No Marriage in Heaven: Matthew 22:30

[IgnatianPhilo]

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

Matthew 19:11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

 

[Horton]

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

There are many verses & chapters in the New Testament talking about basically being called to our true vocation. For some it is married life, others single or consecrated life, and others still to the priesthood. In all of this is the concept of being chaste within your vocation. For those who are single, whether never married or after a marriage ends, we are all called to celibacy as a virtue. For those who are married they are to remain chaste within their marriage, only sharing intimacy with each other. 1 Corinthians, chapter 7 speaks to all of this very well. See the footnotes at the bottom of the chapter here usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/7

Matthew 19:1-12 usccb.org/bible/matthew/19 is an example of the words of Jesus on this issue.

 

[Tarquin]

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.

But it is not LDS teaching. Janderich is only guessing:

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.

Yet complains when others attempt reasonable deductions.

… That is why it is a bit silly for Rebecca or Horton to try and draw definitive [But are they truly and immoderately “definitive”?] conclusions on the matter and claim it as LDS doctrine.

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.

That is a change, not a clarification.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

But it is not LDS teaching.

Of course it is LDS teaching, women can only be sealed to one man. Take for instance the woman who is widowed with youg children, she remarries and has more children, she will have to pick one husband for “eternity” and since children have to be sealed to a married couple one dad is going to see his kids walk off into a different “eternal family”. So now you have a woman who had to discard love and a man who loses both wife and children, sad, unfair.

 

[Tarquin]

Of course it is LDS teaching, women can only be sealed to one man. Take for instance the woman who is widowed with youg children, she remarries and has more children, she will have to pick one husband for “eternity” and since children have to be sealed to a married couple one dad is going to see his kids walk off into a different “eternal family”. So now you have a woman who had to discard love and a man who loses both wife and children, sad, unfair.

Well, then, would you kindly provide us with the authoritative Mormon teaching about those other verses in Deuteronmy referenced by True_Faith13, about which Janderich says he never heard an authoritative teaching??? And thanks if you do, thanks if you don’t.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

St. Paul disagrees with you and as someone else pointed out so does Jesus.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it’s the folks at FAIR that use that a lot isn’t it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well, then, would you kindly provide us with the authoritative Mormon teaching about those other verses in Deuteronmy referenced by True_Faith13, about which Janderich says he never heard an authoritative teaching??? And thanks if you do, thanks if you don’t.

There is no authoritative Mormon teaching on anything, the only people authorized to make definitive statements on Mormon teachings don’t. All you have in Mormonism is everyone deciding for themselves, so you have Janderich who thinks it will be the woman and the man she wants if he wants her back and others that think it will be the first marriage that will be an eternal one.

I am really not sure what you are asking here and Janderich’s answer is in keeping with the LDS distinction between a marriage and a sealing. And the mess of LDS families is easy to see in the case of a widowed man as opposed to a widowed woman. A widowed man can be married and sealed to another woman and then will have two “eternal companions” (just going to mention the first wife is now a polygamous wife even if that was never part of her plan). A widowed woman on the other hand can be married to another man but can not be sealed to him unless she has the sealing to her previous husband cancelled, and again just going to mention that should she cancel the sealing there is now a man who may have planned on her being his eternal companion and who will now be left scrambling for a wife in the millennium.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, then, would you kindly provide us with the authoritative Mormon teaching about those other verses in Deuteronmy referenced by True_Faith13, about which Janderich says he never heard an authoritative teaching??? And thanks if you do, thanks if you don’t.

That’s because the teaching comes from Brigham Young and his teachings on polygamy, and the Mormon church has chosen to have amnesia on subjects surrounding polygamy. And all Mormon teachings on eternal marriage are rooted in Mormon polygamy.

In the case where a woman’s husband died, in the Mormon polygamous society she would be married to another man. These marriages were sealings, “for time”. The woman was considered to be married to the deceased husband to whom she was married to “for eternity”. Their children still sealed to the deceased father and living mother. Brigham Young wrote in his own diary that he had more than one of these sealings, for time, to other men’s widows.

He taught the new husband (himself) was being charitable towards the widow and her children. He claimed it was a sign of the great things God has done in “these latter days”. That is, polygamy providing the means to care for widows and children, in levirate marriage as practiced in the OT.

Though of course it was an imitation, not in the context of Mosaic law, but 19th century American/European law, and therefore unlawful (bigamy being illegal). That is, in a Christianized society where there is an understanding of charity, that does not require a woman marry a brother or anyone else, in order for her and her children to receive assistance.

 

[Tarquin]

There is no authoritative Mormon teaching on anything, …

I am really not sure what you are asking here …

Sorry, zaffiroborant, I was unintentionally a bit obtuse. You are right in what you said. I was just reflecting it incorrectly.

You, too, RebeccaJ, thank you for your comments. The extremely complexicated, authority-less different parts of doctrine make my comments, at times, more confused than I ought to be.

 

[Sky_River]

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?

What is the most basic definition of marriage? To me its nebulous and spacious. There are many varieties of marriage, from the form of marriage in medieval times, to ancient Israel, native american tribes, modern America. It’s very confusing to me. Is it economic/financial?

 

[Vico]

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!

The Gospel states that they will be like the angels of God in heaven. The heavenly angels do not have reproductive organs.

catholic.com/qa/can-angels-be-male-or-female

 

[Sky_River]

The Gospel states that they will be like the angels of God in heaven. The heavenly angels do not have reproductive organs.

catholic.com/qa/can-angels-be-male-or-female

gotquestions.org/angels-male-female.html

Answer: There is no doubt that every reference to angels in Scripture is in the masculine gender. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form. In fact, a feminine form of angelos does not exist. There are three genders in grammar—masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, its). Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” Furthermore, when angels appeared, they were always dressed as human males (Genesis 18:2, 16; Ezekiel 9:2). No angel ever appears in Scripture dressed as a female.

The only named angels in the Bible—Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer—had male names and all are referred to in the masculine. “Michael and his angels” (Revelation 12:7); “Mary was greatly troubled at his [Gabriel’s] words” (Luke 1:29); “Oh, Lucifer, son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12). Other references to angels are always in the masculine gender. In Judges 6:21, the angel holds a staff in “his” hand. Zechariah asks an angel a question and reports that “he” answered (Zechariah 1:19). The angels in Revelation are all spoken of as “he” and their possessions as “his” (Revelation 10:1, 5; 14:19; 16:2, 4, 17; 19:17; 20:1).