No Marriage in Heaven: Matthew 22:30

[IgnatianPhilo]

The Sadducees didn’t even believe in the resurrection.

That’s the point of their question. They viewed it as an absurdity to believe that marriages must carry on through to the next life. Evidently plural marriages were not approved upon by Jews of the day. Jesus has to correct them and say we are not married in the next life but exist like the angels. Do you believe the woman in the Sadducees example would be married to all of the men she married in this life?

 

[Stephen168]

The impression I got from their response was, “No, there’s no ‘sleep,’ but it’s not yet Heaven (and apparently you continually hear the Gospel preached).” I would compare it to the Bible’s “Sheol/Hades” or our (Catholic) notion of the “Limbo of the Fathers” where the dead went before Jesus’ death.

I guess I can add that to the milieu of the second great awakening:
Temperance
Prophets
The Lost Tribes/Judaism
After life, soul sleep/waiting for the resurrection

 

[Horton]

That’s the point of their question. They viewed it as an absurdity to believe that marriages must carry on through to the next life. Evidently plural marriages were not approved upon by Jews of the day. Jesus has to correct them and say we are not married in the next life but exist like the angels. Do you believe the woman in the Sadducees example would be married to all of the men she married in this life?

This is what happens when the LDS try to use individual biblical verses to prove their theory. They never understand the context, audience, and relevance to the customs of the time.

Very curious to see the answer to this one.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This is what happens when the LDS try to use individual biblical verses to prove their theory. They never understand the context, audience, and relevance to the customs of the time.

Very curious to see the answer to this one.

I don’t expect an answer since I don’t know how they can escape the conclusion that plural marriages must occur in heaven.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

It will turn out that everyone will be directly or indirectly married to Kevin Bacon.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I don’t expect an answer since I don’t know how they can escape the conclusion that plural marriages must occur in heaven.

They don’t escape it since the say plural marriages (as in polygamy) occur in heaven?

 

[KarenAnne]

Does that mean some women will have multiple spouses in heaven? Not just men? What about widowers who marry widows? Will they have a group marriage (two husbands and two wives)?

Don’t Morman’s solve this problem by saying only Temple-sealed marriages count in heaven. So what happens to those whose marriages weren’t sealed?

Those whose marriages weren’t sealed were just married for time - not time and eternity

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t expect an answer since I don’t know how they can escape the conclusion that plural marriages must occur in heaven.

Sure, they escape it by explaining away Jesus’ teaching in this way: Jesus was only talking about the woman in question.

Since Mormons do not teach or believe a woman has multiple husbands (polyandry). Mormons teach polygyny only. Polyamory is also not it, for them, everything in their heaven is arranged around polygyny. Their doctrine of plural marriage is only for men having multiple female partners. **

Further explains away: Jesus is prophesying that this woman will not be in a celestial marriage. Meaning to Mormons, she will not accept their “gospel” while in their spirit world.

Such is cognitive dissonance.

**See D&C 132. Smith’s first wife, Emma, is told specifically to not practice polyandry, to have fidelity to Joseph alone, and to accept her husband’s affairs with other women as divinely commanded, or be “destroyed”.

Gotta love Joseph Smith,

 

[PJM]

There are currently threads on the LDS view on marriage AND heaven. For this thread, I want to specifically talk about Marriage IN Heaven and Matthew 22:30

Every denomination I know except the LDS views this passage as saying there is NO marriage in heaven. The LDS say that this verse doesnt actually say there will be no marriage but that marriages will not occur (ie to marry or given in marriage) in heaven. I can see their point!

AND Mt 22:30 is Right and correct for several reasons:

1. Psalms 102:14
For he knoweth our frame. He remembereth that we are dust:

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Our Mortal bodies return to their Original state when we die; Only the Soul, with its attached mind, intellect and freewill remain

1. and more importantly Heaven is ALL about God; not about US

Isaiah 43: verses 7 & 21

[7] And every one that calleth upon my name, I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, and made him. & [21] This people have I formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise

1. They might be thinking of the “General Judgment” when our then made GLORIOUS bodies are reunited with our immortal souls; BUT even then they miss point #2:shrug:

GBY

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Sure, they escape it by explaining away Jesus’ teaching in this way: Jesus was only talking about the woman in question.

Since Mormons do not teach or believe a woman has multiple husbands (polyandry). Mormons teach polygyny only. Polyamory is also not it, for them, everything in their heaven is arranged around polygyny. Their doctrine of plural marriage is only for men having multiple female partners. **

Further explains away: Jesus is prophesying that this woman will not be in a celestial marriage. Meaning to Mormons, she will not accept their “gospel” while in their spirit world.

Such is cognitive dissonance.

**See D&C 132. Smith’s first wife, Emma, is told specifically to not practice polyandry, to have fidelity to Joseph alone, and to accept her husband’s affairs with other women as divinely commanded, or be “destroyed”.

Gotta love Joseph Smith,

I don’t expect any Mormon to admit as much since it goes against the image which modern Mormons try to cultivate of Monogamous marriage. It is embarrassing to suggest even the possibility of plural or polygynous marriages in heaven.

I am aware that Joseph Smith was sealed to other men’s wives while they were alive? Is there an instance of Joseph being sealed to a woman who was sealed to another man?

 

[Horton]

I don’t expect any Mormon to admit as much since it goes against the image which modern Mormons try to cultivate of Monogamous marriage. It is embarrassing to suggest even the possibility of plural or polygynous marriages in heaven.

I am aware that Joseph Smith was sealed to other men’s wives while they were alive? Is there an instance of Joseph being sealed to a woman who was sealed to another man?

I doubt there will be a clear answer on this question if there is an answer at all. My initial response would be no as the whole sealing idea was a creation of Joseph Smith’s to perpetuate his concept of heaven. I think it was also a sales ploy to get men to join the LDS. Offer them this idea of their own kingdom or world, more than one wife, and the ability to rule. In addition JS sold this sealing thing to women as a way for them to get to heaven. Tell them their husband was not capable of getting them to the highest level but by being sealed to JS, they could.

I know the modern day latter day saints walk this stuff back so far to almost act as though it didn’t exist but it is reality. Today they would just baptize the husband after death, seal him to his wife, and all is good. They do this even if the husband rejects the LDS as a church in this life. For example, you have an LDS wife & a Catholic husband. The Catholic husband stands firm in his faith for the whole of the marriage but when he dies the LDS wife offers his name for the baptism of the dead, so he is baptized LDS and then sealed to the wife, and even in his resistance some how makes it to the celestial kingdom.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I doubt there will be a clear answer on this question if there is an answer at all. My initial response would be no as the whole sealing idea was a creation of Joseph Smith’s to perpetuate his concept of heaven. I think it was also a sales ploy to get men to join the LDS. Offer them this idea of their own kingdom or world, more than one wife, and the ability to rule. In addition JS sold this sealing thing to women as a way for them to get to heaven. Tell them their husband was not capable of getting them to the highest level but by being sealed to JS, they could.

I know the modern day latter day saints walk this stuff back so far to almost act as though it didn’t exist but it is reality. Today they would just baptize the husband after death, seal him to his wife, and all is good. They do this even if the husband rejects the LDS as a church in this life. For example, you have an LDS wife & a Catholic husband. The Catholic husband stands firm in his faith for the whole of the marriage but when he dies the LDS wife offers his name for the baptism of the dead, so he is baptized LDS and then sealed to the wife, and even in his resistance some how makes it to the celestial kingdom.

Joseph did in fact marry women who were married to other living husbands, one example is Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. She was married to Henry Jacobs when she married Smith, after Smith died she married Brigham Young. Again while still married to Henry. There were others to but their names don’t come to mind.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

There are currently threads on the LDS view on marriage AND heaven. For this thread, I want to specifically talk about Marriage IN Heaven and Matthew 22:30

Every denomination I know except the LDS views this passage as saying there is NO marriage in heaven. The LDS say that this verse doesnt actually say there will be no marriage but that marriages will not occur (ie to marry or given in marriage) in heaven. I can see their point!

Look at the hypothetical that Jesus was responding to and it is clear that He is saying that marriages do not exist in heaven. Otherwise His answer wouldn’t have been germane to the hypothetical.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t expect any Mormon to admit as much since it goes against the image which modern Mormons try to cultivate of Monogamous marriage. It is embarrassing to suggest even the possibility of plural or polygynous marriages in heaven.

I am aware that Joseph Smith was sealed to other men’s wives while they were alive? Is there an instance of Joseph being sealed to a woman who was sealed to another man?

Mayyybe?

There are different historical accounts.

Brigham Young and his close friends and allies said Joseph married multiple times, via Mormon sealings. Also women close to Young or Young’s close group of male friends, claimed secret sealings while they were married, and not to Smith. Then the LDS Church shoved these witness accounts into obscurity, with a few historians bringing them to light, and then the internet where these accounts are all over the place, and the LDS Church publishing essays about them.

The branch of Mormons that didn’t follow Young have different, and compelling, historical accounts that deny Smith ever married more than one woman. Their account relies on historical testimony from the Nauvoo period, and painting the accounts from Young and his close associates as lies, with the intent of the lies to justify Young’s teachings about polygamy.

I remain skeptical about either account, because Young was most certainly not a man of good character, power hungry and influenced by fringe groups and societies. While Smith was no angel, and I beleive a conman. I don’t know Young’s account, and testimony ONLY from his close associates, is any more factual than any other account. Early Mormonism is shrouded in secrecy and intrigue, shell games and hucksters. All with their own goals and agendas. So I just don’t think I can be definitively on either side of the different accounts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Adding, the LDS Church approach to the issue of Smith’s marital fidelity, or not, over time is schizophrenic, and reeks of cognitive dissonance. That is, constantly and consistently working to keep equilibrium and quell the uneasiness of their follower’s reactions to conflicting information.

 

[Janderich]

That’s the point of their question. They viewed it as an absurdity to believe that marriages must carry on through to the next life. Evidently plural marriages were not approved upon by Jews of the day. Jesus has to correct them and say we are not married in the next life but exist like the angels. Do you believe the woman in the Sadducees example would be married to all of the men she married in this life?

1. Marriage is ordained of God (Mark 10:8-9)
2. As has been discussed, new marriages are not performed after the resurrection. As Jesus explained using the terms “married” and “given in marriage” in the scripture under discussion.
3. The law of Moses constituted a lower law and the scenario posed by the Sadducees in which the woman marries seven brothers applied to this life only. (Deut 25:5-10, Rom 7:1-3)
4. Therefore, under the higher law there is no confusion on the matter. She will only be bound by covenant to him whom she has chosen and he who has chosen her.
5. All the others will not be married to her and if they remain unmarried until the resurrection they will be ministering angels to those who have entered into the covenant of eternal marriage (D&C 132:15-16).

 

[Janderich]

I don’t expect an answer since I don’t know how they can escape the conclusion that plural marriages must occur in heaven.

There are certainly a number of unknowns regarding plural marriage and our resurrected state. Early leaders proclaimed plural marriage as required to enter the highest degree of salvation. However, later leaders have clarified that marriage between one man and one woman will allow us to be exalted in the highest heaven. But LDS leaders do not claim complete understanding of how all aspects of plural marriage will work after the resurrection. That is why it is a bit silly for Rebecca or Horton to try and draw definitive conclusions on the matter and claim it as LDS doctrine. Of course in modern times LDS members have been commanded to marry one wife or husband under penalty of excommunication if they marry more than one.

I myself believe that most marriages in heaven will be between only one husband and one wife. However, I think there are some husbands and wives who were directed by the Lord and chose to enter into plural marriages. These individuals will be married after the resurrection (although some LDS would disagree with me). This may include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others.

I’m not sure about one wife marrying multiple husbands. I consider it as possible, but the Lord has revealed zero to me on this matter. I still have more to learn.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are certainly a number of unknowns regarding plural marriage and our resurrected state. Early leaders proclaimed plural marriage as required to enter the highest degree of salvation. However, later leaders have clarified that marriage between one man and one woman will allow us to be exalted in the highest heaven. But LDS leaders do not claim complete understanding of how all aspects of plural marriage will work after the resurrection. That is why it is a bit silly for Rebecca or Horton to try and draw definitive conclusions on the matter and claim it as LDS doctrine. Of course in modern times LDS members have been commanded to marry one wife or husband under penalty of excommunication if they marry more than one.

I myself believe that most marriages in heaven will be between only one husband and one wife. However, I think there are some husbands and wives who were directed by the Lord and chose to enter into plural marriages. These individuals will be married after the resurrection (although some LDS would disagree with me). This may include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others.

I’m not sure about one wife marrying multiple husbands. I consider it as possible, but the Lord has revealed zero to me on this matter. I still have more to learn.

I only cite what Mormonism teaches or has taught as definitive. What Mormonism teaches as definitive changes. The non-definitive nature of Mormon doctrine is not my or Horton’s doing. The owner of silliness is the Mormon Church.

Section 132 of the D&C is still Mormon doctrine. The man who put it there was Brigham Young and he taught clearly what his addition to the D&C meant. Of course, since the Mormon Church backed away from Young’s teachings, new narratives are built.

 

[WilliamE]

It will turn out that everyone will be directly or indirectly married to Kevin Bacon.

 

[zaffiroborant]

There are certainly a number of unknowns regarding plural marriage and our resurrected state. Early leaders proclaimed plural marriage as required to enter the highest degree of salvation. However, later leaders have clarified that marriage between one man and one woman will allow us to be exalted in the highest heaven. But LDS leaders do not claim complete understanding of how all aspects of plural marriage will work after the resurrection. That is why it is a bit silly for Rebecca or Horton to try and draw definitive conclusions on the matter and claim it as LDS doctrine. Of course in modern times LDS members have been commanded to marry one wife or husband under penalty of excommunication if they marry more than one.

I myself believe that most marriages in heaven will be between only one husband and one wife. However, I think there are some husbands and wives who were directed by the Lord and chose to enter into plural marriages. These individuals will be married after the resurrection (although some LDS would disagree with me). This may include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others.

I’m not sure about one wife marrying multiple husbands. I consider it as possible, but the Lord has revealed zero to me on this matter. I still have more to learn.

Isaac had one wife, Rebekah.