Telstar,
Why would it be an insult to say a person is going to have exactly the kind of life in eternity that they want to have, and prepare for and live for?
Why? Because I’ve seen those same kinds of comments made several times before by LDS, especially when they can’t think of any other way to respond (not just here on this forum). But, it’s OK, Parker. I completely understand why you do it. To tell you the truth, I’m perfectly happy being the ‘schmuck’ that doesn’t buy into all that gnostic ‘secret knowledge’ stuff, so I really don’t mind the subtle implications behind your saying it. If it makes you feel better, go for it, because it doesn’t affect me in the least. God alone will decide who goes where, Heaven or hell, and I’m OK with His decision. Your LDS beliefs have no bearing on any of it, anyway. If you think they do, then that’s totally up to you to take up with God. You will have made your own choice based on your beliefs. I just hope you’ll be happy, wherever you end up.
The Luke passage carries just as much a meaning as the Matthew passage, in that the “children of this world” is an expression that is not unusual in the Bible, so the “children of this world” being a differentiation from the “children of light” is not an unusual differentiation (see for example Luke 16:8), especially when considering that the Savior was addressing the unbelieving Sadducees and especially when looking at the words “marry, and are given in marriage” (reminding a reader of the New Testament of Matthew 24:28).
You’re absolutely correct that the passage in Luke means the same thing as Matthew, but that’s about as far as your being correct about it goes. The phrase “the children of
this world” refers to all those who were still alive and kicking on the earth, as opposed to “they that shall be accounted worthy of
that world”, which clearly refers to those that will be saved and live on the ‘New Earth’,
after the resurrection. That entire discussion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, per se, because it’s just a discussion of the resurrection with the Sadducees, who only used that foolish analogy about 7 brothers to try and trip Jesus up (it sure seems to have worked very well on you and JS). That’s
the main point of the discussion, period. If you can’t understand that, just by reading it (without all of the ‘phraseology’ mumbo-jumbo, created by Joseph Smith to make it fit with what*** he*** wanted people to believe), then I certainly can’t help you and neither can anyone else.
The “children of this world”, including the Sadducees, have marriages that are for this life only. They are content with that. The Sadducees were also being taught that there is a resurrection, and that those who kept the law of Moses but yet didn’t come to believe in Christ and learn about the eternal marriage covenant that He taught about in Matthew 19:8, will be “children of the resurrection” and will indeed receive that blessing and be as the angels in heaven, with no marriage. So He let them know that the resurrection is real, even for the “children of this world”.
It doesn’t matter what kind of title you give to people, or how you choose to classify them. Every marriage between a man and a woman is only for as long as they are
both alive on this earth. As soon as one of them dies, it’s all over, and the one that remains is free to remarry. That was the point that Jesus was making. It doesn’t mean diddlysquat how many times you get married because
no one will remain married in the next life. When Jesus referred to them “putting away their wives”, He was referring to divorce, which is an abomination to God because no man has a right to divorce his wife for selfish reasons. That’s when the line “what God has joined together, let no man tear asunder” comes into play, but only in *this *life on earth. There is no such thing as ‘eternal marriage’ for anyone.
BTW… if that passage actually refers to ‘eternal marriage’, then why is it only LDS men that can have more than one wife, when that example clearly shows a woman having 7 husbands?
