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

[benidict]

It does not negate anything because at the time of the resurrection, marriages will have already been performed.
Jesus also said:
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

this is interesting fotw. i have mixed feelings on this subject. but i will say that the passage of marriage and being given in marriage, is talking about divorce and remarriage if i am not mistaken. i am of the opinion, that marriage will continue in heaven. just in a perfect state. this is based off of a study of Mystical Judaism, and not Mormon theology, just to clarify. i do not however agree with the LDS version, which states that we will have our own planet to populate. correct me if i am wrong please. Peace to you and yours.

 

[ParkerD]

These verses simply do not restrict the meaning of the teaching of Paul six chapters later. Paul is clearly offering his advice, but that does not mean it is uninspired.

Hi, Robert,

I think it would be appropriate for anyone studying Paul’s teachings about marriage to place all of them into a set of teachings on the subject, rather than assume 1 Corinthians 7 is his only teaching on the subject. One would do well to also place Peter’s teachings on the subject right alongside, and study them also, and thus form a more complete understanding about how the apostles viewed marriage.

Also, you say here that it would make a difference to know whether Paul had been previously married or not, but you don’t explain how this makes a difference in the analysis of what he is saying vis a vis the necessity of marriage in God’s plan.

I had assumed a person would read 1 Corinthians 7:7 about “I would that all men were even as I myself” and that the fact that he had been married would make a difference of where he was coming from with his teaching.

And it seems, in Chapter 7 that one of the dividing issues was the status of marriage; and Paul’s response is decidedly Catholic rather than LDS here. He says nothing of the concept of eternal marriage

He uses the term “in the Lord” (v. 39). That can mean eternal marriage, and probably does.

, and makes no comment supporting the idea of its necessity for completing God’s plan for humanity i.e. exaltation. Again, the chapter seems entirely contrary to Mormonism’s teaching.

Yet he wrote about a man’s “betrothed” as though she and he were still planning on the coming marriage–so I would suppose that if you think that is a Catholic teaching, that every celibate priest has a “betrothed” (meaning a woman on earth whom he knows) who is waiting for him to be married to him after the “short time”.

No. It seems that Paul’s reference is to the coming of the Lord, not to the “short time” of celibacy.

I agree that it’s logical to view the words “the time is short” as talking about the Second Coming, and that the apostles (except John) seemed to view the Second Coming as being a “short time” away–in which case, Paul’s teaching would have the assumption built into it that those people would still be living and that the whole situation would change after the Second Coming of Christ, so the “betrothed” could then get married as their promise to each other had indicated they would do.

He is speaking in Chapter 7 without restriction as to time in which one should remain celibate. Rather, he is saying that those who can take on celibacy to the end should take it on

He doesn’t say “to the end of time” or “for the rest of their lives”, and rather uses the word “betrothed” as noted previously.

, but better to marry than be tempted to sin by one’s own passions.

That was very good advice, even today–right?

Nothing in the discussion in Chapter 7 suggests that celibacy is limited to a short time period.

It specifically does indeed say the “time is short” in verse 29. That is the context for his teachings about “betrothed” waiting for their future marriage.

I’m sorry, but I see no such qualification in the writing:

It is right there in plain view.

You’re free to disagree. But there’s nothing in the text of the chapter, or the epistle, that limits Paul’s recommendation in this way. Moreover, even if his teaching is limited to two people, that they remain unmarried, his advice is contrary to the LDS position on the necessity of eternal marriage.

Not so. Single missionaries are not asked to get married before they serve missions, even if they have someone to whom they feel “promised” for a future marriage. There is no feeling conveyed that “eternal marriage” is to be rushed into. It is looked at as coming in its proper time.

I’m sure that was what he was required to find, to support his teaching on marriage.

No–he was aware that the compilers weren’t working with a perfectly readable single document from which they translated, so he sought inspiration about the context of this passage, and although it may not make any sense to you, it ties very “seamlessly” to the Savior’s teaching that those called as Seventies should go out “without purse or scrip” and thus would be living as though they weren’t married. It also ties “seamlessly” to the Jewish practice of spending many months after a couple is married, in a sort of honeymoon situation with each other.

Do you have any links to any LDS articles discussing this passage? I’d love to take another look at this issue.

I don’t know of another besides having read the link that was provided by Flyonthewall as the first response on this thread. Here is the link again:

en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Paul_said_it_is_good_not_to_marry#ref_fn2

The LDS, as far as I have seen, don’t puzzle over 1 Corinthians 7 since it makes complete sense to us within its context. It’s just not a big deal.

Peace,
Robert

Peace to you also, and have a good day.

 

[flyonthewall]

this is interesting fotw. i have mixed feelings on this subject. but i will say that the passage of marriage and being given in marriage, is talking about divorce and remarriage if i am not mistaken. i am of the opinion, that marriage will continue in heaven. just in a perfect state. this is based off of a study of Mystical Judaism, and not Mormon theology, just to clarify. i do not however agree with the LDS version, which states that we will have our own planet to populate. correct me if i am wrong please. Peace to you and yours.

The concept of having our own planet to populate is very humorous to me, because it is not LDS in origin. To hear others make this type of statement, I envision a line to get into heaven and a planet is issued to each person as they enter, comes to mind - this is not a concept held by LDS.

We believe marriage does continue after death, and as part of exaltation, we can be joint heirs with Christ, who has inherited all from the Father. Does that mean we get a planet? I do not know, but I believe it is a possibility as God the Father created this world. We believe this is not the only world He created, but we know absolutely nothing about any place other than here.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I think it would be appropriate for anyone studying Paul’s teachings about marriage to place all of them into a set of teachings…

I’m not sure this is really addressing my question. My original question is how the LDS address what seems to be very clear teaching by Paul in 1 Cor 7, regarding the acceptability of living a celibate life. The article you linked to previously seems to avoid the clear language of the text, and insted stretches for ways to soften and qualify the point that is clearly being made by Paul here:

7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

[20] Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.

[25] Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
[26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
[27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
[28] But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
[29] I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

I don’t see how the author of the article can conclude as he does, and avoid the obvious teaching here.
Parker:

… the fact that he had been married would make a difference…

But he is speaking of his present state. He is not saying “I would that all men would have what I once had.” No. He is saying all should be as he is, which refers to his present (celibate) state… “I want you to be free from anxieties” (1 Cor 7:32). I have no doubt that Paul holds marriage in high esteem, as do Christ and the rest of the Apostles. But Paul’s point is that it is a good (for those who can) to give up marriage for the good of the Kingdom.
Parker:

He uses the term “in the Lord” (v. 39). That can mean eternal marriage, and probably does.

[39] A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Eternal marriage? I don’t see it. It seems Paul is saying the widow can remarry whome she wishes. It says nothing about sealing her for time and eternity to a first husband, but not a second. Paul makes no such distinction because he accepts Christ’s teaching that there is no state of marriage in Heaven. (Mk 12:25)
Parker:

Yet he wrote about a man’s “betrothed” as though she and he were still planning on the coming marriage…

To the contrary, he advised those who were betrothed not to marry. He said nothing about waiting:

[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Parker:

…the whole situation would change after the Second Coming of Christ…

Where are you getting this? There’s just nothing in the text supporting your conclusion here. In fact, it is contrary to Christ’s teaching in Mark, supra.
Parker:

He doesn’t say “to the end of time”…

You’ve gotten it backwards. He makes no qualification at all about the period of remaining unmarried. This supports the Catholic position.
Parker:

It specifically does indeed say the “time is short” in verse 29. That is the context for his teachings about “betrothed” waiting for their future marriage.

This makes no sense. What you are saying is that because Paul said the time is short (presumably until the 2d coming), all should abstain, but since now 2,000 years have gone by we should discard Paul’s teaching on allowing those called to ministry to avoid the wordly “anxieties” of marriage that Paul is so concerned about? Wouldn’t this same rationale lead us to set aside other teachings too, if we found them to be onerous? No, I don’t think this argument is very persuasive. And it certainly is not supported by the scriptural text we are discussing.
Parker:

…it ties very “seamlessly” to the Savior’s teaching that those called as Seventies…

But it falls flatly against the LDS position insofar as Paul is condoning “those in the state they are called” (unmarried) to remain in that state - i.e. unmarried… (period).
Parker:

The LDS, as far as I have seen, don’t puzzle over 1 Corinthians 7 since it makes complete sense to us within its context. It’s just not a big deal.

It seems to me that it is a bigger deal that you realize, and the LDS are not being fair to themselves by avoiding the text in this way.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

I…Paul makes no such distinction because he accepts Christ’s teaching that there is no state of marriage in Heaven. (Mk 12:25)To the contrary, he advised those who were betrothed not to marry. He said nothing about waiting:

Where are you getting this? There’s just nothing in the text supporting your conclusion here. In fact, it is contrary to Christ’s teaching in Mark, supra.
You’ve gotten it backwards. He makes no qualification at all about the period of remaining unmarried. This supports the Catholic position.
This makes no sense. What you are saying is that because Paul said the time is short (presumably until the 2d coming), all should abstain, but since now 2,000 years have gone by we should discard Paul’s teaching on allowing those called to ministry to avoid the wordly “anxieties” of marriage that Paul is so concerned about? … No, I don’t think this argument is very persuasive. And it certainly is not supported by the scriptural text we are discussing.
But it falls flatly against the LDS position insofar as Paul is condoning “those in the state they are called” (unmarried) to remain in that state - i.e. unmarried… (period).
It seems to me that it is a bigger deal that you realize, and the LDS are not being fair to themselves by avoiding the text in this way.

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

As far as I’m concerned, we disagree about the meanings of words, phrases, teachings, reasons behind the teachings, and about the results of living by the teachings–so we couldn’t disagree more, could we?

Your original question seemed to be how the LDS view Paul’s teachings about marriage. I said we agree with Paul’s teachings about marriage for those single young men called to the ministry of being missionaries (that they should stay single during their time of service as a missionary), and that we view the text of 1 Corinthians 7 significantly differently than you do, as I have noted.

I might as well point out that I think Paul had a rather poor way of expressing some of his ideas in some areas of the gospel, and that his teachings about marriage sometimes placed women in a subordinate role that was a cultural thing and not an inspired thing. So I’m certainly grateful I don’t have to think I have to live by his every word in terms of how I view women and their role in the world.

As far as Mark 12:25, the Savior was a perfect teacher and a perfect user of language. Therefore, when He used the verb that is conjugated into English as “they shall rise” and “they neither marry”, He was carrying on the same conversation that had been started by the Sadducees. He didn’t change the subject midway through the conversation. That would be a poor grammatical thing to do, an imperfect thing to do. He was perfect. He knew language well, and its use.

Although Paul was an imperfect user of language, at least he can be understood to have used the word that translates in your Bible to “betrothed” in a way that means “promised to each other.” If he was telling them never to marry, then he would not have continued to use the word “betrothed” because it would be contrary to what he was telling them to do if that were his purpose.

As far as the “LDS being fair to themselves”, I couldn’t feel more strongly than that the LDS are being “fair to themselves” with such simple concepts that go right along with the first commandment and its divine purposes given to Adam and Eve.

 

[zaffiroborant]

He uses the term “in the Lord” (v. 39). That can mean eternal marriage, and probably does.

I don’t see how “in the Lord” can mean eternal marriage, I looked it up in Strongs on line, (again this took a long time) and I don’t see it ever being used in that maner.

 

[benidict]

The concept of having our own planet to populate is very humorous to me, because it is not LDS in origin. To hear others make this type of statement, I envision a line to get into heaven and a planet is issued to each person as they enter, comes to mind - this is not a concept held by LDS.

We believe marriage does continue after death, and as part of exaltation, we can be joint heirs with Christ, who has inherited all from the Father. Does that mean we get a planet? I do not know, but I believe it is a possibility as God the Father created this world. We believe this is not the only world He created, but we know absolutely nothing about any place other than here.

hi Fly. just so you understand im not trying to make fun of you or your beliefs. i agree their is some strong merit, in the belief that marriage continues in the world to come. the reference to the planet thing, comes from those who are as anti-Catholic as they are anti-Mormon. so i kinda figured this was skewed. i do however have to admit. i play guitar, and the way i look at it is this. will i not be able to do this in eternity? doubtful. i like to tell people, why just rock a stage? im preparing to meet the Creator one day, and hopefully if i enter Heaven, i will get to rock a Planet! whats the difference. kabballah teaches we live in more of a multiverse of sorts. people may find when they die, that Heaven, Hell and purgatory, were all just a veil away from this present reality…hmmm. kinda sounds like the temple cerimony doesnt it? no need to answer that. the last part is just my not so private musings. peace

 

[ryanoneil]

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord. (7:39)

This does not translate to eternal marriage because marriage ends at the death of one spouse. If the first marriage is eternal she would end up with a second eternal husband.

**If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better. (7:36-38) **

Paul is actually presenting engaged men with two options: a man does well to marry his fiancee, but he does even better if he remains unmarried. Remaining unmarried means stopping the wedding plans.

I agree that it’s logical to view the words “the time is short” as talking about the Second Coming, and that the apostles (except John) seemed to view the Second Coming as being a “short time” away–in which case, Paul’s teaching would have the assumption built into it that those people would still be living and that the whole situation would change after the Second Coming of Christ, so the “betrothed” could then get married as their promise to each other had indicated they would do.

It specifically does indeed say the “time is short” in verse 29. That is the context for his teachings about “betrothed” waiting for their future marriage.

The context is: time is short because **the world in it’s present form is passing away **(7:31). When the age comes to an end, so does marriage and it’s daily concerns.

Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise. (Lk 20:34-36)

And the reason marriage ends is because it’s purpose ends. We no longer beget children and we no longer help our spouses advance toward holiness because they are already sanctified.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

As far as I’m concerned, we disagree about the meanings of words, phrases, teachings, reasons behind the teachings, and about the results of living by the teachings–so we couldn’t disagree more, could we?

I suppose we could find other ways to disagree. But that was not the point of my OP. I was asking LDS members to present how it is they address was appears to be clear teaching that is inconsistent with the LDS doctrine of the necessity of eternal marriage in God’s plan. What you seem to be telling me is that you address it by adopting different meanings for words, phrases, teachings, and the reasons behind those teachings. That is a valid answer to my question, but it does not necessarily mean I have to accept it as an inspired truth.
Parker:

Your original question seemed to be how the LDS view Paul’s teachings about marriage. I said we agree with Paul’s teachings about marriage for those single young men called to the ministry of being missionaries (that they should stay single during their time of service as a missionary), and that we view the text of 1 Corinthians 7 significantly differently than you do, as I have noted.

Yes. That’s what you’ve done. And I appreciate your response. But my reply to your response is that the LDS view you set out seems tenuously supported.
Parker:

I might as well point out that I think Paul had a rather poor way of expressing some of his ideas in some areas of the gospel, and that his teachings about marriage sometimes placed women in a subordinate role that was a cultural thing and not an inspired thing. So I’m certainly grateful I don’t have to think I have to live by his every word in terms of how I view women and their role in the world.

I’m not sure how Paul’s alleged mysogyny bears any relationship to his teaching on marriage. His comments were directed to both genders. Are you saying that you personally give all of Paul’s teachings little weight because he seemed to hold women in low regard (an allegation that I am accepting arguendo)?

ParkerD:

Although Paul was an imperfect user of language, at least he can be understood to have used the word that translates in your Bible to “betrothed” in a way that means “promised to each other.” If he was telling them never to marry, then he would not have continued to use the word “betrothed” because it would be contrary to what he was telling them to do if that were his purpose.

How so? I’m not sure I follow your logic here. The passage reads:

[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1 Cor 7:35-38)

Where does this language say that eventually they will be married? When? In the afterlife? Your own reading of Mk, supra, suggests not.
Parker:

As far as the “LDS being fair to themselves”, I couldn’t feel more strongly than that the LDS are being “fair to themselves” with such simple concepts that go right along with the first commandment and its divine purposes given to Adam and Eve.

Then please show me something beyond what you have presented, so that I can see that a real effort has been made to try to harmonize Paul’s recommendation in 1 Corinthians 7. Because, based on what I’ve been presented here, the LDS position is a lot of reading into the passage something that’s just not supported. Whether the LDS teaching supports the first commandment to Adam, and what it’s divine purpose are, is a topic for another thread.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve been away from CAF for some time now. Just returned from an incredible retreat. It is amazing, taking a fresh look at the Mormon threads, how obvious truths found in scripture are turned on their head and twisted in every direction, in order to perpetuate a lie, no matter how plainly an issue is presented. Paul’s writings could not be clearer on the subject of this thread. I have come to the conclusion that it is truly a waste of energy to attempt to convince one who is not interested in pursuing truth. Really, what is the point? There simply is no argument, no amount of reason, no fact that can make a difference when one purposely is only interested in defending and perpetuating falsehood at any cost. Time is better used in praying for these poor folks.

 

[flyonthewall]

I’ve been away from CAF for some time now. Just returned from an incredible retreat. It is amazing, taking a fresh look at the Mormon threads, how obvious truths found in scripture are turned on their head and twisted in every direction, in order to perpetuate a lie, no matter how plainly an issue is presented. Paul’s writings could not be clearer on the subject of this thread. I have come to the conclusion that it is truly a waste of energy to attempt to convince one who is not interested in pursuing truth. Really, what is the point? There simply is no argument, no amount of reason, no fact that can make a difference when one purposely is only interested in defending and perpetuating falsehood at any cost. Time is better used in praying for these poor folks.

Just remember that we are just as convinvced our beliefs are true as you believe your beliefs are true, so to us, the same can be stated about you.
However, I didn’t come here to convince anyone that my beliefs are what you need to subscribe to, but simply for dialogue between faiths.
Are you here to try and sway us from our beliefs?

 

[ParkerD]

… That is a valid answer to my question, but it does not necessarily mean I have to accept it as an inspired truth.

Robert,

I assure you that I am very much aware that nothing I write as a response will ever by considered by any Catholic (or Protestant) to be “an inspired truth”, but could hope or at least have a bit of hope that someone might think to themselves, “well, I disagree but they seem to have their reasons for their opinion”.

Yes. That’s what you’ve done. And I appreciate your response. But my reply to your response is that the LDS view you set out seems tenuously supported.

But yet it is consistent with the commandment that really was important, given to Adam and Eve, as I pointed out. So the “tenuous support” idea becomes, in my mind, more than “tenuous”–it becomes consistent with a commandment of God in the very beginning of this world.

I’m not sure how “that” bears any relationship to his teaching on marriage. His comments were directed to both genders. Are you saying that you personally give all of Paul’s teachings little weight because he seemed to hold women in “a subordinate role” (an allegation that I am accepting arguendo)?

I added that point because Paul was only one apostle, with one point of view, and it is a far stronger position to establish a basic doctrine by taking the teachings of Jesus and of as many apostles as possible, and molding them together into a defining doctrine, especially one so extremely far-reaching that overturns the first commandment given to Adam and Eve. I also added that point because I do think that Paul either wrote or was translated in ways that could be misunderstood, (just as Peter wrote about Paul’s writing), and that his teachings about the role of women should not be adhered to at face value today.

How so? I’m not sure I follow your logic here. The passage reads:

Quote:
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1 Cor 7:35-38)

Because verse 37 has the part I have underlined, which uses the words “keep her as his betrothed”, which means that she will still be his “betrothed” even after he has made the decision not to marry her for the present time. The word “keep” does not mean “let her depart from the relationship and marry someone else” or “let her remain unmarried forever”. It means they have an expectation, still, of marriage in their future.

Where does this language say that eventually they will be married? When?

I hope you have understood that I have answered that using the very simple phrase “keep her as his betrothed”. Many reasonable people would take this reasonable phrase as meaning there was a coming expectation of marriage for those two people, within a few years or a reasonable time of “betrothal”.

Whether the LDS teaching supports the first commandment to Adam, and what it’s divine purpose are, is a topic for another thread.

I certainly disagree with this sentence since the topic of this thread has been a teaching of Paul, and Paul would certainly believe in the commandments of God, and would not think he had the authority to supersede them with his own ideas, nor would he think that he was being guided by the Spirit to supersede them with a teaching that ran counter to a teaching of the Savior.

Peace,
Robert

Peace to you, also, and have a great weekend.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

I’ve been away from CAF for some time now. Just returned from an incredible retreat. It is amazing, taking a fresh look at the Mormon threads, how obvious truths found in scripture are turned on their head and twisted in every direction, in order to perpetuate a lie, no matter how plainly an issue is presented. Paul’s writings could not be clearer on the subject of this thread. I have come to the conclusion that it is truly a waste of energy to attempt to convince one who is not interested in pursuing truth.

Just because we don’t follow your beliefs doesn’t mean that we are not interested in pursuing truth. We sincerely believe that we are.

Also, proselytizing is against the rules, for both Catholics and non-Catholics. So no one should be here to “convince” others about anything. What we should be doing is discussing our beliefs and why we believe what we each believe.

Really, what is the point? There simply is no argument, no amount of reason, no fact that can make a difference when one purposely is only interested in defending and perpetuating falsehood at any cost. Time is better used in praying for these poor folks.

Who here is interested in perpetuating falsehood? Sigh, again, we actually believe in our faith, and believe it is true. From your perspective, our faith is false, however that does not mean that we are interested in perpetuating falsehood since we don’t see our faith as falsehood.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The concept of having our own planet to populate is very humorous to me, because it is not LDS in origin.

“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. **We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. **We will have an endless eternity for this.” (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48)

 

[RebeccaJ]

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord. (7:39)

This does not translate to eternal marriage because marriage ends at the death of one spouse. If the first marriage is eternal she would end up with a second eternal husband.

If the first marriage were eternal, marrying another would be adultery.

 

[flyonthewall]

“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. **We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. **We will have an endless eternity for this.” (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48)

“Mormons believe that they can become gods and rule over their own planets.”
This is a mischaracterization of LDS belief. This is a sacred topic that we do not speak of lightly. It is not something that can be explained in short sound bytes. It is not an established doctrine of the Church, but it is a common belief held by the majority of the members that we participate in the creation process and become as God.

The first point to understand is that we don’t see God as something that is “Totally Other” or “Totally different” from humanity. We really see him as Our Heavenly Father, in a very literal sense. When this principle is taught in the Holy Bible we completely believe it.

As the Bible tells us, we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God - except Jesus. But, through the Fathers mercy, He promises to give us everything that He has, to allow sit us down on His throne as He has placed Jesus on a throne.

We believe everyone is already divine, in some sense, because they are children of a divine Father in Heaven. The atonement of Jesus Christ gives us the ability to express and develop that divine potential into a divine reality. This mortal earth life is a continuation of the process of developing that potential first begun in the pre-mortal existence where we lived with our Father in Heaven.

In a nutshell, we believe the Father can make us like Him, and since He is divine, we will be too. But, that never means we can supersede Him, or replace Him or Jesus. We will always worship the Father as God. This is something that happens because of the Grace of God, it is not something that we can earn in any sense of the word. It’s not meant to be an expression of arrogance, but simply an expression of the wonderful grace available to us all.

We think is says a lot more about God than it does about us.

This is a concept alluded to in the Holy Bible and discussed at some length by the early Church Fathers. A current understanding of these beliefs is a result of continuing revelation from God. Other Christian faiths have rejected modern day revelation and have lost understanding of these principles.

Unfortunately, our critics try to make it sound blasphemous or ridiculous, and hope that they can use sound-byte attacks to convey ideas we don’t really believe.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“Mormons believe that they can become gods and rule over their own planets.”
This is a mischaracterization of LDS belief. This is a sacred topic that we do not speak of lightly. It is not something that can be explained in short sound bytes. It is not an established doctrine of the Church, but it is a common belief held by the majority of the members that we participate in the creation process and become as God.

The first point to understand is that we don’t see God as something that is “Totally Other” or “Totally different” from humanity. We really see him as Our Heavenly Father, in a very literal sense. When this principle is taught in the Holy Bible we completely believe it.

As the Bible tells us, we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God - except Jesus. But, through the Fathers mercy, He promises to give us everything that He has, to allow sit us down on His throne as He has placed Jesus on a throne.

We believe everyone is already divine, in some sense, because they are children of a divine Father in Heaven. The atonement of Jesus Christ gives us the ability to express and develop that divine potential into a divine reality. This mortal earth life is a continuation of the process of developing that potential first begun in the pre-mortal existence where we lived with our Father in Heaven.

In a nutshell, we believe the Father can make us like Him, and since He is divine, we will be too. But, that never means we can supersede Him, or replace Him or Jesus. We will always worship the Father as God. This is something that happens because of the Grace of God, it is not something that we can earn in any sense of the word. It’s not meant to be an expression of arrogance, but simply an expression of the wonderful grace available to us all.

We think is says a lot more about God than it does about us.

This is a concept alluded to in the Holy Bible and discussed at some length by the early Church Fathers. A current understanding of these beliefs is a result of continuing revelation from God. Other Christian faiths have rejected modern day revelation and have lost understanding of these principles.

Unfortunately, our critics try to make it sound blasphemous or ridiculous, and hope that they can use sound-byte attacks to convey ideas we don’t really believe.

What is the characterization fly? It is a direct quote of one of your prophets.

I understand that some Mormons today are backing away from this teaching. I am only pointing out that the teaching is Mormon in origin, not anti-Mormon, as you are asserting.

The ECF’s never taught that men become gods who are worshiped and have dominion over their own planets. The Bible doesn’t teach this either. This is wholly a LDS invention.

Also, Mormonism certainly teaches that exaltation is earned through obedience and the performance of temple ordinances. Not grace.

 

[flyonthewall]

What is the characterization fly? It is a direct quote of one of your prophets.

I understand that some Mormons today are backing away from this teaching. I am only pointing out that the teaching is Mormon in origin, not anti-Mormon, as you are asserting.

The ECF’s never taught that men become gods who are worshiped and have dominion over their own planets. The Bible doesn’t teach this either. This is wholly a LDS invention.

Also, Mormonism certainly teaches that exaltation is earned through obedience and the performance of temple ordinances. Not grace.

Let me highlight the part that would give you more information:

In a nutshell, we believe the Father can make us like Him, and since He is divine, we will be too. But, that never means we can supersede Him, or replace Him or Jesus. We will always worship the Father as God. This is something that happens because of the Grace of God, it is not something that we can earn in any sense of the word. It’s not meant to be an expression of arrogance, but simply an expression of the wonderful grace available to us all.

We think is says a lot more about God than it does about us.

This is a concept alluded to in the Holy Bible and discussed at some length by the early Church Fathers. A current understanding of these beliefs is a result of continuing revelation from God. Other Christian faiths have rejected modern day revelation and have lost understanding of these principles.

Unfortunately, our critics try to make it sound blasphemous or ridiculous, and hope that they can use sound-byte attacks to convey ideas we don’t really believe.

Wasn’t one of the teachings of the ECF that God became man so that man could become God? I see that this position was backed away from like the plague.
The scriptures also teach that we can become one with God as Jesus is one with the Father, and that we can become joint heirs with Christ. If anything, we have restored the belief that you have discarded.

 

[ParkerD]

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord. (7:39)

This does not translate to eternal marriage because marriage ends at the death of one spouse. If the first marriage is eternal she would end up with a second eternal husband.

…

RyanOneil,

I wanted to get back to you about this challenge to a comment I had made. I appreciate having been challenged about an assumption I had made that the first marriage was not “in the covenant” and therefore a widow was being advised that if she chose to remarry, she should do so “in the covenant.”

As I have thought more about this, I think it is a case where the underlying assumption made by Paul was that a couple getting married who were members would marry “in the covenant”, and that was a given–an eternal marriage as presented in the teaching that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

So a widow who had been married in the covenant might be thinking, if she were going to marry again, that it was less important for her to marry a member since she already had an eternal marriage. She might think that there were reasons that could justify such a decision. So Paul’s encouragement to marry “in the Lord” would be an encouragement to marry a member if a widow were to remarry, and the words “in the Lord” would be making that point.

This would not mean she would have a “second eternal husband”. It would mean simply that she had married a covenant member of the church for the duration of her mortal life.

 

[campeador]

Let me highlight the part that would give you more information:

Wasn’t one of the teachings of the ECF that God became man so that man could become God? I see that this position was backed away from like the plague.
The scriptures also teach that we can become one with God as Jesus is one with the Father, and that we can become joint heirs with Christ. ** If anything, we have restored the belief that you have discarded.**

You are being dishonest. You must know the teaching of the Catholic Church (I’m sure you’ve seen this many times before):

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.”