P
- Status
P
paul_c
Guest
P
paul_c
Guest
Parker,
I am sure you are supportive of your wife. You are not the issue. Joseph Smith is the issue. He created the doctrine of celestial marriage and this whole concept of sealing. As you readily admit above, he only stayed with one of his 33 wives long enough to share anything except sex. And it is clear from your own Mormon records that he told these women that they would be exalted and their families exalted based on thier marriages to him. I know you have a lot invested in your faith but really, what does it take for you to understand that celestial marriage is not of God? I’ve shown you that the concept is contradicted rather harshly by both Jesus and St Paul in the bible. I’ve pointed out how self serving the concept was for Joseph Smith and how his own actions toward his wives was in direct contradiction to what you are taught now and also what was taught in the bible concerning Adultery. How long will you continue to serve Joseph Smith rather than Christ? Who is your messiah and why?
S
SteveVH
Guest
zerinus;6352160 said:
We’re talking about two different parts of the quote, but I’m obviously not going to get anywhere going down this road with you.
That is not what the revelation is saying. There were thousands of Latter-day Saints involved in those events. The revelation is referring to them all.
Maybe so but they were certainly led by JS and he is ultimately responsible.
I do! What do I care if others don’t?
I hope I can make a better defense for my faith then “I believe it and I don’t care if you do or not”. I’m pretty sure I can.
Yea, but they are wrong!
Cute!
Go ahead and do it. I am not going to stop you!
Nope!
T
Tamarack
Guest
S
SteveVH
Guest
Thanks so much zerinus. Sorry to have bothered you.But I do!
Nope!
Nope!
There is a revelation which he received while he was in jail, but this was not it.
I never claimed that any of it was a prophecy. In fact, I am arguing that it wasn’t, against you arguing to the contrary.
That is not what the revelation is saying. There were thousands of Latter-day Saints involved in those events. The revelation is referring to them all.
I do! What do I care if others don’t?
Yea, but they are wrong!
Go ahead and do it. I am not going to stop you!
Nope!
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Paul C,
Sorry to hear about your power outage, and hoping you and your family kept warm.
I had thought that once a person reads something and has made up their mind about it, that it makes little sense to keep repeating as though that person had not heard, or as though the repetition will change their mind.
But since others pop up as reading one or two comments and not going back to the earlier comments, then I suppose it’s just as well to answer every one of your questions, as I get time. So, here goes for the first few this time around:
I disagree entirely, as follows: He showed He was talking about the Sadducees when He used the specific phrase “the children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:” I realize this phrase seems to mean nothing unique to you, but those familiar with that Biblical phrase recognize that it is making a distinction between the “children of this world” and the “children of light” or the “sons of God”. There is no place where Jesus used the phrase “the children of this world” and was not singling out a group who was following the “ways of the world” or the “traditions of the world”. That phrase is a very specific phrase which He used for a very specific purpose, being the perfect Teacher that He is. He also contrasts that phrase when He later says they will become the “children of God” in their resurrection. (That is because they will have come to know God in a way they didn’t before, will no longer be following the ways of the world, and will have accepted Christ and His power of resurrection.)
For anyone who are “children of this world”, there is no marriage period in their resurrection. I agree that He was addressing those who make themselves “children of this world” with the light and knowledge they have, and say to themselves, “There is no marriage in heaven.”
There is not any reason to “parse out the words”–of course. One takes the words as they are, and finds the meaning using the method Jesus taught one should use. How many times did He tell the Pharisees and the Scribes they had read the scriptures but did not understand them? There is a similar thing going on with your not catching the very easily understood reference to “the children of this world.” This is not parsing–it is extremely easy. It can be understood by a child. But there are always going to be those who “seeing, see not.”
No–even a Catholic poster brought out the distinction between the “children of light” and the “children of this world.”
A student of the Bible will be familiar with the teaching, “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:16)
But the verse you seem to think justifies and praises celibacy allows a whole category of doctrine that works toward the same end as that there is no marriage in heaven, so of course it is not surprising that it is brought out as significant. It’s fine with me–it means many, many people are getting what they want out of life and are happy with the choices they have made to be celibate, and are doing service-oriented things with their time which is just fine. They will be rewarded with exactly the kind of life in the hereafter that they lived for here–a life of service, teaching, helping, and doing many wonderful things–just not being married.
It seems to match more closely to the Greek, and is closer to the KJV, which I trust as a valid translation for the most part (the KJV), with but few discrepancies.
Have a good evening. If I have time later, I’ll post another answer to another question, or do it tomorrow. Peace to all.
D
dianaiad
Guest
…and yet, you felt you had to share…
D
dianaiad
Guest
I dunno, it was a surprise to me, too. I had no idea that the Catholic church actually codified this matter so that marriage MUST include sex, or at least the possibility of sex. No concept of the “platonic marriage” or “marriage in name only?”
The problem I got was the catch 22 such a position puts some couples in: they love each other, and want to live together, but for some reason sex isn’t possible. They can’t live together as ‘brother and sister’ because that would cause scandal, so they should marry…except that their marriage wouldn’t be valid because they can’t have sex, so in essence they are sinning more by marrying than they would be by simply being room-mates, but being room-mates causes scandal, so…
(shrug)
I don’t suppose that it is all that common a problem, but it’s not all that rare, either. There are many reasons that a man cannot have sex (fewer for a woman, thank heaven…) and not everybody can take that little blue pill, y’know. (shrug)
Ah, well…suffice it to say that Mormons may marry even if they can’t have sex with one another, because for us marriage is eternal even when our bodies (at least, the ones we have at the moment) are not. I’ll just let you guys figure out the vagaries of your own position by yourselves.
.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Church recognizes that in marriage “the two shall become one flesh”. It is the primary purpose of marriage. As I said in a prior post the definition of “matrimony” is “the making of a mother”. The ultimate result of becoming one flesh is the creation of a family. Having said that, I have never heard of the Church requiring proof of one’s ability to perform the sexual act or to prove fertility. The Church only requires that the married couple be open to the gift of children. That is my understanding of the theological basis for conjugal union being a requirement of marriage.
Having said that, I just spoke to my priest about this question. He said that he has personally witnessed the marriage of several couples in their late years in our Church. He told me that the requirement is to be open to life, and for those in their late years this could mean the mutual embrassing of children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren from a prior marriage, or even the respective families if there was not prior marriage. Long story short, the Catholic Church would witness and bless the marriage of the couple who were the subject of this tangent, according to my priest.
P
paul_c
Guest
Thanks for your concern. It was uncomfortable, (47 degrees at the coldest) but not unbearable. Less than a century ago, this would have been normal for everyone.
D
dianaiad
Guest
That makes a LOT more sense. Thank you for going to a good source for this answer!
P
ParkerD
Guest
Paul C,
You do realize that I have hundreds, thousands, millions of witnesses each of whom has experienced a first-hand witness from God that there is marriage in heaven, so the idea of witnesses has a far more first-hand bearing than your impression that only Joseph Smith had that witness from God. I have that witness from God. It is completely unmistakable, and completely truthful. But you don’t–having not followed the steps to get such a witness.
The “children of this world” marry. The world will be “marrying and giving in marriage” at the time of the Second Coming, just as the Savior said in Matthew 24:38–but that does not make them righteous.
Marriage is a good thing. Covenant marriage is a better thing. An eternal covenant kept is a still better thing. An eternal covenant must first be desired–it will not be forced on a person nor on two people.
Verses 35 and 36 confirm that those who had previously been described as the “children of this world” will have had an awakening during the time they were in the spirit world, such that they will become the “children of God” but yet as you noted, that does not mean they can change their mind about getting an eternal marriage. They will have already made that decision for themselves, during mortality. They will become the “children of God” because they are “children of the resurrection” (which means they accepted Christ’s power to resurrect them). That does not make them joint heirs with Christ. God is loving to all of His children. He gives them the best situation they have lived to receive. It is fine with me if you want to be an angel–it’s a choice you can make for yourself. Christ said that is what the Sadducees will receive, and what the “children of this world” will receive as they become the “children of the resurrection.”
I didn’t say I disregard a single scriptural witness. I think a single scriptural witness should be looked at very carefully before drawing a major doctrinal conclusion from one verse in the Bible.
You’re right that Paul’s teaching can be used to justify celibacy, so that does give justification to those who don’t want to follow the commandment given to Adam and Eve. They will be able to explain their rationale, besides which they will bring along many people with them into the resurrection of being like angels, so this entire group receives exactly what they have taught about what heaven is like. It will simply not be a surprise nor a disappointment. Why should one be disappointed for receiving what they wanted to receive?
Joseph Smith had another witness for the vision of the degrees of glory, for the visions of the restoration of keys of priesthood, and the Book of Mormon is a witness of itself and thus a witness of Joseph Smith’s truthfulness. The Holy Spirit is the most important witness. I have the Holy Spirit’s witness, thus your words are like the words of a school child with not a whit’s impact.
You have found justification for your beliefs. I have certain knowledge of the truthfulness of my beliefs and the sure covenant with God and Christ, so it is simply an exercise in futility for anyone to think that such a witness and such a covenant can be shaken by anyone at all, let alone someone with such evident little scriptural knowledge as to not understand a simple concept such as “children of this world” compared with “children of light.”
P
ParkerD
Guest
Paul C,
Whether someone thinks they are “professional” does not make them right, but more importantly, one can find an internet source for beginning to try and glean a comparison with the Greek “Textus Receptus” in today’s world and realize that a translator was making choices as they translated–choices of how to translate an understood “they”, whether to include “the” or not, whether to include a word such as “it” or not, and whether a certain word meant one thing or another thing since words do not have a one-to-one transliteration meaning moving from Greek to English. Every such choice is important to the meaning of the text, and merely shows the bias of the translator–so no, just because they are considered by themselves a “professional” they don’t need to be believed, although of course they could be expected to be very emphatic that they know exactly the right meaning and that there is no other possible meaning than “their way” of doing it.
I never once have remarked that celestial marriage is my “one claim to the apostasy.” I have, during the conversation we have had here, had another conversation going during the same time frame concerning a different issue, and have had conversations about other issues repeatedly. Celestial marriage ends up being the one thing that a person is ultimately either choosing for themselves, or not, by making all the other choices about whether there was an “apostasy” or a “drifting” from true and pure doctrine.
I never used the word “parsed” in describing your understanding. I used the word “grammar” and the words “children of light” and I illustrated that the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 has potential translation choices made by a translator and placed on paper as their choice among several possibilities. Anyone who does not have the understanding enough to realize that the English text of a translation reflects a translator’s biases, has no background at all in language. Nor do I need to feel worried about being “deceived” since “holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost” and I have the same gift of the Holy Ghost and completely understand that gift and that source of knowledge, which is a higher and more trustworthy source than someone who was already taking the gospel in a different direction by the time they translated from the original Greek.
You can point out the verse where Paul “wrote that he was celibate”? I disagree that there is such a verse.
No–I was already aware that 1 Corinthians 7 was primarily talking about second marriages or the reaction someone should have when their spouse did not join the same religion as that married person, and what they should do if the spouse left the marriage. That was already in the English text. I looked at the Greek to get more insights into what was going on and where a translator was coming from as they looked at the Greek and made choices of how to say it in English. This is called being a “student”, not being “self-serving.”
Correct, but Jesus answered by framing the answer in terms of their question. Jesus was the most intelligent Person who ever lived. He knew exactly and precisely what He was doing, and knew precisely and exactly how specific language provides specific meaning, but also that there was a way to answer a question such that the hearer “seeing, would see not”. The apostles knew this. That is why they would in several instances come to Jesus after a public situation and ask in so many words, “What didst thou mean?”
Nonsense. Why in the world would they come up with such an assumption on their own, when they didn’t even believe in the resurrection at all?
Not so. Your question should be “why can’t * accept grammar that is incorrect” and my answer is, “because I am knowledgeable about grammar and don’t need to accept the incorrectness of someone else’s bias and lack of grammatical accuracy.” The grammar stands by itself, without Joseph Smith being involved at all.
Have a good day.*
P
paul_c
Guest
You are right, I don’t have the witness you claim that there is marriage in heaven. All I have is the words of Jesus that there is no marriage in heaven and of Paul that it is better to be celibate to serve God if you can manage it. Your claims are without any substantiation and against scripture, so why should I believe them? You have given nothing other than a generic statement that you have a witness from God. You haven’t described it and you haven’t shown anything that would prove it was from God.
Come on Parker, Of course the world will continue to marry up until the second coming, which will happen unexpectedly. There never was a debate that the living will marry. The question is whether there is marriage in heaven and this doesn’t address that.
Of course marriage is a good thing. We’re not debating that. It is after all considered sacred by Catholics, one of the 7 sacraments.
But Jesus said that there is no marriage in heaven. It is not needed because there is no need for sex in heaven since there is no procreation there and everyone will love everyone else.
Parker, the absolute truth of the matter is that the Children of God will not marry or be given in marriage in the afterlife. This is clearly stated. And remember, this militates against other Mormon Celestial marriage doctrines which claim that not only are people sealed on earth but that others are sealed in heaven. The whole celestial marriage doctrine is a house of cards that can not survive even the minimal scrutiny I have provided.
Come on, Parker, about 5 posts ago you said this:
A student of the Bible will be familiar with the teaching, “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:16).
And as I showed, Matthew 19:12 is backed by 1corinthians 7.
P
paul_c
Guest
Well, at least you are now recognizing that scripture says that marraige is not a requirement for heaven. That is a start. Now we need to work on your view of the afterlife. Where does it say anywhere in scripture that certain people will be exalted to become Gods who have their own universes?
. You have been decieved. None of the 11 witnesses are credible, all of them left your church at some point. When someone writes a book, it can not be considered an independent witness to the author’s credibility. Lots of people claim to have the Holy spirit’s witness, yet they teach different doctrines. What is your proof that the Holy spirit talks to you directly?
Parker, contrary to what you say, I do indeed understand the concept of children of the world vs children of the light. the Children of the world marry. The children of the light don’t in Luke 20 verses 34-36. (DR version this time):
34 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection
But you are right in that I am an amateur apologist and yet, despite all your learning, you can’t support your celestial marriage doctrine with anything other than vauge statements about the witness of the holy spirit and weak claims that scripture is wrongly understood or translated… That can only be because you are not on the side of truth. Give that some thought.
P
paul_c
Guest
Parker, of course translators make decisions on word choice because language is (name removed by moderator)ercise. But, really, we are talking about major collaborative efforts with a ton of scrutiny when we talk about NAB, KJV, and the DR versions. It just isn’t credible when your own personal translation seeks to overturn scriptural understanding that is centuries old.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth but a week or two ago, you responded to the question of what it takes for a Mormon to be exalted. You listed 6 items, the last being celestial marriage. I showed you that there was close alignment on the first 5 and that the only significant departure was on Celestial marriage. you seemed to agree that this was the major point of contention where the Church needed restoration
Unsubstantiated statements about being led by the Holy Spirit are unconvincing. Charles Manson claimed the same thing, after all. What is your proof that this is so…
From the DR version: 1 corinithians 7: 7-8:
7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
Really, is that what you call disagreeing with all accepted translations and trying to find your own meanings?
Most of the misunderstanding of scripture results from clear words being misunderstood because of pre-conceived notions. This was true of the Apostles, who never contemplated a suffering messiah and it is true now.
P
paul_c
Guest
You are right that they didn’t believe in the resurrection, so they couldn’t see anything other than what they knew in their earthly lives. There is marriage on earth, so they couldn’t percieve of a heaven where marriage was unnecessary. That led to their misunderstanding.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
There aren’t two different types of marriage. Marriage is marriage is marriage. It’s two (male and female) joined together by God so that they can help each other be holy and reach heaven.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Yeah, it didn’t feel right and I could not imagine our Church refusing to allow some cute little couple in their 90’s to marry. Sometimes, especially with a hypothetical situation, we can take something with a sound theological basis as written in stone while ignoring the mitigating circumstances.
This same idea would apply to suicide. Theologically speaking we must say that it is a serious sin as God is the author of life and we have no business taking that life, even if it is our own. In reality, the Church recognizes mental illness, undue stress and other factors that may have contributed to someone taking their own life and prays for their salvation. We can’t know what was in the persons heart. Hope that makes sense.
- Status