Married only on Earth ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ziggy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Ziggy

Guest
Ok… so i was thinking about this today, and I guess I need something cleared up. I’m not telling anyone what they believe, just my opinion. I dated a LDS girl a ways back, and one of the things we disagreed on was marriage in heaven. I stated that there was no marriage in heaven because of what Jesus said in the gospels. I believe it was to one brother of the 7 brothers who had married the same woman and each had died 1 by 1, and the question was now who would she be married to in heaven? Her reply to me was that they were not “sealed” on Earth so that’s why they were not married in heaven. Ok, let’s say I buy that. The other thing we disagreed on was Polygamy. Obviously it is not practiced in today’s LDS church, but it is in the doctrine as a covenant. Her opinion was that in heaven, “people” are polygamous because it was God’s command. Now I never put the 2 together for some reason, but here is my dilemma. How can you be polygamous in heaven if you are only allowed to be married on Earth, and you are to be Monogamous? Now I do understand that a spouse could die, or there could be a divorce… But outside of that, how does an LDS person keep the covenant of polygamy in heaven if he/she is only married/sealed to 1 person here on Earth ?
 
There is a predominant belief amongst the LDS that during the millenium, Christ will restore all that was lost, right all that is wrong and ensure that the “saints” “catch up” on all these type of things. (i.e. they will be able to complete any and all remaining temple work for the dead, Worthy single people will be able to find appropriate eternal companions, etc.)

This being the case, Worthy Men will be “given” their plural wives from the worthy single women and the worthy married women whose marriages were voided by either death (for those that were married for time only) or their husbands unworthiness.
 
Hmmm… is this something that can be seen in any of their 4 standard works ? It sounds like the same premise of “baptism of the dead” where after death you get “another chance”…
 
only indirectly. You will find within the standard works multiple scriptures that promote a belief that if you do all you can to be faithful and obedient and endure tot the end ,then you will get your reward in the afterlife even if you were unable to complete things on earth as a mortal.

You will find multiple scriptures as well pointing to Christ “restoring” things when he returns.
 
Casen, MormonFool or TOmNossor? would you care to clarify this from “current” doctrine?
 
Thanks majick275 for all the info… I would definitely like to hear from some of the LDS on the board also… Anyone want to give their 2 cents on this ?
 
Ziggy,

Interesting observations and question! I think you and majick’s conversation is on the right track. Props to majick for providing a good off the top-of-his-head response. In order for me to answer your question I think some of the premises need to be re-visited. There are some high DSI sources that perhaps can frame the question better. The full answer to your question is somewhat elusive, some low DSI sources might tangentially address the issue, but in the end one is left with a lot of speculation on things very little has been revealed.

You write:
40.png
Ziggy:
I dated a LDS girl a ways back,
Cool. Me too! Although it has been awhile :(.
one of the things we disagreed on was marriage in heaven.
That puts you in good company with most non-LDS Christians and the Saduccees. To find someone to partially agree with us, LDS may have to go way back to gnostics and early Christians that understood marriage in heaven in a “Jewish sense”. An ECF named Origen reports (see the fuller quote here–beware of ellipses ;)):Certain persons . . . say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children . . . . Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.
I stated that there was no marriage in heaven because of what Jesus said in the gospels. I believe it was to one brother of the 7 brothers who had married the same woman and each had died 1 by 1, and the question was now who would she be married to in heaven? Her reply to me was that they were not “sealed” on Earth so that’s why they were not married in heaven. Ok, let’s say I buy that.
Your LDS acquantance’s answer seems to be in line with a high DSI source. Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C) appears to be directly expanding on the Matthian narrative.15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
Scriptures
16http://scriptures.lds.org/themes/graphics/selectoff.gif Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
One thing to keep in mind is that LDS beliefs in afterlife destinations are considerably more complex than the binary heaven/hell model. Not only is heaven divided into three kingdoms of varying glory, but the kingdoms themselves have gradations. The highest kingdom is called the Celestial kingdom (CK). Only couples in the highest of 3 sub-divisions maintain their marital relation. Obtaining this level is referred to as “exhaltation”. I am summarizing here so if you want to contextualize my depiction, I recommend reading D&C 76 and D&C 131:1-4, both high rated DSI sources.

I will address vicarious sealings and polygamy in the CK next post.

–fool
 
40.png
Ziggy:
The other thing we disagreed on was Polygamy. Obviously it is not practiced in today’s LDS church, but it is in the doctrine as a covenant . . . Now I do understand that a spouse could die, or there could be a divorce.
What you describe in your last sentences could be referred to as serial polygamy (which is still practiced in the LDS church and just about everywhere else).

When you say that polygamy is a covenant in the doctrine, I think we have to careful here and first ask what the covenant in D&C 132, called “celestial marriage”, refers to. There is somewhat of a dispute between excomunicated fundies and the LDS church over this as a quick glance at this wikipedia article reveals. The church’s position from the highest DSI source I am aware of is*"*Celestial marriage-that is, marriage for time and eternity-and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages" (Messages of the First Presidency 5:329).
Her opinion was that in heaven, “people” are polygamous because it was God’s command.
If we apply the official First Presidency interpretation to D&C 131 and 132, it follows that one does not have to be practicing polygamy to be in the highest division of the CK. It appears that monogomous marriages that have been sealed in LDS temples will suffice. Additionally let us note that people can still make it to heaven without being married in LDS belief.

Really, your bringing in polygamy to the equation is not particularly relevant to your question. We LDS are very much concerned that our ancestors have past away without having their marriages sealed, which is a potential roadblock to them qualifying for *exhaltation. *So the problem still remains without considering polygamy.

So you and majick are on the right track about vicarious work being done in behalf of the dead in regards to sealing marriages that parellels very closely with the rationale behind baptisms for the dead. That rationale is presented very well in D&C 128.

hope that helps,
fool
 
Ok MFool, I’ll Bite. However, let me ask one clarifying question first:

Are you suggesting that the text you quoted from Origen is supporting the LDS position of eternal marriage?

If not, then you can happily ignore the rest of this post.

However, assuming that you are suggesting that this passage is in support of the lds position, lets review it.

You posted this:
Certain persons . . . say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children . . . . Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.
which was your reduced version of this from a mormon site’s citation:
Certain persons . . . are of the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury . . . . And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt . . . . Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.
Now, fortunately, the other site made reference to where this can be found (kudos to them). This passage is from Origen’s De Principas book 2 chapter XI, paragraph 2. According to the version found ad New Advent, the full relevant text is as follows:
Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls constructed of jasper, and its battlements of crystal; that it is to have a wall composed of many precious stones, as jasper, and sapphire, and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and onyx, and chrysolite, and chrysoprase, and jacinth, and amethyst. Moreover, they think that the natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers of their pleasures, whom they are to employ either as tillers of the field or builders of walls, and by whom their ruined and fallen city is again to be raised up; and they think that they are to receive the wealth of the nations to live on, and that they will have control over their riches; that even the camels of Midian and Kedar will come, and bring to them gold, and incense, and precious stones. And these views they think to establish on the authority of the prophets by those promises which are written regarding Jerusalem; and by those passages also where it is said, that they who serve the Lord shall eat and drink, but that sinners shall hunger and thirst; that the righteous shall be joyful, but that sorrow shall possess the wicked. And from the New Testament also they quote the saying of the Saviour, in which He makes a promise to His disciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, “Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with you new in My Father’s kingdom.” They add, moreover, that declaration, in which the Saviour calls those blessed who now hunger and thirst, promising them that they shall be satisfied; and many other scriptural illustrations are adduced by them, the meaning of which they do not perceive is to be taken figuratively. Then, again, agreeably to the form of things in this life, and according to the gradations of the dignities or ranks in this world, or the greatness of their powers, they think they are to be kings and princes, like those earthly monarchs who now exist; chiefly, as it appears, on account of that expression in the Gospel: “Have thou power over five cities.” And to speak shortly, according to the manner of things in this life in all similar matters, do they desire the fulfilment of all things looked for in the promises, viz., that what now is should exist again. Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.
Analysis to follow
continued…
 
continued from preceeding post.

Now, again under the assumption that you are proposing that Origen was meant to be supporting your veiw, I would point out, that in ANY edition of the text as quoted (regardless of ellipsis), amazingly enough, retains the basic core value that Origen was, indeed, proclaiming.

This teaching utterly refutes the notion of post-mortal marriages and reproduction.

Read the last sentence of the truncated quotes, if you are unwilling to read the far more agressive (some here would say “uncharitable”) language used in the full text. I’ll quote it again:
Certain persons . . . say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children . . . . Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.
All versions of this text indicate that the subject of this text are “certain persons” who are defined as being those who “say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children” (among other things in the full text). The author of the text then goes on to pronounce a conclusion that his subject (those pesky “certain persons”) is “Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises”.

This conclusion rather clearly says that they who hold such veiws are, perhaps because of their “jewish sense”, drawing nothing worthy of the divine promise.

This is a condemnation of the post mortal marriage and procreation. In fact, the entire article written by Origen speaks against, again very clearly, all sorts of projecting earthly experiences (marriage, drinking, procreation, ect), something that clearly contradicts the commonly held beliefs of many mormons. Every missionary that suggest that we are the literal, procreated, sons and daughters of God are committing that “offense” that Origen is denouncing.

Not to be mean, but did you even read the text before quoting it?

Here is a simple, but (I believe) accurate paraphrase:

Certain people believe that there will be marriage and the having of children after the resurrection due to a form of Jewish understanding of the teachings. Though they follow Christ, these interpretations do not allow for them to fully understand the divine promises.

Try again?
 
Also, as a further point:

Having read the article to put the citations into some sort of sensical context, I realized the error you may have made.

According to the site you provided as a source, this text is meant to draw out an argument that when christianity was under a “jewish” influence, it supported such physical doctrines, as these “certain people” who were referred to as being followers of Christ; and it was under a newer Greek influence that caused these doctrines to be suppressed.

Basically, the cite on the other site was to make an erroneous assertion that it was the later greek inluence on the early church that caused them to abandon the presumably more accurate “jewish” influence.

While I find this logic utterly astounding considering the actual bdy of the text, that error is a different discussion.

Nevertheless, in either case, there is no room for supposing any sort of positive support for this “superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone”.

In fact, there is less critical evidence found in this text for supporting such doctrines as there is in the Corinthians passage used to justify Baptisms for the Dead.
 
At any rate, a hearty THANK YOU to Mormonfool for introducing me to this particular document of Origen’s. As a “catholic in waiting” I am still waiting for RCIA to begin so I can get rolling in my studies, and who knows if, or when, I will have ever found this particular article.

It is a most pertainant discourse at this point. I’ll have to go back and speand more time reading the entire thing. This specific cite, however, addresses something I was never comfortable with, even in some of the fundamental protestant churches I attended before becoming a mormon.

I know this particular article doesn’t really apply to some mormon’s doctrinal veiws, such as TOm’s; and the rest can just write it off as the “speculations” of an apostate; but it does rationally address a big theological “fault” in the mormon cultural doctrine, which often attempts to define even the most transcendant spiritual truth using only earthly forms. Even Smith’s Intelligences are overshadowed by celestial procreation beliefs; the Simple strangeling the Profound into boxes it was never meant to be held in, to the detriment of spiritual progress (except for those few who must reject the teachings of their own in order to reconcile the principles with what they have found to be true in a larger world of Spirit, a virtual step away from apostacy themselves).

Anyway, time to turn in for the day. God bless you all.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas
 
40.png
BJRumph:
Ok MFool, I’ll Bite.
“I’ll bite” ?? You make it seem like I was out fishing with a baited hook. Well, you might be right. :clapping: In my defence, though, I did advise everyone to “be wary”. I am impressed with your dilligence in hunting down the full quote and taking the time to analyze my intermediate source.
Are you suggesting that the text you quoted from Origen is supporting the LDS position of eternal marriage?
Yes. Not only that, but I think by the time you get through post #11 you realize (but of course dispute) the quote can be used to support LDS views on the apostasy.

I had not read the full quote, so thanks for posting it. The extra information is not particularly relevant to the point I was actually making. It, however, does help us understand why Origen disagrees with “certain people” who were believers in Christ. You are obviously on Origen’s side on this issue. I side, but not in every detail, with the “certain people” who read scriptures in a literalistic, materialistic “Jewish sense”. Origen is what we call a reluctant witness on the issue of eternal marriage.

As you note, I left enough of the quote intact to show that Origen did indeed disagree with “certain people.” I also prefaced the citation about how these “certain people” partially agree with the LDS position. To clarify, I used the word partially to allow for the spectrum of LDS belief to look different from the spectrum of early Christian belief. In this case, that of eternal marriges, there is some good overlap.The overlap matches the religion in the pews better than it does the theology that was systematized in philosophical terms by Origen.

Anyway, good observations!

later,
fool
 
Sorry Mfool, I was not trying to suggest you were “fishing”, just part of my “conversational style” getting in the way.

There was no “realization” that Origen’s discourse could be used to support the lds position, only the aknowledgement that it had been used in such a manner. I disagree with the basic premise that it, even partially or indirectly, supports the lds position, as you are presenting.

Granted, this is another of those logical impasses that you and I are going to just have to aknowledge, based upon your followup post.

For clarity (possibly): I feel Origen’s discourse cannot be utilized in the same “logical” stream that the Corinthians passages are used to support vicarious baptisms. The reason is that, unlike in Corinthians where the instance of this practice is not directly condemned; all of these beliefs are being expressly condemned by Origen. That he aknowledges that they are followers of Christ, does not in any way logically support that this is correct doctrine. You, as a “freindly” lds admit that you would consider that a Baptist is a “follower of Christ”, but you in no way would assert that they are practicing a purer (as the “apostacy” argument claims) or even equivalent (as the basic “alternative” argument suggests) gospel.

How then can it be asserted that a practice that only appears in a discourse that is condemning that practice (belief really in this case) is something that could be considered the “true” (or even “allowed”) practice/belief.

I find the whole discourse important, because Origen even points out the sources of the abberant theology, and points out the errors in their usage that are being made to draw the false conclusions that he is speaking against. He points out the principles driving both the abberant and the correct doctrines, which is critical in applying his conclusions outside his specific examples (which I personally like, as it is far more useful in general) But, nevertheless, even the truncated quotations leave intact the actual condemnation of origen regarding these beliefs.

Note that to emphasize his calling them followers of Christ as being evidence of their beliefs as being a legitimate interpretation of christian doctrine is to completely ignore the context and conclusion made regarding them. Origen makes it clear that they are missing out on, indeed are denying to themselves, the teachings of Christ **due to ** these false interpretations, not that they are a simple different point of veiw. He is providing corrective teaching; it would not be until or unless they persist in their error that they would be eventually called heritics, and lose the designation of “christian”.

So, a simple aknowledgement of definitive erroneous beliefs does not in any way suggest that it is, contrary to the revealing discourse, a legitimate expression of doctrine, as your position holds.

Thus, there is no positive support, not even in partial, for these doctrines to be found in Origen’s discourse.

To insist, as the lds postion is attempting to do, that the showing of an alternate system “proves” that the church changed “legitimate” doctrine and practice is equivalent to suggesting that the LDS church went apostate because there are groups of mormons that still believe in blood atonements and practice polygamy, in contradiction to what the “orthodox” CoJCoLDS teaches. This is, fundamentally, what the church teaches in regards to the Corinthians issue, and is being attempted here with post-mortal/resurrection marriage and procreation.
 
40.png
Ziggy:
Hmmm… is this something that can be seen in any of their 4 standard works ? It sounds like the same premise of “baptism of the dead” where after death you get “another chance”…
Just to clarify, the doctrine isn’t to give people a second chance, but rather to offer a chance to those that didn’t have it in this life.
 
mormon fool:
To find someone to partially agree with us, LDS may have to go way back to gnostics and early Christians that understood marriage in heaven in a “Jewish sense”.
Yes, to find some LDS beliefs you have to find quotes from Early Church Fathers condemning those beliefs. There were “Christians” who believed all sorts of heretical ideas (like marriage was evil), doesn’t make the ideas right. If Jesus said no one is married in heaven and the ECFs confirmed that teaching the case should be closed.
 
40.png
BJRumph:
Thus, there is no positive support, not even in partial, for these doctrines to be found in Origen’s discourse.
Not even a little? I think you make things hard for yourself when you frame things in such absolutist terms. My terms are much more conservative and defensible.

It comes down to who is right and who is wrong. If Origen is wrong and the certain people he is responding to are right then I think you would have to agree with me that, by virtue of bringing this dispute to our attention, Origen has given us evidence that correct belief flourished to his day. We catch Origen in the act of using philosophically informed scripture readings to contend against traditional scripture readings. If Origen is wrong, the LDS find strong support for eternal marriage and the apostasy theory. It tends to validate that Joseph Smith restored a belief commonly held in early Christianity.

Comparing Origen to Paul, fails in at least one important respect. I don’t doubt Paul’s authority or correctness like I do Origen’s. I do trust Origen to the extent that he can report on the beliefs of some of his fellow Christians, which unlike current day Baptists, were in full fellowship of the church.
To insist, as the lds postion is attempting to do, that the showing of an alternate system “proves” that the church changed “legitimate” doctrine and practice is equivalent to suggesting that the LDS church went apostate because there are groups of mormons that still believe in blood atonements and practice polygamy, in contradiction to what the “orthodox” CoJCoLDS teaches. This is, fundamentally, what the church teaches in regards to the Corinthians issue, and is being attempted here with post-mortal/resurrection marriage and procreation.
You won’t hear the word “proof” coming from my end. The debate is still pretty much still going on who the real heretics are. The question for LDS church is much easier to solve then for the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

later,
fool
 
40.png
arieh0310:
Yes, to find some LDS beliefs you have to find quotes from Early Church Fathers condemning those beliefs. There were “Christians” who believed all sorts of heretical ideas (like marriage was evil), doesn’t make the ideas right. If Jesus said no one is married in heaven and the ECFs confirmed that teaching the case should be closed.
The case could be closed for me too. Jesus word’s are recorded in the New Testament and authoritatively interpreted by Joseph Smith in the citation I provided earlier. No one is disputing there were heretical ideas among the early christians and that includes those considered as ECFs.
 
mormon fool:
The case could be closed for me too. Jesus word’s are recorded in the New Testament and authoritatively interpreted by Joseph Smith in the citation I provided earlier. No one is disputing there were heretical ideas among the early christians and that includes those considered as ECFs.
But to use a single ECF quote that in Origen’s words, “Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts”, and twisting that quote to mean that marriage in heaven was an idea that flourished at that time is disingenuous. What proof do you have that this idea was held by more than even a small minority?
 
40.png
arieh0310:
But to use a single ECF quote that in Origen’s words, “Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts”, and twisting that quote to mean that marriage in heaven was an idea that flourished at that time is disingenuous. What proof do you have that this idea was held by more than even a small minority?
Any number of reasons can be mustered to support this. I’ll list a few.
  1. Why would Origen waste his time disputing the view of a very small minority?
  2. In general Early Christianity was dominated by Jewish converts who read scriptures through a Jewish lens.
  3. There would have been little or no resistance to reading the scriptures in a Jewish lens until philosophical concepts were imported to systematize church teachings. This doesn’t occur until Origen.
  4. Backing up a bit, marriage in heaven was presumably the popular belief among the Jews in Jesus’s time. Like Origen, the Sadducees question alerts us to this. Their question more or less presumes marriage in heaven is an automatic consequence of resurrection.
  5. Origen doesn’t use Jesus’ words about no “marriage in heaven” as far as I am aware of to rebut what he considers wrong. If he didn’t appeal to that, it shows me that this particular interpretation was not held by a vast majority of Christians.
  6. I find Origen’s rejection of marriage in heaven, highly related to his rejection of reading anthromorphism out of scriptural passages about God. Tracing beliefs on marriage may be sketchy, but the records on the development away from anthromorphism are telling and trend setting.
  7. In addition to those “certain people” considered orthodox, we can add to list any number of gnostic Christians that trace their beliefs in eternal marriage to the post-assension teachings of Jesus that are not recorded in the Bible,
Obviously some of these reasons will not equally hold up to scrutiny of documentation. Others seem to be reasonable inferences from already cited sources.

later,
fool
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top