question my niece was asked

[geoffrey]

my niece's (15yrs) was asked that how come in the bible it says that no one is given to marriage and that we would all be as the angels, but that we mormons believe just the opposite, obviously she asked me but i didn't know what to reply, me and her are recent converted so i still don't know much, could anyone help?

[MarginOfError]

There's a good discussion about this very issue in Talmage's Jesus the Christ. I'm running a little late so I can't look up the page numbers or go into much detail, but the gist of the message is that when the Saducees asked Christ which of the seven brothers the woman would be married to in the resurrection, they were told that marriage is not resolved in the resurrection, but in mortality.

Whoever asked your niece the question wasn't considering the background, context, and nature of the scriptures being used.

[Justice]

There are a few background points to help understand the story, as MoE has said. It makes a difference who He was speaking to and in what context He meant marriage, namely one performed without authority.

Instead of getting into that, I'd like to share a simpler, more obvious side of the answer.

"We Mormons" believe there won't be any marriages performed in heaven, or we believe we won't be "given in marriage" in heaven, just as the scripture says. Just as there will be no baptisms, no confirmations, no endowments, or basically, none of the earthly ordinances that are performed here.

In our view, eternal marriage, or marriage performed by proper priesthood authortiy that lasts for all time and eternity, not just until death do you part, the marriage that will be recognized in heaven, is an ordinance, and it must be performed while we are mortal. So, it must be performed on earth, and will not be performed in heaven. In fact, it is a prerequisite, according to our belief, in order to reach the highest degree in the eternal worlds to come.

This is a difficult concept for those who belive that the highest degree we can ever obtain is to be angels and sing to God forever.

So, the scripture is saying that there will not be any mariages performed in heaven, and we believe that is true.

[Janice]

Justice, that is the most clear and precise answer I've ever heard on that passage of scripture, which has always confused me. Thank you!

[Dr T]

I take it to mean there will be no lasting marriage since I take that verse for what it say when I read it. That is just my opinion.

[Justice]

It's a blessing and a curse, that I can't read the scriptures in peace. I question everything, disect everything, break every word down, until it is very difficult for me to follow along with the gist of the story. I have only recently begun to read the Book of Mormon in large chunks, 15 chapters at a time, in order to get the larger picture. It has made a huge difference in the way I understand it, and it has greatly strengthened my testimony of it. I plan to get there with the Bible and other scriptures one day.

Dr T, I am not attempting to change your mind, just to have a discussion.

Matt. 22:

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

Mark 12: 25

25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

If you look closely at the question the Savior was asked and then His answer, quoted above, it is clear He is not saying people will not be married in heaven, but saying that marriages will not be performed after the resurrection, and since they were married according to the way they understood marriage, or until death do they part, their marriage would not be honored in heaven.

Jesus never teaches people will not be married in heaven. It has been handed down as an incorrect interpretation of the Bible for many, many years.

[Guest ceeboo]

Matt. 22:

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

Mark 12: 25

25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

If you look closely at the question the Savior was asked and then His answer, quoted above, it is clear He is not saying people will not be married in heaven, but saying that marriages will not be performed after the resurrection, and since they were married according to the way they understood marriage, or until death do they part, their marriage would not be honored in heaven.

Jesus never teaches people will not be married in heaven. It has been handed down as an incorrect interpretation of the Bible for many, many years.

Hello Justice,

The Biblical teaching is very clear IMHO ( Not handed down as incorrect at all )

When the Sadducees asked Jesus of the Woman who was married to the seven brothers in succession, they asked the lord who's wife she woulod be after the resurrection. Jesus answered " When they rise from the dead they will neither marry nor be given in marriage

but will be like angels in heaven".

Interpreting this wrongly ( IMHO ), some say that this means there will be no " follow up " in heaven but with the reply Jesus gave he was rejecting the notion the Sadducees presented of marriage in Heaven, as if it will simply be a continuation of " earthly relationships " with the spouses.

Possibly another thread but I do indeed believe we will have relationships with our spouses, friends, etc. ( Very short version as to not stray off topic )

Just my thoughts

Thanks for sharing yours :)

Ceeboo

[Just_A_Guy]

Jesus gave he was rejecting the notion the Sadducees presented of marriage in Heaven

I see your point, Ceeboo, but I would add that the Sadducees were presenting a false version of marriage in Heaven--and they knew it. It was a set-up. The Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection (as both Matthew and Mark note), and the question was calculated to make the notion of a resurrection look ridiculous.

In this context, it is at least plausible that Jesus' answer was not calculated to provide an authoritative answer as to the eternal/temporal nature of marriage. Rather, I believe that He was simply countering the idea of resurrection as The Bachelor on steroids by asserting curtly that (in Talmage's words) "n the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time." Jesus the Christ, Deseret Book 1983, p. 509.

I don't think the text bars the continuance of an extant marriage. Under the custom of the time as I understand it, on a Jewish wedding day the groom "married" and bride was "given in marriage".

Interestingly, the Sadducees seem to have taken it for granted that if the soul was eternal, then marriage was eternal as well. It would be interesting to see if that was a broader Jewish perception, then or now.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest ceeboo]

I see your point, Ceeboo, but I would add that the Sadducees were presenting a false version of marriage in Heaven--and they knew it. It was a set-up. The Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection (as both Matthew and Mark note), and the question was calculated to make the notion of a resurrection look ridiculous.

In this context, it is at least plausible that Jesus' answer was not calculated to provide an authoritative answer as to the eternal/temporal nature of marriage. Rather, I believe that He was simply countering the idea of resurrection as The Bachelor on steroids by asserting curtly that (in Talmage's words) "n the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time." Jesus the Christ, Deseret Book 1983, p. 509.

Hi Just A Guy

I thank you for your pespective and the kind manner you have shared it with me.:)

I agree that the Sadducees were indeed trying to " stump " Jesus with their inquiry. The " Gotcha ", they thought they had in the bag, was forcing Jesus to answer which Husband this woman would be with at the resurrection. They thought he HAD TO PICK ONE OF THE SEVEN ( VERY SURPRISING TO THEM ) Jesus Clearly ( IMHO ) said none and went on to provide his lesson for the day ( In this case it happened to be his teachings of " marriage ", " spouses " in the eternal Kingdom )

I would respectfuly disagree that the question was not calculated to make the notion of resurrection look ridiculous. Rather, the question WAS calculated to make the notion of " how can you pick one out of the seven " look ridiculous. They got an answer they certainly were not expecting ( IMHO ).

I do appreciate your sharing :)

God bless,

Ceeboo

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Ceeboo--

I would respectfuly disagree that the question was not calculated to make the notion of resurrection look ridiculous. Rather, the question WAS calculated to make the notion of " how can you pick one out of the seven " look ridiculous. They got an answer they certainly were not expecting ( IMHO ).

I can agree to disagree here. :)

Jesus Clearly ( IMHO ) said none and went on to provide his lesson for the day ( In this case it happened to be his teachings of " marriage ", " spouses " in the eternal Kingdom )

It strikes me that the "lesson for the day" (such as it was) comes up in Matt 22:31-32/Mark 12:26-27 (and this is when Matthew tells us that the crowd was astonished and the Sadducees were silenced), where Christ emphasizes that the God of Moses is a God of the living.

The remarks on marriage are, IMO, building towards this point--and they provide only a minimal answer to the actual question the Sadducees asked. Note that in Mark 12:28-34, Jesus does the same thing: in verse 32 the scribe takes a dig at Jesus' divinity ("And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he"--i.e., "there's only one God, and it ain't you"). Jesus, noticing that the scribe has answered "discreetly" or "prudently" or "intelligently" (depending on your translation; but the implication that this is a battle of wits and not a master/student interchange), chooses not to press the point; rather he simply says "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." Note that Jesus didn't say the scribe was in the Kingdom of God; just said "thou art not far"--i.e., "close enough, and I'm not going to argue with you over this right now". And, Mark tells us, "no man after that durst ask him any question."

Throughout these chapters, Jesus' interlocutors aren't interested in learning; and Jesus isn't that interested in teaching profound doctrine. The chapters describe a series of debates, primarily showcasing Jesus' rhetorical abilities and his superiority over the supposed masters of God's law (in turn the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Scribes [probably the Essenes]).

Edited February 25, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Dr T]

I agree that they brought it up to stump him and his answer I'd say was calculated. Thank u for bringing up the verses and I will look closer at what we know from that verse in general. Thank you all for that :)

[Hemidakota]

Here is Elder McConkie regarding the verse in Mark, the conversion of Eternal Marriage versus the Sadducean priests:

This colloquy between Jesus and his Sadducean detractors does not question or throw doubt, in proper cases, on the eternal verity that the family unit continues in the resurrection. Jesus had previously taught the eternal nature of the marriage union. "What therefore God [not man!] hath joined together, let not man put asunder." That is, when a marriage is performed by God's authority—not man's!—it is eternal. See Matt. 19:1-12.

"Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." (Eccles. 3:14.)

Indeed, almost the whole Jewish nation believed that marriage was eternal, and that parents would beget children in the resurrection. Those few who did not believe that marriage continued after death and among such were the Sadducees, who could not so believe because they denied the resurrection itself were nonetheless fully aware that such was the prevailing religious view of the people generally. Without doubt Jesus, the apostles, the seventies, and the disciples generally had discussed this doctrine.

The Sadducean effort here is based on the assumption that Jesus and the Jews generally believe in marriage in heaven. They are using this commonly accepted concept to ridicule and belittle the fact of the resurrection itself. They are saying: 'How absurd to believe in a resurrection (and therefore in the fact that there is marriage in heaven) when everybody knows that a woman who has had seven husbands could not have them all at once in the life to come.'

A most instructive passage showing that the Jews believed there should be marriage in heaven is found in Dummelow. "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life," he says. "A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendor of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink, and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfill their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'" (Dummelow, p. 698.)

How much nearer the truth were these Jews, on this point, than are the modern professors of religion who suppose that family love, felicity, and unity cease simply because the spirit steps out of the body in what men call death!

What then is the Master Teacher affirming by saying, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven"?

He is not denying but limiting the prevailing concept that there will be marrying and giving in marriage in heaven. He is saying that as far as "they" (the Sadducees) are concerned, that as far as "they" ("the children of this world") are concerned, the family unit does not and will not continue in the resurrection. Because he does not choose to cast his pearls before swine, and because the point at issue is not marriage but resurrection anyway, Jesus does not here amplify his teaching to explain that there is marrying and giving of marriage in heaven only for those who live the fulness of gospel law—a requirement which excludes worldly people.

In his reply Jesus is approaching the problem much as he did in revealing the same eternal principles to Joseph Smith in modern times. He first told the Prophet that all blessings come to men as a result of obedience; that all eternal covenants, marriage included, must be performed with his authority and approved by his Spirit; and that only those things continue "after the resurrection" which conform to his law.

"Therefore," that is, in the light of these principles, he said, "if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."

What is this but marriage until death do us part? And who are the participating parties but the Sadducees, "the children of this world," the people who do not overcome the world by accepting and living the gospel?

"Therefore, when they [those who will not, do not, or cannot live the law of eternal marriage] are out of the world they neither marry nor or given in marriage."

That is, there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage in heaven for those to whom Jesus was speaking; for those who do not even believe in a resurrection, let alone all the other saving truths; for those who are unrighteous and ungodly; for those who live after the manner of the world; for the great masses of unrepentant mankind. All of these will fall short of gaining the fulness of reward hereafter.

That then is their state? They will not be "gods" and thus have exaltation; their inheritance will be in a lesser degree of glory. As Jesus said to the Sadducees, they "are as the angels of God in heaven," "for they are equal unto the angels." As he said, in more detail and with greater plainness to Joseph Smith, they "are appointed angels in heaven; which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

D. & C. 132:5-17.)

Thus, in the resurrection, the unmarried remain everlastingly as angels or servants, but the married gain exaltation and godhood. This latter group consists of those who enter into that "order of the priesthood" named "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage," and who then keep the terms and conditions of that eternal covenant. It consists also of those who lived on earth under circumstances which prevented them from making the covenant for themselves personally, but who would have done so had the opportunity been afforded. For all such, on the just and equitable principles of salvation and exaltation for the dead, the ordinances will be performed vicariously in the temples of God, so that no blessing will ever be denied to any worthy person. And for that matter, there is no revelation, either ancient or modern, which says there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage in heaven itself for righteous people. All that the revelations set forth is that such is denied to the Sadducees and other worldly and ungodly people.

In ancient Israel a man was obliged to marry his brother's widow if she was childless. The "firstborn" then succeeded "in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel." Such a law could operate only in a period when plural marriage was authorized by Deity. Provision was made in the law for someone else to marry the widow in certain circumstances. Interestingly, it was this law of marriage that enabled Boaz and Ruth, progenitors of our Lord, to become man and wife.

"They did not understand the principle of sealing for time and for all eternity; that what God hath joined together neither man nor death can put asunder. Matt. 19:6.

They had wandered from that principle. It had fallen into disuse among them; they had ceased to understand it; and consequently they did not comprehend the truth; but Christ did. She could only be the wife in eternity of the man to whom she was united by the power of God for eternity, as well as for time; and Christ understood the principle, but he did not cast his pearls before the swine that tempted him." (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., p. 280.)

'You say Jehovah is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and at the same time claim there is no resurrection. But you know that God is not the God of the dead but of the living, and therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live and will rise in the resurrection; hence, your doctrine that life ceases with death is false.' Or: 'You believe there is a God; you deny there is a resurrection. Is God the God only of the dead? Is he a failure? Is there no purpose in creation? Or could it be that you have erred and that there is in reality a resurrection?'

Mark 12:32. For he raiseth them up out of their graves] Luke 20:38. For all live unto him] How can there be a God unless there is a resurrection? Why would God create men and then let them vanish into nothingness? To be God he must be the God of something, and the dead are nothing; hence, there are no dead, "for all live unto him," "for he raiseth them up out of their graves."

[Guest ceeboo]

Hello Hemi, :)

So, I take it that Elder McConkie does not agree with Ceeboo :):)

Thanks for the contribution

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Hemidakota]

Correct...there is no marriage given to those lesser than Paul talked about the 'glory of the Sun' versus the stars and the moon.

[nick]

but what about the wives that would be given to us after we die, doesn't that count as getting married in heaven?

[pam]

Please explain this quote then from Hemi's quote above.

And for that matter, there is no revelation, either ancient or modern, which says there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage in heaven itself for righteous people.

[Just_A_Guy]

but what about the wives that would be given to us after we die, doesn't that count as getting married in heaven?

I'm going to presume that you're asking about faithful latter-day saints who die without the opportunity to marry but nevertheless have the promise of exaltation with an eternal companion (as opposed to making an impertinent accusation about Mormons harboring secret hopes of polygamous afterlives).

There are two possibilities. First is the idea, apparently posited by McConkie, that the righteous really can marry in heaven.

If you don't buy that (and I don't), you can still go back to the text of Talmage's statement, which is merely that such questions are resolved before the resurrection. As long as the sealing ordinance for two individuals has been done prior to the resurrection (e.g. in a temple, by proxy), they are still technically in compliance with the LDS interpretation of Matthew 22/Mark 12 as well as Talmage's summary thereof.

[pam]

Thank you. Yes I was referring to those that lived righteously but never had the opportunity to marry. Also as Nick pointed out above...which I've learned as well...what about those that are given to one in the afterlife.

I think I'm just a bit confused. I always thought that if you never had the opportunity to marry here on earth, you would have the opportunity to be sealed to someone in the next life. Would that not be the same as marriage or is sealing considered different?

This is something I've always been a bit confused about.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just to clarify, I was replying to Nick.

As for the McConkie quote that Hemi provided . . . I'm bewildered by it, frankly. I've never heard anything like it before.

I think I'm just a bit confused. I always thought that if you never had the opportunity to marry here on earth, you would have the opportunity to be sealed to someone in the next life. Would that not be the same as marriage or is sealing considered different?

Sure, it's marriage . . . sealing . . . whatever you want to call it. But the crux of the matter is (as I understand it) it takes place before the resurrection.

[Justice]

All the loose ends will be wrapped and tied up during the millennium. The millennium will be 1,000 years of non-stop ordinance work.

[nick]

I'm going to presume that you're asking about faithful latter-day saints who die without the opportunity to marry but nevertheless have the promise of exaltation with an eternal companion (as opposed to making an impertinent accusation about Mormons harboring secret hopes of polygamous afterlives).

in reply to you Just_A_Guy

of course i wasn't accusing Mormons of anything, just trying to understand.

actually i was talking about when Herbert C.kimball (member of The first Presidency) said that Joseph Smith would give us thousands of wives if we were to get to celestial heaven without wives.

Something that was asked me when I was sharing the truth to an obviously well prepared catholic.

[Elphaba]

I have a few questions on this subject:

1) Church authorities say a person who is gay in his/her mortal life will not be gay once s/he has passed on. Additionally they say s/he will have the opportunity to have a spouse and children.

Once s/he has passed on, and meets a person person to spend eternity with, how does anyone on earth know who the gay person chose?

Additionally, how do you have children once you've passed on? And does this mean other couples will be eligible to do the same, i.e. a couple that was childless, which cased them great heartbreak, while on earth?

2) Relatively recently, the geneaology policiy has changed so that a deceased woman can now be sealed to all of her husbands, if they are deceased as well. The idea is that she will choose the husband she wants to spend eternity with once she has passed on.

So what happens to the husbands she's rejected? And how does any mortal know to remove the sealing from the rejected husbands? (I'm not sure of the proper nomenclature here.)

3) Church authorities say not to worry about the numerous twists and turns these seaings can take, as it will all be worked out in the afterlife.

So, how does any mortal know how these relationship issues have been resolved, so they know to seal the right man to the right woman?

My point is, there is going to be a heck of a lot of courting going on in the CK, with people rejecting their spouses. Where do these rejected people go? How do they meet new people to marry? Is there any doctrine regarding this situation?

I suspect the answer is the same for other people who have not been baptized or sealed, i.e., that during the millenium all of the work will be completed. But what do these souls do in the meantime?

(I have to laugh, because my scenario reminds me of a singles ward. )

Elphaba

[Moksha]

3) Church authorities say not to worry about the numerous twists and turns these sealings can take, as it will all be worked out in the afterlife.

That is an excellent point. I don't know what the Church's position is on trusting God's beneficence, but my guess is they do not argue against it. A beneficent God would tie up the loose ends to everyone's satisfaction.

My point is, there is going to be a heck of a lot of courting going on in the CK, with people rejecting their spouses. Where do these rejected people go? How do they meet new people to marry? Is there any doctrine regarding this situation?

I suspect the answer is the same for other people who have not been baptized or sealed, i.e., that during the millennium all of the work will be completed. But what do these souls do in the meantime?

(I have to laugh, because my scenario reminds me of a singles ward. )

Elphaba

Yes, a singles ward with plenty of singles dances and firesides.

:)

[pam]

As for the McConkie quote that Hemi provided . . . I'm bewildered by it, frankly. I've never heard anything like it before.

Okay so it wasn't just me. I could accept your answer but then I read that and thought...wait..doesn't that contradict a bit. Thanks everyone for answering my question.

[MobyMule]

Just to clarify, I was replying to Nick.

As for the McConkie quote that Hemi provided . . . I'm bewildered by it, frankly. I've never heard anything like it before.

Sure, it's marriage . . . sealing . . . whatever you want to call it. But the crux of the matter is (as I understand it) it takes place before the resurrection.

I would think before the final resurrection before the Judgement. If it was before the 1st then all the work could not be done during the millenium could it.