LDS Necessity of Eternal Marriage: What About 1 Cor 7?

[BYUChemAlum]

I do not follow links to LDS opinion, and neither should you or any other human being.

The purpose of these threads is to discuss LDS beliefs is it not? Therefore it is appropriate to link to LDS resources on the topics at hand. If you are not interested in engaging in a dialogue with us about our beliefs, then I am not sure why you are participating in threads about my faith.

I know LDS tactics. I know of the lies and deception that are sanctioned/allowed in order to lure unsuspecting souls in. I know of the biblical emphasis at the start, since the LDS preys upon Christians and tries mightily to emphasize the “normal” aspect of the religion.

Of course…

And we emphasize the Bible throughout our faith journey. This year, we are studying the New Testament in our Sunday Schools, and last year, we studied the Old Testament.

Normal, except that the LDS god is different, the LDS “jesus” is different and Mormon men want to be gods, just as Adam and Eve wanted to be gods.

Members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ readily acknowledge that our beliefs on God are different, since we believe that various traditional notions (such as the issue of “one substance” and “eternally begotten”) are uninspired teachings.

As far as our belief in exaltation, we believe that such a belief is consistent with various Biblical teachings, such as partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), being heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), sitting with Christ in His throne just as He sits in the Father’s throne (Rev 3:21), etc. We believe that through Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice, such things are possible.

God sent multiple prophets, culminating in His only Son, Jesus Christ. All who came after, whether named Muhammad, Ellen White, Charles Russell or Joseph Smith are false prophets. Each of them, in their own crude way, changed the nature of God.

The Bible does not teach that there are to be no prophets after Jesus Christ. Indeed, there are multiple instances of prophets after Him in the Bible, including Jesus Himself sending prophets.

We can have a diverse theological discussion here, but not as long as LDS deception is involved. And it appears that without it, the LDS case simply folds.

There is no LDS deception. We are presenting what we actually believe and hold dear. And if you refuse to engage the materials that I present in support of my beliefs, then I am not sure how we can have a discussion.

 

[po18guy]

Po18guy,
are you another one that cannot grasp the concept that 2 different groups of people can view the same person differently?

No! I am of the opinion that true Christians, even Catholics, can and do view the same person differently. But, we all agree on that person’s constitutive nature. Mormons do not.

God’s revealed truth, as spoken by Jesus Christ regarding the topic of this thread, must be twisted to fit LDS doctrine.

I am not calling names, I am calling BS (Blessed Scripture) on the LDS twisting of God’s Word.

This thread was directed to LDS to explain our belief in Eternal Marriage in light of 1 Cor 7. If you are not interested in the topic of this thread then do not post in it. If all you want to do is to call us names and tell us what we believe, there are other places for you to do it. Do you know who the father of contention is?

It is the recently formed LDS organization that is contentious here. It is the LDS who contend that the God of Israel is actually one of many gods, and that men may become gods. This is contention. The Catholic Church does not contend. It defends.

Truth, like gold, is tested in a crucible. If you find the temperature is too high, jump out!

Jesus said, clearly, that we will be like angels in heaven. No marriage for angels. No marriage for man. Like the Sadducees, you are greatly mislead.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Jesus said, clearly, that we will be like angels in heaven. No marriage for angels. No marriage for man. Like the Sadducees, you are greatly mislead.

This claim has already been addressed, and you have yet to engage the arguments presented.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Jesus never said men could become gods.

I’m not sure why anybody would believe such a thing and call themselves a Christian.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Jesus never said men could become gods.

I’m not sure why anybody would believe such a thing and call themselves a Christian.

Was Jesus wrong for quoting Psalm 82 in John 10?

The doctrine of theosis or deification is also found in the patristic records. While it differs from the restored belief in exaltation in a number of fundamental ways (for example, members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ believe that we are literally the children of God, while traditional Christians believe that there is a difference of “species” or kind between God and man), it is still clear that the belief in becoming gods is not a non-Christian belief.

I know that this Catechism paragraph is quoted frequently in these discussions, since a belief in theosis seems more common among Eastern Christians than in the West:
**
460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”**

So it seems as if you will have to qualify your statement on becoming gods, since your Church teaches that you can become gods. The issue obviously is in what that means (and LDS readily accept differences between our views, as found in this dissertation, as well as this one, however the Catholic Church (and the Fathers quoted in that paragraph) are not afraid of saying that we can become “gods”.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

The bible speaks of one god. There are not multiple gods.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

The bible speaks of one god. There are not multiple gods.

This does not address what I have stated in this post.

If there are not multiple gods, then is the Catechism in error for saying that we can become gods? Is the word “god” used in different ways (which is consistent with what LDS teach)?

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Terms of Art have deeper significance than what meets the eye, like many of Jesus’ arguments and parables. Terms of Art and the catechism sometimes require interpretation by somebody knowledgeable in the subject. Your citations are not “plain language.”

In plain language, Jesus Christ is the one true god. There is no other god. Man cannot be a god.

It is clear that men being gods is a non Christian belief. No Christian has ever claimed that a man has become a god.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Terms of Art have deeper significance than what meets the eye, like many of Jesus’ arguments and parables. Terms of Art and the catechism sometimes require interpretation by somebody knowledgeable in the subject. Your citations are not “plain language.”

In plain language, Jesus Christ is the one true god. There is no other god. Man cannot be a god.

It is clear that men being gods is a non Christian belief. No Christian has ever claimed that a man has become a god.

And yet it is found right in the Catechism. Therefore, you must explain what the word “god” means in that context, and then you will understand why LDS believe that the word “god”, as well as the phrase “one God” has multiple meanings depending on the context, such as in Psalm 82 and Jesus’ statements in John 10 (which you have not yet addressed).

 

[po18guy]

This claim has already been addressed, and you have yet to engage the arguments presented.

Well, that is because the arguments presented appeared nowhere in human history until they suddenly popped up in 1800s America. Even while the Apostles lived, man was cautioned against false prophets. Please show the evidence from the KJV for eternal marriage.

Frankly, it strikes me as loophole-based theology. Since the bible is silent on it, it is OK to “reveal” this to later generations.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

I’m not going to explain how I arrived at my conclusions or how Jesus’ or the Church’s terms of art are decompressed. In the contexts you have specifically chosen, I have told you the significance of the words. I have stated an opinion on the subject, which I believe to be the Christian opinion.

Feel free to justify the LDS’s special meaning that says man can become a god.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

And yet it is found right in the Catechism. Therefore, you must explain what the word “god” means in that context, and then you will understand why LDS believe that the word “god”, as well as the phrase “one God” has multiple meanings depending on the context, such as in Psalm 82 and Jesus’ statements in John 10 (which you have not yet addressed).

I’m not going to explain how I arrived at my conclusions or how Jesus’ or the Church’s terms of art are decompressed. In the contexts you have specifically chosen, I have told you the significance of the words. I have stated an opinion on the subject, which I believe to be the Christian opinion.

Feel free to justify the LDS’s special meaning that says man can become a god.

 

[po18guy]

And yet it is found right in the Catechism. Therefore, you must explain what the word “god” means in that context, and then you will understand why LDS believe that the word “god”, as well as the phrase “one God” has multiple meanings depending on the context, such as in Psalm 82 and Jesus’ statements in John 10 (which you have not yet addressed).

In Psalm 82 the word “gods” is in quotes. And a small “g” is used in every case. Why? Does God judge other gods? Yes. False gods.

 

[po18guy]

The crux of the matter is the unique-in-all-the-world LDS teachings. They can teach whatever they want, interpret scripture however they want, and believe whatever they want. What rankles me is their insistence that they worship the Christian God. The LDS god is* different in substance* from the God of Israel. Just as sodium differs chemically from calcium. You can insist that sodium is actually calcium, but that does not make it so. They are different in substance, as the last group of LDS missionaries was honest enough to admit when I spoke with them.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP please

 

[ParkerD]

Notable verses about celibacy from the Chapter ( I think this is what you are referring to):

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

Pablope,

If you look at an online Greek English transliteration of verse 7, you will find that the transliteration should be “I say therefore to the unmarried even widows”–or a comma could be added for better English sense: “I say therefore to the unmarried, even widows,” or in other words, “to the widows who are unmarried”.

So Paul is not saying he was never married. He most likely seems to be saying that widows who haven’t remarried are doing a “good thing” if they abide “even as Paul” and not remarry as long as they remain chaste.

I think Paul’s wife had died by this point in time. The ECF wrote about Paul as having been a married man during his life.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Pablope,

If you look at an online Greek English transliteration of verse 7, you will find that the transliteration should be “I say therefore to the unmarried even widows”–or a comma could be added for better English sense: “I say therefore to the unmarried, even widows,” or in other words, “to the widows who are unmarried”.

So Paul is not saying he was never married. He most likely seems to be saying that widows who haven’t remarried are doing a “good thing” if they abide “even as Paul” and not remarry as long as they remain chaste.

I think Paul’s wife had died by this point in time. The ECF wrote about Paul as having been a married man during his life.

We had this discussion on the use of the word “even” as an intensifier before.
From MW on line on the use of even as intensifier:

2
a —used as an intensive to emphasize the identity or character of something
b —used as an intensive to stress an extreme or highly unlikely condition or instance
c —used as an intensive to stress the comparative degree
d —used as an intensive to indicate a small or minimum amount <didn’t even try>

None of these definitions point to the usage of the word even as shown in this statement, " or in other words, “to the widows who are unmarried”".
It is apparent from the MW usages that if one is going to construct an “in other words” for the verse then “and the widows” is the one that fits the definition. It is what is used in the NIV, NASB. TM, NLT, RSV, ESV, CEV, NCV, AB, NKJV, ASV, NAB, JB, Young, Darby, Holman, and the Wycliffe translations.

 

[zerinus]

Of course, but obviously not “marriage” in heaven, since it directly contradicts our Lord Jesus Christ.

According to what the Lord has revealed in this dispensation, this is how that verse is to be understood:

D&C 132:

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

This necessarily does not mean that there are no marriages in heaven at all. It means that those who failed to abide by this law here on earth when they had the opportunity to do so, cannot experience those blessings in the hereafter.

 

[ParkerD]

We had this discussion on the use of the word “even” as an intensifier before.
From MW on line on the use of even as intensifier:

None of these definitions point to the usage of the word even as shown in this statement, " or in other words, “to the widows who are unmarried”".
It is apparent from the MW usages that if one is going to construct an “in other words” for the verse then “and the widows” is the one that fits the definition. It is what is used in the NIV, NASB. TM, NLT, RSV, ESV, CEV, NCV, AB, NKJV, ASV, NAB, JB, Young, Darby, Holman, and the Wycliffe translations.

Z,

I didn’t remember having discussed this with you, and certainly never agreed. I think the passage makes more sense as I explained from the Greek–but it’s fine if you, translators as you noted, or whomever disagrees–it’s just not a big deal to me. “Even” would be the closest English word, not a perfect match, and as an intensifier it would make sense that it is saying “what kind of unmarrieds” Paul was writing about. That is what an intensifier would do–to be more specific and thus clarify from the general word.

Peace–bye.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Z,

I didn’t remember having discussed this with you, and certainly never agreed. I think the passage makes more sense as I explained from the Greek–but it’s fine if you, translators as you noted, or whomever disagrees–it’s just not a big deal to me. “Even” would be the closest English word, not a perfect match, and as an intensifier it would make sense that it is saying “what kind of unmarrieds” Paul was writing about. That is what an intensifier would do–to be more specific and thus clarify from the general word.

Peace–bye.

No it doesn’t it makes sense that it saying what kind of unmarried, it makes sense if as an intensifier it stresses “all unmarried”
For example:

Forgiveness is available to all who repent, even murderers.

St Jude’s hospital treats all children, even those whose families can not pay.

Adults and children should exercise regularly, even those with a healthy body weight.

From the previous discussion:

It still doesn’t say what you say it says, yes “even” emphasizes but it does not mean specifically.

Adults and children should exercise regularly, even those with a healthy body weight.