This is an old hobby horse for Mormons, pointing out that "no other religion says families can be together in heaven." Now DCP has extended that to sex. I imagine drugs and rock and roll are soon to follow. This all makes sense, it's quite clear that DCP is very much invested in the physical material pleasures of this world.DCP wrote:In a recent blog entry, I responded to the allegation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that those who do not receive the gift of exaltation will be literally, physically, neutered in the resurrection. I also relied to the accusation that I take particular, gleeful delight in this supposed punishment, which I supposedly imagine will be meted out to those fail to share my religious beliefs.
I deny both claims, of course. I think both are expressly counter to scriptural teaching. And no actual evidence has been furnished by those making or defending it that physical neutering in the resurrection is an actual doctrine of the Church, Nor has any evidence been provided to show that I myself believe such a doctrine to be true — let alone that I take sadistic pleasure in anticipating the neutering of anybody, anywhere, at any time.
So the small handful of dedicated obsessives in question has shifted to acknowledging the authentic doctrine of the Church, which is not one of eschatological castration or spaying but is that only those who inherit exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will have the privilege of “eternal increase” — of having children after the resurrection. Now, of course, grimly determined to paint this teaching in the worst possible light, this small and obsessive group of slanderers insist that it is about punishing non-Latter-day Saints with “forced” or “involuntary sterilization.” And, of course, being the cruel and depraved monster that I am, that I take particular pleasure in contemplating such punishment.
But this is a gross misrepresentation of Latter-day Saint teaching and — it scarcely needs saying, since such slanders against me are de rigueur in the precincts where they comment — a grotesquely malicious distortion of my personal beliefs.
Beyond the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a few historically-associated groups that have emerged out of the Restoration, I’m unaware of any faith that teaches any concept of having children after the resurrection. I’m unaware of any faith possessed of a doctrinal framework into which such a notion could be incorporated. In other words, there is no expectation anywhere else in Christendom (or, so far as I’m aware, beyond Christendom) that the righteous will enjoy “eternal increase” in the world to come.
Thus, the Latter-day Saint teaching isn’t that those who do not receive exaltation will be punished by being deprived of a capacity that they had expected to possess — since the universal teaching outside of the Latter-day Saint faith tradition is that nobody will enjoy such a capacity. Rather, in the Latter-day Saint view of it, the opportunity for eternal increase is a completely unexpected gift that is at least offered to everybody. (And one that, thanks to the ordinances of the temple, will be offered to everybody in the next world who did not receive the offer in this one.)
No analogy is perfect — if it were perfect, it wouldn’t be an analogy but would be an identity — but permit me to try to make this as clear as I can. (I have no hope that those who want to insist on viewing this badly will grasp the point, or admit that they grasp it. Still, I’m optimistic that normal, reasonable, people will understand.) Here’s a comparison:
Suppose that an astoundingly rich man invites everybody in his town to a lavish feast. His only requirement is that, on the day of the feast, the townsfolk enter his mansion through its door. Would it be reasonable for a critic to complain that the offered feast is all about punishing those who, for whatever reason, don’t enter through the door? That he’s depriving people of food who attempt, instead, to enter his mansion through its solid walls? That he’s attempting to starve the people in the town who, despite having received the invitation, choose on the appointed day not to come to his mansion at all?
The same small group of critics who currently seek to transmogrify the offer of eternal increase into a threat of forced sterilization have also sought to portray the doctrine of eternal families as a threatened eternal divorce. (“Fork ten percent of your income over to the leaders of the Church or never see your wife and children again!”)
Again, though, neither traditional Christian teaching nor the doctrine of any other faith of which I’m aware holds out the promise that family ties — between spouses, say, and between parents and children — will continue into the resurrection. That people will recognize one another in the afterlife, of course, is allowed; short of the resurrected equivalent of a lobotomy, we will naturally know our loved ones. But you will scan the Catholic Catechism and the Qur’an in vain for a doctrine of eternal family ties. Try reading Dante’s Divina Commedia for examples of marriages persisting into the life to come. (You won’t find them. Like the damned in the Inferno and the souls in Purgatory, the saved in Paradise are individual “social atoms.”)
Accordingly, the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints isn’t that those who don’t receive exaltation will be punished by being deprived of the family relationships that they had expected to enjoy in the afterlife — since the universal teaching outside of the Latter-day Saint faith tradition is that nobody will enjoy such relationships. Rather, as Latter-day Saints conceive of it, the opportunity to dwell forever in family relationships is a wholly unanticipated gift that will be offered to everybody who has ever lived or who ever will live.
Again, and probably redundantly, I proffer an analogy: A concert is being offered, and its organizers announce that everybody who wishes to attend may do so. Moreover, if they inform the ticket office of their wish they will be seated with their family members and friends. Would it be just or fair for a critic to respond that this invitation constitutes cruel and vengeful punishment directed at people who don’t request being seated together? Is it reasonable to construe the invitation as a vicious abuse of invitees who choose not to attend the concert at all? Would it be a legitimate complaint against the concert organizer and host that people who rejected his invitation to the concert aren’t seated together at it? Would such objections make even the slightest sense?
But how do Christians really view this? Let's see what they have to say:
A Catholic believer on Reddit wrote:The concept of heaven is very different in Catholicism vs Mormonism.
Catholics believe in one level of heaven as opposed to the several levels of Mormon heaven. Catholic men will not become gods of their own planets and their wives do not require their husbands to call them up to the highest level of heaven.
Catholicism believes that heaven is the 'beatific vision' which is being in the direct presence of God. One would hope that we would be connected with our loved ones (not just family but also friends) who are also there in the presence of God. Marriage is for this life, but love is eternal.
I never got how 'families forever' is such a selling point of Mormonism. It seems sad to no longer see your friends, or extended family members to whom you were not 'sealed'.
Personally I think the Catholic view of heaven is more mature, and in line with Christ's description as given in the New Testament. But DCP is welcome to embrace the very materialistic conception of Heaven that Joseph Smith created in the post-Enlightenment era.Another Catholic believer on Reddit wrote:The Catholic conception of Heaven focuses on the beatific vision, this is the seeing God face-to-face and as He is to the best of our ability. In such a state of grace, we are completed by God who wipes away every tear of this mortal life.
That does not mean, however, that we do not have a relationship or "live with" our families and loved ones who are also in Heaven. After all, we believe the family is the icon of the icon of the Trinity, an imperfect way of understanding this great truth. It would be very unlikely, then, that God would sever these bonds made in life. Rather I suspect (and this is me speaking, not our bishops who are more reticent on the matter) that these bonds would be strengthened and fulfilled in Heaven.
As for other denominations and religions, I can't be certain, but if I were forced to guess, I'd say no. Christianity in general is very community and relationship oriented, with some brands of Judaism coming in a close second.
Perhaps Rusty Nelson can give DCP his own revelation, in the D&C, assuring him that all-you-can-eat buffets are also only guaranteed in the Celestial Kingdom!
