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

[mfbukowski]

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.

Well it is my understanding that is what the "Terestrial Kingdom" is for.

It is for good people who did not respond to the gospel, who were good Christians perhaps, and were "saved" to precisely the "heaven" they thought they would receive- being angelic servants praising God for eternity.

They get precisely what they wanted! I don't think such an idea is unexplored at all- where is that- section 76? (looking)

Edited June 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Edit:

Oops- section 132

15Therefore, if a ^aman 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 ^amarriage; but are appointed angels in ^bheaven, which angels are ministering ^cservants, 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.

18And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that ^acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

Edited June 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[David T]

Well it is my understanding that is what the "Terestrial Kingdom" is for.

It is for good people who did not respond to the gospel, who were good Christians perhaps, and were "saved" to precisely the "heaven" they thought they would receive- being angelic servants praising God for eternity.

They get precisely what they wanted! I don't think such an idea is unexplored at all- where is that- section 76? (looking)

So do you believe Section 131 refers to even more subdivions within the Celestial Kingdom itself? If only married individuals end up in the Highest of those Degrees, doesn't that mean there's still two degrees in the CK inhabited by singles? Who are they?

Or do you hold to section 131 referring to the D&C 76 heavens, with only the Celestial (highest) having married folk? (Which raises some interesting questions of its own, if that's the case).

Is D&C 131 talking about degrees within the CK, or is it refering to the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial as those three degrees?

Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

I guess it comes down the interpretation of D&C 131.

If one hold the term 'celestial' is generic and means the heavens in general, then it is teaching that only those who are married in the Covenant will obtain the Celestial Kingdom period.

If one holds it is specifically refering to the specific Celestial Kingdom (the current standard Church interpretation, I believe), it leaves room for lesser unmarried degrees, and raises the questions presented above

Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

Will respond further later, but this is interesting:

http://lds.org/ensign/1979/10/the-importance-of-celestial-marriage?lang=eng&query=marriage+ministering+angels

We may be angels, if we are righteous enough. Even unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only.

[Ahab]

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?

Not as long as he or she lives happily ever after while remaining single, without ever having a true desire to be married, because only someone who wanted to be married and yet could never be married would ever be tormented by not being able to be married.

Or be condemned for disobedience to the Marriage Commandment?

There is no commandment to be married, as far as I know. It's just that if you want to be married you have to do it God's way for God to sanction that marriage.

Will their life of service in the Celestial Kingdom be ... less than Celestial?

Of course not. It's just that those who aren't married won't have a spouse or any children of their own, so the most they'll be able to do is to help take care of somebody else's.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Ahab

[LDSToronto]

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?

So why did you bring up that Mother Theresa wasn't happy?

H.

[LDSToronto]

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".

I didn't say all deliberate choices are selfish choices. I said a deliberate choice is not a selfish choice, insinuating that "deliberate" does not mean "selfish". Take a course in English.

H.

[cdowis]

So do you believe Section 131 refers to even more subdivions within the Celestial Kingdom itself? If only married individuals end up in the Highest of those Degrees, doesn't that mean there's still two degrees in the CK inhabited by singles? Who are they?

Some have proposed that the highest degree is where the Father and Son reside, and the second ..... etc

[CV75]

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.

I’m sure there’s someone who works with the curriculum who can answer this.

From my perspective, the update was made because the world and the Church in general have reached a point where a) life spans allow people to live longer and never-married people may join the Church long after the age of being “eligible” to marry; b) the vast increase in the number of people who would have died of their physical challenges long before marriageable age now live into adulthood but without the likelihood of being able to marry (related to this, the great increase in other conditions that often interfere with one's desire to marry); c) there are more small congregations where there are an insufficient number of worthy/active members of one sex or the other to marry in the temple; d) the number and location of temples probably still lags behind the demand for temple marriages; e) the effective dissemination of this principle through modern communication and publication techniques, and the blessings unto the third and fourth generations has increased the appreciation and demand for the principle among the living who may lack the resources to get to a temple. As awareness of the principle expands, the questions come and the additions, enhancements and improvements to the "introductory level" books like Gospel Principles are made.

Edited June 16, 2011 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind

Edited June 16, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I said, I never said that deliberate choices were selfish

Can you say straw man?

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

I’m sure there’s someone who works with the curriculum who can answer this.

From my perspective, the update was made because the world and the Church in general have reached a point where a) life spans allow people to live longer and never-married people may join the Church long after the age of being “eligible” to marry; b) the vast increase in the number of people who would have died of their physical challenges long before marriageable age now live into adulthood but without the likelihood of being able to marry (related to this, the great increase in other conditions that often interfere with one's desire to marry); c) there are more small congregations where there are an insufficient number of worthy/active members of one sex or the other to marry in the temple; d) the number and location of temples probably still lags behind the demand for temple marriages; e) the effective dissemination of this principle through modern communication and publication techniques, and the blessings unto the third and fourth generations has increased the appreciation and demand for the principle among the living who may lack the resources to get to a temple. As awareness of the principle expands, the questions come and the additions, enhancements and improvements to the "introductory level" books like Gospel Principles are made.

I think some of these factors might be involved, although I doubt that (d) is a serious factor since, as I understand it, many LDS temples are currently under-utilized. I personally am of the opinion that the bottom line is that the LDS Church, like most other religions, is having to deal with a much larger contingent of single people than in earlier generations. I know that "singles ministries" are a fixture in most large and even middle-sized evangelical churches, and other religions also deal with the same phenomenon.

[mfbukowski]

Can you say straw man?

More like "no man".

Nothing whatsoever.

[mfbukowski]

So do you believe Section 131 refers to even more subdivions within the Celestial Kingdom itself? If only married individuals end up in the Highest of those Degrees, doesn't that mean there's still two degrees in the CK inhabited by singles? Who are they?

It's my personal belief that there are actually an infinite number of degrees- not only in the CK but in all kingdoms- we are each resurrected to exactly the correct "rung" on Jacob's Ladder which we deserve. Just as h e l l is a personal one, (ie: spirit prison) and is in some sense, of our own creation, so is our glory.

Or do you hold to section 131 referring to the D&C 76 heavens, with only the Celestial (highest) having married folk? (Which raises some interesting questions of its own, if that's the case).

Again, I think there are many many "degrees"- and trying to divide it all up precisely is irrelevant to what is the important question. I think it is clear we need to be sealed to be exalted- THAT is the main doctrine as far as I am concerned- and I think that clearly has to do with the Biblical admonition to be one with one's wife as Christ is one with the Church. Paul refers repeatedly to this as a "great mystery" and I think the revelations on Celestial Marriage have precisely to do with this. In fact, I am positive they do.

Edited June 16, 2011 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

They are so underused that we build more of them.

But seriously we will never be completely satified until ALL have had their work done in the Temple, either by the living or by proxy. I forsee the day when there will be 300-400 Temples, and they will all be open 24hrs a day.

[staccato]

The point is that one can be exalted in the celestial kingdom without needing to be married. One cannot "increase" in the highest level of the CK, but some people don't want to increase. And there is apparently nothing wrong with that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The point is that one can be exalted in the celestial kingdom without needing to be married. One cannot "increase" in the highest level of the CK, but some people don't want to increase. And there is apparently nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with that. I have met people that don't want to be married. Nothing wrong with that . I believe in a God who will give you what you want at the end of the day.

[thesometimesaint]

staccato:

I believe that all the Kingdoms of Glory are some type of exaultation. But highest degree in the Clestial Kingdom is rereserved for the married.

[staccato]

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on some interesting changes in Gospel Principles. In the new, 2009 edition, the following statement appears in the chapter on exaltation: “We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next” (278, emphasis added). Contrast this statement with the unqualified statement found in the same place in earlier editions of the book: “We must be married for time and all eternity” (Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 226); “We must be married for time and eternity” (1997 ed., 303). The same sort of qualification or exception seems to be suggested in some footnotes in the chapters on family and marriage (2009 ed., 208, 213, 220). Again, these footnotes do not appear in earlier editions of the book.

Just bringing the thread around to the beginning. Doctrinally speaking apparently one does not have to be married for eternity in order to reach the celestial kingdom, i.e. exaltation.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman:

They are so underused that we build more of them.

But seriously we will never be completely satified until ALL have had their work done in the Temple, either by the living or by proxy. I forsee the day when there will be 300-400 Temples, and they will all be open 24hrs a day.

And there is no indication that they will get any cheaper to build than they are right now.

There could not be a wiser time to be buying land and building for the millenium- if the temples are in use right now or not.

[mfbukowski]

Just bringing the thread around to the beginning. Doctrinally speaking apparently one does not have to be married for eternity in order to reach the celestial kingdom, i.e. exaltation.

Huh?

Have you read the thread?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

There is nothing wrong with that. I have met people that don't want to be married. Nothing wrong with that . I believe in a God who will give you what you want at the end of the day.

You know, if I were to have introduced what you are saying as the LDS view, I would have been subjected to scorn and vitriol for misrepresenting Mormon doctrine.

"An eternal marriage should be the goal of every Latter-day Saint" (Gospel Principles, 222). "He commands us to receive certain ordinances.... 5. We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next" (278).

"We believe that every man holding the holy Priesthood should be married, with the very few exceptions of those who through infirmities of mind or body are not fit for marriage. Every man is a worse man in proportion as he is unfit for the married state. We hold that no man who is marriageable is fully living his religion who remains unmarried. He is doing a wrong to himself by retarding his progress, by narrowing his experiences, and to society by the undesirable example that he sets to others, as well as he, himself, being a dangerous factor in the community."--Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (1986), 275.

"We want you to know that the position of the Church has never changed regarding the importance of celestial marriage. It is a commandment of God."--Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1988, 51.

[staccato]

Huh?

Have you read the thread?

Why yes, I have, thank you!

[thesometimesaint]

The Church already owns considerable land. Add in that the new Temples usually are already part of Stske Center land. I don't see adding more land just for more Temples as particularly advantagious right now. That could and probaby will change in the future.