Today's Readings vs. "Celestial Marriage"

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tb 3:1-11a, 16-17a
Ps 25:2-3, 4-5ab, 6 and 7bc, 8-9
Mk 12:18-27

vs.

D&C 132:18

How do the LDS dismiss today’s Gospel? Somebody’s got some 'splainin to do.
Christ talked about marriage in two different ways. He said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

I am so grateful for my marriage that I think that to not be married in Heaven would only be half heaven. I really mean that. I also think that I am not a complete person without the counsel and advice and patience of my wife.

I would have thought that religions basing their doctrine on the Bible would take the example of Adam and Eve as being the primary example of what God intended for marriage, as Jesus did when He talked about “let not man put asunder.” The specific parable about the six brothers who married to raise up seed unto their brother after he had died, does not seem to be a generalized case or a generalized statement about all marriages. I would think that unless a religion has some doubt about the value of marriage in general, they would opt to give the Savior’s other teaching the benefit of the doubt when considering the subject of whether marriage can continue after death.
 
Christ talked about marriage in two different ways. He said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
That sounds like the prohibition of divorce for valid sacramental marriages. There is no mention of perpetual marriage.
I am so grateful for my marriage that I think that to not be married in Heaven would only be half heaven. I really mean that. I also think that I am not a complete person without the counsel and advice and patience of my wife.

I would have thought that religions basing their doctrine on the Bible would take the example of Adam and Eve as being the primary example of what God intended for marriage, as Jesus did when He talked about “let not man put asunder.” The specific parable about the six brothers who married to raise up seed unto their brother after he had died, does not seem to be a generalized case or a generalized statement about all marriages. I would think that unless a religion has some doubt about the value of marriage in general, they would opt to give the Savior’s other teaching the benefit of the doubt when considering the subject of whether marriage can continue after death.
Please list these book based religions.
 
I liked what Rueben J said on this subject on another thread recently:

“I thought the Gospel reading is not so much as a statement on marriage but rather Jesus side-stepping Sadducees’ question that would put him in a trap. Unlike the Pharisees they did not believe in life after death. Reminds me about Pharisees questioning Jesus about paying tax to Ceaser.”

When Jesus talked about “let not man put asunder,” He was referring to the marriage of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. God performed their marriage.
 
I liked what Rueben J said on this subject on another thread recently:

“I thought the Gospel reading is not so much as a statement on marriage but rather Jesus side-stepping Sadducees’ question that would put him in a trap. Unlike the Pharisees they did not believe in life after death. Reminds me about Pharisees questioning Jesus about paying tax to Ceaser.”

When Jesus talked about “let not man put asunder,” He was referring to the marriage of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. God performed their marriage.
You haven’t listed the book based religions. 🤷

Please provide historical references showing that your particular belief has been consistently held over the past two millennia.
 
You haven’t listed the book based religions.

Please provide historical references showing that your particular belief has been consistently held over the past two millennia.
I’m sorry, but I haven’t understood your question. The Bible itself is what I was referring to. I don’t need other historical references, but I don’t think Abraham, for example, treated Sarah as though she was not going to be a part of his life in heaven. There is a verse in Genesis that says, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.” That doesn’t sound like a very limited view of marriage on earth.
 
I’m sorry, but I haven’t understood your question. The Bible itself is what I was referring to. I don’t need other historical references, but I don’t think Abraham, for example, treated Sarah as though she was not going to be a part of his life in heaven. There is a verse in Genesis that says, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.” That doesn’t sound like a very limited view of marriage on earth.
What was the belief for the ~350 year period after the resurrection but before the Catholic Church infallibly declared the canon?

Why don’t you need historical references? Why should anyone believe your own private interpretation of what is written in a book that proceeds from the Catholic Church?
 
I’m sorry, but I haven’t understood your question. The Bible itself is what I was referring to. I don’t need other historical references, but I don’t think Abraham, for example, treated Sarah as though she was not going to be a part of his life in heaven. There is a verse in Genesis that says, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.” That doesn’t sound like a very limited view of marriage on earth.
Can you find that for me?

This is making heaven sound a lot less boring if this is true.
 
Good morning everyone! 🙂

I’m reminded of this account given by Thomas S. Monson:

"*Some years ago there passed from mortality a friend who helped more people, spoke more eulogies, and gave more freely of his time, his talents, and his possessions than most. His name was Louis. He related to me this tender account:

A gentle, soft-spoken mother had passed away. She left to her stalwart sons and lovely daughters no fortune of finance but, rather, a heritage of wealth in example, in sacrifice, in obedience. After the funeral eulogies had been spoken and the sad trek to the cemetery had been made, the grown family sorted through the meager possessions the mother had left. Louis discovered a note and also a key. The note instructed: “In the corner bedroom, in the bottom drawer of my dresser, is a tiny box. It contains the treasure of my heart. This key will open the box.” Another son asked, “What could Mother have of sufficient value to be placed under lock and key?” A sister commented, “Dad has been gone all these years, and Mother has had precious little of this world’s goods.”

The box was removed from its resting place in the dresser drawer and opened carefully with the aid of the key. What did it contain? No money, no deed, no precious rings or valuable jewels. Louis took from the box a faded photograph of his father. On the back of the photograph was the penned message, “My dear husband and I were sealed together for time and all eternity in the House of the Lord, at Salt Lake City, December 12, 1891.”

Next there emerged an individual photo of each child, with his or her name and birth date. Finally, Louis held to the light a homemade valentine. In crude, childlike penmanship, which he recognized as his own, Louis read the words he had written 60 years before: “Dear Mother, I love you.”

Hearts were tender, voices soft, and eyes moist. Mother’s treasure was her eternal family.*"

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
Good morning everyone! 🙂

I’m reminded of this account given by Thomas S. Monson:

"*Some years ago there passed from mortality a friend who helped more people, spoke more eulogies, and gave more freely of his time, his talents, and his possessions than most. His name was Louis. He related to me this tender account:

A gentle, soft-spoken mother had passed away. She left to her stalwart sons and lovely daughters no fortune of finance but, rather, a heritage of wealth in example, in sacrifice, in obedience. After the funeral eulogies had been spoken and the sad trek to the cemetery had been made, the grown family sorted through the meager possessions the mother had left. Louis discovered a note and also a key. The note instructed: “In the corner bedroom, in the bottom drawer of my dresser, is a tiny box. It contains the treasure of my heart. This key will open the box.” Another son asked, “What could Mother have of sufficient value to be placed under lock and key?” A sister commented, “Dad has been gone all these years, and Mother has had precious little of this world’s goods.”

The box was removed from its resting place in the dresser drawer and opened carefully with the aid of the key. What did it contain? No money, no deed, no precious rings or valuable jewels. Louis took from the box a faded photograph of his father. On the back of the photograph was the penned message, “My dear husband and I were sealed together for time and all eternity in the House of the Lord, at Salt Lake City, December 12, 1891.”

Next there emerged an individual photo of each child, with his or her name and birth date. Finally, Louis held to the light a homemade valentine. In crude, childlike penmanship, which he recognized as his own, Louis read the words he had written 60 years before: “Dear Mother, I love you.”

Hearts were tender, voices soft, and eyes moist. Mother’s treasure was her eternal family.*"

Kind Regards,
Finrock
That is not now, nor has it ever been Christian teaching.
 
Christ talked about marriage in two different ways. He said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

I am so grateful for my marriage that I think that to not be married in Heaven would only be half heaven. I really mean that. I also think that I am not a complete person without the counsel and advice and patience of my wife.

I would have thought that religions basing their doctrine on the Bible would take the example of Adam and Eve as being the primary example of what God intended for marriage, as Jesus did when He talked about “let not man put asunder.” The specific parable about the six brothers who married to raise up seed unto their brother after he had died, does not seem to be a generalized case or a generalized statement about all marriages. I would think that unless a religion has some doubt about the value of marriage in general, they would opt to give the Savior’s other teaching the benefit of the doubt when considering the subject of whether marriage can continue after death.
The irony is strong with this one.
 
Your disagreement with a historical fact doesn’t make it so. :coffeeread:
This is true, but in this case I’m not disagreeing with a historical fact, only your belief of the matter. (I’d do the coffee emote, but I don’t drink coffee, it’s against my religion ;)).

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
This is true, but in this case I’m not disagreeing with a historical fact, only your belief of the matter.
You must have references to historical material spanning the last two millennia that supports your position.

Please post them here.
 
Can we not be intellectually satisfied with the answers given? This is how it is seen in their eyes. Incorrect as it may be, a question was asked, and they were brave enough to share what they could with us.
 
Can we not be intellectually satisfied with the answers given? This is how it is seen in their eyes. Incorrect as it may be, a question was asked, and they were brave enough to share what they could with us.
No cogent defense for the LDS doctrine of “Celestial Marriage” has been provided. 🤷

It sure seems like a backhanded compliment to say that’s the best they could do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top