Jump to content

Heated Discussion About Eternal Marriage


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

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:

(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."

Line upon line.

Pearls before swine.

etc.

Link to comment

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.

This is true. There was an endowment house in Salt Lake City while they awaited the completion of the temple. I've heard people say this and that about early Christians performing the same rituals that we do today in our temples, but I don't see any Biblical evidence of that at all. I don't believe that the authority for these ordinances rests in a building of any kind, and if they were performed, I would guess they were done so in the mountains. We do know that Jesus invested his apostles with the sealing power, but the Bible doesn't elaborate on exactly what that is. It certainly doesn't say that it is the authority to seal husbands and wives together. If we are trying to convince people that we are right to perform eternal marriages in our temples, we won't be able to do that by using the Bible alone because it only hints at it. The best Biblical evidence, I think, comes from the Adam and Eve story, but that still doesn't spell it out.

Link to comment
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.

Funny. I've always answered it that way; making a point to emphasize the 'in the resurrection' clause.

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,

The references Tvedtnes gave in my post #11 seems to indicate that such knowledge was already had. The Sadducees were just leaving off part of the story in Tobias to see if they could trip him up.

Link to comment

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.

Paul does allude to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, and as for doing the baptisms in Herod's Temple, I find that very unlikely since it was in the hands of the apostate Jews. However they could have performed them in a river as the early LDS did until the Lord commanded them to build a Temple for that purpose or on mountain tops or other sacred places. It is implied that the former day Saints performed some of these ordinances in modern revelation:
(D&C 128:8-18) "Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the power of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; for out of the books shall your dead be judged, according to their own works, whether they themselves have attended to the ordinances in their own propria persona, or by the means of their own agents, according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world, according to the records which they have kept concerning their dead. It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk ofâ??a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it? And again, for the precedent, Matthew 16:18, 19: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us, consists in obtaining the powers of the Holy Priesthood. For him to whom these keys are given there is no difficulty in obtaining a knowledge of facts in relation to the salvation of the children of men, both as well for the dead as for the living. Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal lifeâ??The ordinance of baptism by water, to be immersed therein in order to answer to the likeness of the dead, that one principle might accord with the other; to be immersed in the water and come forth out of the water is in the likeness of the resurrection of the dead in coming forth out of their graves; hence, this ordinance was instituted to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead. Consequently, the baptismal font was instituted as a similitude of the grave, and was commanded to be in a place underneath where the living are wont to assemble, to show forth the living and the dead, and that all things may have their likeness, and that they may accord one with anotherâ??that which is earthly conforming to that which is heavenly, as Paul hath declared, 1 Corinthians 15:46, 47, and 48: Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as are the records on the earth in relation to your dead, which are truly made out, so also are the records in heaven. This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and, in one sense of the word, the keys of the kingdom, which consist in the key of knowledge. And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathersâ??that they without us cannot be made perfectâ??neither can we without our dead be made perfect. And now, in relation to the baptism for the dead, I will give you another quotation of Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:29: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? And again, in connection with this quotation I will give you a quotation from one of the prophets, who had his eye fixed on the restoration of the priesthood, the glories to be revealed in the last days, and in an especial manner this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely, the baptism for the dead; for Malachi says, last chapter, verses 5th and 6th: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or otherâ??and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times."
Now whether they (the Merdian dispensation) had all the blessings of the Temple, it is implied and as for the case of baptism for the dead I think it was stated that they did but not as on a grand of scale as we have now in the dispensation of the fullness of times.
Link to comment

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."

I repeat myself for the third time.

The Jews were in apostacy. They did not have temple marriages at all. In fact, they rejected Christ and had Him crucified.

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.

Where did they perform the ordinance of baptism for the dead? If you can answer that question, you will find the answer to your questions.

And, yes, there is evidence for temples and temple ordinances for the early Christians. You might check out Nibley's book, for example. Temple work is an essential part of the Gospel, so if they were teaching the gospel, they also had all of the ordinances, including the temple ordinances.

I might add that NONE of the ordinances of the early Christians are very well documented, much less the sacred temple ordinances. These things were lost to creedal Christianity.

Link to comment

I repeat myself for the third time.

The Jews were in apostacy. They did not have temple marriages at all. In fact, they rejected Christ and had Him crucified.

Where did they perform the ordinance of baptism for the dead? If you can answer that question, you will find the answer to your questions.

And, yes, there is evidence for temples and temple ordinances for the early Christians. You might check out Nibley's book, for example. Temple work is an essential part of the Gospel, so if they were teaching the gospel, they also had all of the ordinances, including the temple ordinances.

What about the first temple? Asherah Gods wife was torn down and cast out of the temple and drug through the streets and burned.

Link to comment

Another way to look at it is through modern scripture.

Where, in the revelations given to Joseph Smith, does it mention people becoming as the angels? There are two possibilities:'

1. Translated Beings. "And they are as the angels of God, and if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good." (3 Nephi 28:30)

2. Those Not Sealed on Earth: "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word...when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." (D&C 132:16-17)

Angels clearly represent an inferior order. Those sealed on Earth, who keep their second estate, honor their priesthood and are resurrected to the Celestial Kingdom remain together as one (in the same way the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one). If not sealed on Earth, even though men and women can inherit the Celestial Kingdom, they cannot inherit the fulness of the glory of God.

Link to comment

Something I find significant concerning the eternal nature of the family is found in the Book of Job. Compare what he was blessed with before his trials to what he was blessed with after his trials.

Before:

(Job 1:1-3.)

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

After:

(Job 42:10, 12-13.)

10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.

12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.

If the Lord blessed him with twice as much, why did he not have fourteen sons and six daughters born to him? LDS know why.

T-Shirt

Link to comment

Because sons and daughters aren't blessings?

Come on, T-Shirt. Give.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

He did receive double the children he had before. It is important to understand that, in eternity, he would not lose the seven sons and three daughters who were killed. Add to the original ten children the later ten children and you have double the children.

T-Shirt

Link to comment

He did receive double the children he had before. It is important to understand that, in eternity, he would not lose the seven sons and three daughters who were killed. Add to the original ten children the later ten children and you have double the children.

T-Shirt

D'oh!

Poor math skills on my part are to blame.

Thanks for the clarification!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment
Do you believe that temple marriages were performed in Herod's temple?
No, but not because they were improper. It was because there was no Priesthood authority to perform them there.

However, in Solomon's Temple, I believe they were performed, at least some of the time. One of the reasons I believe this is in 2 Chron. There is a fairly detailed description of the Temple downstairs and a bare mention of the second floor:

2Ch 3:9 And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.
Clearly, there was a second floor, and just as clearly, there were multiple rooms there. Josephus says there were two, identical in size to those below. The Jewish historian says that there were stairs inside the walls for access to that unknown floor.

He says, but there is no confirmation in the Bible, that the vail of the Temple was used downstairs. The Bible is silent about the vail*, but it emphasizes that the portal to the Holy of Holies was closed by a gold-clad folding door, held closed by a golden chain. I believe the vail was upstairs, which makes possible the Endowment.

* I know how to spell veil, but this is the way the AV renders the word.

Now, because the whole point of Temples, for the living or the dead is to seal families together, it makes sense that there were sealings for the living. (There was no Temple work for the dead until after the Resurrection, we Peter and Joseph are the heads of the dispensations responsible for all of that work.)

One of the reasons I can boldly claim that Temples are for sealings is that the only passages of scripture I know of that's cited in all five books of the Standard works is Malachi 4:5~6. It's in Luke 1:17, 3 Nephi 25:5~6, Doc&Cov 110:13 9and several others), and in the Pearl of Great Price, JST 1:38~39.

It seems that this turning of hearts is critical to Father's plan, and that He wanted to ensure that these sealings would happen whenever possible, including in Solomon's day. One could make a decent case that the Tabernacle of Moses could have served as well, but that rests on less evidence, either biblical or other, than my view here.

Lehi

Link to comment
Even a disbeliever in eternal marriage has to concede that Eve was called "his wife" while they were still in the garden.
Sorry, there is no Hebrew word in the Bible for "wife". The word is
נשׁים אשּׁה

'ishshâh nâshîym

The first form is the feminine אנושׁ ('ĕnôsh) or אישׁ ('îysh); the second form is an irregular plural; a woman.

I checked every instance of "wife" (referring to Eve) in Genesis, and they are all this word or its variant.

That said, it is clear that Adam had a close and unique relationship with Eve, and that the phrase "his woman" refers solely to her, so that translating the phrase as "his wife" is almost mandatory.

I don't see how anyone can deny that Adam and Eve were married.
Nor do I, especially given that God is particularly fierce about adultery, fornication and so on, and that the only legitimate sexual release is in the context of marriage. The only exception to this is, simplified a bit, if a man takes a virgin who is not his wife, he must marry her.

Lehi

Link to comment

I don't think you understand the Saduccees trap correctly. The Saduccees are not arguing against eternal marriage; they are arguing against resurrection as such. That is why Jesus ultimately answers them by citing Exodus in support of eternal life. If one recognizes, in accordance with Jesus' answer, that the Saduccees argument is directed against resurrection, it become impossible to avoid that Jesus is teaching against eternal marriage. For if he were only saying that some people, "the children of this world" do not marry in heaven, leaving open the possibility that others do, or that he is merely saying that no new marriage covenants will happen in heaven, then he has clearly failed to answer the Saducees objection, since the same argument could be made again about a worthy woman with several husbands.

Then why did God tell us that we will be able to inhabit houses and have gardens and such and no others will bother us,

"a man and his wife" and there offspring with them, will be able to live this way in heaven, yet when we are married in ths mortal world it is till death to we part? So this just does not add up at all when trying to claim the lord did not sanction eternal marriage. Why does the lord tell us that we will be able to have families in heaven if it were not true. {and be married husband and wife}. with our offspring with us. I dont understand how anybody could deny what the Holy Bible tells us. It does not go into deep detail i must admit, but it does tell us we can be married with families in heaven. And once again, where else except in this church can eternal marriage be performed? other than "till death do you part" as is done by every other church,pastor,judge e.t.c........ :P

Link to comment

Sorry, there is no Hebrew word in the Bible for "wife". The word is

I checked every instance of "wife" (referring to Eve) in Genesis, and they are all this word or its variant.

Lehi

Well this would be a rather silly argument for anyone who speaks more than one language. Context is always key in translating from one language to another,and there really would be no other proper translation of this word for the woman taken out of Adam. I guess it could have read "Adam's female counterpart who was taken from him", but "wife" is a much more concise translation being that this was a God sanctioned relationship.

Link to comment
Well this would be a rather silly argument for anyone who speaks more than one language.
I have French, Italian, some German, a smattering of Spanish, and more than a bit of ancient Greek. It's rather rare to have a distinct and common word for "wife" (or husband) in Indo-European languages. You would not be surprised to learn that "wife" is an old word for "woman" even in English.

In French, the common word is la femme (woman) although they do have

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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