so I could show them their errors.  I then spent the next 18 months of my mission never "bible bashing".  I gained a lot of knowledge studying but I learned when someone really wanted to hear the truth and was willing to listen that I could share scriptures and bear testimony that would help change their life.  I can tell that you have an open heart and are seeking truth and you will be blessed.  

If it makes you feel any better, in all the forums that I visit that are LDS we are often discussing different subject that we disagree on like this and we belong to the same church.  It's a learning process.  The key is that we as members all have common beliefs and testimony of things like, living prophets, bible, Book of Mormon but most of all Christ.  I would look for the common beliefs with your husband and continue to build those and as mentioned earlier before, jumping into the 3 degree's of glory start with a testimony of the Book of Mormon - you need to know that it is a true book.  You have a lot of faith -  Keep going!

Also, just a side note - I like to compare a testimony to building a wall. You start with a foundation of Christ and continue to build but sometimes you have rocks that just don't fit into your wall.  Eventually all the rocks will fit but instead of stopping construction on your wall, set the rock to the side.  Build with the rocks that fit and you will be very successful - don't completely ignore the rocks you have put to the side but have patience and you will do great. 

[Rob Osborn]

One of the problems we as Mormons have is a fixation upon the three degrees of glory. Its also interesting to me that Christ himself in his teachings only fixates on a singular heaven where we are either with him and the Father in that place or we are outside the gate. Also, the Book of Mormon, the principle foundation of our religion, speaks of only one heaven just like the Bible. We only teach how to get into one heaven also. The entirety of our gospel ordinances is to save a person into the same heaven the rest of Christianity believes in.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

One of the problems we as Mormons have is a fixation upon the three degrees of glory. Its also interesting to me that Christ himself in his teachings only fixates on a singular heaven where we are either with him and the Father in that place or we are outside the gate. Also, the Book of Mormon, the principle foundation of our religion, speaks of only one heaven just like the Bible. We only teach how to get into one heaven also. The entirety of our gospel ordinances is to save a person into the same heaven the rest of Christianity believes in.

Rob, please, ride your gospel hobby horse in the privacy of your living room.

[Traveler]

 

@Blossom76

Lets start with a general understanding of ancient languages, customs and societies.  Since your husband is well versed I suggest a different approach.  Does your husband agree that there is a supreme Suzerain G-d that presides over a kingdom of heaven?  Secondly that according to the ancient concepts of a kingdom that there are different classes or glories that the citizens enjoy.  For example – what is meant by the “first born” in a kingdom.  If your husband truly is educated and versed in ancient language and customs he will realize that “first born” are not the craniologically older but the highest noble class.

If he is able to understand that a kingdom has a class structure – you may now reference Ecclesiastes 1:9.  You can read this entire chapter – in essence we are told that the things we behold are a type and shadow of things from the past and things in the future.   This is a most important understanding in the economy of doctrine presented especially in the Bible scriptures.

In the book of Genesis, we learn that man is divided into three classes represented by the 3 sons of Noah.  Note that the general class is represented by the second son and was given the name “gentile”.  This class of mankind is a reflection of something that was before and something to follow.  If your husband has problems excepting the classes – and in particular the gentile class – then there most likely is not a lot of reason to press more in this matter.  Or as we are told in Isaiah we learn line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

I wish you well in your journey of discovery – which is never ending and cannot be circumvented by the limited understand presented in the Bible.  There is not enough room in any library that can hold what truths remain unrevealed concerning Christ and the glory that awaits the faithful.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 1, 2017 by Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

One of the problems we as Mormons have is a fixation upon the three degrees of glory. Its also interesting to me that Christ himself in his teachings only fixates on a singular heaven where we are either with him and the Father in that place or we are outside the gate. Also, the Book of Mormon, the principle foundation of our religion, speaks of only one heaven just like the Bible. We only teach how to get into one heaven also. The entirety of our gospel ordinances is to save a person into the same heaven the rest of Christianity believes in.

Rob, I've actually recently come upon something that is congruent to your ideas of the three degrees.  Start another thread so I can bring it up with you and discuss it. Or, alternately, bring another one of your other older threads back to the top of the forum with a posting in it and I can discuss what I read recently there.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, as it seems that at least your husband is supportive of your choice to seek the truth of the restored gospel, then I suggest you DON'T WORRY about debating scriptures with him.  This is futile.   What you need to do is build a testimony of the restored gospel FOR YOURSELF and seek and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you and your family to the TRUTH.  Learning happens line upon line, precept upon precept.  You first have to exercise faith before learning can happen.  You first have to gain a testimony and a solid understanding of scripture before you can teach it.

Be extra patient with your husband.  For a Catholic, leaving the faith after having learned of the Catholic teachings is a straight ticket to the fires of hell that would make it very difficult for Christ's mercy to save.  This is a very frightening thing, especially for the people you love.  I took this leap, not because my husband (who is LDS) showed me the truth of the restored gospel, but because I sought the truth for myself.  I sought the truth because my husband testified of what he believes to be true and I saw how my husband was a great husband and father and did his very best to live as a good Christian.

I absolutely agree with this. 

 

[Rob Osborn]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rob, please, ride your gospel hobby horse in the privacy of your living room.

Are we afraid of truth?

[Rob Osborn]

32 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Rob, I've actually recently come upon something that is congruent to your ideas of the three degrees.  Start another thread so I can bring it up with you and discuss it. Or, alternately, bring another one of your other older threads back to the top of the forum with a posting in it and I can discuss what I read recently there.

I can do that.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Are we afraid of truth?

Apparently, you and the mouse in your pocket are. The scriptures are unambiguous about the degrees of glory.