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

[flyonthewall]

The topic was how the LDS harmonize 1Cor 7 with their teaching that eternal marriage is essential to God’s plan for humanity. And your comment really just begs the question, “Does celibacy run counter to God’s commandment?” If we assume the scriptures here are inspired, we must conclude that celibacy is a favorable alternative to the marital state amongst those devoting their life to full time ministry.

Peace,
Robert

We have told you how 1 Cor 7 harmonizes with our teaching on marriage. Marriage is the desired state, and celibacy is the only favorable alternative if one is not married.
Paul is addressing a specific issue that was brought up to him, and simply put, Paul tells them that while serving as a missionary, you should focus on the ministry, not finding a wife.
The scriptures clear that marriage is preferred:
Gen 1:27-28 - Be fruitful & multiply…can’t do that while unmarried(and still be in favor with God)
Gen 2:18, 21-24 - Not good to be alone, that is why man shall leave his parents to marry
1 Cor 11:11 - In the Lord, the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man
Ephesians 5:22-33 - marriage is a heavenly pattern, a man shall leave his parents to marry

If we do assume the scriptures are inspired then there is no doubt that marriage is desired above all else.

 

[rainman10]

Hi, Robert,

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.

Maybe not, but I have known quite a few missionaries and they told me that after their missions they felt they were rushed into getting married, because they were told that they need to get married within six months after ending their missions. So there is a rush there.

 

[rainman10]

Robert,

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.

So where does this leave Jesus, since He was not married? Or do Mormons believe that he was either married, was a lifetime missionary, or that he is not “exalted”?

 

[ryanoneil]

Quite simply, Paul is saying that Christians should be content with the state they are in, and the state in which God calls them is the state they should serve him. He makes the point for the married in (7:1-16) and the unmarried in (7:25-35). Inbetween there he makes the point for circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free. In all cases a change in condition is not what is important to Christ.

None of this speaks to the necessity of eternal marriage. A man does “well” to marry his fiancee, but does even “better” if he remains unmarried (7:38). Their decision (to marry or not) depends on whether they are disciplined enough to control their passions. This does not depend on being in a time of missionary work and it doesn’t say anything about marrying after a time like that.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

I have never told anyone what they believe or should believe. Catholics are free to believe anything they want.

Sounds like a way to make words mean anything except what they actually mean.
I understand what it means for words and phrases to have deeper meaning than what is presented on the surface, but, it doesn’t involve negating the meaning or the imagery of the words used…only providing fuller, richer meaning to them.

I do hear you saying that the common man is unable to understand the scriptures, is that what your are saying?

Funny how hypocritical you sound because I’ve seen Mormons, including yourself defend your views the godhead by stating that words or ideas can mean different things to different people.

I’ll leave it at that and agree that words representing an idea as deep as “become god” may be a little too complex for a lay person.

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholic teaching is resolute and consistent.

I remember hearing in first grade before Holy Communion by the nuns that Satan tempted Adam and Eve to become as gods, that this was an attempt to put them on equality with God, but instead led them to break their relationship with God.

Christ showed us the way in the Gospels 2,000 years ago in how to follow Him, to partake in the sharing of Himself with us—the Eucharist, the Word of God, the Sacraments…and that we in turn show our godliness by love and service and the carrying of the cross.

There are many within the Catholic and Orthodox churches, as well as many devout Protestants who have shed their blood for the love of Christ as martyrs.

 

[campeador]

So where does this leave Jesus, since He was not married? Or do Mormons believe that he was either married, was a lifetime missionary, or that he is not “exalted”?

Early LDS leaders believed Jesus was married.

From fairmormon.org:

**Official doctrine?
**
Even though several leaders have expressed positive opinions on the subject, there has never been any revelation or official statement on the subject on behalf of the Church.

Dale Bills, a spokesman for the Church, said in a statement released Tuesday, 16 May 2006:

The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine.

 

[Javl]

It is truly amazing as to how the scriptures can be twisted and distorted to say and mean anything you want them to. It reminds me of how easy it is to pick out some of Jesus’ sayings and put them together so that they tell you to go out and kill, commit mayhem, adultery, etc. I find that not only the Jehovahs Witnesses are expert at this but the LDS church as well.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[KathleenGee]

Twisting Scripture to justify passion and domination…sins of the flesh.

 

[flyonthewall]

Twisting Scripture to justify passion and domination…sins of the flesh.

Indeed it is.

 

[SteveVH]

It is truly amazing as to how the scriptures can be twisted and distorted to say and mean anything you want them to. It reminds me of how easy it is to pick out some of Jesus’ sayings and put them together so that they tell you to go out and kill, commit mayhem, adultery, etc. I find that not only the Jehovahs Witnesses are expert at this but the LDS church as well.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

When one must torture scripture in order to fit man-made doctrines, even the plain words of Paul, which are the focus of this thread, become subject to spiritual blindness. I find it actually quite interesting that the human mind is capable of accepting as truth, notions which directly contradict such plain words. “He who refrains from marriage will do better.” The refusal to accept such a straight forward statement is truly amazing, and, in my opinion, frightening.

 

[Javl]

When one must torture scripture in order to fit man-made doctrines, even the plain words of Paul, which are the focus of this thread, become subject to spiritual blindness. I find it actually quite interesting that the human mind is capable of accepting as truth, notions which directly contradict such plain words. “He who refrains from marriage will do better.” The refusal to accept such a straight forward statement is truly amazing, and, in my opinion, frightening.

I agree Steve. What is even more disconcerting, and frightening, is that there are so many gullible people ready to accept these man-made doctrines as the word of God. Peter warned us about men like J. Smith, B. Young, et al, but, from what I’ve seen so far I guess he didn’t know what he was talking about.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

Why are they only married for the duration of their mortal life in the second marriage and not the first?

I believe marriage is God’s creation after all, which is why no civil, religious, or individual authority has the power to break the bond of marriage (citing Gen 2:24).

Do you believe that marriage is God’s creation?

RyanOneil,

I wanted to understand your frame of reference for asking your questions, so I did a Google search about Catholic marriages for widows and found a very thoughtful statement that came from a Vatican official several years ago:

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3793

I certainly believe and understand that marriage is “God’s creation”. I also was favorably impressed with the statement I have linked above. I suppose that a widow who married again will be able to have the kind of relationship described by “Father Cantalamessa” with her second husband, in their resurrected state. I think his statement contains great wisdom about “marriage in heaven” for Catholics, and I appreciated reading it.

If so, why would God make two types of marriages (one that is indissoluble and another that dissolves at death)?

I could see Father Cantalamessa’s words applying in both cases, so I don’t see a great need to make a distinction. I think of those relationships being the kind he described, anyway.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Where does it talk about waiting until after the Second Coming to marry your betrothed? Where does it suggest something other than a commitment to celibacy, as opposed to temporarily refraining during the course of a mission calling? What you suggest is just speculation that is not supported by what is there in the text.

Not if you read to the end of the passage, where Paul says, without exception, that one who remains unmarried “will do better.” …free from anxieties, perhaps?

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

I only brought up the Second Coming because of the phrase “for a short time”, which is sometimes an allusion to the coming of the end times. I really do think the more logical meaning is that those whom Paul was referring to had been called to preach the gospel.

I emphasized the words “keep his betrothed”, which has a meaning that to me is just as simple and straightforward as the meaning you have ascribed to verse 38. We choose to look at those meanings and find the connotation that makes sense to us, and your arrival at a different conclusion makes no difference to the conclusion that I find in the passage.

 

[ParkerD]

The topic was how the LDS harmonize 1Cor 7 with their teaching that eternal marriage is essential to God’s plan for humanity. And your comment really just begs the question, “Does celibacy run counter to God’s commandment?” If we assume the scriptures here are inspired, we must conclude that celibacy is a favorable alternative to the marital state amongst those devoting their life to full time ministry.

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

Celibacy doesn’t run “counter to God’s commandment”, according to the Savior’s teaching. It was acceptable for those who felt it necessary given His reminder that the intent of the law of Moses was to allow for divorce within a “lesser law” than the commandment given to Adam and Eve.

He was re-establishing the “higher law” of marriage, and told the apostles that celibacy was acceptable for those who chose to live by the “higher law” but yet instead of choosing marriage would choose celibacy. It’s fine, since it’s what they choose under the “higher law” constraint about no divorce.

 

[zaffiroborant]

We have told you how 1 Cor 7 harmonizes with our teaching on marriage. Marriage is the desired state, and celibacy is the only favorable alternative if one is not married.
Paul is addressing a specific issue that was brought up to him, and simply put, Paul tells them that while serving as a missionary, you should focus on the ministry, not finding a wife.

I don’t see where in 1Corinthians Paul is addressing serving as a missionary, I think this is a projecting current LDS practice back on to Paul’s writing.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Sounds like a way to make words mean anything except what they actually mean.
I understand what it means for words and phrases to have deeper meaning than what is presented on the surface, but, it doesn’t involve negating the meaning or the imagery of the words used…only providing fuller, richer meaning to them.
Pax in Veritate;7491984:

Funny how hypocritical you sound because I’ve seen Mormons, including yourself defend your views the godhead by stating that words or ideas can mean different things to different people.

An example of this would be defining faith as:

• By this we understand that the principle of power, which existed in the bosom of God, by which the worlds were framed, was faith; and that it is by reason of this principle of power, existing in the Deity, that all created things exist-so that all things in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, exist by reason of faith, as it existed in HIM.

• Faith, then, is the first great governing principle which has power, dominion, and authority over all things: by it they exist, by it they are upheld, by it they are changed, or by it they remain, agreeably to the will of God. Without it, there is no power, and without power there could be no creation, nor existence!

Faith is the power God used to create all things, my my I don’t see that included in any dictionary:shrug: So words are defined and understood as pleases LDS members but of course this latitude does not extend to others.

 

[flyonthewall]

An example of this would be defining faith as:

Faith is the power God used to create all things, my my I don’t see that included in any dictionary:shrug: So words are defined and understood as pleases LDS members but of course this latitude does not extend to others.

“20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

People were healed by their faith

Hebrews 11 lists more things that have been done by faith.

Sounds like faith is pretty powerful stuff.

It would also help if you posted a link to the source where you found this so that context can be seen, that is if context is important to you.
That is not a definition of faith. This is from lds.org:

The Apostle Paul taught that “faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Alma made a similar statement: “If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true” (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see.

 

[RebeccaJ]

An example of this would be defining faith as:

Faith is the power God used to create all things, my my I don’t see that included in any dictionary:shrug: So words are defined and understood as pleases LDS members but of course this latitude does not extend to others.

Sometimes, Smith’s beliefs and background in folk magic and occult come through.

 

[JeanMichel]

When one must torture scripture in order to fit man-made doctrines, even the plain words of Paul, which are the focus of this thread, become subject to spiritual blindness. I find it actually quite interesting that the human mind is capable of accepting as truth, notions which directly contradict such plain words. “He who refrains from marriage will do better.” The refusal to accept such a straight forward statement is truly amazing, and, in my opinion, frightening.

For some reason I never considered my marriage to be any form of failure before God. Do you really consider marriage something less than celibacy?