Marriage / Celestial / This Life Only?

[thatjimguy]

Now, I have always heard that people who do not marry in this life will be given the opportunity in the next, I even heard this at BYU-I. And although I would tend to take that to heart more than a blogger, the blogger in question is from lds.net and says otherwise. 

 

Given the problem with "official doctrine" in the church. Perhaps it is best not to go from either source, but I cannot find anything about this officially. 

 

The only thing I have found is this

 

https://www.ldsces.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m1-marriage1-1c.asp

 

Which seems to convey that the blogger is correct at lds.net, no marriage here, no highest kingdom there. 

 

So is the "you get a chance in heaven" more Mormon folklore?

[JLHPROF]

No, it's from the teachings of the prophets (Lorenzo Snow springs to mind). But it's probably only as official as the Journal of Discourses. Not folklore, actual teachings, but not officials.

[halconero]

If we're judged by not only works, but our desires, I can't see any faithful follower of Christ being denied a fullness of his blessings.

[thesometimesaint]

Now, I have always heard that people who do not marry in this life will be given the opportunity in the next, I even heard this at BYU-I. And although I would tend to take that to heart more than a blogger, the blogger in question is from lds.net and says otherwise. 

 

Given the problem with "official doctrine" in the church. Perhaps it is best not to go from either source, but I cannot find anything about this officially. 

 

The only thing I have found is this

 

https://www.ldsces.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m1-marriage1-1c.asp

 

Which seems to convey that the blogger is correct at lds.net, no marriage here, no highest kingdom there. 

 

So is the "you get a chance in heaven" more Mormon folklore?

 

The key is if given the opportunity.

[Rain]

If I t was a clear cut "no marriage here, no exaltation" then we wouldn't do sealings for the dead. So it had to be based on opportunity. The question then is who has had the opportunity. That one I don't think anyone can answer for anyone else except when it is entirely clear that someone has not had the opportunity like a child who dies or someone so disabled they can not take care of themselves. All other times we need to leave it up to the Lord to decide.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Rain

[Raingirl]

Now, I have always heard that people who do not marry in this life will be given the opportunity in the next, I even heard this at BYU-I. And although I would tend to take that to heart more than a blogger, the blogger in question is from lds.net and says otherwise. 

 

Given the problem with "official doctrine" in the church. Perhaps it is best not to go from either source, but I cannot find anything about this officially. 

 

The only thing I have found is this

 

https://www.ldsces.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m1-marriage1-1c.asp

 

Which seems to convey that the blogger is correct at lds.net, no marriage here, no highest kingdom there. 

 

So is the "you get a chance in heaven" more Mormon folklore?

If you are giving more weight to what is posted at lds.net because of where it is posted, you shouldn't. It is just another website where opinions are posted and discussions happen. If it were lds.org, that would be another matter, as that site is church-affiliated.

[mfbukowski]

Now, I have always heard that people who do not marry in this life will be given the opportunity in the next, I even heard this at BYU-I. And although I would tend to take that to heart more than a blogger, the blogger in question is from lds.net and says otherwise. 

 

Given the problem with "official doctrine" in the church. Perhaps it is best not to go from either source, but I cannot find anything about this officially. 

 

The only thing I have found is this

 

https://www.ldsces.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m1-marriage1-1c.asp

 

Which seems to convey that the blogger is correct at lds.net, no marriage here, no highest kingdom there. 

 

So is the "you get a chance in heaven" more Mormon folklore?

Read your reference again- that is not what it says.  In no way does that link say ", no marriage here, no highest kingdom there." in fact it says the opposite.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about.

[mfbukowski]

Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page at LDS net

 

© Copyright 2014 - LDS.net This website is not owned by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the Mormon or LDS Church). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. The views expressed by individual users are the responsibility of those users and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. For the official Church websites, please visit LDS.org or Mormon.org.

 

Those who do not marry here will have the opportunity to do so in the afterlife.  That is unquestionably LDS doctrine or we would not have temples.  Any suggestion otherwise is incorrect.

[thatjimguy]

Oops, sorry mfbukowski

never did place the original link for what I was talking about at lds.net

 

http://askgramps.org/25384/will-single-sisters-able-marry-celestial-kingdom

[Garden Girl]

Now, I have always heard that people who do not marry in this life will be given the opportunity in the next, I even heard this at BYU-I. And although I would tend to take that to heart more than a blogger, the blogger in question is from lds.net and says otherwise. 

Given the problem with "official doctrine" in the church. Perhaps it is best not to go from either source, but I cannot find anything about this officially. 

 

The only thing I have found is this

https://www.ldsces.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m1-marriage1-1c.asp

 

Which seems to convey that the blogger is correct at lds.net, no marriage here, no highest kingdom there. 

 

So is the "you get a chance in heaven" more Mormon folklore?

 

Hello thatjimguy...

 

Elder M. Russell Ballard, of the Quorum of  the Twelve Apostles, addressed the 2001 Women's Conf at BYU, and published this 2002 statement in a booklet titled "As Women of God,"...

"This doctrine (Proclamation on the Family) sometimes causes women to ask: "Is a woman's value dependent exclusively upon her role as a wife and mother?"  The answer is simple and obvious -- no!  Motherhood and marital status are not the only measures of a woman's worth.  Some women do not have the privilege of marrying or raising children in this life.  To the worthy, these blessings will come later.... motherhood is not the only measure of goodness or of one's acceptance before the Lord.  Every righteous woman has a significant role to play in the onward march of the Kingdom of God... ALL righteous women are part of God's great plan for His daughters to become queens and to receive the highest blessings IN TIME OR ETERNITY."

 

GG

 

edit to add:  President Hicnkley also taught this in a conference talk... as did Elder Faust in a Women's Conf I attended...

 

Edited June 28, 2014 by Garden Girl

[mfbukowski]

Oops, sorry mfbukowski

never did place the original link for what I was talking about at lds.net

 

http://askgramps.org/25384/will-single-sisters-able-marry-celestial-kingdom

Oh that.  No problem.

 

All that says is that one must be sealed before resurrection- and yes that is of course exactly correct.  We are resurrected with the body we deserve- a celestial body, terestrial or telestial.

 

But in order for that to happen all ordinances necessary need to be done first.

 

You cannot be sealed after the resurrection- that is done in the spirit world for those who were not sealed here, and THEN they are resurrected with the proper body.

 

When we do work for the dead, those people are in the spirit world, not resurrected beings.  So your misunderstanding was based on the timing of it all- first we live, then we go to the spirit world, and our progression continues.  We can receive ordinances both here and in the spirit world.  After we receive these ordinances and do all that is necessary to be resurrected, we are resurrected with the proper body.

 

So yes, there is no marriage "in the resurrection" because the resurrection happens AFTER earth life and after the spirit world.  We must be "married" before the resurrection not "in" the resurrection.

[MiserereNobis]

Two posters referenced temple sealings as evidence that one can get married after death.  But, from my understanding, temple sealings are only performed for people who are married in this life, right?  Someone who dies single is not sealed to someone else, are they?  If the answer is no, then it seems to me that temples and temples sealings cannot be used as evidence that someone who dies single will in fact be able to marry after death.

 

(Obviously I don't have a side to take in this discussion either way -- I'm just pointing out what seems to me like a lapse in an argument and asking for clarification)

[Calm]

There have been some exceptions made for intended couples who died before being married to be sealed where families have appealed for permission.

But I think it is the belief that for those we lack records for we will receive spiritual aid in the Millennium when basically the dead will walk with the living that allows for the belief.

[mfbukowski]

Two posters referenced temple sealings as evidence that one can get married after death.  But, from my understanding, temple sealings are only performed for people who are married in this life, right?  Someone who dies single is not sealed to someone else, are they?  If the answer is no, then it seems to me that temples and temples sealings cannot be used as evidence that someone who dies single will in fact be able to marry after death.

 

(Obviously I don't have a side to take in this discussion either way -- I'm just pointing out what seems to me like a lapse in an argument and asking for clarification)

There are a couple of misunderstandings here and I will try to point them out.  Before I slice and dice your post, I like to show it in context, as I have above.

Two posters referenced temple sealings as evidence that one can get married after death.  But, from my understanding, temple sealings are only performed for people who are married in this life, right?

It may seem semantic, but we make a distinction between being married and being sealed.  Couples can be sealed without being married- as happened in Joseph Smith's time, and as we believe, will happen in the future.  Marriage is being married here on earth, living with someone, etc.  In most cases couples here are married AND sealed.  Some countries require civil marriage before sealing.  They are two different things though can happen simultaneously.  In the US today, a couple may enter a temple with a civil marriage license and come out both married and sealed in one ceremony, but that doesn't need to be the case.

 

Temple sealings could theoretically be performed between two people who have died who were not married to each other, as Calmoriah states, but it is rare.  The reason we don't do that we have no way of knowing whether or not they would want to be sealed to the person we might pick.  But theoretically there is no reason it could not be done.

Someone who dies single is not sealed to someone else, are they?  If the answer is no, then it seems to me that temples and temples sealings cannot be used as evidence that someone who dies single will in fact be able to marry after death.

This is where the answer gets a little complicated because you are confusing a couple of things here.

 

No one is using temple sealings as evidence that someone who dies single will be able to marry after death.  First of all, dead people are not "married" they are "sealed".  They cannot act as married people, because they have no bodies (yet- until the resurrection)

 

And the sealing happens before the resurrection, not after.  So if you are using that scripture as evidence that people cannot be "married after death"- that argument doesn't apply because we are not making that argument

 

As Calmoriah has alluded, we believe that the Millenium will be a very strange time in human history, because we believe that spirits will be able to visit the earth and come and go as they need to.  So theoretically, a couple from 600 BCE who lived as peasants in China, of whom we have no records, could physically appear in a temple and tell those in authority what their circumstances are and request to be sealed.

 

That is the way most think of it literally happening, but our actual belief is kind of like the Catholic idea of Baptism by desire- that God will cause something to happen to make sure that those people have fulfilled their desire to be sealed, and of course will not hold it against them that they lived thousands of years before the church was even available to them.

 

So hopefully that clarifies what we believe and how those beliefs come together.

[mfbukowski]

Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page at LDS net

Those who do not marry here will have the opportunity to do so in the afterlife.  That is unquestionably LDS doctrine or we would not have temples.  Any suggestion otherwise is incorrect.

I should have used the word "sealed" really.

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks for the clarification (and without a reference to Wittgenstein or Rorty! )

[JLHPROF]

There are a couple of misunderstandings here and I will try to point them out.  Before I slice and dice your post, I like to show it in context, as I have above.

It may seem semantic, but we make a distinction between being married and being sealed.  Couples can be sealed without being married- as happened in Joseph Smith's time, and as we believe, will happen in the future.  Marriage is being married here on earth, living with someone, etc.  In most cases couples here are married AND sealed.

 

CFR that this is a Church teaching (official or otherwise).  I have never seen ANY prophet or church teaching that states couples can be sealed without being married.  That is something I have only seen on this board (and in things like Hales polyandry explanations).  And I don't believe this to be either true or Church doctrine.

 

The temple has only two kinds of sealing ceremonies - children to parents (adoptions) and man to woman (marriages).  If you're sealed to your children you're now their parent.  If you're sealed to a woman, she's now your wife.  CFR that it's ever been taught otherwise.

[mfbukowski]

CFR that this is a Church teaching (official or otherwise).  I have never seen ANY prophet or church teaching that states couples can be sealed without being married.  That is something I have only seen on this board (and in things like Hales polyandry explanations).  And I don't believe this to be either true or Church doctrine.

 

The temple has only two kinds of sealing ceremonies - children to parents (adoptions) and man to woman (marriages).  If you're sealed to your children you're now their parent.  If you're sealed to a woman, she's now your wife.  CFR that it's ever been taught otherwise.

Read what I said.

You answered your own question.

 

Then read what Calmoriah wrote.  Logic, sir logic.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the clarification (and without a reference to Wittgenstein or Rorty! )

Dang it, there was nothing to deconstruct. 

[JLHPROF]

Read what I said.

You answered your own question.

 

Then read what Calmoriah wrote.  Logic, sir logic.

 

I did.  The distinction between church marriage and sealing is still not doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

I did.  The distinction between church marriage and sealing is still not doctrine.

Nothing is church doctrine except the standard works.  We only have orthopraxis.  Joseph practiced it, and of course he was an apostate, I suppose?  I mean after all, what did he know about the church or doctrine.

 

Clearly I can be sealed to my father but I am not married to him am I ?

Edited June 30, 2014 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

Nothing is church doctrine except the standard works.  We only have orthopraxis.

 

 

Incorrect.  The doctrine merely resides in the standard works etc.  The FP and Qo12 establish it and then oficially publish it.  For example, you don't know that 'water' John 3:5 refers to water baptism without reading it somewhere in a manual or other official publication.

 

 

Joseph practiced it

 

 

He did indeed.

[JLHPROF]

Nothing is church doctrine except the standard works.  We only have orthopraxis.  Joseph practiced it, and of course he was an apostate, I suppose?  I mean after all, what did he know about the church or doctrine.

 

Clearly I can be sealed to my father but I am not married to him am I ?

 

I already differentiated between parental and spousal sealings.  They are the only two kind  of sealings.  You cannot be sealed without becoming either a parent/child or a husband/wife.  Joseph absolutely did NOT practice it.  Joseph was sealed to women in marriage.

[mfbukowski]

 The doctrine merely resides in the standard works etc.

And a very cozy little residence it is with all those doctrines sitting around the fire.

 

What is that supposed to mean anyway?  And how do you know?  And why should I believe you?

 

It's ok- you don't need to answer- we will still disagree on this one.

[mfbukowski]

I already differentiated between parental and spousal sealings.  They are the only two kind  of sealings.  You cannot be sealed without becoming either a parent/child or a husband/wife.  Joseph absolutely did NOT practice it.  Joseph was sealed to women in marriage.

I disagree based on common sense, and Hales agrees. 

 

I don't care if it's "doctrine" or not- that was the practice for Joseph and he was the prophet.  I am not about to argue with Joseph about what he thought was right.  I might disagree with it, but that is what I believe happened.