Mormons

[twhite982]

don't worry, getting married isn't one of them. i've already talked to a rabbi in new york about this stuff. i've been in discussions with mormons and JWs and others like this for several years now. so i've done some homework.

I'm enjoying this "real-time" discussion with you, but I gotta go. I've got guys waiting on me to play basketball at the church in 15 minutes.

I'll follow up on this later.

Thanks,

TW

 

[solar_mirth]

no, no, no. i definitely do not think that. my dad is the godliest man i know. that part applies specifically to this man because this person apparently does not want to marry. this verse does not logically lead to the belief that all who marry do it for that reason. it says "you don't have to marry if you don't want to, but if you don't want to marry and can't keep control of yourself, you should probably just go ahead and do it." it does not say, "all who get married do it solely because they cannot control themselves."

 

[solar_mirth]

marriage is a requirement, sort of. you do not have to be married to become one. it is just understood that you will marry. paul was young when he was a pharisee. it very possible that he was not married. he became a christian at a young enough age that he could still have been unmarried. since he does not claim to have ever married, we cannot read into anything that he was.

 

[solar_mirth]

that's why i say it was not really required in paul's case. he was young.

 

[Rejoice]

Would any Mormon care to answer these questions that I asked in a previous post?

Exactly what in the biblically supported [Nicene] creed do you believe that God finds "abominable?"

Abominable is defined in my dictionary as "unequivocally detestable." I showed in my last post (# 44) that the Nicene Creed is supported by the Bible. All that I have read are jokes, and vague innuendos of extra-biblical philosophy. I have not read of anything specific from the Nicene Creed that Mormons and presumably God consider to be "abominable" . If the statements that you consider "abominable" are biblically supported, do you consider the Bible to be abominable as well?

Do you consider the Articles of Faith to be a creed?

If not, why?


Thank you in advance for an explanation.

 

[lared]

Is Der Alter related to Old Shepherd?

 

[baker]

Twhite,

A very beatiful description of marriage. Like you, I couldn't imagine life without my wife either. However, if you don't mind, I'm not following your support for a "requirement" to be married when you say:

Look at all the beautiful analogies Paul gives of marriage between a man and a woman: Love the wife as Christ loved the church. Honor your husband. Our marriage relationship should be with passion and selfless service as it is with Christ.

I personally have grown because of my marriage in so many ways I couldn't even comprehend outside of my marriage.

There is no question that these teachings from Paul give great guidance on the love and respect between a husband and wife in the course of marriage. Truly some great detail for the situation of marriage in the extension of Christ's command to love. But also pointed out in this passage by Paul is a very important statement he makes:

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. (1 Cor. 7)

I think this is very clear that marriage was "not by command" and he refers to the "unmarried" as being good to abide as he has. He clearly states that every man has his own gift to God, in all types of manners be it single or married. Clearly, this shows no distinction between God's rewards for those being married and those who remain single.

But even beyond this scripture we have the scriptures of Mark, Matthew and Luke which again directly address the requirement of marriage. Christ clearly tells us that in "His" world (God's), none are married or given in marriage.

Also, Christ is very direct on what the requirements are for "eternal life" in Mark 10 when he says:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Here again, no requirement to be married for eternal life. No distinction between the eternal glory of those who are married and those who are not.

To me, anyway, the scriptures are so strong in corroborating the concept of marriage as just an earthly choice and earthly event, I can't see where the evidence is for one (or you) to conclude that it is a requirement.

But like you, I'm sure glad we have the option to chose being married.

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[solar_mirth]

thank you, baker. i'm glad you said that. you reminded me of something else. Christ did say that in heaven we would be like the angels concerning marriage. we will not be married. how is this reconciled with the mormon belief of celestial marriage? the bible plainly says that we will not partake in marriage.

 

[twhite982]

thank you, baker. i'm glad you said that. you reminded me of something else. Christ did say that in heaven we would be like the angels concerning marriage. we will not be married. how is this reconciled with the mormon belief of celestial marriage? the bible plainly says that we will not partake in marriage.

In HEAVEN they will not marry or be given in marriage. The LDS believe this is true and the ordinance of marriage is done on this earth only.

TW

 

[OpenMinded-Protestant]

wow, after reading through all these posts, ive decided to become a mormon...... hehehe


(do you think the key that joseph smith has can be copied by a locksmith??)

i apologize for the sarcasm!

 

[twhite982]

Twhite,

A very beatiful description of marriage. Like you, I couldn't imagine life without my wife either. However, if you don't mind, I'm not following your support for a "requirement" to be married when you say:



There is no question that these teachings from Paul give great guidance on the love and respect between a husband and wife in the course of marriage. Truly some great detail for the situation of marriage in the extension of Christ's command to love. But also pointed out in this passage by Paul is a very important statement he makes:

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. (1 Cor. 7)

I think this is very clear that marriage was "not by command" and he refers to the "unmarried" as being good to abide as he has. He clearly states that every man has his own gift to God, in all types of manners be it single or married. Clearly, this shows no distinction between God's rewards for those being married and those who remain single.

You're making the assumption that the antecedant of "this" in verse 6 only has reference to being married and not remaining unmarried.

Here is an intersting quote from Stephen Robinson that I added for your consideration.

...But those who do not believe that Paul had ever married point to 1 Cor. 7:71 Cor. 7:81 Cor. 7:7-8, where the Apostle says this:</B>
130For I would that all men were even as I myself....I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
131However, the Greek word translated "unmarried" here is agamos, which has reference to a person in a state of wedlock, whether he or she has formerly been married or not. The word "unmarried" in the context above most certainly has reference to widowers, because it is masculine plural and also because Paul deals with virgins, male and female, in vss. 25, 26, 28. That is to say, the Apostle deals with widowers and widows in vss. 8, 9 and with those who have never been married in vss. 25, 26, 28. Paul's counsel in the passage quoted above simply means that widows and widowers should remain unmarried as he (a widower) had done.</I>

and Richard Loyd Anderson:

Paul's credentials illuminate the debated question of his marriage. He is mislabeled a bachelor or chauvinist, for careful study of 1 Corinthians strongly suggests his marriage. There are three elements of this problem in Paul's early life: the Jewish ideal of marriage as a religious duty; Paul's obedience to every possible Jewish duty; Paul's acceptance into high Jewish councils. The last point is often stated as though Paul was a member of the highest Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, whose members supposedly were married. Yet the evidence for marriage of Sanhedrin members is the same as for any other successful Israelite—religious and cultural conformity. Wisdom and trustworthiness came only through marriage; in the time of the Mishnah "an unmarried man may not be a teacher of children." The Mishnah includes marriage in the life pattern of the male, who was fit "at eighteen for the bride chamber." No one could fault Paul for disobedience to any commandment, he insisted, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" ("Philip. 3:6Philip. 3:6). In Paul's view, no one exceeded him in keeping every requirement, none of his "peers" or "equals of age," the key term in his autobiographical survey—"I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14, RSV). Since he had done everything right in his religion up to that point, he must have been married.

My feeling is similiar in that at one time Paul was married, but now (1Cor 7) is a widow and is devoting all his energies to missionary work.

But even beyond this scripture we have the scriptures of Mark, Matthew and Luke which again directly address the requirement of marriage. Christ clearly tells us that in "His" world (God's), none are married or given in marriage.

Also, Christ is very direct on what the requirements are for "eternal life" in Mark 10 when he says:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Here again, no requirement to be married for eternal life. No distinction between the eternal glory of those who are married and those who are not.

Again I think the requirement is in Gen 1:28. Also when I say requirement I don't mean that you'll go to hell if you're not married because I know we all have different circumstances and opportunities.

To me, anyway, the scriptures are so strong in corroborating the concept of marriage as just an earthly choice and earthly event, I can't see where the evidence is for one (or you) to conclude that it is a requirement.

But like you, I'm sure glad we have the option to chose being married.

I appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks, and I appreciate your as well.

 

[baker]

You're making the assumption that the antecedant of "this" in verse 6 only has reference to being married and not remaining unmarried.

Interesting! You kinda sound like my attorney when he wants to get me out of some pretty straightforward contract language!!

Seriously though, I don't think I was trying to assume anything but simply relying on the first 5 verses which explain that Paul was talking about the union (marriage) between man & woman and why. I also can't ignore the contrast and comparisons between those who are married and those who are not that Paul provides when he says: "But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

Here is an intersting quote from Stephen Robinson that I added for your consideration.

...But those who do not believe that Paul had ever married point to 1 Cor. 7:71 Cor. 7:81 Cor. 7:7-8, where the Apostle says this:</B>
130For I would that all men were even as I myself....I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
131However, the Greek word translated "unmarried" here is agamos, which has reference to a person in a state of wedlock, whether he or she has formerly been married or not. The word "unmarried" in the context above most certainly has reference to widowers, because it is masculine plural and also because Paul deals with virgins, male and female, in vss. 25, 26, 28. That is to say, the Apostle deals with widowers and widows in vss. 8, 9 and with those who have never been married in vss. 25, 26, 28. Paul's counsel in the passage quoted above simply means that widows and widowers should remain unmarried as he (a widower) had done.


and Richard Loyd Anderson:

Paul's credentials illuminate the debated question of his marriage. He is mislabeled a bachelor or chauvinist, for careful study of 1 Corinthians strongly suggests his marriage. There are three elements of this problem in Paul's early life: the Jewish ideal of marriage as a religious duty; Paul's obedience to every possible Jewish duty; Paul's acceptance into high Jewish councils. The last point is often stated as though Paul was a member of the highest Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, whose members supposedly were married. Yet the evidence for marriage of Sanhedrin members is the same as for any other successful Israelite—religious and cultural conformity. Wisdom and trustworthiness came only through marriage; in the time of the Mishnah "an unmarried man may not be a teacher of children." The Mishnah includes marriage in the life pattern of the male, who was fit "at eighteen for the bride chamber." No one could fault Paul for disobedience to any commandment, he insisted, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" ("Philip. 3:6Philip. 3:6). In Paul's view, no one exceeded him in keeping every requirement, none of his "peers" or "equals of age," the key term in his autobiographical survey—"I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14, RSV). Since he had done everything right in his religion up to that point, he must have been married.

Interesting reading but I must admit this seems, to me anyway, like a long way to go around the obvious intent of the scripture to reach a different conclusion. With all due respect, the reason I say this is because to reach your conclusion with respect to verse 6 here, you would have to conclude that one would really "ask permission" to be a widower?! It just wouldn't make sense in that context.

By the way, after doing a google search, do I conclude correctly that Robinson and Lloyd are mormon apologetics? I think that would have a big impact on their writings, don't you?

My feeling is similiar in that at one time Paul was married, but now (1Cor 7) is a widow and is devoting all his energies to missionary work.

Fair enough. I guess my conclusion, although different from yours, is based less on feelings and more on what the scripture directly states.

Again I think the requirement is in Gen 1:28. Also when I say requirement I don't mean that you'll go to hell if you're not married because I know we all have different circumstances and opportunities.

I agree that God shows us the way to replenish through a union of man and woman in that verse. However, for me anyway, it's important to keep in mind that this is the first chapter of the first book of Genisis. Much more will be told by Christ. The remaining scriptures in both the OT and NT explain much about what He wants of us. Hence, when we do see what Christ says about marriage we learn far more about its role. Furthermore, I think we can both agree that God's command to replenish has been more than met without everyone being married throughout history. Some might even say that we've done "too much replenishing"!

In HEAVEN they will not marry or be given in marriage. The LDS believe this is true and the ordinance of marriage is done on this earth only.

But what about all those who have died single for one reason or another or who have never heard of your concept requiring marriage? It seems to me that Christ further explains, and very clearly, how all will be in the afterlife, how they will be worthy and what their relationship with Him will be in Luke 20:

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

So here we see a clear distinction of who will be accounted as worthy. We also see that all will be Children of God.

Even moreso, what do we learn when the question of the neccessity of marriage is directly asked of Christ. Christ answers this in Matt. 19:

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Again, no requirement, but consistent with what Paul tells us - for some it is good for others it is not. But no requirement or distinction for God's greatest level of glory.

My thoughts anyway.

 

[twhite982]

Interesting! You kinda sound like my attorney when he wants to get me out of some pretty straightforward contract language!!

Seriously though, I don't think I was trying to assume anything but simply relying on the first 5 verses which explain that Paul was talking about the union (marriage) between man & woman and why. I also can't ignore the contrast and comparisons between those who are married and those who are not that Paul provides when he says: "But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

But does the antecedant of "this" only apply to the first 5 verses?

Interesting reading but I must admit this seems, to me anyway, like a long way to go around the obvious intent of the scripture to reach a different conclusion. With all due respect, the reason I say this is because to reach your conclusion with respect to verse 6 here, you would have to conclude that one would really "ask permission" to be a widower?! It just wouldn't make sense in that context.

I'm not sure I understand you too well. "Ask permission"

By the way, after doing a google search, do I conclude correctly that Robinson and Lloyd are mormon apologetics? I think that would have a big impact on their writings, don't you?

Of course their background impacts on the thinking. I'm LDS so that is where I'm coming from.

Fair enough. I guess my conclusion, although different from yours, is based less on feelings and more on what the scripture directly states.

I'm not sure where in the bible God said stop from replenishing the earth.

I agree that God shows us the way to replenish through a union of man and woman in that verse. However, for me anyway, it's important to keep in mind that this is the first chapter of the first book of Genisis. Much more will be told by Christ. The remaining scriptures in both the OT and NT explain much about what He wants of us. Hence, when we do see what Christ says about marriage we learn far more about its role. Furthermore, I think we can both agree that God's command to replenish has been more than met without everyone being married throughout history. Some might even say that we've done "too much replenishing"!

For me at least the family is the training ground for gospel teaching. Not church, not friends, not school, or anywhere else. This is a major reason of families to teach our children about the Lord, for it is our own respnsibility.

But what about all those who have died single for one reason or another or who have never heard of your concept requiring marriage? It seems to me that Christ further explains, and very clearly, how all will be in the afterlife, how they will be worthy and what their relationship with Him will be in

Not that you'll agree with my statement, but I'll explain how the LDS church views this. Those "requirements" are done here on this earth by proxy for those who have passed on.

Luke 20:
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

The question that triggered this response was regarding the ressurection and it was a trap question, which needs to be kept in mind. These verses aren't a problem for the LDS because if you remember I said that our marriages are done here on this earth and last throughout the eternities.

So here we see a clear distinction of who will be accounted as worthy. We also see that all will be Children of God.

Even moreso, what do we learn when the question of the neccessity of marriage is directly asked of Christ. Christ answers this in Matt. 19:

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Again, no requirement, but consistent with what Paul tells us - for some it is good for others it is not. But no requirement or distinction for God's greatest level of glory.

My thoughts anyway.

From the duties of a pharisee I can only conclude that Paul, being the strictest pharisee and blameless in fufillment of its requirements was married. I'm in the process of verifying this through Jewish sources as to the requirements of a pharisee, and marriage being one of them.

I hold the bible as the word of God, and also the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great price. Taken together my understanding of marriage is greatly increased. This is my background and my beliefs. In them the family is key to God's plan for us.

TW

 

[Rejoice]

From the duties of a pharisee I can only conclude that Paul, being the strictest pharisee and blameless in fufillment of its requirements was married. I'm in the process of verifying this through Jewish sources as to the requirements of a pharisee, and marriage being one of them.

Perhaps this will help.

The rabbinic literature notes and gives rules for exceptions to rules which were themselves non-binding. The rabbi mentioned below was celibate in order to devote himself to studying the Law.

"Celibacy was, in fact, not common, and was disapproved by the rabbis, who taught that a man should marry at eighteen, and that if he passed the age of twenty without taking a wife he transgressed a divine command and incurred God's displeasure. Postponement of marriage was permitted students of the Law that they might concentrate their attention on their studies, free from the cares of support a wife. Cases like that of Simeon be 'Azzai, who never married, were evidently infrequent. He had himself said that a man who did not marry was like one who shed blood, and diminished the likeness of God. One of his colleagues threw up to him that he was better at preaching that at practicing, to which he replied, What shall I do? My soul is enamored of the Law; the population of the world can be kept up by others...It is not to be imagined that pronouncements about the duty of marrying and the age at which people should marry actually regulated practice." Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. George Foot Moore. (reprints of 1927/1930 vols). Hendrickson. 2.119f


Jesus said:

Matthew 19
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." NIV

(Please note that one usage of the Greek word eunouchos is "one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.")


I would still like to know exactly what in the Nicene Creed Mormons believe that God finds "abominable."

 

[twhite982]

Perhaps this will help.

The rabbinic literature notes and gives rules for exceptions to rules which were themselves non-binding. The rabbi mentioned below was celibate in order to devote himself to studying the Law.

"Celibacy was, in fact, not common, and was disapproved by the rabbis, who taught that a man should marry at eighteen, and that if he passed the age of twenty without taking a wife he transgressed a divine command and incurred God's displeasure. Postponement of marriage was permitted students of the Law that they might concentrate their attention on their studies, free from the cares of support a wife. Cases like that of Simeon be 'Azzai, who never married, were evidently infrequent. He had himself said that a man who did not marry was like one who shed blood, and diminished the likeness of God. One of his colleagues threw up to him that he was better at preaching that at practicing, to which he replied, What shall I do? My soul is enamored of the Law; the population of the world can be kept up by others...It is not to be imagined that pronouncements about the duty of marrying and the age at which people should marry actually regulated practice." Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. George Foot Moore. (reprints of 1927/1930 vols). Hendrickson. 2.119f


Jesus said:

Matthew 19
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." NIV

(Please note that one usage of the Greek word eunouchos is "one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.")


I would still like to know exactly what in the Nicene Creed Mormons believe that God finds "abominable."

Bottom line is that either way you look at it if Paul was married or not, there is no concrete evidence for either case. Or else we probally wouldn't have these type of discussions.

To assume the position that Paul was not married verses like 1 Cor 7:8 are used. This has to assume that Paul was referring to him never being married. My view is he was speaking to the widows and including himself in with them.

On the other taking the position that Paul was married many assumptions are made as well. To use the case that Paul was a memeber of the sanhedin requires conjecture. 1 Cor 9:5 is very interesting, but still requires conjecture to allow Paul to be married and this after in 1 Cor 7:8 he states to the widows that he desires that they were as he is.

Paul never states that he was never married at all and likewise never states that he was married.

For the sake of sanity I'll leave Paul's marritial status alone.

On a side note, with 1 Cor 9:5 Paul clearly states that Cephas, or Peter was married and brought his wife along with him in fufilling his apostolic duties.

As far as the requirement of marriage in the jewish culture I just recieved an e-mail response back from Rabbi S. Hazan stating that "It is a Mitzvah (commandment, requirement) for all Jews to marry and bring
children to the world." With all the information we have on marriage it seems clear the high regards marriage was held in for the jews.

TW

 

[Rejoice]

There are three elements of this problem in Paul's early life: the Jewish ideal of marriage as a religious duty; Paul's obedience to every possible Jewish duty; Paul's acceptance into high Jewish councils. The last point is often stated as though Paul was a member of the highest Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, whose members supposedly were married. Yet the evidence for marriage of Sanhedrin members is the same as for any other successful Israelite&#8212;religious and cultural conformity. Wisdom and trustworthiness came only through marriage; in the time of the Mishnah "an unmarried man may not be a teacher of children." The Mishnah includes marriage in the life pattern of the male, who was fit "at eighteen for the bride chamber." No one could fault Paul for disobedience to any commandment, he insisted, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" ("Philip. 3:6Philip. 3:6). In Paul's view, no one exceeded him in keeping every requirement, none of his "peers" or "equals of age," the key term in his autobiographical survey&#8212;"I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:14, RSV). Since he had done everything right in his religion up to that point, he must have been married.

You claim that marriage was a commandment, and that wisdom and trustworthiness come only through marriage. In addition to believing that Paul was married, do you also believe that Jesus was married? A program on TV last night discussed this theory.

Although you claim that one will not go to hell if they are not married, I understand that Mormons believe that one must be married in order to receive eternal life with the Father Almighty. I would appreciate your thoughts.

 

[twhite982]

You claim that marriage was a commandment, and that wisdom and trustworthiness come only through marriage. In addition to believing that Paul was married, do you also believe that Jesus was married? A program on TV last night discussed this theory.

Although you claim that one will not go to hell if they are not married, I understand that Mormons believe that one must be married in order to receive eternal life with the Father Almighty. I would appreciate your thoughts.

I do believe that marriage was a commandment to Adam and Eve as contained in Genesis.

It seems you've mis-quoted me.
I may have quoted someone else in that post, but I don't ever remember personally stating that wisdom and trustworthiness can on come through marriage.

I do believe Paul was married, but don't have absolute proof, nor do you have absolute proof that he wasn't.

As far as Jesus being married, it is a possibility, after all He was Jewish and this was held in very high regards. Actually (I don't know if this applied during Jesus' time)but a Rabbi told me that of the Mitzvah marriage is expected. That's neither here nor there and is only conjecture as it relates to Jesus.

The LDS view on celestial marriage was discussed. It is getting to be a 3 ring circus trying to answer all these different questions within the 3 or 4 threads I subscribe to. Would you be willing to start a new thread on this and ask this question so we can focus entirely on that particular subject? The answers would be much better this way.

TW

 

[baker]

Twhite,

Thanks for the follow up.

I am beginning to see what you believe, I guess my questions are more directed to the scriptural support of "why you believe it to be the word of God"

But does the antecedant of "this" only apply to the first 5 verses?

Perhaps I could understand you better if you tell me what it is that you believe "this" refers to. Paul says that "this" is spoken of by permission and not of commandment. It seems all too clear, to me anyway, that he is referring to the union of marriage. If you see this conclusion differently, I would be interested in what specifically you believe "this" refers to and why.

I'm not sure I understand you too well. "Ask permission"

Let me explain. I was assuming that with your presentation of the Robinson/Lloyd info, you were trying to support a position that "unmarried" meant that Paul was once married and is now a widower. Therefore it just would not be logical to "ask for permission" to be a widower. Perhaps if you explain what you "this" means, it will clear things up for me a bit.

I'm not sure where in the bible God said stop from replenishing the earth.

Here again, let me explain. My point was to demonstrate that the "replenishing" requirement in Genesis is not a command or requirement by God to marry. I would hope you can see that we have replenished the earth even though many people have not married. I did not mean to say we are to stop replenishing, my comment about "some may think we have replenished too much" was more humorous, yet does demonsrate that even without everyone being married, the replenishment has been more than met. I hope you see now that nowhere did I say/mean that we have stopped replenishing.

For me at least the family is the training ground for gospel teaching. Not church, not friends, not school, or anywhere else. This is a major reason of families to teach our children about the Lord, for it is our own respnsibility.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Not that you'll agree with my statement, but I'll explain how the LDS church views this. Those "requirements" are done here on this earth by proxy for those who have passed on.

Again, my questions are more directed to identifying the scriptural support there is for such a belief.

Over the weekend I did a search at the official LDS website "lds.org" and could not find anything from the book of mormon which supports a teaching of eternal or temple marriage. I have to admitt that I have not read this book cover to cover, so I could stand to be corrected on this point. Anyway, my point is that it seems this is such an important ordinance in mormon beliefs yet there is virtually no mention of it in the bible or bom.

The question that triggered this response was regarding the ressurection and it was a trap question, which needs to be kept in mind.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here? Are you suggesting that Christ's reply was not scriptural or that he was not being truthful? I ask this because the first thing he tells them in Matt 22 is that "you do err, not knowing the scriptures" and then He proceeds to share the scripture with them?

These verses aren't a problem for the LDS because if you remember I said that our marriages are done here on this earth and last throughout the eternities.

But where in the scriptures does Christ teach us that the earthly marriage is preserved and continued in His kingdom. The only biblical scriptures that exist regarding "marriage" say just the opposite. If this teaching is in the bom, perhaps you could refer me to the passage.



Again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Doc T]

baker: Over the weekend I did a search at the official LDS website "lds.org" and could not find anything from the book of mormon which supports a teaching of eternal or temple marriage. I have to admitt that I have not read this book cover to cover, so I could stand to be corrected on this point. Anyway, my point is that it seems this is such an important ordinance in mormon beliefs yet there is virtually no mention of it in the bible or bom.

Doc: Baker, if I may just interject here. The Bible and the BofM are only 2 of our books of scripture. There is also the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. They are ordinances of importance and are found in the Doctrine and Covenants. They are implied, IMHO in the Bible, but you are correct they are not specifically mentioned.

 

[Serapha]

I'd just like to know, pretty much:

What they believe, as far as Jesus, God, etc goes.

The differences between their's and Christians beliefs.

You know, just things along those lines.

Hi there!



There seems to be a lot of discussion already on what is the best way to learn about the Mormon church.

Well, the first thing to learn is that it is not the mormon church, and the correct name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Second, you need to get a book of mormon and as you read it, lay it alongside biblical teachings of Christ. The error will speak for itself. If you want justification on the errors, then call the local ward, and they will send out two missionaries to sway into their way of thinking.

but... yes, you need to read the materials that represent the church. You will find that on the official site... and then compare what you read there with the Old and New Testament.

Oh, yeah, and the most important part, ask God for guidance.


~malaka~