No Marriage in Heaven: Matthew 22:30

[IgnatianPhilo]

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).

Sorry for my delay in responding.

1. Rather Marriage is blessed by God and not mandated. Elijah never married and nor did Jesus. Jesus being the greatest example of the human life lived should give you pause for thought in thinking marriage a necessity.
2. I don’t see how this response actually deals with the criticisms of the Sadducees. Jesus is being challenged with the idea that this woman in heaven will have multiple husbands and the idea of the question is trap Jesus into the absurdity of believing in the resurrection, that a woman shall have more than one husband. Instead of giving the Mormon answer, Jesus denies their premise, stating that we live like angels. Now in Mormonism angels are not married and those who do not obey God’s law on this matter are appointed angels in heaven, in fact angels are without flesh and bone and their position is lesser. Even if we apply a Mormon understanding (which is anachronistic) the Christian reading is most obvious, we will be celibate in Heaven, sex won’t be a concern. Jesus should have given into their premise and simply stated, “Yes she will be married to all of them” or “She will be married to the one whom she was sealed to for all eternity in the Synagogue” (Since there weren’t multiple temples in Jesus’ day but only one).
3. This seems to me to require that a Mormon understanding of marriage was how second temple Jews actually viewed marriage. I am aware of no such understanding among first century Jews that viewed a spiritual marriage differently from a worldly marriage. It seems too anachronistic to me.
4. You can’t know this for certain. Unless you have evidence that the marriage rites in ancient Judaism were differentiated as they are in Mormonism that is supposition on your part. Why should we assume that the Sadducee’s didn’t know what they were asking? Since they were presuming the marriages to persist into the afterlife within the worldview of Jesus and the Pharisees it seems their example indicates that the woman married the men the same way.
5. How do you determine which of the men will be married to her eternally?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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 find this worldview troubling for what marriage must actually entail. Why do you believe that most marriages in heaven will be celibate? Do I detect that you think that this is a good thing? You seem to allow for the possibility of marriage being available to the single in heaven so why isn’t it possible that plural marriages are available to the faithful Mormons before the final resurrection? (I still don’t see the basis of this belief that marriage is available to the unmarried after they die and before the resurrection in Mormon scripture btw).

Now you list some pretty eminent figures from both the Mormon and Christian worlds. This seems to imply that they are receiving something greater in inheriting all of their wives as well as the wives of others (Joseph and Brigham will seemingly be sharing their wives after the resurrection). Does this mean that plural marriages equate to stature? What is then the significance of monogamy within current Mormon practice? Does it reflect what is actually going on in heaven? I think the confusion lies in that plural and polygamous marriages are largely regarded as an embarrassment by modern Mormons who want to appear to be more Christian on the surface. Political pressure from the government might have also contributed to Mormons changing their minds about the issue.

Now I realise you don’t like speculation but plural marriages which are eternal sort of beg an answer. Mormons will be unable to create spiritual children without a spouse yet plural marriages means that certain men and women will bear spiritual offspring from different partners. This not only puts into question your origins (perhaps you are a child of a heavenly Mother but another person you know is a child of another heavenly mother) but makes the nature of marriage really unclear. God laid a foundation in Genesis with Adam and Eve and the New Testament reinforces that image which got distorted during the lives of the Old Testament Patriarchs and was recaptured by the early Church which always insisted on Monogamy. Why is Spiritual marriage to more than one person actually necessary? What does it accomplish? The only thing I can think it might accomplish is that it produces more spiritual children.

 

[HojaVerde]

Isaac had one wife, Rebekah.

And also Abraham, one wife, Sarai.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

And also Abraham, one wife, Sarai.

But Sarah wasnt the mother of both his sons? Only one. Hagar was the mother of the other?

 

[HojaVerde]

But Sarah wasnt the mother of both his sons? Only one. Hagar was the mother of the other?

Hi Truth_Faith13, Sarah was the Mother of Isaac and Hagar of Ismael, both of them are sons of Abraham. But Sarah was his wife and Hagar his concubine. Abraham was promised by God to have a son, and as Sarah was infertile, Abraham thought he had to have a baby with Hagar. He was wrong, the promise was related to Sarah, and it is with her with whom he had Isaac.

This way is considered by saint Paul, read Galatians 4,22-31.

But what it is more relevant here, is that the full understanding of marriage was given by Jesus. Thus Christian marriage is monogamous between a man and a woman and indissoluble (Matthew 19,3-9). Even up to the point to have the letter to the Hebrews declaring the following:
“Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” (Hebrews 13,4).

Joseph Smith was born after Christ, so he has no excuse (the same applies to Brigham Young and many others).

 

[Janderich]

Sorry for my delay in responding.

1. Rather Marriage is blessed by God and not mandated. Elijah never married and nor did Jesus. Jesus being the greatest example of the human life lived should give you pause for thought in thinking marriage a necessity.

The Biblical record is too sparse for you to ever fully conclude that Elijah or Jesus were never married. And of course marriage is not “mandated” by God. God will force no man to heaven. He may point the way, he may even give commandment, but each person is free to choose.

But choose wisely and think on it well for when Jesus says, “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” and then asks us to leave father and mother and cleave to our wife [or husband] it is extremely risky to assume that one who does not do so will reap the same reward in heaven.

1. I don’t see how this response actually deals with the criticisms of the Sadducees. Jesus is being challenged with the idea that this woman in heaven will have multiple husbands and the idea of the question is trap Jesus into the absurdity of believing in the resurrection, that a woman shall have more than one husband. Instead of giving the Mormon answer, Jesus denies their premise, stating that we live like angels. Now in Mormonism angels are not married and those who do not obey God’s law on this matter are appointed angels in heaven, in fact angels are without flesh and bone and their position is lesser. Even if we apply a Mormon understanding (which is anachronistic) the Christian reading is most obvious, we will be celibate in Heaven, sex won’t be a concern. Jesus should have given into their premise and simply stated, “Yes she will be married to all of them” or “She will be married to the one whom she was sealed to for all eternity in the Synagogue” (Since there weren’t multiple temples in Jesus’ day but only one).

I’m not sure, but you may need to go back and read the first few posts of this thread regarding the terms “marry” and “given in marriage”. They hold a key to understanding Jesus words on this matter. For simplicity let me re-post part of the quote from a non-LDS scriptural scholar:

Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member.(Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328)

Jesus here did not deny marriage. In fact he said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. What scriptures? What power of God? The power of God to dissolve all loving marriages? The power of God to retract his word when he said that a husband and wife “twain, shall be one flesh”? No. The power of God which does away with petty earthly concerns and allows loving marriages to be carried beyond the resurrection.

1. This seems to me to require that a Mormon understanding of marriage was how second temple Jews actually viewed marriage. I am aware of no such understanding among first century Jews that viewed a spiritual marriage differently from a worldly marriage. It seems too anachronistic to me.

I did not say this is how the Jews viewed marriage. Rather this is how Jesus explained it to them. The Jews followed the law of Moses and were stuck in their ritual observance of it. As with many other teachings the Lord came to show the higher law, and the higher law was not a dissolution of marriage but a continuation of it.

1. You can’t know this for certain. Unless you have evidence that the marriage rites in ancient Judaism were differentiated as they are in Mormonism that is supposition on your part. Why should we assume that the Sadducee’s didn’t know what they were asking? Since they were presuming the marriages to persist into the afterlife within the worldview of Jesus and the Pharisees it seems their example indicates that the woman married the men the same way.

The women married the men according to the law of moses as given in Deuteronomy. Clearly the first marriage was not the same as the second since the brother had to marry her even though he may not have wished it.

At any rate, I do not need to delve into an unknown history of Jewish beliefs on marriage. I have the word of the Lord as given in modern day.

1. How do you determine which of the men will be married to her eternally?

It is not determined by you or me. It is determined by them. It will be to him to whom she has made an eternal covenant which will stretch beyond this life.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

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).

I’m very uncomfortable with point 5!

 

[RebeccaJ]

In multiple threads over years, Catholics have explained to Mormons that our marriages are not dissolved in heaven, they are fulfilled. No Catholic believes we are miserably without love in heaven. Quite the contrary, God is love, and our life in heaven is with Love itself. Marriage is a sacrament, and all sacraments prefigure heaven.

Just as the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb in the OT prefigured Jesus Christ. The Prophets and the Law are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Law was not dissolved it is fulfilled.

So it will be in heaven, marriages will be fulfilled, not dissolved. The way in which marriage prefigures heaven is first, marriage is an image of the Holy Trinity. Second, marriage is a domestic church, meaning, it is the Kingdom of God lived now on earth.

Marriage is not the only vocation that prefigures heaven, A single life, dedicated in holiness to serving God, is also living the Kingdom of God on earth.

The marriage contract between two people ends when one dies. Otherwise, the surviving spouse would not be free to marry, but would be committing adultery to do so. This does not mean our love for each other ends. In the presence of God, our love is perfected.

Mormonism first imagines a bleak and ungodly heaven, and then produces an imagined remedy. It is points like this where I think Joseph Smith revealed the true nature of himself.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

But choose wisely and think on it well for when Jesus says, “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” and then asks us to leave father and mother and cleave to our wife [or husband] it is extremely risky to assume that one who does not do so will reap the same reward in heaven.

That we have no record of a wife of Jesus in the early Church or New Testament when we have evidence that Peter was married leads most to the conclusion that Jesus remained unmarried. If you want to posit the case that he was, you must provide evidence of which there is none. It seems to me impossible the widow of Jesus would have escaped mention in the early Church, surely such a woman would be considered prominent. I realise as a Mormon you more or less have to believe he was married before the resurrection but there is no basis for the belief historically, there is only basis as a consequence of Mormon theology which is anachronistic.

You suggest every person is free to choose yet that is not the case. Your Prophet invoked “God’s will” in trying to tell the women whom he wanted to marry spiritually that they must marry him. Mormons want to suggest Joseph did something selfless and noble by following God’s will in marrying other men’s wives and numerous other women because God commanded him to. Evidently marriage is a mandate in Mormonism, not a choice, because without it you cannot be truly blessed.

I’m not sure, but you may need to go back and read the first few posts of this thread regarding the terms “marry” and “given in marriage”. They hold a key to understanding Jesus words on this matter. For simplicity let me re-post part of the quote from a non-LDS scriptural scholar:

Jesus here did not deny marriage. In fact he said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. What scriptures? What power of God? The power of God to dissolve all loving marriages? The power of God to retract his word when he said that a husband and wife “twain, shall be one flesh”? No. The power of God which does away with petty earthly concerns and allows loving marriages to be carried beyond the resurrection.

It’s not about Jesus denying marriage it’s about Jesus clarifying that marriage does not persist in the ways the Sadducees in their mockery thought it would. The love of marriage can be continued on to the next life but what makes marriage marriage in this world does not, namely certain elements like sex and intimate union do not continue on to the next world. Do you believe we will become like Angels? Don’t you agree that angels are not married?

I did not say this is how the Jews viewed marriage. Rather this is how Jesus explained it to them. The Jews followed the law of Moses and were stuck in their ritual observance of it. As with many other teachings the Lord came to show the higher law, and the higher law was not a dissolution of marriage but a continuation of it.

The women married the men according to the law of moses as given in Deuteronomy. Clearly the first marriage was not the same as the second since the brother had to marry her even though he may not have wished it.

If you notice in the Sadducee’s question they are clear to point out that all of the brothers were married to her. "In the resurrection, then, whose wife will she be of the seven? For all of them were married to her.” So the brothers were fulfilling the law in Deuteronomy 25:5 but there is no distinction here seen the marriages. The Sadducee’s question presumes they had the same marriage even if the others were caused by necessity and the question to ask from this is whose wife will she be? Ancient Jews certainty weren’t sealed in the temple like modern Mormons are (since there was only one temple in Ancient Israel) and there is no evidence of a belief in a significantly spiritual marriage vs an earthly marriage as there is in Mormonism. You are arguing that the first marriage in ancient Israel has more significance, let’s test this. Whom will Abigail be married to? Nabal or David? She was married to Nabal first. Whom will Bathsheba be married to? David or Uriah? By this standard David will have neither as his wives.

I find it problematic an interpretation to suggest only the first marriage will be of eternal consequences when there is no basis for this in the text. Especially troubling for the Mormon should be the phrase “they will be like the angels” which has not been touched upon. How does it answer the Sadducees question to respond with “They will be like the angels”? It can only respond to the Sadducees question if we are not married or have relationships of marriage in heaven like we do on earth.

At any rate, I do not need to delve into an unknown history of Jewish beliefs on marriage. I have the word of the Lord as given in modern day.

It is not determined by you or me. It is determined by them. It will be to him to whom she has made an eternal covenant which will stretch beyond this life.

If you want to make a historical case for this being the way we should interpret the New Testament, yes you ought to demonstrate how marriage in ancient Israel worked. It seems markedly different from how marriage works for Modern Mormons because there was only one temple in Israel at the time and not all Jews could possibly be sealed in it.

The Sadducee’s question implies that she was married to the men in the same way so as to carry on to the next life. Jesus contradicts that and doesn’t give us the Mormon answer. He should have said “Yes she will be married to all seven brothers.”

 

[Janderich]

That we have no record of a wife of Jesus in the early Church or New Testament when we have evidence that Peter was married leads most to the conclusion that Jesus remained unmarried. If you want to posit the case that he was, you must provide evidence of which there is none. It seems to me impossible the widow of Jesus would have escaped mention in the early Church, surely such a woman would be considered prominent. I realise as a Mormon you more or less have to believe he was married before the resurrection but there is no basis for the belief historically, there is only basis as a consequence of Mormon theology which is anachronistic.

You previously made a statement that Jesus was not married. Clearly you cannot confirm that statement. I have not made, nor wish to make any conclusions on the matter of Jesus being married because there is not sufficient evidence either way.

You suggest every person is free to choose yet that is not the case. Your Prophet invoked “God’s will” in trying to tell the women whom he wanted to marry spiritually that they must marry him. Mormons want to suggest Joseph did something selfless and noble by following God’s will in marrying other men’s wives and numerous other women because God commanded him to. Evidently marriage is a mandate in Mormonism, not a choice, because without it you cannot be truly blessed.

Your statement about Joseph and marriage compounds various errors. For instance, Joseph was sealed to other men’s wives but there is no evidence he had sexual relations with such women. The whole issue ties back to the law of adoption and the fact that many couples were sealed back to Joseph.

Now, It is true that Joseph told women that God had commanded him to enter into plural marriage and he further told them to pray and find out if it was God’s will for them to marry him. Some chose not to do so. A person’s take on this matter has much to do with what they believe. If Joseph indeed did receive a command from the Lord, than what he did what was right. However, if he did not receive a command from the Lord than what he did was wrong. You of course come from an attitude of disbelief and so assume that what he did was wrong.

It’s not about Jesus denying marriage it’s about Jesus clarifying that marriage does not persist in the ways the Sadducees in their mockery thought it would. The love of marriage can be continued on to the next life but what makes marriage marriage in this world does not, namely certain elements like sex and intimate union do not continue on to the next world. Do you believe we will become like Angels? Don’t you agree that angels are not married?

There have been various angels on this earth, some have been married and some have not been. Adam appeared as an angel and was married, so did Paul. The point about ministering angels has to do with their status in the world to come. Those that are not married will be ministering angels for those who are married after the resurrection.

If you notice in the Sadducee’s question they are clear to point out that all of the brothers were married to her. "In the resurrection, then, whose wife will she be of the seven? For all of them were married to her.” So the brothers were fulfilling the law in Deuteronomy 25:5 but there is no distinction here seen the marriages. The Sadducee’s question presumes they had the same marriage even if the others were caused by necessity and the question to ask from this is whose wife will she be? Ancient Jews certainty weren’t sealed in the temple like modern Mormons are (since there was only one temple in Ancient Israel) and there is no evidence of a belief in a significantly spiritual marriage vs an earthly marriage as there is in Mormonism. You are arguing that the first marriage in ancient Israel has more significance, let’s test this. Whom will Abigail be married to? Nabal or David? She was married to Nabal first. Whom will Bathsheba be married to? David or Uriah? By this standard David will have neither as his wives.

All individuals who have lived on this earth will need to be sealed in order to be exalted with their husband or wife and obtain the highest degree of salvation. It matters not if they were not sealed in ancient days on the earth, they will be sealed before the resurrection.

I am not arguing the fact that the first marriage was an eternal marriage. There is nothing sacred about a first marriage per se. What is important is who a person determines they will be with eternally. Such a person will have to be faithful and consistent to whom he or she has chosen and enter into eternal covenant with them.

I find it problematic an interpretation to suggest only the first marriage will be of eternal consequences when there is no basis for this in the text. Especially troubling for the Mormon should be the phrase “they will be like the angels” which has not been touched upon. How does it answer the Sadducees question to respond with “They will be like the angels”? It can only respond to the Sadducees question if we are not married or have relationships of marriage in heaven like we do on earth.

I see no problem with the phrase “they will be like the angels in heaven”. Jesus here is explaining that there is no marriage after the resurrection. Therefore, if a person is not sealed to their spouse before the resurrection than they will be ministering angels in heaven.

 

[sallybutler]

(removed from quote)

There have been various angels on this earth, some have been married and some have not been. Adam appeared as an angel and was married, so did Paul. The point about ministering angels has to do with their status in the world to come. Those that are not married will be ministering angels for those who are married after the resurrection.

(removed from quote).

When did Adam appear as an angel?

Also, “appears as an angel” is different from “the angel Adam appeared” . One looks like an angel but is not an angel, the other is an angel.

 

[Horton]

When did Adam appear as an angel?

Also, “appears as an angel” is different from “the angel Adam appeared” . One looks like an angel but is not an angel, the other is an angel.

This is part of the LDS myth. Adam, St. Paul and John the Baptist “appeared” to Joseph Smith. It was a way for Joseph Smith to attempt to convince others of his “truth”.

 

[in_servitude]

This is part of the LDS myth. Adam, St. Paul and John the Baptist “appeared” to Joseph Smith. It was a way for Joseph Smith to attempt to convince others of his “truth”.

Ah… This explains a lot. I always wondered why the LDS faithful were okay with St. Paul telling people to avoid marriage if they could handle it.

If I were LDS and discerning the truth, it would be distressing to see biblical text that teaches plainly in opposition to the LDS belief that marriage is critically important in the next life. It would have to mean that St. Paul wasn’t a part of the church that the LDS have “restored”. But, now that St. Paul is dead, he was apparently given a second chance to figure it out.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You previously made a statement that Jesus was not married. Clearly you cannot confirm that statement. I have not made, nor wish to make any conclusions on the matter of Jesus being married because there is not sufficient evidence either way.

I maintain the claim that Jesus remained unmarried and this poses a significant problem to Mormonism. To repeat the basis for this belief. 1. We have no evidence of a wife of Jesus or any family of Jesus surviving him. 2. There are sayings in the gospels in which Jesus accepts celibacy, hinting that it was not incompatible for him based on his teachings, to be celibate. 3. We have evidence that other figures were married in the New Testament like Peter and the other apostles, why should they get their wives mentioned and the widow of Jesus (whom would be a significant person in the early church) get no mention whatsoever?

If you want to suggest that Jesus was married you ought provide some historical reasons for saying so. The only reason why you think Jesus was married is theological, because Jesus resurrecting without having a wife challenges the Mormon conception of achieving the highest celestial existence, which Mormons no doubt believe Jesus achieved.

Your statement about Joseph and marriage compounds various errors. For instance, Joseph was sealed to other men’s wives but there is no evidence he had sexual relations with such women. The whole issue ties back to the law of adoption and the fact that many couples were sealed back to

Now, It is true that Joseph told women that God had commanded him to enter into plural marriage and he further told them to pray and find out if it was God’s will for them to marry him. Some chose not to do so. A person’s take on this matter has much to do with what they believe. If Joseph indeed did receive a command from the Lord, than what he did what was right. However, if he did not receive a command from the Lord than what he did was wrong. You of course come from an attitude of disbelief and so assume that what he did was wrong.

My point wasn’t to suggest something sexual, though I believe Joseph did obtain various sexual partners. My point was to question the purpose of being sealed to multiple people spiritually. What does it accomplish? What does having multiple partners in heaven actually do? Does it allow one to produce more spiritual children? Why is one partner not enough for some people? Will Joseph have all the wives he was sealed to or only some?

There have been various angels on this earth, some have been married and some have not been. Adam appeared as an angel and was married, so did Paul. The point about ministering angels has to do with their status in the world to come. Those that are not married will be ministering angels for those who are married after the resurrection.

Where does anything say Adam appeared as an angel? Even if that is the case the phrase “appeared” does not mean that Adam actually was an angel, since obviously Adam is human in the bible, the forefather of all humanity. If you want to suggest that Adam was an angel we are therefore angels by descent. So my argument still holds up with regards to understanding Jesus telling us we will be like angels. We are like angels in the next life in that we are not married like we are on earth. That is we will not be having sexual relations and children.

All individuals who have lived on this earth will need to be sealed in order to be exalted with their husband or wife and obtain the highest degree of salvation. It matters not if they were not sealed in ancient days on the earth, they will be sealed before the resurrection.
I am not arguing the fact that the first marriage was an eternal marriage. There is nothing sacred about a first marriage per se. What is important is who a person determines they will be with eternally. Such a person will have to be faithful and consistent to whom he or she has chosen and enter into eternal covenant with them.

So the sealing ceremony merely only allows for the option to spend eternity with someone based on the choice of the individual?

I see no problem with the phrase “they will be like the angels in heaven”. Jesus here is explaining that there is no marriage after the resurrection. Therefore, if a person is not sealed to their spouse before the resurrection than they will be ministering angels in heaven.

The problem for you lies in how will we be like the angels in heaven. Saying marriage doesn’t happen to us in the resurrection doesn’t categorise us like the angels. You also have to take into consideration the context of the Sadducees question which is about marriage.

Despite you saying there are married angels, there is no evidence of this. Appearing as an angel is not the same as being an angel. Here seem to be the key differences between those in the celestial kingdom (highest) and those who are angels.

1. Angels will remain unmarried and only serve God
2. Angels have a lesser place next to those in the highest celestial kingdom
3. Angels have not achieved the fullest sense of deification possible.

Number one most makes sense in fitting into how Jesus responds because it addresses the Sadducees question about marriage. What is the existence of angels like now, their marital or non marital state that actually addresses what the Sadducees say? See there was nothing preventing Jesus giving the answer the way you are, but he didn’t instead he gives the Christian answer.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You previously made a statement that Jesus was not married. Clearly you cannot confirm that statement. I have not made, nor wish to make any conclusions on the matter of Jesus being married because there is not sufficient evidence either way.

Your statement about Joseph and marriage compounds various errors. For instance, Joseph was sealed to other men’s wives but there is no evidence he had sexual relations with such women. The whole issue ties back to the law of adoption and the fact that many couples were sealed back to Joseph.

Now, It is true that Joseph told women that God had commanded him to enter into plural marriage and he further told them to pray and find out if it was God’s will for them to marry him. Some chose not to do so. A person’s take on this matter has much to do with what they believe. If Joseph indeed did receive a command from the Lord, than what he did what was right. However, if he did not receive a command from the Lord than what he did was wrong. You of course come from an attitude of disbelief and so assume that what he did was wrong.

There have been various angels on this earth, some have been married and some have not been. Adam appeared as an angel and was married, so did Paul. The point about ministering angels has to do with their status in the world to come. Those that are not married will be ministering angels for those who are married after the resurrection.

All individuals who have lived on this earth will need to be sealed in order to be exalted with their husband or wife and obtain the highest degree of salvation. It matters not if they were not sealed in ancient days on the earth, they will be sealed before the resurrection.

I am not arguing the fact that the first marriage was an eternal marriage. There is nothing sacred about a first marriage per se. What is important is who a person determines they will be with eternally. Such a person will have to be faithful and consistent to whom he or she has chosen and enter into eternal covenant with them.

I see no problem with the phrase “they will be like the angels in heaven”. Jesus here is explaining that there is no marriage after the resurrection. Therefore, if a person is not sealed to their spouse before the resurrection than they will be ministering angels in heaven.

What abiut the other verses which talk about a wife being free to marry and no longer bound by her husband when he dies? How do the LDS view them?

 

[HojaVerde]

I’m thinking in other problems.

LDS marriages for eternity can be unsealed while on earth. Would it be possible to unseal these celestial marriages to dead people? Or in the afterlife?

If it was needed that Joseph Smith married to other wives only for spiritual purposes, why don’t wait to the death of Joseph and the other women to seal them? Even, they (the women) would have had the chance to refuse these bounds according to the LDS logic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I maintain the claim that Jesus remained unmarried and this poses a significant problem to Mormonism. To repeat the basis for this belief. 1. We have no evidence of a wife of Jesus or any family of Jesus surviving him. 2. There are sayings in the gospels in which Jesus accepts celibacy, hinting that it was not incompatible for him based on his teachings, to be celibate. 3. We have evidence that other figures were married in the New Testament like Peter and the other apostles, why should they get their wives mentioned and the widow of Jesus (whom would be a significant person in the early church) get no mention whatsoever?

If you want to suggest that Jesus was married you ought provide some historical reasons for saying so. The only reason why you think Jesus was married is theological, because Jesus resurrecting without having a wife challenges the Mormon conception of achieving the highest celestial existence, which Mormons no doubt believe Jesus achieved.

My point wasn’t to suggest something sexual, though I believe Joseph did obtain various sexual partners. My point was to question the purpose of being sealed to multiple people spiritually. What does it accomplish? What does having multiple partners in heaven actually do? Does it allow one to produce more spiritual children? Why is one partner not enough for some people? Will Joseph have all the wives he was sealed to or only some?

Where does anything say Adam appeared as an angel? Even if that is the case the phrase “appeared” does not mean that Adam actually was an angel, since obviously Adam is human in the bible, the forefather of all humanity. If you want to suggest that Adam was an angel we are therefore angels by descent. So my argument still holds up with regards to understanding Jesus telling us we will be like angels. We are like angels in the next life in that we are not married like we are on earth. That is we will not be having sexual relations and children.

So the sealing ceremony merely only allows for the option to spend eternity with someone based on the choice of the individual?

The problem for you lies in how will we be like the angels in heaven. Saying marriage doesn’t happen to us in the resurrection doesn’t categorise us like the angels. You also have to take into consideration the context of the Sadducees question which is about marriage.

Despite you saying there are married angels, there is no evidence of this. Appearing as an angel is not the same as being an angel. Here seem to be the key differences between those in the celestial kingdom (highest) and those who are angels.

1. Angels will remain unmarried and only serve God
2. Angels have a lesser place next to those in the highest celestial kingdom
3. Angels have not achieved the fullest sense of deification possible.

Number one most makes sense in fitting into how Jesus responds because it addresses the Sadducees question about marriage. What is the existence of angels like now, their marital or non marital state that actually addresses what the Sadducees say? See there was nothing preventing Jesus giving the answer the way you are, but he didn’t instead he gives the Christian answer.

“Angel” and “God”…are titles for humans in Mormon teaching. An angel could be a pre-existing spirit, a spirit in Spirit Paradise, or a resurrected human. Mormons only believe in one type of heavenly being: human being, in different estates.

 

[Janderich]

What abiut the other verses which talk about a wife being free to marry and no longer bound by her husband when he dies? How do the LDS view them?

I don’t think I can speak for all LDS since I have never heard an authoritative teaching about these verses in Deuteronomy, but from my stand point I would guess that we would say that the other men had married her for this life only largely to continue in mortality the name of the first brother who died. Those marriages would be dissolved at either spouses death and would have no validity in the world to come since they were not sealed by the priesthood of God.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Those marriages would be dissolved at either spouses death and would have no validity in the world to come since they were not sealed by the priesthood of God.

This is why I find LDS teaching repellent, the discarding of relationships, of loved ones is a matter of course, very sad and cold as deep space.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Merry Christmas all!

I know Paul discussed being single and remaining celibate. I’ve read on various threads about marriage that Jesus talked about this as well? Could someone tell me the scriptures please?

Thankyou