Mormons, what do you think when you read "Matthew 22:23-33"

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

**Matthew 22:23-33 **

**Marriage at the Resurrection **

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32’I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

 

[Casen]

I’ll take the bait…

I would say that the covenant of marriage is like the covenant of baptism. There is no baptism in heaven – it must be done on earth, but if it is done properly by the proper authority it means something in the next life. So it is with marriage. Of course, Mormons claim to know how to perform the ordinance properly and also to have the authority to do it (marry or “seal”) so there you have it… In any case, it’s done in this life, not the next.

In the case of Matt 22:23-30 Christ was being interrogated by wicked Sadducees that did not even believe in the resurrection and were merely attempting to trap him in his words. I suspect for that reason Christ probably choose not to cast his most precious doctrinal pearls before the swine. He kept his answer simple.

I’m sure this answer won’t work for Catholics or most other Christians for that matter but I think it’s probably a pretty standard Mormon answer to this common criticism of Mormon doctrine.

 

[majick275]

I’ll take the bait…

I would say that the covenant of marriage is like the covenant of baptism. There is no baptism in heaven – it must be done on earth, but if it is done properly by the proper authority it means something in the next life. So it is with marriage. Of course, Mormons claim to know how to perform the ordinance properly and also to have the authority to do it (marry or “seal”) so there you have it… In any case, it’s done in this life, not the next.

In the case of Matt 22:23-30 Christ was being interrogated by wicked Sadducees that did not even believe in the resurrection and were merely attempting to trap him in his words. I suspect for that reason Christ probably choose not to cast his most precious doctrinal pearls before the swine. He kept his answer simple.

I’m sure this answer won’t work for Catholics or most other Christians for that matter but I think it’s probably a pretty standard Mormon answer to this common criticism of Mormon doctrine.

you presume that marriage is a REQUIRED sacrament like baptism then. that requires a rejection of jesus words in Matt. 19

 

[SkinnyJay]

In the case of Matt 22:23-30 Christ was being interrogated by wicked Sadducees that did not even believe in the resurrection and were merely attempting to trap him in his words. I suspect for that reason Christ probably choose not to cast his most precious doctrinal pearls before the swine. He kept his answer simple.

Jesus the kind of guy who doesn’t waste words on sinners eh? The precious doctrinal pearls meant for only those who believe in a resurrection? I would like to point out that throughout the NT there are stories of Jesus going straight for people who are the tough eggs to crack i.e. people who don’t believe, as well as the people who already believe in Him.

Why is he excluding this group? you propose that it’s because they didn’t believe in the resurrection. You talking THE resurrection or resurrection in general? If belief in THE resurrection is a requirement of doctrinal pearls then we must rule out all information given to Apostles, a.k.a. most of the teaching passed down to us, before His death as inconsequential, as even they did not fully understand THE resurrection until it happened. Therefore only doctrine taught after the death of Jesus is the only doctrine that is important. That is most of the stories in the gospels to cut out.

If resurrection in general, yes, Sadducee didn’t believe in it but that excludes them from even receiving pearls of faith? I find it hard to believe that even with the Sadducee looking to trap Jesus that He would prevent not only them but all those listening to His words, His Wisdom. (at the very least Matthew was around to pass it down orally so it could be written, and Jesus would know this I would presume)

I’m sure this answer won’t work for Catholics or most other Christians for that matter but I think it’s probably a pretty standard Mormon answer to this common criticism of Mormon doctrine.

This is a pretty standard Mormon answer, one that puts limits on God.

 

[Casen]

I’m not really interested in a debate on this guys. What would be the point? I just chimed in to respond to the original posted question which had gone unanswered. I wouldn’t expect non-Mormons to like the answer.

 

[SkinnyJay]

I’m not really interested in a debate on this guys. What would be the point? I just chimed in to respond to the original posted question which had gone unanswered. I wouldn’t expect non-Mormons to like the answer.

Ok Thanks for chiming in.