I can think of only 2 reasons why men would want polygamy

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

It's just a whole confusing practice that I wish the church never got involved in.

 It is dude, but you really need to get over it and move on. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you need to make the conscious choice to stop worrying and thinking about it and being to move on. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

" 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."-Mark 22:23-30 KJV

This sounds like Jesus is saying there won't be marriage after this life.

Please correct me if I'm wrong

As a copyright holder to my own posts, I hereby grant to me permission to quote myself:

Quote

Assuming you are referring to Matthew 22:30: Mormons would say that yes, you're misinterpreting it.

The key here is that Jesus is replying to a question that was posed by the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection and who had framed the question as a deliberate attempt to mock the whole idea. Jesus' reply is geared towards defending the reality of the resurrection, not with describing whether or how marital relationships operate after the resurrection. Verse 30 is textually accurate in that there are no marital rites performed during the resurrection and that any questions as to who shall be married to whom will have been resolved by that point; but we don't read it as stating that previously-created marital relationships are bound to dissolve. The thrust of Jesus' answer, and what silences the Sadducees and is the reason Matthew and other Gospel writers think it noteworthy, is His affirmation of the resurrection in verses 31-32--of which He Himself will provide irrefutable proof less than two weeks later.

 

[Larry Cotrell]

Yes, I did mean Matthew and wrote Mark by mistake.

So then my question to you is: Who would she be married to in heaven? Only the first? All seven?

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Yes, I did mean Matthew and wrote Mark by mistake.

So then my question to you is: Who would she be married to in heaven? Only the first? All seven?

The whole point of levirate marriage under Mosaic law, was to raise up seed to the first husband.  Thus, I think the conventional LDS answer would be that--assuming the first husband and the wife were true to their marital covenants--it would be the marriage to the first husband that would be deemed eternal in its nature.  LDS author (and apostle) James Talmage was of this view; and in passing it may be interesting to note that even the Sadducees--who adamantly denied the possibility of a resurrection--understood that if there were such a thing as an embodied afterlife, it would be only natural for marriages formed in life to continue into that state.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Larry Cotrell]

You are taking Jesus out of context when you say that what Jesus meant is that there will be no marital rites preformed in heaven. If Jesus had meant that, it would not have answered the Pharisees' question. The Pharisees did not ask if people will be married (in the sense of going through marriage ceremonies etc.) in heaven. They asked which of the marriages, if any, will continue into heaven. His answer was that there is no marriage in heaven. God created marriage so that man would have a companion (Genesis 2:18) but Revelation 7:9 says we will be surrounded by believers and angels. We will no longer need a spouse as our companion. We will have the best companion, God Himself.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

It's just a whole confusing practice that I wish the church never got involved in.

Dude...  grow up... and quit expecting things to be handed to you on a silver platter...    Quit expecting God to crack open your skull and pour in knowledge when you have not done the work to earn it.  You want to know the "mysteries of God" well the price of that is months, years, and lifetimes of fasting, prayer, scripture study and struggle. 

 

A few days or even weeks of rummaging the sewer of the internet is not only the wrong place is it not nearly enough time.  Quit deluding yourself in thinking that you have done nearly enough prayer, scripture study, and fasting to understand why God does what he does.

 

 

 

[Larry Cotrell]

18 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Dude...  grow up... and quit expecting things to be handed to you on a silver platter...    Quit expecting God to crack open your skull and pour in knowledge when you have not done the work to earn it.  You want to know the "mysteries of God" well the price of that is months, years, and lifetimes of fasting, prayer, scripture study and struggle. 

 

A few days or even weeks of rummaging the sewer of the internet is not only the wrong place is it not nearly enough time.  Quit deluding yourself in thinking that you have done nearly enough prayer, scripture study, and fasting to understand why God does what he does.

 

 

 

Please don't turn to ad hominem when you don't have a logical answer. I have been studying the scriptures my whole life. You and I have a difference of opinion (probably more than one). Discussing these differences is healthy for both of us. Talking about scripture helps me grow in my faith. I want to know how other people interpret the scriptures. Why else would I be on this forum? Let's learn and grow from discussion with each other rather than simply insulting each other.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Please don't turn to ad hominem when you don't have a logical answer. I have been studying the scriptures my whole life. You and I have a difference of opinion (probably more than one). Discussing these differences is healthy for both of us. Talking about scripture helps me grow in my faith. I want to know how other people interpret the scriptures. Why else would I be on this forum? Let's learn and grow from discussion with each other rather than simply insulting each other.

He didn't direct it towards you, Larry. @Zarahemla is a nice guy but he needs to hear what @estradling75 said. Zarahelma has been obsessed with polygamy to his own detriment.  

[Larry Cotrell]

Okay, I misunderstood the comment. It sounds like you guys know @Zarahemla better than I do. My sincere apologies

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Talking about scripture helps me grow in my faith

Which faith would that be?

 

ps... estradling was talking to someone else

[Larry Cotrell]

I am a follower of Jesus Christ 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Guest]

Perhaps you should stop accusing people of logical fallacies if you insist on being evasive in your own answers. 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Okay, I misunderstood the comment. It sounds like you guys know @Zarahemla better than I do. My sincere apologies

For future reference, when someone quotes another person's post at the beginning of their own post, it can be assumed that they are addressing that person.

[Larry Cotrell]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Perhaps you should stop accusing people of logical fallacies if you insist on being evasive in your own answers. 

 

Okay, point taken. I am an evangelical Christian if you really must know. However I have always been interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am currently reading the Book of Mormon

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Okay, point taken. I am an evangelical Christian if you really must know. However I have always been interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am currently reading the Book of Mormon

Larry, I obviously don't speak for everyone but I hope you stay around and learn more about our church. 

[Larry Cotrell]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Larry, I obviously don't speak for everyone but I hope you stay around and learn more about our church. 

Thank you MormonGator. I love learning about religion and discussing scripture.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

You are taking Jesus out of context when you say that what Jesus meant is that there will be no marital rites preformed in heaven. If Jesus had meant that, it would not have answered the Pharisees' question. The Pharisees did not ask if people will be married (in the sense of going through marriage ceremonies etc.) in heaven. They asked which of the marriages, if any, will continue into heaven. His answer was that there is no marriage in heaven.

Again, we can go back and forth about "context".  You assume that Jesus was taking the Pharisees' question as sincere, and was giving them a straight-up answer.  I suggest that there are all kinds of prejudices and subtexts at play, and that Jesus is more likely to stick to the topic at hand (resurrection) without getting overly bogged down in casting pearls about marriage to swine who were trying to present the doctrine of resurrection as a bad episode of The Bachelor. 

Jesus doesn't say there is no "marriage" in heaven; he says "they are not married" (gameō, associated with males) or "given in marriage" (ekgamizō, associated with females).  The Greek, like the English, is ambiguous as to whether this should be read as an adjective or a participle of a verb (and of course, Jesus was speaking Aramaic, which is something else entirely).

Quote

God created marriage so that man would have a companion (Genesis 2:18) but Revelation 7:9 says we will be surrounded by believers and angels. We will no longer need a spouse as our companion. We will have the best companion, God Himself.

Here's why I think a lot of Mormons would take issue with your point, which (if I understand you correctly) is that marriage's only value is as a symbol of things to come and as a stopgap measure to provide a form of companionship that is otherwise unattainable:

1.  First, a technicality:  Genesis says woman was created to provide companionship to man (a proposition some women I know would take umbrage at, but I digress!).  Marriage, apparently, is something extra; something more.  That said, though:  The thing is, under the system God came up there were many opportunities for companionship--friends, family members, even animals (could God have saved us all a lot of trouble by getting Adam a dog?).  And oddly, the system of marriage God set up (Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:5) seems to encourage men to leave their parents on marriage.  If companionship is the goal, then encouraging men to substitute, rather than supplement, their family circles on marriage, would seem to be counterproductive.  Moreover, if companionship is the primary reason for marriage, then more spouses would offer more companionship; and the Judeo-Christian tradition would be bound to regard bigamy as a good thing at least in aspiration, if not in practice.

2.  With regard to seeing marriage as a sort of divine emblem and earnest of the happiness we anticipate in eternal communion with God:  the thing with that is that the symbolism of a union between Creator and creature would be much more powerfully reinforced by a ritual binding man and child, not man and wife.  And again, if you want to get your symbolism perfectly--the ideal would have to be multiple ritually-joined partners, just as God will save and ultimately be bound to multiple believers.  Monogamy wouldn't really be part of that equation. 

For these reasons, even if you disregarded all of Mormonism's unique teachings about the eternal nature of family relationships many of us would still be inclined to suspect that marriage has an intrinsic value that transcends companionship, transcends symbolism, and is eternal in nature.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Larry Cotrell]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think that our disagreement comes down to the interpretation and context of Matthew 22:30. We will have to agree to disagree on the topic of marriage in the next life.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Please don't turn to ad hominem when you don't have a logical answer. I have been studying the scriptures my whole life. You and I have a difference of opinion (probably more than one). Discussing these differences is healthy for both of us. Talking about scripture helps me grow in my faith. I want to know how other people interpret the scriptures. Why else would I be on this forum? Let's learn and grow from discussion with each other rather than simply insulting each other.

As others have stated I was addressing another poster who has a bit of history in this thread

 

21 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think that our disagreement comes down to the interpretation and context of Matthew 22:30. We will have to agree to disagree on the topic of marriage in the next life.

You will find that a lot of our difference will boil down to that... You aren't the first person to debate that (and others) scripture challenging LDS beliefs... and you aren't the first person we have answered.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think that our disagreement comes down to the interpretation and context of Matthew 22:30. We will have to agree to disagree on the topic of marriage in the next life.

This is not primarily a difference of interpretation of a verse in Matthew. This is primarily a fundamental belief that God has always revealed and will always reveal himself through his servants, the prophets, in our age as well as in times past. Though this is a well-established Biblical doctrine, most self-proclaimed Christians disbelieve it. What choice do they have? They know of no living prophet. But we do. That allows us to have a much better interpretation and understanding of scriptures, whereas others (such as yourself) are left struggling to interpret what an English translation of an nth-generation copy of a scriptural document might have meant.

If you are not LDS, that means you reject (or else have never heard) LDS doctrinal claims. Given that fact, it is hardly surprising that you would disagree with the idea of eternal marriage. But you should understand that this is far deeper than a mere dispute about the interpretation of a verse of scripture. This is a point of revealed truth. It survives or fails based on that idea, and on that idea alone. Scriptural gloss one way or another is irrelevant.

[Larry Cotrell]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is not primarily a difference of interpretation of a verse in Matthew. This is primarily a fundamental belief that God has always revealed and will always reveal himself through his servants, the prophets, in our age as well as in times past. 

Without going into a discussion on the doctrine of modern prophets (I would be happy to discuss this but we are getting off track), I will agree with you in that it opens up a much more general question. I guess what our disagreement really comes down to is that you are viewing this through the lens of Mormon doctrine. But I am looking at precisely what Jesus said. Again, let's agree to disagree on this. The original question was about polygamy which I have already contributed my thoughts on.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Without going into a discussion on the doctrine of modern prophets (I would be happy to discuss this but we are getting off track), I will agree with you in that it opens up a much more general question. I guess what our disagreement really comes down to is that you are viewing this through the lens of Mormon doctrine. But I am looking at precisely what Jesus said. Again, let's agree to disagree on this. The original question was about polygamy which I have already contributed my thoughts on.

This would be an example of you only hearing what you wish to hear due to your biases...  Mormon Doctrine is "looking at precisely what Jesus said"... the only difference is that we have more of what Jesus said, so we have more to look at.

 

 

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I guess what our disagreement really comes down to is that you are viewing this through the lens of Mormon doctrine. But I am looking at precisely what Jesus said.

You are manifestly not "looking at precisely what Jesus said". There is no surviving original Aramaic document of Jesus' autograph or that of a first-hand witness recording these words.

This is the central non-LDS Christian conceit: YOU (LDS) are just looking at what your so-called "prophets" pretended to have heard from God, while WE (sectarian Christians) are looking at the pure, unadulterated words as they spilled from the lips of the Savior himself. This is, of course, nonsense, and in addition, it completely avoids the actual question at the core of the disagreement. However much you may be trying to "look at precisely what Jesus said", the fact remains that if LDS claims to revealed doctrine are true, all of your efforts to interpret Biblical doctrine are not worth the electrons you type them with. (And even if LDS claims are false, that does nothing to establish your own claims. But the truthfulness of the Biblical doctrine of truth always being revealed through prophets, as taught and practiced by Latter-day Saints, is the real issue.)

[Guest]

I'll point out that this section of the forum is "LDS Gospel Discussion"... to me that means this is a place where we discuss and clarify what our doctrine and theology are, not debate about and defend against those who don't believe LDS doctrine. 

There is a section called "Christian Beliefs", which is a great place to talk about your interpretation of the Bible. 

[Larry Cotrell]

30 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I'll point out that this section of the forum is "LDS Gospel Discussion"... to me that means this is a place where we discuss and clarify what our doctrine and theology are, not debate about and defend against those who don't believe LDS doctrine. 

There is a section called "Christian Beliefs", which is a great place to talk about your interpretation of the Bible. 

Thank you, I will keep this in mind.