Mormon response to Matthew 22

[Saint_Michael]

Matthew 22:25-30

“25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27 Finally the woman died.
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29 17 **Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven. **

Doesn’t Jesus directly condemn the idea of eternal marriage, and marriage and sexual union in Heaven?

 

[zerinus]

Matthew 22:25-30

“25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
27 Finally the woman died.
28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her.”
29 17 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.

Doesn’t Jesus directly condemn the idea of eternal marriage, and marriage and sexual union in Heaven?

No! That happens only to those who have not been married by divine authority of the Priesthood for eternity, and have been married only by a civil marriage for time:

D&C 132:

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.

16 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.

zerinus

 

[Saint_Michael]

No! That happens only to those who have not been married by divine authority of the Priesthood for eternity, and have been married only by a civil marriage for time:

D&C 132:

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.

16 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.

zerinus

Thank you for yor reply. They are interesting quotes. However, these quotes all date from the 19th century onwards, and the explanations given for “marriage” etc is indeed forced, and are not convincing. To me the letter of the gospel is more convincing, teaching the opposite doctrine.

Saint_Michael

But seriously why is there no mention of this in the Bible or the BofM if it is the restored Gospel of Jesus containing the fullness of the Gospel?

 

[zerinus]

But seriously why is there no mention of this in the Bible . . .

Did you never hear then of those “plain and precious parts” that were removed?

. . . or the BofM . . .

Who says that every of book of scripture must contain what is in every other book of scripture? That is like saying, Why dosn’t Isaiah contain what is in Jeremiah, or why Matthew doesn’t contain what is in John?

. . . if it is the restored Gospel of Jesus containing the fullness of the Gospel?

You lost me there. I am not with you on that one.

zerinus

 

[Saint_Michael]

Did you never hear then of those “plain and precious parts” that were removed?

Who says that every of book of scripture must contain what is in every other book of scripture? That is like saying, Why dosn’t Isaiah contain what is in Jeremiah, or why Matthew doesn’t contain what is in John?

You lost me there. I am not with you on that one.

zerinus

Put a comma in there:

“if it is the restored Gospel of Jesus, containing the fullness of the Gospel?”

I guess my point is if the “plain and precious parts” concerning celestial marraige were removed from the Bible I am guessing it would have to be removed by the Catholic Church. Why are these plain and precious parts also not contained in the Book of Mormon? If the BofM does contain the fullness of the Gospel like advertised, it’s hard to imagine it would be silent on a matter as important as celestial marriage which is the primary goal of Mormonism.

Every book of scripture doesn’t have to contain the same information. But when someone says book A is corrupted because the “plain and precious parts” were removed, and book B. restores Christ’s original Gospel, then you would expect the missing parts to be filled in by reading book B. You don’t see that in this case, you actually see Book B in full agreement with Book A.

 

[zerinus]

I guess my point is if the “plain and precious parts” concerning celestial marraige were removed from the Bible I am guessing it would have to be removed by the Catholic Church.

Not necessarily. That depends somewhat on how you define the Catholic Church. We don’t in fact know the identity of those who removed those “plain and precious parts”. The most we can assume is that they were people in leadership positions in the church which gave them access to those original manuscripts to alter them before they were widely disseminated among the church.

Why are these plain and precious parts also not contained in the Book of Mormon?

Because they aren’t! Nobody said Book of Mormon should contain everything.

If the BofM does contain the fullness of the Gospel like advertised, . . .

We have already had a long discussion on the board about what it means by the “fullness of the gospel,” and concluded that it does not mean every doctrine of the gospel in the universe.

. . . it’s hard to imagine it would be silent on a matter as important as celestial marriage which is the primary goal of Mormonism.

Hard for whom? For you maybe, but not for me!

Every book of scripture doesn’t have to contain the same information. But when someone says book A is corrupted because the “plain and precious parts” were removed, and book B. restores Christ’s original Gospel, then you would expect the missing parts to be filled in by reading book B.

Not true.

You don’t see that in this case, you actually see Book B in full agreement with Book A.

Bad reasoning.

zerinus

 

[M_Oliver]

Doesn’t Jesus directly condemn the idea of eternal marriage, and marriage and sexual union in Heaven?

Who’s idea is it that a man and woman will be “eternally” married? He says what He says…

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:30)

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi M_Oliver,
Another passage that is more illustrative of the temporal-only nature of marriage is Romans 7:1-3. Here Paul is using marriage to illustrate that the law only applies to people while they are alive, and ceases at their death.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

If eternal marriage was the norm among the early Christians, then why did St. Paul affirm that when a woman’s husband dies, she is free to marry again? He did not differentiate between “temple marriage” and civil marriage.

In fact, there is no mention of an eternal marriage of man and woman in scripture, or in the writings of the early church fathers. There is only one eternal marriage in the scriptures - the marriage of Jesus to His Bride, the Church.

In fact, even the enemies of the Church, who wrote scathingly against the Christians and their doctrines, give us a good deal of info about what were perceived by non-Christians to be early Christian doctrine. Those enemies, many of whom were disaffected apostates from the Church, never mention a notion of eternal marriage, or temple work for the dead, or polygamy or godhood or any other distinctly Mormon doctrine. Surely if these were taught by the early Church, it would have given the enemies of the Church a great deal of ammunition with which to attack. But there is never a mention of any distinctly Mormon doctrine.

Can any Mormon offer an explanation as to why that is?

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Hi M_Oliver,
Another passage that is more illustrative of the temporal-only nature of marriage is Romans 7:1-3. Here Paul is using marriage to illustrate that the law only applies to people while they are alive, and ceases at their death.

If eternal marriage was the norm among the early Christians, then why did St. Paul affirm that when a woman’s husband dies, she is free to marry again? He did not differentiate between “temple marriage” and civil marriage.

Paul was referring to earthly laws of matrimony, not eternal marriage. It is perfectly true that when someone’s wife/husband dies, he/she is free to marry someone else without breaking any law. This is equally true of those who have been married to their former partner for eternity. When their partner dies they can marry someone else without breaking any law, including LDS rules. LDS Church does not prohibit such marriages. But in the resurrection their marriage will be in force with the partner to whom they were married for eternity, not with the one to whom they were married for time only.

The rest of your post talks about an entirely different subject which requires a separate discussion.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul was referring to earthly laws of matrimony, not eternal marriage.

Of course, because that is the only kind of matrimony that St. Paul, or any other Christian, ever heard of. There is absolutely no evidence, biblical or extrabiblical, for the Mormon notion of “eternal / plural / temple marriage” in early Christian times or at any time prior to the publication of D&C Section 132.

Joseph Smith called plural marriage for eternity “a new and everlasting covenant” (D&C 132:4), and taught that without it, no one could be exalted. If polygamous marriage for eternity really is that important, don’t you think it would have been discussed at some length both in the New Testament and in extrabiblical texts?

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Of course, . . .

Exactly, therefore that quote from Paul has no bearing what so ever on either proving or disproving eternal marriages.

. . . because that is the only kind of matrimony that St. Paul, or any other Christian, ever heard of. There is absolutely no evidence, biblical or extrabiblical, for the Mormon notion of “eternal / plural / temple marriage” in early Christian times or at any time prior to the publication of D&C Section 132.

Joseph Smith called plural marriage for eternity “a new and everlasting covenant” (D&C 132:4), and taught that without it, no one could be exalted. If polygamous marriage for eternity really is that important, don’t you think it would have been discussed at some length both in the New Testament and in extrabiblical texts?

Paul

That is a different line of reasoning from what you were trying to establish by that quote. I was only responding to the first, not to the second.

zerinus

 

[tundramom]

Paul was referring to earthly laws of matrimony, not eternal marriage. It is perfectly true that when someone’s wife/husband dies, he/she is free to marry someone else without breaking any law. This is equally true of those who have been married to their former partner for eternity. When their partner dies they can marry someone else without breaking any law, including LDS rules. LDS Church does not prohibit such marriages. But in the resurrection their marriage will be in force with the partner to whom they were married for eternity, not with the one to whom they were married for time only.

The rest of your post talks about an entirely different subject which requires a separate discussion.

zerinus

In all seriousness zerinus… it is true that men and women can and do marry after widowed. However, it is also true that a MAN can also be “sealed” to another women “for all eternity” after his first wife dies, correct? Yet a woman can only be sealed to one man…ever. Can you say eternal polygamy?

 

[Karin]

Paul was referring to earthly laws of matrimony, not eternal marriage. It is perfectly true that when someone’s wife/husband dies, he/she is free to marry someone else without breaking any law.

How does a polygamist and his “tribe”(many wives) fit in here?

 

[Sixtus]

Our Deacon preached a brilliant homily on the Lords teaching about marriage and ‘what God has joined together, let no man cast assunder’

He reckon that the Lord was not condemning folk to a life-long misery. On the contrary, the Lord only ever preached about love.

He reckon in His time, it was not uncommon for Jews to dismiss a wife for the most trivial of reasons. She had no recourse in law and was condemned to a life of poverty, on a whim of her husband. But Jesus saw the irony of it and spoke out to defend the rights of women by saying ‘what God has joined together’/ This was a rebuke on the men who had the power to dismiss their wives.

That sounds very plausible. It also puts a new perspective on His teaching.

 

[M_Oliver]

Hi M_Oliver,
Another passage that is more illustrative of the temporal-only nature of marriage is Romans 7:1-3. Here Paul is using marriage to illustrate that the law only applies to people while they are alive, and ceases at their death.

Paul

Thankyou.

 

[zerinus]

Karin:
How does a polygamist and his “tribe”(many wives) fit in here?

This is how:

Deuteronomy 21:

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated

2 Samuel 12:

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

1 Timothy 3:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

zerinus

 

[tundramom]

What are you trying to say zerinus with the above verses?

in Christ
Steph

 

[ssejllenrad]

This is how:

Deuteronomy 21:

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated

2 Samuel 12:

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

1 Timothy 3:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

zerinus

I don’t see where you’re going here… Please expound?

 

[zerinus]

I don’t see where you’re going here… Please expound?

Polygamy was practised and was permissible under the Law among the Jews in ancient times. The Law of Moses permitted it, and many ancient patriarchs and prophets and righteous kings of Israel practised it. At the time of Jesus, there were many Jews practising polygamy, and probably some among His own disciples, but Jesus never condemned it. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus changed or abrogated many of the laws of Moses, but He never spoke against polygamy. None of the Apostles in fact did. In 1 Tim. 3:2 Paul is not condemning it either. On the contrary, his remarks imply that there were many Christians at that time practising it, and Paul does not condemn them. He is merely saying that if someone wants to be a bishop, in his opinion it would be preferable if he had only one wife. That means that he could have had many, and they were not prohibited from doing so. That means that Polygamy was not against the law in early Christianity. It became so afterwards.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

Polygamy was practised and was permissible under the Law among the Jews in ancient times. The Law of Moses permitted it, and many ancient patriarchs and prophets and righteous kings of Israel practised it. At the time of Jesus, there were many Jews practising polygamy, and probably some among His own disciples, but Jesus never condemned it. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus changed or abrogated many of the laws of Moses, but He never spoke against polygamy. None of the Apostles in fact did. In 1 Tim. 3:2 Paul is not condemning it either. On the contrary, his remarks imply that there were many Christians at that time practising it, and Paul does not condemn them. He is merely saying that if someone wants to be a bishop, in his opinion it would be preferable if he had only one wife. That means that he could have had many, and they were not prohibited from doing so. That means that Polygamy was not against the law in early Christianity. It became so afterwards.

zerinus

I guess that is why so many Mormons (males) have so many wives (more than 1) …
Interesting…to say the least. So if it (polygamy) was banned by the mormon church in 1890 why is it still being practiced today?