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

[rainman10]

Early LDS leaders believed Jesus was married.

From fairmormon.org:

Yes, I find it quite difficult and confusing to understand when something is Mormon doctrine and when it isn’t. Because they believe in modern day revelation, one day something is doctrine and the next day it is a prophets opinion. God protected His Church by new and changing doctrines by revealing all Truth in Jesus Christ. Nothing more needs to be revealed until Jesus returns to this earth.

 

[zaffiroborant]

“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 quotes are from lecture #1 of Lectures on Faith, wiki has something on the Lectures on Faith and BYU’s Religious Studies Center has the lectures available on line. Parker has also posted at least one of these quotes in a previous discussion about “faith”.

I would post a link but my browser is not cooperating and no matter what I type it takes me to various advertising sites

 

[ParkerD]

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”?

Rainman10,

He was already exalted when He came to earth as “God with us” (Immanuel). He didn’t need the perfecting influence of marriage. He was already perfect, which I realize is not news to anyone.

He also knew He was going to be killed at a young age. He knew this perfectly, with not the slightest doubt in His mind about it.

He also knew He did have a “mission” to perform that would not be completed until the sacrifice of Himself–His death on the cross–and His resurrection. One could indeed say that at age 30 He became a “lifetime missionary”, for that is how He lived His life and mission. One could say that and be completely correct about it, in no uncertain terms.

 

[SteveVH]

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?

Of course not. I am assuming (bad thing to do) that at this point in the thread, everyone knows that Paul is speaking in the context of those who have chosen a religious vocation, i.e. full time ministry. He is telling them that in this case celibacy is preferable. My comments were addressing the human mind’s capability of denying a plainly stated truth in favor of satisfying and justifying notions which contradict that plain statement.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Paul is speaking according to the law of God, not the law of Moses. God’s allowance of divorce by Moses was due to the “hardness of their hearts”. Jesus cited Moses’ law and then stated “but I say unto you”. The law of Moses was no longer valid as explaind in Acts Chapter 15.

 

[SteveVH]

Rainman10,

He was already exalted when He came to earth as “God with us” (Immanuel). He didn’t need the perfecting influence of marriage. He was already perfect, which I realize is not news to anyone.

Then marriage is not required in order to attain perfection, correct?

 

[ParkerD]

Then marriage is not required in order to attain perfection, correct?

That is a revelatory kind of question, and does not follow logically from the perfection that Jesus had and has. His was a different kind of perfection, of course. For us, He is the Originator, the Source, the Alpha and Omega, and it is done in His way.

It would seem well to ask for the answer from Him as the Source of perfection, rather than from any person on earth.

 

[SteveVH]

“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:

Faith is very “powerful stuff” for those of us still walking this earth. There is, however, no faith in heaven as it is no longer needed or required. Fatih is the hope and belief in things not seen. In heaven, faith is replaced by actual knowledge, when we see God face to face. God does not require faith for Himself. Humans require faith in order to receive the healing power God wishes to give them. In whom is God to have faith? Himself?

God bless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, in heaven, there will be no more faith or hope, but love.

Love is all that is eternal and lasting.

 

[ryanoneil]

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.

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.

Well, I certainly believe that the communion I have with my wife will continue in heaven but marriage itself is a reality of this present age that is passing away. Our love will be confirmed and purified and completed by communion in Jesus Christ. I don’t think my wife and I will be “put asunder” after this life. Instead, there will be something new- the wedding day of the Lamb (Rev 19:7). This is a mystery I cannot explain. This is the great mystery in refernce to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32). Marriage is the earthly image of the heavenly union between Christ and the Church. Marriage is an earthly sign that points to the perfect union we look forward to with God, and each other. That perfect union in heaven is when we truly see that we are all “one body” in Christ (1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:12-13; Rom 12:5).

Do you see what I’m saying? “Two becoming one flesh” isn’t the standard in the age to come. It is all the individual members of the one body being in perfect communion. I think that is what the article refers to as the relationships between spouses, parents, children and friends will not be forgotten but they will be transfigured. Everyone will experience that kind of relationship. A first husband, for example, will not retain some form of exclusivity over the second or the seventh for that matter.

 

[ryanoneil]

Those who voluntarily embrace celibacy also point to this mystery (Mt 19:12). Married couples and celibates are both signs for each other, that point to the same mystery.

**He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” **

 

[ParkerD]

Well, I certainly believe that the communion I have with my wife will continue in heaven…Do you see what I’m saying? “Two becoming one flesh” isn’t the standard in the age to come. It is all the individual members of the one body being in perfect communion. I think that is what the article refers to as the relationships between spouses, parents, children and friends will not be forgotten but they will be transfigured. Everyone will experience that kind of relationship. A first husband, for example, will not retain some form of exclusivity over the second or the seventh for that matter.

RyanOneil,

As far as “one flesh”, then there is a spiritual meaning to those words that is far more important than the physical meaning usually perceived.

I think Father Cantalamessa used carefully planned words with specific meaning that had to do specifically with married people in their resurrection, in such sentences as:

Many spouses will experience true love for each other only when they will be reunited “in God,” and with this love there will be the joy and fullness of the union that they did not know on earth. In God all will be understood, all will be excused, all will be forgiven.

Some will ask of course about those who have been legitimately married to different people, widowers and widows who have remarried. (This was the case presented to Jesus of the seven brothers who successively had the same woman as their wife.) Even for them we must repeat the same thing: That which was truly love and self-surrender between each of the husbands or wives, being objectively a good coming from God, will not be dissolved.

 

[SteveVH]

That is a revelatory kind of question, and does not follow logically from the perfection that Jesus had and has. His was a different kind of perfection, of course. For us, He is the Originator, the Source, the Alpha and Omega, and it is done in His way.

It would seem well to ask for the answer from Him as the Source of perfection, rather than from any person on earth.

I would agree with you Parker, but it conflicts with my understanding of the LDS doctrine of exaltation (which may very well be the problem). I am under the impression that Jesus had to undergo the same path of exaltation as do we, at some point in time. If this is the case then He had to be married at some point in time. As you are aware we believe that Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, has been perfect from all eternity, having no beginning and no end. This was not my understanding of the LDS belief. Maybe you can help me. Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

I would agree with you Parker, but it conflicts with my understanding of the LDS doctrine of exaltation (which may very well be the problem). I am under the impression that Jesus had to undergo the same path of exaltation as do we, at some point in time.

SteveVH,
Definitely He did not have to do that, at all. He was perfect in the Beginning, and was never not perfect. Everything He did was perfect. He was already exalted in the Beginning, which is why He is called Alpha, and Immanuel, and the Word who was made flesh, and the Light of Truth.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Definitely He did not have to do that, at all. He was perfect in the Beginning, and was never not perfect. Everything He did was perfect. He was already exalted in the Beginning, which is why He is called Alpha, and Immanuel, and the Word who was made flesh, and the Light of Truth.

Then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I’m quite certain that I have read, from LDS posters, and Joseph Smith himself, that even the Father “was once as we are now”; that both He and the Son are exalted humans and that we will, if we follow the Temple rituals, become “as He is now”. Are you saying that you believe in an eternal God, a God without beginning, who existed before all things, who was perfect from eternity. Maybe you could explain what you mean by the “beginning”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Setting aside the fact that nowhere in 1 Cor does Paul limit his discussion to “serving as a missionary”… there’s an interesting point I want to make here:

It occurred to me after my last post that there is simply no LDS equivalent to the full time religious life (ministerial priests, monks, nuns, relious brothers, etc.) that exists within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. A full time clergy member - according to Paul - would be in the best position if he remained celibate for the remainder of his life. The LDS reading of 1 Cor as celibacy being temporary (i.e. while serving your “calling” or mission work) seems to assume that an individual christian would remain in that “mission” status only temporarily. Thus, LDS seem to be viewing the encouragement of Paul to remain celibate as relating only to a temporary situation. (And please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect here)

So, my question back to any participating LDS members is this: Assume that a young, unmarried adult LDS member chooses to devote his or her remaing life entirely to doing mission work or some other purely religious calling. Under that circumstance, it seems to me that would have to read Paul in 1 Cor 7 as encouraging such a person to remain in the unmarried state for the duration of their life? I think that the LDS position would have to concede this point.

So, that seems to bring the question around to one of whether or not a full time religious life (i.e. priests, nuns, monks, brothers, etc.) is proper. Now, I understand that in practice the LDS church has no full time ministry and members are called to service as required (mission work, teaching, leading, community assistance, ward and stake leadership positions, etc.), for a temporary period of time. But as a general principle, do LDS members see anything doctrinally improper about a full-time career-type calling to the religious life as is the case in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. And, if so, then would not Paul’s teaching be calling such people (as far as they are able) to commit to a lifetime of remaining in the unmarried state?

Any thoughts on this?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Parker;

Thanks for the comment. Perhaps I could have phrased this better. My understanding is that God’s desire for all of us - from the LDS perspective - is that we become exalted beings like Him. And it is also my understanding that exaltation requires an eternal (temple) marriage in which man and woman are sealed for time and eternity. Now, if this is God’s true plan, why is Paul saying in 1 Cor 7 that those who are unmarried do better?

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

Then I apologize for my misunderstanding. I’m quite certain that I have read, from LDS posters, and Joseph Smith himself, that even the Father “was once as we are now”; that both He and the Son are exalted humans and that we will, if we follow the Temple rituals, become “as He is now”. Are you saying that (1) you believe in an eternal God, (2) a God without beginning, (3) who existed before all things, (4) who was perfect from eternity. (5) Maybe you could explain what you mean by the “beginning”.

SteveVH,

Joseph Smith was quoted as saying that the Son was like the Father, and the Father had lived on an earth as the Son lived on our earth. I disagree with the term “exalted humans”. I believe that Jesus can bring us to God and can present us before the Father to be joint heirs with Him of “all that the Father hath,” through His grace and the power of the Father and the Son.

(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) Before all things as we know them, yes.
(4) Yes.
(5) I suggest you ask Him. He inspired the words to be written as they are written.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker;

Thanks for the comment. Perhaps I could have phrased this better. My understanding is that God’s desire for all of us - from the LDS perspective - is that we become exalted beings like Him. And it is also my understanding that exaltation requires an eternal (temple) marriage in which man and woman are sealed for time and eternity. Now, if this is God’s true plan, why is Paul saying in 1 Cor 7 that those who are unmarried do better?

Peace,
Robert

Because, given the choice of waiting to be married and thus “keeping” their betrothed, by making the choice of waiting and being able to devote themselves in an unencumbered way to the preaching of the gospel, they will be able to focus in a more immersed way on teaching, visiting, strengthening, and revisiting, reteaching, and strengthening some more.

When they marry, it will be expected that they devote a good deal of time and energy in bringing joy to their marriage, and that will be a good thing, also.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Joseph Smith was quoted as saying that the Son was like the Father, and the Father had lived on an earth as the Son lived on our earth. I disagree with the term “exalted humans”. I believe that Jesus can bring us to God and can present us before the Father to be joint heirs with Him of “all that the Father hath,” through His grace and the power of the Father and the Son.

(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) Before all things as we know them, yes.
(4) Yes.
(5) I suggest you ask Him. He inspired the words to be written as they are written.

I guess I’m still confused, so please bear with me. If He was once as we are now, then how is He not an exalted human being who would be required to marry in order to attain His exalted state? As far as suggesting that I ask Jesus the meaning of “beginning”, forgive me, but I asked you. I’m interested in what you believe it means. Thanks.