Marriage. Eternity. Temples. Ordinances. (Revisited)

[Jesterss]

So I know this has been discussed before, hence the title of revisited. Now I'll try to keep this as focused as possible but it's a tough task because there will be a lot of information to cover here to ultimately understand if Marriages truly are of an eternal nature, and if God and Jesus intended it as such.

Focus of this discussion: To truly decide if God meant for marriages to exist in heaven, and how marriages should be handled on earth. Probably more stuff too.

The basis behind such a discussion: It is my understanding that it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints theological belief that marriage is a required ordinance in order to reach the celestial kingdom.

¹⁶And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

¹⁷And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

¹⁸And 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.

¹⁹And 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.

So it has been my understanding through the discussions that Mormons believe this to tie into binding in marriages. The following are the reasons as to why I believe this is wrong.

1. Marriage is not discussed in this chapter.

2. There are no records of Peter ever performing marriage ceremonies.

3. Peter traveled the country-side preaching the Gospel and Word of God. Not marriage.

4. There was a temple in the time of Peter, he never used it, at least there are no records of him using the temple.

5. Jesus also did not perform marriage ceremonies, and he holds the highest priesthood authority, we know he went to marriages but never as an officiator.

6. We know what Jesus did use the temples for and what they meant to him. Marriage is never spoken of as one of those reasons.

With the above information and what we are told throughout Matthew, it becomes much more clear as to what these keys are. Peters task was to preach the Word of God, and in verse 18, we are even told that upon peter, he will build his church. Was it a physical church? It couldn't have been. Peter was a missionary for life. He traveled and used other buildings, but his building and church was the Gospel not a physical earthly dwelling.

⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

²¹And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

²²And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

²³And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

²⁴Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Alright, these are quite possibly two of the most quoted lines from Mormons. What I think goes completely overlooked here though is the idea of one flesh. Now I know that it is a doctrine in the Mormon faith that God and Jesus both have bodies of flesh and bone but lets take a closer look at this.

¹⁴Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

In other words, Jesus took part of becoming flesh and blood.

¹⁴And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus was Made flesh.

⁶Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

⁷But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

⁸And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus became, was made, took the form of, man. He was never man from the beginning or existing of flesh and bone. He had to assume this role of flesh and bone to become like man, in order to offer himself as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. So we know by this Philippians reference that God also does not have flesh and bone since before Jesus took on flesh and bone he was in the form of God.

So what does this really tell us about marriage and becoming one in flesh? Well, let's look at another great comparison of what it means to become one in the flesh.

¹⁵Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.¹⁶What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.¹⁷But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

So now we know that any man or woman who has sexual relations with another woman or man, has become one flesh. So are they really joined together in heaven as well? Of course not. This is not a heavenly joining. Neither is marriage. But they are one flesh, one body.

Now let's take a look at Paul's idea of marriage.

²⁵Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

²⁶I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

²⁷Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

²⁸But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

So it is a commandment from Paul, and not by the Lord. That's not the issue here. The issue is that Paul is a disciple and one who obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful and guiding to us. So he tells us that it is best if we do not seek to be married. And if you argue on the basis of present distress, please verify your meaning, because to me, it means in these latter days, and between now and when Jesus returns. But further more, let's take a look at what Jesus also tells us.

²⁹And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

³⁰Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

So now we have Jesus telling his disciples that there is no man, who has left their parents (not been married) or left their wife, that will not receive the inheritance of heaven, manifold more, nothing less. So is Jesus really saying you must be married in order to reach the celestial kingdom?

⁹Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

God is the Father of our Spirits, not of our flesh. Does he tell us that we will be united with wives and become one spirit? Why not? Why would he so choose to say one flesh?

Would Jesus, Paul, or any other biblical messenger have lied to us in these quotations in order to push us down a wrong path? Certainly not. Especially if you, like I, claim the bible to be the Word of God.

Feel free to respond and let this discussion progress. LDS and non-LDS alike.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

The LDS do not teach that the Bible is the only authority on which we rely. Nor do we teach that if it is not fully explained in the Bible it is not part of our faith.

Only a very small part of what Jesus and the Apostles taught ever made it into Scripture. See Article of Faith 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Actually Peter and the Apostles were regular visiters to the Temple.

[frankenstein]

The bible also states that there are not ehough books to document all that Christ did. So the absence of the bible describing Christ offcuating a marraiage only shows that the bible does not co.gain such things and not that it never happened

And wasn't peter told "whatsoever" or some other all inclusive term which would mean if he bound a marriage on earth it was also bound in heaven.

Edited November 2, 2011 by frankenstein

[altersteve]

It is my understanding that it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints theological belief that marriage is a required ordinance in order to reach the celestial kingdom.

Not quite. Marriage is required if we wish to receive the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom, but it is not required to enter the celestial kingdom and receive a portion of celestial glory. Unmarried individuals in the celestial kingdom will be angels, but married couples will be exalted far above that.

So it has been my understanding through the discussions that Mormons believe this to tie into binding in marriages. The following are the reasons as to why I believe this is wrong.

Not just marriages, but all things that God binds on earth. Since we believe marriages are bound by one with priesthood power, which is a God-given authority to administer such ordinances, it stands to reason that God is the one who ultimately binds two people together, making them "one flesh." This unity continues into the eternities.

1. Marriage is not discussed in this chapter.

2. There are no records of Peter ever performing marriage ceremonies.

3. Peter traveled the country-side preaching the Gospel and Word of God. Not marriage.

4. There was a temple in the time of Peter, he never used it, at least there are no records of him using the temple.

5. Jesus also did not perform marriage ceremonies, and he holds the highest priesthood authority, we know he went to marriages but never as an officiator.

6. We know what Jesus did use the temples for and what they meant to him. Marriage is never spoken of as one of those reasons.

Please understand that this is precisely why modern revelation is necessary. The Bible does not contain everything we need to know. It is completely possible that Peter did perform marriage ceremonies, and he did, in fact, use the temple. Jesus probably never performed any marriage ceremonies, though. But each of these things is an example of an argument from silence: "Because the Bible doesn't say it, it's not true." That doesn't cut it for Latter-day Saints, since we believe there is more to the gospel than what the Bible tells us.

Also, your claim that Peter only preached the gospel and not marriage would make a Latter-day Saint scratch their head. To us, marriage (and, consequently, family) is an infinitely important part of the gospel. We believe that the family is the central unit of God's plan for our happiness, which really is what the gospel is. Our Heavenly Father's work and glory is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life — that is the purpose of our existence. That's why we're here and that's where we're going: to live with God again, immortal and eternal. That is happiness. And the central unit of this plan is family, and the sacred bonds of marriage that is at each family's head. Through marriage we are bound together as one, and it's all for Heavenly Father's eternal plan to bring all of His sons and daughters together as members of His family, the family of heaven, so that we can become like Him one day. He desires that more than anything.

With the above information and what we are told throughout Matthew, it becomes much more clear as to what these keys are. Peters task was to preach the Word of God, and in verse 18, we are even told that upon peter, he will build his church. Was it a physical church? It couldn't have been. Peter was a missionary for life. He traveled and used other buildings, but his building and church was the Gospel not a physical earthly dwelling.

Jesus was not saying that He would build His Church upon Peter, but upon the rock of revelation. Peter knew, by revelation from the Father, that Jesus is the Christ. This is the concept upon which the Church is to be founded, and there can only be continuing revelation if there is a prophet, a spokesman for God through whom He can reveal His will to the Church as a whole.

Also, the Church is not a building, it is an institution. It was not an institution at the time of Peter, true, but it was an organized group of people, in the same hierarchy, or a very similar one to, the one that the Church is currently organized into. At the top of this hierarchical structure is the President of the Church, and this deals with the keys that were given to Peter. These keys were the keys of the kingdom of God, which means that he was, in effect, ordained to be the President of the Church. This is why Latter-day Saints hold Peter in such high regard.

Alright, these are quite possibly two of the most quoted lines from Mormons. What I think goes completely overlooked here though is the idea of one flesh. Now I know that it is a doctrine in the Mormon faith that God and Jesus both have bodies of flesh and bone but lets take a closer look at this.

Here you misunderstand what we believe "one flesh" means when it comes to marriage, and you don't seem to quite understand the difference between "one flesh" as it pertains to marriage and "flesh" as it pertains to a body of flesh and bone. We believe the "one flesh" concept, as it has to do with marriage, is entirely metaphorical, and refers to the same type of spiritual unity shared by Heavenly Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and between Jesus Christ and the Church: one of love, trust, voice, mind, intent, etc., not a literal physical unity.

In other words, Jesus took part of becoming flesh and blood.

Jesus was Made flesh.

Jesus became, was made, took the form of, man. He was never man from the beginning or existing of flesh and bone. He had to assume this role of flesh and bone to become like man, in order to offer himself as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

No disagreement from me.

So we know by this Philippians reference that God also does not have flesh and bone since before Jesus took on flesh and bone he was in the form of God.

By God, I'm assuming you mean God the Father. There is no statement in the Bible that says the Father does not have a body of flesh and bone. Jesus was "in the form of God" because He was a glorious, divine being. When He took on mortality, He literally "became man," becoming like us in order to make us like Him. When He was resurrected, His spirit and His body were joined together once more, thus exalting Him to an even higher existence and making Him perfectly united with His Father — the same unity that He invites us into in John 17.

So what does this really tell us about marriage and becoming one in flesh? Well, let's look at another great comparison of what it means to become one in the flesh.

So now we know that any man or woman who has sexual relations with another woman or man, has become one flesh. So are they really joined together in heaven as well? Of course not. This is not a heavenly joining. Neither is marriage. But they are one flesh, one body.

This verse is not talking about marriage, it's talking about sexual relations outside of marriage. Those who have sex with another become "one flesh" with that person because they have given themselves to that person. But there is no divine bond between them, so they are not "one flesh" in the sense that Genesis 2:24 speaks of.

Now let's take a look at Paul's idea of marriage.

So it is a commandment from Paul, and not by the Lord. That's not the issue here. The issue is that Paul is a disciple and one who obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful and guiding to us. So he tells us that it is best if we do not seek to be married. And if you argue on the basis of present distress, please verify your meaning, because to me, it means in these latter days, and between now and when Jesus returns. But further more, let's take a look at what Jesus also tells us.

So now we have Jesus telling his disciples that there is no man, who has left their parents (not been married) or left their wife, that will not receive the inheritance of heaven, manifold more, nothing less. So is Jesus really saying you must be married in order to reach the celestial kingdom?

Latter-day Saints believe, because of what Joseph Smith has said about this chapter in the JST, that Paul is talking about missionaries — that it is better for those serving missions to not be married. Not sure what you're asking about Jesus' teaching, though. You don't have to be married in order to gain celestial glory.

God is the Father of our Spirits, not of our flesh. Does he tell us that we will be united with wives and become one spirit? Why not? Why would he so choose to say one flesh?

Again, "one flesh" is metaphorical. The Father and the Son are "one flesh" too, but it's a metaphorical, spiritual description of the perfect unity they share.

Would Jesus, Paul, or any other biblical messenger have lied to us in these quotations in order to push us down a wrong path? Certainly not. Especially if you, like I, claim the bible to be the Word of God.

Whether or not the Bible contains "lies" is not the issue here. We don't believe it does, anyway, despite what many of our critics insist. The issues lies in which interpretation is correct. Our interpretation is in light of our modern understanding of the gospel as revealed to us through latter-day revelation and scripture. Since you do not interpret the Bible this way, we will obviously have beliefs that differ dramatically in some areas, so it all comes down to whether or not modern scriptures and revelations are authentic.

Hope that helps.

Edited November 2, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

Not quite. Marriage is required if we wish to receive the highest blessings of the celestial kingdom, but it is not required to enter the celestial kingdom and receive a portion of celestial glory. Unmarried individuals in the celestial kingdom will be angels, but married couples will be exalted far above that.

Ok. That explains a little better. So even unmarried individuals can get into the celestial kingdom, but they will be like the angels. By like the angels, I'm assuming you mean they are single and [insert anything else angels do? messengers?]? Because this actually brings about the point of Matthew 22 that I know we have discussed before.

²⁹Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

³⁰For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

³¹But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

³²I 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.

So now it is understood that everyone who enters heaven will be as the angels in heaven are. So if the angels are single or without mate, why then would we have mates? Jesus specifically says we will be like the angels in this regard.

Not just marriages, but all things that God binds on earth. Since we believe marriages are bound by one with priesthood power, which is a God-given authority to administer such ordinances, it stands to reason that God is the one who ultimately binds two people together, making them "one flesh." This unity continues into the eternities.

Moot point but understood none the less.

Please understand that this is precisely why modern revelation is necessary. The Bible does not contain everything we need to know. It is completely possible that Peter did perform marriage ceremonies, and he did, in fact, use the temple. Jesus probably never performed any marriage ceremonies, though. But each of these things is an example of an argument from silence: "Because the Bible doesn't say it, it's not true." That doesn't cut it for Latter-day Saints, since we believe there is more to the gospel than what the Bible tells us.

6 of one, half a dozen of another. I get this. But doesn't it still at least raise the question as to why it wasn't discussed. Either way, we still have a ton of information that was.

Also, your claim that Peter only preached the gospel and not marriage would make a Latter-day Saint scratch their head. To us, marriage (and, consequently, family) is an infinitely important part of the gospel. We believe that the family is the central unit of God's plan for our happiness, which really is what the gospel is. Our Heavenly Father's work and glory is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life — that is the purpose of our existence. That's why we're here and that's where we're going: to live with God again, immortal and eternal. That is happiness. And the central unit of this plan is family, and the sacred bonds of marriage that is at each family's head. Through marriage we are bound together as one, and it's all for Heavenly Father's eternal plan to bring all of His sons and daughters together as members of His family, the family of heaven, so that we can become like Him one day. He desires that more than anything.

Head scratcher or not, where does Peter discuss marriage in the bible? Why would Paul have a full chapter dedicated to it and Peter, who is supposedly the foundation, has nothing on it?

Jesus was not saying that He would build His Church upon Peter, but upon the rock of revelation. Peter knew, by revelation from the Father, that Jesus is the Christ. This is the concept upon which the Church is to be founded, and there can only be continuing revelation if there is a prophet, a spokesman for God through whom He can reveal His will to the Church as a whole.

So on one hand we agree that the church was revelation of God to Peter, and Peter was to preach this knowledge and faith he had received from God (for your clarification, when I said God it is referring to the Father, Jesus will be referred to as Jesus).

Also, the Church is not a building, it is an institution. It was not an institution at the time of Peter, true, but it was an organized group of people, in the same hierarchy, or a very similar one to, the one that the Church is currently organized into. At the top of this hierarchical structure is the President of the Church, and this deals with the keys that were given to Peter. These keys were the keys of the kingdom of God, which means that he was, in effect, ordained to be the President of the Church. This is why Latter-day Saints hold Peter in such high regard.

But on the other hand, I'm not exactly sure where you stand with this. Do you believe Peter had a physical church or set one up? Or do you believe that this group of believers, who held his beliefs, built one? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Here you misunderstand what we believe "one flesh" means when it comes to marriage, and you don't seem to quite understand the difference between "one flesh" as it pertains to marriage and "flesh" as it pertains to a body of flesh and bone. We believe the "one flesh" concept, as it has to do with marriage, is entirely metaphorical, and refers to the same type of spiritual unity shared by Heavenly Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, and between Jesus Christ and the Church: one of love, trust, voice, mind, intent, etc., not a literal physical unity.

It has nothing to do with me understanding what you mean by one flesh, it has to do with you misunderstanding what one flesh means. I gave a clear understanding of what one flesh means in the bible. Marriage was stated as one flesh, just as the act of sleeping with a harlot is mentioned as becoming one flesh. There is no difference here. Please understand that. You can nit-pick and change that genesis and matthew mean marriage and corinthians was referring to adultery, but that doesn't change the definition or understanding of the word as set forth in Corinthians. That is absurd. The context of what was being discussed changed from the first two books to the last one referenced, but it doesn't change the concept or meaning of one flesh, in fact, it gives us the meaning of it. It even tells us that Jesus would not be united with a harlot.

By God, I'm assuming you mean God the Father. There is no statement in the Bible that says the Father does not have a body of flesh and bone. Jesus was "in the form of God" because He was a glorious, divine being. When He took on mortality, He literally "became man," becoming like us in order to make us like Him. When He was resurrected, His spirit and His body were joined together once more, thus exalting Him to an even higher existence and making Him perfectly united with His Father — the same unity that He invites us into in John 17.

Refer to above for clarification but yes. That is what was meant. But see you are changing what happened. It wasn't that Jesus just took on mortality, but that his entire substance had to change in order for this to happen. He had to become flesh and blood in order to become man. In other words, he was not made of flesh and blood prior to becoming a man. In other words, God was not flesh and bone, because Jesus also, was not flesh and bone. I'm not sure how to make that any more clear. It seems pretty obvious to me.

This verse is not talking about marriage, it's talking about sexual relations outside of marriage. Those who have sex with another become "one flesh" with that person because they have given themselves to that person. But there is no divine bond between them, so they are not "one flesh" in the sense that Genesis 2:24 speaks of.

I know what it's talking about. And as I mentioned above, it doesn't matter what the context was in this scenario, it's about telling you what one flesh really means. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:16 says "For it is said: The two shall become one flesh". Do you not know that this is referencing Genesis 2?

Latter-day Saints believe, because of what Joseph Smith has said about this chapter in the JST, that Paul is talking about missionaries — that it is better for those serving missions to not be married. Not sure what you're asking about Jesus' teaching, though. You don't have to be married in order to gain celestial glory.

Well the bible tells us it is the church at corinth. But either way, even in your understanding, it is telling individuals to stay unmarried because it is much easier. So you are saying that missionaries must stay single so they can become angels in the celestial kingdom? Again, making them lesser.

Again, "one flesh" is metaphorical. The Father and the Son are "one flesh" too, but it's a metaphorical, spiritual description of the perfect unity they share.

Are the Father and the Son "one flesh"? Because as I already pointed out to you, and apparently you missed it. Let me say it again, 1 Corinthians 6:17 ¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Whether or not the Bible contains "lies" is not the issue here. We don't believe it does, anyway, despite what many of our critics insist. The issues lies in which interpretation is correct. Our interpretation is in light of our modern understanding of the gospel as revealed to us through latter-day revelation and scripture. Since you do not interpret the Bible this way, we will obviously have beliefs that differ dramatically in some areas, so it all comes down to whether or not modern scriptures and revelations are authentic.

But as I have pointed out, there are direct contradictions with your theology and that taught by the bible.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

No ALL those who enter the Celestial Kingdom are not single. Only those who refuse after having been given the opportunity to be Sealed to their spouse, and otherwise worthy will be single the Celestial Kingdom. God is not going to force you or anyone else to be Sealed against their will.

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

No ALL those who enter the Celestial Kingdom are not single. Only those who refuse after having been given the opportunity to be Sealed to their spouse, and otherwise worthy will be single the Celestial Kingdom. God is not going to force you or anyone else to be Sealed against their will.

I understand in your theology that there are 3 levels of heaven, and that there can be single and married people in the celestial kingdom but the married people receive a higher blessing (unsure of what that is though?). But you miss what my point was. My point was that Jesus tells us that everyone will be like the angels. Therefore, from my perspective, not from your theology, everyone being angels means everyone will be single, and there will be no married people. Because as altersteve pointed out, angels are single. So therefore, if as Jesus says we will be likened to angels, that means we will be single. Is that more concise?

Edited November 2, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

Ok. That explains a little better. So even unmarried individuals can get into the celestial kingdom, but they will be like the angels. By like the angels, I'm assuming you mean they are single and [insert anything else angels do? messengers?]? Because this actually brings about the point of Matthew 22 that I know we have discussed before.

So now it is understood that everyone who enters heaven will be as the angels in heaven are. So if the angels are single or without mate, why then would we have mates? Jesus specifically says we will be like the angels in this regard.

Not everyone will be as the angels. Again, those who are married and sealed to their spouse in the temple for time and all eternity and have had the saving ordinances of the gospel administered unto them will be higher than the angels. D&C 132 describes them as "gods."

6 of one, half a dozen of another. I get this. But doesn't it still at least raise the question as to why it wasn't discussed. Either way, we still have a ton of information that was.

Because they didn't feel inspired to include it.

Head scratcher or not, where does Peter discuss marriage in the bible? Why would Paul have a full chapter dedicated to it and Peter, who is supposedly the foundation, has nothing on it?

Again, Peter is not the foundation, revelation from God is the foundation. And I don't know why Peter didn't talk about marriage. But that doesn't matter to me, because it's talked about elsewhere.

So on one hand we agree that the church was revelation of God to Peter, and Peter was to preach this knowledge and faith he had received from God (for your clarification, when I said God it is referring to the Father, Jesus will be referred to as Jesus).

But on the other hand, I'm not exactly sure where you stand with this. Do you believe Peter had a physical church or set one up? Or do you believe that this group of believers, who held his beliefs, built one? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Again, the Church of Jesus Christ is not a building. Christ Himself is the one who built it (on the rock of revelation, remember). It is an institution, an organization through which the saving ordinances of the gospel are administered and which is authorized by God. It has the fullness of the gospel, which has existed since before the world began.

It has nothing to do with me understanding what you mean by one flesh, it has to do with you misunderstanding what one flesh means. I gave a clear understanding of what one flesh means in the bible. Marriage was stated as one flesh, just as the act of sleeping with a harlot is mentioned as becoming one flesh. There is no difference here. Please understand that. You can nit-pick and change that genesis and matthew mean marriage and corinthians was referring to adultery, but that doesn't change the definition or understanding of the word as set forth in Corinthians. That is absurd. The context of what was being discussed changed from the first two books to the last one referenced, but it doesn't change the concept or meaning of one flesh, in fact, it gives us the meaning of it. It even tells us that Jesus would not be united with a harlot.

In light of modern revelation, it's clear what both Genesis and Corinthians are saying.

Refer to above for clarification but yes. That is what was meant. But see you are changing what happened. It wasn't that Jesus just took on mortality, but that his entire substance had to change in order for this to happen. He had to become flesh and blood in order to become man. In other words, he was not made of flesh and blood prior to becoming a man. In other words, God was not flesh and bone, because Jesus also, was not flesh and bone. I'm not sure how to make that any more clear. It seems pretty obvious to me.

It's pretty obvious to me too, because of modern scripture. Jesus, according to the Book of Mormon, had the same physical form, or "image" (i.e., appearance) before He obtained His physical body (Ether 3:15-16). There is nothing in the Bible that suggests Jesus's "entire substance had to be changed." Consider this an official CFR on that. There is also nothing in the Bible that says God "was not flesh and bone." So that's another CFR on that too. But to understand the LDS concept of Jesus becoming a man (how we view the process that other Christians call the Incarnation), you have to understand of the LDS doctrine of spirits, the premortal life, the human body, and mortality.

Anyway, again, when read in light of modern revelation, what the Bible says has a far different meaning than what you think it means.

I know what it's talking about. And as I mentioned above, it doesn't matter what the context was in this scenario, it's about telling you what one flesh really means. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:16 says "For it is said: The two shall become one flesh". Do you not know that this is referencing Genesis 2?

And I'm telling you what it really means. 1 Corinthians 6:16 is probably referring to Genesis, yes, but he's talking about fornication (verse 18). He says, quite clearly, that "he who is joined unto a harlot is one body." In other words, there is no sacred bond that comes from fornication. But, Paul goes on, "for two, saith he, shall be one flesh," a clear reference to marriage and how the bond between a married man and a woman is, metaphorically, likened unto two people united as one.

Well the bible tells us it is the church at corinth. But either way, even in your understanding, it is telling individuals to stay unmarried because it is much easier. So you are saying that missionaries must stay single so they can become angels in the celestial kingdom? Again, making them lesser.

When the Paul speaks of the Church in Corinth,he is talking about the Church members in Corinth. And we are not to get married while serving a mission (in other words, if you're not married when you leave for a mission, don't get married until your mission is over), unless we are married already, as Paul says. Married couples, especially older ones, serving missions is very common in the Church.

Are the Father and the Son "one flesh"? Because as I already pointed out to you, and apparently you missed it. Let me say it again, 1 Corinthians 6:17 ¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

I didn't miss anything. The Father and the Son are "one flesh" in a metaphorical, spiritual sense: the same kind of spiritual unity that a married man and woman enjoy together and the same kind of spiritual unity that we are invited into by Christ in John 17 and as taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:17.

But as I have pointed out, there are direct contradictions with your theology and that taught by the bible.

Such as? LDS theology is consistent with the Bible, if both are understood correctly. However, we believe that the Bible, as well as other scripture, is to be understood and studied in light of what has been said about its teachings by God's living prophets and apostles in these modern times. You need to understand that.

I understand in your theology that there are 3 levels of heaven, and that there can be single and married people there but the married people receive a higher blessing (unsure of what that is though?).

The higher blessing is exaltation. Becoming like God. A fullness of joy. God Himself sharing what He has with us, and giving us more than we could ever imagine. For us to receive these blessings is what Heavenly Father wants more than anything.

But you miss what my point was. My point was that Jesus tells us that everyone will be like the angels. Therefore, from my perspective, not from your theology, everyone being angels means everyone will be single, and there will be no married people. Because as altersteve pointed out, angels are single. So therefore, if as Jesus says we will be likened to angels, that means we will be single. Is that more concise?

Jesus didn't say that everybody will be like the angels, He said that those who are not given in marriage will be like the angels. This is consistent with (and is clarified by) modern revelation. D&C 132 further discusses the future state of individuals who are not married (or married but not by the proper authority), and those who are married by the proper authority:

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

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.

16 Therefore, 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.

17 For 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 angels of God forever and ever.

18 And 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 covenant 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.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

[Jesterss]

Not everyone will be as the angels. Again, those who are married and sealed to their spouse in the temple for time and all eternity and have had the saving ordinances of the gospel administered unto them will be higher than the angels. D&C 132 describes them as "gods."

When I said that everyone would be single, it was based on the added biblical quote I referenced, not my understanding of your theology.

Because they didn't feel inspired to include it.

Then is it really that important if it wasn't included?

Again, Peter is not the foundation, revelation from God is the foundation. And I don't know why Peter didn't talk about marriage. But that doesn't matter to me, because it's talked about elsewhere.

But it matters to me.

Again, the Church of Jesus Christ is not a building. Christ Himself is the one who built it (on the rock of revelation, remember). It is an institution, an organization through which the saving ordinances of the gospel are administered and which is authorized by God. It has the fullness of the gospel, which has existed since before the world began.

So if someone lives by the way of Christ alone, regardless if that person ever attends your church, then you would have no problem with saying they are completely fine and would not try to perform a proxy baptism for said person?

In light of modern revelation, it's clear what both Genesis and Corinthians are saying.

There doesn't need to be any modern revelation. It's pretty clear what both of them say just by reading what they indeed say.

It's pretty obvious to me too, because of modern scripture. Jesus, according to the Book of Mormon, had the same physical form, or "image" (i.e., appearance) before He obtained His physical body (Ether 3:15-16). There is nothing in the Bible that suggests Jesus's "entire substance had to be changed." Consider this an official CFR on that. There is also nothing in the Bible that says God "was not flesh and bone." So that's another CFR on that too. But to understand the LDS concept of Jesus becoming a man (how we view the process that other Christians call the Incarnation), you have to understand of the LDS doctrine of spirits, the premortal life, the human body, and mortality.

So Jesus didn't change in appearance? You say Jesus and God both have flesh and bone, yet the quotes from the bible I provided, state that Jesus had to obtain flesh and bone when he became human. And I already provided a CFR, Philippians 2, tells us that Jesus, before he became man and took on the appearance of flesh and bone, looked like God, therefore one can easily draw the connection from a basic understanding of the english language that God does not have flesh and bone.

Anyway, again, when read in light of modern revelation, what the Bible says has a far different meaning than what you think it means.

In your eyes it may, but if you read what I have written, taken directly from the bible, and read it as a person who reads and understands the english language, with your modern revelation aside, you must agree with my assertions. (Your "modern revelation" aside)

And I'm telling you what it really means. 1 Corinthians 6:16 is probably referring to Genesis, yes, but he's talking about fornication (verse 18). He says, quite clearly, that "he who is joined unto a harlot is one body." In other words, there is no sacred bond that comes from fornication. But, Paul goes on, "for two, saith he, shall be one flesh," a clear reference to marriage and how the bond between a married man and a woman is, metaphorically, likened unto two people united as one.

You're getting closer to the point. You say fornication, I say sex. Now let's take a look at Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus. The two got married, but never consummated their marriage until Jesus was born. They were never one flesh because they had not performed the act of having sexual relations with one another.

²⁴ When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. ²⁵But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Just because they are married by an officiator it does not make them "one flesh". The act of becoming one flesh is by having sex. Which is why I added the story of the harlot and Jesus. That tells the story. But maybe this reference will help make that connection a little better for you. So as you can see, there actually is a sacred bond that comes from fornication sexual relations with your spouse.

When the Paul speaks of the Church in Corinth,he is talking about the Church members in Corinth. And we are not to get married while serving a mission (in other words, if you're not married when you leave for a mission, don't get married until your mission is over), unless we are married already, as Paul says. Married couples, especially older ones, serving missions is very common in the Church.

So you are saying that every member of the corinth church is a missionary? That point aside, you haven't addressed Jesus' saying in Luke 18. Perhaps you would like to give that a stab.

I didn't miss anything. The Father and the Son are "one flesh" in a metaphorical, spiritual sense: the same kind of spiritual unity that a married man and woman enjoy together and the same kind of spiritual unity that we are invited into by Christ in John 17 and as taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:17.

Why do you insist on saying that they are one flesh? Did God and Jesus have sexual relations? No. So let's just stick with saying God and Jesus are one in spirit. Enough of the run around with a play on words and the "metaphorical spiritual sense". Metaphorically you can make anything mean anything. Man and woman are never said to have a spiritual unity. CFR (bible) that they are. Because as I already explained from the bible, we are to have a fleshy unity to our spouses, but a spiritual unity to Jesus.

Such as? LDS theology is consistent with the Bible, if both are understood correctly. However, we believe that the Bible, as well as other scripture, is to be understood and studied in light of what has been said about its teachings by God's living prophets and apostles in these modern times. You need to understand that.

LDS theology is only consistent so long as you interpolate ideology based on your own belief system.

The higher blessing is exaltation. Becoming like God. A fullness of joy. God Himself sharing what He has with us, and giving us more than we could ever imagine. For us to receive these blessings is what Heavenly Father wants more than anything.

So if you are not married you do not get to receive these blessings? Interesting. As I mentioned before, explain away Luke 18:29-30 on this basis then.

Jesus didn't say that everybody will be like the angels, He said that those who are not given in marriage will be like the angels. This is consistent with (and is clarified by) modern revelation. D&C 132 further discusses the future state of individuals who are not married (or married but not by the proper authority), and those who are married by the proper authority:

No, he says people, as in humans.

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they [the people] will be like the angels in heaven.

Bracketed statement added by me. Now if you want to say that it is people who are not given in marriage, he also tells us that people will not be given in marriage. So which side of this argument are you really standing on? You seem to be swaying back n forth and reaching for anything that may help. Edited November 2, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

I won't be able to continue this discussion for a bit after this.

Then is it really that important if it wasn't included?

Eternal marriage is included in the Bible, but not very clearly. That's why we have modern revelation, so that the words of ancient prophets can be clarified and reinforced. As it pertains to this topic, however, God decided to have eternal marriage be taught in its fullness elsewhere.

So if someone lives by the way of Christ alone, regardless if that person ever attends your church, then you would have no problem with saying they are completely fine and would not try to perform a proxy baptism for said person?

I didn't say that. Proxy baptisms are performed for every person who ever lived on this earth, because baptism, by one with the proper authority to baptize, is essential for salvation. We cannot be saved without it.

There doesn't need to be any modern revelation. It's pretty clear what both of them say just by reading what they indeed say.

Since there is in fact modern revelation, the Bible should be interpreted in light of it.

So Jesus didn't change in appearance? You say Jesus and God both have flesh and bone, yet the quotes from the bible I provided, state that Jesus had to obtain flesh and bone when he became human. And I already provided a CFR, Philippians 2, tells us that Jesus, before he became man and took on the appearance of flesh and bone, looked like God, therefore one can easily draw the connection from a basic understanding of the english language that God does not have flesh and bone.

No, Jesus didn't change in appearance. I've already explained this to you, and I've already responded to your citation of Philippians 2.

In your eyes it may, but if you read what I have written, taken directly from the bible, and read it as a person who reads and understands the english language, with your modern revelation aside, you must agree with my assertions. (Your "modern revelation" aside)

I'm able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language very well, thank you, and I'm not going to put my modern revelation aside any time soon, because I know it is true. And no, I wouldn't have to agree with your assertions even if I were to put modern revelation aside. That's a pretty arrogant thing to say.

You're getting closer to the point. You say fornication, I say sex. Now let's take a look at Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus. The two got married, but never consummated their marriage until Jesus was born. They were never one flesh because they had not performed the act of having sexual relations with one another. Just because they are married by an officiator it does not make them "one flesh". The act of becoming one flesh is by having sex. Which is why I added the story of the harlot and Jesus. That tells the story. But maybe this reference will help make that connection a little better for you. So as you can see, there actually is a sacred bond that comes from fornication.

Again we're talking in circles. I've already explained this to you. This is why it's so frustrating having a discussion with you.

And I find it very interesting that you believe that there is a sacred bond that comes from fornication. Fornication is premarital sex, which is prohibited by God. There's nothing sacred that comes from sinning.

So you are saying that every member of the corinth church is a missionary? That point aside, you haven't addressed Jesus' saying in Luke 18. Perhaps you would like to give that a stab.

No, I'm not saying that every member of the Corinth church is a missionary. That's not even close to what I said. Members of the Church in Corinth asked Paul about marriage and how it deals with missionary work. Paul responded that a missionary should not get married while serving a mission, but married couples may serve if they were married already. Way to completely miss the point.

Why do you insist on saying that they are one flesh? Did God and Jesus have sexual relations? No. So let's just stick with saying God and Jesus are one in spirit. Enough of the run around with a play on words and the "metaphorical spiritual sense". Metaphorically you can make anything mean anything. Man and woman are never said to have a spiritual unity. CFR (bible) that they are. Because as I already explained from the bible, we are to have a fleshy unity to our spouses, but a spiritual unity to Jesus.

By saying that the Father and the Son are "one flesh," I'm merely referring to their unity described in John 17. I used it as a means of comparing marriage to the unity within the Godhead. It's the same kind of unity, one of love, will, intent, purpose, heart, voice, mind, and thought.

And sorry, saying that I can only give you a reference from the Bible doesn't work. This is an LDS discussion board. You're going to get LDS references.

LDS theology is only consistent so long as you interpolate ideology based on your own belief system.

Exactly! When the Bible is read in light of modern revelation, it is consistent. That's what I've been saying all along. Why should I agree with your interpretation when I have other scriptures and sources from which I can learn about biblical doctrine?

So if you are not married you do not get to receive these blessings? Interesting. As I mentioned before, explain away Luke 18:29-30 on this basis then.

If you are not married by the proper authority, you will not receive the blessings of exaltation. And all Jesus said in Luke 18:29-30 is that we must put God first. It's not saying that we should literally leave behind our families.

No, he says people, as in humans. Bracketed statement added by me. Now if you want to say that it is people who are not given in marriage, he also tells us that people will not be given in marriage. So which side of this argument are you really standing on? You seem to be swaying back n forth and reaching for anything that may help.

It looks like the New International Version and the International Standard Version are the only Bible translations that support your interpretation here. All the others do not say "people," so I'm going to go with what the majority says. Besides, saying "they" instead of "people" makes much more sense in light of the question that the Pharisees asked. When Jesus says "they," He is talking about the seven husbands that the Pharisees asked Him about. Because they were not married to the woman by the proper authority, as the story of Sara and her seven husbands from the Book of Tobit (which is probably what the Pharisees were referring to) indicates, the seven husbands will become angels. Sara wasn't really married to any of the seven, because their marriages were unconsummated, so the seven brothers died unmarried. Thus, God sent an angel to see that she married the husband to whom she rightly belonged and by whose priesthood she could be married to him, not to the others, for eternity. It was this that the Pharisees did "greatly err" not knowing. I thought I've already explained that to you awhile back.

Edited November 2, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

I won't be able to continue this discussion for a bit after this.

No problem. I'm sure it will be around when you get back, or others will chime in (maybe?).

Eternal marriage is included in the Bible, but not very clearly. That's why we have modern revelation, so that the words of ancient prophets can be clarified and reinforced. As it pertains to this topic, however, God decided to have eternal marriage be taught in its fullness elsewhere.

Provide the references to the inclusion of eternal marriage.

I didn't say that. Proxy baptisms are performed for every person who ever lived on this earth, because baptism, by one with the proper authority to baptize, is essential for salvation. We cannot be saved without it.

Not saying you did, I was just making an inference based on your viewpoint that the church is not a physical one, but rather a group of individuals who collectively have carried over the ways of the early disciples.

Since there is in fact modern revelation, the Bible should be interpreted in light of it.

Based on your belief.

No, Jesus didn't change in appearance. I've already explained this to you.

So you're telling me that John 1:13 and Philippians 2:6-8 do not tell us that Jesus changed in appearance? Hmm. You have a strange understanding of the english language I guess. Or I do. Since you keep telling me you know everything so well. So it must be me.

I'm able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language very well, thank you, and I'm not going to put my modern revelation aside any time soon, because I know it is true.

This isn't a pissing contest. So I'm not asking you to compete with me in our belief system. I'm asking you to understand from just simply reading the biblical scriptures straight without any additional readings.

Again, we're talking about two different things here. I've already explained this as well. Again we're talking in circles.

You only talk about it in a "metaphorically" way. You have ignored the scriptural references that support what one flesh is really meant in the bible.

And I find it very interesting that you believe that there is a sacred bond that comes from fornication. Fornication is premarital sex, which is prohibited by God. There's nothing sacred that comes from sinning.

Yeah that was a big goof on my part. I didn't read it over very well. I changed it now, but I definitely didn't mean to put fornication there.

No, I'm not saying that every member of the Corinth church is a missionary. That's not even close to what I said. Members of the Church in Corinth asked Paul about marriage and how it deals with missionary work. Paul responded that a missionary should not get married while serving a mission, but married couples may serve if they were married already. Way to completely miss the point.

Well sorry for not knowing the LDS religion inside and out. But you threw out that Paul was talking about the missionaries, that's why I assumed you were saying that the discussion was to missionaries, so I equated that as all of the members being missionaries. My apologies. But to address the situation accurately then, who says Paul was talking "about" missionaries. I'm assuming again, this is LDS theology again. Because if you read 1 Corinthians 6 and 7, it doesn't sound to me as if he is only addressing missionaries.

By saying that the Father and the Son are "one flesh," I'm merely referring to their unity described in John 17. I used it as a means of comparing marriage to the unity within the Godhead. It's the same kind of unity, one of love, will, intent, purpose, heart, voice, mind, and thought.

You are detracting from the actual relationship status though. We are not talking about love, will, intent, purpose, heart, voice, mind, though, etc.. We are talking about a unity of flesh and a unity of spirit. Wherein humans are described as having a fleshly unity to one another through the act of sex. We are to have a spiritual unity with Jesus and God.

And sorry, saying that I can only give you a reference from the Bible doesn't work. This is an LDS discussion board. You're going to get LDS references.

You can provide LDS references all day long, they won't help you understand the bible any better.

Exactly! When the Bible is read in light of modern revelation, it is consistent. That's what I've been saying all along.

Only in your mind. See, you add your LDS references and it doesn't change the way I understand what the bible says. I'm not sure why it does for you though. If there was no contradiction there should be no need for better clarification, it should be understood as one and the same, and it's obviously not.

If you are not married by the proper authority, you will not receive the blessings of exaltation. And all Jesus said in Luke 18:29-30 is that we must put God first. It's not saying that we should literally leave behind our families.

It's not? I'm pretty sure it is. Sounds a lot like he literally means it to me. Especially when combined with 1 Corinthians 7. Because if you read the verse directly before my quoted ones, you will realize that Peter has said he has left all that stuff behind to follow Jesus, and that is when Jesus says what I quoted in Luke 18:29-30. If not literal, then why would Peter and the rest of the disciples do it? And since they did do it, do you not agree that they will receive many times more in the kingdom to come? They will not receive anything less.

It looks like the New International Version and the International Standard Version are the only Bible translations that support your interpretation here. All the others do not say "people," so I'm going to go with what the majority says. Besides, saying "they" instead of "people" makes much more sense in light of the question that the Pharisees asked. When Jesus says "they," He is talking about the seven husbands that the Pharisees asked Him about. Because they were not married to the woman by the proper authority, as the story of Sara and her seven husbands from the Book of Tobit (which is probably what the Pharisees were referring to) indicates, the seven husbands will become angels. Sara wasn't really married to any of the seven, because their marriages were unconsummated, so the seven brothers died unmarried. Thus, God sent an angel to see that she married the husband to whom she rightly belonged and by whose priesthood she could be married to him, not to the others, for eternity. It was this that the Pharisees did "greatly err" not knowing. I thought I've already explained that to you awhile back.

Oh my, you're going to make me do this again aren't you.

³⁴And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

³⁵But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

³⁶Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

So are we really going to insist that he was just referring to the made-up men and women of the Sadducee's questioning? They, has been made clear in Luke.

[altersteve]

Looks like I have a little more time.

Provide the references to the inclusion of eternal marriage.

Genesis 2:18

Genesis 2:24

Ecclesiastes 3:14

Malachi 2:14

Matthew 16:19

Matthew 18:18

Matthew 19:5

Matthew 19:8

Mark 10:9

1 Corinthians 11:11

Ephesians 5:35

1 Peter 3:7

Not saying you did, I was just making an inference based on your viewpoint that the church is not a physical one, but rather a group of individuals who collectively have carried over the ways of the early disciples.

You misunderstood me. The Church is an organized institution, not "a group of individuals who collectively have carried over the ways of the early disciples."

So you're telling me that John 1:13 and Philippians 2:6-8 do not tell us that Jesus changed in appearance? Hmm. You have a strange understanding of the english language I guess. Or I do. Since you keep telling me you know everything so well. So it must be me.

Before He took on mortality, Jesus looked like His Father, and His Father looks like us. Therefore, Jesus too looked like us before He came to this earth. So no, He didn't change appearance.

This isn't a pissing contest. So I'm not asking you to compete with me in our belief system. I'm asking you to understand from just simply reading the biblical scriptures straight without any additional readings.

Well, that's not how I read the Bible, so no.

You only talk about it in a "metaphorically" way. You have ignored the scriptural references that support what one flesh is really meant in the bible.

I'm aware of what "one flesh" means. It means to be one with your spouse. I know you think it refers to sex, but no. As it pertains to marriage, it refers to the bond between a husband and wife, by cleaving unto your spouse (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:35).

Well sorry for not knowing the LDS religion inside and out. But you threw out that Paul was talking about the missionaries, that's why I assumed you were saying that the discussion was to missionaries, so I equated that as all of the members being missionaries. My apologies. But to address the situation accurately then, who says Paul was talking "about" missionaries. I'm assuming again, this is LDS theology again. Because if you read 1 Corinthians 6 and 7, it doesn't sound to me as if he is only addressing missionaries.

Read 1 Corinthians 7 in the JST.

You are detracting from the actual relationship status though. We are not talking about love, will, intent, purpose, heart, voice, mind, though, etc.. We are talking about a unity of flesh and a unity of spirit. Wherein humans are described as having a fleshly unity to one another through the act of sex. We are to have a spiritual unity with Jesus and God.

I believe I've explained this adequately and I feel no reason to go back to it. I don't want to talk in circles anymore.

You can provide LDS references all day long, they won't help you understand the bible any better.

I think LDS references (i.e., modern revelation -- getting tired of hearing that word yet?) has significantly increased my understanding of the Bible.

Only in your mind. See, you add your LDS references and it doesn't change the way I understand what the bible says. I'm not sure why it does for you though. If there was no contradiction there should be no need for better clarification, it should be understood as one and the same, and it's obviously not.

And your interpretation doesn't change how I understand the Bible. And there needs to be a clarification of certain principles in the Bible, because without them there would seem to some to be a contradiction, when there is none.

It's not? I'm pretty sure it is. Sounds a lot like he literally means it to me. Especially when combined with 1 Corinthians 7. Because if you read the verse directly before my quoted ones, you will realize that Peter has said he has left all that stuff behind to follow Jesus, and that is when Jesus says what I quoted in Luke 18:29-30. If not literal, then why would Peter and the rest of the disciples do it? And since they did do it, do you not agree that they will receive many times more in the kingdom to come? They will not receive anything less.

Verse 28: "Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee."

So you really think Peter said "sayonara" to his family and just walked out on them? Why would Christ praise such a thing when it conflicts with what the Bible teaches elsewhere about the eternal and sacred nature of the family (i.e., Malachi 4:6; Genesis 12:3; Exodus 20:12; Ecclesiastes 9:9; Matthew 5:45; Luke 15:31; Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; etc.)? Clearly, Christ's admonishment to "leave your family" is a commandment that we are to place God before all else and make the kingdom of God our first priority, not that would should abandon our families.

Oh my, you're going to make me do this again aren't you.

So are we really going to insist that he was just referring to the made-up men and women of the Sadducee's questioning? They, has been made clear in Luke.

This is discussed in D&C 132, which again I invite you to read.

[Jesterss]

Genesis 2:18

Genesis 2:24

Ecclesiastes 3:14

Malachi 2:14

Matthew 16:19

Matthew 18:18

Matthew 19:5

Matthew 19:8

Mark 10:9

1 Corinthians 11:11

Ephesians 5:35

1 Peter 3:7

Genesis 2:18 - ¹⁸And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. [This has nothing to do with marriage, only that man was alone and the rest of the creatures had mates.]

Genesis 2:24 - ²⁴Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. [One flesh]

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - ¹⁴I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. [Doesn't discuss marriage, just parallels the idea of God putting forth ever-lasting covenants, which I'm assuming is the following verse.]

Malachi 2:14 - ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. [The man in question was being an adulterer. The covenant does not necessitate anything about being eternal.]

Matthew 16:19 - ¹⁹And 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. [i'm assuming this is the parallel you are trying to connect to from Ecclesiastes.]

Matthew 18:18 - ¹⁸Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Again, this does not talk about marriage. This whole chapter does not discuss marriage either.]

Matthew 19:5 - ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [Again, one flesh. This does not speak of an eternal marriage.]

Matthew 19:8 - ⁸He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [Jesus tells them that divorce should not occur, correct. This does not say that marriage beyond this life is permanent. Again, does not explain eternal marriage.]

Mark 10:9 - ⁹What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [Does not make it eternal, just says we should live by the law of marriage that we vowed to.]

1 Corinthians 11:11 - ¹¹Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [if you would read the very next verse you would understand what this means, men are not without the woman because in order to enter this world, we must pass through the mother (womans) womb.]

Ephesians 5:35 - [Verse 35 does not exist in Ephesians 5? Did you mean 31?]

1 Peter 3:7 - ⁷Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. [Try to really read what is said here. Peter is telling wives that they can make believers out of their husbands even if their husbands do not believe the words. So by each partners actions, together, they can receive the grace of life.]

By taking out single verses and applying them to mean something you want them to mean, you completely miss the lessons taught in the bible. Such is the case by the last verse.

Before He took on mortality, Jesus looked like His Father, and His Father looks like us. Therefore, Jesus too looked like us before He came to this earth. So no, He didn't change appearance.

I'm assuming you think God looks like us because he says let us make man in our image? But you don't address the fact that he does not have flesh and bone.

I'm aware of what "one flesh" means. It means to be one with your spouse. I know you think it refers to sex, but no. As it pertains to marriage, it refers to the bond between a husband and wife, by cleaving unto your spouse (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:35).

How can you refuse to understand what 1 Corinthians 6 tells us about one flesh? It may not be talking about marriage, but it still tells us that if we partake in sexual relations with a harlot, we are then one in body with them, and that quote goes on to reference Genesis 2:24 by saying that it is even said elsewhere that the two shall become one flesh. So how then can you keep saying that the act of becoming one flesh has nothing to do with sex? It clearly has to do with sex. We are told that it does! Unless of course you want to tell me now that 1 Corinthians 6:15 just so happens to be one of those verses that was incorrectly translated?

And your interpretation doesn't change how I understand the Bible. And there needs to be a clarification of certain principles in the Bible, because without them there would seem to some to be a contradiction, when there is none.

I haven't found any contradictions, and it's the only source I use.

Verse 28: "Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee."

So you really think Peter said "sayonara" to his family and just walked out on them? Why would Christ praise such a thing when it conflicts with what the Bible teaches elsewhere about the eternal and sacred nature of the family (i.e., Malachi 4:6; Genesis 12:3; Exodus 20:12; Ecclesiastes 9:9; Matthew 5:45; Luke 15:31; Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; etc.)? Clearly, Christ's admonishment to "leave your family" is a commandment that we are to place God before all else and make the kingdom of God our first priority, not that would should abandon our families.

It doesn't conflict with anything the bible has taught. Now maybe Peter being a married man, didn't just completely leave his family, but he does tell us that he has done all those things. So it is a very likely possibility.

This is discussed in D&C 132, which again I invite you to read.

I read it, it does not mention anything about Luke 20. Unless of course you are making some other point and ignoring the Luke 20 reference to they being the people who marry in this world..... Please elaborate further. Edited November 3, 2011 by Jesterss

[wenglund]

Hi Jesterss,

To your way of thinking, is the marriage between Christ and his bride (the church and kingdom of God) an eternal or a "till death do ye part" union.

Are the children born or adopted under that union not eternally sealed to their parents?

I believe both to be the case. I also believe that Christ has shown us the way that he wishes for us to go, and he has exemplified a type of marriage he wishes for us to enter into--an eternal covenant.

Now, could you please explain why we LDS can't reasonably assume that the generic statement about covenants in Eccl. and the generic statement about binding on earth and in heaven, refer to, among other things, celestial marriages. What makes you think that unless marriage is specifically mentioned or a subject of the passage, the generic statements don't apply?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 3, 2011 by wenglund

[altersteve]

Genesis 2:18 - ¹⁸And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. [This has nothing to do with marriage, only that man was alone and the rest of the creatures had mates.]

Genesis 2:24 - ²⁴Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. [One flesh]

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - ¹⁴I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. [Doesn't discuss marriage, just parallels the idea of God putting forth ever-lasting covenants, which I'm assuming is the following verse.]

Malachi 2:14 - ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. [The man in question was being an adulterer. The covenant does not necessitate anything about being eternal.]

Matthew 16:19 - ¹⁹And 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. [i'm assuming this is the parallel you are trying to connect to from Ecclesiastes.]

Matthew 18:18 - ¹⁸Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Again, this does not talk about marriage. This whole chapter does not discuss marriage either.]

Matthew 19:5 - ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [Again, one flesh. This does not speak of an eternal marriage.]

Matthew 19:8 - ⁸He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [Jesus tells them that divorce should not occur, correct. This does not say that marriage beyond this life is permanent. Again, does not explain eternal marriage.]

Mark 10:9 - ⁹What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [Does not make it eternal, just says we should live by the law of marriage that we vowed to.]

1 Corinthians 11:11 - ¹¹Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [if you would read the very next verse you would understand what this means, men are not without the woman because in order to enter this world, we must pass through the mother (womans) womb.]

Ephesians 5:35 - [Verse 35 does not exist in Ephesians 5? Did you mean 31?]

1 Peter 3:7 - ⁷Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. [Try to really read what is said here. Peter is telling wives that they can make believers out of their husbands even if their husbands do not believe the words. So by each partners actions, together, they can receive the grace of life.]

By taking out single verses and applying them to mean something you want them to mean, you completely miss the lessons taught in the bible. Such is the case by the last verse.

Once again, if read in light of modern revelation, these all support the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage. LDS doctrine is consistent with the Bible on this point:

Genesis 2:18 - the "help meet" is Eve, Adam's wife. God wants man to be married, both in this life and the life hereafter

Genesis 2:24 - one flesh, for eternity

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - among these everlasting covenants is marriage

Malachi 2:14 - the "covenant" part absolutely does necessitate it being eternal

Matthew 16:19 - all things that are bound together by the power of God (such as marriage) are eternal

Matthew 18:18 - same as above. It doesn't need to mention marriage specifically for this verse to apply to it as well. "Whatsoever" is bound on earth (including the bonds of marriage) are also bound in heaven

Matthew 19:5 - one flesh, for eternity

Matthew 19:8 - before the law of Moses, there was no divorce. Marriage was eternal, and the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, the lesser law of marriage was replaced by the higher law of eternal marriage in Jesus

Mark 10:9 - only God can put things that He bounds asunder. Including marriage

1 Corinthians 11:11 - the very next verse does not say that "we must pass through the mother (womans) womb" like you say it does. Paul says that "all things are of God," referring to the relationship between man and woman. If something is "of God," it is eternal.

Ephesians 5:31 - yes, I meant verse 31. My bad.

1 Peter 3:7 - it's the "grace of life" part that you need to focus on specifically. What does that mean? It is the grace of life in Jesus Christ, which is -- you guessed it -- eternal.

I'm assuming you think God looks like us because he says let us make man in our image? But you don't address the fact that he does not have flesh and bone.

I believe God has a body of flesh and bone and that He looks like us because D&C 130:22 says so. This is not inconsistent with biblical teaching.

How can you refuse to understand what 1 Corinthians 6 tells us about one flesh? It may not be talking about marriage, but it still tells us that if we partake in sexual relations with a harlot, we are then one in body with them, and that quote goes on to reference Genesis 2:24 by saying that it is even said elsewhere that the two shall become one flesh. So how then can you keep saying that the act of becoming one flesh has nothing to do with sex? It clearly has to do with sex. We are told that it does! Unless of course you want to tell me now that 1 Corinthians 6:15 just so happens to be one of those verses that was incorrectly translated?

We're just talking in circles here, again. I've already explained my position on this. I have no reason to go further or to repeat myself again.

I haven't found any contradictions, and it's the only source I use.

You misunderstood me again. I wasn't talking about contradictions within the biblical text itself, I was talking about nonexistent, so-called "contradictions" between the Bible and other LDS scriptures.

It doesn't conflict with anything the bible has taught. Now maybe Peter being a married man, didn't just completely leave his family, but he does tell us that he has done all those things. So it is a very likely possibility.

Christ does not want us to leave our families. The Bible teaches that the family is important in the eyes of God, as I've shown with the verses cited.

I read it, it does not mention anything about Luke 20. Unless of course you are making some other point and ignoring the Luke 20 reference to they being the people who marry in this world..... Please elaborate further.

No, but it does explain who the children of this world are. Read it again, paying special attention to what is said in verses 15 and 16.

Edited November 3, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

Once again, if read in light of modern revelation, these all support the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage. LDS doctrine is consistent with the Bible on this point:

Genesis 2:18 - the "help meet" is Eve, Adam's wife. God wants man to be married, both in this life and the life hereafter

Genesis 2:24 - one flesh, for eternity

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - among these everlasting covenants is marriage

Malachi 2:14 - the "covenant" part absolutely does necessitate it being eternal

Matthew 16:19 - all things that are bound together by the power of God (such as marriage) are eternal

Matthew 18:18 - same as above. It doesn't need to mention marriage specifically for this verse to apply to it as well. "Whatsoever" is bound on earth (including the bonds of marriage) are also bound in heaven

Matthew 19:5 - one flesh, for eternity

Matthew 19:8 - before the law of Moses, there was no divorce. Marriage was eternal, and the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, the lesser law of marriage was replaced by the higher law of eternal marriage in Jesus

Mark 10:9 - only God can put things that He bounds asunder. Including marriage

1 Corinthians 11:11 - the very next verse does not say that "we must pass through the mother (womans) womb" like you say it does. Paul says that "all things are of God," referring to the relationship between man and woman. If something is "of God," it is eternal.

Ephesians 5:31 - yes, I meant verse 31. My bad.

1 Peter 3:7 - it's the "grace of life" part that you need to focus on specifically. What does that mean? It is the grace of life in Jesus Christ, which is -- you guessed it -- eternal.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 11, you skipped to the end of the verse, because right before it says "all things are of God" it says "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman" So yes, it does say man came from woman. Just as woman came from man. Do you not get what is being paralleled here? This is not about marriage. It is about how man should not cover his head and how woman came from man. And likewise, man comes from woman. In other words, man is born from the woman. So yes, it is saying we come from the woman's womb. Not directly but it is obvious if you understand the parallel.

I know exactly what you wanted me to focus on in 1 Peter 3:7. But that's where you are in err. You are focusing on one verse and taking it as meaning just pertaining to life after death. If that's the case then would you take the following first to mean that every human being has the same mind and we are all the same? Of course not. So read 1 Peter 3:1-7 and try to really understand what's being discussed, because again, you are twisting what is being taught here.

Everything else above, only pertains to marriage if you twist it to think it does. There are only a couple that do, and they discuss nothing on behalf of being eternal. That's also your added additional doctrine.

I believe God has a body of flesh and bone and that He looks like us because D&C 130:22 says so. This is not inconsistent with biblical teaching.

Where in the bible does it say god is flesh and bone? I've shown you where it says Jesus had to become flesh and bone and before he did, he had the appearance of God. So provide biblical reference if it doesn't conflict. Where are we told he has flesh and bone?

We're just talking in circles here, again. I've already explained my position on this. I have no reason to go further or to repeat myself again.

We are only talking in circles because you refuse to understand what's being stated. You refuse to accept that 1 Corinthians 6:15 is pulling a direct reference to Genesis 2:24 and saying that having sex with a harlot makes you one flesh. It goes against your belief so you are refusing to accept it.

You misunderstood me again. I wasn't talking about contradictions within the biblical text itself, I was talking about nonexistent, so-called "contradictions" between the Bible and other LDS scriptures.

I didn't misunderstand you, you were just vague.

Christ does not want us to leave our families. The Bible teaches that the family is important in the eyes of God, as I've shown with the verses cited.

And I've shown that Jesus says it's ok to leave the family. So. are you and your translations of Jesus and God's thoughts better than what we actually have Jesus telling us?

No, but it does explain who the children of this world are. Read it again, paying special attention to what is said in verses 15 and 16.

Let's just assume this can apply to the people of this world and who Jesus was talking about, but then it still would only apply to the "they" in verse 34, because verse 35 and 36 tells us that those people, the "they" who are worthy to obtain heaven, also neither marry nor are given in marriage and once again, are likened unto the angels of heaven. So again, that does not answer it.

[Jesterss]

Hi Jesterss,

Hello Wade!

To your way of thinking, is the marriage between Christ and his bride (the church and kingdom of God) an eternal or a "till death do ye part" union.

Eternal, because as we are told we are united with Jesus in spirit. Agree or Disagree? Good question.

Are the children born or adopted under that union not eternally sealed to their parents?

I'm a bit confused on the question. Because if this is still from my point of view, I do not believe in a continuation of the earthly family so no sealing to the parents. I believe we are to be united with God and Jesus, because I believe that is the ultimate relationship.

I believe both to be the case. I also believe that Christ has shown us the way that he wishes for us to go, and he has exemplified a type of marriage he wishes for us to enter into--an eternal covenant.

Both as in the answer to 1 being yes, and 2 being no? since you said not eternally sealed?

Now, could you please explain why we LDS can't reasonably assume that the generic statement about covenants in Eccl. and the generic statement about binding on earth and in heaven, refer to, among other things, celestial marriages. What makes you think that unless marriage is specifically mentioned or a subject of the passage, the generic statements don't apply?

Perhaps they could apply, but never is it mentioned that marriage is eternal. 1 Corinthians 7:39 tells us that a woman is bound to her husband so long as he lives. Marriage is never discussed as being eternal in the bible. But there are mentioning's of the opposite. Such as the above verse. I cannot simply say that it's not possible, but from what we do have in the bible, if it were something that was supposed to continue into heaven, why weren't we told this in the bible? Why would Jesus tell us that it is ok to leave your family, married or virgin, for the kingdom of God that you would receive many times more in the age to come if marriage was indeed one of the most important ordinance? Why would Jesus liken us to the angels (who we agree are single beings) if we are to be married in order to be above the angels? It just doesn't add up.

[altersteve]

And this is why it is so impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with you, Jesterss. You make absolutely no effort to understand what anyone is telling you. So I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Good day.

[Jesterss]

And this is why it is so impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with you, Jesterss. You make absolutely no effort to understand what anyone is telling you. So I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Good day.

You said family (and you obviously meant nuclear genetic family) is the most important or taught as the most important to us. Because we were discussing how Jesus tells us anyone who leaves them for the sake of the kingdom of God will receive much more in the life to come. If that family is so important, what say you about this biblical quote as well?

³¹There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

³²And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

³³And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

³⁴And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

³⁵For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

To me, it's clear that our nuclear family is not what is important.

[Hestia]

It appears this topic was started as a platform for preaching not discussing.