Eternal Marriage

[Genuine]

Lately I've been trying to research "Eternal Marriage" - not exactly in the Mormon way though. But I do credit them to getting me to think about it.

In the Gospels there's the story where Jesus is asked about the widow and he says no, there won't be marriage we'll be like the angels as far as relationships. But I believe he's talking about during the resurrection there.

I am really starting to think that maybe in the Kingdom there will be marriages. It's just a personal thought though. Completely "Unorthodox Theology" here... but just wondering what others thought.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

If Jesus tells us there will not be marriages in Heaven, and seeing as He is from heaven, why doubt what He says?

 

[Webers_Home]

.
The original purpose of marriage was companionship.

†. Gen 2:18-22 . . Yhvh God said: It's not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.

. . Now Yhvh God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to Adam to see what he would name them; and whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

. . But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So Yhvh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took some of Adam's side and closed up the place with flesh. Then Yhvh God made a woman from the side He had taken out of Adam, and He brought her to him.

The Hebew word for helper is `ezer (ay'-zer) which means: aid (as a noun). Note that aid is not spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve wasn't meant to be Adam's servant, but rather, his assistance. Note that assistance is not spelled the same as assistant nor are the two words synonyms. An assistant does what they're told, while assistance helps and supports; viz: assistance is a crutch.

You know what that suggests to me? It suggests that Adam didn't really have it all that good in his world, and that Eve's companionship made his life a lot more tolerable and worth the living.

It's my guess that Heaven's social order is that of a commune rather than discrete couples; so that no one is ever alone there; hence there's no need for marriage when you have love and support all around.

And since sex isn't a factor in Heaven's order; then if believers ever want to have a baby, this is their one chance to do it; while they're still in Adam's world. Reproduction is essential to keep the race from going extinct in Adam's world; but in God's world, death is not a factor since everybody is indestructible and has eternal life.

†. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep heed my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish

†. Rom 6:23 . . For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

†. 1Cor 15:53-56 . . For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is commandments. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[Moodshadow]

It is my belief that we tend to limit God according to our own experience. All we know is what we experience during our mortality, so it's perfectly understandable that those experiences define the terms of our thinking. But God is not so limited, and we need to be careful when we try to put him into our own box. We must not try to humanize Him - nor should we try to elevate ourselves in any way in any misguided belief that we can somehow achieve godhood to any degree, especially by obedience, as the LDS church teaches. If Jesus taught that in the resurrection there is no marriage and no giving in marriage (and He did), it's a safe bet that He meant exactly, precisely what He said.

 

[Vanhin]

We, of course, believe in eternal marriage. The most wonderful truth we have received through the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is the truth that husband and wife can be sealed to one another for time and all eternity, and that children can be sealed to parents. Relations in such a family, last forever.

These blessings are available to all through sacred ordinances in the temple. Here is a video depicting our understanding of this.

YouTube - Mormon Messages: The Blessings of the Temple

Regards,
Vanhin

 

[Zechariah]

We, of course, believe in eternal marriage. The most wonderful truth we have received through the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is the truth that husband and wife can be sealed to one another for time and all eternity, and that children can be sealed to parents. Relations in such a family, last forever.

These blessings are available to all through sacred ordinances in the temple. Here is a video depicting our understanding of this.

YouTube - Mormon Messages: The Blessings of the Temple

Regards,
Vanhin

Than you Vanhin, for posting that beautiful video for others to see.

Several years ago, my wife and I were watching a certain religious TV program that we enjoyed. During a question and answer segment between the host and the studio audience, an older man stood, explaining that his dear wife of many years had recently passed away, and he asked if he would be able to have her as his wife again, in heaven. The host, though obviously sympatric to the man's loss, told him no, explaining that marriage did not exist in heaven.

My wife and I could hardly bare to see the grief that crossed the man's face as he was told this. From that day, and for many years, we've frequently prayed for him, that he would learn the truth of eternal marriage and be comforted. We still pray for him, from time to time, though he would be at least 100 now, if still alive. We look forward to the day, when we can meet he and his wife in person, to learn the rest of their story.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Matthew 22:24-32

24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”​

 

[Vanhin]

Matthew 22:24-32

24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”​

Hey daydreamgirl15. Thanks for that inevitable reference. I will explain it. First a little more understanding of our concept of eternal marriage.

The authority to bind in heaven and earth, belongs to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, which he restored to Peter and the Apostles during his mortal ministry. We call this the Melchizedek priesthood. Marriages performed with this authority, are forever, but they must be performed during mortality.

The only priesthood that the Sadducees would have known would have been the Priesthood of Aaron, or the Levitical priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood does not have the authority to seal marriages forever to begin with.

The Sadducees, who did not even believe in the resurrection, were trying to trip Jesus up by asking what they felt was a contradictory question. In it, they totally expected him to mess up trying to answer the question that they felt had no real answer under the law of Moses (see verse 24).

Christ points out a couple problems with their question: That they "do not know the scriptures" and the "power of God". They did not know the priesthood that Jesus Christ holds, and had no idea what they were talking about.

Secondly, Christ points out that in the resurrection, it is too late to figure out who is going to be with who. All that needs to be settled now. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage..."

So, since the question was premised on the law of Moses, and the Aaronic priesthood, she would be married to none of them in the resurrection, and they would all be angels. Further, it is too late, when the resurrection occurs, to marry or be given in marriage.

Under the law of Christ, We must be sealed to our spouses by the priesthood of Melchizedek, while still in mortality, in the temple, if we want our marriages to endure death and be in force when we are resurrected.

That's our take on it anyway.

The main reason we believe in this principle, however, is because we sincerely believe that God has called prophets and apostles again in our day, and has restored this knowledge to us through them. Our understanding jives with the scripture that says, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:11)

Sincerely,
Vanhin

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Hey daydreamgirl15. Thanks for that inevitable reference. I will explain it. First a little more understanding of our concept of eternal marriage.

The authority to bind in heaven and earth, belongs to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, which he restored to Peter and the Apostles during his mortal ministry. We call this the Melchizedek priesthood. Marriages performed with this authority, are forever, but they must be performed during mortality.

Since Christ is the only other person from the Melchizedek priesthood, who is performing these ceremonies claiming to be from the priesthood of Melchizedek? And seeing as we don't have that much information about the Melchizedek priesthood, how do we know that this priesthood seals marriages?

We know the apostles were not preaching about eternal marriages
Romans 7:1-4

1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.​

and
1 Corinthians 7:29

39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.​

If Christ restored this to Peter, why did they not preach on it?

The only priesthood that the Sadducees would have known would have been the Priesthood of Aaron, or the Levitical priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood does not have the authority to seal marriages forever to begin with.

The Sadducees, who did not even believe in the resurrection, were trying to trip Jesus up by asking what they felt was a contradictory question. In it, they totally expected him to mess up trying to answer the question that they felt had no real answer under the law of Moses (see verse 24).

Christ points out a couple problems with their question: That they "do not know the scriptures" and the "power of God". They did not know the priesthood that Jesus Christ holds, and had no idea what they were talking about.

Secondly, Christ points out that in the resurrection, it is too late to figure out who is going to be with who. All that needs to be settled now. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage..."

So, since the question was premised on the law of Moses, and the Aaronic priesthood, she would be married to none of them in the resurrection, and they would all be angels. Further, it is too late, when the resurrection occurs, to marry or be given in marriage.

Christ answered their questions. He said "in the ressurrection they neither marry nor give into marriage". He didn't tell them that another priesthood is going to come and change that, His apostles didn't even teach such a thing. He made it sound like this is a future thing that will happen when we resurrect and go home. And the scripture said they will be "like the angels" when it comes to marriage.

And seeing as the church is the body of Christ and not a temple made by hands, where does the idea come from that we need to be sealed in a temple?

Under the law of Christ, We must be sealed to our spouses by the priesthood of Melchizedek, while still in mortality, in the temple, if we want our marriages to endure death and be in force when we are resurrected.

I don't understand what you mean by temple. Are you talking about a building or the body? The scripture tells us that the church is members, body of Christ, and it is not a temple in which we dwell.

That's our take on it anyway.

The main reason we believe in this principle, however, is because we sincerely believe that God has called prophets and apostles again in our day, and has restored this knowledge to us through them. Our understanding jives with the scripture that says, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:11)

Sincerely,
Vanhin

as for the verse in 1 Corinthians 11:11, I think that is dealing with the authority and head covering, I'm not so sure it deals with husband and wife. See, put it in its context:
1 Corinthians 11:10-15

10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.​

 

[Zechariah]

Christ answered their questions. He said "in the ressurrection they neither marry nor give into marriage".

First, he did not say, "in the resurrection they neither marry nor give into marriage." He said they neither marry, "nor are given in marriage." Quite a difference in meaning.

There are some things to look at and consider about this passage.

In the Mosaic law, if a man died, having no children, his brother was to marry his wife, to raise up seed unto him, with the children of that union, being in the deceased husband's name, not in the name of the brother. This was a means of fulfilling the marriage covenant of the deceased man, whereby he may have seed, and heirs, to continue his lineage, even though he had died.

In the scenario the Sadducees put forth, each of the man's brothers, in succession, performed this duty to him. Any children produced by those successive unions, would have been to him, and his name, not to any of the brother's, because he was the woman's rightful husband, and, as such, her children his rightful heirs, not heirs to his brothers, who were only acting in his name.

The Sadducees, who were well versed in the law, knew this, therefore, their questioning was not to know which of the brothers the woman would be wife to, as they pretended. They already knew the answer, as she was the wife of the deceased man, whom the brothers had honored.

What's more, since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, their question was a ruse from the start. One they surely hoped would be difficult enough to answer that Jesus would somehow discredit himself and his own teachings, in some way. Jesus, though, answered in a way they likely could neither expect, nor dispute, since, while they were very well versed in the law, they did not know the scriptures, or the power of God, as Jesus pointed out. His reply to them was true. But he did not tell them there is no marriage in heaven.

The wording is very significant. Jesus said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." He did not say marriage does not exist in heaven, nor did he say the marriage covenant is not, or cannot be, binding in heaven. The wording used is significant because it speaks of the wedding ceremony itself, not of marriage. To marry and be given in marriage takes place during the wedding ceremony. It is in the wedding ceremony that the man marries the woman, and it is in the wedding ceremony that the woman is given in marriage to the man.

The woman (in the scenario the Sadducees put forth) would have already been given to her husband in marriage on the day they wed, so there was no need to question whose wife she would be in the resurrection among the brothers, as the brothers of her dead husband had only married her while they lived, to raise up children unto her rightful husband.

Just as baptism is something we do only on earth, not in the resurrection or in heaven, so, too, we marry and are given in marriage here on earth, not in the resurrection or in heaven. But, just as the covenant we make at baptism, can have eternal consequences, with great blessings, so can the covenant we make, when we marry and are given in marriage, have eternal consequences, with great blessings, with an eternally binding marriage, being but one.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Sorry for misquoting the scripture, but "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" is still saying that we will not be married. We are told from apostle Paul that once one's husband/wife die we are released for that law and should be married "in the Lord" meaning marrying a Christian.

I am not going to begin to assume what will be or will not be in heaven, beyond what we are told, but Christ specifically answered it to the Sadducee, if the Sadducees already knew the answer, apparently they didn't get the right answer from Christ, for Christ told that that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage". He did not say that the wife belong to her first husband, forever even in heaven. So, for me to say, well, it still could possibly mean that we are sealed forever in marriage--again, not something the bible says.

 

[dayhiker]

Ya, we have limited knowledge of what relationships will be like in the next life. It seems to me all relationships in heaven will be as good as our best relationship here on earth. We will be faithful to every friend we have in heaven so no extra vows will be needed as the marriage vow is.

dayhiker

 

[Obiwan]

Sorry for misquoting the scripture, but "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" is still saying that we will not be married. We are told from apostle Paul that once one's husband/wife die we are released for that law and should be married "in the Lord" meaning marrying a Christian.

I am not going to begin to assume what will be or will not be in heaven, beyond what we are told, but Christ specifically answered it to the Sadducee, if the Sadducees already knew the answer, apparently they didn't get the right answer from Christ, for Christ told that that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage". He did not say that the wife belong to her first husband, forever even in heaven. So, for me to say, well, it still could possibly mean that we are sealed forever in marriage--again, not something the bible says.

Problem is is that your further "misquoting" scripture. Christ specifically say's the Resurrection, he doesn't say Heaven. He only mentions heaven in the sense that those in the Resurrection are "as" the Angels in Heaven.

Further, LDS believe marriage occurs in "this life" not in the next lives.
I should note that whatever is bound by the Priesthood of God is in and of itself "Eternal", no man can break this bond. Thus, no matter whether you think the Bible directly speaks of Eternal Marriage, the fact of the matter is that Eternal Marriage by proper priesthood authority is a simple fact.

Anyway, some thoughts.

 

[Theway]

Lately I've been trying to research "Eternal Marriage" - not exactly in the Mormon way though. But I do credit them to getting me to think about it.

In the Gospels there's the story where Jesus is asked about the widow and he says no, there won't be marriage we'll be like the angels as far as relationships. But I believe he's talking about during the resurrection there.

I am really starting to think that maybe in the Kingdom there will be marriages. It's just a personal thought though. Completely "Unorthodox Theology" here... but just wondering what others thought.

If we go back to the beginning when God created Adam and Eve, he created them to be together and become “as one flesh”, and what God has put together no man can take apart.
If in your theology you believe that God created The Garden of Eden to last forever, then you also believe that God meant for Adam and Eve to be together forever also. But because of the fall, death (or a separation) occurred.
Physical death, which is the separation of body and spirit.
Spiritual death, which is the separation of ourselves from the presence of God.
Along with physical death came the inevitable separation of the man and the woman.
You probably also believe that because of the Atonement of Christ, death or the separation of both the physical and the spiritual, need only be temporary.
The only difference is that the LDS know that all things that were meant to be eternal shall also be restored, including marriage.
We may also believe a few other things differently than Orthodox Christianity also.

 

[Zechariah]

Sorry for misquoting the scripture, but "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" is still saying that we will not be married. We are told from apostle Paul that once one's husband/wife die we are released for that law and should be married "in the Lord" meaning marrying a Christian.

I am not going to begin to assume what will be or will not be in heaven, beyond what we are told, but Christ specifically answered it to the Sadducee, if the Sadducees already knew the answer, apparently they didn't get the right answer from Christ, for Christ told that that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage". He did not say that the wife belong to her first husband, forever even in heaven. So, for me to say, well, it still could possibly mean that we are sealed forever in marriage--again, not something the bible says.

I understand that you see it that way, and you are free to hold to your own beliefs. It's not my intent to change your mind, not that I could anyway. But I will pose some questions that you, or maybe others, may find of interest to consider.

First, here we have some scriptural references that we (LDS) consider pertinent to the eternal nature of the marriage union as intended by God.


Gen. 2: 24 (Gen. 2: 18; Matt. 19: 5) cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
Eccl. 3: 14 whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever.
Matt. 16: 19 (Matt. 18: 18) whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Mark 10: 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
1 Cor. 11: 11 neither is the man without the woman . . . in the Lord.
Eph. 5: 31 a man . . . shall be joined unto his wife . . . be one flesh.
1 Pet. 3: 7 heirs together of the grace of life.


Now for some questions to consider.


Does it make sense that a man is to cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, only to be eternally ripped apart at death?


Does whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever, apply to everything God does, except when he joins a man and woman in the marriage bond?


If it is so that, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, does, "whatsoever," mean everything, except marriage?


If marriage, and the relationship between husband and wife, is so important that the Lord said of it that what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, why would he put it asunder in heaven?


Does it make sense that neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord, except when they are in heaven?


And if husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life, does it make sense that this only applies to their mortal existence, but they are not heirs together of the grace of eternal life?




Most importantly, what would be the point of comparing the relationship between Christ and his church, which is of an eternal nature and unity, to something that is without eternal consequence and has no future beyond mortality? Why would the Lord represent the eternal relationship between himself (the bridegroom) and the church (the bride) with something that is only temporary, and is severed and made null and void forever at death? Why compare a binding eternal relationship, to something that is completely dead and over, as marriage would be, if marriage could not, and was not intended to, be a lasting bond that continues beyond the grave and throughout all of eternity?

 

[skylark1]

Does it make sense that a man is to cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, only to be eternally ripped apart at death?

I don't think that most Christians view our life in heaven as being ripped apart from our spouse.

Paul wrote:

1 Thessalonians 4
13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.​

Our relationship will be changed, but we won't be rippped apart. We will be together as part of the body and bride of Christ. And it will be more gloious than we can imagine.

1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"​

 

[Zechariah]

I don't think that most Christians view our life in heaven as being ripped apart from our spouse.

The language used is symbolically relevant, considering that in marriage a man is to cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, with they, together in marriage, being no more twain, but one flesh.

I could have used, "torn asunder," or "cut apart," or maybe, "surgically separated," instead, I suppose.

 

[skylark1]

The language used is symbolically relevant, considering that in marriage a man is to cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, with they, together in marriage, being no more twain, but one flesh.

I could have used, "torn asunder," or "cut apart," or maybe, "surgically separated," instead, I suppose.

I understand that. However, I do not believe that they will be any of those if they are in Christ, but part of the body of Christ. They won't be separated. Our marriages are but a reflection of the unity that is to come between Christ and his church.

 

[Zechariah]

I understand that. However, I do not believe that they will be any of those if they are in Christ, but part of the body of Christ. They won't be separated. Our marriages are but a reflection of the unity that is to come between Christ and his church.

If our marriages are a reflection of the unity that is to come between Christ and his church, they would not come to an end. The union between Christ and his church is eternal. It will never cease, never end, never die. To compare that supernal union to marriage, is really quite absurd, unless the marriage union, as God ordained it, is intended to last eternally.

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

 

[skylark1]

If our marriages are a reflection of the unity that is to come between Christ and his church, they would not come to an end. The union between Christ and his church is eternal. It will never cease, never end, never die. To compare that supernal union to marriage, is really quite absurd, unless the marriage union, as God ordained it, is intended to last eternally.

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

I think that "shadow" would have been a better choice of words than reflection.