Saints Alive Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.from: http://www.mormonsandgays.org/How do we reconcile this with Matt 22:30? I know I have heard an argument for it before but can remember it.
Calm Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 For those who don't have total recall:Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Saints Alive Posted December 10, 2012 Author Posted December 10, 2012 For those who don't have total recall:Thanks!
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 For those who don't have total recall:Thanks!I believe it has to do the specific time frames, in the resurrection there will be no marriage, after death and prior to the resurrection there will be marriage.
Saints Alive Posted December 10, 2012 Author Posted December 10, 2012 I believe it has to do the specific time frames, in the resurrection there will be no marriage, after death and prior to the resurrection there will be marriage.so prior to the resurrection those who died single will be paired up and proxy married?
Duncan Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 so prior to the resurrection those who died single will be paired up and proxy married?if they want and even some "Temple marriages" that stay intact but are toxic and no one is happy, maybe God will undo that? I just can't imagine God saying yeah your marriage sucks in life but get used to it! Maybe they'll get new people?
cdowis Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Please pay attention to what he actually said. If necessary, read each word individually aloud, write them down, and note that.Christ did NOT say that there is "no marriage in heaven".We believe the words of Christ precisely as He said it, and that is why "marrying and giving in marriage" is done in temple, so that that there can be indeed "marriage in heaven". The marriage ceremony must be performed here on earth, not in heaven. As He taught us in modern revelation. Edited December 10, 2012 by cdowis
Saints Alive Posted December 10, 2012 Author Posted December 10, 2012 Please pay attention to what he actually said. If necessary, read each word individually aloud, write them down, and note that.Christ did NOT say that there is "no marriage in heaven".We believe the words of Christ precisely as He said it, and that is why "marrying and giving in marriage" is done in temple, so that that there can be indeed "marriage in heaven". The marriage ceremony must be performed here on earth, not in heaven. As He taught us in modern revelation.And where did I say that there wouldn't be married people in heaven? My Question is about those who never find a partner in life either due to SSA or whatever. There will be no marriages preformed in heaven so will there be proxy sealings for them at some point before the resurrection?
Saints Alive Posted December 10, 2012 Author Posted December 10, 2012 if they want and even some "Temple marriages" that stay intact but are toxic and no one is happy, maybe God will undo that? I just can't imagine God saying yeah your marriage sucks in life but get used to it! Maybe they'll get new people?However, and in theory, if you are two exalted beings how could you not learn to get along and love each other? 1
Duncan Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) However, and in theory, if you are two exalted beings how could you not learn to get along and love each other?I personally know two couples and of another couple, all sealed in the Temple that honestly it would be in everyone's best interest if they got divorced. Probably the worst case is a couple in my older sister's ward. They are basically living together and the youngest son turned 18 moved in with his girlfriend and when they broke up he didn;t want to go back home because they was nothing their so he killed himself. The rest of the family got together and had a sit down discussion and the parents won't break up because they are together in the Temple...Also what happens if one person in the relationship makes it to the Celestial kingdom but the other doesn't? I know a few couples that the spouse is totally less active but the other comes out Edited December 10, 2012 by Duncan
TAO Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 In the subnotes for Matthew 22:30, it links to two sections, which I think provide the answer:They are D&C 131:4 (1-4) and D&C 132:16(15-17). I think the answer lies in that they didn't do all they were supposed to in some aspect.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I personally know two couples and of another couple, all sealed in the Temple that honestly it would be in everyone's best interest if they got divorced. Probably the worst case is a couple in my older sister's ward. They are basically living together and the youngest son turned 18 moved in with his girlfriend and when they broke up he didn;t want to go back home because they was nothing their so he killed himself. The rest of the family got together and had a sit down discussion and the parents won't break up because they are together in the Temple...Also what happens if one person in the relationship makes it to the Celestial kingdom but the other doesn't? I know a few couples that the spouse is totally less active but the other comes outGod is not going to force anyone to be with anyone they don't want to be with. The Millennium will sort out the rest. 1
Senator Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 And where did I say that there wouldn't be married people in heaven? My Question is about those who never find a partner in life either due to SSA or whatever. There will be no marriages preformed in heaven so will there be proxy sealings for them at some point before the resurrection?I too am interested in an answer to this question.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 from: http://www.mormonsandgays.org/How do we reconcile this with Matt 22:30? I know I have heard an argument for it before but can remember it.He was speaking very narrowly to a group of men (or a sect who did not believe in the resurrection), who therefore did not partake in such ordinances.
CV75 Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 There will be no marriages preformed in heaven so will there be proxy sealings for them at some point before the resurrection?This has been my understanding -- stands to reason.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 He was speaking very narrowly to a group of men (or a sect who did not believe in the resurrection), who therefore did not partake in such ordinances.That would be the Sadducees. Pronounced Sad You See.
harfad Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I know of at least one quote from Elder Le Grand Richards which suggests that there are marriages in the spirit world, although I couldn't give a reference offhand. Other General Authorities also may have said similar things.As far as the resurrection is concerned, Matt 22:30 should be read in conjunction with D&C 132:4-18, which suggests that that restriction will apply only to those who have had the opportunity to accept the principle of eternal marriage in this life, but wilfully rejected it. It doesn't apply indiscriminately to anyone who happens to be unmarried when they die. Whether there will be marriages after the resurrection or not I wouldn't know; but I wouldn't rule it out either. "Remember that all my judgments are not given unto men;" declares the Lord in D&C 29:30. I think it would be presumptuous of us to think we know more than we do. In D&C 137 Joseph Smith saw his brother Alvin already in the celestial kingdom, even though he had not had the opportunity to be baptized; and the Lord revealed it to him that "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." So how does proxy baptism fit into all of this? I think we should always allow room for the possibility that God will some day surprise us. 1
kenporay Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 Its a verb not a noun. Marriage the act vrs marriage the state of being.
treeface Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) I wonder whether the King James translation of this verse conveys everything that Jesus meant. If "married" is an action verb, and "given in marriage" means the same thing, then that seems redundant to me.Translated from the Aramaic, apparently one phrase means "to take a wife" (action verb), and the other means "to have a wife" (state-of-being verb) - which is a significant clarification (I'm no bible scholar, so I invite correction from those who are):"For in the resurrection of the dead, they do not take wives, neither do men have wives, but they are like the Angels of God in Heaven." (http://aramaic-plain.../matthew/22.htm)And until we know how the angels of God in heaven associate, we can only assume from the context that they (and we, once we're up there) have a different social structure from marriages on earth. That seems to be the main message of what Jesus is saying here, not that marriages have to happen on earth in order to be valid in heaven. Don't get me wrong, I like the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage, I just don't see it supported by Matthew 22:30.I have seen it argued that the hypothetical situation Jesus was addressing in Matthew 22:30 involved people who weren't top-of-the-Celestial-kingdom material to begin with, so he left out any references to eternal marriage (I suppose that today the woman would be proxy-sealed to all of them after she died, which still wouldn't answer the Sadducces' question). But immediately preceeding verse 30, Jesus gives this introduction to what he's about to say:"You do err, because you do not understand the scriptures, neither the mighty works of God."This is interesting because "the mighty works of God" implies something greater than "this is what the also-rans will have to settle for in heaven."Also, I can't help but wonder what scriptures Jesus was referring to that the Sadducces failed to understand. This must have been scriptures which were available to them (no D&C allowed), Hmmm. More digging yet to do. Edited December 11, 2012 by treeface
Saints Alive Posted December 11, 2012 Author Posted December 11, 2012 Also, I can't help but wonder what scriptures Jesus was referring to that the Sadducces failed to understand. This must have been scriptures which were available to them (no D&C allowed), Hmmm. More digging yet to do.Isn't there an OT scripture that says a brother should marry his brothers wive if he dies or something to that effect? I think that is the scripture he is referring to.
Rivers Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 This passage in Matthew works perfectly well with mormon theology. The Doctrine and Covenants explicitly teaches that marriage does not continue after death UNLESS the couple is sealed by the priesthood. Priesthood seilings are the exception to the way things normally work. Jesus was simply telling the Sadducees (who didn't even believe in resurrection) what generally happens with marriages after death. The doctrine of priesthood seilings was withheld.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 That would be the Sadducees. Pronounced Sad You See. I just could not find the name in spellcheck it and did want to misspell it.
treeface Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) This passage in Matthew works perfectly well with mormon theology. The Doctrine and Covenants explicitly teaches that marriage does not continue after death UNLESS the couple is sealed by the priesthood. Priesthood seilings are the exception to the way things normally work. Jesus was simply telling the Sadducees (who didn't even believe in resurrection) what generally happens with marriages after death. The doctrine of priesthood seilings was withheld.That's a possibility, though I don't see where such a teaching merits an introduction like "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God". I don't see where the "power of God" is demonstrated in a teaching that just says "they won't be married in heaven", especially when that's a lower law, not a higher one. I think there's more than this to what Jesus is saying, even if it's not obvious.Placing the question of the Sadducees in a modern LDS context (the woman was sealed to seven men, either during her lifetime or by proxy, but had children by none of them), how would you respond? Whose wife would she be in the resurrection? Edited December 11, 2012 by treeface
BCSpace Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 Isn't there an OT scripture that says a brother should marry his brothers wive if he dies or something to that effect? I think that is the scripture he is referring to.I found this interesting footnote long ago:77 LDS scholar John Tvedtnes offers a novel explanation for Jesus' statement: "... in the Apocrypha... we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him "from the beginning" (Tobit 6:17). This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, 'Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God'" (Tvedtnes, J., "A Much-Needed Book That Needs Much", FARMS Review of Books, vol. 9, no. 1, 1997, p. 41.)Who Holds the Keys? (Pope or Prophet) Response by Barry Bickmore
Recommended Posts