Are there Biblical Scriptures that My LDS Friends Believe Refer Specifically and Only to the LDS Church?

[Navidad]

Are there Biblical Scriptures that My LDS Friends Believe Refer Specifically and Only to the LDS Church? Thanks

[Analytics]

A couple come immediately to mind.

Revelation 14:6-7

Isaiah 2:2-3

Edited November 2, 2023 by Analytics

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Are there Biblical Scriptures that My LDS Friends Believe Refer Specifically and Only to the LDS Church? Thanks

None by name, but we can see how many of the scripture passages apply to the restored Church and her members, a theme observed by some beleivers long before the time of Joseph Smith.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

None by name, but we can see how many of the scripture passages apply to the restored Church and her members, a theme observed by some beleivers long before the time of Joseph Smith.

a theme observed by some beleivers long before the time of Joseph Smith.  I am  uncertain as to what that means? Could you please tell me a bit more about this?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are there Biblical Scriptures that My LDS Friends Believe Refer Specifically and Only to the LDS Church? Thanks

For most if not all, any such scripture would have to say, something along the line… “In the last days, my Church will be established, and called, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Anything short of this would be subject to translation. Without the Holy Spirit and prayer, as a guide; only then can countless scriptures, will lead other to the truth of the Everlasting Gospel. 

[Navidad]

Just now, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Without the Holy Spirit and prayer, as a guide; only then can countless scriptures, will lead other to the truth of the Everlasting Gospel. 

I wholeheartedly agree that reliance on the Holy Spirit and prayer are absolute prerequisites for interpretation of scripture. That is why I am not a fan of a purely secular approach to Biblical studies, theology, or interpretation. Best wishes!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I wholeheartedly agree that reliance on the Holy Spirit and prayer are absolute prerequisites for interpretation of scripture. That is why I am not a fan of a purely secular approach to Biblical studies, theology, or interpretation. Best wishes!

Thank you for your best wishes, I am not sure if you speak generally, or due to ever increasing health issues. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

a theme observed by some beleivers long before the time of Joseph Smith.  I am  uncertain as to what that means? Could you please tell me a bit more about this?

I'm referring to "restorationism" -- Restorationism - Wikipedia

[Pyreaux]

Do you also want a rundown of Bible verses that refer to LDS scriptural events too, the coming of the BoM, Joseph Smith, some might be mere hindsight. Here are some interesting OT stuff: 

Genesis 49 – Joseph's Promised Land (Americas):

Joseph is given his birthright (Genesis 49:26), promised land above those of his progenitors (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob). All Israel was allotted a portion of the Abraham's land in Canaan, but Joseph was to receive more than all of them put together. Joseph's blessing is that as he was "a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall" (Genesis 49:22). Somewhere running over a wall of water, to somewhere larger than the whole of Canaan, and with features described as an endless mountain range.

The Book of Mormon describes Josephites that travel over water to a land of inheritance, that is about the same size of Israel, a 300-mile radius between the farthest cities, and a mountain range that runs from the top to bottom of both Contenants.

Genesis 50: the prophecies of a Prophet, the Messiah ben Joseph

An ancient Jewish tradition of a great prophet to come by the name of Asaph (Joseph). The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of a priestly "messiah" (i.e. "anointed one") to prepare the way for the kingly Messiah (The Messiah ben David). And die in battle.

The prophecies of the gathering of Israel in the last days do sometimes refer to "Yaw-saph," which means "to add, join, or increase." But is also the meaning of the name Joseph (see Genesis 30:24). So...

Isaiah 11:11 in the last days the Lord will set his hand "again" to gather Israel, literally says "he will set his hand [Yaw-saph] to gather his people.

Isaiah 29:14 says "I will proceed to do a marvellous work" in the last days, literally says "[Yaw-saph] will do a marvellous work" in the last days.

John 1: 19 -21, Jewish leaders are quizzing John the Baptist. It says, “When the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who art thou?’ And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him, ‘What then? Art thou Elias?'”. He was to come before the great and wrathful day of the Lord. “And he said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Art thou that prophet?'” He answered no. "That Prophet" is thought to be the Messiah Ben Joseph tradition.

Psalms 85 – The church in the last days

Psalm 85 speaks about a blessed time for the Lord's people (the "1335 year" prophecy in Daniel). The people are all doing what the Lord wants and won't turn away. David says "he will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints: but let them not turn again to folly" (v8). How can the Lord speak peace? Verse 11, "truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven." This is the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (a book of scripture that was buried in the earth) and the angels who came down from heaven at that time. (There are many exact prophecies of a buried sealed book)

Isaiah 1 calls the people to repent, and promises that eventually Zion will be redeemed and Jerusalem will be called a city of righteousness (1:25-27) – not fulfilled in Bible times.

Isaiah 2:2-5: a temple in the "tops of the mountains" in the last days. (Utah means the "tops of the mountains".)

Isaiah 5:26: the gathering of Israel.

The ensign's call to Zion is to come "from far." Not local to Israel. A day when there is war and darkness, and all nations will come to Zion. Their travel sounds like a description of modern travel (people travelling "with speed, swiftly" from the ends of the earth, without being tired or breaking a sandal, "their chariot wheels like a whirlwind".

Isaiah 11: the ensign to the nations

a great chapter on the last days and the millenium of peace (the lion lying down with the lamb and so on). Verse 11 refers to Israel being gathered the second time, this time on a global scale (verse 12) so we know we are reading about the last days and not the return of a small remnant from Persia in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.

We are told that in these last days, Christ will both be and set up (verses 10 and 12) an ensign (a flag or banner) to gather his people to. How can Christ be an Ensign, before he physically returns. The ensign is the church. Isaiah 11 is saying that, in the last days, a great missionary thrust will gather Israel from the corners of the earth.

Isaiah 12 is a short chapter on the last days / millennium

Isaiah 13 to 23 are prophecies (oracles) about various nations. If you read chapters 13 to 23, you see that, although they do sometimes spend a few verses on destructions that will happen in Old Testament times (for example, 14:28-34; 16:13-14; chapter 20), most of these oracles deal with the last days. In fact, most of Isaiah is about the last days as they were not fulfilled either in his day or in New Testament times.

Isaiah 13 uses current events to teach of the last days. Note that, although Babylon was indeed defeated in Old Testament times, it was only a partial fulfillment of the prophecy. Verses 19 and 20 are not yet fulfilled, but will be.

Isaiah 15 and 16, like chapter 14, includes a brief prophecy about soon-to-occur events (16:13-14), but is mainly pointing to the last days (16:1 – Israel rules Moab; 16:5: Christ rules Israel).

Isaiah 18, The "country of whirring wings" Transoceanic Diffusion with Jarodites?

Verse 1: is not a condemnation, but an announcement to a land somewhere beyond, or the other side of Africa, "beyond the rivers of Cush" (see for example the Jerusalem Bible). "Cush" is a descendant of Noah who settled the more southern parts of Africa.  land beyond Africa that looks like two vast wings outstretched.

Verse 2:  "a country criss- crossed with rivers" (Isaiah 18:2 and 7). So what part of the world is it? It maybe a description fulfilled by America. A seafairing nation "that sendeth messengers" – regularly.

Verses 4-6: once again, we have the scattering of Israel – only a few are left in their homeland.

Verse 7: but the Lord has preserved one of the scattered remnants of Israel in a far off land. "rivers have spoiled" or "criss-crossed with rivers". 

Ezekiel 37 – The gathering of Israel is compared to the joining of two sticks/etz.

The word translated as "sticks" means wood and refers to "writing boards", or primitive "books". In other words, Ezekiel 37 is speaking about the joining of two books, books of scripture, one book for Judah and the other for Joseph. The stick of Judah is the Bible. The stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon.

Daniel 2 – The stone cut without hands.

The LDS church was not founded by a man but by revelation (i.e. without man's hands). Also the kingdom of God arises in the days after the fall of Rome, so the prophecy refers to something in the last days, and not to the New Testament church. 

Joel 2:28 – In the last days, young men shall see visions.

This was fulfilled very literally by Joseph Smith. Some people say that it was completely fulfilled at the day of Pentecost, but that cannot be the case because: the day of Pentecost was not yet the last days. It concerned signs and wonders, was not fulfilled then but is being fulfilled now. Peter in Acts 2, was demonstrating that such things are authentic signs of the spirit and therefore the Christians were not drunk.

Amos 8:11-13 – A complete famine from the word of God.

If "the word of God" refers to the written scriptures then this prophecy could never be fulfilled since copies of the scripture have always existed. It must therefore refer to the living words of prophets – there would come a time when all the prophets would be gone.

In the "last days", as verse 9 refers to "in that day" and the sun being darkened, etc. So, in the last days there would be a total and complete loss of the truth. This prophecy speaks of a great apostasy, and (by implication) an eventual restoration.

Obadiah 1:17-21 – Saviours on mount Zion.

This refers to the house of Jacob and the house of his birthright son, Joseph. The tribe of Joseph was carried away captive and never returned in any significant way. So this prophecy has to be fulfilled in some other way than a literal return to the city of Jerusalem. The church can identify the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and they act as "saviours." Zion is a spiritual Israel.

Malachi 3:1 – "I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me."

Jesus applied the verse to the First Coming (Matthew 11:10). Of course, it stands to reason that Jesus would prepare us for the Second. Since the Lord has declared that soon after this prophet, valleys will be exalted, mountains made low, and all flesh shall see the glory of the Lord. Plainly this refers to the Second Coming. A partial fulfillment in John the Baptist, but its complete fulfillment must wait for the last days.

Malachi 4:5-6 – Elijah would return and turn the hearts of the children to the fathers and the fathers to the children.

Some people think this was fulfilled by John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13), But Matthew 17 cannot refer to Malachi 4, because: Matthew 17 refers to a prophecy that Elias who would restore all things, Malachi does not. Malachi refers to an Elijah who would link parents and children. Matthew does not. John the Baptist himself said (John 1:21) he was not Elias. The fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 occurred when Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1836, and sure enough world-wide interest in genealogy began.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Thank you for your best wishes, I am not sure if you speak generally, or due to ever increasing health issues. 

Both . . . and I would appreciate yours as well.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Do you also want a rundown of Bible verses that refer to LDS scriptural events too, the coming of the BoM, Joseph Smith, some might be mere hindsight. Here are some interesting OT stuff: 

Genesis 49 – Joseph's Promised Land (Americas):

Joseph is given his birthright (Genesis 49:26), promised land above those of his progenitors (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob). All Israel was allotted a portion of the Abraham's land in Canaan, but Joseph was to receive more than all of them put together. Joseph's blessing is that as he was "a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall" (Genesis 49:22). Somewhere running over a wall of water, to somewhere larger than the whole of Canaan, and with features described as an endless mountain range.

The Book of Mormon describes Josephites that travel over water to a land of inheritance, that is about the same size of Israel, a 300-mile radius between the farthest cities, and a mountain range that runs from the top to bottom of both Contenants.

Genesis 50: the prophecies of a Prophet, the Messiah ben Joseph

An ancient Jewish tradition of a great prophet to come by the name of Asaph (Joseph). The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of a priestly "messiah" (i.e. "anointed one") to prepare the way for the kingly Messiah (The Messiah ben Judah). And die in battle.

The prophecies of the gathering of Israel in the last days do sometimes refer to "Yaw-saph," which means "to add, join, or increase." But is is also the meaning of the name Joseph (see Genesis 30:24). So...

Isaiah 11:11 in the last days the Lord will set his hand "again" to gather Israel, literally says "he will set his hand [Yaw-saph] to gather his people.

Isaiah 29:14 says "I will proceed to do a marvellous work" in the last days, literally says "[Yaw-saph] will do a marvellous work" in the last days.

Psalms 85 – The church in the last days

Psalm 85 speaks about a blessed time for the Lord's people (the "1335 year" prophecy in Daniel). The people are all doing what the Lord wants and won't turn away. David says "he will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints: but let them not turn again to folly" (v8). How can the Lord speak peace? Verse 11, "truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven." This is the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (a book of scripture that was buried in the earth) and the angels who came down from heaven at that time. (There are many exact prophecies of a buried sealed book)

Isaiah 1 calls the people to repent, and promises that eventually Zion will be redeemed and Jerusalem will be called a city of righteousness (1:25-27) – not fulfilled in Bible times.

Isaiah 2:2-5: a temple in the "tops of the mountains" in the last days. (Utah means the "tops of the mountains".)

Isaiah 5:26: the gathering of Israel.

The ensign's call to Zion is to come "from far." Not local to Israel. A day when there is war and darkness, and all nations will come to Zion. Their travel sounds like a description of modern travel (people travelling "with speed, swiftly" from the ends of the earth, without being tired or breaking a sandal, "their chariot wheels like a whirlwind".

Isaiah 11: the ensign to the nations

a great chapter on the last days and the millenium of peace (the lion lying down with the lamb and so on). Verse 11 refers to Israel being gathered the second time, this time on a global scale (verse 12) so we know we are reading about the last days and not the return of a small remnant from Persia in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.

We are told that in these last days, Christ will both be and set up (verses 10 and 12) an ensign (a flag or banner) to gather his people to. How can Christ be an Ensign, before he physically returns. The ensign is the church. Isaiah 11 is saying that, in the last days, a great missionary thrust will gather Israel from the corners of the earth.

Isaiah 12 is a short chapter on the last days / millennium

Isaiah 13 to 23 are prophecies (oracles) about various nations. If you read chapters 13 to 23, you see that, although they do sometimes spend a few verses on destructions that will happen in Old Testament times (for example, 14:28-34; 16:13-14; chapter 20), most of these oracles deal with the last days. In fact, most of Isaiah is about the last days as they were not fulfilled either in his day or in New Testament times.

Isaiah 13 uses current events to teach of the last days. Note that, although Babylon was indeed defeated in Old Testament times, it was only a partial fulfillment of the prophecy. Verses 19 and 20 are not yet fulfilled, but will be.

Isaiah 15 and 16, like chapter 14, includes a brief prophecy about soon-to-occur events (16:13-14), but is mainly pointing to the last days (16:1 – Israel rules Moab; 16:5: Christ rules Israel).

Isaiah 18, The "country of whirring wings" Transoceanic Diffusion with Jarodites?

Verse 1: is not a condemnation, but an announcement to a land somewhere beyond, or the other side of Africa, "beyond the rivers of Cush" (see for example the Jerusalem Bible). "Cush" is a descendant of Noah who settled the more southern parts of Africa.  land beyond Africa that looks like two vast wings outstretched.

Verse 2:  "a country criss- crossed with rivers" (Isaiah 18:2 and 7). So what part of the world is it? It maybe a description fulfilled by America. A seafairing nation "that sendeth messengers" – regularly.

Verses 4-6: once again, we have the scattering of Israel – only a few are left in their homeland.

Verse 7: but the Lord has preserved one of the scattered remnants of Israel in a far off land. "rivers have spoiled" or "criss-crossed with rivers". 

Ezekiel 37 – The gathering of Israel is compared to the joining of two sticks/etz.

The word translated as "sticks" means wood and refers to "writing boards", or primitive "books". In other words, Ezekiel 37 is speaking about the joining of two collections of scripture, one for Judah and the other for Joseph. The stick of Judah is the Bible. The stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon.

Daniel 2 – The stone cut without hands.

The LDS church was not founded by a man but by revelation (i.e. without man's hands). Also the kingdom of God arises in the days after the fall of Rome, so the prophecy refers to something in the last days, and not to the New Testament church. 

Joel 2:28 – In the last days, young men shall see visions.

This was fulfilled very literally by Joseph Smith. Some people say that it was completely fulfilled at the day of Pentecost, but that cannot be the case because: the day of Pentecost was not yet the last days. It concerned signs and wonders, was not fulfilled then but is being fulfilled now. Peter in Acts 2, was demonstrating that such things are authentic signs of the spirit and therefore the Christians were not drunk.

Amos 8:11-13 – A complete famine from the word of God.

If "the word of God" refers to the written scriptures then this prophecy could never be fulfilled since copies of the scripture have always existed. It must therefore refer to the living words of prophets – there would come a time when all the prophets would be gone.

In the "last days", as verse 9 refers to "in that day" and the sun being darkened, etc. So, in the last days there would be a total and complete loss of the truth. This prophecy speaks of a great apostasy, and (by implication) an eventual restoration.

Obadiah 1:17-21 – Saviours on mount Zion.

This refers to the house of Jacob and the house of his birthright son, Joseph. The tribe of Joseph was carried away captive and never returned in any significant way. So this prophecy has to be fulfilled in some other way than a literal return to the city of Jerusalem. The church can identify the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and they act as "saviours." Zion is a spiritual Israel.

Malachi 3:1 – "I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me."

Jesus applied the verse to the First Coming (Matthew 11:10). Of course, it stands to reason that Jesus would prepare us for the Second. Since the Lord has declared that soon after this prophet, valleys will be exalted, mountains made low, and all flesh shall see the glory of the Lord. Plainly this refers to the Second Coming. A partial fulfillment in John the Baptist, but its complete fulfillment must wait for the last days.

Malachi 4:5-6 – Elijah would return and turn the hearts of the children to the fathers and the fathers to the children.

Some people think this was fulfilled by John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13), But Matthew 17 cannot refer to Malachi 4, because: Matthew 17 refers to a prophecy that Elias who would restore all things, Malachi does not. Malachi refers to an Elijah who would link parents and children. Matthew does not. John the Baptist himself said (John 1:21) he was not Elias. The fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 occurred when Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1836, and sure enough world-wide interest in genealogy began.

Wow! Thanks for the list! This is amazing! Thanks for all the work you put into this!

Edited November 3, 2023 by Navidad

[Pyreaux]

New Testament stuff

John 10:16 – "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold."

Jesus was only sent to the lost "sheep" of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). These "other sheep" must be other Israelites somewhere away from Palestine. The Book of Mormon records the fulfillment of this, when Jesus visited the Americas after his resurrection. 

Acts 3:21 – Times of the Restitution of All Things

the last days before the Second Coming of Christ, Peter referred to "the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." That restitution, or restoration, began in 1830.

Ephesians 1:10 – "the dispensation of the fullness of times," when the saints receive their inheritance (Ephesians 1:11).

In a blessed period of strength building on strength, ready for the Second coming of Jesus Christ. The New Testament church did not see the fulfillment of this, as they suffered tremendous persecution and the apostles were all killed. 

Revelation 14 – Prophecies of the Latter-day Church

Revelation describes all history, of past, present and future, from the New Testament church (chapter 12), the apostasy (chapter 13), to the restoration in the last days (chapter 14). 

Verse 1 – 144000: this number represents 12000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 7:3-8). What Church today can tell you which tribe of Israel they belong to?

Verse 1 – The name of God on a seal on their foreheads (a high priest's seal) – how many churches today have high priests?

Verse 2 – the voice of Christ. How many churches today teach that Christ speaks today, not just through the Bible?

Verse 3 – no man could learn what they sang – how many churches teach things too sacred to be repeated (secret teachings)?

Verse 4 – they were not defiled with women – higher and purer relationships (2 Corinthians 11:2). How many churches have high standards of marriage?

Verses 6-7 – an angel peaches the gospel to those on earth – how many churches preach a gospel delivered by an angel? The angel Moroni, brought the Book of Mormon

[teddyaware]

On 11/2/2023 at 10:11 AM, Navidad said:

Are there Biblical Scriptures that My LDS Friends Believe Refer Specifically and Only to the LDS Church? Thanks

To me, one of the most powerful and persuasive evidences that the foundational doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints are in harmony with the Bible is disclosed in how the Latter-Day Saints are the only Christian people who have come to understand that eternal marriage is part of God’s design for mankind, and that it was God’s plan and design for man from the very beginning. Although this critically important doctrinal principle is clearly set forth in the Bible, it somehow turns out that after many centuries the prophet Joseph Smith was the only Christian church leader who came to recognize and comprehend this obvious Biblical truth .The evidence is undeniable that all the divines of all the other Christian religions have continually failed to recognize the holy principle of marriage, even though it’s clearly set forth in the Bible.

I’ll explain: If you were to ask any of the apologists of any other Christian religion what it means to be redeemed from the fall, they will tell you it means to be brought back into God’s immediate presence while in a state of immortality, holiness, sinlessness and eternal felicity. But what they invariably fail to acknowledge is that prior to the fall Adam and Eve were eternally married as husband and wife by God himself, and that their marriage would have endured forever and ever if not for the fall. So what the non-LDS Christians have been missing for nearly two thousand years is the glaringly obvious fact that redemption from the fall includes eternal marriage in a heavenly state and the unrescinded divine commandment to create eternal families through the act of multiplying.

Why was the prophet Joseph Smith the only one to recognize and enlarge upon a principle of divine delight so perfectly obvious? It’s because he is a true prophet of God.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1)

and…

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: 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.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2)

and…

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall  to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(Matthew 19)

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

To me, one of the most powerful and persuasive evidences that the foundational doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints are in harmony with the Bible is disclosed in how the Latter-Day Saints are the only Christian people who have come to understand that eternal marriage is part of God’s design

Except for the fact that Jesus explicitly says there is no marriage in heaven, and Paul explicitly taught that marriage was only for those too weak for celibacy. 

[MiserereNobis]

43 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

So what the non-LDS Christians have been missing for nearly two thousand years is the glaringly obvious fact that redemption from the fall includes eternal marriage in a heavenly state and the unrescinded divine commandment to create eternal families through the act of multiplying.

I don't understand why you have to talk like this. If it was "glaringly obvious" then no one would have missed it. Unless, of course, they were stupid. Is that what you are saying? That Christians were stupid for 2000 years?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll explain: If you were to ask any of the apologists of any other Christian religion what it means to be redeemed from the fall, they will tell you it means to be brought back into God’s immediate presence while in a state of immortality, holiness, sinlessness and eternal felicity. But what they invariably fail to acknowledge is that prior to the fall Adam and Eve were eternally married as husband and wife by God himself

Are you sure about this Teddy? Are you sure that other Christians don't teach that God married Adam and Eve prior to the fall? I mean, are you sure? (perhaps you should use google to see if Christians believe Adam and Eve were married)

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except for the fact that Jesus explicitly says there is no marriage in heaven

This is a common misconception.  But that's not really what Jesus says at all.  He said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30)

And I don't think this means that in Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, and Luke 20:27-39 that Jesus is saying, "there will be no marriages performed at all in the resurrection or after the resurrection".  Instead I understand this to mean that there will be no marriage for the specific people that Jesus was asked about in the context of the question.  The question came from the Sadducees: "Now there were with us seven brethren" (Matt 22:25).  The Sadducees didn't even believe in the resurrection and they were out of touch with true principles in many other ways, and the response by Jesus begins by putting their question in this context:  "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt 22:29).  In other words, they (the Sadducees) didn't understand the resurrection from the dead as taught in the scriptures and the "power of God", which I understand to mean that they didn't have the priesthood keys and authority to seal a man and woman for eternity.  

So when Jesus says, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven", I understand the "they" to mean the specific people who are in the circumstances posed in the question:  Not married and sealed by the priesthood power of God.  I think this idea is reinforced in Luke's account of this event, where Jesus says, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).  Elsewhere, the "children of this world" are contrasted against the "children of light" (Luke 16:8).  So in other words, "they" are people who marry under civil law only, the authority of the world, and not by the authority of God which is eternal.

And this is exactly how it puts it in Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17:

"Therefore, if a man 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.  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.  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."  (Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17)

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and Paul explicitly taught that marriage was only for those too weak for celibacy. 

Actually Paul had a specific context in mind, which was for preaching the gospel while on missionary journeys.  Paul was teaching that there was a great urgency in preaching the gospel (he called it "the present distress" - 1 Cor 7:26) and he used the same language in 1 Cor 9:16, "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!”

Paul was using himself as an example of this.  Paul was a married man (see St. Ignatius - Epistle to Philadelphians, Chapter 4, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book III, Chapter VI, 52-53, and Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans), and Paul had the "power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles" (1 Corinthians 9:5), but he declined to bring his wife with him on his missionary journeys, because a person preaching the gospel needed to be focused on doing that and not distracted by other issues.  

So Paul was not teaching that "marriage was only for those too weak for celibacy", but that those who are sent on missionary journeys to preach the gospel should focus on doing that and either remain unmarried for that period of time (it was a temporary situation), or be like Paul and have self-control and not bring their wife with them (see 1 Cor 7:5, NKJV:  "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control".) 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This is a common misconception.  But that's not really what Jesus says at all.  He said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30)

And I don't think this means that in Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, and Luke 20:27-39 that Jesus is saying, "there will be no marriages performed at all in the resurrection or after the resurrection".  Instead I understand this to mean that there will be no marriage for the specific people that Jesus was asked about in the context of the question.  The question came from the Sadducees: "Now there were with us seven brethren" (Matt 22:25).  The Sadducees didn't even believe in the resurrection and they were out of touch with true principles in many other ways, and the response by Jesus begins by putting their question in this context:  "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt 22:29).  In other words, they (the Sadducees) didn't understand the resurrection from the dead as taught in the scriptures and the "power of God", which I understand to mean that they didn't have the priesthood keys and authority to seal a man and woman for eternity.  

So when Jesus says, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven", I understand the "they" to mean the specific people who are in the circumstances posed in the question:  Not married and sealed by the priesthood power of God.  I think this idea is reinforced in Luke's account of this event, where Jesus says, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).  Elsewhere, the "children of this world" are contrasted against the "children of light" (Luke 16:8).  So in other words, "they" are people who marry under civil law only, the authority of the world, and not by the authority of God which is eternal.

And this is exactly how it puts it in Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17:

"Therefore, if a man 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.  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.  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."  (Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–17)

Actually Paul had a specific context in mind, which was for preaching the gospel while on missionary journeys.  Paul was teaching that there was a great urgency in preaching the gospel (he called it "the present distress" - 1 Cor 7:26) and he used the same language in 1 Cor 9:16, "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!”

Paul was using himself as an example of this.  Paul was a married man (see St. Ignatius - Epistle to Philadelphians, Chapter 4, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book III, Chapter VI, 52-53, and Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans), and Paul had the "power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles" (1 Corinthians 9:5), but he declined to bring his wife with him on his missionary journeys, because a person preaching the gospel needed to be focused on doing that and not distracted by other issues.  

So Paul was not teaching that "marriage was only for those too weak for celibacy", but that those who are sent on missionary journeys to preach the gospel should focus on doing that and either remain unmarried for that period of time (it was a temporary situation), or be like Paul and have self-control and not bring their wife with them (see 1 Cor 7:5, NKJV:  "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control".) 

Apologetics can argue “black” = “white”. Excellent example of not caring what the scriptures actually say, but twisting them to say whatever you currently want them to say. 

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Apologetics can argue “black” = “white”. Excellent example of not caring what the scriptures actually say, but twisting them to say whatever you currently want them to say. 

Not to argue with you, but can you explain what you mean by "what the scriptures actually say"?  Where did anything I say contradict "what the scriptures actually say"?

Edit to add:  And to be clear, I'm just pushing back against your specific comment (not to argue for or against anything said by the comment to which you originally responded).

Edited November 4, 2023 by InCognitus

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Not to argue with you, but can you explain what you mean by "what the scriptures actually say"?  Where did anything I say contradict "what the scriptures actually say"?

Your entire post?

With Jesus, the whole setup is a trap. A group that doesn’t believe in any resurrection is setting a trap for Jesus. How can a resurrection make any sense? Think about it. A woman is married to multiple people in this life? Who gets her in the next? Therefore no resurrection. 
 

Jesus could have said what you did. Could have said “priesthood authority” “sealings” or whatever words you wanted him to say. 
 

Instead he refuted the idea of marriage in heaven. “You think resurrection doesn’t make sense because of messy marriages? You are wrong because you misunderstand the scriptures. People aren’t married in heaven. They are like angels.” Jesus avoids the trap laid for him by refuting the premise. It’s the only reading that makes any sense. Unless you have a doctrine of eternal marriage that you bring to the text and therefore have to invent a reading where “black” = “white”. It doesn’t have to be plausible, but merely possible (say 1 in a million) - apologetics in a nut shell. 

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your entire post?

With Jesus, the whole setup is a trap. A group that doesn’t believe in any resurrection is setting a trap for Jesus. How can a resurrection make any sense? Think about it. A woman is married to multiple people in this life? Who gets her in the next? Therefore no resurrection. 
 

Jesus could have said what you did. Could have said “priesthood authority” “sealings” or whatever words you wanted him to say. 
 

Instead he refuted the idea of marriage in heaven. “You think resurrection doesn’t make sense because of messy marriages? You are wrong because you misunderstand the scriptures. People aren’t married in heaven. They are like angels.” Jesus avoids the trap laid for him by refuting the premise. It’s the only reading that makes any sense. Unless you have a doctrine of eternal marriage that you bring to the text and therefore have to invent a reading where “black” = “white”. It doesn’t have to be plausible, but merely possible (say 1 in a million) - apologetics in a nut shell. 

I agree with you that it was a trap because the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection.  But their question presupposes the doctrine of eternal marriage.  Why would they ask Jesus whose wife would she be in the resurrection if they had no concept of eternal marriage to begin with?  That was all part of the trap.  The response Jesus gave was to focus on the real problem, they didn't believe in the scriptures or the power of God, and consequently would be "as the angels of heaven".  And then Jesus turns to focus on the resurrection by pointing out that God told Moses that he is the "God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", and he is not the God of the dead, but of the living.  

But you say it's a matter of "black" = "white".  If that's the case, can you show me where Jesus says anything in his response about "no marriage in heaven" at all?  How does "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" say that?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

57 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree with you that it was a trap because the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection.  But their question presupposes the doctrine of eternal marriage.

Not your “doctrine of eternal marriage”. Absolutely not. They didn’t believe people were resurrected. They supposed that marriage would exist if people were resurrected absolutely. Jesus disabused them of this notion. If you think your reading is correct, please point me to a single non-latter-day saint biblical scholar that agrees with you. Just one. I’ll wait. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not your “doctrine of eternal marriage”. Absolutely not. They didn’t believe people were resurrected. They supposed that marriage would exist if people were resurrected absolutely. Jesus disabused them of this notion. If you think your reading is correct, please point me to a single non-latter-day saint biblical scholar that agrees with you. Just one. I’ll wait. 

This has been talked about in other threads, but Jesus spoke on whether or not people get married after the resurrection, not on whether or not people who were married prior to the resurrection continue to be married.

But I completely agree with you and others. The doctrine of eternal marriage is not “glaringly obvious” in the scriptures.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not your “doctrine of eternal marriage”. Absolutely not. They didn’t believe people were resurrected. They supposed that marriage would exist if people were resurrected absolutely. Jesus disabused them of this notion. If you think your reading is correct, please point me to a single non-latter-day saint biblical scholar that agrees with you. Just one. I’ll wait. 

You are missing the point.  Of course "they" (the Sadducees) didn't believe in eternal marriage or the resurrection, but they knew that Jesus believed in and taught both, which is why they posed the question the way they did it and why it was part of the "trap". 

And again, if this is such a "black" and "white" issue, then where can I find a blanket affirmation of what you say that Jesus said, that "there is no marriage in heaven"?

As for how ambiguous this statement is (and not "black" and "white" as you suppose), observe this discussion of the passage on the Biblical Hermeneutics stack exchange:   "Does "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" refer to the act of getting married, or the state of being married?"

Part of the discussion included in the link above: "The statement clearly refers to the act of marrying; whether it also refers to the state of being married is debatable. Does being 'like the angels' mean that the marriage bond is dissolved? I would argue that it does not."  In other words, it's not a black or white statement.

As for a non-LDS commentary that also explains the marriage question, see The One Volume Bible Commentary, Edited by The Rev. J.R. Dummelow, M.A., Queens' College Cambridge, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1936, p. 698.  This is commentary on Matthew 22:28:

"There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life.  A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade.  There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendour of the Divine Majesty.'  But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection.  The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands.  The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfil their functions.'  The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'"

The commentary on verse 30 says:  "The angels] Jesus takes the opportunity of rebuking the Sadducees' disbelief in angels (Ac 23:8)."

Edit to add:   I should ask you the same question of your "black" and "white" statement from Paul from 1 Corinthians chapter 7.  Historical sources show us that Paul was a married man.  Not many people who try to say Paul was trying to support celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 seem to acknowledge this.  And this is not just an LDS view, as I referenced the sources from the early Christians in my prior post.  

Edited November 4, 2023 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

Matthew 22:23-30 no act of marrying in eternity =/= no married people in eternity

We have The Sadducees who only believed the 5 Books of Moses are authoritative, and Moses doesn't contain any Resurrection prooftexts. Jesus from a Royal Davidic tradition that had sacred marriages and with the Pharisees believed in the resurrection and that the books of the Prophets and the Apocrypha were authoritative, which do support a resurrection.

The law of Moses does not support polyandrous marriages, so the Sadducees, who error not knowing the scriptures, take a shot at the resurrection using Book of Tobit which contains a woman previously married to seven men who died before they consummated the marriage. Though if they were resurrected, they could then, in theory, consummate their marriage, in that case the riddle, who's wife will she be? Jesus said they error, she'll be married to none (she was officially married to Tobias) and one can't not "get" married "in the resurrection" after they are already judged and resurrected, the time for ordinances is over.

Jesus did not address those already married before the resurrection. As a remnant of the royal cult, he likely did have a royal temple marriage rite (Psalms are temple hymns, Psalm 45 is the royal marriage hymn), as Kingly anti-Adam, as Adam became twain, Kings and Queens became one flesh, so Christ's Law forbid divorce, marriage was a thing no man can put a sunder. The Book of Tobit called Tobius' marriage "forever", I don't know where the verse or from what version it is from right now, I read it from Matthew Brown's Restoring All Things, if anyone has that and post it.

1 Cor. 6-11 Paul preaching chastity, not celibacy

1 Cor 6:18, Flee fornication. Chapter 7, (v1), It is good for a man not to touch a woman), when not married or serving a calling like a mission. v3 Spouses should treat each other kindly. v5 even married couples mutually agree to a period of abstinence in order to “devote [themselves] to prayer” v7 a calling that may include celibacy as something that is “given” to people in a calling or go on a mission.  If even those who are married, the Christian community may have admonished times of temporary celibacy, marriage itself is still the commandment, still the intended order of things. "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11). 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Pyreaux