Eternal Marriage

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt,

Many couples do simply exchange vows withtout getting married.

But since these would be living in sin, as you said , they would not be bound in the resurrection. Therefore, the manner in which a couple is bound in a way that is recognized by God is through marriage.

Ephesians 5:31 says "two shall be one flesh" ... it does not say "two or more shall be one flesh".

Exactly. A man is one flesh with one wife and he is one flesh with his other wife. This does not violate Ephesians 5:31.

The Book of Genesis does not mention Adam and Eve getting married.

Only if you don't equate marriage with husbands and wives. You are the first person I have ever heard make such a claim.

They are not divorced at death because in the New Covent divorce is not permitted.

And around, around we go....

T-Shirt

[Nephi]

And around, around we go....

Johnny doesn't come across as someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. I agree that this feels like circular logic, but I think we are missing something here in the translation. I hope when he comes back on we can get a better understanding of what exactly we are missing. I can't say that I agree with it, but I have a feeling that it will make sense and the circular logic part of it will fall out eventually.

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

Many other Earths have been created and a fall was necessary for them all.

The fall was not necessary, before the fall Adam and Eve had eternal life and joy. After the fall they had death and suffering.

Adam could not become as God without passing through the fall and the atonement.

We become like God by obeying his commandment not by disobeying his commandments. Adam disobeyed his commandment.

Doesn't the whole thing sound like a setup to you? Police would call that "entrapment."

It was not a set-up, Adam and Eve had the knowledge of God's commandment. God held them accountable for their disobediant actions. By have faith and trusting God they would have continued with eternal life and joy. If was their choice to obey or disobey God's commandment.

Doesn't it make sense that the Lord would know what He was doing when He created man?

The Lord knew what He was doing, he created a man with free agency. They had a choice to believe God or believe the lies of Satan.

Somehow I would think that God would be smarter than that; that He would have a deeper purpose.

God is smart, the victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Rom 5:20).

[johnny]

Nephi,

What I don't quite get is let's say my wife dies, and I remarry. I am not committing adultery as you put it, correct?

Correct ... you are not committing adultery if you remarry after your wife dies.

Now it is time for the resurrection. Who am I bound to and who is left out in the dark?

I believe in the next age, you would need do what the Catholic Church teaches about those who desire to leave the polygamy lifestyle and convert to the Gospel (see below):

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2387

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

What happens to the one who is left out in the dark?

The wife is repudiated (see Catholic teaching above).

[T-Shirt]

Johnny doesn't come across as someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. I agree that this feels like circular logic, but I think we are missing something here in the translation. I hope when he comes back on we can get a better understanding of what exactly we are missing. I can't say that I agree with it, but I have a feeling that it will make sense and the circular logic part of it will fall out eventually.

You don't know Johnny like I know Johnny. You'll see.

T-Shirt

[Nephi]

The wife is repudiated (see Catholic teaching above).

Repudiated?! I believe that means she is disowned? What kind of loving God would do that? Not the God that worship, for surely.

[Zakuska]

The Book of Genesis does not mention Adam and Eve getting married.

Hmmm so I wonder how they became husband and wife... cohabitation perhaps?

They are not divorced at death because in the New Covent divorce is not permitted.

Yet in the "New covenant" the Priest pronounce the divorce almost as soon as they have been joined.

[johnny]

T-Shirt,

But since these would be living in sin, as you said , they would not be bound in the resurrection. Therefore, the manner in which a couple is bound in a way that is recognized by God is through marriage.

I would agree they would both be living in sin while on earth. As long as neither one of them rejected God they both would be in a place Catholic's call purgatory to undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. In the spirit world and in the resurrection they will maintain their individual identies. If there vows were true to each other they would spend eternity together.

Exactly. A man is one flesh with one wife and he is one flesh with his other wife. This does not violate Ephesians 5:31.

You are violating Ephesisans 5:31, compare Ephesians 5:31 to Mark 10:8 and Matt 19:4-6. In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning. If a woman marries another man she is called an adulteress (Rom 7:3).

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Mark.10

[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Matt.19

[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Rom.7

[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

[3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Only if you don't equate marriage with husbands and wives. You are the first person I have ever heard make such a claim.

I am consistent with scripture ... the Book of Genesis does not reveal that Adam and Eve became husband and wife through marriage.

And around, around we go....

My answer is consistent with scripture, Luke 15:18 says:

Luke.16

[18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

[Zakuska]

Luke.16

[18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Hmmm says nothing about taking another wife while you still have 1. Just as long as you don't "Put them away" you are fine.

I am consistent with scripture ... the Book of Genesis does not reveal that Adam and Eve became husband and wife through marriage.

Yep... they had a common law marriage.

[johnny]

Nephi,

Repudiated?! I believe that means she is disowned? What kind of loving God would do that? Not the God that worship, for surely.

A loving God that taught "two shall be one flesh" (Eph 5:31). ... God did not teach TWO OR MORE be one flesh.

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Yep... they had a common law marriage.

A union that "shall be one flesh" (Gen 2:24) ...

[Nephi]

Nephi,

A loving God that taught "two shall be one flesh" (Eph 5:31). ... God did not teach TWO OR MORE be one flesh.

So, because of this, someone who might have not heard this "gospel" (even the woman as such) is punished for it? What did she/he do wrong? Why is she punished for not knowing?

It would be like me punishing my 4 yo daughter with an eternal punishment for breaking a rule she was not remotely familiar with. Not very loving, imho.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

A union that "shall be one flesh" (Gen 2:24) ...

So then you are saying that none of us have to come to the priest to be wed. Cool! Whoia who!!!!

Gen 2

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Sure sounds to me like God walked down the Isle with eve and gave her away to Adam and performed their wedding ceremony.

[johnny]

Nephi,

So, because of this, someone who might have not heard this "gospel" (even the woman as such) is punished for it? What did she/he do wrong? Why is she punished for not knowing?

Why do you assume she is "punished"?

She might receive greater blessings. By not being in a polygamous relationship she would discover conjugal love with another mate. Conjugal love involves a totality. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving.

It would be like me punishing my 4 yo daughter with an eternal punishment for breaking a rule she was not remotely familiar with. Not very loving, imho.

Eternal punishment comes from rejecting grace in this life, it does not come from not knowing the Gospel.

[johnny]

Zakuska,

So then you are saying that none of us have to come to the priest to be wed.

If a person wants the blessings and graces of God they will go to a priest to receive the sacrament of marriage. Before the fall Adam and Eve did not need the blessings of the sacrament of marriage like us who are fallen.

Sure sounds to me like God walked down the Isle with eve and gave her away to Adam and performed their wedding ceremony.

No wedding ceremony is described in Gen 2:22.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

If a person wants the blessings and graces of God they will go to a priest to receive the sacrament of marriage.

But according to you earlier Adam and Eve received all these belssings without the Sacrament. So which is it? Im confused.

Before the fall Adam and Eve did not need the blessings of the sacrament of marriage like us who are fallen.

CFR. I think you are making things up as you go along as usual Johhny.

No wedding ceremony is described in Gen 2:22.

According to your private interpretation. The problem is... the first time the word Wife is used is in the following verse. So the wedding/joining took place right there.

[Lachoneus]

Saying they are "still married" is not consistent with scripture, if they were "still married" then a surviving spouse would not be able to marry without committing adultery.

This is incorrect. When one spouse dies, the other spouse is free to marry again, but the sacrament of marriage continues between the first two spouses.

Adam and Eve could have a "husband and wife relationship" without being married, as man and wife they could generate children and become "one flesh". Scripture does not reveal that Adam and Eve "were married".

So God commanded them to have children, but refused to marry them? Why would God do that? This makes no sense.

[Nephi]

Nephi,

Why do you assume she is "punished"?

She might receive greater blessings. By not being in a polygamous relationship she would discover conjugal love with another mate. Conjugal love involves a totality. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving.

Eternal punishment comes from rejecting grace in this life, it does not come from not knowing the Gospel.

Why do I assume she is "punished"? Oh I dunno, something about this kinda gives me that feeling:

What I don't quite get is let's say my wife dies, and I remarry. I am not committing adultery as you put it, correct?

Correct ... you are not committing adultery if you remarry after your wife dies.

Now it is time for the resurrection. Who am I bound to and who is left out in the dark?

I believe in the next age, you would need do what the Catholic Church teaches about those who desire to leave the polygamy lifestyle and convert to the Gospel (see below):

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2387

2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

What happens to teh one who is left out in the dark?

The wife is repudiated (see Catholic teaching above).

Repudiated?! I believe that means she is disowned? What kind of loving God would do that? Not the God that worship, for surely.

A loving God that taught "two shall be one flesh" (Eph 5:31). ... God did not teach TWO OR MORE be one flesh.

Now I may not be the smartest man in the world here Johnny, but let's setup an example here.....

Aaron and Wendy are married and have three children. During their fourth child, Wendy and the baby dies in delivery. Aaron, about a year later, remarries to a woman named Bertha, which is sanctioned by the church because (as you put it) they are not committing adultery because Wendy has died. Aaron and Bertha have three more children. They live out a long life together, to the ripe old age of 95 and 98 respectively.

In steps Christ and the resurrection happens. Aaron, Wendy, and Bertha are resurrected. Aaron must repudiate one of his wives because (as you have put it) polygamy is illegal in the "new covenant". Bertha is the wife who is "left out in the dark" or repudiated, or disowned.

Now you are explaining that she MIGHT receive greater blessings? That by her not being in a polygamous relationship after the resurrection, she MIGHT find love with another mate? I am sorry but this seems rather unloving. For this woman who was faithful to her husband and to her God (she was allowed to remarry by the church) is now forced to NOT have a relationship with him (and their children as well, I would assume), and hope that she finds some other mate in the afterlife....

"I'm sorry Bertha, but I had to choose one of you as a mate, and I chose Wendy. You are hereby disowned, and you can not have a relationship with me. Don't worry though, you might be blessed to have some other relationship with some other mate here in the "afterlife". However, as for this previous relationship, sanctioned by the Church, which we believed to be the true church of God (the Catholic Church), it was not a real relationship in the sense of Husband and Wife. It was just for the previous life. Good Luck and all...

Hrm, seems to me a "divorce" has just occured for poor ole Bertha. Look I understand that you have many scriptures that do not mention more than two people becoming one and therefore you have a solid scriptural reference that God does not allow polygamy in the resurrection, but when weighing this against the Love of God that I know, it doesn't make sense.

What also doesn't make sense is that when you quoted 1Tim 3:2 about how a man has but one wife, its describing a Bishop. The Catholic Church is full of Bishops, and yet ALL of them are celibate (without wife). The Catholic Church is in stark contrast to to the teachings of the New Testament, then. If I remember correctly, the answer to this is that bishops are married in the Catholic Church to the Church, or to the Virgin Mary, but in either case, polygamy is occuring, because either the Church or the Virgin Mary is now practicing it, in abundance, as well.

Its pretty easy to pray and ask for guidance if what is being taught here is true or not. My revelation is that it is not. God does not "force divorces" in the afterlife after his Church sanctioned the second marriage. My revelation also tells me that if a Bishop is to be married to one wife, then the Catholic Church is not practicing the word of God as setforth in (as you put it) the "New Covenant".

Now, I can answer how a man, a first wife, and a second wife (or a multitude of wives) can become one and follow the scriptures, here. If two become one flesh, then (simply put) the man and the first wife become one flesh, then that ONE flesh and the next wife become one flesh, then (so forth and so on). Two become one in each case, thereby not "rebuking one", not sanctioning one union before the resurrection and rebuking it afterwards, and allowing relationships to continue as they did.

[johnny]

Zakuska,

But according to you earlier Adam and Eve received all these belssings without the Sacrament. So which is it? Im confused.

I did not say "Adam and Eve recieved all these blessings without the sacrament" (read my earlier e-mails again). I said, "Adam and Eve did not need the blessings of the sacrament of marriage ". There is a big difference between the two statements.

According to your private interpretation. The problem is... the first time the word Wife is used is in the following verse. So the wedding/joining took place right there.

I would differ with your interpretation ... again no wedding ceremony is described, is so please elaborate.

[johnny]

Lachoneus,

This is incorrect. When one spouse dies, the other spouse is free to marry again, but the sacrament of marriage continues between the first two spouses.

How is it incorrect?

I agree "When one spouse dies, the other spouse is free to marry again".

What do you mean by your statment "the sacrament of marriage continues between the first two spouses". A sacrement bring blessings to an individual.

So God commanded them to have children, but refused to marry them? Why would God do that? This makes no sense.

God did not refuse to "marry them" ... there simply was not a need for the particular marriage graces that come with the sacrment of marriage.

[johnny]

Nephi,

Now you are explaining that she MIGHT receive greater blessings? That by her not being in a polygamous relationship after the resurrection, she MIGHT find love with another mate? I am sorry but this seems rather unloving. For this woman who was faithful to her husband and to her God (she was allowed to remarry by the church) is now forced to NOT have a relationship with him (and their children as well, I would assume), and hope that she finds some other mate in the afterlife....

She can she still have a relationship because he has obligations to his former wife and his children, but the former wife and the man cannot have sexual relationships.

Hrm, seems to me a "divorce" has just occured for poor ole Bertha. Look I understand that you have many scriptures that do not mention more than two people becoming one and therefore you have a solid scriptural reference that God does not allow polygamy in the resurrection, but when weighing this against the Love of God that I know, it doesn't make sense.

It makes sense if you realize it is a seperation in that the man cannot have sexual relationship with this seperated wife. The Love of God is still there among the three but the sexual relationship among the three is not there.

What also doesn't make sense is that when you quoted 1Tim 3:2 about how a man has but one wife, its describing a Bishop. The Catholic Church is full of Bishops, and yet ALL of them are celibate (without wife). The Catholic Church is in stark contrast to to the teachings of the New Testament, then. If I remember correctly, the answer to this is that bishops are married in the Catholic Church to the Church, or to the Virgin Mary, but in either case, polygamy is occuring, because either the Church or the Virgin Mary is now practicing it, in abundance, as well.

Polygamy is not occuring because it does not involve sexual relatinship between three or more individuals. In celibacy there is no sexual relationship occuring.

God does not "force divorces" in the afterlife after his Church sanctioned the second marriage.

God is not forcing divorces, he is enforcing the divine law that has been from the beginning which is"two shall be one flesh" (Eph 5:31). ... God did not teach TWO OR MORE be one flesh. He taught a union of two, he did not teach a simultaneously union of three or more.

Now, I can answer how a man, a first wife, and a second wife (or a multitude of wives) can become one and follow the scriptures, here. If two become one flesh, then (simply put) the man and the first wife become one flesh, then that ONE flesh and the next wife become one flesh, then (so forth and so on). Two become one in each case, thereby not "rebuking one", not sanctioning one union before the resurrection and rebuking it afterwards, and allowing relationships to continue as they did.

I believe you are distoring the scriptures. Scripture is not describing three or more, it only describes "two" being on flesh (Eph 5:31; Mark 10:8; Matt 19:4-6).

Godâ??s plan from the begining was a union of "two" for "one flesh". Godâ??s plan from the begining was for Adam and Eve to be together, certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time. Gen 2:25 says "they shall be one flesh ... the man and HIS wife". Ephesians 5:31 clearly says "two". In Mark 12:23 the issue is a union of "two", the issue is "whose wife shall she be" in the resurrection?

Gen.2

[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[25] And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Eph.5

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Mark.12

[23] In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.

[Nephi]

God is not forcing divorces, he is enforcing the divine law that has been from the beginning which is"two shall be one flesh" (Eph 5:31). ... God did not teach TWO OR MORE be one flesh. He taught a union of two, he did not teach a simultaneously union of three or more.

This is like saying, "no, she's not fat. She's just big boned." You are just describing it a different way. Enforcing his divine, forcing a divorce, they are the same thing. What's worse, he sanctioned the 2nd marriage anyhow, knowing that after this intense relationship, where people make love (intensifies their relationship), he's gonna tell them upon resurrection, "look, I have this law which states you may have sexual relations of one and one only, and I know I let you have sexual relations with a 2nd person during your mortal life, but in the afterlife, it can be one and one only. You got away with it during your mortal life because, well, at least there you had sex with only one at a time, but we just can't have that in the afterlife. Sorry."

Seems to me the Catholic church has a "double standard" happening here. Would it not be better just to tell people, "sorry, but you cannot remarry even though you wife/husband just died because its going to cause hardship to someone in the afterlife."?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Johnny, are you saying God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, but to do so without being married? Wouldn't that be fornication?

[johnny]

Nephi,

This is like saying, "no, she's not fat. She's just big boned." You are just describing it a different way. Enforcing his divine, forcing a divorce, they are the same thing.

They are not the same thing, God hates divorce.

What's worse, he sanctioned the 2nd marriage anyhow, knowing that after this intense relationship, where people make love (intensifies their relationship), he's gonna tell them upon resurrection, "look, I have this law which states you may have sexual relations of one and one only, and I know I let you have sexual relations with a 2nd person during your mortal life, but in the afterlife, it can be one and one only.

During the mortal life, there was not a sexual relationship of three or more occuring.

You got away with it during your mortal life because, well, at least there you had sex with only one at a time, but we just can't have that in the afterlife. Sorry."

In the afterlife all three are together. Before the resurrection there was only two together at one time.

Seems to me the Catholic church has a "double standard" happening here.

It seems to me the Catholic Church is being consistent with scripture.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

Johnny, are you saying God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, but to do so without being married? Wouldn't that be fornication?

Read my earlier posts ... "being married" is receiving the sacrament of matrimony. Adam and Eve did not receive the sacrament of matrimony.