A Lofty Aspiration to Union

[3DOP]

I had pretty much decided to discontinue the discussion on marriage in heaven, even though I had been asked to start a new thread. If you haven't followed, there have been discussions that took place on at least two threads. I had been hoping to kind of pull everything together. But it seemed too hard and time consuming. 

1) I want to be on record for commending the LDS teaching on eternal marriage and families. If I correctly understand the teaching of my church (Roman Catholic), we concur that the citizens in heaven will experience the greatest joys of family unity while retaining their genders.

2) I also hold that the Scriptures teach that after the resurrection of the body, that it is revealed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that marriage and procreation are for this age only.

3) I reconcile points 1 and 2 by affirming the teaching of Pope John Paul II called the Theology of the Body. In that work he repeatedly refers to the nuptial meaning of our bodies. 

I can't write a book. But I had even made myself comfortable with abandoning the idea of starting a little thread here. That was until I came across the subject in a most unexpected place. A Soviet prison camp. Popularly known as the Gulag Archipelago, a history and literary work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn that recalls the prison camp system which was populated by political prisoners who had often been guilty of nothing more than being captured by Germans in World War II. Not everyone fit this category of prisoner. Solzhenitsyn himself was "guilty" of corresponding with a friend and expressing doubt about Comrade Stalin's leadership. After the fall of Germany, and the liberation of Russian prisoners from German camps, instead of having a heroes welcome, they were usually treated as traitors. It is over-simplification, but there was fear that while in the camps of the west they had imbibed anti-Soviet ideas. 

In at least one case it was true that anti-Soviet ideas had been conceived by a prisoner in a German camp. In his Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn recalls his friendship with Anatoly Vasilyevich Silin. Born around 1910, Silin had been an orphan, raised as an atheist in a children's home, and was fighting against the Nazis, like all good Soviet citizens. But after being captured by the Germans, while imprisoned he had come across some religious literature for the first time, and was reportedly carried away, and converted to Christianity. When Solzhenitsyn knew him, it appears that he had never even had the freedom to visit a church. I am afraid we do not know if he ever survived the prison system. Here is what we read about him and marriage in a biography of Solzhenitsyn by Joseph Pearce:

Since he had spent the entire period since his conversion in prisons of one sort or another he had never had the benefit of further spiritual reading. Instead he gleaned the truth through his own perceptions, expressed in verse. According to Solzhenitsyn, Silin knew some twenty thousand lines of verse by heart at the time they met, reciting many of them to his younger fellow poet. Like Solzhenitsyn, Silin looked upon his verse as a 'way of remembering and of transmitting thoughts'.

For the Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn gleaned a few precious memories of their time together in the camp. He recalled Silin bending over one of the rare blades of grass growing in the barren camp. 'How beautiful are the grasses of the earth,' he exclaimed. 'But even these the Creator has given to man for a carpet under his feet. How much more beautiful, then, must we be than they!'

I wanted to share that, and this:

Silin's theological mysticism was distinctly unpuritanical, and he asserted to Solzhenitsyn that 'even earthly, carnal love is a manifestation of a lofty aspiration to Union'.

---Solzhenitsyn, A Soul in Exile, by Joseph Pearce, Baker Books (2001), p. 121, (bold mine)

I will try to explain how I understand Silin if there is any interest. If not, I hope you find the little look inside the prisons inspiring.

Edited December 14, 2025 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I will try to explain how I understand Silin if there is any interest.

I am interested.  I'm looking forward to see where you are going with this.

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

2) I also hold that the Scriptures teach that after the resurrection of the body, that it is revealed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that marriage and procreation are for this age only.

I, of course, disagree with you on this point (at least on the idea that those accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are teaching that marriage is for this age only).  I've commented on those passages elsewhere (here, and here are two examples), and I won't challenge you on that in this thread unless you want to get into that  

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

3) I reconcile points 1 and 2 by affirming the teaching of Pope John Paul II called the Theology of the Body. In that work he repeatedly refers to the nuptial meaning of our bodies. 

I'm interested in what you mean by this point. Can you elaborate on what that means?

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I am interested.  I'm looking forward to see where you are going with this.

I, of course, disagree with you on this point (at least on the idea that those accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are teaching that marriage is for this age only).  I've commented on those passages elsewhere (here, and here are two examples), and I won't challenge you on that in this thread unless you want to get into that  

I'm interested in what you mean by this point. Can you elaborate on what that means? 

Marriage will continue in Heaven, but not in the way it is foreshadowed before the resurrection of the body. Right or wrong, Silin taught Solzhenitsyn (A.S.) that conjugal love is a manifestation of something else! "...a lofty aspiration to Union". A.S. capitalized the word Union, signifying a still greater union than Holy Matrimony. If he is right he is referring to nothing less than deification, to become partakers of a nature that makes us one in Love with Christ and His Father and the Holy Spirit. And one in love with all the Children of the Father, and of course not excluding their families and friends. It is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb which is symbolized in what we call Sacramental Marriage.

You will recall the unusual reply Jesus gave to some disciples who approached Him while He was with the multitude:

And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

---Mt. 12:47-50

The Unifying Marriage takes place after the Judgment. At this time the happy citizens of that glorious city of God will for the first time have intimate knowledge of how each of his "brothers, and sisters, and mothers", did the will of Jesus' Father, and helped to advance the salvation of all through the acts of charity that they performed. Those souls will love each other in the unity of Christ. Everyone will also know every little thing that we (I hope) did for the kingdom of God. If all we did was clean up a mess in the bathroom of the church, not wanting a potential "brother, sister, or mother" to be scandalized, that little act of charity will be remembered.

The ripple effects of every act of charity through the centuries will be honored, and God will exalt the humble. And though they will shine like stars, with some brighter than others, no one will be dissatisfied in the One Family of God. I think we will be forever delighted in all of the Saints, each in their unique way, depending on when they lived, and what they did, but each of them our "brother, sister, and mother". We could never exclude our earthly family members, who are also our spiritual mothers, and sisters, and brothers. I am in Grandpa mode and won't see half of the grand kids lives. But they will know if he loved them and prayed for them every day as he should. 

Of course, I am not saying that LDS believe the same thing, but we aren't as far off as might appear at first glance. I support and honor your desires and expectations for eternal families. We are not made to find our satisfaction in ourselves alone, or even with God alone. He wants us to be a family, modeled after the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are invited to share in that eternal intimacy. Who could believe such a wonderful thing? None of us except by faith.

It would be great if we could be that kind of family here below. It is that which I pray for in my efforts to make my beliefs understood to the LDS and others here. Without forgetting our differences, let us become closer by discerning if we have similar hearts, even when our minds are apart. After all of these years, I cannot fail to see grace in the words that are spoken here by many LDS and others who I admire. We should hope to admire each other. But alas, for the times, (our present distress, eh, InCog? Heh.) there sometimes lingers other and less worthy desires to which none of us are immune. 

Thanks InCog, I will try to get to the other two questions if time allows.

Regards, Rory     

Edited December 15, 2025 by 3DOP

[CV75]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Marriage will continue in Heaven, but not in the way it is foreshadowed before the resurrection of the body. Right or wrong, Silin taught Solzhenitsyn (A.S.) that conjugal love is a manifestation of something else! "...a lofty aspiration to Union". A.S. capitalized the word Union, signifying a still greater union than Holy Matrimony. If he is right he is referring to nothing less than deification, to become partakers of a nature that makes us one in Love with Christ and His Father and the Holy Spirit. And one in love with all the Children of the Father, and of course not excluding their families and friends. It is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb which is symbolized in what we call Sacramental Marriage.

You will recall the unusual reply Jesus gave to some disciples who approached Him while He was with the multitude:

And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

---Mt. 12:47-50

The Unifying Marriage takes place after the Judgment. At this time the happy citizens of that glorious city of God will for the first time have intimate knowledge of how each of his "brothers, and sisters, and mothers", did the will of Jesus' Father, and helped to advance the salvation of all through the acts of charity that they performed. Those souls will love each other in the unity of Christ. Everyone will also know every little thing that we (I hope) did for the kingdom of God. If all we did was clean up a mess in the bathroom of the church, not wanting a potential "brother, sister, or mother" to be scandalized, that little act of charity will be remembered.

The ripple effects of every act of charity through the centuries will be honored, and God will exalt the humble. And though they will shine like stars, with some brighter than others, no one will be dissatisfied in the One Family of God. I think we will be forever delighted in all of the Saints, each in their unique way, depending on when they lived, and what they did, but each of them our "brother, sister, and mother". We could never exclude our earthly family members, who are also our spiritual mothers, and sisters, and brothers. I am in Grandpa mode and won't see half of the grand kids lives. But they will know if he loved them and prayed for them every day as he should. 

Of course, I am not saying that LDS believe the same thing, but we aren't as far off as might appear at first glance. I support and honor your desires and expectations for eternal families. We are not made to find our satisfaction in ourselves alone, or even with God alone. He wants us to be a family, modeled after the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are invited to share in that eternal intimacy. Who could believe such a wonderful thing? None of us except by faith.

It would be great if we could be that kind of family here below. It is that which I pray for in my efforts to make my beliefs understood to the LDS and others here. Without forgetting our differences, let us become closer by discerning if we have similar hearts, even when our minds are apart. After all of these years, I cannot fail to see grace in the words that are spoken here by many LDS and others who I admire. We should hope to admire each other. But alas, for the times, (our present distress, eh, InCog? Heh.) there sometimes lingers other and less worthy desires to which none of us are immune. 

Thanks InCog, I will try to get to the other two questions if time allows.

Regards, Rory     

I think our Church teachings allow for both kinds of relationships in the Church of the Firstborn; they are not mutually exclusive. We are one eternal family with many smaller units for organization and action. I think the idea that there are many members but one body can be extended to this (there are many mansions but one house; there are many family subsystems but one family). There are various kinds of intimacy in connection with each, and each is integrated into the oneness Christ prays for in His Intercessory Prayer.

Edited December 15, 2025 by CV75

[3DOP]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think our Church teachings allow for both kinds of relationships in the Church of the Firstborn; they are not mutually exclusive. We are one eternal family with many smaller units for organization and action. I think the idea that there are many members but one body can be extended to this (there are many mansions but one house; there are many family subsystems but one family). There are various kinds of intimacy in connection with each, and each is integrated into the oneness Christ prays for in His Intercessory Prayer.

I am sure you are right about what your church teaches CV75. I had thought that there was some clearing up to be done about what my Church teaches. Undoubtedly, each us will tend to like best what our own church teaches.

I am trying to illustrate that our beliefs have some significant parallels with yours. Is yours better to you? Of course. But maybe ours is not as bad as perhaps some LDS have thought?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think our Church teachings allow for both kinds of relationships in the Church of the Firstborn; they are not mutually exclusive. We are one eternal family with many smaller units for organization and action. I think the idea that there are many members but one body can be extended to this (there are many mansions but one house; there are many family subsystems but one family). There are various kinds of intimacy in connection with each, and each is integrated into the oneness Christ prays for in His Intercessory Prayer.

I like the way you said that.

[3DOP]

On 12/14/2025 at 7:12 PM, InCognitus said:

I, of course, disagree with you on this point (at least on the idea that those accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are teaching that marriage is for this age only).  I've commented on those passages elsewhere (here, and here are two examples), and I won't challenge you on that in this thread unless you want to get into that  

 

Hi InCognitus.

For context, I will provide something I wrote on the Protestant Apologetics thread to provide the interpretation Pope John Paul II gave:

Pope John Paul II, adhering to the ancient teaching of the Church, appeals to Holy Scripture for his authority in affirming that with the Resurrection of the Body, each of us retains the same gender that they had on earth, with the meaning we can learn from the differences and compatibility of the sexes:

"When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Mk 12:25)

Those of course are Christ's words to the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection and knew it would be absurd for a woman's seven legitimate husbands to be wife to all of them in any Resurrection. Which is to be the husband? Clearly, none of them. The pope goes on to explain:

These words have a key meaning for the theology of the body...All three synoptic Gospels report the same statement, except that Luke's version is different in some details from Matthew and Mark. Essential for them all is the fact that, in the future resurrection human beings, after having reacquired their bodies in the fullness of the perfection characteristic of the image and likeness of God - after having reacquired them in their masculinity and femininity - neither marry nor are given in marriage.

In the next paragraph he succinctly states the teaching of the Gospels:

As can be seen from these words, marriage, that union in which, according to Genesis, "A man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (2:24) - the union characteristic right from the beginning - belongs exclusively to this age. Marriage and procreation, do not constitute on the other hand, the eschatological future of man.

---The Theology of the Body, Human Love in the Divine Plan, Pope John Paul II, Daughters of St. Paul, Boston MA, 1997, p. 238 (bold mine)

I have a comment and a few questions for you if you don't mind:

I cannot argue against your position from those words of the Gospels alone. My tradition obviously helps inform my interpretation. I think my position is only plausible from the Scriptures alone. I think I have to agree with you about its not being "black and white" from the Scriptures alone.

1) I often say that the Scriptures alone are ordinarily inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy because they are subject to multiple interpretations. Do we agree on that?

2) If I understood you correctly...Nobody gets married in what you call the Celestial Kingdom and I call heaven. I think we agree on that?

3) What about procreation? Continuing or ceasing? 

Thanks IC!

Rory   

[CV75]

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am sure you are right about what your church teaches CV75. I had thought that there was some clearing up to be done about what my Church teaches. Undoubtedly, each us will tend to like best what our own church teaches.

I am trying to illustrate that our beliefs have some significant parallels with yours. Is yours better to you? Of course. But maybe ours is not as bad as perhaps some LDS have thought?

Absolutely, I thought you were looking commentary as well as recognition of the significant parallels. I didn't realize some thought the theology of the nuptial relationships are bad, "period," unless now that you mention it, it was an unfortunate expression of difference over the one specific point of how long the institution of (husband and wife) marriage endures.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

1) I often say that the Scriptures alone are ordinarily inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy because they are subject to multiple interpretations. Do we agree on that?

I absolutely agree.  The goal, of course, is to try to understand the scriptures in the way that they were originally intended by the original author and audience.  But we can also find ways of applying the scriptures to us to help us today, even though it may not have been the original intended meaning.

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

2) I I understood you correctly...Nobody gets married in what you call the Celestial Kingdom and I call heaven. I think we agree on that?

If you are saying that the act of getting married does not occur after the resurrection, then that may be the case, and that might be one way of interpreting what Jesus was saying there. 

I don't think that's exactly what Jesus was saying in those passages (although many people interpret it that way), because I think Jesus was addressing his comments specifically to the unbelieving Sadducees (at least for them, they won't have marriage).  I don't have a hard set opinion on that, however.

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

3) What about procreation? Continuing or ceasing? 

Good question.  I don't know how that works for resurrected beings, so I don't have a firm answer to this question.  But some of the Jewish Rabbis that were quoted in the Dummelow Bible commentary that I mentioned definitely believed that procreation would continue.

And I'm sorry for being vague on some of these answers, I just don't like to make firm assertions about things where we have limited information.

Great post, by the way.  

Edited December 16, 2025 by InCognitus

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

The goal, of course, is to try to understand the scriptures in the way that they were originally intended by the original author and audience.

While fun and helpful, why is that the goal?  Why not understand them in the way God wants us to understand them now?  Since cultures and needs have changed, why would the original meaning be automatically the best to know?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

While fun and helpful, why is that the goal?  Why not understand them in the way God wants us to understand them now?  Since cultures and needs have changed, why would the original meaning be automatically the best to know?

I guess that really depends on your "goal"  

And you are right, the important thing is to apply the scriptures to our lives today so we can come to an understanding of what God wants us to do now.

But knowing what the original author intended and how his audience may understood the words is helpful too, in my opinion, since that gives us insight into their lives and teachings. 

We aren't in a situation where we are about to be invaded by ancient Babylon because of our bad behavior, for example, but knowing that context can help us understand Jeremiah better and how those same principles can apply to our environment today. I think trying to understand the ancient context helps us put ourselves in their situation which makes the scriptures more real to us here and now so that we can liken them unto us. It can also help us know how to interpret some things, like whether we should take all of Genesis literally or whether or not it matters if the book of Job was about a literal ancient person (as more examples). 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I guess that really depends on your "goal"  

And you are right, the important thing is to apply the scriptures to our lives today so we can come to an understanding of what God wants us to do now.

But knowing what the original author intended and how his audience may understood the words is helpful too, in my opinion, since that gives us insight into their lives and teachings. 

We aren't in a situation where we are about to be invaded by ancient Babylon because of our bad behavior, for example, but knowing that context can help us understand Jeremiah better and how those same principles can apply to our environment today. I think trying to understand the ancient context helps us put ourselves in their situation which makes the scriptures more real to us here and now so that we can liken them unto us. It can also help us know how to interpret some things, like whether we should take all of Genesis literally or whether or not it matters if the book of Job was about a literal ancient person (as more examples). 

I was listening to Scripture Central and Come Follow Up BYUTV podcasts on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea from 2022 a few days ago (Amos, Obadiah, and Jonah I am a bit stuck on, may have overdone it on videos) and they mention the symbolism in Ezekiel maybe, might be Jeremiah, that indicated God was leaving the temple (because of it being defiled, etc), but also taking up residence in Babylon with the exiles. They were still his people in God’s heart and he their God even if they refused to be in their own and he was there for them wherever that there was.

Also the emphasis on the names in the scriptures and when names are changed, it is a sign of a relationship changing (in the scriptures typically between God and man)….that was in the one on Hosea where his children are named pretty awful names at first …or maybe it was in the Come Follow Up Footnotes for that book.  They are kind of blurring right now.

Lo-Ruhamah…Ruhamah means mercy, but Lo being added means the opposite, so the name means no mercy.  Israel will have no mercy because they have completely rejected God.  And therefore Lo-ammi means not my people.  Since Israel rejected God, refused to be his people, he cannot be their God.  

But then the next chapter, Hosea drops the Lo for both.  And the names indicate a very different relationship with God. 

With the additional info of this and other symbolic language, the books become a lot more loving and hopeful in my opinion.

So seeing what was the message for the ancients at that time can definitely inform our understanding.  It was just the way it was phrased, I read it as knowing the message for them was where it stopped because it would be an identical message for us and I don’t think it is that case every time.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Calm

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, I thought you were looking commentary as well as recognition of the significant parallels. I didn't realize some thought the theology of the nuptial relationships are bad, "period," unless now that you mention it, it was an unfortunate expression of difference over the one specific point of how long the institution of (husband and wife) marriage endures.

Hi CV.  Do you think it is likely that most of your fellow LDS here, see enough similarity in Catholic ideas on eternal family and heaven to view it in a favorable way if it were true? I would like to believe that.

Of course LDS can not believe that the Catholic teaching is true. I am not suggesting that LDS could believe our teaching is true. But I have been trying to demonstrate that it might not be as unappealing as perhaps many think. If you guys feel the teaching as understood is unappealing to the heart, I thought I might be able to explain it in a better light. That is why I ask you and your fellows here the question I pose above. Maybe that is where I should have started instead of assuming that there is an underlying antipathy to overcome? What do you all think? 

Rory   

Edited December 17, 2025 by 3DOP

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi CV.  Do you think it is likely that most of your fellow LDS here, see enough similarity in Catholic ideas on eternal family and heaven to view it in a favorable way if it were true? I would like to believe that.

Of course LDS can not believe that the Catholic teaching is true. I am not suggesting that LDS could believe our teaching is true. But I have been trying to demonstrate that it might not be as unappealing as perhaps many think. If you guys feel the teaching as understood is unappealing to the heart, I thought I might be able to explain it in a better light. That is why I ask you and your fellows here the question I pose above. Maybe that is where I should have started instead of assuming that there is an underlying antipathy to overcome? What do you all think? 

Rory   

If the Catholic teaching excludes eternal marriage and families in the afterlife from the subset of oneness with God as the means of sealing His children to Him by covenant (beyond Creation and Atonement), then I can understand why LDS generally cannot believe that the Catholic teaching is perfectly true. However, accentuating the positive aspects by the light of Christ is enough, in my opinion, to draw people into an expanding relationship with God and each other, and in this regard I view the Catholic ideas on eternal family and heaven in a favorable way, in the spirit of, "...if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (from Philippians 4:8)."

I cannot speak for others here on finer points of theological debate, which to me is a productive exercise but a very different matter than finding charity and grace wherever they can be found. The commonality between LDS and Catholic teaching on oneness with God (John 17) is not unappealing at all, and I think you demonstrated that with your explanation. That marriage was instituted of God is another commonality that is also appreciated. 

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I absolutely agree.  The goal, of course, is to try to understand the scriptures in the way that they were originally intended by the original author and audience.  But we can also find ways of applying the scriptures to us to help us today, even though it may not have been the original intended meaning.

If you are saying that the act of getting married does not occur after the resurrection, then that may be the case, and that might be one way of interpreting what Jesus was saying there. 

I don't think that's exactly what Jesus was saying in those passages (although many people interpret it that way), because I think Jesus was addressing his comments specifically to the unbelieving Sadducees (at least for them, they won't have marriage).  I don't have a hard set opinion on that, however.

Good question.  I don't know how that works for resurrected beings, so I don't have a firm answer to this question.  But some of the Jewish Rabbis that were quoted in the Dummelow Bible commentary that I mentioned definitely believed that procreation would continue.

And I'm sorry for being vague on some of these answers, I just don't like to make firm assertions about things where we have limited information.

Great post, by the way.  

Hi again InCog. Thanks.

I appreciate your reluctance to make firm assertions. Me too. But we are permitted to speculate where revelation is limited to propose plausible scenarios that seem compatible with what we have been given. I think maybe I should take some time off before I offer further speculations on a third question you had asked above about Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body.

About speculation. We learn gradually, and especially by corporately pondering and investigating mysteries whether they are mysteries of creation or mysteries of God. God made us this way, and I speculate that it honors and pleases God if when we have faith in Him and His Word of truth, that we are not content without exploring His mysteries to unlock new truths only to discover new mysteries. A delight to be a small part of the exercise. We are made to be speculators! 

The only problem is that we sometimes have speculations that are not well thought out. Heh. That is why I want to wait a little before I make my speculations public

Regards,

3

[Calm]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

However, accentuating the positive aspects by the light of Christ is enough, in my opinion, to draw people into an expanding relationship with God and each other, and in this regard I view the Catholic ideas on eternal family and heaven in a favorable way, in the spirit of, "...if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (from Philippians 4:8)."

I very much agree.