Was polygamy commanded by God in the Bible?

[hamba2han]

This is a reminder to everyone that this thread is about what the Bible says about polygamy.

And so, why isn’t anyone addressing my earlier post?

According to the New Testament, when the Jews came to Jesus (pbuh) and asked him a question concerning polygamy, why didn’t Jesus tell them that it is forbidden for a man to be married to more than one wife at any one time?

The fact that Jesus (pbuh) did not say anything to correct them on their belief is enough proof for me that polygamy is indeed permitted by God in the Bible.

Like I have stated on a number of occasions before, Muslims have far greater faith in the ‘face-value’ truth of the Bible than most Christians who clearly do not WANT to believe in the words of Jesus (pbuh) if his words go against their own emotions on any matter like polygamy but instead they are a great deal more willing to accept the words of Church leaders like Paul.

In Islam, if someone refuses to accept the words of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), then that person should no longer consider himself/herself to be a Muslim… but apparently Christians do indeed have this “luxury” of disbelieving the words of Jesus (pbuh) as stated in the Bible and still consider themselves to be the followers of Jesus Christ.

 

[dolphinlove]

This is a reminder to everyone that this thread is about what the Bible says about polygamy.

And so, why isn’t anyone addressing my earlier post?

According to the New Testament, when the Jews came to Jesus (pbuh) and asked him a question concerning polygamy, why didn’t Jesus tell them that it is forbidden for a man to be married to more than one wife at any one time?

The fact that Jesus (pbuh) did not say anything to correct them on their belief is enough proof for me that polygamy is indeed permitted by God in the Bible.

Like I have stated on a number of occasions before, Muslims have far greater faith in the ‘face-value’ truth of the Bible than most Christians who clearly do not WANT to believe in the words of Jesus (pbuh) if his words go against their own emotions on any matter like polygamy but instead they are a great deal more willing to accept the words of Church leaders like Paul.

In Islam, if someone refuses to accept the words of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), then that person should no longer consider himself/herself to be a Muslim… but apparently Christians do indeed have this “luxury” of disbelieving the words of Jesus (pbuh) as stated in the Bible and still consider themselves to be the followers of Jesus Christ.

i guess someone has me on ignore since i did answer this question!!!

 

[jakasaki]

Let us also have a look at the following passage in the New Testament:

Matthew 22:23-33
23 That 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.
25 Now 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.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But 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.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

The Jews were referring to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman’s husband dies, and she didn’t have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.

As we can see from the above passage, when the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus (pbuh) in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did NOT prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband’s brother (even if he were married). Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

In other words, if Jesus (pbuh) allowed for a widow to marry her former husband’s brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians’ claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy.

No wonder members on here ignore your posts… What’s a matter Hamba, you can’t research on your own and debate from your own mind, but instead you use Osama Abdallah postings from answeringchristianity.com

Rubbish Hamba - no wonder you lost your credibility. ** All you do is copy & paste **from these anti-Christian sites and these bozo’s have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm <— WHAT A JOKE!!!

 

[jakasaki]

Let us also have a look at the following passage in the New Testament:

Let us look at Osama Abdallah’s postings from answeringchristianity.com

Quote from Osama:
let us look at the following from the New Testament:

Matthew 22:23-33
23 That 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.
25 Now 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.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But 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.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Osma posts the same verses in red except he stopped at #32

From Hamba:
The Jews were referring to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman’s husband dies, and she didn’t have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.

From Osama:
the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman’s husband dies, and she didn’t have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.

Quote from Hamba:
As we can see from the above passage, when the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus (pbuh) in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did NOT prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband’s brother (even if he were married). Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

Quote from Osama:
When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband’s brother (even if he were married). Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

Quote from Hamba:
In other words, if Jesus (pbuh) allowed for a widow to marry her former husband’s brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians’ claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy.

Quote from Osama
So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband’s brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians’ claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy.

 

[trdchubi]

Jesus was making valid points towards the sceptic sadducees about the Truths of Resurrection. Jesus was NOT talking about those brothers being married or having to consume the marriage of their poor elder brother or the unfavorable circumstances of that poor wife being past on from one brother to another

He was merely pointing out that people will not be having sexual orgies in heaven like your muhammad tells you. People will never be having sex their. Get it.

Since you Hamba quote one of those bad and rudimentary answering christianity ideas, did you read the other verses before Matthew 22?

The Lord Jesus Christ said:

4"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,"5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’…

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Matthew 19

So did The Lord Jesus Christ promoted polygamy?

As I understand it and ALL THE CATHOLICS HERE, He rejected it and warned his listeners of committing a terrible sin against God’s Law.

 

[pinay]

Hello seraphime! I like your name. Nice to meet you.

Sorry to interrupt, Pinay
I just need some clarification whether the sealed marriage and the earth marriage do have the differences in practices as far as the concept of two becomes one body interpretation regarding sex and mind?
Who has more authority in the family earthy life? The sealed or the earthy marriage? I just don’t capture why marriage still lasts in heaven? Does it mean we will have the same concept of marriage we have on earth involving passion and fleshy desires???

First of all, earthly marriage is only in mortal state. It does not carry over past mortality. So, it is “in death they part”.

I’m not sure what you mean by “more authority”. It is the desire of every faithful LDS member to get married in the temple (eternal marriage) as they want to be with their families throughout eternity.

I think LDS and Roman Catholic have the same concept of the natural man and the spiritual man. Mortal men and women are composed of spirit and physical body. Our natural man (physical bodies) are prone to physical desires (hunger, illness, addictions, physical passion, etc.). Our spiritual man is what we develop to be able to follow Jesus’ example of perfection to conquer our physical desires. Therefore, once we leave mortality, we leave behind the natural man and fully become our spiritual selves.

Eternal marriage goes beyond the physical. It is well known that several of Joseph Smith’s marriages do not involve a physical aspect to it.

 

[jakasaki]

Jesus was making valid points towards the sceptic sadducees about the Truths of Resurrection. Jesus was NOT talking about those brothers being married or having to consume the marriage of their poor elder brother or the unfavorable circumstances of that poor wife being past on from one brother to another

He was merely pointing out that people will not be having sexual orgies in heaven like your muhammad tells you. People will never be having sex their. Get it.

Since you Hamba quote one of those bad and rudimentary answering christianity ideas, did you read the other verses before Matthew 22?

The Lord Jesus Christ said:

So did The Lord Jesus Christ promoted polygamy?

As I understand it and ALL THE CATHOLICS HERE, He rejected it and warned his listeners of committing a terrible sin against God’s Law.

Since Hamba does the copy & paste deal from these anti-Christian internet sites, he reads nothing from the original Bible to get an understanding.

 

[pinay]

Hi zaffiroborant. I like your direct-to-the-point posting style. It lightens my mood.

But John’s children have John, what do they need with your husband???

This is where “eternal families” gets to be a mess. Like Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, married to Henry has his children but is sealed to Joseph for eternity (why not Henry he served the church as a missionary?) so in the CK Zina goes with Joseph (or maybe BY she was married to him after Joseph died while still married to Henry)? And Henry’s kids where do they go, which eternal family, which eternal father do they get? Not their own father it would seem. No matter what poor Henry is left out in the cold in the CK, (if he even gets there since Joseph snarfed his wife) no eternal family for him, another man gets his wife and kids for all eternity. But then maybe he’ll get lucky and some other woman who’s husband didn’t make it will be his wife and he’ll get her and her kids while that poor man loses his eternal family. And what about all the wives, husbands, kids, grandkids, brothers, sisters who don’t make it to the CK? How are those families re-organized?

Your Celestial Kingdom sounds like a place filled with broken families, very sad. I’m with Jay on heaven and one big family. Quite frankly I have no idea why the LDS idea of this divisive heaven would have any appeal what so ever.

There are several points you mentioned here but I think I can sum them up to a discussion on what happens to a family of an earthly marriage that is bound to a different family in eternity.

In the hypothetical example of neighbor John… My husband and I have an eternal marriage. Let’s say John and his wife doesn’t. Say, John commits murder so he doesn’t make it to “heaven”. And say for instance his wife and his kids are faithful to the covenants. It is quite possible for them to be sealed to my husband in the eternities. Of course, it is my husband’s choice to do so or not. But, IF God would command it, then, I’m sure my husband would say yes. (Note: Yes, you don’t agree that God would even command it - which is the point of this thread, I believe).

In the case of poor Henry (I don’t remember any of the names of Smith’s wives besides Emma, so I can’t recount Henry’s wife’s story - so let’s go by what you’re saying)… Yes, Henry’s wife and children is sealed to Joseph, so they are with Joseph in the eternities. You’ll have to understand that for Joseph to have been sealed to Henry’s wife, Henry would have to allow it. So, in all this, it was Henry’s choice. It wouldn’t be poor Henry if Henry asked to be sealed to his wife in the first place.

And for those families who do not make it to the Celestial Kingdom - this would pretty much be the same as the Roman Catholic viewpoint. In the Roman Catholic doctrine, when a person breaks his covenants, he ends up in purgatory or maybe even in hell where he is separated from his family who made it to heaven.

So, we’re really not that far different from you in this sense.

 

[trdchubi]

Since Hamba does the copy & paste deal from these anti-Christian internet sites, he reads nothing from the original Bible to get an understanding.

I was praising God for letting that internet site down for a few minutes.

Well its back again.:nope:

When will that site shut down for good?

 

[pinay]

Hi Rueben, I’ll try to answer your questions as best as I can. I can’t claim my answers are all correct though! A lot of the history is speculation.

Can I ask another question: Were all Joseph Smith marriages with all his wives were sealed marriage?

Yes. Some of them were sealed after Joseph Smith’s death.

How many wives did Joseph Smith have altogether? (Just for information only)

The most common number thrown about is 33. Only 24 are on church records.

What do you think about Mohammad (prophet of Islam), were his marriages to his wives ‘sealed marriages’ according to LDS?

There is no scriptural record to say Yes or No. For a marriage to be a “sealed” marriage, it had to have been sealed by a person with the proper authority. We don’t know if this is the case with Mohammad.

You should read this as a whole chapter (29) which you did but you have to understand it in that context.

The context was injustice – specifically to Leah the older daughter whom Jacob did not love but was forced into marriage to Jacob by Leah’s father Laban through deceitful means. When Jacob finally married Rachel after being ‘blackmailed’ to servitude to Laban for another seven years, the first wife (Leah) was not loved. God made Leah fruitful in order for Jacob to love her.

That does not mean polygamy was commanded to Jacob. If you read properly, the polygamous marriage to the two sisters was done because Jacob was cheated by Laban.

God’s action was for the sake of the victim (Leah) who got involved in the marriage which was not through her doing.

Similarly the Law of Moses – provides care for the second wife’s children. This is simply an act of justice for the wife concerned and her children; not because polygamy was commanded. There is no such commandment whatsoever in the Bible and this is logical because to do otherwise would contradict God’s commandment of husband and wife becoming one flesh in Genesis. God did not say that the man can become many fleshes with many wives (whatever that means except that it has never been abrogated).

You are absolutely correct. My mention of Genesis 29 is to show that in certain cases, God does see it appropriate to have more than one wife. The main idea is that it is only acceptable with authority from God. There’s a previous post on this thread that “allowing” multiple wives and “commanding” them are two completely different things. I agree with that too. But, when we accept that God “allowed” multiple wives, we will have to accept that having multiple wives does not run contradictory to the orgnization of His Kingdom as long as it is His will. Because, we all agree that God does not change doctrine - His Word is the same from alpha to omega.

If we bring this back to Joseph Smith’s history, he bears record that God elected some faithful LDS men to accept plural marriage. It was not given to ALL men in the church. For example, John Bennet who was a First Counselor to the Prophet, was publicly denounced by Joseph Smith for his infidelities and was immediately released from church leadership position. If the practice of polygamy would have been given to all faithful members of the church, John Bennet would have been allowed to marry his “other women” to avoid adulterous transgressions. Instead, the conflict caused John Bennet to fall away from the church and become it’s main opposition - which was really bad because he was a military leader and the mayor of Nauvoo. He would have been a great ally for Joseph Smith - even for the acceptance of plural marriage.

 

[pinay]

Since Hamba does the copy & paste deal from these anti-Christian internet sites, he reads nothing from the original Bible to get an understanding.

Hi jakasaki, we Mormons know the feeling. A lot of times the discussions against Mormons come from copy & paste deals from anti-Mormon websites. It’s like what Moat in Avatar said to Jake Sully - it’s hard to fill a cup that is already full.

 

[Jay53]

In the hypothetical example of neighbor John… My husband and I have an eternal marriage. Let’s say John and his wife doesn’t. Say, John commits murder so he doesn’t make it to “heaven”. And say for instance his wife and his kids are faithful to the covenants. It is quite possible for them to be sealed to my husband in the eternities. Of course, it is my husband’s choice to do so or not. But, IF God would command it, then, I’m sure my husband would say yes. (Note: Yes, you don’t agree that God would even command it - which is the point of this thread, I believe).

In the case of poor Henry (I don’t remember any of the names of Smith’s wives besides Emma, so I can’t recount Henry’s wife’s story - so let’s go by what you’re saying)… Yes, Henry’s wife and children is sealed to Joseph, so they are with Joseph in the eternities. You’ll have to understand that for Joseph to have been sealed to Henry’s wife, Henry would have to allow it. So, in all this, it was Henry’s choice. It wouldn’t be poor Henry if Henry asked to be sealed to his wife in the first place.

What is the purpose of being “sealed” to someone else’s husband/wife? In your hypothetical example, why does John’s wife and kids even need to be sealed to your husband?

And for those families who do not make it to the Celestial Kingdom - this would pretty much be the same as the Roman Catholic viewpoint. In the Roman Catholic doctrine, when a person breaks his covenants, he ends up in purgatory or maybe even in hell where he is separated from his family who made it to heaven.

So, we’re really not that far different from you in this sense.

It’s a little different, because those in purgatory will at some point be going to Heaven and will be reunited with their families. There would be no need to be “sealed” to some other family while waiting for a loved one to get to Heaven.

Also, there are no different “heavens” (in Catholic belief). You’re either in Heaven or not.

 

[pinay]

What is the purpose of being “sealed” to someone else’s husband/wife? In your hypothetical example, why does John’s wife and kids even need to be sealed to your husband?

Hi Jay! Yeah, it will be confusing to somebody outside of LDS belief. It’s an LDS standard to learn precept by precept. Start from basic tenets then expand on it. This is definitely past the basics already.

You and I have a completely different view of eternity. The LDS believe in eternal families - that is, the patriarchal standard in mortal existence is preparation for the patriarchal standard in the highest kingdom in eternity. We believe that we are gathered as families in exaltation. That is why LDS believes strongly that one requires an eternal companion to enter the highest kingdom of glory. Catholics do not believe this at all, so it is not something they can relate to. There isn’t a similar tenet even that I can think of between Catholics and LDS on this matter.

So, in LDS view, it is important for John’s wife to be sealed to the priesthood for her to receive the highest glory.

So, you might ask - what if somebody dies before finding a husband/wife? This would be another layer of that precept upon precept learning and would cause a thread hijack, I think. Anyway, LDS also believe in ordinance by proxy - that is, baptisms and sealings after death done vicariously by somebody living. Yeah, another one of those tenets that are different between Catholic and LDS - but I think this one has some common thread between the Roman Catholics and the LDS. It would be similar to somebody who has gone on to purgatory and “attained” heaven through intercession. The LDS view is just a bit more formalized.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So, in LDS view, it is important for John’s wife to be sealed to the priesthood for her to receive the highest glory.

Why the need to go outside of Christ? He is our High Priest. Our baptism seals us to Him.

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the  faithful have received    the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian  religious    worship. The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to  serve    God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to    exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and    practical charity.



1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of  the Lord ("Dominicus    character") "for the day of redemption." "Baptism indeed is the  seal    of eternal life." The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal"  until    the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be  able to    depart this life "marked with the sign of faith," with his  baptismal    faith, in expectation of the **blessed vision of God - the consummation  of    faith - and in the hope of resurrection**.

2 Cor 1:22 he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.

Eph 1:13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the holy Spirit of God, with which you were sealed for the day of redemption.

 

[Jay53]

Hi Jay! Yeah, it will be confusing to somebody outside of LDS belief. It’s an LDS standard to learn precept by precept. Start from basic tenets then expand on it. This is definitely past the basics already.

You and I have a completely different view of eternity. The LDS believe in eternal families - that is, the patriarchal standard in mortal existence is preparation for the patriarchal standard in the highest kingdom in eternity. We believe that we are gathered as families in exaltation. **That is why LDS believes strongly that one requires an eternal companion to enter the highest kingdom of glory. ** Catholics do not believe this at all, so it is not something they can relate to. There isn’t a similar tenet even that I can think of between Catholics and LDS on this matter.

So, in LDS view, it is important for John’s wife to be sealed to the priesthood for her to receive the highest glory.

Is there any Scripture, outside of LDS scripture, that teaches this - that one must be married to get to Heaven?

Doesn’t this somehow make a spousal relationship more, or at least equal, in importance to our relationship with God (i.e. we cannot be with God unless we have a spouse with us)?

This also leads to the question of: If John’s son is eternally married to his own spouse and they are bound for the Celestial Kingdom, and are also “sealed” to John’s wife (the mother), doesn’t that bring her into the Celestial Kingdom? Or does she have to have her own spouse in order to be with God? If so, then what is the purpose of sealing children with their parents?

I must say that in asking this questions, this leads me to observe that LDS seem to feel that each person’s relationship with God is superceded by their relationship to other people - no matter how good of a person they are on Earth, no matter how much they serve God, they cannot share in His Glory unless they have a partner.

So, you might ask - what if somebody dies before finding a husband/wife? This would be another layer of that precept upon precept learning and would cause a thread hijack, I think. Anyway, LDS also believe in ordinance by proxy - that is, baptisms and sealings after death done vicariously by somebody living. Yeah, another one of those tenets that are different between Catholic and LDS - but I think this one has some common thread between the Roman Catholics and the LDS. It would be similar to somebody who has gone on to purgatory and “attained” heaven through intercession. The LDS view is just a bit more formalized.

But again, someone in Purgatory will attain Heaven, with or without prayers from others. Our intercession just may make their stay there shorter. Someone in Purgatory will get to Heaven eventually - even if no one prays for them at all (although I’m sure the saints and Blessed Mother are praying for them.)

 

[KathleenGee]

Hamba,

For once, try to learn Christianity and its morality and not from a site such as that…all the links to the gospel are taken out of context…I see that all the time with Muslims…to the point I shared a deep experience of Mary, Miriam, as the Muslims understand her better than they do Jesus Christ…

And the response was zero from the Muslims.

Albeit, it is true, we are seeing the great apostasy of Christianity. Many are loosing their faith…by the grace of God we are not and I pray we persevere to our end…and I hope we do not loose our necks by your compatriots as well, Hamba.

But for those who are faithful, we try our best to live out the Gospel. And we are Christians and know the Gospels are the words and directions of Jesus Christ, not those given by Muslims who do not understand its interior life.

I am coming to the end of speaking with Muslims on CAF because they cannot understand anything…it goes in circles and I am trying to just pray for them.

But the treatment of women in Islam and the Middle East is so horrific, their dress not modest but demonic. I feel so sorry for the humble and suffering women of Islam. God bless them, Mother Mary support them.

 

[zaffiroborant]

And for those families who do not make it to the Celestial Kingdom - this would pretty much be the same as the Roman Catholic viewpoint. In the Roman Catholic doctrine, when a person breaks his covenants, he ends up in purgatory or maybe even in hell where he is separated from his family who made it to heaven.

So, we’re really not that far different from you in this sense.

Those in purgatory are not separated from family members, all people in purgatory will be in heaven. Those in hell are separated.
And those in heaven are not required to form families with people they had no relationship with in order to remain in heaven. Can’t say I’d care for getting a new eternal husband, mother or father.

Like I said I don’t understand why this set up has any appeal for anyone.

 

[pinay]

Is there any Scripture, outside of LDS scripture, that teaches this - that one must be married to get to Heaven?

Doesn’t this somehow make a spousal relationship more, or at least equal, in importance to our relationship with God (i.e. we cannot be with God unless we have a spouse with us)?

This also leads to the question of: If John’s son is eternally married to his own spouse and they are bound for the Celestial Kingdom, and are also “sealed” to John’s wife (the mother), doesn’t that bring her into the Celestial Kingdom? Or does she have to have her own spouse in order to be with God? If so, then what is the purpose of sealing children with their parents?

I must say that in asking this questions, this leads me to observe that LDS seem to feel that each person’s relationship with God is superceded by their relationship to other people - no matter how good of a person they are on Earth, no matter how much they serve God, they cannot share in His Glory unless they have a partner.

But again, someone in Purgatory will attain Heaven, with or without prayers from others. Our intercession just may make their stay there shorter. Someone in Purgatory will get to Heaven eventually - even if no one prays for them at all (although I’m sure the saints and Blessed Mother are praying for them.)

zaffiroborant:

Those in purgatory are not separated from family members, all people in purgatory will be in heaven. Those in hell are separated.
And those in heaven are not required to form families with people they had no relationship with in order to remain in heaven. Can’t say I’d care for getting a new eternal husband, mother or father.

Like I said I don’t understand why this set up has any appeal for anyone.

Hello Jay!

It gets deeper and deeper. So, it is really a slippery slope I’m sitting here because it is difficult to explain these things unless we have the basic foundation of what we LDS call the “Plan of Salvation” and “Eternal Progression”. And that’s the thing - we differ starting from that, so the rest is difficult to grasp because there are precepts that you don’t have.

It is clear to me because I started from simple concepts and added on.

So, anyway, for the idea of having an eternal companion to make sense to you, we will have to discuss the levels of glory - which is what you call Heaven. All levels of glory are Heaven.

So… when we say Telestial, Terrestial, and Celestial Kingdom - they’re all the same as Heaven to you. And then even within each Kingdom, there are still different levels within it. When you say purgatory, it is the same as “Spirit World” to us. When you say Hell - part of it is still a Kingdom of Glory to us (part of heaven) and the other part is Outer Darkness.

Yeah, that analogy of purgatory is probably not a good one because that’s not an eternal kingdom but only temporary.

Yes, to get to heaven - you need the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It is ONLY through Him that we get there. But, LDS have more teachings not found in the Catholic churches that further describe heaven - that’s why the LDS claim that they have the complete gospel.

So, when I say you need an eternal companion to get to the highest level of glory - that doesn’t mean that those who do not have one doesn’t get to heaven. It only means they are on a different level of glory - which may still be on the Celestial Kingdom where our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ reside.

This is the same slippery slope we end up with when we discuss “salvation by faith versus works” with the Protestants. Because that too needs the basis of the levels of glory that is not found in the Protestant doctrine.

Okay, biblical scripture supporting eternal families… Adam and Eve before the fall is the obvious one. Gen 2:24 is probably the most relevant. But in my search for truth, without flipping scriptures, Jesus addresses His Father as Father. He is “one” with Him. And so are husband and wife “one” with each other. I didn’t even think to question the eternal nature of families.

But, most of the information on this is found on the Pearl of Great Price which is LDS.

zaffiroborant, I completely understand what you’re saying. I was in that position not too long ago so I know it was a long, difficult journey for me to appreciate all this stuff. It would be nothing short of a miracle if you would read my posts and say, “Yeah! That’s right! That’s how it should be!” Yeah. I would question your sanity then…

 

[seraphime2008]

First of all, earthly marriage is only in mortal state. It does not carry over past mortality. So, it is “in death they part”.

I’m not sure what you mean by “more authority”. It is the desire of every faithful LDS member to get married in the temple (eternal marriage) as they want to be with their families throughout eternity.

What I meant was that in an earthly marriage, husband is given authority as the head of the family. So in case there is a woman married in an earthly marriage while at the same time observing the eternal marriage, who has more authority in these two marriages ( I mean if these two husbands have different aspirations) and how did it practically practiced? …

I think LDS and Roman Catholic have the same concept of the natural man and the spiritual man. Mortal men and women are composed of spirit and physical body. Our natural man (physical bodies) are prone to physical desires (hunger, illness, addictions, physical passion, etc.). Our spiritual man is what we develop to be able to follow Jesus’ example of perfection to conquer our physical desires. Therefore, once we leave mortality, we leave behind the natural man and fully become our spiritual selves.

In that case, i don’t understand why you need to still be in a marriage institution if you are not bound to any physical desires once you leave this mortal life…! Don’t you think that Christ himself would be enough for all of us, there are plenty of celestial creatures as well to accompany you, and I don’t think that in Celestial Kingdom we would all still feel lonely that we need some company to get us through time of difficulties or any kind of situation that needs assistance. I picture that we would all be fully satisfied with our being present in God’s Kingdom as well as the other whole united family of men. Can’t u imagine if you’re bound to certain relationship, it kinda brings a feeling of “belonging”, “dependence” and other earthly fleshy emotions that would always bring the other side of the coin.

Eternal marriage goes beyond the physical. It is well known that several of Joseph Smith’s marriages do not involve a physical aspect to it.

How did he choose whom to be physically involved with and whom just for eternal?
Did God speak so to him?

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant, I completely understand what you’re saying. I was in that position not too long ago so I know it was a long, difficult journey for me to appreciate all this stuff. It would be nothing short of a miracle if you would read my posts and say, “Yeah! That’s right! That’s how it should be!” Yeah. I would question your sanity then…

There is nothing to appreciate in the LDS afterlife in regards to the family. Yours is the only “theology” that divides families up and forces them to chose new family members(and throw away the old) for all of eternity because heaven is parsed out in subcategories. LDS folks here have waxed on about how wonderful it will be to attain the CK with their spouse how much they love, appreciate and, are grateful for that individual. And yet if that same spouse ends up in a lower heaven ( if you can even think of it as heaven in this case) they will have to toss away that love, connection, the entire life they shared together. Everything shared with the original spouse, joy, sorrow, success, failure, tenderness, intimacy is cast aside, two that were one are torn apart. And now you go merrily on your way creating an “eternal” family with some new chick/dude, no loss. I doubt that there is enduring love there to begin with if it is so easily cast aside because something more promising has come along. It is more reminiscent of the stepping on and using of people on the way up the corporate ladder or the casting aside of a a long time spouse for a “sweet young thang” than it is a reflection of the love between husband & wife, mother/father & child. You know “through thick and thin”, “good times and bad” and so on, real committed love.