LDS Matthew 22 & Eternal Marriage

Solomon Smith

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2018
477
215
46
Idaho
✟8,377.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
The defense,* "No one will get married in heaven, but if they got married before then that will still be in place," is correct, though, as Christ says:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

"Marry" and "given in marriage" correspond to "get," here, as far as I can tell. ("Given in marriage" is for woman who were sold into marriage, basically, unless I'm misunderstanding the point of the word "given" in this.)

*EDIT: The technical defense, that is, that there is no absolute logical contradiction between what Jesus said and what the LDS Church teaches. Whether the classical Church tends to be as "romantic" about love, as the modern LDS one does, is a different issue.

No, if you read the Matthew 22 passage Jesus is answering the question of the Sadducees. They ask, “ Whose wife shall she be”? Jesus replies, “No ones wife for we shall not be married in the resurrection”.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 1 person
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for attempting to understand instead of mocking or belittling.

"He who is not against Me is for Me." I'm sure there are some flaws, including in the doctrine, of the LDS, but half the arguments I see against LDS theories remind me of the same narrow-minded arguments I see against Catholic theories.

EDIT:
They ask, “Whose wife shall she be”? Jesus replies, “No ones wife for we shall not be married in the resurrection”.

My take on the passage was that He gave one of His elliptical replies to the question. It also seems to me that the question involves a cultural reference to the Book of Tobit, where a woman is married seven or so times.

Anyway, it's nice to prooftext eternal marriage apart, I suppose, although I wonder why the relationship between Christ and the Church is said to be like marriage, then? Are we to assume that Christ will not be with the Church for all eternity?
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
"He who is not against Me is for Me." I'm sure there are some flaws, including in the doctrine, of the LDS, but half the arguments I see against LDS theories remind me of the same narrow-minded arguments I see against Catholic theories.

EDIT:


My take on the passage was that He gave one of His elliptical replies to the question. It also seems to me that the question involves a cultural reference to the Book of Tobit, where a woman is married seven or so times.

Anyway, it's nice to prooftext eternal marriage apart, I suppose, although I wonder why the relationship between Christ and the Church is said to be like marriage, then? Are we to assume that Christ will not be with the Church for all eternity?

The plan was for the earth to be populated. If Adam had no wife, he'd be all alone with the animals. Heaven isn't going to be one lonely man. All those who have eternal life will be there; no loneliness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

JimBeta

Active Member
Sep 26, 2018
277
131
39
Begijnendijk
✟16,893.00
Country
Belgium
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
LDS stands for Latter-day Saints. They are usually called Mormons by non-LDS. They belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their new prophet told them to stop using the nickname "Mormon."
thx for the information!
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The plan was for the earth to be populated. If Adam had no wife, he'd be all alone with the animals. Heaven isn't going to be one lonely man. All those who have eternal life will be there; no loneliness.

True enough. I would suppose the issue comes down to whether one is a romantic idealist or not. Admittedly, during its plural-marriage phase, the LDS Church wasn't quite a romantic institution. Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon as it now stands* seems to clearly rule out plural marriage and one of the motivators for membership is the notion of "being with the one you love, forever, in a romantic sense."

*I can imagine objecting to the LDS Church on this ground, that the Book of Mormon has been changed over time, despite being asserted to be the most true book in the world. However, I believe in the Bible as the Word of God, even though the Bible has been transformed far more drastically than the Book of Mormon, and is far less clear, and so on, so I would be a hypocrite to press this point too strongly.
 
Upvote 0

devin553344

I believe in the Resurrection
Nov 10, 2015
3,607
2,249
Unkown
✟93,810.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Matthew 22:23-33 clearly states that we will not be married in the resurrection still LDS persist in claiming otherwise. These are the words of Christ.

Have you ever been filled with the Holy Ghost, it's not a sexual experience, so in heaven I don't think people will mate and have children.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
True enough. I would suppose the issue comes down to whether one is a romantic idealist or not. Admittedly, during its plural-marriage phase, the LDS Church wasn't quite a romantic institution. Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon as it now stands* seems to clearly rule out plural marriage and one of the motivators for membership is the notion of "being with the one you love, forever, in a romantic sense."

*I can imagine objecting to the LDS Church on this ground, that the Book of Mormon has been changed over time, despite being asserted to be the most true book in the world. However, I believe in the Bible as the Word of God, even though the Bible has been transformed far more drastically than the Book of Mormon, and is far less clear, and so on, so I would be a hypocrite to press this point too strongly.

Isaiah 4

Isaiah 4 opens with a warning that during the Millennium, things will be such that we'll literally have seven women clinging to one man in order to have his name.

Why do I bring this up?

Jacob 2

Jacob 2 defines the theology concerning multiple wives: God reserves the right to allow or even command it if the situation warrants, but the default is 1 - 1 otherwise.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You clearly haven’t read the Doctrine & Covenants. Specifically #132 comes to mind off the top of my head.

Well I wasn't talking about the D&C, I was talking about the BoM. Regardless of what the D&C says, the BoM says polygamy is wrong, so I suppose the LDS Church might be inconsistent but why would I be surprised, since every major Christian or quasi-Christian denomination teaches inconsistent things? (Yes they claim to be the "one true church" but I am not interesting in their conceit right now.)

God reserves the right to allow or even command it if the situation warrants, but the default is 1 - 1 otherwise.

Well, that may be true enough but polyamory/polygamy isn't romantic, and there are good philosophical reasons for thinking that romantic idealism requires 1 - 1 relationships.
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Where? Please quote these passages.

Certainly. Jacob 2 and specifically

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
 
Upvote 0

Solomon Smith

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2018
477
215
46
Idaho
✟8,377.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Certainly. Jacob 2 and specifically

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

That command was for those particular people and not for the church in general.
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That command was for those particular people and not for the church in general.

So God randomly thinks some whoredoms are abominable and so on, but others aren't? Look, I'm not arguing that the LDS teaching on this subject is consistent. As far as I can tell, it's not consistent, and the Book of Mormon was effectively redacted (contrary to the claim that it is the truest book of all) or whatever, but regardless, as things now stand, the LDS Church does not advocate plural marriage.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
So God randomly thinks some whoredoms are abominable and so on, but others aren't? Look, I'm not arguing that the LDS teaching on this subject is consistent. As far as I can tell, it's not consistent, and the Book of Mormon was effectively redacted (contrary to the claim that it is the truest book of all) or whatever, but regardless, as things now stand, the LDS Church does not advocate plural marriage.

I actually brought that passage up in another thread.

Read a few more verses and God stipulates a caveat: he'll allow it if he feels it necessary, but until then the default is 1 - 1.
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,493
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Read a few more verses and God stipulates a caveat: he'll allow it if he feels it necessary, but until then the default is 1 - 1.

So it is 1 - 1 until Joseph has a hottie 16 year old house keeper, named Fanny, and a nearby hayloft.

[O]ne night she [Emma Smith] missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!! She told me this story too was verily true.
William E. McLellin, M.D.,
-- Letter to President Joseph Smith [III] Independence, Mo., July 1872.

 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Read a few more verses and God stipulates a caveat: he'll allow it if he feels it necessary, but until then the default is 1 - 1.

IDK, does that mean that it is hypothetically possible for God to sanction gay relationships or pedophilia or inappropriate behavior with animals or whatever? I don't mean that flippantly, but a whoredom is a whoredom and an abomination is an abomination, so...
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
So it is 1 - 1 until Joseph has a hottie 16 year old house keeper, named Fanny, and a nearby hayloft.

You might want to go wash that bloody shirt now. It's no longer working.

IDK, does that mean that it is hypothetically possible for God to sanction gay relationships or pedophilia or inappropriate behavior with animals or whatever? I don't mean that flippantly, but a whoredom is a whoredom and an abomination is an abomination, so...

Homosexuality and inappropriate behavior with animals are confirmed no-nos, so that's not going to happen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,493
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0