Heated Discussion About Eternal Marriage

[consiglieri]

Do you believe that temple marriages were performed in Herod's temple?

I believe that Herod officiated.

It out Herods Herod!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Even a disbeliever in eternal marriage has to concede that Eve was called "his wife" while they were still in the garden. Personally, I see the creation story as the Bible's most beautiful allegory, but even with a stark, literal reading, I don't see how anyone can deny that Adam and Eve were married.

For the sake of argument, allow me to deny it and ask you for a reference to Eve being called Adam's wife before they were cast out of the garden.

I know the bit about "male and female" but is there anything that says "husband" or "wife"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[katherine the great]

For the sake of argument, allow me to deny it and ask you for a reference to Eve being called Adam's wife before they were cast out of the garden.

I know the bit about "male and female" but is there anything that says "husband" or "wife"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Genesis 2:25

I believe that Herod officiated.

It out Herods Herod!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ha, ha.

[Zakuska]

References to Eve as Adams WIFE before being cast out:

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.

Gen. 3: 8, 17, 21

8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

[katherine the great]

References to Eve as Adams WIFE before being cast out:

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.

Gen. 3: 8, 17, 21

8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

I think it would be safe to retranslate the word "wife" as "better half!"

[LifeOnaPlate]

I stand corrected; that is pretty specific. Does anyone know the Hebrew behind the word "wife"?

[i still see no official comment on a ceremony, an actual wedding. It seems the closest key lies in the word "wife".]

To call a half a "better half" is sexist imo. The best half is a whole, and you need both to make that happen.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the references, Katherine and Zak.

I think the fact the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's wife does raise the question of when, precisely, they became such; and who it would have been who performed the ceremony, if ceremony there were.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

Consig,

We've had a discussion along these lines before. Rather than reopen it, I will merely link it and reproduce one of my more significant posts there:

----

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They were staunch opponents of the Pharisees, who agreed with Jesus that "at the time of the end" the dead would be raised. The Pharisees disagreed as to precisely what the resurrection would entail. For example, some later rabbis taught that the dead would be raised with clothes on (Babylonian Talmud, San. 90B) and with the same physical defects they had in this life (ibid., San. 91B, though these would afterward be healed). They apparently felt that life in the resurrection would be much like the present life, with the exception of Israel's total hegemony over the nations. They may, in fact, have even expected they would eventually die again. This view may be presumed in the Sadduccees' question. Another school, which was strongly dependent on Enochic literature, held that resurrected people would be glorified like the angels, and that even heaven and earth would pass away in a great apocalypse and be recreated. This very other-worldly sort of perspective is the one we most often find in Essenism and the New Testament.

The Pharisees-- even those who held the second view I described above-- probably just assumed that marriage would continue after the resurrection. It was, after all, a very sacred institution for Jews in the first century. It was something of a moral mandate, in fact (except for certain ascetics, like the Essenes, Banus, John, and probably also Jesus). The Sadducees who approached Jesus had probably already used this question on the Pharisees with satisfying results. No doubt they thought themselves very clever. They certainly did not expect Jesus' answer:

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (Mt. 22:29-30)

In understanding the meaning of Jesus' statement, it is helpful to view it against the backdrop of Enochic literature. I will cite from the following article:

'Those Who Have Not Defiled Themselves with Women' : Revelation 14:4 and the Book of Enoch By: Olson, D. C., Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 59(3, 1997)492-510

The full text is available through ATLA.

Olson writes,

The relevant section of the BW [book of Watchers], chaps. 6-19, tells the famous tale of the angelic "sons of God" who commingle with the "daughters of men" before the flood and produce monstrous offspring (cf. Gen 6:1-4). For this crime they are condemned by God and bound in pits of the earth to await future judgment.

The language of six pertinent passages is striking: These angels "took for themselves wives from all whom they chose; and they began to cohabit with them and to defile themselves with them" (1 Enoch 7:1).[18] This crime is reported to God by the holy angels: "they cohabited with the daughters of the men of the earth, and had intercourse with them, and they were defiled by the females" (1 Enoch 9:dirol.gif. Shortly after this, God instructs the archangel Michael concerning the leader of the angelic rebellion and his followers "who, with him, were united with the daughters of men, to defile themselves with them" (1 Enoch 10:11). Again, shortly after this, in language even closer to Rev 14:4, Enoch himself is instructed to go and announce doom to these fallen angels, these "watchers of heaven who have left the high heaven and the holy, eternal Sanctuary and have defiled themselves with women; and they themselves do as the children of earth do, and have taken to themselves wives" (1 Enoch 12:4). Later still, God explains in detail to Enoch the nature of the Watchers' crime:

Go and say to the watchers of heaven who have sent you to intercede on their behalf: "It is you who should be petitioning on behalf of men, and not men on your behalf. Why have you left the high heaven and the eternal Holy One, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and acted like the children of earth and begotten giants for sons? But you were holy, spirits that live forever, yet you defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) by the blood of flesh; and you lusted after the daughters of men and have produced flesh and blood, just as they do who die and perish. It was for this reason I gave them females that they might impregnate them and thus produce children by them, that pregnancy should never fail them upon the earth. But as for you, you formerly were spirits that live for ever and do not die for all generations for ever. And for this reason I did not provide wives for you, because for celestial spirits heaven is their dwellingplace." (1 Enoch 15:2-7; our emphasis)

In other words, the angels are intended ever to remain virgins!

...

According to the Synoptics, Jesus himself, in a teaching which appears to lean heavily on exactly the same argument advanced in 1 Enoch 15:2-7, remarks that

the sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, and they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels (*[This character cannot be represente into ASCII text.]) and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36, RSV)

As in the BW, marriage is forbidden to the angels because, being immortal, they have no need to propagate their species. It is possible that Jesus' remark about those who have "made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:12) relies on a similar logical connection: that there are a few who are called to live a celibate lifestyle in anticipation of the kingdom of heaven, where immortality--angelic status--makes marriage obsolete.[29] In both of these Synoptic texts, however, little detail is given. Some kind of future angelic life for God's people is spoken of, and this life is apparently free of sexual activity, but the subject is dropped almost as soon as it is raised.

Olson also discusses other biblical passages, especially one in Revelation, that depend on the same Enochian logic.

-CK

[Zakuska]

I think it would be safe to retranslate the word "wife" as "better half!"

Can the Yin exist with out the Yang? Sugar and spice and everything nice, huh?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the link, CK. Interesting stuff.

[katherine the great]

Can the Yin exist with out the Yang? Sugar and spice and everything nice, huh?

Nah, I'm just funnin! (I LOVE my chubby, furry other half!)

[cdowis]

Do you believe that Jesus was sealing people in Herod's temple at that time?

Temple sealings were restored after His resurrection -- the 40 day ministry

[katherine the great]

Consig,

Olson writes,

Olson also discusses other biblical passages, especially one in Revelation, that depend on the same Enochian logic.

-CK

This is really interesting. Would this literature have been considered authoritative at the time of Christ?

[katherine the great]

Temple sealings were restored after His resurrection -- the 40 day ministry

I was always under the assumption that they were restored at the time of Joseph Smith. The language you used "married in the temple" led me to believe that you we referring to some type of temple ceremony of Herodian temple times. Is it your belief that the apostles performed these sealings in various places during their ministries?

[consiglieri]

This is really interesting. Would this literature have been considered authoritative at the time of Christ?

It would seem so, inasmuch as Jude quotes directly from 1 Enoch (the Ethiopic) in his letter.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cdowis]

I was always under the assumption that they were restored at the time of Joseph Smith. The language you used "married in the temple" led me to believe that you we referring to some type of temple ceremony of Herodian temple times. Is it your belief that the apostles performed these sealings in various places during their ministries?

Of course. Why would He deny the blessings of the temple to His disciples. They did vicarious work for the deceased (baptism for the dead).

[katherine the great]

Of course. Why would He deny the blessings of the temple to His disciples. They did vicarious work for the deceased (baptism for the dead).

I'm not convinced that they did. If they did, I don't see any way they could have done these ordinances in Herod's temple since this would have been under the strict control of the Levites. I believe that these things were part of the restoration of all things in our dispensation--not the work of Christ's disciples which was to spread Christianity.

[Chris Smith]

This is really interesting. Would this literature have been considered authoritative at the time of Christ?

Jude certainly quotes Enoch as scripture. And Enoch was normative for many early Christians.

[consiglieri]

Jude certainly quotes Enoch as scripture. And Enoch was normative for many early Christians.

And, as Chris has given us an excellent (possible) example of, Enoch influenced a great deal of the New Testament, even when no attribution is specifically given. I especially like the reference by Paul to the third heaven, also called Paradise, which appears to be directly from Enoch (2 Enoch?); though in Enoch's version, it is the third of seven heavens; and not the third of three as most LDS would understand it.

Thank you for the contribution, CK!

--Consiglieri

[cdowis]

I'm not convinced that they did. If they did, I don't see any way they could have done these ordinances in Herod's temple since this would have been under the strict control of the Levites. I believe that these things were part of the restoration of all things in our dispensation--not the work of Christ's disciples which was to spread Christianity.

Why are you so hung up on Herod's temple? The Christians had their own temples.

The Jews were in apostacy.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not convinced that they did. If they did, I don't see any way they could have done these ordinances in Herod's temple since this would have been under the strict control of the Levites. I believe that these things were part of the restoration of all things in our dispensation--not the work of Christ's disciples which was to spread Christianity.

Ordinances for the dead haven't always been performed strictly in dedicated temples, parenthetically. Nor have sealings or endowments or prayer circles for the living, for that matter.

[dancefan]

As a Catholic Christian I love the concept od celestial marriage but don't care if it is biblical or not. The basic divergence between lds and Christians is that we don't believe that the risen Christ walked in the Americas. We don't believe that there were tribes of Israel in the Americas and we don't believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from buried ancient tablets. We don't believe that the BOM os the inspired WOG. I believe that a person sincerely faithful in lds belief is sanctified. I support scholarship and collegiality between lds and Catholic scholars to more fully respect and understand each other's scholarship, beliefs and traditions. IMO the best to be hoped for is a common understanding and respect of each others beliefs and traditions.

[cinepro]

The weird thing about Matthew 22 is that there isn't an LDS alive who would answer the question in any way similar to Jesus.

Here, Jesus was set up with a perfect pitch, right over the plate. He could have introduced the incredible concept of eternal marriage (and had it later canonized in the NT to boot). The hypothetical situation provided by the Sadducees is the doctrinal equivalent of slow-pitch soft ball. If it were reenacted in a missionary training video on "Resolving Concerns", every missionary would chuckle at how contrived the situation is based on the simplicity of "resolving" that concern.

But instead, Jesus says:

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

(Upon reading his response, it comes off as a total non-sequiter if the sadducees were actually referring to Eternal Marriage. It only makes sense if they were referring to the doctrine of resurrection, since Jesus specifies that he is referring to the doctrine of resurrection twice.)

Not only would it have been educational for the people of Jesus' time if he had actually mentioned that the woman could be married to a husband in the afterlife, it would have clarified the situation for modern LDS, who have had several different answers of their own over the decades when it comes to multiple-earthly husbands. Three that come to mind:

"She will be sealed to the first husband; subsequent marriages would be for time only."

"After her death, her kids could seal her by proxy to each husband and she could choose in the hereafter."

"She could be sealed to each husband, and God would sort it out in the end."

[katherine the great]

Why are you so hung up on Herod's temple? The Christians had their own temples.

The Jews were in apostacy.

I'm hung up on Herod's temple? I was asking the question based on your assessment that when Jesus was correcting the Sadducees, he was referring to people who had not been "married in the temple." What other temple was there at the time? This is the first I've ever heard of early Christians having their own temples. Where were their temples? To my knowledge, early Christians didn't even have "churches." They gathered in the homes of fellow Christians.

[Zakuska]

And, as Chris has given us an excellent (possible) example of, Enoch influenced a great deal of the New Testament, even when no attribution is specifically given. I especially like the reference by Paul to the third heaven, also called Paradise, which appears to be directly from Enoch (2 Enoch?); though in Enoch's version, it is the third of seven heavens; and not the third of three as most LDS would understand it.

Thank you for the contribution, CK!

--Consiglieri

Remember your Missionary Discussions? Arnt the different abodes represented by Spheres. So does Enochs "Heavens" even the place where the spirits who lost their first estate and a reserved in chains to the judgment of the great day abide in one of these "heavens". Even this earth is called a Heaven.