Mormons and eternal marriage

[zerinus]

“God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

Human being seperate, that’s really the key. Obviously Jesus is discussion marriage while on Earth since human beings can’t very well try to seperate anything outside this life can they?

You missed my point with that one. Jesus quoted the Genesis account as proof that marriage was not intended to be done away with. That means that the Genesis account was literal, not something different. If Jesus thought it was literal, then I would rather take His word for it than yours.

There’s plenty in the Bible I don’t take literally, I don’t believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, I don’t believe in giants, I don’t believe in people living in a whales belly.

How about the miracles of Moses in Egypt and Sinai? How about the Miracles of Elijah and Elisha and other OT prophets? How about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead! That is the most “unbelievable” event of them all! How about Jesus’ other great miracles; or those of Peter or Paul? You don’t take those literally too? How do you decide what you are going to take literally and what you are not? Do you just make an arbitrary decision about what is believable and what is not?

There’s plenty especially in Genesis that simply can’t be taken literally without lying to yourself.

Says you, not me!

On the same token why do you not believe Jesus when he says there will be no marriage in Heaven while relating the story of a woman who married seven men while on Earth?

There is an explanation for that. I gave it in my previous post.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

So you invented something out of the blue then? Just say that then… I don’t know Jesus direct words seem very clear to me.

No, we haven’t “invented anything out of the blue”. God has revealed to us that that refers to “married for time only” marriages. It does not apply to marriages solemnized for eternity by those holding special priesthood keys vested in the LDS Church.

Yeah I’m sure NO Mormon has ever agaonized at the idea of thier spouse “for time only” going off into eternity with another man or woman. I’m sure it’s solely in “my imagination”… If you seriously believe that, then you’re just a fanatic and there’s no reasoning with you.

Reply is the same as before. You are fretting over something that you do not understand, and for which there are answers for the scenarios you describe.

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

I’m pretty sure what you’re saying is that all our earthly family relationships are erased. And, as I said before, I simply do not believe that. You do not believe families are eternal or forever. Do I understand you correctly? Isn’t that what you’re saying?

I don’t think “erased” is the correct word. “Erased” implies that we lose our families, and that we somehow go our separate ways and never see each other again. But that’s not what I’m saying. We will be with all those people in heaven, but as brothers and sisters of the one true Father. That is really who we are if you look at the eternal perspective. There is no purpose for marriage in heaven, for we are no longer having children and raising them. God is not married. Neither is Jesus. The idea that God is married is a Mormon invention, and arises out of this whacky idea that God is just a resurrected man from some other past world. Our universe is not the product of an endless continuation of gods, but is the product of the one and true God the Father.

 

[Chris-WA]

We think that that scripture is not correctly understood. It refers to those who are only married by a civil marriage for time only. It does not apply to those who are married by proper priesthood authority for eternity.

Jesus never made the distinction you do. No one else ever did either until Joseph Smith came along 1800 years after the scripture was written. Mormons are constantly re-interpreting ancient scripture to something far different than the original writers intended. Claiming a “prophet” at the helm gives them the freedom to change whatever they want whenver they want to suit their current doctrine.

 

[zerinus]

There is no purpose for marriage in heaven, for we are no longer having children and raising them.

Marriage was instituted primarily for companionship, not just for having children: “It is not good that the man should be alone . . .” (Genesis 2:18). Having children was a byproduct of that companionship.

That companionship was intended to be eternal, witness the fact that Adam and Eve were eternal beings when it was instituted in the Garden of Eden.

The Garden if Eden was in fact a paradise that God had created for Adam and Eve to dwell in before their Fall—which also explain why they had to be expelled from it after their Fall. It was intended as a place of happiness for them to live together as husband and wife.

The “companionship” was intended to enhance their happiness together, not thwart it, as our friend earlier had suggested.

All of this suggests that the institution was intended to continue after death and resurrection, as it had been originally intended in the Garden of Eden.

I am sure this doctrine will be anathema to Jean Robinson and the like; but like it or not, this is what God has ordained for man—if he wants to be happy that is. If he wants to be miserable, then God has ordained an alternative situation for him that is better suited to his disposition.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

I don’t think “erased” is the correct word. “Erased” implies that we lose our families, and that we somehow go our separate ways and never see each other again. But that’s not what I’m saying. We will be with all those people in heaven, but as brothers and sisters of the one true Father.

I’m not clear on how that is any different.

That is really who we are if you look at the eternal perspective. There is no purpose for marriage in heaven, for we are no longer having children and raising them. God is not married. Neither is Jesus.

Right. Agreed. But we are! And many who have been married will have had children. The heart of our duty to God and our fellow man is overcoming our own selfishness and serving them according to their needs. In this life, the best chance for us to practice this (or to try anyway!) is with our own families. You say we will no longer be raising our children. I think that is a speculative statement. I hope always to be of some use to my family, as my father has always showed me the way to live. I don’t think I’ve ever stopped learning from my own father, even though he’s passed on now. I hope to be some sort of example and inspiration to my wife and children and I sincerly hope that passing through the veil will not release me of that oppurtunity.

As I see it, there really isn’t enough known about what our stations in the next life will be like to know what social organizations will exist. I don’t know if it’s even against the Catholic teachings to believe that families exist in the afterlife. Are you sure it is?

 

[zerinus]

Jesus never made the distinction you do. No one else ever did either until Joseph Smith came along 1800 years after the scripture was written. Mormons are constantly re-interpreting ancient scripture to something far different than the original writers intended. Claiming a “prophet” at the helm gives them the freedom to change whatever they want whenver they want to suit their current doctrine.

Like it or not, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the revelations and scriptures he received are true.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

I hope to be some sort of example and inspiration to my wife and children and I sincerly hope that passing through the veil will not release me of that oppurtunity.

Why would glorified, perfected celestial gods need an “example” or “inspiration”. Do you think Heavenly Father needs a good example to inspire him? :nope:

Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

Why would glorified, perfected celestial gods need an “example” or “inspiration”. Do you think Heavenly Father needs a good example to inspire him? :nope:

Paul

Ah, the scales are beginning to fall from your eyes! You asked a very good question, it manages to tie together the nature of the Godhead, eternal progression and eternal marriage all in one. Excellent work!

Paul, I’d love to be able to answer that one for you and everyone at the forum, but before I do, think back and try to remember from back in your days as a missionary. Think back to all the Sunday School and priesthood lessons you received. I respect your position as a Catholic but you ought to be able to answer this yourself.

 

[lukewarm]

Says you, not me!

There is an explanation for that. I gave it in my previous post.

zerinus

So I suppose if you have a daughter who is raped you’ll be fine with her rapist paying you 50 sheckels and promising to marry her? I can also assume that if you have a disobedient son you will promptly drag him to the city walls and stone hime?

There is MUCH in the OT that needs to be clarified, Jesus did that and He clarified that there simply is no marriage in Heaven. Your explanation is lacking, it isn’t a good apologetic at all. You provide nothing aside from “we think he meant this”, when really He said it very clearly there is no marriage in Heaven.

And for you to claim that no Mormon’s agonize over the fact that their spouse “for time” will go off in eternity with another man/woman is absurd. You don’t speak for all of Mormonism and common sense tells you that this would be a very difficult thing to deal with if your spouse died but was “sealed” to another person.

 

[zerinus]

So I suppose if you have a daughter who is raped you’ll be fine with her rapist paying you 50 sheckels and promising to marry her? I can also assume that if you have a disobedient son you will promptly drag him to the city walls and stone hime?

There is MUCH in the OT that needs to be clarified, Jesus did that and He clarified that there simply is no marriage in Heaven. Your explanation is lacking, it isn’t a good apologetic at all. You provide nothing aside from “we think he meant this”, when really He said it very clearly there is no marriage in Heaven.

And for you to claim that no Mormon’s agonize over the fact that their spouse “for time” will go off in eternity with another man/woman is absurd. You don’t speak for all of Mormonism and common sense tells you that this would be a very difficult thing to deal with if your spouse died but was “sealed” to another person.

And I think that you are talking a great load of irrelevant nonsense, and you know it. No further comment is necessary.

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

Ah, the scales are beginning to fall from your eyes! You asked a very good question, it manages to tie together the nature of the Godhead, eternal progression and eternal marriage all in one. Excellent work!

Paul, I’d love to be able to answer that one for you and everyone at the forum, but before I do, think back and try to remember from back in your days as a missionary. Think back to all the Sunday School and priesthood lessons you received. I respect your position as a Catholic but you ought to be able to answer this yourself.

I’m quite sure Paul and most of the rest of us on this forum already know how to answer “that one” and the answer is simply, “no”. Smilies say a lot all by themselves.

What’s with all the game playing. Why don’t you just say what you want to say and get it over with? Do you think Heavenly Father needs a good example to inspire him?

 

[lukewarm]

And I think that you are talking a great load of irrelevant nonsense, and you know it. No further comment is necessary.

zerinus

I have no problem accepting you admitting defeat, I graciously accept this victory…

 

[PaulDupre]

In that case you must believe that God had created a hell for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, because that is exactly the situation that they were in when they were first created. God created them eternal beings,…

No, God created them immortal, not eternal. You know that there’s a difference. Immortal means they would have lived on earth forever and never died. And God knew that Adam and Eve would fall from their immortal state and die, so he could not have planned for them to live as man and wife on earth forever. How do we know that? Because Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world”. So before Adam and Eve were even created, Jesus was already their savior. Why would God have planned a savior for them if he was unaware that they would fall and die?

… and then married them for eternity in the Garden of Eden,…

That is a supposition on your part for which there is no biblical evidence. Where does the bible say that Adam and Eve were married for eternity? They were married for as long as they lived, which God foreknew would not be forever.

… and commanded them to “multiply and replenish the earth”.

Yes, to multiply and replenish the earth, not the celestial kingdom.

… And Jesus says that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6);

That’s right. Man can only put asunder on earth what was ordained for the earth. Marriage is a sacrament, meant to assist us on earth in our journey to salvation in heaven.

… which implies that their marriage was for eternity, and was never to be annulled.

Two problems here: First, it does not imply at all that their marriage was for eternity, as I have shown above. Second, annulment is a declaration that there was never a valid marriage. That concept does not apply here.

God bless you,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Ah, the scales are beginning to fall from your eyes! You asked a very good question, it manages to tie together the nature of the Godhead, eternal progression and eternal marriage all in one. Excellent work!

It was a rhetorical question.

But if you’d like to answer it anyway, go right ahead.

Merry Christmas,
Paul

 

[PattyPryor]

I think it is soooo funny that when people go to the temple and get a ‘special’ name only thier husband/ wife will know it is the same name for everyone on that day. Then the next day it is the different list but it is the same for everyone so on the 25th the girls are Mary and the men Joseph
the next
Ester and John

I’m sorry but thats just weird.

Also anyone who even just reads Genesis knows that there are 2 creation stories and 2 flood stories.

God is our Father and there is no Celetral kingdom.

I knew a women who married 3 times and was only sealed to her first husband her ‘favorite’ husband

Thats stupid too. I’m sorry but Catholicism makes soooo much more sense.

As for the LDS people here why did Joseph Smith change Book of Commandments so much to later be called Doctrine and Covants I know TONS of people who were former LDS and highlighted all the changes. Why are things (name removed by moderator)ired by God changed?

And the name of the church continued to Change couldn’t Jesus make up his mind on the name he wanted for ‘him’ church?

and in Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine under fullness of the Gospel. Why does it say the BOM does NOT contain the Fullness of the Gospel when all the missionaries I ever met says it does.

there are so many holes in mormonism it is sad.

 

[PaulDupre]

rmcmullan,

Still waiting.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

and in Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine under fullness of the Gospel. Why does it say the BOM does NOT contain the Fullness of the Gospel when all the missionaries I ever met says it does.

That’s strange, because the Introduction to the Book of Mormon says:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

What “fulness” (sic) means is debatable. The Mormons believe that many “plain and precious truths” have been removed from the bible, so how could it have the fullness of truth? And the Book of Mormon does not mention most of the key doctrines of Mormonism, so how could it have the fullness of the gospel?

In Mormonism, things mean what they don’t mean, so it is hardly surprising that the “fullness of the everlasting gospel” would be just a small portion of the full gospel. :whacky:

God bless,
Paul

 

[PattyPryor]

So true Paul!

And many continue to fall for the missionaires ‘feelings’

Let us all pray for them

God Bless!

Patty

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

I saw a video years ago, of an Islamic preacher who illustrated the condemning Islamic view of those who believe God has a Son.
They believe that such an idea is an insult to God (Allah). He even went so far as to say that it is an insulting “animalistic” sexual thing to suggest that God had a Son.
And, when Christians find this out, it is so unbelievable.
Because, you know, that we believe that it was a miracle, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not of an “animalistic” sexual nature.
So, how many Muslims still believe that Christians believe that?
This is going to take a lot of patience and Bible doctrine to lay it all out plainly before Muslims.
I hope that this makes an impression, to say the least.

And, it should be noted that the Mormons believe (since 1827) that God the Father is a man, who came down to have sex with Mary for the conception of Jesus.
The Mormon Church is a cult, indeed.
Maybe, they are partly to blame.