Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Marrying For Eternity "Either In This Life Or In The Next"


Recommended Posts

Reading this thread is like reading about the blind men describing an elephant--each providing a description of the portion of the elephant they can feel-an giant butterfly, a tree trunk, a snake, a leather-coated wall. The problem seemed to be that people were answering different aspects of the question Rob posed. After his big long summmary post, people saw what he was after (I think...I'm still not sure I'm sure) and provided clear answer to his question. So, let me repeat what a number of others have said to increase the number of "yeses":

1. In order to attain the highest degree within the celestial kingdom, a person must be sealed to a spouse.

2. Vicarious sealings are performed in the temples today.

3. Vicarious sealings will continue to be performed in the temples during the millennium.

4. Squirrelly situations will be resolved, though how hasn't been revealed to us yet.

None of these principles are different from what they were 150 years ago--as far as I can tell.

While Rob's long summary post made it look like everyone disagreeed, I think when put in the right context (when we all describe the same part of the elephant), most, if not all, agree with what everyone else has written.

Link to comment

There is one other scenario.....my friend (who's living) just recently got sealed to her 1st husband who died in the Vietnam War. He had been baptized after they were married and were working on his preparation to marry in the Temple the next year but he died before that could be done. She is in her early 60's...she's been trying to get that ordinance approved for a long time! But she kept being told you are still young enough to remarry in this life. She is twice divorced since her 1st husbands death and been single for almost 20 years since the last divorce. I can't remember if she was sealed or not to them both or just one or not either of them. But I imagine if so, she got a sealing cancellation from them. Her 1st husband she has always said was the love of her life! That marriage , she says, was 'perfect'..They were only married a little over a year when he died and she was pregnant with their first child. I am SO happy for her and envious!! I am still single while she has to no longer be searching for another spouse! LOL She's got her marriage made in Heaven!

Edited by GingerRed
Link to comment

This has turned into possibly one of the silliest threads. It's as if Bowman is waiting for someone to drop some great conspiracy confession that Bowman is peddling in some little fantasy but doesn't dare come out and reveal. This is really not rocket science, agree or disagree. Everyone needs the sealing ordinance, and practice is a practice. How the doctrine can be carried out can change. I fail to genuinely understand Bowman's beef/question/curiosity beyond what has been stated.

And don't be so presumptuous to "presuppose," because you're often going to be wrong.

PacMan

I've seen most claims of changes in the Gospel Principles manual tied to the idea the Church is softening its position in order to appear more "mainstream", IOW like the majority of other Christian denominations. I could see the idea of celestial marriages not being required for all for exaltation as seen a step toward the more common idea of no marriage in heaven or an attempt to create some wiggle room. Of course this is a completely wrong reading of what is actually said and considering how strongly even that chapter states that Eternal Marriage is essential for exaltation it seems like to me someone has to work hard to convince him/herself that misreading is valid.

Link to comment
Find me a Mormon who believes that temple marriage isn't necessary for exaltation and I'll show you an ignoramus whom doesn't understand his own doctrine. Likewise, find me a Mormon that believes proxy marriages are not being performed today and I will show you someone that apparently doesn't know what the word "vicarious" means.. How you are skewing these into some curiosity is beyond me.

I must agree with you (especially since I said the same thing here). :)

Lehi

Link to comment

The truth of the matter is that it is rather clear that Temple ordinances, INCLUDING marriage, are REQUIRED for exaltation.

First, one and two are not mutually exclusive and the underlying substance of both are true. Find me a Mormon who believes that temple marriage isn't necessary for exaltation and I'll show you an ignoramus whom doesn't understand his own doctrine.

What is going on here? DC 132:16.

Why are we spouting off, without going to the scriptures for the answers.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

What is going on here? DC 132:16.

Why are we spouting off, without going to the scriptures for the answers.

What are you talking about? This is precicely the same context of Jesus' question of the woman with multiple husbands (assuming that it speaks to the issues presented, which it doesn't - the more appropriate versus to what I was speaking of are versus 19 and 20). The work has to be done in this world.

You're not LDS are you?

PacMan

Edited by PacMan
Link to comment

What are you talking about? This is precicely the same context of Jesus' question of the woman with multiple husbands (assuming that it speaks to the issues presented, which it doesn't - the more appropriate versus to what I was speaking of are versus 19 and 20). The work has to be done in this world.

You're not LDS are you?

PacMan

Mr. Bowman's failure to read this in 19 and 20 is evident.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

What are you talking about? This is precicely the same context of Jesus' question of the woman with multiple husbands (assuming that it speaks to the issues presented, which it doesn't - the more appropriate versus to what I was speaking of are versus 19 and 20). The work has to be done in this world.

You're not LDS are you?

PacMan

Speaking as someone who is LDS, I don't think the account of Jesus' schooling of the Sadduccees should ever be used by LDS as a defense of Eternal Marriage. Jesus doesn't actively teach it at all. He basically just shuts down the Sadducees and says they don't know what they're talking about. Any talk of marriage relationships after this life in that context is all in the negative. The apologetic tactic used for these passages are, frankly, embarrassing.

Only through Correlated SS lessons could this result in our teacher last week declaring, "Here we have Jesus actively teaching that there is Eternal Marriage, and most from other Churches seem to misunderstand and misinterpret its plain meaning." blink.gif

I don't see why we need to insist everything we now know and teach must be found somewhere hidden in the Bible. Even hidden in passages that appear to be teaching against it!

I'll say it in another way: I believe things, as a Mormon, that different Bible Book writers disagreed with, and probably would have thought, in their time, according to what they knew, was False Doctrine. I'm quite okay with that.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

Speaking as someone who is LDS, I don't think the account of Jesus' schooling of the Sadduccees should ever be used by LDS as a defense of Eternal Marriage. Jesus doesn't actively teach it at all. He basically just shuts down the Sadducees and says they don't know what they're talking about. Any talk of marriage relationships after this life in that context is all in the negative. The apologetic tactic used for these passages are, frankly, embarrassing.

Please answer this:

Why did the Sadducees ask that particular question?

The only response to this is that Jesus must have been teaching eternal marriage. No other response addesses the issue of that particular trap. If Jesus had not been teaching eternal marriage, their question, that question, would have made no sense at all.

It is true that the Bible (as we have it) does not explicitly say Jesus was talking about eternal marriage and that this was the reason the Sadducess thought they could get away with trapping Him in this way. But the whole incident is pointless without that underlying teaching.

Lehi

Link to comment

Speaking as someone who is LDS, I don't think the account of Jesus' schooling of the Sadduccees should ever be used by LDS as a defense of Eternal Marriage.

I think you are a little confused about who uses (wrongly) these verses against whom.

Link to comment

Speaking as someone who is LDS, I don't think the account of Jesus' schooling of the Sadduccees should ever be used by LDS as a defense of Eternal Marriage. Jesus doesn't actively teach it at all. He basically just shuts down the Sadducees and says they don't know what they're talking about. Any talk of marriage relationships after this life in that context is all in the negative. The apologetic tactic used for these passages are, frankly, embarrassing.

Only through Correlated SS lessons could this result in our teacher last week declaring, "Here we have Jesus actively teaching that there is Eternal Marriage, and most from other Churches seem to misunderstand and misinterpret its plain meaning." blink.gif

I don't see why we need to insist everything we now know and teach must be found somewhere hidden in the Bible. Even hidden in passages that appear to be teaching against it!

I'll say it in another way: I believe things, as a Mormon, that different Bible Book writers disagreed with, and probably would have thought, in their time, according to what they knew, was False Doctrine. I'm quite okay with that.

I am curious how you square this with this:

D&C 132:

15Therefore, if a aman marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in bheaven, which angels are ministering cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are aangels of God forever and ever.

It appears to be a continuation of the discussion with the Sadducees- or at least a clarification by revelation of what an LDS interpretation of how one should interpret the Biblical discussion.

I agree with you that the Bible might very well teach false doctrine incidentally, but I haven't found any yet. But on this point, I think that your SS teacher was right.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Please answer this:

Why did the Sadducees ask that particular question?

The only response to this is that Jesus must have been teaching eternal marriage. No other response addesses the issue of that particular trap. If Jesus had not been teaching eternal marriage, their question, that question, would have made no sense at all.

It is true that the Bible (as we have it) does not explicitly say Jesus was talking about eternal marriage and that this was the reason the Sadducess thought they could get away with trapping Him in this way. But the whole incident is pointless without that underlying teaching.

Lehi

It was a question made to mock the Resurrection. A 'gotcha' question addressing what seemed like an absurdity. The Jesus as portrayed by the Gospel writers pretty much said they're idiots, and don't know what they're talking about, and just shut 'em down. It also ties into references to current angel lore.

While Mark and Matthew simply shut down the idea of post-resurrection Marriage with an appeal to the current popular concept of single angels, Luke's version (probably influenced by Pauline theology) expands the saying significantly, and intimates that only the children of the world marry to begin with, and hints at the higher aims and rewards of celibacy.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

I am curious how you square this with this:

D&C 132:

It appears to be a continuation of the discussion with the Sadducees- or at least a clarification by revelation of what an LDS interpretation of how one should interpret the Biblical discussion.

I agree with you that the Bible might very well teach false doctrine incidentally, but I haven't found any yet. But on this point, I think that your SS teacher was right.

It uses biblical language in a new context to teach a new understanding of doctrine. The JST and D&C in general do this all the time. D&C 76's use of 'Celestial' and 'Terrestrial' teaches something very different than the context of how it was used in Paul.

Frankly, the NT authors do this all the time with OT passages. It's perfectly normal, and in fact standard, in the prophetic tradition.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment
It was a question made to mock the Resurrection. A 'gotcha' question addressing what seemed like an absurdity. The Jesus as portrayed by the Gospel writers pretty much said they're idiots, and don't know what they're talking about, and just shut 'em down. It also ties into references to current angel lore.

But it does not address their choice of that question.

There are a million possible ways to mock the resuurection. But they chose to mock it through eternal marriage? Sorry, unless Jesus was teaching eternal marriage, and especially if no one believed the dead remained married anyway, their choice is a clap out of the blue.

Further, if Jesus had not been teaching eternal marriage, He would just have said, "Huh?!? What are you blathering about?" But He did not take that tack. He said they didn't underatand the scriptures (which strongly implies that they were wrong in the assumption that there was no marital state in heaven, and that they did not know the power of God (againt the same implication, and perhaps even stronger).

While Mark and Matthew simply shut down the idea of post-resurrection Marriage with an appeal to the current popular concept of single angels, Luke's version (probably influenced by Pauline theology) expands the saying significantly, and intimates that only the children of the world marry to begin with, and hints at the higher aims and rewards of celibacy.

Yes. Luke was Paul's disciple, fer shure.

However, even in his account, the answer is still "progressive", meaning that the verbs He used ("marry"—which applies to men; "are given in marriage"—which applies to women) depict the wedding ceremony, not the state of matrimony. So, we are not wrong when we calim that He was telling them that their earthly ceremonies would not prevail in heaven because they did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood required for sealing, and that, because the marriages performed on earth for thes eight peole would not be valid in heaven, and that they, who were among the Saducees, would not marry in heaven. Only the temples of God permit eternal marriagee, and there are no earthly Temples in heaven. (Tautology, I know, but it needs saying.) These eight Sadducees, who exercised no faith in Christ, would be, unmarried, as the angels.

But none of that actually takes on the question I posed: Why that question?

There is no getting around it. Unless Jesus had been teaching eternal marriage, the seven brothers and their wife is a particularly stupid question to use to trap Him.

Lehi

Link to comment

But it does not address their choice of that question.

There are a million possible ways to mock the resuurection. But they chose to mock it through eternal marriage? Sorry, unless Jesus was teaching eternal marriage, and especially if no one believed the dead remained married anyway, their choice is a clap out of the blue.

Further, if Jesus had not been teaching eternal marriage, He would just have said, "Huh?!? What are you blathering about?" But He did not take that tack. He said they didn't underatand the scriptures (which strongly implies that they were wrong in the assumption that there was no marital state in heaven, and that they did not know the power of God (againt the same implication, and perhaps even stronger).

Yes. Luke was Paul's disciple, fer shure.

However, even in his account, the answer is still "progressive", meaning that the verbs He used ("marry"—which applies to men; "are given in marriage"—which applies to women) depict the wedding ceremony, not the state of matrimony. So, we are not wrong when we calim that He was telling them that their earthly ceremonies would not prevail in heaven because they did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood required for sealing, and that, because the marriages performed on earth for thes eight peole would not be valid in heaven, and that they, who were among the Saducees, would not marry in heaven. Only the temples of God permit eternal marriagee, and there are no earthly Temples in heaven. (Tautology, I know, but it needs saying.) These eight Sadducees, who exercised no faith in Christ, would be, unmarried, as the angels.

But none of that actually takes on the question I posed: Why that question?

There is no getting around it. Unless Jesus had been teaching eternal marriage, the seven brothers and their wife is a particularly stupid question to use to trap Him.

Lehi

Heck, Joseph Smith didn't even teach publicly about Eternal Marriage during his life. Only his inner circle knew about it. And then it was taught for the next few decades, it was completely intertwined with Polygamy.

View it from the point of view of the Sadducees, who don't believe in the Resurrection, period.

They know it's normal for men to remarry after death. And then there's the principle of Levirite seed-raising. Since they don't believe life persists, that makes sense. Serial monogomy, right?

But if there's a resurrection, does that mean the girl has to choose one? Or are they polyandrists? While Polygamy at least has historic precedence, polyandry does not. It's a funny, somewhat crass question. If they were polyandrists, wouldn't that be against the Law? The question was absurd. They're not looking for an answer. They're looking for a way to poke fun at the Resurrection. The very existence of the Resurrection raises what seems like silly questions.

Jesus calls them on it, showing that their question is absurd, but not for the reasons they thought it was. It's absurd due to their ignorance, not his "silly" doctrine.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

Luke's version:

34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

I read this as Luke saying:

The children of this world marry

Those who are worthy of Resurrection (IE, those of the Kingdom of God, not of "this world") do not.

I find it very hard to find

34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, that is, the telestial, terrestrial, or unexalted celestial worlds, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: But those who are exalted and married by the Sealing Authority do and are - but you wouldn't know about that, because there was an Apostasy, and the keys left with Elijah.

As the original understanding and intent of the writer.

I'm perfectly fine with Joseph Smith correcting and updating the principle through inspiration. I just think we try too hard and give apologetics a bad name when we use a verse where, in three different ways, it speaks negatively about marriage for those who are Resurrected, and it is turned around and taught that in this context, the Gospel writers were actually teaching pro Eternal Marriage. It makes us look very silly when we do that.

But I don't think there's any justification of, for example, Talmage's assertion that it was absurd because, clearly, she had actually been sealed for time and eternity to only her first husband!

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

In other words:

Sadducees: "Dude, if there's a Resurrection, does that mean that chick is still married to all those dudes she did it with, or does she have to pick one? Heheh."

Beavis_and_Butt-head-400x300.gif

Jesus: "You guys are idiots."

sad-jesus.jpg

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

It uses biblical language in a new context to teach a new understanding of doctrine. The JST and D&C in general do this all the time. D&C 76's use of 'Celestial' and 'Terrestrial' teaches something very different than the context of how it was used in Paul.

Frankly, the NT authors do this all the time with OT passages. It's perfectly normal, and in fact standard, in the prophetic tradition.

So then wasn't your SS teacher substantially right in teaching that in the context of a Sunday School lesson? After all, he/she got it out of D&C?

I'm just arguing about what appeared to me to be a "cheap shot" at "chapel Mormons"

Link to comment

So then wasn't your SS teacher substantially right in teaching that in the context of a Sunday School lesson? After all, he/she got it out of D&C?

I'm just arguing about what appeared to me to be a "cheap shot" at "chapel Mormons"

There's a difference between a teacher saying, "We learn in Modern Revelation the doctrine that..." and "Those other Churches are so messed up, 'cause they think when Jesus says those who are worthy to be Resurrected don't get married, when it's clear that he actually was teaching them all about Eternal Marriage. I wonder why people don't get that?"

The latter is what the teachers did - talked specifically about how almost everyone else somehow reads this verse and gets the opposite of what we know it really means.

I don't blame those who trust the manuals put out by the Church to teach them proper biblical interpretation. I do, however, very much dislike the Sunday School manuals, and find them, at times, very counterproductive - especially the New and Old Testament ones.

To be fair, the manual in this case is subtle and not technically inaccurate in this case - but the way it's phrased can be easily understood into the conclusion the teacher presented

How did the Sadducees try to trap Jesus? (See Matthew 22:23–28.) How were the Sadducees hypocritical in their question? (See Matthew 22:23. They pretended to be concerned about marriage in theresurrection, but they did not believe in resurrection.) How did Jesus answer their question? (See Matthew 22:29–30. Explain that Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–16, 19 clarifies Jesus’ teaching. Those who do not make and keep the covenants of temple marriage will be single in heaven. For those who do make and keep these covenants, marriage will last for eternity.).

The D&C does clarify the doctrine. But it doesn't offer an explanation of what the original author was conveying, which is the interpretation the teacher gave. In other words, the manual does point out that this teaching isn't in the NT, but that we need to turn to the D&C for our modern clarification of the Marriage teaching. I agree with that. It's actually a very wise and subtle phrasing, but the problem with subtlety is that it's easily misunderstood.

And it does point out what I said - they weren't actually concerned about Marriage in the Resurrection. They were just mocking the concept of the Resurrection in general.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

And it does point out what I said - they weren't actually concerned about Marriage in the Resurrection. They were just mocking the concept of the Resurrection in general.

How can you say that, when there question dealt specifically about marriage and the resurrection?

You are right that it was a question set up to mock the resurrection.

Link to comment

How can you say that, when there question dealt specifically about marriage and the resurrection?

Investigator:

"So, you guys believe in actual marriage after death, right? So, how does sex with Resurrected bodies on Kolob work? Can you fly around while you're doin' it? Can you do it with multiple wives at the same time?"

Do think the "investigator" asking that question is actually really interested in the mechanics of "continuation of the seed"? Or are they just mocking the concept of Eternal Marriage based on their own base and bizarre misconceptions?

Do you seriously address every single wrong element and assumption, knowing they're not listening anyway?

Same story.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

But I don't think there's any justification of, for example, Talmage's assertion that it was absurd because, clearly, she had actually been sealed for time and eternity to only her first husband!

You are putting word onto Talmage's page that aren't actually there.

The Lord's meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died.

You are reading into that statement the assumption that the marriage to the first was for eternity. The text doesn't require it.

In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.
Heck, Joseph Smith didn't even teach publicly about Eternal Marriage during his life.

Well, I did find this.

"The Prophet Joseph taught this principles: “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life . . . continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” Smith, History of the Church, 5:391;

So you are claiming that he taught this in private.

Link to comment

You are putting word onto Talmage's page that aren't actually there.

The Lord's meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died.

You are reading into that statement the assumption that the marriage to the first was for eternity. The text doesn't require it.

Try it this way:

The Lord's meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died.

Come on. The clear implication is that 'the first' did not marry her for the duration of mortal life only. Otherwise the use of 'except the first' makes no sense.

If someone says "everyone except for Tim didn't get into the pool", would it not be the logical assumption that the intent is to say that Tim did get into the pool?

Well, I did find this.

"The Prophet Joseph taught this principles: “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life . . . continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” Smith, History of the Church, 5:391;

So you are claiming that he taught this in private.

According to the reference in History of the Church, it was private to the Johnsons, with Clayton present recording it for the journal.

"then went to Benjamin F. Johnson's with William Clayton to sleep. Before retiring, I gave Brother and Sister Johnson some instructions on the priesthood; and putting my hand on the knee of William Clayton, I said:"

... and then your reference. So yes. It was in private.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...