In The Kingdom Of Heaven ...

[EllenMaksoud]

OK people, with all this talk of Celestial marriage and being sealed, I find myself not understanding. This is nothing new.

In Matthew 22:30 KJV, it says, "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

I did go to some LDS sources, including one at FAIR and it was all so inscrutable to me that I am now confused.

[Stone holm]

OK people, with all this talk of Celestial marriage and being sealed, I find myself not understanding. This is nothing new.

In Matthew 22:30 KJV, it says, "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

I did go to some LDS sources, including one at FAIR and it was all so inscrutable to me that I am now confused.

As I understand that doctrine , it simply means those issues will get resolved before the final assignments of Kingdoms, thus those who really would have gotten married had the right person come along and circumstances allowed will have the chance to do so, and those whose spouses did not abide will have the opportunity to form another marriage. But that will get worked out sometime before they hit the celestial kingdom, during the millennium, I suspect, although I always cringe when somebody postpones something to that period.

[Calm]

I suspect, although I always cringe when somebody postpones something to that period.

Why? Isn't it simply a continuation of our current life? I see it as much the same way as saying "that is something that I will do when I have kids" or "when I retire, it will be time for me to...." It makes sense to me to recognize that there are times and seasons to our lives. Edited May 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Salem]

As I understand that doctrine , it simply means those issues will get resolved before the final assignments of Kingdoms, thus those who really would have gotten married had the right person come along and circumstances allowed will have the chance to do so, and those whose spouses did not abide will have the opportunity to form another marriage. But that will get worked out sometime before they hit the celestial kingdom, during the millennium, I suspect, although I always cringe when somebody postpones something to that period.

That's the way I understand it too: all eternal marriages must be performed before the resurrection; otherwise one is limited: "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven." (Matt 22:30)

[EllenMaksoud]

As I understand that doctrine , it simply means those issues will get resolved before the final assignments of Kingdoms, thus those who really would have gotten married had the right person come along and circumstances allowed will have the chance to do so, and those whose spouses did not abide will have the opportunity to form another marriage. But that will get worked out sometime before they hit the celestial kingdom, during the millennium, I suspect, although I always cringe when somebody postpones something to that period.

For now, I think I will just have to put this issue in the "I'll leave that to Heavenly Father" box.

[EllenMaksoud]

That's the way I understand it too: all eternal marriages must be performed before the resurrection; otherwise one is limited: "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven." (Matt 22:30)

I'm pretty sure that the way I read it, I will be in the Celestial Kingdom, but if I arrive there, I'll probably have to sit outside on the curb for a while until I get over the shock !

[Five Solas]

That's the way I understand it too: all eternal marriages must be performed before the resurrection; otherwise one is limited: "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven." (Matt 22:30)

If that's the way you understand it, Salem, what do you think is the direct answer to the question--"therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be?" (Matt 22:28)

Your understanding supposes Christ was being evasive in His response.

--Erik

PS. We've had this debate before. On a previous thread, Stargazer argued that if Christ had been direct in the matter he would have answered, "The first one." And volgadon argued the reason for the "first" being the correct answer was the Jewish tradition of "levirate marriage." At least I think that's what volgadon was arguing, I never could get him to say whether he actually agreed with Stargazer. It began on page 3 of this thread: http://www.mormondia...le/page__st__40 if you're interested.

[Stone holm]

If that's the way you understand it, Salem, what do you think is the direct answer to the question--"therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be?" (Matt 22:28)

Your understanding supposes Christ was being evasive in His response.

--Erik

PS. We've had this debate before. On a previous thread, Stargazer argued that if Christ had been direct in the matter he would have answered, "The first one." And volgadon argued the reason for the "first" being the correct answer was the Jewish tradition of "levirate marriage." At least I think that's what volgadon was arguing, I never could get him to say whether he actually agreed with Stargazer. It began on page 3 of this thread: http://www.mormondia...le/page__st__40 if you're interested.

I would agree with Stargazer so long as the first one was righteous, but it actually now would depend on which one she was first sealed to if she were living at the time of the sealing she should only have been sealed to one at a time. If she was multiple sealed after death, that would be conditional and the Lord and the parties will have to sort it out.

[Stone holm]

Why? Isn't it simply a continuation of our current life? I see it as much the same way as saying "that is something that I will do when I have kids" or "when I retire, it will be time for me to...." It makes sense to me to recognize that there are times and seasons to our lives.

I cringe when people tend to defer things to the millenium. For example for years McConkie was saying the Africans would get the Priesthood during the Millennium, and since we are all inveterate capitalists we nearly always put off the reinstitution of the United Order to the Millennium. I refer to all this as the Millenium Syndrome the tendency to put off resolution of tough doctrine to the Millenium.

[Salem]

If that's the way you understand it, Salem, what do you think is the direct answer to the question--"therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be?" (Matt 22:28)

Your understanding supposes Christ was being evasive in His response.

--Erik

I think if Christ had answered the question directly, He would have said she would be the wife of the first. But He choose not to cast His pearls before swine (i.e. the Sadduces) who denied not only eternal marriage, but the ressurrection itself. Thus, as far as they (i.e. "the children of this world") are concerned in the resurection "they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven." (Matt 22:30)

[EllenMaksoud]

I would agree with Stargazer so long as the first one was righteous, but it actually now would depend on which one she was first sealed to if she were living at the time of the sealing she should only have been sealed to one at a time. If she was multiple sealed after death, that would be conditional and the Lord and the parties will have to sort it out.

Oh, I hesitate to say this ... I hope that you do not think I am attacking the Sealing doctrine. It is still unclear to me why it is so important, of course my first mate threw me out after 40 years. It appears I was used up, you know. And, I felt like it too.

I have been adamantly insisting that I would never get married again, just can't visualize it. So for me , it is much easier to just accept that I will be like an angel than have my old mate back ... Don't know if that would be manageable. Sigh, what ever Heavenly Father wants.

[Gillebre]

what ever Heavenly Father wants.

Above, Ellen, is the exact right attitude to have.

I'm very proud of you for recognizing that, and for adhering to that principle.

Continue to trust in Heavenly Father, and continue to draw closer to the Savior in your day-to-day life. You will have the opportunity to faithfully enter into a lasting eternal marriage, whether God's will is that it happens in this life, or afterwards, He will see that you get the opportunity, as long as you endure to the end as best you can.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

OK people, with all this talk of Celestial marriage and being sealed, I find myself not understanding. This is nothing new.

In Matthew 22:30 KJV, it says, "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

I did go to some LDS sources, including one at FAIR and it was all so inscrutable to me that I am now confused.

Side Note:

The verse was not corrected by Joseph Smith, it reads the same in the Inspired Version. So to me, personally, this is a verse that casts doubts on the concept of eternal marriage.

[SamIam]

Side Note:

The verse was not corrected by Joseph Smith, it reads the same in the Inspired Version. So to me, personally, this is a verse that casts doubts on the concept of eternal marriage.

This statement made me very dizzy...I'm going to go lay down and try to recover.

Edited May 5, 2013 by SamIam

[Stone holm]

Side Note:

The verse was not corrected by Joseph Smith, it reads the same in the Inspired Version. So to me, personally, this is a verse that casts doubts on the concept of eternal marriage.

Well except that we believe that the 132nd Section is inspired, so if there was any confusion about the significance of Joseph Smith not dropping an explanatory footnote in the Inspired Version, I suspect that it wasn't really necessary since the Lord had already given him a specific direct revelation on the matter.

[SamIam]

OK people, with all this talk of Celestial marriage and being sealed, I find myself not understanding. This is nothing new.

In Matthew 22:30 KJV, it says, "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

I did go to some LDS sources, including one at FAIR and it was all so inscrutable to me that I am now confused.

It is very important that if we are to answer this question we put it back into its proper perspective. I will provide the verses in question to make for an easy review of the points to be made:

Matthew 22: 23-32

23 The same day came to him the ^aSadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his ^abrother shall ^bmarry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the ^ascriptures, nor the ^bpower of God.

30 For in the ^aresurrection they neither ^bmarry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the ^cangels of God in heaven.

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

32 I am the ^aGod of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Following is some critical background to these verses and should help grasp the implications.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the real question that is being addressed is concerning the resurrection. Across the New Testament, whenever this scenario is referenced the author makes sure to point out that the question is being asked by the Sadducees that are asking a deceiving question. They do not believe in the resurrection but very disingenuously are asking him a question that requires a commentary about a concept they deny. They are not even in the slightest bit concerned about marriage. Their goal is to get Christ to somehow perjure himself on the resurrection. They are trying to trap Christ in his answer.

Yet one wonders, why they are asking about marriage beyond death if the subject is without precedent in their mind. They have cited Moses as the source and so they are dealing with Mosaic Law. They have invoked the conditions of marriage as expressed under that law. Christ’s answer is designed to speak to them about two things. Christ tells them they err because they do not know: 1.) the scriptures and 2.) the power of God.

So let’s look at just the first level of the scriptures. The law that the Sadducees are wrapping their inquiry around is found in:

Deuteronomy 25:5-10

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.

10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

This law is referred to by the Jews as Yibbum or Levirate marriage. You can clearly see by the way the Sadducee's build their question that it is designed to reflect the law as reflected in the Deuteronomy verses I have provided above. A man with a wife dies before any children are born, a scenario that is repeated 7 times. Each time she proceeds to the next brother in the lineup. This is the only time that a man was permitted to have relations with his sister in law according to Jewish law. This is the law, referenced in the Scriptures, that Christ was chastising them for not knowing adequately.

My personal interpretation is that while they obviously knew enough about the conditions of the law to formulate their question, they obviously lacked an understanding of what conditions were required to establish a sealing bond that would constitute a marriage in the eternities. That they knew such a thing existed is evidenced by their question. How it took place was beyond their knowledge.

This is not unexpected. Again, their whole purview has been hundreds of years in a religious order that has operated under the lowest level of Priesthood, that of the Levitical.

In fact where an ordinance is required to exercise the sealing authority that initiates an eternal marriage, Levirate Marriage had no requirement whatsoever for a ceremony at all.

Please note:

According to Biblical law, there is no need for a marriage ceremony between the widow and the deceased's brother as they are already bound by divine decree,thus, they need only cohabit to perform yibbum. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that the couple perform a marriage-like ceremony called maamar,recite the marriage blessings (sheva brachot) and write a prenuptial agreement (ketubah).

Only one brother may perform yibbum. The oldest brother is given preference, but if he refuses, any brother can perform yibbum, and if a brother performed yibbum out of turn, it is nevertheless valid. After one brother performs yibbum or halizah, none of the brothers may marry any of the widows.

As a side note, it is interesting that the laws of Yibbum were constructed to address the situation of the man that died without any offspring that left behind multiple wives as is noted below:

Restrictions related to yibbum

It is forbidden for any of the widows to remarry until yibbum or halizah has been performed. If the deceased left multiple wives yibbum may only be performed with one of them, at which time the remaining wives are permitted to remarry. Likewise, if yibbum is not performed, halizahis only performed with one of the widows,[14] after which all of them may remarry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum

Consistent with current LDS theology there is not the authority in the preparatory priesthood to seal / bind a man and a woman for the eternities. While that authority was reestablished in Israel when Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and seal there is little chance that the Pharisees or Sadducees had little more knowledge than could be gained through hearsay and rumor. They only had the historical influences that had formed the basis of their Law of Moses performances. They were unwilling to accept baptism and the pre-requisites that might have initiated them into greater understanding of the temple ordinances

This is the end of this level of response. There is much more on Yibbum and a broader understanding of its function and type as an element of the preparatory doctrines of the Mosaic law and how they point to eternal marriages. Certain practices in the church concerning sealings and nullification of sealings are actually precisely consistent with the tenor of the laws of yibbum. However, we must keep in mind the question of the Sadducees had absolutely nothing to do with eternal marriage.

The point of this discourse is to bring into clear understanding the true nature of the question that the Sadducees asked and a very reasonable expectation of why Christ responded as He did.

[EllenMaksoud]

It is very important that if we are to answer this question we put it back into its proper perspective. I will provide the verses in question to make for an easy review of the points to be made:

Following is some critical background to these verses and should help grasp the implications.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the real question that is being addressed is concerning the resurrection. Across the New Testament, whenever this scenario is referenced the author makes sure to point out that the question is being asked by the Sadducees that are asking a deceiving question. They do not believe in the resurrection but very disingenuously are asking him a question that requires a commentary about a concept they deny. They are not even in the slightest bit concerned about marriage. Their goal is to get Christ to somehow perjure himself on the resurrection. They are trying to trap Christ in his answer.

Yet one wonders, why they are asking about marriage beyond death if the subject is without precedent in their mind. They have cited Moses as the source and so they are dealing with Mosaic Law. They have invoked the conditions of marriage as expressed under that law. Christ’s answer is designed to speak to them about two things. Christ tells them they err because they do not know: 1.) the scriptures and 2.) the power of God.

So let’s look at just the first level of the scriptures. The law that the Sadducees are wrapping their inquiry around is found in:

This law is referred to by the Jews as Yibbum or Levirate marriage. You can clearly see by the way the Sadducee's build their question that it is designed to reflect the law as reflected in the Deuteronomy verses I have provided above. A man with a wife dies before any children are born, a scenario that is repeated 7 times. Each time she proceeds to the next brother in the lineup. This is the only time that a man was permitted to have relations with his sister in law according to Jewish law. This is the law, referenced in the Scriptures, that Christ was chastising them for not knowing adequately.

My personal interpretation is that while they obviously knew enough about the conditions of the law to formulate their question, they obviously lacked an understanding of what conditions were required to establish a sealing bond that would constitute a marriage in the eternities. That they knew such a thing existed is evidenced by their question. How it took place was beyond their knowledge.

This is not unexpected. Again, their whole purview has been hundreds of years in a religious order that has operated under the lowest level of Priesthood, that of the Levitical.

In fact where an ordinance is required to exercise the sealing authority that initiates an eternal marriage, Levirate Marriage had no requirement whatsoever for a ceremony at all.

Please note:

As a side note, it is interesting that the laws of Yibbum were constructed to address the situation of the man that died without any offspring that left behind multiple wives as is noted below:

Consistent with current LDS theology there is not the authority in the preparatory priesthood to seal / bind a man and a woman for the eternities. While that authority was reestablished in Israel when Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and seal there is little chance that the Pharisees or Sadducees had little more knowledge than could be gained through hearsay and rumor. They only had the historical influences that had formed the basis of their Law of Moses performances. They were unwilling to accept baptism and the pre-requisites that might have initiated them into greater understanding of the temple ordinances

This is the end of this level of response. There is much more on Yibbum and a broader understanding of its function and type as an element of the preparatory doctrines of the Mosaic law and how they point to eternal marriages. Certain practices in the church concerning sealings and nullification of sealings are actually precisely consistent with the tenor of the laws of yibbum. However, we must keep in mind the question of the Sadducees had absolutely nothing to do with eternal marriage.

The point of this discourse is to bring into clear understanding the true nature of the question that the Sadducees asked and a very reasonable expectation of why Christ responded as He did.

You put a lot of effort in explaining this and thank you very much.

I have heard various explantions of the usage of Sealing, so it gets confusing at times. I know one couple who have been widowed several times on both sides. They seem to have the impression that he can be sealed to his 4 wives, but she can be sealed to only one husband.

That portion of it I will never have to worry about.

Thank you.

[Glenn101]

Also, we need to note what tense Jesus was using. Neither marrying nor giving in marriage. To me this indicates that all marriages that are not sealed for time and eternity during this earth life will be of no effect in eternity. I had not thought of it in the context that Samlam presented, but that does make sense.

I believe that the mellenium will be the great shaking out period. It seems to me that those who will inherit the Celestial Kingdom will come forth in the first resurrection. During that Mellenium the geneology work will be completed. I am uncertain of the resurrection time frame of those who have yet to have their work done for them. Maybe they will have to wait to be resurrected until the time their work has been done.

In any event, I believe that during that thousand years, sealing will happen, families will be organized, etc. and all those worthy people who were unable to find worthy mates will have those needs met.

In a way I am not looking forward to that time. I have a wife who has alrady passed the portals into the next life. I was sealed to her for time and eternity. And I have been sealed to my present wife for time and eternity. I don't know how that is going to work.

But, in any event, I believe that by the ende of the Mellenium, all of the families will be organized, all of the marrying and giving im marriage will have been completed, and then the marriages that have been entered into by those worthy to obtain exaltaion will be in effect when they obtain that state.

That is my understanding at least, and it does no violence to the words of Jesus to the Sadducees.

Glenn

[danielwoods]

So, given the doctrine of eternal marriages, where does the church as a bride of Christ fit into that senario?

Rev. 19:⁷ Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

⁸ And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

[SamIam]

But, in any event, I believe that by the ende of the Mellenium, all of the families will be organized, all of the marrying and giving im marriage will have been completed, and then the marriages that have been entered into by those worthy to obtain exaltaion will be in effect when they obtain that state.

That is my understanding at least, and it does no violence to the words of Jesus to the Sadducees.

Glenn

Not only, "no violence", but it is within the constraints of all scriptural and prophetic commentary of which I am aware.

[teddyaware]

OK people, with all this talk of Celestial marriage and being sealed, I find myself not understanding. This is nothing new.

In Matthew 22:30 KJV, it says, "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

I did go to some LDS sources, including one at FAIR and it was all so inscrutable to me that I am now confused.

Ellen, All ordinances pertaining to exaltation in the Celestial Kingom (including eternal marriage), must -- according to our modern-day prophets -- be performed before the final judgement and assignment to one of the three kingdoms of glory. Perhaps your confussion on this point of doctrine can be allayed by paying careful attention to what the wording in Matthew 22 actually says and does not say...

"For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven."

Notice how the Lord is teaching that after the last resurrection (i.e. the final judgement) men and women will not have the opportunity to marry (present tense) in the Celestial Kingdom. Note how He does not say whether or not there will be men and women in the Celestial Kingdom who are already married (past tense).Not being permitted to "marry" and already being "married" mean two significantly different things, don't they?

Then note how the Lord, by implication, informs us that these people who are not already married before entering the Celestial Kingdom are like the angels in heaven. This information (i.e. that "they are as the angels") is more important than may be supposed at first blush. Why? because the Bible teaches us that those who are exalted in the highest degree of glory within the Celestial Kingsom will be greater than the angels and will even judge (or rule) over the angels...

"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)

When studying, pondering and interpreting scripture, it is very important to pay very close attention to the subtilties of how language is used. The words "marry" and "married" mean two significantly different things and that difference, in this case, makes all the difference in the world.

Edited May 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

OK people, with all this talk of Celestial marriage and being sealed, I find myself not understanding. This is nothing new.

In Matthew 22:30 KJV, it says, "For in the resurection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.

I did go to some LDS sources, including one at FAIR and it was all so inscrutable to me that I am now confused.

Bottom line

We believe exactly what it says. Read it carefully=== it does not say what you think it does.

It does not say that there is no "marriage" in heaven, but there is no marrying (the marriage act, marriage ceremony). That sealing ceremony can only be done on earth, and that is why we have temples.

Edited May 5, 2013 by cdowis

[SamIam]

Oh, I hesitate to say this ... I hope that you do not think I am attacking the Sealing doctrine. It is still unclear to me why it is so important, of course my first mate threw me out after 40 years. It appears I was used up, you know. And, I felt like it too.

I have been adamantly insisting that I would never get married again, just can't visualize it. So for me , it is much easier to just accept that I will be like an angel than have my old mate back ... Don't know if that would be manageable. Sigh, what ever Heavenly Father wants.

As it applies to your current situation I think these words by Spencer W Kimball should ease your mind.

“I am aware of some young men and women who seemingly have not been successful in total fulfillment. Some have been on missions; some have completed their education. And yet they have passed the period of their greatest opportunity for marriage. The time has passed, and while still attractive and desirable and efficient, they find themselves alone.

“To you we say this: You are making a great contribution to the world as you serve your families and the Church and the world. You must remember that the Lord loves you and the Church loves you. To you women, we can only say we have no control over the heartbeats or the affections of men, but pray that you may find fulfillment. And in the meantime, we promise you that insofar as eternity is concerned, no soul will be deprived of rich and high and eternal blessings for anything which that person could not help, that the Lord never fails in his promises, and that every righteous person will receive eventually all to which the person is entitled and which he or she has not forfeited through any fault of his or her own. We encourage both men and women to keep themselves well-groomed, well-dressed, abreast of the times, attractive mentally, spiritually, physically, and especially morally, and then they can lean heavily upon the Lord’s promises for these heavenly blessings.” (

“The Importance of Celestial Marriage,”

Ensign,

Oct. 1979, p. 5

.)

Joseph Fielding Smith in vol 3 of Doctrines of Salvation essentially states the same thing concerning the fact that it is a different state for a man to not find a wife in this life as our expectation is that it is the man's role to ask a woman to be his wife and the burden is not on the women to find a husband or accept a marriage proposal simply because she was asked.

[rpn]

1) Not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be married, but everyone in the highest part of that kingdom will be.

2) We know that we will no be forced to do anything against our wishes, and we know that we will not be deprived of any blessings due to others choices. So that seems to lead to: we can chose to be married or not.

3) The cited scripture just says that the ordinance to create eternal families is part of the earthly existence. The ordinance has to be done on earth and accepted by proxy, before the person is exalted. You can't fix it in the eternities because there is no marriage there. (which refers only to the eternities, not to the interim position between death and judgment, when people who didn't get a chance before will be able to accept the ordinances being done for them on earth).

[Tacenda]

1) Not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be married, but everyone in the highest part of that kingdom will be.

2) We know that we will no be forced to do anything against our wishes, and we know that we will not be deprived of any blessings due to others choices. So that seems to lead to: we can chose to be married or not.

3) The cited scripture just says that the ordinance to create eternal families is part of the earthly existence. The ordinance has to be done on earth and accepted by proxy, before the person is exalted. You can't fix it in the eternities because there is no marriage there. (which refers only to the eternities, not to the interim position between death and judgment, when people who didn't get a chance before will be able to accept the ordinances being done for them on earth).

I have a single friend that is riddled with different health issues that stem from diabetes and heart problems, she is homebound basically, but gets around. She never married but was once engaged. She talks about being married in the eternities and being a mother. How will she achieve this? Will she just have to wait to have someone on earth marry her through a marriage sealing and then unite with her when they pass on? Then will she just be able to create spirit babies only to give them up to a couple on earth? How does a man go into the temple and get sealed to dead women? Does this happen still today, I remember reading somewhere that it happened in the early church, but not exactly the same way. This is extremely complicated. And less complicated when we are angels and no marriage exists in heaven. But I leave open the possibilty to it. Just how will it work for my friend in your guestimation?