LDS - Celestial Marriage

[Jea9]

Techno 2000,
I like SIMPLE.

Who began the conversation Jesus had with the Sadducees?

Answer: the Sadducees–when they asked Him a question by presenting a “hypothetical” case of some brothers who had died who were at some point in time “with them” (i.e. with the Sadducees).

Who was the subject of the conversation?

Answer: the seven brothers

There is no mistaking that the seven brothers are the subject being discussed.

So, then, what was meant by the use of the word that became translated into English as “they”?

Answer: the seven brothers, who were the subject of the conversation.

I haven’t finished reading through this thread (but I will! ), but just had to post. When I left the Mormon church this EXACT verse/conversation was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had been struggling for quite a while and everyone in the ward knew that I had. Things were “OK” and I was still struggling with a few concepts when at work two ladies (one Catholic and one Evangelical Protestant) randomly started talking about this. The Evangelical asked the Catholic if she believed in marriage in Heaven, the Catholic (who I might add, is at best a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ and at worst completely incompetent in her Faith) said no that she didn’t think so. And I, being a Mormon who loved the idea of Celestial Marriage kept my mouth shut and listened. The Evangelical said they had studied this passage the night before where Christ said this wasn’t possible. My mind raced, “what? How could that be? The TRUE Church couldn’t go against what Christ taught!!!”, so I asked for the verse. When discussing this with my Mormon friends (the president of the Elder’s Quorum (is that the right name? Can’t remember), a stake council member, the Bishop, a member of the Bishopbric, a life-long Mormon who was currently in the presidency in the Young Ladies…not in that order) NOT ONE of them gave me the explanation that you have given. I was told only that new Revelation had been given, that it said that there is in fact marriage in Heaven, and that we are to believe it because we should have a testimony of Joseph Smith as prophet. If I had been given the explanation you have given, it maybe would have taken me a few days longer to see the error and get out. But, nonetheless, I would not have been swayed by it…there are too many instances of Mormons reading something into scripture that just isn’t there.

 

[mrparker]

So if someone determines that Mormonism is a lie, they are excommunicated? Are statistics kept of the number of people “excommunicated” for realizing that Mormonism is a lie? (that wasn’t a sarcastic question, actually…I am curious as to the number of people excommunicated (voluntarily or not) for questioning Mormonism).

TIA!

There are certain sins that the Church will excommunicate an individual from the records of the Church, then that person has the opportunity to repent and after a process become baptized again back into the Church again.

There also individuals who decide to leave the Church for whatever reason, and request that their membership be removed or blotted out from the Church.

And so i was simply asking if Paul had requested that or what happened

 

[PaulDupre]

So if someone determines that Mormonism is a lie, they are excommunicated? Are statistics kept of the number of people “excommunicated” for realizing that Mormonism is a lie? (that wasn’t a sarcastic question, actually…I am curious as to the number of people excommunicated (voluntarily or not) for questioning Mormonism).

TIA!

Yes, they keep track of everything. You can never expunge your name from their records, they will just move you from the “active” list to the “ex” list.

 

[PaulDupre]

I understand that Membership Records dept has had to increase in staff signfically due to all the resignation requests by former members.

Yes, the number of apllications for name removal, especially since the advent of the internet, has become an avalanche. Sources from within the membership dept leak the numbers from time to time. The last I heard (in 2008) was an average of about 420 per day. But it’s all computerized now, so it’s not such a burden on them.

Then, of course, there are many times more that just go inactive and never bother to officially end their membership.

 

[grandfather]

Yes, the number of apllications for name removal, especially since the advent of the internet, has become an avalanche. Sources from within the membership dept leak the numbers from time to time. The last I heard (in 2008) was an average of about 420 per day. But it’s all computerized now, so it’s not such a burden on them.

Then, of course, there are many times more that just go inactive and never bother to officially end their membership.

Psul,

Just curious. Would you say that Mormonism is making more converts than losing members.

By the way. You still owe me a beer. I may get to CA on business in the next month or so and plan on collecting.

 

[ParkerD]

I haven’t finished reading through this thread (but I will! ), but just had to post. When I left the Mormon church this EXACT verse/conversation was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had been struggling for quite a while and everyone in the ward knew that I had. Things were “OK” and I was still struggling with a few concepts when at work two ladies (one Catholic and one Evangelical Protestant) randomly started talking about this. The Evangelical asked the Catholic if she believed in marriage in Heaven, the Catholic (who I might add, is at best a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ and at worst completely incompetent in her Faith) said no that she didn’t think so. And I, being a Mormon who loved the idea of Celestial Marriage kept my mouth shut and listened. The Evangelical said they had studied this passage the night before where Christ said this wasn’t possible. My mind raced, “what? How could that be? The TRUE Church couldn’t go against what Christ taught!!!”, so I asked for the verse. When discussing this with my Mormon friends (the president of the Elder’s Quorum (is that the right name? Can’t remember), a stake council member, the Bishop, a member of the Bishopbric, a life-long Mormon who was currently in the presidency in the Young Ladies…not in that order) NOT ONE of them gave me the explanation that you have given. I was told only that new Revelation had been given, that it said that there is in fact marriage in Heaven, and that we are to believe it because we should have a testimony of Joseph Smith as prophet. If I had been given the explanation you have given, it maybe would have taken me a few days longer to see the error and get out. But, nonetheless, I would not have been swayed by it…there are too many instances of Mormons reading something into scripture that just isn’t there.

Jea 9,
May I suggest that those folks had other things on their mind? You have painted with quite a broad brush in your comment, but if you will really read the specific verses, even in the DR translation, someone with an English syntax background (which I have at least to the degree of having been an English major) will see that the pronoun links to the subject. That is how English works. Other languages have an understood pronoun with many of their verbs.

Those folks should have been familiar with James E Talmage’s book Jesus the Christ . He provides a good explanation, but I have also thought these verses out for myself and that is why I would answer you that the meaning is so clear from the context that there is no mistaking the intent of the Speaker (the Savior) unless one has their own agenda and brings it in when trying to support their own beliefs. Then they will do just as the people who mislead you originally did in their conversation with you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is not true discipleship. A disciple does not say to his Master, no worries Jesus, I understand you were talking about THEM.

You can do this with every single thing Jesus taught. Or, you can understand that Jesus taught nothing that wasn’t for ALL to learn and understand.

In other words, there is no THEM.

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
May I suggest that those folks had other things on their mind? You have painted with quite a broad brush in your comment, but if you will really read the specific verses, even in the DR translation, someone with an English syntax background (which I have at least to the degree of having been an English major) will see that the pronoun links to the subject. That is how English works. Other languages have an understood pronoun with many of their verbs.

Those folks should have been familiar with James E Talmage’s book Jesus the Christ . He provides a good explanation, but I have also thought these verses out for myself and that is why I would answer you that the meaning is so clear from the context that there is no mistaking the intent of the Speaker (the Savior) unless one has their own agenda and brings it in when trying to support their own beliefs. Then they will do just as the people who mislead you originally did in their conversation with you.

ParkerD,
OK…perhaps they were focused on other things. I actually had a copy of Jesus the Christ, given to me by one of these people that spoke to me, so you would think it would have come up. (and, no, I never read it). What I don’t get though, is how you can say that “them” in this context with the Saducees meant only those seven people, but in the other passage that you were discussing the “they/them” is to mean everyone. How do you make those distinctions. Let’s say I know nothing about English syntax, and how about you give me a lesson?
Call it a broad brush stroke, but I think that this happens all too frequently. The one that really got me was the verse I was given about the ‘apostacy’ (I can’t remember verses now) but it was from the OT and it said that there will be a famine in the land not of food or drink but of hearing the word of God. This is what I was given to defend the apostacy, but if you read it in the context of the entire chapter, you know that it can’t possibly mean what Mormons say that it does. But, I digress. Please, ParkerD, explain how you can make the use of the “they/them” in these two separate verses have different meaning (one specific to the group that He was referring to, the other meaning everyone, everywhere).
Thanks!

 

[thecourt]

Jea9 your statements about a false revelation is as I said false. I see false garbage here on the forums all the time, yours I thought where do these folks get this or is it just made up?

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
OK…perhaps they were focused on other things. I actually had a copy of Jesus the Christ, given to me by one of these people that spoke to me, so you would think it would have come up. (and, no, I never read it). What I don’t get though, is how you can say that “them” in this context with the Saducees meant only those seven people, but in the other passage that you were discussing the “they/them” is to mean everyone. How do you make those distinctions. Let’s say I know nothing about English syntax, and how about you give me a lesson?
Call it a broad brush stroke, but I think that this happens all too frequently. The one that really got me was the verse I was given about the ‘apostacy’ (I can’t remember verses now) but it was from the OT and it said that there will be a famine in the land not of food or drink but of hearing the word of God. This is what I was given to defend the apostacy, but if you read it in the context of the entire chapter, you know that it can’t possibly mean what Mormons say that it does. But, I digress. Please, ParkerD, explain how you can make the use of the “they/them” in these two separate verses have different meaning (one specific to the group that He was referring to, the other meaning everyone, everywhere).
Thanks!

Jea 9,
I apologize for the previous poster’s comment and begin to wonder about his motives. I hope you have ignored his rude comment.

I honestly am not sure here what other verse or passage where “they/them” was used, you are referring to. Perhaps I have discussed such a passage, but help me remember because it isn’t clear to me what other statement by the Savior you have referred to.

May I say again what a kind and thoughtful person you are in your comments and questions, and I sincerely appreciate that very, very much.

 

[Jea9]

Jea9 your statements about a false revelation is as I said false. I see false garbage here on the forums all the time, yours I thought where do these folks get this or is it just made up?

I’m sorry, you’re not being very clear. I didn’t say anything about “a false revelation”. I gave you my specific experience from when I left the Mormon church, so no, I’m not making anything up. Though it is funny how many Mormons will come on here and tell me I’m lying…what would I have to gain by lying? I mean, really?!

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
I apologize for the previous poster’s comment and begin to wonder about his motives. I hope you have ignored his rude comment.

I honestly am not sure here what other verse or passage where “they/them” was used, you are referring to. Perhaps I have discussed such a passage, but help me remember because it isn’t clear to me what other statement by the Savior you have referred to.

May I say again what a kind and thoughtful person you are in your comments and questions, and I sincerely appreciate that very, very much.

I’m not sure either, some people just have no responses so they get angry. And that isn’t dependent on ANY faith.

If you look at your post #110, that is what I’m referring to, my memory is not working with me so well today, so I’ve already forgotten for sure who brought the passage up to you the first time. But, I think it was Tecnho2000 maybe? But, at any rate, it’s in post #110.

Thanks!

 

[ParkerD]

I’m not sure either, some people just have no responses so they get angry. And that isn’t dependent on ANY faith.

If you look at your post #110, that is what I’m referring to, my memory is not working with me so well today, so I’ve already forgotten for sure who brought the passage up to you the first time. But, I think it was Tecnho2000 maybe? But, at any rate, it’s in post #110.

Thanks!

Jea 9,
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if that was what you were referring to, since it doesn’t really have a similar “they/them” in the text other than that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees.

That passage brought up the question of paying tribute, which was the Roman law of that place and time. Jesus knew He was being “set up” to see if He would contradict Roman law. He didn’t, as we know, but He also used the opportunity to teach that the Pharisees should render “unto God the things that are God’s.” We certainly can apply that teaching to ourselves.

Jesus was always taking the opportunity to teach. He used specific questions given to Him, to answer in a way that would teach what He perceived was needed at the moment among the people who had asked the question or among His disciples and apostles. But to say that every “teaching moment” was used to teach the whole world, disregards that He would be interested intimately in every single person as an individual. He would meet them on their level but be seeking to raise their sights to a higher level of understanding (unless they were attempting to trap Him, in which case He would give them an answer that quieted them down).

I think He did teach an important concept to the Sadducees about marriage in heaven, but it was a reminder that for them there would be no such possibility at all since they were rejecting the doctrine of resurrection and the need for a Savior. But He was also teaching that those who reject the Savior in life such as the Sadducees, can be raised to a glory described as “like the angels” in the resurrection.

 

[AshleyBelle]

To the general reader and to The Court:
If you do want to read the LDS Gospel Principles manual, you might as well read the manual that is linked to the front page of lds.org and is the 2009 update, which will be the teaching guide for priesthood and Relief Society classes during 2010 and 2011. It has changed from the older manual, for the better!

I'm very sorry if this comes across as uncharitable.. but this comment made me think "LDS Gospel 3.1" Upgrade today to LDS Gospel 95, soon to be replaced by LDS Gospel 2000! Make sure to run current updates and that you are not behind a firewall....":o

 

[ParkerD]

I’m very sorry if this comes across as uncharitable… but this comment made me think “LDS Gospel 3.1” Upgrade today to LDS Gospel 95, soon to be replaced by LDS Gospel 2000! Make sure to run current updates and that you are not behind a firewall…"

Ashley Belle,
Welcome to a changing world. Lesson manuals can be changed. People can change their ways and improve. Christ was all about change. Until the world is a completely perfect place (which won’t happen until well into the Millenium), change is going to be happening all around you, and hopefully within you as well.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Ashley Belle,
Welcome to a changing world. Lesson manuals can be changed. People can change their ways and improve. Christ was all about change. Until the world is a completely perfect place (which won’t happen until well into the Millenium), change is going to be happening all around you, and hopefully within you as well.

Repentance and santification, yes. Changing gospel... not so much.

 

[Jea9]

Jea 9,
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if that was what you were referring to, since it doesn’t really have a similar “they/them” in the text other than that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees.

That passage brought up the question of paying tribute, which was the Roman law of that place and time. Jesus knew He was being “set up” to see if He would contradict Roman law. He didn’t, as we know, but He also used the opportunity to teach that the Pharisees should render “unto God the things that are God’s.” We certainly can apply that teaching to ourselves.

Jesus was always taking the opportunity to teach. He used specific questions given to Him, to answer in a way that would teach what He perceived was needed at the moment among the people who had asked the question or among His disciples and apostles. But to say that every “teaching moment” was used to teach the whole world, disregards that He would be interested intimately in every single person as an individual. He would meet them on their level but be seeking to raise their sights to a higher level of understanding (unless they were attempting to trap Him, in which case He would give them an answer that quieted them down).

I think He did teach an important concept to the Sadducees about marriage in heaven, but it was a reminder that for them there would be no such possibility at all since they were rejecting the doctrine of resurrection and the need for a Savior. But He was also teaching that those who reject the Savior in life such as the Sadducees, can be raised to a glory described as “like the angels” in the resurrection.

ParkerD,
But you’re not answering the underlying question here, since you keep saying it’s an English translation thing. The use of “they/them” in one text refers to a particular group, but in the other it’s the whole world. How are you making that distinction? Under what authority? Your arguments just aren’t seeming to support what you’re claiming. But, it has been a long day, and I am slow today so, forgive me if you feel that I’m beating a dead horse. I just don’t see your arguments as supported here.

Thanks!

 

[grandfather]

Ashley Belle,
Welcome to a changing world. Lesson manuals can be changed. People can change their ways and improve. Christ was all about change. Until the world is a completely perfect place (which won’t happen until well into the Millenium), change is going to be happening all around you, and hopefully within you as well.

Truth does not change. Your understanding of it may and if it does and you are right now, you were wrong yesterday. When flaws are detected in religious tenets and proven, the holders try to correct them. This is an admission of error. It says we recognize we used to be wrong about that, and have fixed it, or tried to fix it. But yesterday when you beleived the wrror you now recognize you also taught it to others as truth. You also can’t be sure if you are right today.

I think it is well demonstrated that Mormonism has changed its doctrines. It is a religion whose beliefs are in flux. Its doctrines have not been able to withstand the challenges that have come over time. There is no reason to think it will be the same tomorrow as it is today.

THe world may be changing, but truth does not. Jesus’s Church is built on a rock and has His promises that her doctrines are always true.

 

[thecourt]

grandfather your claim that my church changes doctrine is false.

I do not know what source you get your statements from – I do not care because I know the truth and regardless of what is said here, will not cause me to leave my church. Catholicism has had a number of councils due to no definitive understanding of a doctrine. Another reason I left Catholicism years ago.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
But you’re not answering the underlying question here, since you keep saying it’s an English translation thing. The use of “they/them” in one text refers to a particular group, but in the other it’s the whole world. How are you making that distinction? Under what authority? Your arguments just aren’t seeming to support what you’re claiming. But, it has been a long day, and I am slow today so, forgive me if you feel that I’m beating a dead horse. I just don’t see your arguments as supported here.

Thanks!

Jea 9,
Here are the entire verses from the KJV:

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

In every case where the word “they” or “them” or “ye” is used in all of these verses, it is completely clear that there are specific people who are the subject that is being described by the pronoun. None of those instances presents a valid case where the reference back to the subject matter by the use of the word “they” has an inference to “the whole world” or to “all people.”