Mormon/Polygamy question

[AMDGtoo]

Christ taught that
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matt 22:30

This does not mean that there will be no marriage in heaven.

Err–Matthew 22:30 seems pretty plain to me. In the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage = no marriage. The people will be like the angels. Angels of God are neither male or female. So again, if those in the resurrection will be like the angels of God, that seems to indicate the plain and obvious: no marriage.

May I ask you how you came to the conclusion that this Matthew 22:30 says that there is marriage in the resurrection?

 

[zaffiroborant]

This does not mean that there will be no marriage in heaven.

I think this illustrates a major factor in many discussions. You are quoting your understanding of the Bible as if it where the Bible itself. There is a big difference.

?
And isn’t that exactly what you did in the previous sentence?

 

[AMDGtoo]

?
And isn’t that exactly what you did in the previous sentence?

That doesn’t answer my question. My question was how you conclude that Matt 22:30 indicates that there is marriage in the resurrection? Again, it appears pretty plain and obvious that the verse says that there is none.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That doesn’t answer my question. My question was how you conclude that Matt 22:30 indicates that there is marriage in the resurrection? Again, it appears pretty plain and obvious that the verse says that there is none.

Maybe you’ve mixed posts here. My comment was directed at Teancum79 telling Distracted he was treating his interpretation of the bible as the bible itself. It struck me as I read Teancum’s respone that he was doing the same thing.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Maybe you’ve mixed posts here. My comment was directed at Teancum79 telling Distracted he was treating his interpretation of the bible as the bible itself. It struck me as I read Teancum’s respone that he was doing the same thing.

I see that. I’m sorry. This board almost seems overwhelming.

But perhaps Teancum79 (or even someone else) can answer my question.

I know that the Catholic Church does not “micro-manage” every verse in the Bible (so the interpretation that the verse indicates that there is no marriage in the resurrection was determined by plain reading of the verse and not by anyone’s prior interpretation.) I just don’t understand how the interpretation that Matt 22:30 indicates that there is marriage in the resurrection can be gotten from the plain reading of the text. And so, I was wondering how that conclusion was arrived at.

 

[distracted]

Good gravy you ask “Mormons” read the real bible and than miss quote from it in the same paragraph.

i frankly don’t think it matters much because Mormons seem to respect J. Smith and the book of mormon more than the Bible…

Christ taught that
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matt 22:30

This does not mean that there will be no marriage in heaven.

It doesn’t ? Ok…

and i am supposed to take a Mormon’s word for it?
I don’t think so…

 

[distracted]

?
And isn’t that exactly what you did in the previous sentence?

but you forget : It is OK to put your own interpretation on things in the Bible…

and all interpretations are “OK”…

except the Catholic one…

 

[PaulDupre]

As I understand the LDS interpretation, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,…” means only that no one gets married in heaven - which leaves open the possibility that people who were married on earth stay married when they are in heaven.

Fair enough, so far.

But then Jesus follows those words with a clarification: “…but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Now, not only do the angels not get married, they are not in a married state. So we in the resurrection will also not be in a married state. It seems very clear to me. I think the LDS interpretation does violence to the text.

Paul

 

[teancum79]

i frankly don’t think it matters much because Mormons seem to respect J. Smith and the book of mormon more than the Bible… It doesn’t ? Ok…

and i am supposed to take a Mormon’s word for it?
I don’t think so…

well thank you for making your prejudice clear.

 

[AMDGtoo]

well thank you for making your prejudice clear.

Prejudice? According to the dictionary, a prejudice is an adverse opinion formed beforehand or without examination of the facts.

The facts are that the LDS don’t just consider the Bible as their scriptures. They consider the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants of equal importance with the KJV. It sounds like distracted knew that so there was no prejudice

And as far as not just “taking someone’s word” for anything (without doing any research), well that’s only common sense. Again, doesn’t sound like prejudice either.

 

[teancum79]

Prejudice? According to the dictionary, a prejudice is an adverse opinion formed beforehand or without examination of the facts.

The facts are that the LDS don’t just consider the Bible as their scriptures. They consider the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants of equal importance with the KJV. It sounds like distracted knew that so there was no prejudice

And as far as not just “taking someone’s word” for anything (without doing any research), well that’s only common sense. Again, doesn’t sound like prejudice either.

Its a good idea to do research, but when one states that they won’t take someones word for something because of their religion (which was VERY strongly implied) the shoe seems to fit.

Accepting the Gospel of John does not mean you reject that of Luke.

 

[Holly3278]

Mormons only ended the practice of polygamy once their members were being arrested and imprisoned for the practice. Otherwise, they’d still be practicing polygamy to this day whether it was illegal or not.

 

[distracted]

But then Jesus follows those words with a clarification: “…but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Now, not only do the angels not get married, they are not in a married state. So we in the resurrection will also not be in a married state. It seems very clear to me. I think the LDS interpretation does violence to the text.

Paul

thanks for bringing this up… and it doesn’t surprise me that the mormons do violence to this text when they do so to many others as well…

It seems to me that mormons are stuck in the human realm… Of course, many are, both mormon and non-M. I think what Jesus may have been tryig to say in this passage is that (1 thing anyway…)… we must cultivate our relationship with God… I know - duh… but what i mean is… that relationship should come before others… Again, duh… but we know that in our heads, very rarely in our hearts very well…
Recently, i got away from everyone and went to a place where i could be alone with nature and God (only). I had a frightening revelation there: that God is only a (sometimes small) part of my life, that we are not as close as i once was or what we could be… and the reason is because i was letting too many humans “rent space in my head” and crowd God out…
I think a lot of Christians get “lost” like that… and then, when u are lost, u can start thinking really odd things about God… like that he is against you and things like that… (just because, maybe, some people in your life are against you, thinngs aren’t going right, etc…)…

 

[distracted]

well thank you for making your prejudice clear.

prejudice means to pre-judge… before knowing anythihng about whatever you are judging. I know plenty about mormonism…

and yes, i am against it… if that is what you mean by prejudice…

it is a false religion that can lead pepole to Hell… You darn right i am against it…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I found this on the internet. Seems like all women are not against polygamy:

There have been women in favor of polygamy in the 19th century as well as now. The women of the 19th century liked plural marriage because it protected them from too many pregnancies. Women often died in childbirth and with a lot of wives to service a woman would have fewer births and better health. Instead of 14 children she might have 4 children (Brigham Young’s wives averaged only 2 children). Limited childbirth was one of the advantages, wrote a 19th century polygamist wife.
Today one woman told me in polygamy a woman has freedom from domination by a man. Men are too controlling when they have only one woman to boss around. Polygamy offers protection from male domination.
It was good for the children. I met a polygamist wife in a restaurant in southern Utah, one of 4 wives. While she was working the children were in their own home being looked after by a co-wife. They were not hauled off to a day care center.

Maybe it’s not as bad as people think. Also, many people commit serial polygamy, by getting married over and over after they divorce. This leads to families that are broken up, step-parents, etc.

 

[PaulDupre]

I found this on the internet. Seems like all women are not against female genital mutilation:

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is practiced in Egypt, despite its recent ban, generally in rural and uneducated communities, under unsanitary conditions and by non-medical personnel. Immediate and long-term complications are frequent. The aim of this study was to gain insight into what beliefs or knowledge are conducive to supporting FGM.

One thousand and seventy university students in Cairo, Egypt were randomly selected. A 32-item questionnaire was used to interview students regarding their knowledge and attitudes toward FGM. Multivariable analyses were performed to find factors associated with being against the abolishment of FGM.

The response rate was 95% (n=1020). Twenty-eight percent of the students support FGM. The most significant factors associated with the condoning of FGM were believing FGM has a religious basis (OR=2.53), disagreeing that FGM is a custom with no other basis (OR=2.59), not believing it is harmful (OR=4.11), and ignoring that it is usually followed by complications (OR=5.14).

Maybe it’s not as bad as people think.

Sarcasm off…

This just goes to show that just because some people support or practice things that are harmful and wrong, that does not make those things beneficial and right.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think that is an extremely stupid correlation.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Maybe it’s not as bad as people think.

But then again, maybe it is as bad as some former polygamist women say it is. With the jealousy–the knowing that your husband is leaving your arms for another woman. With the husband never being there emotionaly (and barely there physically) for his wife (and yet the Biblical command is that husband and wife should cleave to each other.) With the father just about being non-existent for the children (all except the few moments in the beginning…) With the pattern of the guy just letting welfare pay for his way of life…

 

[teancum79]

LDS plural marriage and much of the current polygamy cultures practices are very different living off of welfare being high on the list.

 

[majick275]

LDS plural marriage and much of the current polygamy cultures practices are very different living off of welfare being high on the list.

i would agree. however, even self sufficient, family industry polygyny (as taught by Brigham young) is still very evil in my opinion.