Why must we be married to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom?


pipeorgan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Marriage is the purpose to why we were designed. The first marriage took place before the fall and was eternal from the very beginning. God is without end because his seed is continued throughout all eternity. Marriage in the temple does not guarantee automated access to an exalted life. Exaltation in the highest order is achieved when it has been sealed apon by the Holy Spirit of promise and both individuals live in obedience to the new and ever lasting covenant. If the covenant is broken they may still be exhalted but will be left to the buffetings of Satan while still in the flesh. The covenant is exclusive between a Man and a Women. Thoes void of the opportunity in this life will be given it in the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just don't understand why this is a requirement.  Why isn't our own righteousness and relationship with God the determining factor?  

 

The answer to this question requires that you understand some foundational principles. First, you must know that we came to earth because we desired to be like Heavenly Father. God wants us to enjoy the type of life He enjoys. You must know this truth that God is interested in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

If God wants you to enjoy immortality and eternal life, then you need to understand what eternal life is. The scriptures teach that eternal life can also be understood to mean God's life, since one of God's name is Eternal. Eternal life, or eternal lives, is the continuation of life forever. Only when a man and a woman are united can there be eternal life or eternal lives. The principle of life and thus eternal life is found in the union of a man and woman. They are to become one.

 

The reason why marriage or being sealed to a spouse is required for Eternal Life is because there is no other way to enjoy Eternal Life. A man alone cannot enjoy eternal life; it is impossible. A woman alone cannot enjoy eternal life; it is impossible. Man and woman, male and female must be united as One to enjoy eternal life. It is like the spirit and body. Neither can enjoy exaltation alone. Our spirit and body must be united as one before we can enjoy exaltation.

 

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which definition is that?

 

There is no God without a Goddess. There is no Heavenly Father without a Heavenly Mother. Godhood, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at its basic level, requires that a male and a female be united, or sealed. God is therefore by definition, both male and female.

 

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no God without a Goddess. There is no Heavenly Father without a Heavenly Mother. Godhood, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at its basic level, requires that a male and a female be united, or sealed. God is therefore by definition, both male and female.

 

Personally, I have never used this definition of God in prayer or missionary teaching. I don't believe I have ever heard it used in General Conference before, though I might be wrong.

 

We can define the word "God" to mean anything we want, but it's only a useful definition if it reflects reality. Women can gain exaltation? Check. "God" means exalted man? Check. "God" therefore means exalted man and exalted woman? Mmmmm..not check. At best, this is a non-standard definition. At worst, it marks us in the minds of many as a polytheistic goddess cult. I see no useful purpose in introducing such potential for confusion.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I have never used this definition of God in prayer or missionary teaching. I don't believe I have ever heard it used in General Conference before, though I might be wrong.

 

We can define the word "God" to mean anything we want, but it's only a useful definition if it reflects reality. Women can gain exaltation? Check. "God" means exalted man? Check. "God" therefore means exalted man and exalted woman? Mmmmm..not check. At best, this is a non-standard definition. At worst, it marks us in the minds of many as a polytheistic goddess cult. I see no useful purpose in introducing such potential for confusion.

Its the same confusion that exists over the Trinity, how can there be one God and three individuals.  Because we believe they are three individuals, does that make us a polytheistic cult?

 

If we already accept the idea there are three individuals that make up the Godhead and therefore one God then it wouldn't be too confusing to suggest that God the Father could be one with His wife, at least not any more confusing than the Trinity discusion.

 

The "purpose" in saying such a thing, if there is a purpose, could be to proclaim that all of Heavenly Father's children have the potential to be like Him, not just the men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "purpose" in saying such a thing, if there is a purpose, could be to proclaim that all of Heavenly Father's children have the potential to be like Him, not just the men.

 

Then such a proclamation must come from those with authority to speak for God, and not from individuals grinding their own axes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "purpose" in saying such a thing, if there is a purpose, could be to proclaim that all of Heavenly Father's children have the potential to be like Him, not just the men.

 

Wouldn't simply saying "all of Heavenly Father's children have the potential to be like Him, not just the men" be sufficient to make this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then such a proclamation must come from those with authority to speak for God, and not from individuals grinding their own axes.

Gospel Principles Chapter 2; "Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy."

 

What axe are you talking about?

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gospel Principles Chapter 2; "Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy."

 

What axe are you talking about?

 

I am speaking of the "axe" ground by those who want to remake the kingdom of God in their own image, who want to change both the doctrine and the way it is taught to emphasize some gospel aspect they personally find important -- what President Joseph F. Smith called "gospel hobby horses".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am speaking of the "axe" ground by those who want to remake the kingdom of God in their own image, who want to change both the doctrine and the way it is taught to emphasize some gospel aspect they personally find important -- what President Joseph F. Smith called "gospel hobby horses".

For me, it would be a "change both (in) the doctrine and the way it is taught" to say that women cannot become like our Heavenly Father.  At least that is the way I have been taught and understand the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it would be a "change both (in) the doctrine and the way it is taught" to say that women cannot become like our Heavenly Father.  At least that is the way I have been taught and understand the gospel.

 

Um...what?

 

Who's saying that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it would be a "change both (in) the doctrine and the way it is taught" to say that women cannot become like our Heavenly Father.  At least that is the way I have been taught and understand the gospel.

 

But no one is arguing that, SS. Remember, my objection was to Finrock's definition of "God" as "both male and female". I know of no such approved definition of God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Note that I did not intend to accuse Finrock of being among "those who want to remake the kingdom of God in their own image." But I do think that important terms should be used carefully, either adhering to the commonly understood or "official" definitions, or else having pointed out very clearly that their usage in this case is non-standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

such a proclamation must come from those with authority to speak for God, and not from individuals grinding their own axes.

here is what Jesus said: 

 

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others — and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

(Matthew 19:10-12) 

if He said some take up chastity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, who has authority to say the chaste cannot enter in? 

was Paul wrong? will Paul not enter the kingdom? 

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 

(1 Corinthians 7:8) 

you will say, "to be celibate as Jesus spoke does not mean to be unmarried" - but the context of His words are certainly in a conversation about marriage and divorce, and He is replying to the disciples comment about being unmarried. also if we accept that Paul is appointed an apostle by the Lord - Paul says this: 

Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

(1 Corinthians 7:5) 

you will also say that to be celibate and unmarried, like an eunuch, will mean that you earn a lesser reward in heaven - but if that is so, why does Jesus speaking about celibacy say "the one who can receive this should receive it?" and why does His apostle say "it is good" ? 

who has authority to change what Jesus says? do His words pass away? 

 

Edited by intra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no God without a Goddess. There is no Heavenly Father without a Heavenly Mother. 

-Finrock

my, mr. Finrock is very bold to say this, knowing how great God's wrath with with Israel when they thought to join Him with their Ashereh ! 

Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him.

(1 Kings 16:33) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the particular sentences you quote, Finrock is absolutely correct. Whatever you may think and however you may interpret (or misinterpret) the scriptures, the very existence of a Man of Holiness necessarily implies the existence of a Woman of Holiness. She is not God; we do not worship her; and in fact we know almost nothing about her, save that she exists. But that she exists is clear, and that she is of equal perfection and glory with God has been confirmed by latter-day prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the particular sentences you quote, Finrock is absolutely correct. Whatever you may think and however you may interpret (or misinterpret) the scriptures, the very existence of a Man of Holiness necessarily implies the existence of a Woman of Holiness. She is not God; we do not worship her; and in fact we know almost nothing about her, save that she exists. But that she exists is clear, and that she is of equal perfection and glory with God has been confirmed by latter-day prophets.

who is Mary? 

and who is Israel? 

 Israel, I will make you my wife; I will be true and faithful;

I will show you constant love and mercy and make you mine forever.

(Hosea 2:9) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is Mary?

 

Biblically speaking:

  • The mother of Jesus Christ
  • The sister of Martha and Lazarus
  • A woman of Magdala
  • Several other women mentioned in the New Testament
  • The sister of Moses (though her name is usually rendered as the Hebrew-derived Miriam).
 

and who is Israel?

 

  • Jacob, the son of Isaac
  • The land where Jacob lived, covenanted to his descendants
  • Jacob's descendants
  • The covenant people of Jehovah

 

what does Finrock think of Isaiah? 

Remember the former things, those of long ago;

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

(Isaiah 46:9) 

 

I can't speak for Finrock, but I expect he believes it.

 

None of the above have the least thing to do with what I wrote before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my, mr. Finrock is very bold to say this, knowing how great God's wrath with with Israel when they thought to join Him with their Ashereh ! 

Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him.

(1 Kings 16:33) 

 

It is incorrect to suggest that Israel "thought to join [God] with their Ashereh".  In verse 32 reference is made to Ahab's constructing an altar for Baal.  Asherah was seen as a consort for Baal (the worship of whom was supplanting YHWH), not for YHWH Himself.

 

You should also be aware that in ancient times, a variety of near-Eastern cultures saw trees and flowers as a symbol of a female diety who was consort to the head god (regardless of whatever name these cultures happened to attribute to their gods), and the interior of the Holy Place in Solomon's Temple included images of both as part of the decor (see 1 Kings 6).  This has led a number of scholars to conclude that ancient Hebrews did recognize the possibility of a feminine consort for YHWH.

 

 

what does Finrock think of Isaiah? 

Remember the former things, those of long ago;

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

(Isaiah 46:9) 

 

 Israel, I will make you my wife; I will be true and faithful;

I will show you constant love and mercy and make you mine forever.

(Hosea 2:9) 

 

 

I, for one, think both of these passages are figurative.  What do you think of the scene in Kindergarten Cop where a frustrated Arnold Schwarzeneggar hollers at his kindergartners that "There IS NO BATHROOM!"?   And does a person who we deem to be "married to his work", necessarily not have an actual literal wife waiting for him at home? 

 

Both verses are geared towards making a larger point--Isaiah, that backsliding Israel should act as though the pagan gods of their neighbors didn't exist (as, in fact, they didn't--c.f. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6); and Hosea, that God's love for and devotion for Israel (and the love and devotion He expects in return) is similar to that which a man has for his wife.  Neither are intended as an exposition on the nature of the Godhead/Trinity, and/or the potential relationship that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost might have with other heavenly beings.  Of course, within a few centuries Jews in the Roman era were reading these passages much as you do; and their insistence that there could be only one god--to the exclusion of anyone other individual in heaven or on earth who might claim the title--was, to a very great degree, why they felt scripturally compelled to reject the claims of an itinerant carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashereh was called the wife of many gods. of all the Ba'als, of Molech, and of many others. all of the pagan people around Israel joined her to their gods. there is abundant archaeological evidence that Israel also added her to a pantheon, and abundant scriptural evidence of the same, and that this angered the Lord very much.

unbelievers point at this and say that Israel was not monotheistic, but they neglect that their prophets warned them against taking up foreign gods again and again, and through the prophets the Lord chastised them severely for doing so. finding in the archaeological record that Israel was unfaithful to YHWH is confirmation that the book is true. 




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 their insistence that there could be only one god--to the exclusion of anyone other individual in heaven or on earth who might claim the title--was, to a very great degree, why they felt scripturally compelled to reject the claims of an itinerant carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth.

indeed Christ was crucified under the charge that He made Himself equal with the Father, and He did not deny it. neither did He say that there is any other God but one -- He said "I and the Father are one" and "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." He affirmed that the greatest commandment of the Law is to love the Father with everything, and He also accepted worship - a thing that not even any angel dare to do. 

Jewish othodoxy's insistence that there is only one God isn't because of slantwise interpretation, but it is plainly said many times. it is not a single or a couple of times in some parable, but throughout. here are just a handful, though there are many more scriptures: 

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God;

there is none else beside him.

(Deuteronomy 4:35) 

Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

(2 Samuel 7:22) 

Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

(Nehemiah 9:6) 

For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

(Psalm 86:10) 

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

(Isaiah 44:6) 

And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else.

(Joel 2:27) 

now, we might ask, how did Christ's apostles understand this? 

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) 

Paul recognizes only one God - and quotes the old testament doing so, demonstrating that he also interprets this the same way that the Pharisees do, and that he doesn't take it as poetic license, but the truth.

James agrees: 

You believe that God is one; you do well.

(James 2:19) 

more importantly than this, though, is what did Jesus say? for He is the foundation of all our faith: 

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.

“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of God. And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

(Mark 12:28-34) 

Here Jesus affirms the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and approves this teacher of the law's monotheistic interpretation. 

who am i to contradict the Christ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who am i to contradict the Christ? 

 

Yes, that's my question, too.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice that this particular forum is called "LDS Gospel Discussion". It's not "Comparative Religious Discussion" or "Discussion of Religion Based on Whichever Christian Sect You Happen to Belong to". The restored gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is discussed here.

 

I am not a moderator, nor am I the gatekeeper of proper usage of these forums. But in my opinion, your private insights in contradiction to clear LDS doctrine, while perhaps welcome in other forums on this site, are out of place in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's my question, too.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice that this particular forum is called "LDS Gospel Discussion". It's not "Comparative Religious Discussion" or "Discussion of Religion Based on Whichever Christian Sect You Happen to Belong to". The restored gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is discussed here.

 

I am not a moderator, nor am I the gatekeeper of proper usage of these forums. But in my opinion, your private insights in contradiction to clear LDS doctrine, while perhaps welcome in other forums on this site, are out of place in this one.

i'm sorry that you feel this way, but i am not giving private interpretations or the tenets of any human sect -- but quoting directly from scripture, the very same that the LDS affirms is the Word of God.

if indeed this is all quoted from what was given to men by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and what you believe is also, then surely it can be reconciled. 

as you say, it is not human opinion, but the truth of God as revealed in the testimony of these scriptures, and the words of Jesus Christ Himself, that matter. 

if the interpretation is incorrect - by the understanding given by God's Spirit we may be corrected. but if it is the plain scripture you object to, it is not me with whom you have an argument. 

"let God be true and every man a liar

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm sorry that you feel this way, but i am not giving private interpretations or the tenets of any human sect -- but quoting directly from scripture, the very same that the LDS affirms is the Word of God.

 

 

Please, don't be naive or disingenuous. The fact that you gloss a scripture a certain way does not establish that meaning as true.

 

For example, in an effort to "disprove" the idea of God having a wife, you included scriptures talking about the Church as Christ's bride. This is beyond absurd. No reasonable and intelligent person (without an axe to grind) would ever suggest that the Church was somehow literally God's bride. Does the Church cook God's meals? Does the Church have sex with God? These are the things that brides do with their husbands. I am confident that you know perfectly well what a figure of speech is, yet you inappropriately use a figure of speech in a silly attempt to disprove a doctrine -- and a true doctrine at that.

 

Bottom line: Your interpretation of God's word does not establish the actual meaning of God's word in the minds of anyone except yourself, so don't pretend it does.

 

You are welcome to express your opinions in the appropriate places. There is room for them, even on this site. But they do not belong on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share