The Three Levels of Heaven

[Blossom76]

Thank you all so much for all your help, I really appreciate your time and effort @person0 I fear you are correct when you say I would need my husband to be baptised as well so he would allow me to do so.

I am going to focus more on gaining a true concrete testimony of Joseph Smith, thank you all so much  

[james12]

On 10/31/2017 at 4:50 PM, Blossom76 said:

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. 

I have a problem with him telling you you cannot get baptized. A relationship must be one of give and take, not control by one party or the other.

I have discussed passages from the Bible for years with Catholics. Almost none of them have changed their view because of what I have shown them, even when they don't have a good explanation. Holding you hostage to his interpretation of the Bible does not seem right. I think you need to talk to him about how your beliefs can be different and how you need freedom to choose your own way. 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

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

 

Not only scripture but ancient culture (including law and treaties).  Not only is the kingdom of heaven divided by 3 classes in the resurrection of man but so is the spiritual foundation of man on earth and the pre-existent heaven.

The “TRUTH” is that there has always been a noble class and an infidel class and the rest of everybody class (the rest of everybody class for mortals were given the title of gentile).  Without this understanding of covenant classes, the very term (the first shall be last and the last shall be first) becomes pointless dribble of confusion and endless argument (forever learning but never understanding the truth).

The very idea and doctrine of the G-dhood (or Trinity) is based in the ancient covenant of classes within a kingdom.  Without this understanding of classes, the entire understanding of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost becomes a theology that is impossible to explain and a logical conundrum.

My point is that without the proper understanding (truth) of covenant classes all understanding of doctrine is incomplete and somewhat corrupt.  Often, I have suggested that scripture clarifies covenant and without this covenant point of view it is impossible to have doctrinal consensus.  Which is the very reason that religions become divided and at odds – even with themselves.   A good example is the covenant of keeping the Sabbath holy.  The covenant is simple – The doctrine is impossible to define without dividing believers and creating pseudo experts.

 

The Traveler

[person0]

2 hours ago, james12 said:

Holding you hostage to his interpretation of the Bible does not seem right. I think you need to talk to him about how your beliefs can be different and how you need freedom to choose your own way. 

As much as I agree with you from a logical standpoint, from a practical perspective, it's much more difficult than two people having different beliefs.  Without the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, my wife and I have very little in common.  Aside from that, my absolute number one favorite topic of discussion is religion, and following that, politics.  If my wife were to decide to investigate another church and start telling me she believes it's true, I would also do all I could to convince her it is not, until she 'proved' it to me.  From this perspective, I see her husbands reaction as reasonable and expected.  If my wife decided to join another faith, and I did not join along with her, I don't know how long I could stay married to her.  Our primary commonality would be lost, except for the fact that we like many of the same tv shows.

However, I would also be the type of person to delve deep into a study of the other religion to determine for myself if it is true.  In the case of leaving the LDS Church, there is no other faith that says that the Holy Spirit will confirm it is true, so I would have a hard time being able to have any type of confirmation other than a logical one (which is what her husband seems to be expecting).  Obviously in this case it is the reverse and I welcome them both, but I am confident he will need/want to be convinced on both fronts, logical to the extent possible, and also a spiritual confirmation.  I know other marriages do it, but if my wife were to leave our faith, it would make it more difficult for me to be motivated to keep my covenants (not logically, just emotionally), and I would rather go marry someone else who would be a help meet to me, especially in keeping our covenants.

From this perspective, I do not think @Blossom76's husbands actions are unwarranted, unless he is relentlessly unwilling to determine for himself if the Church is true, or unless he becomes abusive about it in any way.  I wish the best for them both, and hope they both ultimately receive a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon, the prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!

[zil]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

From this perspective, I see her husbands reaction as reasonable and expected.

There's a difference between "not want" and "not allow", you know.  Her wording made it seem to me like her husband is the boss / warden / parent and she's the employee / prisoner / child.  Just sayin'.  Whether that's the way it is, heaven knows, but that's how it sounded.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, james12 said:

I have a problem with him telling you you cannot get baptized. A relationship must be one of give and take, not control by one party or the other.

 

59 minutes ago, person0 said:

As much as I agree with you from a logical standpoint, from a practical perspective, it's much more difficult than two people having different beliefs. 

 

50 minutes ago, zil said:

There's a difference between "not want" and "not allow", you know.  Her wording made it seem to me like her husband is the boss / warden / parent and she's the employee / prisoner / child.  Just sayin'.  Whether that's the way it is, heaven knows, but that's how it sounded.

Her husband is perfectly in his right as a Patriarch of the Family to prevent her baptism.  LDS do not understand this because an LDS person leaving the faith and getting baptized in another religion is a perilous thing but not a hopeless scenario. 

The Catholic Faith holds these things more seriously.  In the Catholic faith, if you die without having been baptized Catholic, your salvation is solely dependent on Christ's mercy.  There's no conversion after death, there's no repentance after death, there are no sacraments after death.  There is nothing else you can do except for pray for Christ's mercy.  Christ is not under covenant to save your soul.  A baptized Catholic, especially one catechized and has received the sacraments, is of grave danger because as you have experienced the sacraments you have come into covenant.  In this, you might not qualify for Christ's mercy as it is a sign that you have received Christ and rejected Him and your covenant.

A loving husband will do everything in his power to protect his family, especially his wife, from the eternal fires of hell.  A husband grabbing the wife who is about to cross the street and be run over by a truck doesn't have the luxury of "wanting" or "allowing" the wife to be safe.  He is going to take matters into his own hands and protect his family.  This is not about being boss/parent/warden nor employee/prisoner/child.  This is about the salvation of the souls of the people under the husband's authority.  There is no divorce in the Catholic faith.  The husband is covenanted to bring his wife to salvation until the day he dies.

Edited November 2, 2017 by anatess2

[Maureen]

4 hours ago, james12 said:

I have a problem with him telling you you cannot get baptized. A relationship must be one of give and take, not control by one party or the other. 

This has been discussed before in a different thread. This is from Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service.

Do I need permission of the spouse in order to baptize a husband or wife?

Yes. Do not baptize a married person without the consent of his or her spouse.

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

M.

[Guest]

While I think the Church is ultimately right in protecting a spouse's veto rights regarding baptism and thereby not encouraging family breakdown over religion, I don't have to like it.

I can't tell you how many times on my mission I saw a recurrent fact pattern where the wife wanted to go to Church, get baptized, etc. and her controlling husband would jump in the way and refuse to let it happen.  At least one of these times, the husband threatened physical abuse to keep the wife from going to Church.  This would happen both in religious and nonreligious households.  It would frankly make me want to scream (or rough up the husband in the one case involving actual physical abuse, frankly, a la To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything - I'm a pretty big guy and could have taken him!)  

On one level, I understand what @anatess2 is saying regarding a spouse having a right to save the other spouse from potential doom and all that.  But something about the whole business sure doesn't feel right to me, somehow.  If my wife wanted to join a different religion, I would certainly not prevent her from doing so.

Edited November 2, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[zil]

36 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

But something about the whole business sure doesn't feel right to me, somehow.

Because God won't force us to do / not do anything.  You're sensing an infringement on agency and it doesn't sit right with you.  If someone would like to see me in hell, all they have to do is try forcing me into heaven - I'll fight them tooth and nail all the way into hell rather than let them force me into heaven.  (Perhaps a personality flaw, but truth.)

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Because God won't force us to do / not do anything.  You're sensing an infringement on agency and it doesn't sit right with you.  If someone would like to see me in hell, all they have to do is try forcing me into heaven - I'll fight them tooth and nail all the way into hell rather than let them force me into heaven.  (Perhaps a personality flaw, but truth.)

Sure.  If it was just some person.  Like your brother or something.  My husband does this, though... especially with kids?  Sorry, dude.  You made a covenant with me, I'm going to fight the devil tooth and nail to get you to what I know is where heaven is.

The thing, though, is... if we are diligently searching for truth, we will find it.  So, my husband goes off and abandons our eternal family to chase his idea of where truth is... my job is simple.  Make sure he doesn't stop diligently, honestly, and humbly searching for truth.  For a Catholic though, you make sure he doesn't die before he makes it back to where the "truth" is.

There's agency, and then there's the marital covenant.  It's like abortion... your agency was exercised when you had sex, not when the baby is in your belly.

Edited November 2, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Sure.  If it was just some person.  Like your brother or something.  My husband does this, though... especially with kids?  Sorry, dude.  You made a covenant with me, I'm going to fight the devil tooth and nail to get you to heaven.

Except you cannot force a person into heaven any more than God can.  And while this approach may work for some people, if you (anatess2) try to force me (zil) into heaven, the exact opposite will happen, guaranteed.  And I don't care where the force is coming from - it can come from one of my family or anyone else, I would fight against it with everything I've got, even if it meant destroying myself in the process.

(Fortunately, there are other alternatives, like just ignoring people, but the point stands, for me.)

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Except you cannot force a person into heaven any more than God can.  And while this approach may work for some people, if you (anatess2) try to force me (zil) into heaven, the exact opposite will happen, guaranteed.  And I don't care where the force is coming from - it can come from one of my family or anyone else, I would fight against it with everything I've got, even if it meant destroying myself in the process.

(Fortunately, there are other alternatives, like just ignoring people, but the point stands, for me.)

Think about it @zil... when a Catholic wife leaves the Catholic church your wife did not just leave.  THE ENTIRE FAMILY is affected.  I may not be able to force you to heaven but I can protect my marriage and my children from the devil.  And that's why I love my mother very much for her efforts to protect the family from my "apostasy" and in her unceasing efforts for my "salvation".

Americans have this propensity to get divorced for irreconcilable differences.  Catholics do not divorce.  They fight for their marriage.  Especially when it comes to their salvation.  Fighting over things such as money and even abuse is one thing.  Fighting for your souls is a whole 'nother matter.

Edited November 2, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Think about it @zil... when a Catholic wife leaves the Catholic church your wife did not just leave.  THE ENTIRE FAMILY is affected.  I may not be able to force you to heaven but I can protect my marriage and my children from the devil.

You're welcome to think brute force is a valid method all you want.  I'm not arguing about who is impacted or who believes what.  And you cannot preserve your marriage or family by force - each individual in the unit has to choose God, they cannot be forced to do so against their will, no matter what you do.

I'm just saying it is my personal opinion that trying to use force to either cause or prevent another person's free choice is not God's way, that I personally don't think it should be our way, and that if someone tries it on me, it will backfire, guaranteed - I would rather destroy myself fighting force (and perhaps take my enemy with me) than be forced into anything, even something I want.  I do not say this lightly or as hyperbole - I will take destruction over forced bliss every day of the week.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

You're welcome to think brute force is a valid method all you want.  I'm not arguing about who is impacted or who believes what.  And you cannot preserve your marriage or family by force - each individual in the unit has to choose God, they cannot be forced to do so against their will, no matter what you do.

I'm just saying it is my personal opinion that trying to use force to either cause or prevent another person's free choice is not God's way, that I personally don't think it should be our way, and that if someone tries it on me, it will backfire, guaranteed - I would rather destroy myself fighting force (and perhaps take my enemy with me) than be forced into anything, even something I want.  I do not say this lightly or as hyperbole - I will take destruction over forced bliss every day of the week.

Why do you think it is brute force? 

Let me ask you this... do you think it is brute force that my husband took over our finances because I can't discipline myself enough to stay on budget?

[zil]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Why do you think it is brute force? 

Let me ask you this... do you think it is brute force that my husband took over our finances because I can't discipline myself enough to stay on budget?

Cuz that's what we were talking about originally.  We don't know what the OP meant when she said her husband wouldn't allow her to get baptized unless..., but it can only mean one of two things, ultimately: empty phrase or a threat of force.  Saying "I won't agree to it" is one thing, saying "I won't allow it" inherently includes the idea of forcefully stopping it, if needed (or it's an idle phrase expressing unhappiness with the idea).

Then Doc Lemon talked about some experiences and how the wording / idea made him a bit uncomfortable:

One of his stories included the threat of physical abuse (that would be force).  I responded to the idea of using force on another sentient being.  Nothing more or less than my personal reaction to the threat of force.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Cuz that's what we were talking about originally.  We don't know what the OP meant when she said her husband wouldn't allow her to get baptized unless..., but it can only mean one of two things, ultimately: empty phrase or a threat of force.  Saying "I won't agree to it" is one thing, saying "I won't allow it" inherently includes the idea of forcefully stopping it, if needed (or it's an idle phrase expressing unhappiness with the idea).

Then Doc Lemon talked about some experiences and how the wording / idea made him a bit uncomfortable:

One of his stories included the threat of physical abuse (that would be force).  I responded to the idea of using force on another sentient being.  Nothing more or less than my personal reaction to the threat of force.

Okay, that's a different scenario than a husband exercising his priesthood authority over the household in the same manner that my husband stops me from putting the family in the poor house with my spending habits.  "Don't get baptized" is a righteous exercise of priesthood authority in the same manner that an LDS husband whose wife decides to join the wiccans and take the kids with her would empathically say the same.  The threat of force is an implication derived by the wiccan and not the LDS husband.  The LDS husband is simply trying to save his family.

 

[Jane_Doe]

*Addressing the discussion as a person actually in an interfaith marriage*

Marriage, any marriage, is about respect & love.  Spouses talk about things (ALL things) and come to an understanding.  That understanding doesn't have to be "our thoughts are identical", but you need to communicate, respect, have things be open, and come to understanding of each other/actions.  If you're sneaking around a spouse's back, that's not ok.  If you're caging a spouse, that's also not ok.  

If a spouse has a strong religious question/conviction/etc that should be discussed and come to an understanding.  You don't sneak around a spouse's back with theological things, nor do you cage another spouse in theological things.  Talk about everything and come to a respectful understanding, which doesn't have to be "our thoughts are identical".  

[JoCa]

14 hours ago, james12 said:

I have a problem with him telling you you cannot get baptized. 

I've got no problem with this. A husband's role is to lead and guide . . . unfortunately in today's emasculated, matriarchal society the man's role as leader, guide, protector is trashed and looked down upon.  Oh some people might give platitudes to it, but they don't generally mean it-what they mean is that as long as the man agrees with the woman then he can lead, but if at any point the woman disagrees with the man, the man should instantly acquiesce to whatever the woman wants. That's not leadership at all.  By virtue of being a leader one is going to make decisions that others don't agree with, it's a fact of life.  Ideally, you get everyone's by-in but sometimes it's just not possible. And this attitude unfortunately is in the Church too.

And unfortunately most people don't understand what leadership is . . .today they think that leadership means taking a poll of what everyone wants and then based upon the desires of the group saying "whelp everyone wants to do xyz so we should do xyz".  I blooming hate that. It's leadership by committee or some other junk. 

Taking opinions of others if fine, asking for suggestions from time to time is fine but if you make a habit of it you aren't a leader, you're a weak spineless figurehead.  And with taking opinions, suggestions etc. it isn't to make a decision based upon someone else's desire, it's to become more informed about the decision itself to make sure there are no blind spots and then making the best decision based upon facts for the ultimate good and goal of the organization, unit, family, etc.

So if the husband is saying don't get baptized b/c he wants to control the spouse, he's not a leader, he authoritarian, a brute, and a jerk. If he is saying don't get baptized b/c from a leadership perspective he is concerned that multiple religions in the house will bring up more problems (where do the kids go, does he miss out on going to church with his spouse, what about church activities, what about eternal soul, etc.) then he's being authoritative (i.e. a leader).

This is IMO actually the source and cause of so many divorces . . .women in marriage don't want to be lead by their husband they want to lead the family itself and when you do that it turns the God ordained unit and functionality upside down and problems arise. And one cannot lead if the individuals one is supposed to lead don't want to follow.

So I say absolutely kudos to this good wife who is doing her best to have a God-ordained marriage and more likely than not over time with an open heart her husband will join the Church.

Edited November 3, 2017 by JoCa

[Blossom76]

11 hours ago, person0 said:

As much as I agree with you from a logical standpoint, from a practical perspective, it's much more difficult than two people having different beliefs.  Without the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, my wife and I have very little in common.  Aside from that, my absolute number one favorite topic of discussion is religion, and following that, politics.  If my wife were to decide to investigate another church and start telling me she believes it's true, I would also do all I could to convince her it is not, until she 'proved' it to me.  From this perspective, I see her husbands reaction as reasonable and expected.  If my wife decided to join another faith, and I did not join along with her, I don't know how long I could stay married to her.  Our primary commonality would be lost, except for the fact that we like many of the same tv shows.

However, I would also be the type of person to delve deep into a study of the other religion to determine for myself if it is true.  In the case of leaving the LDS Church, there is no other faith that says that the Holy Spirit will confirm it is true, so I would have a hard time being able to have any type of confirmation other than a logical one (which is what her husband seems to be expecting).  Obviously in this case it is the reverse and I welcome them both, but I am confident he will need/want to be convinced on both fronts, logical to the extent possible, and also a spiritual confirmation.  I know other marriages do it, but if my wife were to leave our faith, it would make it more difficult for me to be motivated to keep my covenants (not logically, just emotionally), and I would rather go marry someone else who would be a help meet to me, especially in keeping our covenants.

From this perspective, I do not think @Blossom76's husbands actions are unwarranted, unless he is relentlessly unwilling to determine for himself if the Church is true, or unless he becomes abusive about it in any way.  I wish the best for them both, and hope they both ultimately receive a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon, the prophet Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!

Thank you and you are 100% right, my husband is just behaving like any LDS wife or husband would be if their spouse came home and said they were looking at investigating and converting to the Catholic Church.

[james12]

18 hours ago, Maureen said:

This has been discussed before in a different thread. This is from Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service.

Do I need permission of the spouse in order to baptize a husband or wife?

Yes. Do not baptize a married person without the consent of his or her spouse.

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

M.

From the church's perspective it is right to not baptize someone without the spouse's consent. The church is not about creating a wedge between a husband and wife.

However, I am approaching this from a different angle. This is about how a husband should act within his marriage. It is not right for him to control his wife and not allow her to be baptized if she so chooses.  

[james12]

9 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you and you are 100% right, my husband is just behaving like any LDS wife or husband would be if their spouse came home and said they were looking at investigating and converting to the Catholic Church.

So will he allow you to be baptized even if he disagrees with your choice? Because I am LDS and that is what I would do if my wife came home and told me she was going to be baptized Catholic. Certainly we would discuss it, and I would try to dissuade her. I would even let her know in clear terms what a mistake it would be to join them. But at the end of the day, I would allow her the freedom to choose. That is how a good marriage works, that is how the Lord works. 

Know this, that ev’ry soul is free

To choose his life and what he’ll be;

For this eternal truth is giv’n:

That God will force no man to heav’n.

(Anon., ca. 1805, Boston. Included in the first LDS hymnbook, 1835)

[Guest]

On 10/31/2017 at 5:14 PM, 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;"

Your husband is both right and wrong.  What he says about the literal translation of those words is correct.  That is exactly what Paul is referring to.  But the part about the glory is what he's failing to understand.

Paul was describing how there are common traits with differing levels.  Heaven and Earth are different.  But they are both thought of as places to be.  Bodies are bodies.  But there are different bodies.  Beasts and men are different even though they both have bodies of some kind.

Just the same, there is a glory that we are raised to (an imperishable body).  However, we can be raised to a glory of the stars in that imperishable body, or we can be raised to a glory of the moon in an imperishable body, or we can be raised to a glory of the sun in an imperishable body.

The problem you're going to run into here (and this is why an appeal to the Bible never works) is that anything written like this can be INTERPRETED.  Obviously the natural man considers himself smarter than everyone else.  So, HIS interpretation is CLEARLY the correct one, and ours is pure sophistry.  Prophets be damned (literally).

We do not believe our system of beliefs simply because it says so in the Bible.  We believe in it because the Spirit has confirmed that these ideas are right and true.  It confirms that these interpretations are the correct ones that will lead us back to our Father.  We don't believe it simply because words are written on paper or computer screen.

Ask him why he believes in the Bible?  What makes him believe that it was actually Divinely inspired.  If he has some sense, he'll say that God has told him so.  Well, God has told us that -- as well as the fact that the BoM is also His word.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, james12 said:

So will he allow you to be baptized even if he disagrees with your choice? Because I am LDS and that is what I would do if my wife came home and told me she was going to be baptized Catholic. Certainly we would discuss it, and I would try to dissuade her. I would even let her know in clear terms what a mistake it would be to join them. But at the end of the day, I would allow her the freedom to choose. That is how a good marriage works, that is how the Lord works. 

Know this, that ev’ry soul is free

To choose his life and what he’ll be;

For this eternal truth is giv’n:

That God will force no man to heav’n.

(Anon., ca. 1805, Boston. Included in the first LDS hymnbook, 1835)

Okay, here's a question for you.

If your wife says "I'm going to kill myself", are you going to react the same way?  Let her know in clear terms what a mistake it would be but at the end of the day allow her the freedom to choose to shoot herself in the head?  If the husband vehemently says no and stops her from shooting herself in the head, that's not how a good marriage works?

[james12]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, here's a question for you.

If your wife says "I'm going to kill myself", are you going to react the same way?  Let her know in clear terms what a mistake it would be but at the end of the day allow her the freedom to choose to shoot herself in the head?  If the husband vehemently says no and stops her from shooting herself in the head, that's not how a good marriage works?

This is not a valid comparison because if my wife were planning to shot herself in the head I would assume she had some mental disorder and was not thinking rationally. Choosing to be baptized into a different religion does not imply irrationality. 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, james12 said:

This is not a valid comparison because if my wife were planning to shot herself in the head I would assume she had some mental disorder and was not thinking rationally. Choosing to be baptized into a different religion does not imply irrationality. 

Well, for a devout and faithful Catholic, getting baptized into another faith is the same as killing yourself... except, you have a slight chance of redeeming yourself if you don't die before you go back to the faith.  One would assume she has a mental disorder, not thinking rationally, or possessed by the devil.

That's what I've been trying to explain here that non-Catholics don't get.

Edited November 3, 2017 by anatess2