Are Mormons right about eternal marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
In dialogue I came to realize the scripture that Christ tells his Disciples " Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Now for Catholics, I have always been under the impression, and forgive me if I’m wrong that this scripture justifies Confession to priests who have the apostolic authority. However, why wouldn’t this also apply to marriage? I know the parable of the Pharisee who asks Christ about the seven brothers who marry the same women and all die so which one would she be married to in heaven, kind of goes against the notion of eternal marriage.
With that said though, if a priest can forgive sins and it is bound in heaven, why when you marry by authority of a priest is it not bound in heaven as well?
 
Mormons, like others, keep forgetting Yeshua was Jewish, living in Jewish culture. So, no they are not right in this

People need to remember when Christ said this, He was a Jew, speaking to Jews, in Jewish culture

Yeshua was Jewish and “binding and loosing” power came from Judaism

sidroth.org/articles/binding-loosing-torah-power/
 
The bride and the groom are the ones administering the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, not the priest:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125
 
Jesus himself taught about the woman who had 7 husbands (Matthew 22: 28-30)

Jesus replied,*“You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.*At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven"

I think marriage serves an earthly purpose but after death and at the resurrection we have a new purpose perhaps that is why he says we will be like the angels?
 
No they are not correct, thankfully so.

I hope my husband makes it to heaven. He’s been helping me, and I help him.
 
The only relationship you have in Heaven is with God. The purpose of marriage is to bear children and raise a family, there is no need for that in heaven.
 
Catholic1954 said:
The only relationship you have in Heaven is with God.
Click to expand...
I think this isn’t quite correct. We have relationships with the saints in heaven - so we know they have relationships with us, in addition to their relationships with God. No marriage, but we don’t forget about other people in heaven. I’ve gotten the impression that our relationships are simply rightly ordered there.
 
MrsAngelala said:
I think this isn’t quite correct. We have relationships with the saints in heaven - so we know they have relationships with us, in addition to their relationships with God. No marriage, but we don’t forget about other people in heaven. I’ve gotten the impression that our relationships are simply rightly ordered there.
Click to expand...
Clearly, our primary relationship will be with Father, Son and Holy Spirit - we being actual members/parts of Christ’s mystical Body here on earth, that relationship will be perfected in heaven.

The BOM or LDS would seem to support Mary’s fidelity to God and lack of “brothers and sisters” of Jesus, since they believe that God has a physical body and had actual sexual relations with Mary. Thus, any relations with Joseph, unless a part of the allowed/tolerated polygamy of the LDS, would have been infidelity to God.

Novel religions and beliefs certainly complicate the picture.
 
I think the reason marriage is only on earth is because it’s an image of the Heavenly reality for the Church as a whole as the Bride and for individual souls. (Which religious start here on earth minus the Beatific vision of course). In Heaven we’ll all have the reality that marriage signifies 🙂
 
OP, I certainly hope the Mormons are not right in this. They have posthumously “sealed” many an historic couple in defiance of Catholic tradition, teaching, and authority. Many Catholic saints have acquired spouses they never had in life. Many marriages annulled by the Church have been “cast in concrete” again because “the records exist.” Historical accuracy aside, it’s just plain wrong to use the dead for religious fodder for reinforcing the living, which is what posthumous temple ritual is really all about.

As to living associations among active Mormons, temple marriages are the goal, of course. Secreted away in finely decorated little rooms, with focused mirrors showing the couple disappearing together into “eternity.” Kneeling opposite each other in special garments and clasping hands in a sacred sign of priesthood authority. And no regard for the husband marrying the wife, or the wife marrying the husband–the union is pronounced by a specially appointed “sealing authority” designated by the temple. No one but faithful, recommend-holding Mormons can attend. A so-called “eternal marriage” is too easily cancelled simply by voiding the sealing. It happens a lot.

My great-great grandmother escaped the Salt Lake Valley for greener pastures in 1867. She was a plural wife. She found refuge in California.

Whom God has joined, let no man put asunder. The couple united in the Sacrament of Matrimony has assurance that God is at the center of it.
 
jas84173 said:
In dialogue I came to realize the scripture that Christ tells his Disciples " Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Now for Catholics, I have always been under the impression, and forgive me if I’m wrong that this scripture justifies Confession to priests who have the apostolic authority. However, why wouldn’t this also apply to marriage? I know the parable of the Pharisee who asks Christ about the seven brothers who marry the same women and all die so which one would she be married to in heaven, kind of goes against the notion of eternal marriage.
With that said though, if a priest can forgive sins and it is bound in heaven, why when you marry by authority of a priest is it not bound in heaven as well?
Click to expand...
I actually think this can be answered using logic, philosophy, and the natural law.

Let’s look at my Great-Grandmother for a moment. She was married at 14 and had a child. However, her husband died a few years after she was married and she remarried my Great-Grandfather when she was 19.

Would it make sense for a perfectly healthy, 19 year old widow - with a 4 year old child - to be forced to remain single for the rest of her life? No. According to St. John Paul II, all women are called to “motherhood” (not necessary biological motherhood, but they are all called to some kind of motherhood), so would it make logical sense for a young woman (who’s not called to the religious life) to be forced to refrain from having more children simply because her husband died? Or should she have the right to find a new father for her child and to have the opportunity to bare more children?

The primary purpose of marriage is to create a family and our natural inclination is be part of a family. So if marriage is about human families, why would it be logical to be forced to remain in a “partial family” after the death of a loved one?

Now, I’m not saying that everyone should remarry after the death of their spouse. However, it’s a lot to ask for a 16 year old widow to remain single for the rest of her life.

I pray this helps.

God bless.
 
Christian vows read:
As long as you both shall live OR until death do you part.

Clearly we’re not married in heaven.
 
Betuchan said:
Jesus himself taught about the woman who had 7 husbands (Matthew 22: 28-30)

Jesus replied,*“You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.*At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven"

I think marriage serves an earthly purpose but after death and at the resurrection we have a new purpose perhaps that is why he says we will be like the angels?
Click to expand...
(Bolding mine) The Bible is clear on t he issue.
 
Marie5890 said:
Mormons, like others, keep forgetting Yeshua was Jewish, living in Jewish culture. So, no they are not right in this

People need to remember when Christ said this, He was a Jew, speaking to Jews, in Jewish culture

Yeshua was Jewish and “binding and loosing” power came from Judaism

sidroth.org/articles/binding-loosing-torah-power/
Click to expand...
I glad you point out how Jesus’ words need to be understood in an ancient Jewish context.

Here’s a statement by J. G. Davies explaining how Jesus referring to bread as His body needs to be looked at in a Jewish context:

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)
 
po18guy said:
The BOM or LDS would seem to support Mary’s fidelity to God and lack of “brothers and sisters” of Jesus, since they believe that God has a physical body and had actual sexual relations with Mary.
Click to expand...
This statement that there is an LDS doctrine or belief that Mary and God had sexual intercourse with each other is a false one.
 
Betuchan said:
Jesus himself taught about the woman who had 7 husbands (Matthew 22: 28-30)

Jesus replied,*“You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.*At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven"
Click to expand...
This verse clearly states that men will not marry in the resurrection and women will not be given in marriage in the resurrection. However, it clearly does not say that existing marriages will be ended at the resurrection.

A non-LDS scholar stated…

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.” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)
 
gazelam said:
I glad you point out how Jesus’ words need to be understood in an ancient Jewish context.

Here’s a statement by J. G. Davies explaining how Jesus referring to bread as His body needs to be looked at in a Jewish context:

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)
Click to expand...
🤷

And this attempt to teach Catholics that our belief about the Eucharist is wrong relates to this conversation how?

Seriously, non-Catholics are welcome here. But please don’t try to proselytize.

And in response to your quote above, it’s a pity Mr Davies (who was not Catholic and did not believe in transubstantiation) did not consider the Catholic teaching on the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John.
 
gazelam said:
This verse clearly states that men will not marry in the resurrection and women will not be given in marriage in the resurrection. However, it clearly does not say that existing marriages will be ended at the resurrection.

A non-LDS scholar stated…

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.” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)
Click to expand...
Ben Witherington is also a non-Catholic.

🤷

Seriously, as a Catholic I don’t even have to agree with Catholic theologians if I believe they are teaching something contrary to Catholic teaching – as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why on earth would I turn to one of hundreds of thousands of Protestant pastors as my definitive source on any matter as important as biblical truth?

Sheesh. :dts:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top