New Essay On Polygamy From Lds.org

[cinepro]

I have never understood this criticism (and in your case, concern). He did not say (which is what people represent Him as saying), that "there is no marriage in heaven." He said "in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Who was He talking about? Critics/concerned people insist that He meant "no people at all, ever, worlds without end." He was talking directly to and about the Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, but this can also be applied to the larger group of those "know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God." 

 

That is squarely Mormon doctrine. People today who don't understand the scriptures or know the power of God will not be able to "marry or be given in marriage" in the hereafter, either. They won't enter into and keep the necessary temple covenants. 

 

What are you talking about rongo?  

 

Jesus wasn't talking about the Sadducees.  The Sadducees had presented a hypothetical (but entirely plausible) scenario in which a woman's husband had died and, according to the Mosaic law, had married her husband's brother, after which the brother died so she married the next brother and so on as each brother died.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.23-30?lang=eng#22

 

 

 

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

 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry 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 scriptures, nor the power of God.

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

 

They wanted to know which brother the wife would be married to in the resurrection, which is an entirely reasonable question.  An LDS of today might ask the same thing about any woman who remarried after the death of her husband (the husbands being brothers is relevant to the Mosaic law, but not the overall problem of a woman having multiple husbands).

 

Here's the problem:  Modern LDS could be asked the same question, and we have a perfectly good answer: she will be married to the first husband in the resurrection (assuming she was sealed to him with proper authority either in life or by proxy).  Otherwise, she would be married to whichever husband she was properly sealed to.  The children of all subsequent marriages would also be sealed to the first husband.

 

Or, there is our current catchall that Jesus could have easily used: "I don't know, but it will all work out in the resurrection".

 

 

But that's not what Jesus said.  You can argue that Jesus said what he did because of the audience, or the context of the question, but that raises the troubling issue (for me) that there are situations in which we should drastically misrepresent our doctrine based on whom we are talking to.

 

I don't care how disingenuous or crafty I might suspect a questioner of being, there is no way I would ever intentionally lie or misrepresent the gospel in answer to their question.  And to accuse Jesus of doing that (and then allowing His disingenuous answer to become canonical scripture!) is bordering on absurd.

 

There may be a good explanation for why the New Testament says He said what He said, but I don't think Rongo's theory is it.

 

This is a better theory, but I still think it's a stretch.

 

Also, keep in mind that the issue that was being argued wasn't eternal marriage, it was the resurrection.  The Sadducees weren't arguing against eternal marriage, they were arguing that the doctrine of the resurrection was illogical because the Mosaic law presented a pattern of marriage that could not be logically (or morally) sustained in a resurrected state.

 

So Jesus was defending the doctrine of the resurrection by explaining to them that it was compatible with the Mosaic law specifically because the woman wouldn't be "married' to anybody.  Problem solved...

 

...unless you believe in eternal marriage.

Edited December 23, 2013 by cinepro

[rongo]

I don't think you can properly accuse Jesus of being disingenuous (assuming for the sake of argument that my explanation is correct).

 

1) He was asked a "trap" question by the Sadducees, who didn't believe in a resurrection at all.

 

2) Instead of falling into the trap ("Umm, the first husband."), He told them that their assumptions were way off base ("Ye do err") and that they didn't understand the scriptures or the power of God.

 

3) You (and others) still haven't answered what "the power of God" has to do with this question. Why did He bring up "the power of God?" In the orthodox Mormon view, "the power of God" has everything to do with the question of marriage in the afterlife.

 

4) He said that "they" (and you and others still haven't indicated why you equate "they" with "absolutely everybody who lives on the earth at any time, worlds without end") won't marry or be married in the afterlife ("in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven"). Who is he talking about?

 

What he said was neither evasive, nor disingenuous. Those who don't understand the scriptures (such that their erroneous views keep them from the covenants) or who deny the power of God (such that they reject the priesthood through which afterlife marriage is opened) won't "marry or be given in marriage" in the hereafter.

[escott3564]

And they never called it doctrine.  Cut them some slack, Pogi.  Let people digest this and then there can be more.  I think the bigger problem are those who think that polygamy will return because it is "doctrine". 

Do you think this issue will be addressed, Juliann?  I certainly hope that it is.

[cinepro]

I don't think you can properly accuse Jesus of being disingenuous (assuming for the sake of argument that my explanation is correct).

 

1) He was asked a "trap" question by the Sadducees, who didn't believe in a resurrection at all.

 

2) Instead of falling into the trap ("Umm, the first husband."), He told them that their assumptions were way off base ("Ye do err") and that they didn't understand the scriptures or the power of God.

It's only a "trap" question if you believe in eternal marriage. 

 

Jesus didn't evade the "trap" question, he answered it.

 

In effect, the Sadducees were saying "We don't believe there is a resurrection, and one of the reasons is because of the Mosaic law and this situation..."

 

Jesus was explaining to them why the situation they presented wasn't a problem for the doctrine of the resurrection (or the Mosaic Law).

 

When He told them they "erred", their error was in assuming post-resurrection marriage.   

[bluebell]

It's only a "trap" question if you believe in eternal marriage.

Jesus didn't evade the "trap" question, he answered it.

In effect, the Sadducees were saying "We don't believe there is a resurrection, and one of the reasons is because of the Mosaic law and this situation..."

Jesus was explaining to them why the situation they presented wasn't a problem for the doctrine of the resurrection (or the Mosaic Law).

When He told them they "erred", their error was in assuming post-resurrection marriage.

I've honestly never seen these verses taught like this.

[pogi]

It's only a "trap" question if you believe in eternal marriage.  

 

Are you suggesting that Christ does not believe in eternal marriage?  It is evident from the scriptures and from your own quote below that the Sadducees thought he did.

 

When He told them they "erred", their error was in assuming post-resurrection marriage.   

Edited December 23, 2013 by pogi

[cinepro]

Are you suggesting that Christ does not believe in eternal marriage?  It is evident from the scriptures and from your own quote below that the Sadducees thought he did.

 

That was the "trap".  The Sadducees (who didn't believe the resurrection) were trying to show that the Mosaic law and an idea of "eternal marriage" were incompatible with the idea of a resurrection.

 

Here's another way to look at it.  Suppose you (assuming you are LDS) had a conversation with a friend or co-worker who was an atheist.  As an atheist, they obviously don't believe in a "resurrection", and they believe it doesn't make sense in light of LDS teachings on eternal marriage.

 

Atheist Friend: Here's why I don't believe in your teachings on the resurrection.  Suppose a Mormon woman's husband dies, and she re-marries another Mormon man.  And then after he dies, she marries another Mormon man.  Then finally she dies.  So, whose wife will she be in the resurrection?

 

You: You're making a mistake, because you don't understand what our scriptures teach.  In the resurrection, she won't be given in marriage to anyone.  They'll all be as angels in heaven; it's a moot point.

 

Is that what you would say?  If not, what would you say, and is it different than what Jesus said?

[EllenMaksoud]

After reading the new article addressing polygamy, I have to say that I found it rather boring.  Maybe my expectations were too high.  Curiously, it only addresses polygamy as practiced from 1847-1890, thereby skirting around the relatively difficult issues of polygamy and its controversial beginnings as practiced by Joseph.  Are they going to release a second installment addressing polygamy from 1833-1847?   Joseph Smith was only casually mentioned once as the recipient of the revelation.  Because it only addresses polygamy from 1847-1890, Polyandry was never addressed.

 

The only "difficult" issue that it addressed is that polygamy was indeed practiced on an "exceptional basis" after the manifesto.  It was more of an admission than an explanation as to why.  It also briefly addressed the young age of women (girls) that were commonly married at "age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger" 

 

If this is intended to prevent further disillusionment, I think they missed the bullet. 

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy

Some times Mormon introspection reminds me of the self flagellation of the Shia Muslims. Don't CFR me on this but I recall reading excerpts from a woman's journal from the American colonies of 1640's in which she was sold at age 12 to be a man's wife. Later, her baby was sold to pay the man's debts.

 

While certain factions are fond of humiliating Mormons, I think the humiliation comes in part because we react to them. Within limitations I see no issue among consenting parties. Perhaps not all "wives" would be reproductive. It is not fun to live alone as a Woman, and to be frank men alone don't do as well as women.