Hebrews 2:11 NRSV >For *the one who sanctifies* and those who are sanctified *all have one Father*. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them *brothers.* According to this passage, the one who sanctifies is Christ and those who are sanctified are the saints. We are all one family from one source, which is God the Father. Jesus therefore calls us his brothers, as we are sons of God just as he is the firstborn Son of God (Col 1:15). But if Jesus is God, how could we be brothers with him if both we and him come from the same source which is God our Father? How could we all be brothers of God if we are sons of God? We would no longer be sons of God but would instead all be God together. A son of God and a brother of God are two entirely different things. Are we not brothers of the Son of God rather than brothers of God, which implies that Jesus is not God but the Son of God?

I'm basically wondering from a natural law, biblical or whatever other perspective the Catholic Church's view on the matter. Is this practice still around, or does headship transfer to the wife.

Societies (churches, cities, nations) have guardian angels, but does every marriage or family have its own guardian angel? Marriages and families are societies, too. Has any Catholic angelologist (Father or Doctor of the Church or prominent Catholic theologian) discussed this?

I recently read about the doctrine of eternal families in the LDS Church. As I understand it, the LDS church teaches that men on this planet have the potential to become gods themselves, who then have their own planets upon which people may become gods also. I am mathematically inclined, so I began thinking of this from that perspective. Currently, the LDS Church has a membership of around 15 million people worldwide. If we, however, only assume that one million men attain godhood from God's spiritual progeny on this planet and that this is the only planet on which His progeny attains godhood, then we would have a generational ratio of 1:1,000,000 or 1:10^6. If that ratio were to hold for each man that becomes a god in each subsequent generation, the numbers become quite large very quickly, even assuming linear growth rather than exponential. I understand that LDS teaching holds the our God was once a man on another planet, so at the very least, people on this planet are the third "generation". If our God is one of a million others who also became gods on their planet, then the total number of gods and planets, if this really is the third generation, would now be 10^6 X 10^6, or 10^12 (one trillion). If this is the 4th generation, then there would be 10^12 or one quintillion gods and planets. Ten celestial generations would produce 10^60 gods and planets, and 20 would produce 10^120 gods and planets. Science estimates that there are only between 10^78 - 10^82 atoms in the observable universe. So, my question is whether or not the LDS Church speaks to this reality and whether it holds to a multi-universe or infinite universe theory in order to account for the mathematical realities or if there is some other explanation. *I have never read anything about this question on any other sites. The mathematical realities just occurred to me as I was thinking about this.*

Christianity and Christians themselves emphasis the importance of traditional Christian family values, but does the bible support the premise of traditional Christian family values? I will define family values according to Cambridge Dictionary, which states; > ideas or beliefs that give great importance to the traditional family of a mother, a father, and children all living together What is the biblical basis for traditional family values?

Frédéric Martel in his book [*In the Closet of the Vatican*](https://www.amazon.com/Closet-Vatican-Power-Homosexuality-Hypocrisy/dp/1472966147) has the following remarks on the [Synod of the Family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Ordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops) : > In fact, a ‘liberal* majority emerged from the Synod, but the quorum > required for the adoption of the controversial articles, which > required two-thirds of the votes, was missing. Three paragraphs out of > 62 were therefore rejected » and they were the most to the point. The > pope didn’t get his quorum. Francis’s revolutionary project on the > family and homo­ sexuality was defeated. **Is there any source where I can find the texts of those 3 rejected paragraphs and the votes taken on them?** I am especially interested to check whether all 3 paragraphs indeed gathered the majority votes and were not included in the final document due only to the supermajority requirement. I have read some reviews about the book cited above and they mention many fact checking failures. So, the quoted > 'liberal' majority may be a metaphor and may not mean the majority of votes for the specific paragraphs. I am aware of the [www.synod.va](http://www.synod.va/content/synod/en.html) . The website has the *instrumentum laboris* and similar documents but I can not find the proceedings (transactions) and the votes. AFAIK, the synodal assemblies are not closed as opposed to the Ecumenical Councils. (I heard there are about 50+ volume publications of the [Second Vatican Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council) , therefore the notion that Vatican II was closed is quite dubious). **Question to be clarified**: While the question (as it stands) seems to be legitimate, most likely Frédéric Martel talked about the [III Extraordinary Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Extraordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops) , which was the preparatory synodal assembly before the [XIV ordinary assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Ordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops) .

Exodus 20:5 (NASB) says, > You shall not worship [idols] or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, But Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB) says > The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. How are these two passages reconciled?

I have been told by my LDS bishop not to fear losing family members forever. I know that the family is very important to Heavenly Father and his Son, but how important is it really? Will we get to visit our families in heaven if we are separated into different kingdoms, such as the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms? Will only people from the Celestial get to visit others, or could family members in the Telestial visit someone in the Celestial? I have always had the fear of losing family because we won't be able to visit each other in heaven. I have also had the fear that I might be the person to be in one of the lower kingdoms. I would like an answer based on LDS traditions and beliefs. I would also like to consider this question as to how could I answer it based on LDS beliefs if someone else asked me about it.

Leviticus 18:18: > Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. I always wondered why it says it like this. Instead of, "do not marry your wife's sister while she is alive," it says not to take her as a "rival wife" specifically. What does that mean?

We know that Peter was married because Christ healed his mother-in-law . Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children?

There are numerous passages that support the concept of generational curses - that children will be punished for the sins of their parents. >Exodus 20:5 , Exodus 34:7 , Numbers 14:18 , Deuteronomy 5:9
> You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, > >Jeremiah 32:18
> You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them. Great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord Almighty, There are other verses that say that a person will be treated according to their own actions and not the actions of ancestors or descendants. >Deuteronomy 24:16
>Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. > > Ezekiel 18:20,30
> The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them... > >“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. These seem to me to be in direct conflict. Has there been any scholarship or commentaries that address this difference? A Protestant response would be preferred but I would appreciate an answer from any tradition.

Why do Mormons put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do? What about their doctrine causes this? Or is it more because of culture/tradition?

The Second Vatican Council wrote in *Lumen gentium* 11 ([English](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) , [Latin](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_lt.html)) : > The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with special care vocation to a sacred state. > > *In hac velut Ecclesia domestica parentes verbo et exemplo sint pro filiis suis primi fidei praecones, et vocationem unicuique propriam, sacram vero peculiari cura, foveant oportet.* In *The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II* (Crossroad, 1999; 2nd ed. 2003), Cardinal Avery Dulles writes (p146 of the 2003 edition, which I have read only on Google snippet view): > John Paul II has frequently repeated the term *ecclesia domestica* without adding the qualifier *veluti* ("as it were") used by the council. Dulles' cited examples are [*Catechesi tradendae*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html) 68 (1979), [*Familiaris consortio*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html) 49-52 (1981), and [*Evangelium vitae*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html) 92 (1995). John Paul II's homily [*Expedit ut laborem*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19800926_sinodo_lt.html) (26 Sept 1980) also speaks of the family's place as *"ecclesiola" seu ecclesia domestica*; and his statement in *Familiaris consortio* 21 that > The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason too it can and should be called "the domestic Church." can now be found in the Catechism (s. 2204). A footnote in *FC* refers to *Lumen gentium* and to Paul VI's [*Apostolicam actuositatem*](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html) 11 (1965) - which says that the family fulfils its mission "if it *appears as* the domestic sanctuary of the Church" (my emphasis; the Latin is *tamquam domesticum sanctuarium Ecclesiae se exhibeat*). It's not hard to find bundles of sources for the family being a good thing, and support for its special role in education. But it seems, especially in *FC*, that John Paul II gives the family a *theologically* elevated position, as an explicit Church-in-miniature, and that this is a novel development - whereas previous authorities used the phrase more cautiously. **Is this actually novel?** I would be interested in finding earlier (pre-Council) sources for this theology, or alternatively an explanation of how it differs from prior explanations of the ecclesial role of the family. (I should say that I don't have a problem with novelty, so this isn't intended to be a criticism! I'm just interested in the history of the idea.)

Currently the Pope is hosting an interfaith conference in the Vatican about the sanctity of marriage. I have been listening somewhat to the different speakers. One in particular, Rev. Dr. Richard D. Warren of the Saddleback Church, caught my attention to what he said, which has sparked a question. This link is his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XF7cBeDZiM . Near the end he said something along these lines: Jesus said, there will be no marriage, nor families in the next life because these are institutions created by God to prepare us for what is to come, and because we will be part of it, we no longer need them to prepare because we are there. **Question:** Where in the scriptures is this taught? To give some background, I am LDS, to which we believe that family life extends into the next life and we can live with our spouses and children forever based on our righteousness.

According to [Matthew 22:30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A30&version=RSVCE) , people in heaven do not marry. What do the family relationships look like there? Will our relations to parents, kids, wives and husbands disappear? The Catholic position preferred and biblical arguments welcome.

I understand the LDS Church teaches the concept of an eternal family. I guess the husband and wife have to have been sealed for eternity in a Temple marriage, and, therefore, have to hold Temple recommends. I'm wondering if their earthly children also have to be Temple-worthy and if there are any other qualifications. If one child is not Temple-worthy, then I'm wondering if that child is not a part of the eternal family in the afterlife, but perhaps would still have some relationship with his/her siblings and parents and possibly Temple-worthy children. So, perhaps let us focus in on the specific qualifications for having an eternal family in heaven.

As I understand LDS teaching, a couple may have an eternal family with the children they produce here on earth. However, that couple may also attain godhood and then produce spiritual children for their own worlds as well. Thus, a couple may have both earthly children as well as celestial or spiritual children. Their spiritual children then take on flesh on another world and seek to attain godhood themselves. (This is the doctrine of eternal progression, as I understand it.) So, my question concerns the relationship of the couple that attains godhood to their spiritual or celestial children and how that is similar or different from the relationship they have with the children they had here on earth. Do the celestial or spiritual children become part of their eternal family as well? Do spiritual children share equal status with earthly children?

In Roman Catholicism the clergy is predominantly celibate and hence there is no pressure of sustaining a family. What exactly is the system in a Protestant clergy? Are they employed in a gainful job, in addition to being involved in preaching? If so, how do they make time for God as well as for family? How do they sustain their family?