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

[Ahab]

Ahab:

I believe the Scriptures tell us that we will be like God. I liken it to this life in that I have a father and he will always be my father. I am a father and will always be a father. My sons are fathers now, and they will always be fathers with the same powers and authorities that I have. Though we are separate and dinstinct individuals.

Yes, I look at it that way, too.

We will be equal with our Father in heaven just as our Father in heaven is equal with his Father in heaven, and just as that Father is equal with his Father in heaven, and so on, and so on, with all who are exalted being "one" in that very same way.

Every son has a Father, and every Father in heaven has his own sons and daughters like we will if we are exalted.

Pretty awesome, and yet so basic because how else could it possibly be.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

... but they don't believe they will ever have the same "nature' as God.

Ah yes, that wonderful word that no one can define except by begging the question.

"The nature of God is to be divine" "The nature of man, is to be human" "The nature of a dog is to be doggy"

In other words, A = A.

Not too illuminating, unfortunately.

[Ahab]

Ah yes, that wonderful word that no one can define except by begging the question.

"The nature of God is to be divine" "The nature of man, is to be human" "The nature of a dog is to be doggy"

In other words, A = A.

Not too illuminating, unfortunately.

I think nature can be simply defined as what it is that makes some kind of thing what it is.

What they don't agree with is the fact that human persons and divine persons have the same basic nature, even though in divine persons that nature is perfected while in humans it'still needs to be developed if it's ever going to become as perfected as is the nature of our Father in heaven.

[mfbukowski]

Scott Lloyd:

.... there are or will be countles individuals who meet the qualifications for the highest degree in the Celestial kingdom....

I am not sure that that is true. But of course no one knows. But I think few of us will really want to be there enough to actually get there. I mean I say that I want to be there, but do I want it enough to give up my favorite sins? I'm not sure.

I still put down Rob every chance I get, and do tons of things I shouldn't. I don't do anything terrible- but how good is "good enough"?

I don't think a true celestial person would even ask that!

[Ahab]

I am not sure that that is true. But of course no one knows. But I think few of us will really want to be there enough to actually get there. I mean I say that I want to be there, but do I want it enough to give up my favorite sins? I'm not sure.

I still put down Rob every chance I get, and do tons of things I shouldn't. I don't do anything terrible- but how good is "good enough"?

I don't think a true celestial person would even ask that!

I think a true celestial person-in-the-making would want to be better than he is right now, though.

Thank God that he still shows you what you need to do to improve yourself, otherwise you might think you are good enough now.

[mfbukowski]

I think nature can be simply defined as what it is that makes some kind of thing what it is.

Yep.

A = A

It is what it is. Doesn't say much. The same words on both sides of the "is".

[Ahab]

Yep.

A = A

It is what it is. Doesn't say much. The same words on both sides of the "is".

It says enough, though, I think. It's just a shorthand way of saying it.

For example, if someone were to ask: What is the nature of God (such as our Father in heaven)?... a simple and correct answer would be "what God is" or "what it is that makes God "God".

Likewise, if someone were to ask: What is the nature of Man (as in mankind)?... a simple and correct answer would be "what Man is" or "what it is that makes Man "Man".

And like I said, I think they get that much. It's just that they don't agree with the fact that Man is basically God even though Man isn't as perfected as God is.

I also think it's interesting that God calls himself a Man of Holiness, and with my understanding that holiness if all about setting something apart, I see 2 distinct classes of Man with one being the One that is set apart from all other forms of Man, such that there are those who are God, and then there are the people who are not like him.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

"I mean I say that I want to be there, but do I want it enough to give up my favorite sins? I'm not sure".

That is why I'm so grateful for repentence.

I fully believe that God will judge us not only on our actual actions, but the intents of our hearts as well.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

"I mean I say that I want to be there, but do I want it enough to give up my favorite sins? I'm not sure".

That is why I'm so grateful for repentence.

I fully believe that God will judge us not only on our actual actions, but the intents of our hearts as well.

yeah, thanks.

I knew that too, but thanks!

[zerinus]

I think the current view is up to the individual choosing to accept the principle of Eternal Marriage or not, or choosing to live as a devoted single, celibate servant.

I think there's some fascinating room for exploration on this concept of voluntary Celibacy as Sacrifice/Salvation Path/Vocation distinct from and as a separate branch from the Exaltation Path/Vocation (even re-applying the Jesus saying that some have "made themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God's sake"), but as far as I know, this hasn't been done.

Voluntary celibacy for a period of time in order to render a service is a valid principle in the gospel; but that does not mean that it has to be a permanent or eternal state. Our missionaries for example are expected to remain celibate during the period of their missions in order to focus all their attention on that assignment; but once they are released, they are expected to get married. Somebody who is recruited into the army to fight a war is perhaps another good example of someone who may prefer to postpone marriage so that he can fulfil that assignment, without worrying about his family at home, or what will happen to them if he died in action. But once he returns from that assignment, he can start thinking about getting married.

It comes from an extension of context of cultural New Testament teachings that we (and most protestants) tend to gloss over, or explain away. I'm not saying I agree with it, I just recognize that it's there, and that there are very good arguments presenting that Jesus and John the Baptist both chose ascetic celibacy - But that's a different discussion anyway that I'm not interested in participating in here and now.

On rare occasion someone may find that he has a certain mission for life that might render it unsuitable for him to get married in this life. I think that Jesus and some other may have been in that situation; but again, it doesn’t mean that it has to be a permanent or eternal state.

However, the "Celestial Kingdom Saved Single Person As An Angel" principle does create a strange unexplored bump in our standard way of expressing things. I'd love to see it explored by General Authorities.

I think the scripture makes it clear that it is not the highest state of happiness or privilege that can be achieved in the next life.

D&C 88

:

33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.

Some people just don’t recognize a good thing when they see one. They wouldn’t appreciate it or value it even if you gave it to them, so what would be the point?

I'd say there have been - and are - many nuns (and Monks) which have done far more good, and have been far more selfless than I have. I love my family, and I love my married state and have no desire to give it up - but to note that those who choose celibacy as religious vocation to devote their lives to unique service - often accompanied by renouncing all possessions (part of renouncing and resisting all carnal desires, or "the natural man") - are "selfish" seems quite off, and highly judgmental.

Because the first word we all think of when we hear "Mother Theresa" is "Selfish", correct?

I think that the mistake that the Catholic monks and nuns have made is that they think that the celibate state has to be a permanent or eternal one, rather than a temporary condition imposed on one in order to fulfil a particular assignment. Another mistake that they have made is to believe that celibacy is inherently a higher, more moral, or more noble state of existence. They think it is a morally superior state to be in than the married state—whereas the scriptures say expressly the opposite: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Many years ago I had the opportunity to go inside the cloister of a group of Franciscan monks, and observe how they lived. I could tell immediately that there was something wrong with those people. They were not living a normal, emotionally or spiritually healthy state of existence. A world in which there were only men and no women would be a pretty damning place to be in. If that is the way God wanted it to be, He would have ordained it that way, but He hasn't.

[ozpoof]

This change seems to be the church throwing a bone to gay Mormons who have no hope of ever marrying in the temple (not to who they love anyway). If gay Mormons who wish to stay in the church believe they will be "fixed" in the next life and be able to marry as Mormonism expects, they might stop killing themselves in such high numbers.

[Messenger]

. A world in which there were only men and no women would be a pretty damning place to be in.

Yes, but marrying the wrong one can be just as damning, if not more. Further, while it is good for man to be married to a good and compatible wife, In my opinion there is far too much emphasis on the "marry" rather then "finding" a good and compatible wife.

Be single and over 45 years old, I can promise you that I dont feel damned at all. Actually pretty free and certainly at one with Heavanly Father. Perhaps you might consider all the single people in your feild of view might not be so damned after all. In my world, I accept both married and those that are not. What planet do you live on?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I don't know that it is the the LDS view. It was my view. I really don't think that if some one who is married, doesn't want to be married in the end and the live a good life and do all that they are supposed to, I doubt God will force them to be married and to accept something they don't want. I can't imagine such a situation but I am looking at this hypothetically.

And you are correct that you probably would have been ridiculed if you tried to pass this off as LDS doctrine. As I said "I don't know that it is the the LDS view". I don't think there is anything official on the matter.

Okay. I should not have responded as though you were claiming to present the LDS view.

I certainly don't think the LDS doctrine is that God will "force" people to get married against their will. I would assume that in LDS thinking marriage is viewed as desirable and that faithful Mormons expect to find a spouse to their liking.

You wrote:

It should be, they are right, that does not mean that every one wants it.... Again, they should be.... I agree, it is a command, but not everyone obeys all commands.

Well, I don't think we disagree on what the LDS position is after all. If you agree that eternal marriage is a command and that it is required for exaltation, there's no disagreement here as to what the LDS doctrine is.

[Deborah]

If gay Mormons who wish to stay in the church believe they will be "fixed" in the next life and be able to marry as Mormonism expects, they might stop killing themselves in such high numbers.

You do realize suicide rates among gays is high period, not just among gay Mormons. And it is sad if they don't understand the love and compassion of God and that all things will be set right in the end. However, gays who remain faithful and chaste will be able to receive all the blessings they are entitled to, just as all single heteros who remain faithful and chaste will.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

Okay. I should not have responded as though you were claiming to present the LDS view.

I certainly don't think the LDS doctrine is that God will "force" people to get married against their will. I would assume that in LDS thinking marriage is viewed as desirable and that faithful Mormons expect to find a spouse to their liking.

You wrote:

Well, I don't think we disagree on what the LDS position is after all. If you agree that eternal marriage is a command and that it is required for exaltation, there's no disagreement here as to what the LDS doctrine is.

Cool, glad we could get on the same page.

[David T]

You do realize suicide rates among gays is high period, not just among gay Mormons. And it is sad if they don't understand the love and compassion of God and that all things will be set right in the end. However, gays who remain faithful and chaste will be able to receive all the blessings they are entitled to, just as all single heteros who remain faithful and chaste will.

The thing is, to probably most gays, the idea of having an eternal marriage with a woman is...revolting, and not at all a heavenly ideal.

Think if the doctrine were that only homosexually married couples would be exalted for eternity. Especially if you are currently in a loving heterosexual relationship, and know that your chosen partner who you are attracted to in all ways (emotionally, physically) would be off limits. Would that be an ideal you, as a heterosexual, would find desirable, and hope and desire and pray to be set right in the end? Would you be able to visualize that with joy?

For many, even contemplating the idea is revolting, absurd, and you wouldn't even want to think about such a bizarre scenario.

And that's ... exactly my point.

As current LDS doctrine and policy is understood, I see it very practical to understand that there will be those who are otherwise Celestially perfect, but because of an earthly inability to separate their physical and emotional desires with what is told is the Exalted Goal, will make a joyful choice to enter into Eternal Celestial Servitude rather than the alternative of Eternal Opposite Gender Partnership.

Perhaps that's why a focus on Homosexual celibacy is currently the practical focus and counsel: that the willful separation of sexualized/partne thoughts on anyone in general (specificlly their same gender) , in the minds of the GAs, would make one more willing to accept a post-mortal Heterosexual Marriage arrangement.

That perhaps the major problem of Homosexual Marriage would be understand that it isn't that it can't result in Celestialized participants, just that it would foster inherent desires and goals that would cause an otherwise qualified individual to reject Exaltation.

Perhaps while it's understood that SSA is not something that can be 'cured' in this life, 'fighting it' will aid one in being able to rejoice in and accept Eternal Marriage in the future?

I'm not saying this is my position, it just appears to me that this is the current way this is understood by the GAs.

If such is the developing POV, I can see Civil Same Sex Marriage (once it becomes the legal standard in america) being permitted in the Church as a valid way of expressing the Law of Chastity - but recognizing that participants cannot be sealed, and gain exaltation.

Of course, it would also essentially create a 'servant caste' in the Church. Not something we really want.

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The thing is, to probably most gays, the idea of having an eternal marriage with a woman is...revolting, and not at all a heavenly ideal.

There are other ways to look at this. Oh well.

[Deborah]

There are other ways to look at this. Oh well.

I agree. But too many think that once we get to the other side our vision will still be as limited as it is here.

[David T]

I agree. But too many think that once we get to the other side our vision will still be as limited as it is here.

And many believe that we will be the same people - with the same desires and mindsets - on the other side as we are here, and that we will not suddenly want something different on the other side.

I also see no reason why God would not/could not allow those whose desires and wills change and conform to His in the midst of the Everlasting Eternities to be welcomed and rewarded along with their progress. This view, however, would make the view of "all need to have their choices made/sealings performed before the moment of Resurrection" a little less absolute than we're accustomed to thinking. Leaving, indeed, 'loopholes' for Divine Mercy.

Perhaps the concept of "Must Be Done Before The Resurrection" is another example of the D&C 19 principle where God is quite okay with us having a bit more severe (if misleading) understanding accepted than is actual reality in order to better propel us towards the goal, and the blessings of acting now..

Just as it is not in our nature for our natures to be changed in an instant, it is also not in our nature for our natures to not be changed over time.

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

In other words, perhaps it's not as much that our vision won't be as limited then, as it is that our current vision of the extent of the ability and desire of God's mercy is what is limited.

My view is that God is interested in getting us to the ultimate goal of a fullness of Joy as quickly as possible, and he'll do whatever it takes that is in his power to do so.

The 99 might have an easier time, and be rushed through first, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop working on the struggling 1 before he makes it into the pen. No matter how long that takes.

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Ahab]

In other words, perhaps it's not as much that our vision won't be as limited then, as it is that our current vision of the extent of the ability and desire of God's mercy is what is limited.

My view is that God is interested in getting us to the ultimate goal of a fullness of Joy as quickly as possible, and he'll do whatever it takes that is in his power to do so.

The 99 might have an easier time, and be rushed through first, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop working on the struggling 1 before he makes it into the pen. No matter how long that takes.

You don't seem to be taking into consideration the fact that at some point the veil will be lifted, with us remembering a lot of things from before we came here.

For example, before we came here we knew how our Father felt about homosexual tendencies and those who give in to them. We knew it was wrong, then, but now some don't remember and that memory still hasn't come back to them yet. At some point they will remember, though, and then they will know it is wrong, at least in our Father's eyes, and then they will evaluate themselves based on the perspective of our Father in heaven.

It's not as if it's going to take a long time in the course of eternity for people to wake up and realize that homosexual behavior is wrong.

[cdowis]

del

Edited June 17, 2011 by cdowis

[David T]

It's not as if it's going to take a long time in the course of eternity for people to wake up and realize that homosexual behavior is wrong.

There's a lot of things I know are wrong, yet I'm still in a mindset with habits that make it difficult to fully live according to what I know. I think the eternities will be very similar.

[Skylla]

Ozpoof is banned from the thread.

Skylla

[mfbukowski]

This change seems to be the church throwing a bone to gay Mormons who have no hope of ever marrying in the temple (not to who they love anyway). If gay Mormons who wish to stay in the church believe they will be "fixed" in the next life and be able to marry as Mormonism expects, they might stop killing themselves in such high numbers.

Huh?

What "change" was that??