LDS: Eternal Marriage?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esdra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Esdra

Guest
Hi my dear LDS brothers (and of course all others as well! ;)),

as far as I have understood your teaching, you teach that marriages are also to be sealed for eternity. - And that for a man this is even required to do so to reach the Celestial Kingdom.

Now I’ve found the following verses in the Holy Bible:

QUOTE

23The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now 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:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

** 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.**

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I 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.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
(Matthew 22:23-33, KJV)

END QUOTE

What do you say about that? Your Temple Ordinance “sealing marriages for eternity” is ,in my eyes, judging from this verse unscriptural.

Do you have a verse in the Holy Bible *(Please **not *from the BoM or the D&C, as I know that you have, I’ve read the passages there that touch up on this topic.) that supports Sealing of marriages for eternity?

Hoping for a interesting discussion,

in Christ,
 
Hi Esdra:

I believe the Mormons argue that this passage in Matthew has been misunderstood/mistranslated. They have an explanation for this apparent contradiction here (warning: pdf file) which gives their take on things:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/EternalMarriage.pdf

In their words, “a quick look at the original Greek of this passage emphasizes that there is a difference between the state of marriage and marry[ing] or ‘giving in marriage’, or wedding ceremonies, as referred to in Matthew 22:30.” Their position appears to be that once they are in heaven, married people will still be married, as marriage is eternal, but there will be no new marriages entered into, which is what they are saying that Jesus’ words intend.

I hope this helps.

Jacques
 
JacquesMaritain said:
Hi Esdra:

I believe the Mormons argue that this passage in Matthew has been misunderstood/mistranslated. They have an explanation for this apparent contradiction here (warning: pdf file) which gives their take on things:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/EternalMarriage.pdf

In their words, “a quick look at the original Greek of this passage emphasizes that there is a difference between the state of marriage and marry[ing] or ‘giving in marriage’, or wedding ceremonies, as referred to in Matthew 22:30.” Their position appears to be that once they are in heaven, married people will still be married, as marriage is eternal, but there will be no new marriages entered into, which is what they are saying that Jesus’ words intend.

I hope this helps.

Jacques
Click to expand...
Oh I see. To stay with my example: All Seven Brothers then would have this woman as their wife?! 😉
I mean, I do know that LDS teach that in the Celestial Glory one man can have more than one wife, but I didn’t know that it works the other way round as well (Anyone know what that’d be called then - the opposite of polygamy?) 😃 😉

No, sirously: The Sadduccees ask Jesus:

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. (Mt 22:28; KJV)

What would be the answer to this question of the LDS Church then?
 
Esdra said:
Oh I see. To stay with my example: All Seven Brothers then would have this woman as their wife?! 😉
I mean, I do know that LDS teach that in the Celestial Glory one man can have more than one wife, but I didn’t know that it works the other way round as well (Anyone know what that’d be called then - the opposite of polygamy?) 😃 😉

No, sirously: The Sadduccees ask Jesus:

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. (Mt 22:28; KJV)

What would be the answer to this question of the LDS Church then?
Click to expand...
Hi Esdra:

There isn’t really an opposite to polygamy in the sense you mean it…normally, polygamy refers to a male taking several wives, but it is more correctly called polygyny…the opposite to that is polyandry, the woman taking several men, which is what you were asking about above. Polyandry is actually prohibited in the Old Testament (Lev. 20:10), but polygyny is quite common amongst Old Testament Patriarchs.

The LDS Church would argue, I think, that only one of the seven men are married to her in heaven. This comes from the Church Handbook of Instructions of 1998, which says that a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man while she is alive, but after her death, can be sealed to subsequent partners. This would have to be done by proxy, and Mormons do proxy sealings to allow the woman to choose which spouse she will keep, as polyandry is forbidden in the Mormon Church.

It is interesting (to me) to contrast this to the Catholic position of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas argues in the Summa Contra Gentiles that the three purposes of marriage are (1) having children, (2) mutual love and support, and the (3) sacrament of fidelity of one man to one woman. Only the third end (the sacrament) is Christian, but the others are common in secular or non-Christian marriages.

Polygyny rules out only the third end of marriage, but not the first two. The primary end, raising children, is not harmed at all by polygyny. So to Aquinas, while monogamy is a higher form of marriage, polygyny is not intrinsically evil or wrong, as the child is always born to a mother and father known by him. But polyandry is, as there is uncertainty about who the father is. So to him, the Old Testament patriarchs were practicing a sub-optimal form of marriage in polygyny, if you will.

The Saducees would have known of the polygyny of the Patriarchs…and I note that they explicitly say that “if a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife” (verse 24). So they seem to grasp this critical difference between polygyny and polyandry, which dovetail on the right of a child to be born to parents “known to him”.

I hope this helps.

Jacques.
 
Esdra said:
Hi my dear LDS brothers (and of course all others as well! ;)),

as far as I have understood your teaching, you teach that marriages are also to be sealed for eternity. - And that for a man this is even required to do so to reach the Celestial Kingdom.

Now I’ve found the following verses in the Holy Bible:

QUOTE

23The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now 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:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

** 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.**

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I 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.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
(Matthew 22:23-33, KJV)

END QUOTE

What do you say about that? Your Temple Ordinance “sealing marriages for eternity” is ,in my eyes, judging from this verse unscriptural.

Do you have a verse in the Holy Bible *(Please **not ***from the BoM or the D&C, as I know that you have, I’ve read the passages there that touch up on this topic.) that supports Sealing of marriages for eternity?

Hoping for a interesting discussion,

in Christ,
Click to expand...
Esdra, not to rain on your parade, but this topic has been covered in depth on the thread: “Question For LDS: Do You Marry The Dead?” which is active as we speak. You should check it out as there are some great discussions there.
 
SteveVH said:
Esdra, not to rain on your parade, but this topic has been covered in depth on the thread: “Question For LDS: Do You Marry The Dead?” which is active as we speak. You should check it out as there are some great discussions there.
Click to expand...
With exactly my question concerning Matthew 22?
 
JacquesMaritain said:
Hi Esdra:

There isn’t really an opposite to polygamy in the sense you mean it…normally, polygamy refers to a male taking several wives, but it is more correctly called polygyny…the opposite to that is polyandry, the woman taking several men, which is what you were asking about above. Polyandry is actually prohibited in the Old Testament (Lev. 20:10), but polygyny is quite common amongst Old Testament Patriarchs.

The LDS Church would argue, I think, that only one of the seven men are married to her in heaven. This comes from the Church Handbook of Instructions of 1998, which says that a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man while she is alive, but after her death, can be sealed to subsequent partners. This would have to be done by proxy, and Mormons do proxy sealings to allow the woman to choose which spouse she will keep, as polyandry is forbidden in the Mormon Church.

It is interesting (to me) to contrast this to the Catholic position of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas argues in the Summa Contra Gentiles that the three purposes of marriage are (1) having children, (2) mutual love and support, and the (3) sacrament of fidelity of one man to one woman. Only the third end (the sacrament) is Christian, but the others are common in secular or non-Christian marriages.

Polygyny rules out only the third end of marriage, but not the first two. The primary end, raising children, is not harmed at all by polygyny. So to Aquinas, while monogamy is a higher form of marriage, polygyny is not intrinsically evil or wrong, as the child is always born to a mother and father known by him. But polyandry is, as there is uncertainty about who the father is. So to him, the Old Testament patriarchs were practicing a sub-optimal form of marriage in polygyny, if you will.

The Saducees would have known of the polygyny of the Patriarchs…and I note that they explicitly say that “if a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife” (verse 24). So they seem to grasp this critical difference between polygyny and polyandry, which dovetail on the right of a child to be born to parents “known to him”.

I hope this helps.

Jacques.
Click to expand...
Hi Jacques,

thank you for your answers. Indeed very interesting! 🙂

So a feminist could argue that Polygyny is “allowed”, but Polyandry not. (My sister is quite a feminist… ;))

But also your explanation why Polygyny is “tolerated”, so to speak, and Polyandry not is really good and interesting.

Thank you.

In Christ,
 
Esdra said:
Hi Jacques,

thank you for your answers. Indeed very interesting! 🙂

So a feminist could argue that Polygyny is “allowed”, but Polyandry not. (My sister is quite a feminist… ;))

But also your explanation why Polygyny is “tolerated”, so to speak, and Polyandry not is really good and interesting.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Click to expand...
Well Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young was married to Henry Jacobs and Joseph Smith at the same time. Then after Joseph was killed she was married to Brigham Young while still married to Henry. She had 2 children with Henry and 1 with Brigham.
 
Esdra said:
Hi Jacques,

thank you for your answers. Indeed very interesting! 🙂

So a feminist could argue that Polygyny is “allowed”, but Polyandry not. (My sister is quite a feminist… ;))

But also your explanation why Polygyny is “tolerated”, so to speak, and Polyandry not is really good and interesting.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Click to expand...
Hi Esdra:

I’m glad you found it helpful. I’d be surprised if feminists would argue this way, as allowing the one (polygyny) without the other (polyandry) could be seen, with some justification, as being rather sexist, despite the fact it is completely logical. As far as I know, this line of reasoning is unique to Thomism (Medieval Catholic Scholastic Philosophy), though there are a few modern day philosophers and theologians who work on it (like my namesake, Jacques Maritain, who actually worked for many years here in Canada at Toronto). The asymmetry between allowing polygyny but not polyandry depends on the first end of marriage, the conception and raising of children. Seeing as the mutual company of the spouses is a secondary end, the primacy of lineage (the child being born to parents known to him or her) supersedes the equality of the spouses in this area. In short: it’s more important that the child have an identifiable mother and father than whether or not different forms of polygamy are allowed.

But I don’t want to derail your thread any further, so I’ll finish by saying I find the Mormon doctrine of Celestial Marriage interesting, but not compelling. I certainly don’t think it is scriptural, but then again many arguably Christian sects includes doctrines and traditions that are not, strictly speaking, scriptural. It’s interesting all the same, and I’m glad you brought it up.

Jacques
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top