Galatians 3:28

[EllenMaksoud]

I'd like to see the LDS explanation for the passage. And also  Mark 12:25

Edited January 13, 2014 by EllenMaksoud

[Ahab]

Sometimes when people use figures of speech they cloud the issue, don't they.

I think Paul could have conveyed the same thought just as well had he said we are all of those things instead of saying we are none of those things. The main point is that we are all one when we are one in Christ.

[bluebell]

The Epistle to the Galatians was Paul chastising them for returning to live the law of Moses when that had been fulfilled in Christ and was not in force any longer.  Living the law of moses could not bring anyone salvation.

 

3:28 specifically outlines how anyone who accepts Christ and His gospel becomes a part of Abraham's seed.  The Galatians were having trouble accepting that they, being of the House of Israel, weren't 'special' anymore and that now anyone could be one of God's chosen.

 

Mark is about forgiving those who have harmed us, so that we can be forgiven.

[Palerider]

I'm sure there are more recent commentaries but Bruce R. McKonkie's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary gives an explanation of both passages.

 

I'd give you a break down but even at that there's quite a bit of material to cover and a number of doctrinal gymnastics to execute and frankly it makes me tired to think of doing it, so I'm just going to reference the books.

 

In essence, regarding the passage in Mark, he has the Savior saying:  "Oh, you sly Saduccees, you can't fool me. The truth is we don't get married for eternity "in" the resurrection, we get married for eternity "before" the resurrection. But I'm not going to explain that to you right now cause you're wicked people....."

Edited January 14, 2014 by Palerider

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sometimes when people use figures of speech they cloud the issue, don't they.

I think Paul could have conveyed the same thought just as well had he said we are all of those things instead of saying we are none of those things. The main point is that we are all one when we are one in Christ.

As Christ amplified this teaching in John 17, in his prayer in the Garden.

[JLHPROF]

I'd like to see the LDS explanation for the passage. And also  Mark 12:25

 

"²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

The full scripture in context is pretty clear.  If you read vs 24-29 it simply says that when we join the gospel we are accepting our position as Christ's (and Abrahams) heirs and family.  And it makes clear that race/gender/social status don't impact our ability to become heirs to the Kingdom.   I see no conflict with this and any Mormon teaching.

 

ALSO

 

²⁵ For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

This is clearly explained in the revelation on marriage D&C 132

 

15 Therefore, if a ^aman 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 ^amarriage; but are appointed angels in ^bheaven, which angels are ministering ^cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 

That's what was referred to, not sure what the issue is.

[Flyonthewall]

I always took Galatians 3:28 as there not being any division of classes or social status... all will be on level footing.

[urroner]

For those too lazy to look up the scriptures:

Gal 3:28

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Like Bluebell said, Galatians is an epistle wherein Paul was really chewing out the Galatians for clinging to the Law of Moses and demanding that any new convert to Christianity had to live by, including circumcision.

 

Here is a nice little article (https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/training/conferences/scriptures/ellisonmarkd-s-ampi-scripture-forum_eng.pdf) which talks about how Paul and James agreed on "works and grace," while using different words which seem to contradict each other.  The author, Mark D. Ellison, explains why the Galatians epistle was written.

 

Paul wrote to the Galatians in response to a doctrinal and ecclesiastical controversy created by Judaizers—Jewish-Christians who were teaching Gentile members of the Church the false doctrine that in order to be saved, they must be circumcised and observe the ritual requirements of the law of Moses.

The book of Acts refers to similar teachers, providing helpful historical background about what apparently was not an isolated controversy. Prior t o the events recorded in Acts 10, probably most if not all members of the Church were Jewish. Either they were Jews by birth, or they were proselytes— Gentiles who had converted to Judaism by being circumcised and committing to live the law of Moses. But in Acts 10, Peter, the senior Apostle, received a revelation that Gentiles who had faith in God and followed His teachings were “accepted with Him” (Acts 10:35) and were to be received into the Church by baptism, without first having to convert to Judaism by undergoing the rite of circumcision (see Acts 10:43–48). Peter then taught and baptized Cornelius , “probably the first Gentile to come into the Church not having previously become a proselyte to Judaism ” (Guide to the Scriptures, “Cornelius”).

Following these events, a controversy caused by Judaizers arises in Acts 15:
1. And certain men which came down [to Syrian Antioch] from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question (Acts 15:1–2).

The council of Apostles and elders that met in Jerusalem rejected the teaching of the Judaizers and affirmed that Gentile members of the Church did not need to be circumcised or observe other rituals of the law of Moses (see Acts 15:24–29). The Apostles and elders did call upon Gentile Saints to live moral teachings of the law, specifically to avoid idolatry and sexual sin (see Acts 15:28–29). They also counseled Gentile Saints to observe some kosher dietary restrictions, apparently not as a requirement for salvation but to avoid offending the Jewish communities where they lived and potentially hindering missionary work in those communities.

 

Mark 12:25

 

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

Go here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22

 

But, regardless of who the parties were in the Sadducees' question to Jesus, doesn't verse 30 — "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" — just mean that everyone is single in heaven? Absolutely not. And here's why we can say this so confidently.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the tenses of verbs in Greek can convey very different information from those in English. The Greek verb for 'marry' is gameô. In verse 30, it is written in the form gamousin, indicating that it is in third person plural (they) and in the present tense, so it is translated simply as "they marry."

 

Now it is important to note that the present tense represents an action, something performed at some particular time. It does not represent a condition. We can be sure of this because the Greek does have a verb tense called the 'perfect tense' that represents a present condition resulting from a past completed action. There is no English counterpart to this tense, so it is hard to translate unambiguously, but the point here is that the verbs in Matthew 22:30 are not in the perfect tense. If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ said, "Neither are they now in a married state," the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have simply written in the present perfect tense, oute gegamêkasin. He did not; so that cannot be what he meant. Christ said nothing about the marital state of those who are in heaven.

 

Please note that the use of the perfect tense is just standard Greek. Everyone used it. Matthew used it. A few chapters later, Matthew writes "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you"Matthew 25:34, in which 'blessed' is the perfect-tense Greek eulogêmenoi, literally 'those who are now in a blessed state due to a previously completed blessing,' and 'prepared' is the Greek hêtoimasmênen, meaning 'now in a prepared state due to a previously completed preparation.' We also have Paul writing to the Corinthians, saying "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" 1 Corinthians 7:10, where the Greek word translated 'married' is gegamêkasin, meaning 'those who are now in a married state due to their previously completed marriages.' This is the same perfect-tense Greek word that Matthew could have used in Matthew 22:30 if he had wanted to state that there are no married couples in Heaven. By using the present tense, Matthew has Jesus simply saying, "In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed." And, of course, the requirement that marriage ceremonies be performed on Earth, not in heaven, is one of the main themes of LDS temple work. Our reason for seeking the names of our ancestors and then, by proxy, sealing them together as couples and families, is just what the Savior said to the Sadducees — that the ordinance itself is not done in heaven. And, since work for the dead did not begin until after the resurrection, the seven brothers the Sadducees asked about were unmarried when they died and were still unmarried in heaven.

.

.

.

A non-LDS reading

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way:

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.” (emphasis added)^[1]

 

 

Edited January 14, 2014 by urroner

[EllenMaksoud]

 

"²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

The full scripture in context is pretty clear.  If you read vs 24-29 it simply says that when we join the gospel we are accepting our position as Christ's (and Abrahams) heirs and family.  And it makes clear that race/gender/social status don't impact our ability to become heirs to the Kingdom.   I see no conflict with this and any Mormon teaching.

 

ALSO

 

²⁵ For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

This is clearly explained in the revelation on marriage D&C 132

 

That's what was referred to, not sure what the issue is.

 

Thank you. I just needed another point of view on that issue. Still thinking like an Evangelical at times.

[EllenMaksoud]

For those too lazy to look up the scriptures:

Gal 3:28

 

Like Bluebell said, Galatians is an epistle wherein Paul was really chewing out the Galatians for clinging to the Law of Moses and demanding that any new convert to Christianity had to live by, including circumcision.

 

Here is a nice little article (https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/training/conferences/scriptures/ellisonmarkd-s-ampi-scripture-forum_eng.pdf) which talks about how Paul and James agreed on "works and grace," while using different words which seem to contradict each other.  The author, Mark D. Ellison, explains why the Galatians epistle was written.

 

 

Mark 12:25

 

Go here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22

Thank you.

[urroner]

Thank you.

Anytime!

[cdowis]

 

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

It means precisely what it says. 

 

There is no marriage ceremony in heaven (marry nor given in marriage  -- the action of becoming married).  It does NOT say that there is no marriage in heaven -- that must be performed on earth.  It is simply a matter of reading the text without distorting its meaning.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm sure there are more recent commentaries but Bruce R. McKonkie's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary gives an explanation of both passages.

 

I'd give you a break down but even at that there's quite a bit of material to cover and a number of doctrinal gymnastics to execute and frankly it makes me tired to think of doing it, so I'm just going to reference the books.

 

In essence, regarding the passage in Mark, he has the Savior saying:  "Oh, you sly Saduccees, you can't fool me. The truth is we don't get married for eternity "in" the resurrection, we get married for eternity "before" the resurrection. But I'm not going to explain that to you right now cause you're wicked people....."

Funny. No one cares what you think. Since you are not LDS you cannot possibly give a valid LDS interpretation.

[cdowis]

In essence, regarding the passage in Mark, he has the Savior saying:  "Oh, you sly Saduccees, you can't fool me. The truth is we don't get married for eternity "in" the resurrection, we get married for eternity "before" the resurrection. But I'm not going to explain that to you right now cause you're wicked people....."

 

I like your explanation.  Very nice.

[theplains]

I'd like to see the LDS explanation for the passage. And also  Mark 12:25

 

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor

female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus".

 

The LDS Church has created not "one in Christ Jesus" but rather "two". The first part are

the males who are said to be the sole holders of the priesthood. The second are the

women who lack said priesthood.  From a biblical point of view, all believers in Christ are

members of the royal priesthood of believers.  Women, like their male counterparts, can

act with God's authority.  They do not need a man's help when they meet someone who

is ready for baptism.

 

Regards,

Jim

[urroner]

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor

female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus".

 

The LDS Church has created not "one in Christ Jesus" but rather "two". The first part are

the males who are said to be the sole holders of the priesthood. The second are the

women who lack said priesthood.  From a biblical point of view, all believers in Christ are

members of the royal priesthood of believers.  Women, like their male counterparts, can

act with God's authority.  They do not need a man's help when they meet someone who

is ready for baptism.

 

Regards,

Jim

 What a barrage of claptrap.

 

Start a new thread Jim and please explain the priesthood of believers doctrine found in the Bible which wasn't found until the time of Marin Luther.

[Rivers]

 

In essence, regarding the passage in Mark, he has the Savior saying:  "Oh, you sly Saduccees, you can't fool me. The truth is we don't get married for eternity "in" the resurrection, we get married for eternity "before" the resurrection. But I'm not going to explain that to you right now cause you're wicked people....."

This interpretation of the scripture has never made any sense to me.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked by the sadducees.  They are not asking Jesus about the time and place of sealing ceremonies.  They are asking about status of married people in the ressurection. 

 

In mormon theology, marriages are disolved in the afterlife unless the couple is sealed by the holy priesthood.  I don't see priesthood sealings as being part of the equation in this scripture. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This interpretation of the scripture has never made any sense to me.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked by the sadducees.  They are not asking Jesus about the time and place of sealing ceremonies.  They are asking about status of married people in the ressurection. 

 

In mormon theology, marriages are disolved in the afterlife unless the couple is sealed by the holy priesthood.  I don't see priesthood sealings as being part of the equation in this scripture.

This is actually not correct. The Sadducees did not believe in the Resurrection. They were trying to trip Jesus up by showing that the Resurrection was an absurd concept. I.e. if a woman were married to seven different men, if the Resurrection was true, it would cause all sorts of issues around who would get to be with his wife. Jesus said, no you don't understand the scriptures. People aren't married in the hereafter so its not going to be a problem.

Edited January 15, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[urroner]

This is actually not correct. The Sadducees did not believe in the Resurrection. They were trying to trip Jesus up by showing that the Resurrection was an absurd concept. I.e. if a woman were married to seven different men, if the Resurrection was true, it would cause all sorts of issues around who would get to be with his wife. Jesus said, no you don't understand the scriptures. People aren't married in the hereafter so its not going to be a problem.

 

From a previous post of mine.

 

A non-LDS reading

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way:

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.” (emphasis added)

Edited January 16, 2014 by urroner

[SeekingUnderstanding]

From a previous post of mine.

That is a fair but strained reading. One that the early church did not support. As I said, the Sadducees who do not believe in resurrection were attempting to show that the resurrection was incompatible with Mosaic law. The underlying assumption was that if we were resurrected, we would be married. Jesus answered that the Sadduccees were in error and didn't understand the scriptures. He goes onto say that in the resurrection, we won't marry, but instead will be like the angels in Heaven.

Cinepro has an unanswered post on this topic here:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62421-new-essay-on-polygamy-from-ldsorg/page-8#entry1209329060

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?

Look I hope to be with my wife in eternity very much. However, to pretend this verse isn't troublesome is disingenuous.

[teddyaware]

That is a fair but strained reading. One that the early church did not support. As I said, the Sadducees who do not believe in resurrection were attempting to show that the resurrection was incompatible with Mosaic law. The underlying assumption was that if we were resurrected, we would be married. Jesus answered that the Sadduccees were in error and didn't understand the scriptures. He goes onto say that in the resurrection, we won't marry, but instead will be like the angels in Heaven.

Cinepro has an unanswered post on this topic here:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62421-new-essay-on-polygamy-from-ldsorg/page-8#entry1209329060

Look I hope to be with my wife in eternity very much. However, to pretend this verse isn't troublesome is disingenuous.

It may be troublesome to some, but from the creation accounts, as well as from other scriptures that speak of the creation accounts, it's obvious it was God's plan in the beginning (before the fall) that men and women were meant to be together as husband and wife for all eternity. The Lord said (after the creation of Adam) that it was not good for him to be alone. So instead of creating a mere human friend for Adam, God created the woman Eve, and Adam was then married to Eve by God Himself...

23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (signifying eternal oneness); she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. (Moses 3)

 

It needs underscored that this marriage was performed before the fall. Therefore the marriage of Adam and Eve would have endured forever in paradise if not for the fall. From this a strong case can be made that it was God's design in the beginning for men and women to be paired and married forever. Interestingly, the command to multiply was also already in force. Paul seemed to be well aware of the eternal purposes underlying the eternal union of the sexes when he said:

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God (who's work is infinite and eternal). (1 Corinthians 11)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It may be troublesome to some, but from the creation accounts, as well as from other scriptures that speak of the creation accounts, it's obvious it was God's plan in the beginning (before the fall) that men and women were meant to be together as husband and wife for all eternity. The Lord said (after the creation of Adam) that it was not good for him to be alone. So instead of creating a mere human friend for Adam, God created the woman Eve, and Adam was then married to Eve by God Himself...

23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (signifying eternal oneness); she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. (Moses 3)

 

It needs underscored that this marriage was performed before the fall. Therefore the marriage of Adam and Eve would have endured forever in paradise if not for the fall. From this a strong case can be made that it was God's design in the beginning for men and women to be paired and married forever. Interestingly, the command to multiply was also already in force. Paul seemed to be well aware of the eternal purposes underlying the eternal union of the sexes when he said:

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God (who's work is infinite and eternal). (1 Corinthians 11)

Teddyaware: Would you care to address the issue that Cinepro raised? Would you answer your atheist friend the same way that Jesus answered the Sadducees? Quoting other scriptures is fine, but still doesn't change the context of what we have Jesus actually saying in this verse. Edited January 16, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

Teddyaware: Would you care to address the issue that Cinepro raised? Would you answer your atheist friend the same way that Jesus answered the Sadducees? Quoting other scriptures is fine, but still doesn't change the context of what we have Jesus actually saying in this verse.

First of all, is it not true that the case I made is at least as equally compelling as what some might make of the op verses in question? After all, if I were discussing this issue with an atheist, quoting the op scriptures (or the ones I quoted) would likely have equal minimal effect on moving such a person.

Now as to the question, I'll allow President Joseph Fielding Smith to answer for me. But I will briefly comment on some of what President Smith has to say in in parenthesis .

"I call your attention to the fact that the Lord said that he and his disciples did not belong to this world; the Sadducees did. To continue: "But they which shall be counted worthy to attain that world (the "that world" referred to here is one of the lower of the two lower levels of glory in the Celestial Kingdom) and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage. This is absolutely true! (note President Smith says that what Jesus is saying here is absolutely true, as there are no marriage ceremonies performed in heaven. All eternal marriages must be solemnized on earth before its final glorification).

And the Lord has revealed this same doctrine to the Church in the day in which we live. He says (the same) unto those who are married for time only, and those who do not believe in marriage for eternity:

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 (it is worthy to note that most all non-LDS Christians believe truly faithful believers will be made much greater than the angels. The LDS Church teaches that numbered among the ranks of the angels in heaven will be those who were not sealed in marriage for time and all eternity on earth. These will remain separate and single in heaven).

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. (D. & C. 132:16-17.)

So the Lord says those of that class, who may be worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven, shall be like the angels, and they remain separately and singly in eternity (so what the Lord says here is perfect Mormon Doctrine)."

Edited January 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

First of all, is it not true that the case I made is at least as equally compelling as what some might make of the verse in question?

Absolutely.

After all, if I were discussing this issue with an atheist, quoting the op scriptures (or the ones I quoted) would likely have equal minimal effect on moving such a person.

You are not discussing this verse or any other verse with your atheist friend. You are discussing a perceived inconsistency with the doctrine of the resurrection.

Lets set the stage one more time.

You are having a discussion with someone that doesn't believe in the resurrection (Cinepro gave an atheist in this example). This person points out a logical inconsistency in how he perceives your doctrine of the resurrection. You aren't trying to convince the person to believe as you do, but instead explain why your position is logically consistent.

Let's try:

Atheist / Sadducee Friend: Here's the problem with the doctrine of 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? (Atheist here is telling you why your doctrine is logically inconsistent and doesn't make any sense)

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. Instead they'll all be as angels in heaven. (You making the point why your doctrine is logically consistent.)

You then go on to quote scriptures trying to convince your friend of the error of their ways i.e. the resurrection will indeed happen. You only do this after you cleared up the logical problem of having a women with more than one husband in the resurrection.

So now comes the simple question:

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

 

 

ETA:Had to do some significant edits for clarity. 

Edited January 16, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

Absolutely.

You are not discussing this verse or any other verse with your atheist. You are discussing a perceived inconsistency with the doctrine of the resurrection.

Lets set the stage one more time.

You are having a discussion with someone that doesn't believe in the resurrection (Cinepro gave an atheist in this example). This person points out a logical inconsistency in how he perceives your doctrine of the resurrection. You aren't trying to convince the person to believe as you do, but instead explain why your position is logically consistent.

Let's try:

Atheist / Sadducee Friend: Here's the problem with the doctrine of 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? (Atheist here is telling you why your doctrine is logically inconsistent and doesn't make any sense)

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. Instead they'll all be as angels in heaven. (You making the point why your doctrine is logically consistent.)

You then go on to quote scriptures trying to convince your friend of the error of their ways i.e. the resurrection will indeed happen. You only does this after he cleared up the logical problem of having a women with more than one husband in the resurrection.

So now comes the simple question:

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

Got it! Thanks for your patience with me. I was being too lazy to delve into past posts on this thread.

 

My answer to our atheist friend's question is in my previous post. Neither the leaders of the LDS Church nor little old I see any inconsistency within the two op scriptures quoted and the doctrine of eternal marriage. But in addition to what's said in my previous post (which I hope you'll read), I'll add that one of the reasons why the Lord's interrogators missed the boat on this one is because they started off in their question with a false premise. They seemed to think the belief being discussed was to whit that any marriage in Israel was automatically an eternal marriage; in this assumption they were mistaken. That's why the Lord remonstrated with the following words:

 

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22)

 

So the Saviour's tempters didn't understand that marriages (even in Israel) only become eternal when they are solemnized by the sealing power of God. Without a marriage being solemnized by one possessing this sealing power, the best one could hope for was to be made equal only to the unmarried angels, who are servants  of the Most High but not inheritors of all the Father possesses through the sacrifice of Christ. The point here is that many non-LDS Christians believe the truly faithful will become greater than the angels and in Matthew 22 the Lord is saying the people in question will only be equal to the angels. The Lord's saying that those not sealed in marriage by the power of God while on earth will become only as glorified as are the angels, worthy only to obtain that world,  is in reality a designation and relegation to a lower degree of glory than the fullness of celestial glory.

Edited January 17, 2014 by teddyaware