Are Mormons right about eternal marriage?

[Gertabelle]

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?

It is the bride and groom – through their vows – that creates the marriage.

The vows state “until death us do part” or “as long as we both shall live.”

Because the priest (or deacon) serves only as a witness (and to bless the couple), and because the vows themselves state that the marriage is only for this lifetime, our marriages are NOT bound in heaven after death.

 

[kimg901]

This statement that there is an LDS doctrine or belief that Mary and God had sexual intercourse with each other is a false one.

Really? Mormon Authorities

• Brigham Young (Mormonism’s 2nd president-prophet): “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” [The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City] (As citedhere by McKeever and Shafovaloff)
• Brigham Young (Mormonism’s 2nd president-prophet): “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
• Heber C. Kimball: “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:54]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism’s 10th president-prophet): “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [Family Home Evening Manual (1972), 125, 126.]
• Orson Pratt: the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones [The Seer, 158.]
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS ‘General Authority’): “…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]

 

[RebeccaJ]

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?

A few things to consider.

All of the Sacraments are for our benefit, in this life. They also prefigure, a glimpse if you will, into the Kingdom of God. Most often a Catholic discussion on how the Sacraments prefigure our life in heaven are centered on the Eucharist, which as it should be as the center of our faith is Jesus Christ. All of the other Sacraments flow from this center.

Matrimony is a communion of persons, it reflects the union of the Holy Trinity. “What God has joined together let no man put asunder” is one of the scriptures cited as why divorce is not allowed. The union of a married couple is a sign of one of one of the graces of the sacrament of matrimony. (Divorce is allowed in Mormonism.)

This union is fulfilled in heaven, where it is perfected, joined to the Father in the perfect love of God and where the love between married people is perfected.

This is a homily of the same vein. catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3793

In addition, the Sacrament of Baptism seals us to Jesus. We are His Body. We don’t need to be sealed to each other, as Mormonism teaches about marriage, as we are all sealed to Jesus. Our baptism, again, a Sacrament that prefigure our life in heaven, where we share in the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as a people, in communion with each other, in perfected love, through Jesus Christ. The Sacraments, including matrimony, will then be fulfilled.

We can think of it like the requirement for the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb, in the OT, which prefigured Christ. Christ didn’t abolish the Law, He fulfilled it. So it will be for the Sacraments, in heaven. They won’t be abolished, they will be fulfilled.

Hope that helps.

 

[JMM1957]

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, there will be no existing marriages here on earth, carried over into heaven. The question about the seven brothers was talking about marriages that occurred on earth prior to the resurrection, and Jesus would not have been answering the question posed to him if he only was talking about marriages that occurred after the resurrection. Jesus answer covered both scenarios, being married before death, and a marriage after the resurrection of the dead. We will not have existing wives or take a new wife in heaven, period.

 

[Tarquin]

Thank you ever so much, Kimg901, you saved me the time.

But gazelem is also correct. Mormons do not believe this now. (August 24, 2017).

They *did *believe it in earlier.

As time passed, they somehow felt it was advisable to withhold some of their “deeper” doctrines from people who were “not sufficiently prepared,” i.e. critics and other non-Mormons. The result of that dissembling was that even some who believed in Mormonism and were members in good standing, didn’t get the teachings. I remember priesthood meetings (I visited more than a few) where someone would state something out of the most gnostic depths, and several men would be surprised and asked if this were really true. The approved source would be cited, and all would gather round to congratulate themselves on how blessed they were to have these new truths (that they could do nothing significant with).

I thought I had also read the doctrine in question (I may be mistaken) in Joseph Fielding Smith’s 3 volume “Doctrines of Salvation” which continues some other remarkable, authoritative, ex cathedra, official, Prophet-uttered curiosities.

Really? Mormon Authorities

• Brigham Young (Mormonism’s 2nd president-prophet): “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” [The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City] (As citedhere by McKeever and Shafovaloff)
• Brigham Young (Mormonism’s 2nd president-prophet): “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
• Heber C. Kimball: “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:54]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism’s 10th president-prophet): “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [Family Home Evening Manual (1972), 125, 126.]
• Orson Pratt: the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones [The Seer, 158.]
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS ‘General Authority’): “…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]

 

[gazelam]

Really? Mormon Authorities

• Brigham Young (Mormonism’s 2nd president-prophet): “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” [The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City] (As citedhere by McKeever and Shafovaloff)
• Brigham Young (Mormonism’s 2nd president-prophet): “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
• Heber C. Kimball: “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:54]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism’s 10th president-prophet): “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [Family Home Evening Manual (1972), 125, 126.]
• Orson Pratt: the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who **begat **the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones [The Seer, 158.]
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS ‘General Authority’): “…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]

Hmmm… Where have I heard similar phrases before? Oh!! Now I remember! It’s recited each week at Catholic Mass!

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God

 

[kimg901]

Hmmm… Where have I heard similar phrases before? Oh!! Now I remember! It’s recited each week at Catholic Mass!

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God

You are correct Gaze. But we don’t believe the God actually had sexual relations with Mary. Reading what I posted I take it that Jesus was created just as you and I were.

 

[Gertabelle]

Hmmm… Where have I heard similar phrases before? Oh!! Now I remember! It’s recited each week at Catholic Mass!

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God

Yup, we Catholics believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

But here’s how we believe that came about:

485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son. The Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the giver of Life”, is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus’ humanity comes from Mary, not from the Father.

Contrary to the LDS, we also believe that Jesus exists for all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit – three divine Persons in the one true God. He assumed flesh at His conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary – but He was not created at his conception, unlike the rest of humanity.

 

[Chris-WA]

Hmmm… Where have I heard similar phrases before? Oh!! Now I remember! It’s recited each week at Catholic Mass!

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God

What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about??? Are you seriously claiming that the Creed is saying the same thing as Brigham Young? C’mon man, nobody is falling for that nonsense.

 

[Chris-WA]

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?

No, the Mormons are not right about eternal marriage. Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman who authored fake scripture, conned people out of their money, made up fake revelations, pretended to translate ancient documents that we now know for certain are completely wrong, committed polygamy and polyandry while hiding it and lying about it to his first wife and his own church (even marrying girls as young as 14 ), destroyed a newspaper printing press that dared challenge his authenticity, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. He was a false prophet who started a false religion, so no, the Mormons are not correct about eternal marriage or any other uniquely LDS doctrine or teaching.

 

[gazelam]

You are correct Gaze. But we don’t believe the God actually had sexual relations with Mary.

You quoted Bruce McConkie who said “begotten means begotten”. It’s clearly disingenuous to say, “well, we Catholics call Jesus the Only Begotten of the Father and we mean that occurred without sexual relations, but those Mormons call Jesus the Only Begotten of the Father and they mean that occurred by means of sexual relations”.

Isn’t what’s good for the theological goose good for the theological gander?

Reading what I posted I take it that Jesus was created just as you and I were.

How are you doing anything else here other than attempting to cast LDS believe is the worst light possibly?

 

[gazelam]

Yup, we Catholics believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

But here’s how we believe that came about:

Here’s how LDS came to believe this:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-35

*31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.*

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus’ humanity comes from Mary, not from the Father.

LDS believe the same. I hope this helps.

 

[JMM1957]

Here’s how LDS came to believe this:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-35

*31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.*

LDS believe the same. I hope this helps.

First of all, Catholics don’t accept Nephi and Alma as scripture, I’m sure you know that, so why quote it?

 

[JMM1957]

Here’s how LDS came to believe this:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive

, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-35

*31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 **Then said Mary unto the angel,How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.**

LDS believe the same. I hope this helps.*

Mary was a betrothed virgin, and obviously intended to stay that way, otherwise why would she say what she did to the angel, “how shall this be, since I have no relations with a man?” Surely, Mary was quite aware of how children are physically/sexually conceived, don’t you think? The previous verses to this one help further to explain Mary’s question:

28
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
29
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
30
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus
32
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,* and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
33
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34
But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”*
35
And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called Holy, the Son of God.

Now, if Mary had planned to have relations with Joseph, then of course she could have conceived a child immediately, and what the angel said would have made total sense to her. Evidently, this is not what Mary had planned though. Also, the angel said Mary would conceive a son, not a daughter. Who has control over what sex your conceived child will be ahead of time, except God, right? Already we see that there is something unique going on here, not normal sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, correct?

Jesus, though He was conceived in Mary, and was fully human, also was divine in nature. The angel said how this would happen in verse 35, the Holy Spirit would come upon her, and the power of the Most High would overshadow her and the child would be born Holy, the Son of God. The language used here, “come upon her”, and “overshadow her”, denotes a particular way in which she would conceive by the Most High God, not at all like a male and female human would conceive a child, in a physical contact/sexual way.

You don’t think God could make Mary conceive any other way than coming down and actually laying with her?

 

[Stephen168]

You quoted Bruce McConkie who said “begotten means begotten”. It’s clearly disingenuous to say, “well, we Catholics call Jesus the Only Begotten of the Father and we mean that occurred without sexual relations, but those Mormons call Jesus the Only Begotten of the Father and they mean that occurred by means of sexual relations”.

Isn’t what’s good for the theological goose good for the theological gander?

Mormons are materialists and have a different understanding of the word, “begotten.” It is not the same as the ancient and Catholic understanding of the word.

Italian: generato, non creato, della stessa sostanza del Padre; generated, not created, same substance as the Father

Greek: Γεννηθέντα, ου ποιηθέντα, ομοούσιον τω Πατρί; begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father

German: gezeugt, nicht geschaffen, eines Wesens mit dem Vater; begotten, not made , of one being with the Father

French: Engendré, non pas créé, de même nature que le Père; generated, not made, the same nature as the Father

Mormons believe “created,”“made,” and “begotten” have the same meaning.

How are you doing anything else here other than attempting to cast LDS believe is the worst light possibly?

It is the ever changing Mormon theology that creates the bad light.

 

[Gertabelle]

You quoted Bruce McConkie who said “begotten means begotten”. It’s clearly disingenuous to say, “well, we Catholics call Jesus the Only Begotten of the Father and we mean that occurred without sexual relations, but those Mormons call Jesus the Only Begotten of the Father and they mean that occurred by means of sexual relations”.

Isn’t what’s good for the theological goose good for the theological gander?

It’s impossible to have a coherent conversation if you can’t even understand the most basic precepts of discourse.

kimg901 quoted Bruce McConkie to refute your claim that LDS do not believe Jesus was conceived through sexual relations.

kimg901 quoted LDS sources to refute your claims. Your religion. Your claim. Your religious sources proving you wrong.

Seems clear to me.

And LDS author’s beliefs have absolutely no bearing on Catholic teaching.

And if you cannot understand this, there is no point in trying to have any sort of conversation.

My 13 year old has a better concept of reasoning, relevant sources, and how to apply those sources.

 

[gazelam]

First of all, Catholics don’t accept Nephi and Alma as scripture, I’m sure you know that, so why quote it?

The poster in comment #28 graciously pointed me to an authoritative Catholic source. I was simply returning the favor by pointing him or her to an authoritative LDS source. I hope this helps…

 

[JMM1957]

The poster in comment #28 graciously pointed me to an authoritative Catholic source. I was simply returning the favor by pointing him or her to an authoritative LDS source. I hope this helps…

I understand.

 

[JMM1957]

gazelam, How do the Mormons explain the conception of John the Baptist, just curious?

 

[gazelam]

You don’t think God could make Mary conceive any other way than coming down and actually laying with her?

Perhaps we are in agreement! I think God could make Mary conceive 1000 different ways other than coming down and actually laying with her. Take care.