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

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

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.

Why anyone who accepted enough of the LDS gospel to make it to the celestial kingdom would not agree to eternal marriage in order to make it to the highest degree and exaltation I'm sure I don't understand, especially if they are being given the opportunity to get married in the afterlife (without the worries and heartaches that often come to married people in mortality).

You wrote:

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.

That would be creative but hardly relevant to what Jesus meant, of course. In fact, it would involve turning Jesus' point upside down.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowma:

It is called Agency. That is why the injunction includes through no fault of their own.

[David T]

Why anyone who accepted enough of the LDS gospel to make it to the celestial kingdom would not agree to eternal marriage in order to make it to the highest degree and exaltation I'm sure I don't understand, especially if they are being given the opportunity to get married in the afterlife (without the worries and heartaches that often come to married people in mortality).

I agree. It is indeed a doctrinal curiosity.

That would be creative but hardly relevant to what Jesus meant, of course. In fact, it would involve turning Jesus' point upside down.

Hence why I said "re-applying" You know I'm all about following the NT tradition of prophetic creative reapplication, right? (Just don't insist that it's original intent)

Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow

[CV75]

Coming in late here, but someone can be worthy of the celestial kingdom without being sufficiently worthy for exaltation, or in other words, to a) be given a spouse or b) keep the spouse they were sealed to while on the earth (whether living or by proxy). It seems to be not only be a matter of confessing that eternal marriage and exaltation is a beautiful thing meant for everyone, but of actually being eligible according to the perfect judgment of Christ, given His perfect mercy and grace. We need to be able to tolerate the blessing for what it really is, not what we imagine it to be.

[Calm]

I don't offer this as fact, only opinion. Is it possible that the addition of the words, "in this life or in the next" is to make the doctrine more appealing to investigators, possibly to highlight that the everlasting covenant can be applied to those who have already died? The original language wasn't as clear.

Only to those who ignored what was taught in the missionary discussions and elsewhere in the Gospel Principles manual. The chapter on Temple Work in the older manual makes it clear that all those who have "died without baptism or temple ordinances" will have the opportunity through proxy work. (pg 255.)

Of course if one takes each sentence in any textbook on its own there are going to be misunderstandings and confusion. The idea that one sentence or even one chapter will provide all the relevant doctrine is extremely simplistic. It is a inefficient way to study anything, imo.

[Mike Richards]

Why anyone who accepted enough of the LDS gospel to make it to the celestial kingdom would not agree to eternal marriage in order to make it to the highest degree and exaltation I'm sure I don't understand, especially if they are being given the opportunity to get married in the afterlife (without the worries and heartaches that often come to married people in mortality).

I think you're mistaken that there will be no worries or heartache in marriages in the celestial kingdom. If we presume that God represents our only known example of a married celestial being, do you think we believe he experiences no heartache? I'm not sure whether or not he worries, but it seems clear to me that he experiences sorrow over his children's choices. I presume that single angels will not experience that same sorrow.

As to your first thought, accepting doctrines/principles as true and living up to them is a very different thing. I don't think many people are surprised when members who accept everything taught by the church but don't do everything they're supposed to. I think there will be people in a similar situation in the celestial kingdom--they will have qualified for all that the lowest degree in the celestial kingdom offers, but will not want to follow through with the final requirements.

[Ahab]

Why anyone who accepted enough of the LDS gospel to make it to the celestial kingdom would not agree to eternal marriage in order to make it to the highest degree and exaltation I'm sure I don't understand, especially if they are being given the opportunity to get married in the afterlife (without the worries and heartaches that often come to married people in mortality).

Simply put, not everybody wants to be "married" for the rest of eternity, which is what the highest degree of celestial glory is all about.

Not even all LDS really want to be married forever. Heck, I even know quite a few who are married but continue to live like they're still single.

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear:

Sorry the link didn't work for me.

[LDSToronto]

Only to those who ignored what was taught in the missionary discussions and elsewhere in the Gospel Principles manual. The chapter on Temple Work in the older manual makes it clear that all those who have "died without baptism or temple ordinances" will have the opportunity through proxy work. (pg 255.)

Of course if one takes each sentence in any textbook on its own there are going to be misunderstandings and confusion. The idea that one sentence or even one chapter will provide all the relevant doctrine is extremely simplistic. It is a inefficient way to study anything, imo.

I didn't ignore what was taught in the missionary discussions, but there were a pile of things that I didn't really comprehend, temple included. I was given the discussions in the days when there were 6 prescribed lessons that the missionaries pretty much memorized. I think today the lessons are less structured and the missionaries are better equipped to answer questions (relative to how they used to answer). Someone who listens to the missionaries and then understands the doctrine of eternal marriage, that is probably a rare case.

H.

[mfbukowski]

deleted.

Turning over a new leaf. Or at least trying to sprout one.

Edited June 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

This sounds rather Catholic. One can sacrifice just as much being married- if not more, serve as much- if not more- and why would one voluntarily give up exaltation?

I think that is why this is not discussed. It seems contradictory to the entire LDS frame of reference.

Remaining unmarried when it is a commandment to be married seems counterproductive, self-limiting and selfish in itself. It really sounds like something Catholic nuns believe in, and is not an LDS notion at all.

[David T]

This sounds rather Catholic. One can sacrifice just as much being married- if not more, serve as much- if not more- and why would one voluntarily give up exaltation?

I think that is why this is not discussed. It seems contradictory to the entire LDS frame of reference.

Remaining unmarried when it is a commandment to be married seems counterproductive, self-limiting and selfish in itself. It really sounds like something Catholic nuns believe in, and is not an LDS notion at all.

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.

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.

[zerinus]

Okay. I answered your question. Now it's your turn to answer mine.

Actually you didn't. I am still waiting for a genuine answer!

No. I mean the qualification or loophole that a person can attain exaltation by being married in the temple for eternity in this life or in the next.

So far, no one has even tried to explain why earlier editions of GP did not make such a qualification if that has been LDS doctrine for a century.

That is just nitpicking. How many books do you know that are so perfect from the word go that they don't need editing?

Um, staccato raises a good point. This is another statement that seems to reflect the view that persons must get married in this life in order to attain exaltation. No one has yet commented on this quotation.

That is a ridiculous criticism to bring. It goes completely against the spirit and letter of LDS doctrine. Mormonism teaches quite clearly that for those who have missed certain blessings in this life through no fault of their own, but were otherwise worthy, opportunities will be provided for them to make up for it in the next life. That safety net is inherently built in LDS theology. There may be all kinds of reasons why someone who may otherwise be worthy might be prevented from being married in this life, including premature death. Mormonism teaches that such will not be penalized in the next through no fault of their own. Mormonism teaches for example that children who die in infancy will be saved in the Celestial kingdom. So what happens to them? Will they be denied exaltation because they dies in infancy? Of course not. Joseph Smith himself taught, "All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it" (Teachings, p. 296). What more do you want?

Edited June 15, 2011 by zerinus

[David T]

Remaining unmarried ... seems counterproductive, self-limiting and selfish in itself. It really sounds like something Catholic nuns believe in, and is not an LDS notion at all.

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?

Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

Simply put, not everybody wants to be "married" for the rest of eternity, which is what the highest degree of celestial glory is all about.

Not even all LDS really want to be married forever. Heck, I even know quite a few who are married but continue to live like they're still single.

I think that our good friend Rob Bowman has a problem. I think he has come to a realization that Mormonism might be true after all; but he hasn't figured our how to break the new to himself yet. LOL!

[mfbukowski]

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 - doesn't translate as "selfish" to me.

In an LDS context, I think it can and is seen that way. It is a deliberate choice NOT to bring spirits into this world which could be brought into an LDS home where the gospel is taught.

Furthermore it can be argued that one's role in life should be to be actively IN the world and not OF it- to me at least, implying family life and the sacrifice it brings. There are great lessons for one's progression which can only be learned within a family setting.

But that said, I don't mean to imply for a minute that there are single individuals who do far more service than most married individuals. Partially it is because they have more time to devote to people outside their families, but admittedly marital status has nothing to do with how inclined one is to do service for others.

It is my personal belief, that even on a pragmatic level- if one was an atheist- living as a married parent is a better path to totaly human fulfillment and self-actualization than single life.

But that's probably just me.

Edited June 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

In an LDS context, I think it can and is seen that way. It is a deliberate choice NOT to bring spirits into this world which could be brought into an LDS home where the gospel is taught.

Furthermore it can be argued that one's role in life should be to be actively IN the world and not OF it- to me at least, implying family life and the sacrifice it brings. There are great lessons for one's progression which can only be learned within a family setting.

But that said, I don't mean to imply for a minute that there are single individuals who do far more service than most married individuals. Partially it is because they have more time to devote to people outside their families, but admittedly marital status has nothing to do with how inclined one is to do service for others.

It is my personal belief, that even on a pragmatic level- if one was an atheist- living as a married parent is a better path to totaly human fulfillment and self-actualization than single life.

But that's probably just me.

There are many paths to total human fulfillment - married and unmarried. A deliberate choice is not a selfish choice.

H.

[Calm]

I didn't ignore what was taught in the missionary discussions, but there were a pile of things that I didn't really comprehend, temple included.

I am talking specifically about the one issue that Mr. Bowman states looks like it has been changed, the idea that specific teaching has been changed due to the one quote he is referring to in order to justify his claim. That point is very clear elsewhere in the manual even if one assumes it is not clear in the quote he gave.

[mfbukowski]

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

Unquestionably she did a phenomenal work- no doubt about it.

On the other hand, she was not a happy person.

There is a lot of evidence especially recently, which we need not mention directly, that those who choose the celibate life are not necessarily interested in serving God as much as they are trying to deal with their own personal demons.

Nevertheless, without question, I don't mean to demean the choices of such individuals. That they are following their hearts, I think cannot be questioned, and without a doubt they can do great things.

[mfbukowski]

A deliberate choice is not a selfish choice.

Where did I say ANYTHING even remotely contradicting this?

[LDSToronto]

Unquestionably she did a phenomenal work- no doubt about it.

On the other hand, she was not a happy person.

There is a lot of evidence especially recently, which we need not mention directly, that those who choose the celibate life are not necessarily interested in serving God as much as they are trying to deal with their own personal demons.

Nevertheless, without question, I don't mean to demean the choices of such individuals. That they are following their hearts, I think cannot be questioned, and without a doubt they can do great things.

Do you believe a husband would have cured her of her crisis?

H.

[LDSToronto]

Where did I say ANYTHING even remotely contradicting this?

you said:

"In an LDS context, I think it can and is seen that way. It is a deliberate choice NOT to bring spirits into this world which could be brought into an LDS home where the gospel is taught."

H.

[mfbukowski]

Do you believe a husband would have cured her of her crisis?

H.

Even asking such a question is an absurdity. How is anyone supposed to have an answer for that, when she herself did not have an answer?

Edited June 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

you said:

"In an LDS context, I think it can and is seen that way. It is a deliberate choice NOT to bring spirits into this world which could be brought into an LDS home where the gospel is taught."

H.

Take a logic course.

The statement was that one particular choice- the choice made deliberately to live a celibate life- in an LDS context- MIGHT be "seen" to be "selfish".

That is not the logical equivalent of "All deliberate choices are selfish choices".

[David T]

So the question is: Will a single angel who deliberately rejected Eternal Marriage - but was still saved in the Celestial Kingdom - be tormented by their singleness? Or be condemned for disobedience to the Marriage Commandment? Will their life of service in the Celestial Kingdom be ... less than Celestial?

I think these are compelling, but very much unexplored concepts and questions made necessary by accepting that clause in D&C 132 as still standing.

D&C 132

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16Therefore, 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.

17For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are aangels of God forever and ever.

D&C 131

1In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlastingcovenant of emarriage];

3And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Or are we generally misunderstanding D&C 131, where 'Celestial Glory' isn't referring to the Celestial Kingdom, but the heavens in General, and "The Highest" is referring to what we generally mean by the Celestial Kingdom? Would that mean unmarrieds would of necessity be at the most Terrestrial?

Did Joseph have his D&C 76 understanding of the Three Degrees altered, making it obselete, or rather abrogated - and these later reflections (in D&C 132 and 131) reflect this development (which perhaps would change interpretation of elements of the Temple Endowment)?

Just found a discussion on just this point. This would significantly alter the discussion.

Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow