Marriage In Heaven.

[Rivers]

In a modern LDS context, she probably would stay married to the first. Then again, polyandry has been practiced in this dispensation. So she could very well be sealed to all seven of them.

But I believe this passage is referring to ordinary worldly marriages. Jesus was rebuking the Sadducees for their disbelief in the resurrection. I think Christ was telling them they were in error because they were asking this question as a way to point out a theological conundrum in the doctrine of resurrection. They were denying the power of God by denying God's power to resurrect.

[Rivers]

I found this interesting footnote long ago:

I've read that before. That a great possibility.

[rongo]

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.

It's interesting that the the original scenario was a trap by the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection, and that this passage is used by modern non-Mormons to deny post-earth life sealing. With both the Sadducees and modern-day critics of Mormonism seeking to leverage this passage, both "do err," and their error stems from "not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." The power of God is demonstrated by the fact that the underlying assumptions and scriptural interpretations of the Sadducees and modern-day critics are wrong ----- neither understand who or what God is or what the afterlife will entail.

I would like to know who the "they" were that Jesus referenced ("in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven"). He certainly could have been talking directly to and about the Sadducees. Jesus didn't say "there is no marriage at all in the hereafter for absolutely all people who have ever lived" (which is what modern-day critics insist that He said), He said that they won't marry. Who was he talking to/about? Those who "do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." They won't marry in the hereafter.

Which is standard, orthodox Mormon doctrine.

[treeface]

I agree with BCSpace that the book of Tobit is one key to understanding the Sadducees' question and Jesus' response.

The Sadducees introduced a couple of changes to the story to make the question more difficult. In the story of Sara and Tobias (son of Tobit), each of her seven husbands was slain by a powerful demon on their wedding night before the marriage was consummated. So under the customs of the day, she hadn't really been married to any of them. The hypothetical posed by the Sadducees had each of the marriages consummated, which means that they were all real and valid marriages, which muddies the waters. Next, in the story of Sara and Tobias, to whom she was "appointed from the beginning", they are brought together against long odds by an angel and are married and the demon is defeated and their marriage is consummated. That happy ending is omitted from the Sadducees' hypothetical. So they were taking a scriptural story well known in Jesus' time and removing the elements that made it all conveniently work out for the best.

My new-found opinion (I only read Tobit for the first time last night) is that the "power of God" Jesus refers to is demonstrated by an angel of God (Raphael in disguise) who undertook to hook up Sara and Tobias, whose union was "appointed from the beginning". See also D&C 132:10. So, here is part of what I think Jesus was saying (haven't figured it all out yet):

The woman would be with he whom she was appointed to be with "from the beginning", which appointment pre-dates any earthly marriage, and death could no more prevent that than could circumstances and a powerful demon in the story of Sara and Tobias.

Edited December 11, 2012 by treeface

[thesometimesaint]

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?

The one she wants to be Sealed to.

[treeface]

In a modern LDS context, she probably would stay married to the first. Then again, polyandry has been practiced in this dispensation. So she could very well be sealed to all seven of them.

The one she wants to be Sealed to.

I can't really argue against either of these. Let me toss a couple more thoughts into the mix as well, along with the hope that all of these conditions converge to a nexus:

"...will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed... even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?" (D&C 132:10,11; implies a pre-existing relationship appointed by God, as between Sara and Tobias)

"...and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise..."(D&C 132:19; implies that, in addition to the temple ceremony, the "Holy Spirit of promise" must also ratify the union or else it isn't valid in the next life)

Edited December 11, 2012 by treeface

[Calm]

In a modern LDS context, she probably would stay married to the first. Then again, polyandry has been practiced in this dispensation. So she could very well be sealed to all seven of them.

She would have been if sealed through proxy and possibly after all involved had died (if sealed to one while living). Edited December 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rivers]

I can't really argue against either of these. Let me toss a couple more thoughts into the mix as well, along with the hope that all of these conditions converge to a nexus:

"...will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed... even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?" (D&C 132:10,11; implies a pre-existing relationship appointed by God, as between Sara and Tobias)

"...and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise..."(D&C 132:19; implies that, in addition to the temple ceremony, the "Holy Spirit of promise" must also ratify the union or else it isn't valid in the next life)

So Saturday's Warrior teaches true doctrine after all!