Marriage In Heaven Disproved

[prisonchaplain]

I wasn't born evangelical, but I've never believed this either. I was brought up in a UCC church, and I always heard that no one is married in Heaven.

Interesting, because the UCC is about as liberal (progressive, easy-going, define it as you will) and open-minded group as you can get, within Christianity.

And just because you belong to a certain church, it doesn't mean that you can't disagree with some ideas and think freely.

I've sure seen that here, and in my church, and yes, I'm sure it was so in the churches you've been around. I asked Outshine the question because marriage-continuing-in-heaven is not the typical question people disagree about. It's not exactly a hot topic outside of LDS circles. So, I found it interesting that he had always believed in eternal marriages.

God gave us our brain for a reason!

Actually, brains are an American Capitalist plot to keep the aspirin industry afloat.

This is one reason why I haven't joined another church since leaving Mormonism. I have issues with every church out there. I have finally realized that I don't HAVE to agree with everything. There are churches that don't pretend to know everything about everything, and they allow members to come to their own conclusions.

I would just suggest that you seek God about where you belong, because you do belong somewhere. The love of God is meant to be lived out in faith community. We are to love another. If we can't love each other, whom we can see, how can we say we love God, whom we cannot see (rough paraphrase of 1 John 4:7-8). So: Get thee to a church soon, my sister.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Answer: None. No good angel would be caught dancing. You don't know what kind of fleshly sinfulness that might lead to!

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

I wasn't born evangelical, but I've never believed this either. I was brought up in a UCC church, and I always heard that no one is married in Heaven.

Interesting, because the UCC is about as liberal (progressive, easy-going, define it as you will) and open-minded group as you can get, within Christianity.

Yes, I realize that, and I'm not sure what they officially taught. Actually, I'm not sure if I ever heard anything of it at church. I was still young when my family stopped attending any church.

I think that I always heard that there was no marriage in heaven from my mother, who was brought up Catholic.

You're right... especially since I now have a child. Just since you said so, I will get myself to a church this Sunday! I think I know which one I will visit. Thanks for the kick in the butt.

[prisonchaplain]

You're right... especially since I now have a child. Just since you said so, I will get myself to a church this Sunday! I think I know which one I will visit. Thanks for the kick in the butt.

That's the old-fashioned fundamentalist side of me...scaring the out of her

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

You're right... especially since I now have a child. Just since you said so, I will get myself to a church this Sunday! I think I know which one I will visit. Thanks for the kick in the butt.

That's the old-fashioned fundamentalist side of me...scaring the out of her

You crazy preacher-types!

[krowe]

I have a question. Those of you who are not LDS, do you believe the bible to be absolutely correct and complete in every way? Is there room for revelation? Interpretation or the possibility that not everything in it is translated correctly? I'm not asking to start anything. I actually don't know, having been LDS my whole life, I'm not sure how other religious people view the bible and ALL of it's passages.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

You're right... especially since I now have a child. Just since you said so, I will get myself to a church this Sunday! I think I know which one I will visit. Thanks for the kick in the butt.

That's the old-fashioned fundamentalist side of me...scaring the out of her

Good going, pc. We can try to teach her the truth later. :)

And btw, shanstress, for future reference, just try to keep in your mind the idea that everybody can't be right about everything if we all teach conflicting doctrine, but with God we can know the truth of all things, since God can teach us the truth.

Heh, there, just for good measure. :)

[Outshined]

Okay, we're both wrong. #1 & #3 are about eternal marriage. I responded to the first, since it was more detailed. #2 is about lotteries, which through me off.

Scroll down; number 2 discusses eternal marriage in the second question.

Even when I was an Evangelical, I never believed that God dissolves our marriages upon death, and the Bible does not say that He does, which is quite plain and obvious to me.

I'm curious about this. Why didn't you? Gut instinct? I don't think any evangelical churches teach that marriage continues after death.

True they do not, but the independent thinker in me reasoned that it was not logical for God to ask me to be faithful to a woman for life, only to dissolve the marriage upon death. One of the small things that made me question what I believed in until I found the Church that was right for me.

BTW, Outshine, just check out your website. You served in Korea? For how long and where? I spent 6.5 years in God's Army (missionary work), mostly in Taejon.

Looks like we're all more connected than we thought, eh?

I spent a little over a year at Camp Casey (at Tongduchon), 1986-1987. Beautiful country. :) Hope you enjoyed my web site!

[Cal]

My conclusion: Mormons take great pride and confidence in their stance that "families are forever." In a sense, much of the appeal of the faith rests on this notion. And, true to the first argument, faithful LDS adherents are unlikely to be moved by Protestant interpretations, no matter how plain and obvious they seem to us. On the other hand, those that wish to attract non-LDS to this teaching--perhaps as a bridge to faith in the Church and the LDS plan of salvation, will indeed need to convince reticent investigators that the Bible alone, at least more likely than not SUPPORTS (as opposed to merely not likely contradicts) eternal marriage.

Since this thread is on the general topic of the Mormon doctrine of "families are forever", could someone point out to me any scripture that says that only Mormon families are forever? Not by inference, but plainly and unambiguously stated.

[Ray]

Keep thinking, Cal. The word “Mormon” is a relatively new word or name to us, so it stands to reason that not all of the people in heaven will be “Mormons”.

But it should be evident that not everybody will continue to be married for no reason other than because they think they will be.

Or in other words, the idea that I will be married in heaven simply because I want to be, and the spouse I have also wants to be, does not mean that we will be married in heaven for no reason other than because we want to be.

[prisonchaplain]

I have a question. Those of you who are not LDS, do you believe the bible to be absolutely correct and complete in every way? Is there room for revelation? Interpretation or the possibility that not everything in it is translated correctly? I'm not asking to start anything. I actually don't know, having been LDS my whole life, I'm not sure how other religious people view the bible and ALL of it's passages.

Rather than give you technical, theological verbage, I'll just say that those of us who call ourselves evangelical believe that the Bible is correct, and that accusations of contradiction quite often highlight paradoxes, and in some cases a lack of knowledge on our part.

We believe that most translations are accurate, and that the areas of disagreement are so few and so doctrinally insignificant, that yes, we can read and study them with confidence.

Is the Bible complete in every way? Well, that's frankly a "Mormon" question. Most Christians believe that the Bible is all that God has for us in written form.

There are differences of opinion about modern revelation, with fundamentalists saying that there is no further revelation needed after the Bible and Pentecostals/Charismatics saying that modern revelation continues today, but that all such occurances must be subordinate to the Holy Bible.

Finally, of course there is some room for interpretation, which is why there are different denominations. However, there is incredible agreement on major doctrines, and to be very rough with my estimate here, I'd suggest that 90% of Christians agree with 90% of what other Christians teach. In other words, for all the diffeent denominations, our disagreements really aren't so many. Most of us consider each other to be brothers/sisters in Christ.

Scroll down; number 2 discusses eternal marriage in the second question.

Okay, you caught me doing my scan-reading. Mea culpa.

the independent thinker in me reasoned that it was not logical for God to ask me to be faithful to a woman for life, only to dissolve the marriage upon death. One of the small things that made me question what I believed in until I found the Church that was right for me.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer. Quite frankly, I can see where several LDS teachngs would have general appeal on a gut-level.

I spent a little over a year at Camp Casey (at Tongduchon), 1986-1987. Beautiful country. :) Hope you enjoyed my web site!

You left when I came. Had you heard of Shalom House? They ran an inexpensive school for the children of military couples (Casey was for unaccompanied tours only, I believe). I used to visit the Shalom House, and attended a few services as Stone Chapel.

[shanstress70]

I have a question. Those of you who are not LDS, do you believe the bible to be absolutely correct and complete in every way? Is there room for revelation? Interpretation or the possibility that not everything in it is translated correctly? I'm not asking to start anything. I actually don't know, having been LDS my whole life, I'm not sure how other religious people view the bible and ALL of it's passages.

I do not believe that the Bible is correct and complete in every way. It is written by man, and translated so many times. When I say this about the Bible, I'm not saying I don't trust what Jesus said to be true... I'm saying I don't trust the men who wrote it. But I would consider myself a liberal protestant... we have 'wiggle room'! :)

[Christos]

I have a question. Those of you who are not LDS, do you believe the bible to be absolutely correct and complete in every way? Is there room for revelation? Interpretation or the possibility that not everything in it is translated correctly? I'm not asking to start anything. I actually don't know, having been LDS my whole life, I'm not sure how other religious people view the bible and ALL of it's passages.

I do believe the Bible to be true.

I also believe that the Bible should consist also of the Apocrypha, biblical texts that were found some centuries later, like (my two favourite books of wisdom) Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Solomon, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (Song of Songs)

Though written by man they writings are not false. As our God is not one of deception.

As for the many hundreds of translations, they don't really fit into the equation. If you must you could read the Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic but till I learn those languages I will stick with my collection of English Bibles.

Though I love the K.J.V. I do not believe it was sent down from heaven hanging on a piece of string, it is just another revision of William Tyndales Bible (1535) which is a revision of the Wycliffe bible of 1391. Both of these men were martyred for their translations though a few years later than the Tyndale Henry VIII ordered "The Great Bible" which was attached to church pulpits so that literate English people could read God's word for the first time. The bible was now able to be read to the masses. The King James is a relatively modern version (1611) and it is written in an archaic style even for that period. In the south of England people weren't using Thou and Thee much any more, "You" had taken over....though it was still being used in the north of England into the 1960's .

I cross reference my bibles, I use the New Living Translation for just reading, the King James for reading/studying and when I am studying properly I use:

King James Version

Young's Literal Translation

New International Version

New Revised Standard Version

and some others (which I get off the internet when I need them).

I do not accept the B.O.M. and the assocaited scriptures for the reason stated in Galatians 1:6-9.

One day I will buy a small pocket sized apocrypha, the only bible I have with it in is a HUGE K.J.V. which I can hardly lift it is so heavy.

[Cal]

Keep thinking, Cal. The word “Mormon” is a relatively new word or name to us, so it stands to reason that not all of the people in heaven will be “Mormons”.

But it should be evident that not everybody will continue to be married for no reason other than because they think they will be.

Or in other words, the idea that I will be married in heaven simply because I want to be, and the spouse I have also wants to be, does not mean that we will be married in heaven for no reason other than because we want to be.

Ray,

I don't think I mentioned the word "married", Mormons talk as though only Mormon families can be together in the hearafter. I want to know what scripture that is based on. I said nothing about being married.

Or in other words, the idea that I will be married in heaven simply because I want to be, and the spouse I have also wants to be, does not mean that we will be married in heaven for no reason other than because we want to be.

I agree, simply wanting something hardly guarantees anything. By the way, how do Mormons distinguish between their "wanting" and non-Mormon "wanting"?

[Outshined]

I do not accept the B.O.M. and the assocaited scriptures for the reason stated in Galatians 1:6-9.

What does the BOM have to do with circumcision, which is the subject of Galatians chapter 1?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...rent_gospel.htm

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

I do not accept the B.O.M. and the assocaited scriptures for the reason stated in Galatians 1:6-9.

What does the BOM have to do with circumcision, which is the subject of Galatians chapter 1?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...rent_gospel.htm

Why does this issue keep coming up between LDS and other Christians, but not between say Pentecostals and Baptists? The answer lies in a clip from Outshines citation:

A typical response to this accusation is that Latter-day Saints do not teach a different Gospel than was preached by the ancient apostles--it is the various [non-LDS] Christian sects who do.

Stated another way, non-LDS perceive Mormons to says, "We're good enough to be called Christians, just like you, but you are not good enough to be part of restored Christianity, like we are." Then, "Why do you keep picking on us, attacking our church, etc.?"

Perhaps the "us vs. them" mentality is both a legitimate theological discussion (so let's quit stressing about the fact that we disagree, and get to the why), and there is a cycle of mistrust/miscommunication etc. that both sides tend to feed.

I've enjoyed ldstalk because, despite the occasional tit for tat between individual posters, there seems to be a true hunger for intelligent spiritual conversation here of a type that is often difficult in "real life."

[Outshined]

Why does this issue keep coming up between LDS and other Christians, but not between say Pentecostals and Baptists?

I'd say in this case because it's an example of misinterpreting a Bible passage in attempt to attack the beliefs of another church, or at least "prove" that it is false.

Galatians is not talking about a different church, let alone the LDS Church, but about circumcision.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

I have a question. Those of you who are not LDS, do you believe the bible to be absolutely correct and complete in every way? Is there room for revelation? Interpretation or the possibility that not everything in it is translated correctly? I'm not asking to start anything. I actually don't know, having been LDS my whole life, I'm not sure how other religious people view the bible and ALL of it's passages.

I do believe the Bible to be true.

I also believe that the Bible should consist also of the Apocrypha, biblical texts that were found some centuries later, like (my two favourite books of wisdom) Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Solomon, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (Song of Songs)

Though written by man they writings are not false. As our God is not one of deception.

As for the many hundreds of translations, they don't really fit into the equation. If you must you could read the Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic but till I learn those languages I will stick with my collection of English Bibles.

Though I love the K.J.V. I do not believe it was sent down from heaven hanging on a piece of string, it is just another revision of William Tyndales Bible (1535) which is a revision of the Wycliffe bible of 1391. Both of these men were martyred for their translations though a few years later than the Tyndale Henry VIII ordered "The Great Bible" which was attached to church pulpits so that literate English people could read God's word for the first time. The bible was now able to be read to the masses. The King James is a relatively modern version (1611) and it is written in an archaic style even for that period. In the south of England people weren't using Thou and Thee much any more, "You" had taken over....though it was still being used in the north of England into the 1960's .

I cross reference my bibles, I use the New Living Translation for just reading, the King James for reading/studying and when I am studying properly I use:

King James Version

Young's Literal Translation

New International Version

New Revised Standard Version

and some others (which I get off the internet when I need them).

I do not accept the B.O.M. and the assocaited scriptures for the reason stated in Galatians 1:6-9.

One day I will buy a small pocket sized apocrypha, the only bible I have with it in is a HUGE K.J.V. which I can hardly lift it is so heavy.

We believe the Bible to be TRUE as far as it is translated correctly.....no one said the Bible was false.....

[prisonchaplain]

I'd say in this case because it's an example of misinterpreting a Bible passage in attempt to attack the beliefs of another church, or at least "prove" that it is false.

Galatians is not talking about a different church, let alone the LDS Church, but about circumcision.

Of course, that is the specific context of the problem in the Galatian church. However, we believe the truths of the Bible are for God's people today, as well. So the principle of not accepting another gospel is not restricted to circumcision. At what point do different teachings become "another gospel?" Well now, that's the issue to address when critics bring up this verse.

[Outshined]

Of course, that is the specific context of the problem in the Galatian church. However, we believe the truths of the Bible are for God's people today, as well. So the principle of not accepting another gospel is not restricted to circumcision. At what point do different teachings become "another gospel?" Well now, that's the issue to address when critics bring up this verse.

Absolutely; I believe it is stretching it to say the LDS Church presents "another gospel", though, especially when there is such variation among mainstream denominations. That's why I posted the link above, to shed more light on the subject.

[shanstress70]

I would just suggest that you seek God about where you belong, because you do belong somewhere. The love of God is meant to be lived out in faith community. We are to love another. If we can't love each other, whom we can see, how can we say we love God, whom we cannot see (rough paraphrase of 1 John 4:7-8). So: Get thee to a church soon, my sister.

Hi PC,

I visited a church today that I really enjoyed and felt comfortable at. You have no idea how many I have visited and just didn't feel right about. This was an Episcopal church, and I think it may be my new home! It appealed to my Catholic background, but without the negatives that I associate with Catholicism.

They are having a Faith and Science class tonight that sounds like it will have some interesting discussion. Hopefully I will be able to make that.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi PC,

I visited a church today that I really enjoyed and felt comfortable at. You have no idea how many I have visited and just didn't feel right about. This was an Episcopal church, and I think it may be my new home! It appealed to my Catholic background, but without the negatives that I associate with Catholicism.

They are having a Faith and Science class tonight that sounds like it will have some interesting discussion. Hopefully I will be able to make that.

Two things I know about the Episcopal Church--there is a wide variety of acceptable "streams" with it--from so-called liberal to more traditional. Also, in the Seattle area, it was an Episcopal church that first embraced the Charismatic Renewal, back in the 1950s I believe. So, if you want an intelligent, spiritual communion, that occasionally "rocks" you may indeed have found your home.

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

Hi PC,

I visited a church today that I really enjoyed and felt comfortable at. You have no idea how many I have visited and just didn't feel right about. This was an Episcopal church, and I think it may be my new home! It appealed to my Catholic background, but without the negatives that I associate with Catholicism.

They are having a Faith and Science class tonight that sounds like it will have some interesting discussion. Hopefully I will be able to make that.

Two things I know about the Episcopal Church--there is a wide variety of acceptable "streams" with it--from so-called liberal to more traditional. Also, in the Seattle area, it was an Episcopal church that first embraced the Charismatic Renewal, back in the 1950s I believe. So, if you want an intelligent, spiritual communion, that occasionally "rocks" you may indeed have found your home.

I think this is a more liberal one, as the Rector is a female - Mother Diane - who served as Chair of the Board of Directors of People of Faith Against the Death Penalty. Having been just once though, I don't truly have a feel for it yet.

They have a wonderful childrens and youth program, which was tops on my criteria.

Isn't there a bit of contention in the denomination about allowing the gay clergy member a while back? I wonder where this church stands on that? I will be meeting with the Rector one day this week and will try to find out.

Also, something I'd like to check out is their 'Unplugged' service which may include African music, a jazz mass, skits, dance, Taize music, etc. Sounds kinda cool!

[Ray]

I don't think I mentioned the word "married", Mormons talk as though only Mormon families can be together in the hereafter. I want to know what scripture that is based on. I said nothing about being married.

Would you rephrase your question, Cal? If you’re not talking about marriage and how people can be associated together in “families”, as we are now, what are you talking about, or how else could people be together, aside from being members of one huge family with God in His role as our Father… and btw, we [LDS] also believe that will or at least can continue, along with the other associations He has given or will give us now.

By the way, how do Mormons distinguish between their "wanting" and non-Mormon "wanting"?

Heh, I suppose the “wanting” is pretty much the same, but to achieve something good we need help from our Father.

[matilda]

Hello, I am new here and have been reading this thread. I am LDS and would like to say a few things.

First the word mormon is really used by those that are not LDS it is a nickname nonmembers have given us. There are times that inactive members will refer to themselves as a "jackmormon" but most all active members refer to themselves as a Latter Day Saint-LDS.

Also when say that we take pride and confidence I think that is what some think of us. I don't think we as members really think that way remember when looking into a candy store it looks much different then when your the store. Perception always gets in the way.

I am married and was married in the SL Temple. We see ourselves as it was stated "married for time and all eternity", not death do you part. If anything it makes us strive harder when times get tuff between us even the thought of us being together forever really does help you work on our marriage. We are also a forever family because my daughter was adopted and we took her to the temple and were sealed together as a forever family in the Temple.

It isn't any arrogance or thinking that we are better than others it is just simple our believe. We (my husband and I) were taught that there is a way to be together in the hereafter and we believe it. We have faith in it. We try and strive every day to live so we will be together always. Believe me I know it just isn't because we were married in the temple guarantees we will be together it is that we went to the temple to show our faith and now we try to live it everyday.

Being new here I am sure you have heard to some extence what I have written but I just felt like saying how I see things.

And by the way when it comes to other religions I feel the same about theirs I am looking in the candy store and not in it so I don't know what it's like. remember I'm a newbiee