LDS and Catholic Theological Differences - The Family

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I am getting the impression this morning that I ought to go ahead and explain a difference that can at least be imagined, if not perceived, in the two ways of thinking about the marriage covenant–that God and the husband and wife are involved jointly in the marriage, but on the one hand it is only “until death do you part” whereas on the other hand it is “for time and for all eternity.”

You may have heard of the book that came out many years ago, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. I’m not an expert on the subject by any means, but a fairly simple concept to grasp is that women come into marriage thinking how wonderful it will be and then soon find that there are things about their husband they would like to “help him see” so he can change them and make the marriage better. This is fine. It goes right along with what Adam was told about Eve–that she would be an “help meet” for him. “Help meet” his potential, for one thing! Help him realize that he is not the be-all and the end-all with what he knows about the world, and that he needs in a very real way his wife, a woman of tenderness and sympathy and empathy and compassion and gentleness and a perspective he completely lacks. Then, he gets to figure out how to meet her needs and to change himself so that he can meet her needs better.

Meanwhile, the man had entered into the marriage originally thinking (according to Mars-Venus) that she was perfect, just what he needed, and that she ought to stay exactly as she was when they dated. Yet here she comes into marriage and starts to change! He gets to figure out that change is a part of the “ball-game”. Change leads to repentance, leads to being a better person, a more compassionate and understanding and loving person, a person closer to Christ and closer to being like Christ.

In the eternal marriage covenant, that couple realizes that even though they have differences, they might as well not just “set the differences aside” and endure patiently until the next life, when they won’t have to “put up” with the spouse who wasn’t willing to change. They get to realize they ought to figure out how to meet each other’s needs, and do it today and tomorrow and next week as best they can, with Christ’s help and with each other’s patience along the way. Where does this kind of situation end up? With two people who have loved each other and supported each other through thick and thin, and done it with a feeling of oneness whereby they feel mutually supported and can see in very deed that their marriage was indeed “ordained of God” and placed them in a situation to progress in learning to be like Christ far faster than had they just “gone it alone” in the world.

Have a wonderful day. You have my permission to share the above with your husband.

Thank you for this, Parker. It is beautiful. I totally agree that we are to help our spouses get to Heaven and help each other become more like Christ. When we get to Heaven, however, we are in the presence of God and have no more need for that same type of relationship as we had on earth. We don’t need our spouse to “help” us do anything - we are with God who is perfect. Perhaps that is what I don’t get about celestial marriage and all that it entails.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for this, Parker. It is beautiful. I totally agree that we are to help our spouses get to Heaven and help each other become more like Christ. When we get to Heaven, however, we are in the presence of God and have no more need for that same type of relationship as we had on earth. We don’t need our spouse to “help” us do anything - we are with God who is perfect. Perhaps that is what I don’t get about celestial marriage and all that it entails.

Jay53,
We will indeed be with God who is perfect, there in Heaven. But without our spouse, we will still not be anywhere near perfect. The husband needs the wife now, and the wife needs the husband now. There is nothing that magically changes in the resurrection to say, “I don’t need you anymore.” That joint covenant, with God at the center of it, was intended for the good of both who entered into the marriage covenant. It was for their benefit when they entered into it, and it is still for their benefit in eternity. It is for their eternal benefit and blessing.

Have a splendid day.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
We will indeed be with God who is perfect, there in Heaven. But without our spouse, we will still not be anywhere near perfect. The husband needs the wife now, and the wife needs the husband now. There is nothing that magically changes in the resurrection to say, “I don’t need you anymore.” That joint covenant, with God at the center of it, was intended for the good of both who entered into the marriage covenant. It was for their benefit when they entered into it, and it is still for their benefit in eternity. It is for their eternal benefit and blessing.

Have a splendid day.

We don’t “need” our spouses in the Resurrection. We have God. I don’t know why you don’t think He is enough. Certainly we will be with our spouses (and our families) in Heaven, but we don’t “need” them for a marital relationship such as we had on earth.

And none of this addresses where Jesus, or subsequently His apostles, taught any of these doctrines about having to be married to be in the presence of God, eternal increase, ruling our own worlds etc.

 

[Chris-WA]

I want to let anyone reading know that I certainly believe Jesus and have an understanding of His teachings, including being able to diagram a fairly simple paragraph in which the Sadducees introduced a subject to Him, and He used His language with the understood subject being built into the verb as He described the condition in the resurrection (being like angels) of the seven hypothetical Sadducees brothers whom the Sadducees asking the question were referring to with their question.

One diagrams such a paragraph by identifying the subject and thus being able to match that understood subject when a verb is used that has an understood subject, such as the verb “are neither married nor are given in marriage”. In English, the understood subject is rendered to the word “they”, but that is not so in some languages such as the original language of the text. The word “they” in English for that verse, refers directly back to the subject that was introduced by the Sadducees’ question–which subject is the seven Sadducees brothers who didn’t believe in the resurrection, married the same woman after each one died successively, and found themselves being resurrected after all (much to their surprise, of course, since they taught and believed there would be no resurrection)."

The above is not “mental gymnastics”. It is taking grammar and using it to understand the use of an understood subject, “they”.

O.K., I read your post and I have to say that you sound like a used-car saleman trying to sell me a lemon. If you could just hear yourself objectively you would see how rediculous this entire arugment sounds.

The Sadducees used their hypothetical example because they thought it would “trap” Jesus because of an existent belief that marriage continues after the resurrection

What existant belief? Do you have proof that the Jews believed and practiced eternal marriage? You better be able to back this one up if you’re going to make such a claim. Are you now claiming that the Jews were performing celestial marriage sealings in the temple? Where are you getting this?

Jesus used the hypothetical example to specifically answer the Sadducees’ question. Their question had been specific, about “whose wife will she be?” His answer was that all the dead brothers (“they” in English, but an understood subject that is part of the verb conjugation in the original textual language) “neither marry, nor are given in marriage…”

Jesus was not saying anything about other people besides the seven hypothetical Sadducees brothers and their hypothetical wife, but it can be concluded that anyone else who has the qualities of the Sadducees (not believing in Christ, not believing in the resurrection, not believing in eternal covenants, not believing in eternal marriage) will receive a resurrection that is similar to the Sadducees–but this has nothing to do with a believer who is willing and desirous of entering into the eternal marriage covenant. Jesus’ statement was specific, not a generalization about all humankind, at all.

I’m sorry but your conclusions are simply incorrect. Jesus in no way is implying anything about non-Saducees believing and practicing eternal marriage. You have added all of this yourself. You have projected current LDS belief back onto the Jews 2000 years ago where it simply did not exist. You are adding ideas that are not found there. In fact the only biblical passage (the one in question) mentioning the concept of marriage in heaven says that there isn’t marriage in heaven.

Catholics have their belief about marriage, which is their choice, but Jesus’ teaching about marriage for covenant believers is His citation about the prototypical covenant marriage of Adam and Eve, who were married by God Himself performing the marriage ceremony, and God is an eternal Being and Jesus taught that a covenant marriage should not be “put asunder” by man. This is what Jesus taught about covenant marriages.

“Put asunder” by man refers to the prohibition against divorce, and has nothing to do with eternal marriage. It’s divorce Jesus is talking about, which He tells us is wrong. Again you are adding meaning that is not there in order to justify LDS teaching. When Jesus was discussing this He was talking about how Moses had permitted divorce because of the hardness of the peoples’ hearts, but that from the beginning divorce was not the way things were supposed to be. He is saying absolutely nothing here about eternal marriage.

I have also previously noted on other threads that Christ would logically not marry because He knew perfectly well that He was going to be killed at a young age, and would logically not bring a wife and children into the predicament of being a young widow or fatherless.

Christ didn’t marry because He was going to be killed at a young age? Oh come on man. That has nothing to do with it. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but you have now officially drifted away from LDS teaching into the realm of ParkerD speculation. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[ParkerD]

We don’t “need” our spouses in the Resurrection. We have God. I don’t know why you don’t think He is enough. Certainly we will be with our spouses (and our families) in Heaven, but we don’t “need” them for a marital relationship such as we had on earth.

And none of this addresses where Jesus, or subsequently His apostles, taught any of these doctrines about having to be married to be in the presence of God, eternal increase, ruling our own worlds etc.

Jay53,
If you’re saying you don’t “need” anyone in the Resurrection, then I suppose that will be how it will be for you. You can certainly choose that.

What boggles my mind is that you already “have God”. He is omnipresent, no? You have the Holy Spirit, no? What will God do for you there that He does not already do for you here?

 

[ParkerD]

O.K., I read your post and I have to say that you sound like a used-car saleman trying to sell me a lemon. If you could just hear yourself objectively you would see how ridiculous this entire argument sounds.

What existant belief? Do you have proof that the Jews believed and practiced eternal marriage? You better be able to back this one up if you’re going to make such a claim. Are you now claiming that the Jews were performing celestial marriage sealings in the temple? Where are you getting this?

I’m sorry but your conclusions are simply incorrect. Jesus in no way is implying anything about non-Saducees believing and practicing eternal marriage. You have added all of this yourself. You have projected current LDS belief back onto the Jews 2000 years ago where it simply did not exist. You are adding ideas that are not found there. In fact the only biblical passage (the one in question) mentioning the concept of marriage in heaven says that there isn’t marriage in heaven.

“Put asunder” by man refers to the prohibition against divorce, and has nothing to do with eternal marriage. It’s divorce Jesus is talking about, which He tells us is wrong. Again you are adding meaning that is not there in order to justify LDS teaching. When Jesus was discussing this He was talking about how Moses had permitted divorce because of the hardness of the peoples’ hearts, but that from the beginning divorce was not the way things were supposed to be. He is saying absolutely nothing here about eternal marriage.

Christ didn’t marry because He was going to be killed at a young age? Oh come on man. That has nothing to do with it. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but you have now officially drifted away from LDS teaching into the realm of ParkerD speculation. Where are you getting this stuff?

Chris-WA,
I can’t help it if you don’t have a background in grammar. You certainly can retain your beliefs and will have precisely what you have been promised by your leaders–being like an angel in heaven, like the Sadducees.

Why should you trouble yourself at all about LDS beliefs? I suggest you leave it alone, and move on with your life and be the best Catholic you can be.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Reading comprehension is defined as the level of understanding of a writing. Proficient reading depends on the ability to recognize words quickly and effortlessly. If word recognition is difficult, students use too much of their processing capacity to read individual words, which interferes with their ability to comprehend what is read.

 

[ParkerD]

Reading comprehension is defined as the level of understanding of a writing. Proficient reading depends on the ability to recognize words quickly and effortlessly. If word recognition is difficult, students use too much of their processing capacity to read individual words, which interferes with their ability to comprehend what is read.

RebeccaJ
To get either reading comprehension or reading proficiency, one needs to use grammar with accuracy, especially when reading a text that has been translated from a foreign language.

What appears obvious is that many Catholics think they “own” the meaning and therefore even though the grammar says something they do not want it to say, they assert that it cannot possibly be saying anything other than what they have been taught. This is human nature. It is completely to be expected.

Peace to all, sincerely. Have a wonderful day.

 

[ParkerD]

We don’t “need” our spouses in the Resurrection. We have God. I don’t know why you don’t think He is enough. Certainly we will be with our spouses (and our families) in Heaven, but we don’t “need” them for a marital relationship such as we had on earth.

And none of this addresses where Jesus, or subsequently His apostles, taught any of these doctrines about having to be married to be in the presence of God, eternal increase, ruling our own worlds etc.

Jay53,
By the way, one doesn’t “have to be married to be in the presence of God.”

One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.

One has to have made a covenant with God and to have kept that covenant and “overcome the world” in order to inherit “power over the nations” (Revelation 2:26), in order to “sit with [Him] in [His] throne, even as [He] overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne,” (Revelation 3:21) and in order to “inherit all things”. (Revelation 21:7)

But to inherit all things means one would have to have desired that. This is how faith works, and how God deals with His children. He gives ultimately according to their desires, since desires lead to seeking righteous actions and covenants, and desires lead to exercising faith that can finally “move mountains”.

God keeps His promises to those who keep their covenants with Him.

Have a good day.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
By the way, one doesn’t “have to be married to be in the presence of God.”

This could just be my misunderstanding then of the Celestial Kingdom where I thought, according to Mormon belief, God (the Father) lives. I thought that in order to be admitted to the celestial kingdom one had to be married and/or sealed in the temple.

One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.

Again, where did Jesus or the Apostles ever teach anything about eternal increase?

One has to have made a covenant with God and to have kept that covenant and “overcome the world” in order to inherit “power over the nations” (Revelation 2:26), in order to “sit with [Him] in [His] throne, even as [He] overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne,” (Revelation 3:21) and in order to “inherit all things”. (Revelation 21:7)

But to inherit all things means one would have to have desired that. This is how faith works, and how God deals with His children. He gives ultimately according to their desires, since desires lead to seeking righteous actions and covenants, and desires lead to exercising faith that can finally “move mountains”.

God keeps His promises to those who keep their covenants with Him.

Have a good day.

Again, where does Jesus say that you have to “desire” eternal increase, ruling other nations, etc in order to receive an inheritance as a son of God? I believe the Scriptures say you have to keep God’s laws and commandments, not that you have to “desire” ruling another world, having eternal increase etc. It’s like kids worried about what they’re going to get from Mom & Dad when they die as an inheritance. God will give us what He gives us based on whether or not we have kept His commandments, not what we “wanted” or “desired” Him to give us.

EDIT TO ADD: Not to mention, I thought we were supposed to offer our lives and everything we do for love of God, not for what we expect to get out of the deal.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Jay53,
I hope you have a good night also. I do think “God was present” at your wedding, and I think that belief answers your question about whether the early church had a belief that marriages were done with God’s blessing and with eternity in mind. I think it can be readily seen by both a study of the Jewish rites of marriage and a study of the Catholic marriage rite, that God is assumed to be “present” and be a “part” of the marriage. So since God is an eternal Being, and Jesus said “God hath joined together”, it really means that God is doing the joining in a covenant marriage, whenever the authority has truly been given by God. Such a marriage, joined by God, would be eternal because God is eternal.

I appreciate your kind reply here, as at other times. Thanks.

Wow
I was married in the Catholic Church. Without God I would not have been married. Without God I would not exist. It would be impossible to be married in the Sacrament of Marriage without God being present in every aspect of it, again as we owe are very existence to God alone. We give all praise and Glory To Him through His Son Jesus Christ, He whom holds our Marriage together. Our Marriage is to give glory to God. Your argument Parker tries to inject things that do not exist within the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage. In the end its all for God, because of God, for Jesus. You can refer back to my previouse post. Love is not measured in Heaven. Why would I need my family when I am receiving the gift of the Whole family in Christ? Its that to be One with God thing…laced throughout the Scriptures
www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com

 

[zach_dunn]

Tmaque,
I agree that Christ taught that there is no marriage in heaven for unbelieving Sadducees. “The Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection)” are “they” to whom Christ was referring when in His language He used the understood subject from their question and answered their question with a sentence referencing the question’s subject. This is basic grammar. So indeed, to preach anything about a generalization about marriage in heaven for everyone on earth using Matthew 22:30 as the source text, is to preach an “other gospel” than the one Christ taught. To preach any other doctrine about marriage than the doctrine “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” is to preach an “other gospel” than the one Christ taught.

You’ve used this argument before but it just doesn’t work, I’ll post the Scripture again so we can reference it easily:

Matthew 22:23-30
That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Now, you said: “when in His language He used the understood subject from their question and answered their question with a sentence referencing the question’s subject.”

So let’s identify the question, that’s easy because there is only one: At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? As you can see here, the subject has to be either the wife or the seven, any way you choose the subject of their question is not the Sadducees; it would also be dangerous eisegesis to assume that these people were Sadducees because the text does not tell us this, all we know is that the eight people — the wife and seven brothers — were all fallen humans, so this verse really is talking about humanity and not just the Sadducees.

What a beautiful day it was today.

It’s not so great here in Minnesota, it’s still cold!

 

[ajourney]

Jay53,
By the way, one doesn’t “have to be married to be in the presence of God.”

One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase

on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.

Parker - I’m 57 years old, have a wonderful twenty-five year old daughter who will graduate from law school next semester, have taught special education (from severely disabled to emotionally disturbed students) for 30 years and have tried to be a good Christian and caring person. I have never been married so evidently I am worthless according to the theology of the LDS church. If I was LDS I would most likely be on the lowest level of Heaven and wind up a servant to someone. Evidently marriage is the saving grace instead of baptism and love of the Holy Trinity. And, by the way, I consider myself a “righteous” person. If you try and live your life by following the true gospels of Jesus Christ then it makes no difference because if you aren’t married you are worse than a second class citizen?

I enjoy reading your very knowledgeable posts about LDS culture and theology, but when I read One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.’ I flipped out. Mother Theresa (and I certainly don’t compare myself to her in all ways except not being married) would not be a righteous person in the eyes of Joseph Smith’s BOM. Very sad. I apologize to all for ranting. I will calm down, and hopefully before lunchtime!

 

[Xavierlives]

RebeccaJ
To get either reading comprehension or reading proficiency, one needs to use grammar with accuracy, especially when reading a text that has been translated from a foreign language.

What appears obvious is that many Catholics think they “own” the meaning and therefore even though the grammar says something they do not want it to say, they assert that it cannot possibly be saying anything other than what they have been taught. This is human nature. It is completely to be expected.

Peace to all, sincerely. Have a wonderful day.

Thankfully the Word is consistant.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Jay53,
By the way, one doesn’t “have to be married to be in the presence of God.”

One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.

If Christ is the bridegroom, and we the Church are his bride, then who else are we married to in heaven? And IF we are married to Christ and someone else (i.e. our “sealed” spouse), are we not polygamists? How do LDS respond to questions like this? How do you reconcile Christ the bridegroom of the Church with “eternal marriage” between two persons, neither of whom is Christ?

Peace,
Robert

ParkerD:

Have a good day.

You too:thumbsup:

 

[Chris-WA]

I can’t help it if you don’t have a background in grammar. You certainly can retain your beliefs and will have precisely what you have been promised by your leaders–being like an angel in heaven, like the Sadducees.

I understand grammer well enough, thank you. But you need to understand that your grammatical analysis of this passage is faulty, and has led you to incorrect conclusions. I understand the desperate desire for Mormons to find biblical passages that support peculiar doctrines like eternal marriage, but often LDS will completely twist a passage, as you have done here, to find meaning that just isn’t there. In this case, we have Jesus telling the Sadducees quite simply and directly that there is no marriage in heaven, and somehow you have twisted it to mean that He is implying there is marriage in heaven, just not for the Sadducees. The context doesn’t support eternal marriage, nor does the practices and beliefs of the day.

Why should you trouble yourself at all about LDS beliefs? I suggest you leave it alone, and move on with your life and be the best Catholic you can be.

For one, my wife is Mormon, so obviously these kinds of issues impact me on a daily basis. Secondly, and more importantly–truth matters. I am trying to show you the problems associated with certain LDS doctrines. I think most Mormons don’t think about the ramifications of some of their more peculiar beliefs, especially eternal marriage and the quest for godhood. Mormons don’t think about the logical extrapolation of this belief which Joseph Smith himself preached–that God the Father has another god above Him and so on back into eternity. At best these are serious theological errors, and at worst–lies. Delving into these serious errors exposes the LDS Church for what it really is–a counterfeit of the one true faith that has never left the earth–the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[ParkerD]

This could just be my misunderstanding then of the Celestial Kingdom where I thought, according to Mormon belief, God (the Father) lives. I thought that in order to be admitted to the celestial kingdom one had to be married and/or sealed in the temple.

Hi, Jay53,
I think I’m going to need to give succinct answers, given the time and a whole bunch of other questions.

The LDS belief from the Doctrine and Covenants is that the Celestial glory has three categories, with only one involving married couples, so single people who have made holy covenants and kept them and have been sanctified (such as the Eunuchs spoken of by Christ) can be Celestial persons, but would not have eternal increase yet be in the presence of God the Father.

Again, where did Jesus or the Apostles ever teach anything about eternal increase?

That is what being a “ruler over many things” means. It is in the book of Revelation and in the parable of the talents. It is to enter into the joy of the Lord, to really experience His joy. But always of course anyone can make any other meaning they want out of any such verses.

Again, where does Jesus say that you have to “desire” eternal increase, ruling other nations, etc in order to receive an inheritance as a son of God?

One who has lived righteously will receive according to their desires, because their desires are righteous desires. See Psalms 37:4; 1 Corinthians 14:1; Matthew 18:19 (the righteous ask, seek, and desire righteousness and it is fulfilled). What happens when a person is really filled with the Holy Spirit is that God can work with their heart such that it really is changed and sanctified and begins to desire heavenly things, totally other-centered things, and Christ can lead them along and prepare them to be a son of God, through a lot of growing and changing. The goal of the scriptures is to bring people to as high a glory and joy as they are desirous and willing to receive; all the verses I had noted from Revelation before relate to one another in John’s vision of the heavenly New Jerusalem and the “joint heirs” with Christ. To be a “son” means to be an “heir”, which means to receive the glory of an heir and the ruling righteous power of an heir. That power is always other-centered.

I believe the Scriptures say you have to keep God’s laws and commandments, not that you have to “desire” ruling another world, having eternal increase etc. It’s like kids worried about what they’re going to get from Mom & Dad when they die as an inheritance. God will give us what He gives us based on whether or not we have kept His commandments, not what we “wanted” or “desired” Him to give us.

I disagree, having experienced the Holy Spirit and His promptings. They lead to change, to a higher degree of love, and to desiring righteous qualities and attributes and to figure out what still needs to be changed in the future. Without the desire, one will not put forth the effort to seek the Spirit and do the prompted changes. Faith and desire work hand in glove.

EDIT TO ADD: Not to mention, I thought we were supposed to offer our lives and everything we do for love of God, not for what we expect to get out of the deal.

Excellent point. To love God is to seek to serve Him, and to seek to serve Him is to seek to serve His children as well as to seek to glorify Him by doing whatever His will guides us to do. To love God with all one’s heart leads to sanctification by the Holy Spirit, which leads to becoming “like Christ” as John taught. The expectation is born out of love of God, and it leads to faith in Christ that empowers in righteousness and in being totally other-centered.

Have a good night, or day as the case may be when you read this.

 

[ParkerD]

You’ve used this argument before but it just doesn’t work, I’ll post the Scripture again so we can reference it easily:

Matthew 22:23-30
That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Now, you said: “when in His language He used the understood subject from their question and answered their question with a sentence referencing the question’s subject.”

So let’s identify the question, that’s easy because there is only one: At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? As you can see here, the subject has to be either the wife or the seven, any way you choose the subject of their question is not the Sadducees; it would also be dangerous eisegesis to assume that these people were Sadducees because the text does not tell us this, all we know is that the eight people — the wife and seven brothers — were all fallen humans, so this verse really is talking about humanity and not just the Sadducees.

It’s not so great here in Minnesota, it’s still cold!

Zach Dunn,
The whole passage is talking about a woman and a husband and his brothers who were living by the Mosaic law. I think the words “with us” indicate the intent of the Sadducees who asked the question was that they were talking about Jewish Sadducees living under the Mosaic law, which included the law about raising up seed but also included allowing for divorce, and was a lower law than the Adamic law of an eternal marriage covenant.

But you won’t see that. No way will you see that. It’s OK–as I’ve noted earlier, that would mean you have no desire for such an eternal marriage covenant anyway, so you will receive in heaven that which you have desired and lived for. That is just fine. It is the reward of the righteous Eunuchs. Peace and warm wishes to you.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;6360732:

Jay53,
By the way, one doesn’t “have to be married to be in the presence of God.”

One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase

on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.

Parker - (ajourney’s quote begins here) I’m 57 years old, have a wonderful twenty-five year old daughter who will graduate from law school next semester, have taught special education (from severely disabled to emotionally disturbed students) for 30 years and have tried to be a good Christian and caring person. I have never been married so evidently I am worthless according to the theology of the LDS church. If I was LDS I would most likely be on the lowest level of Heaven and wind up a servant to someone. Evidently marriage is the saving grace instead of baptism and love of the Holy Trinity. And, by the way, I consider myself a “righteous” person. If you try and live your life by following the true gospels of Jesus Christ then it makes no difference because if you aren’t married you are worse than a second class citizen?

I enjoy reading your very knowledgeable posts about LDS culture and theology, but when I read One does “have to be married to have eternal increase.” This (rightly so) matches that those who have increase on earth, and who create their own little world where they help their young children grow up in the knowledge of the Lord and in learning to love Him, needed to have been married to do that in righteousness.’ I flipped out. Mother Theresa (and I certainly don’t compare myself to her in all ways except not being married) would not be a righteous person in the eyes of Joseph Smith’s BOM. Very sad. I apologize to all for ranting. I will calm down, and hopefully before lunchtime!

Ajourney,
I’m sorry that my explanation about marriage led to a misunderstanding. I apologize. Mother Theresa was mentioned in an LDS general conference as an exemplary person who did so much good in the world, and set an example for others to follow. Maybe she’ll want to be married in eternity, and maybe she had reasons that were compelling enough that God will honor her new desire to marry if she chooses that in the spirit world before her resurrection. If not, then if she makes the covenants involving the Celestial glory then her heart of service showed that she will qualify to be in the presence of God forever in Celestial glory. (It has three levels, including glorified angels.)

Now please understand me. I don’t know the situation about your daughter and yourself, but if you have raised a daughter then you had “half” of a marriage and the blessings and growth of being a parent, and you fulfilled a very important role that God will honor. It is going to depend on your desires as to your situation in eternity. It is a choice you can totally, freely make, (if not in this life, then in the spirit world) but either way it is not a case of a “second class citizen” so to speak. Sanctification brings those into the presence of God who have made holy covenants and kept them, and God will provide them with as joyful a situation as their hearts desire led them to. God does not override free will and choice in these kinds of situations.

I hope you will ask again if this has not cleared up the misunderstanding. I should have explained it better before. Sorry, and God bless you and your daughter. Peace always to you.

 

[ParkerD]

If Christ is the bridegroom, and we the Church are his bride, then who else are we married to in heaven? And IF we are married to Christ and someone else (i.e. our “sealed” spouse), are we not polygamists? How do LDS respond to questions like this? How do you reconcile Christ the bridegroom of the Church with “eternal marriage” between two persons, neither of whom is Christ?

Peace,
Robert

You too:thumbsup:

Hi, Robert in SD,
I hope this thread has not gone off on a tangent you would not have been OK with. I guess it “goes with the territory”. Peace to you also.

The LDS don’t take that symbolism as literally as Catholics do. In the Old Testament, there are many references where the “bride” whom it is hoped Israel will be “betrothed” to is the Lord, and instead Israel has gone after “false gods” and thus committed “whoredoms” (Biblical word–see, for example, Hosea 2:2) The image is teaching that one needs to keep their faithful covenant with the Lord, just like a marriage covenant, and not be drawn away after the worship of other worldly things or idols or any object of “false worship”, since where our heart needs to be is loving God "with all our heart, might, mind, and strength.

So the image of a betrothal and a marriage and of the ten virgins going out to meet the bridegroom all bring to mind a sacred image and a sacred, holy covenant (a vow) that should be taken most seriously. Yet, to think of really being “married” to Christ is never implied in the Biblical verses when taken in the context of the teaching from the Old Testament about the faithful bride. See Hosea 2:18-23 as an example.

I hope this has helped explain the difference in beliefs. Again, peace to you, and thanks for being a bringer of peace to these threads.