Marriage / Temple Marriage

[Jesterss]

Ok, I come with a loaded question. That I will not deny, but then again, aren't all questions? If we have doubts we always have a reasoning...

Well let me explain my story and my question and hopefully I get many attempts at an answer..

I'm non-denominational, my wife is mormon.. my wife's mom, brother, 3 sisters, and all their spouses are mormons...

I've talked to 5 missionaries in person, and countless missionaries on mormon.org/chat...

I've talked with my mother-in-law and 2 brother-in-laws.. 1 brother-in-law has asked a local bishop...

nobody has an answer...

So let's get to the question..

Basically, why do Mormons believe in the eternal family?.. My understanding is that mormons believe that in order to reach the highest level of heaven, you must be married, and it must be done in a mormon temple..

WHY?

My further understanding of the mormon faith tells me that it's because Jesus bestowed upon Peter the "Keys of Eternal Bondage".. SO what does that mean?.. Did Peter go and marry people in the temple in Jerusalem (the only existing temple? was that peters job?)

No, we all know Peter's job was to be a missionary of Jesus and be his greatest Disciple that the church would be built upon, because Peter was to be the rock of Jesus' church. How then was Peter the rock? He roamed the country, far and wide to preach the good news of Jesus to everyone who would listen.. So then if he was this far from the temple, how then could he marry people in a temple and send them into marriage with eternal bondage without a temple?...

Well, I guess the answer to that is it's definitely not possible... we have to agree on that.. so then it also takes us to trying to understand what church it was Peter was building for Jesus. Was it a physical church or congregation? Highly unlikely as Peter was a traveler and belonged to no such affiliations.. He was given one of the greatest gifts of his earthly life of being a disciple of Jesus. Following Jesus, listening to every word he said and everything he did.. So he could mimic him and preach of the wonderful things Jesus did and has yet to do... Jesus himself said the temple was his body.. not a physical temple.. So what were these keys of bondage?... But the good word of jesus!!.. Peter was bonding us to Jesus! and those who didn't believe in his words, didn't believe in Jesus, so he loosed them here on earth! But those who listened, Peter was able to bond with the words he spoke of Jesus..

So maybe you disregard that entire paragraph and you don't agree.. OK.. So let's look at 1 Corinthians 7.. AN ENTIRE CHAPTER dedicated by Paul to the excellence of singleness!.. Luke 18:29-30, 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Ok sure, maybe in Luke he is talking to his disciples, but that doesn't explain Paul stating the exact same thing and how it's better to be single than to marry!.. So wherein is it better to marry or even required of by God or Jesus?..

I don't think you can rightfully in your heart or mind say that it's the answer...

But this is a forum, so let the discussion begin!!...

Please don't take offense to any of this..

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

[Vort]

Ok, I come with a loaded question... I'm non-denominational, my wife is mormon.. my wife's mom, brother, 3 sisters, and all their spouses are mormons...I've talked to 5 missionaries in person, and countless missionaries on mormon.org/chat... I've talked with my mother-in-law and 2 brother-in-laws.. 1 brother-in-law has asked a local bishop...nobody has an answer... So let's get to the question..

Basically, why do Mormons believe in the eternal family?.. My understanding is that mormons believe that in order to reach the highest level of heaven, you must be married, and it must be done in a mormon temple..

WHY?

Because that is what God has revealed to us through his latter-day prophets.

My further understanding of the mormon faith tells me that it's because Jesus bestowed upon Peter the "Keys of Eternal Bondage".. SO what does that mean?..

Oh, my. Keys of eternal bondage, huh? Sounds like the kind of movie we are counseled to avoid.

Jesus gave Peter the sealing power, which is the power to seal on earth and have it sealed in the heavens and to loose on earth and have it loosed in the heavens. With the sealing power, it is possible to forge relationships that transcend death; without the sealing power, no such thing is possible.

For example, marriage is a social arrangement that lasts "until death do we part." But being married ("sealed") in the temple, the marriage is a candidate to last for all eternity and not merely for this lifetime.

The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. This restoration included the restoration of the sealing power. This sealing power, held by the apostles, is conferred upon some men who then act as "sealers". Theirs is the duty and privilege to bind on earth and have it bound in the heavens, at least insofar as marriage goes.

Did Peter go and marry people in the temple in Jerusalem (the only existing temple? was that peters job?)

Couldn't tell you. Since the temple was under the control of the Sadducees, I suspect not, but that is only my uninformed guess.

No, we all know Peter's job was to be a missionary of Jesus and be his greatest Disciple that the church would be built upon, because Peter was to be the rock of Jesus' church. How then was Peter the rock? He roamed the country, far and wide to preach the good news of Jesus to everyone who would listen.. So then if he was this far from the temple, how then could he marry people in a temple and send them into marriage with eternal bondage without a temple?...

It is not impossible to assume he did both. As I have written, I doubt he performed such sealings in the Jerusalem temple. He may well have done so elsewhere, just as the early Saints in this dispensation performed such sacred ordinances outside a temple when a temple was not available to them.

The "rock" upon which Christ's Church was to be built, punning on "Peter"'s name, is the rock of continuing revelation. Peter, in his position as the senior apostle, presided over the Church after Jesus' death. In this capacity, the responsibility to receive revelatory guidance for the Church was Peter's, just as the sealing power was given to Peter.

Well, I guess the answer to that is it's definitely not possible... we have to agree on that..

No, actually, we don't have to agree on that.

so then it also takes us to trying to understand what church it was Peter was building for Jesus. Was it a physical church or congregation? Highly unlikely as Peter was a traveler and belonged to no such affiliations.. He was given one of the greatest gifts of his earthly life of being a disciple of Jesus. Following Jesus, listening to every word he said and everything he did.. So he could mimic him and preach of the wonderful things Jesus did and has yet to do... Jesus himself said the temple was his body.. not a physical temple..

No, this is not correct. Jesus was never exclusive. On the contrary, Jesus loved and protected the physical temple in Jerusalem, even as he predicted its destruction.

So what were these keys of bondage?...

Not sure where you picked up this phrase, but it certainly is not LDS in origin.

But the good word of jesus!!.. Peter was bonding us to Jesus! and those who didn't believe in his words, didn't believe in Jesus, so he loosed them here on earth! But those who listened, Peter was able to bond with the words he spoke of Jesus..

Yes, Biblical exegesis can often be a mass of confusion, as your attempted explanation shows. When we use only our own mental strength to wrest the truths of the gospel from scripture, we inevitably go astray, as two thousand years of "Christian" thought demonstrate. The only sure way is through the rock of revelation, both personal revelation and revelation through God's anointed prophets.

So maybe you disregard that entire paragraph and you don't agree.. OK.. So let's look at 1 Corinthians 7.. AN ENTIRE CHAPTER dedicated by Paul to the excellence of singleness!..

Where does the Bible teach that Paul was unmarried? Paul's epistles say that he would that other missionaries abide as he does, which apparently means without sex. That does not necessarily mean Paul was unmarried; it was not uncommon for travelers of the time to leave their homes for many years on end. For that matter, Paul may have been widowed. We don't know. All we know is Paul's counsel that it is better for missionaries to remain undistracted from their missionary work, but ultimately, it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Luke 18:29-30, 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Of course. We must put God first in our lives, not others, even close family. But this cannot reasonably be interpreted as a screed against marriage.

Ok sure, maybe in Luke he is talking to his disciples, but that doesn't explain Paul stating the exact same thing and how it's better to be single than to marry!.. So wherein is it better to marry or even required of by God or Jesus?..

Thank God for latter-day revelation that clears these points of confusion up for us.

I don't think you can rightfully in your heart or mind say that it's the answer...

Now you know that you are mistaken, and that we do indeed say rightfully in our minds and hearts that eternal marriage is indeed the answer.

Hope that helps.

[Jesterss]

Oh, my. Keys of eternal bondage, huh? Sounds like the kind of movie we are counseled to avoid.

Jesus gave Peter the sealing power, which is the power to seal on earth and have it sealed in the heavens and to loose on earth and have it loosed in the heavens. With the sealing power, it is possible to forge relationships that transcend death; without the sealing power, no such thing is possible.

For example, marriage is a social arrangement that lasts "until death do we part." But being married ("sealed") in the temple, the marriage is a candidate to last for all eternity and not merely for this lifetime.

The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. This restoration included the restoration of the sealing power. This sealing power, held by the apostles, is conferred upon some men who then act as "sealers". Theirs is the duty and privilege to bind on earth and have it bound in the heavens, at least insofar as marriage goes.

So here's the Bible quote we are both speaking of:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

So you say that it is simply a "Sealing power" that was given to Peter. Well we both can agree that is true. Peter received some sort of sealing power. But then you go straight to saying that the sealing power can be used for marriages. Essentially equating to keys that bond marriages eternally.. Sealing power was used by you. But we both agreed that Peter didn't use the only Temple that existed. Therefore did not "seal marriage in a temple".

I suppose if you say that he "could" have performed these marriage ceremonies of eternal sealing then I can't really argue against that directly. But we do have Paul who discusses it very heavily..

Where does the Bible teach that Paul was unmarried? Paul's epistles say that he would that other missionaries abide as he does, which apparently means without sex. That does not necessarily mean Paul was unmarried; it was not uncommon for travelers of the time to leave their homes for many years on end. For that matter, Paul may have been widowed. We don't know. All we know is Paul's counsel that it is better for missionaries to remain undistracted from their missionary work, but ultimately, it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Where does it teach that Paul was unmarried?

1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

That teaches that Paul was unmarried... and that those who have not married, should remain as he as, single, devoted to the lord only. because a married man is worried and concerned of the world, but a single man is worried about the kingdom of heaven..

Now you know that you are mistaken, and that we do indeed say rightfully in our minds and hearts that eternal marriage is indeed the answer.

More evidence please? I don't see how I was wrong...

If Paul says it's better to remain as he is and stay single, why then is it BEST to be married and especially in the mormon temple if Paul himself remained single?.. As it is my belief that Jesus was also single..

[beefche]

MODERATOR POST:

When you signed up for this site, you agreed to abide by the rules, namely rule #1. Be sure to stay within those rules.

For those who participate in this thread, be nice. Ask questions in a polite manner, with respect and answer questions in the same manner.

[Jesterss]

Also: you said that I was wrong when Jesus referred to his own body as the temple but John 2:19 tells us that indeed, jesus refers to his body when he tells the Jews to destroy this temple, and in three days i will rebuild it.

[Gwen]

When reading the op I can't get past a few things to be able to even attempt to "discuss" this subject

My further understanding of the mormon faith tells me that it's because Jesus bestowed upon Peter the "Keys of Eternal Bondage".. SO what does that mean?

I totally agree, what does that mean? I've never heard it or used it so I'm not sure where it comes from in "further understanding of the mormon faith". I don't know anyone that would use that phrase. And it's been put in quotes as though that is LDS specific phrasing. Just weird.

The sealing keys come through Elijah not Peter (not saying Peter didn't have them but he is not the one that restored them in this dispensation)

I don't think you can rightfully in your heart or mind say that it's the answer...

If you have already decided what I can and can't rightfully in my heart and mind believe then what is the point in this discussion? It's not for understanding. So why are you here?

and lastly

Please don't take offense to any of this..

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Why end with this scripture? Are you asking that we rebuke you with all authority or is that what you feel you are doing with us?

Eternal families and our relationship with god is the foundation of my testimony and the foundation of this church. I can say rightfully in my heart and mind that is the answer to almost every question I've ever had. When I can't understand something I apply it to an eternal family relationship and it all starts to become more clear. I could go on and on about this subject but I won't at this time.

On that note I'll conclude with a scripture of my own. Matt. 7:6-8

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Jestress,

Just FYI, this is not a debate board. This is a 'learn what Mormons believe' board. If you're here to prove us wrong or argue, I would suggest LDS apologetic boards like mormondialogue.org. You can contend and debate all you like over there.

[Jesterss]

To gwen: I understand your concerns, and the phrase I used may not have been the correct one when referring to the sealing power. But it was more of the "idea" rather than the actual statement of your faith. It's something that some missionaries have stated with me before. And I replied back to vort clarifying my stance regarding this.

As for my last quote from titus, I believe it is important for everyone who stands for a belief to be able to fully back their position of such faith or belief. Whether it is you or i who rebuke, I don't think that's the relevant point of it. It's for clarity and sound doctrinal propaganda. Not personal agendas.

[FunkyTown]

Well let me explain my story and my question and hopefully I get many attempts at an answer..

I'm non-denominational, my wife is mormon.. my wife's mom, brother, 3 sisters, and all their spouses are mormons...

I've talked to 5 missionaries in person, and countless missionaries on mormon.org/chat...

I've talked with my mother-in-law and 2 brother-in-laws.. 1 brother-in-law has asked a local bishop...

nobody has an answer...

Really? Not one person has had an answer? Or not one person has had an answer that you were willing to listen to?

Please note that those are two different things. We can establish marriage as eternal, if you'd like. Would you like us to stick with the basics and build to an eternal marriage?

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Well, if we're quoting random biblical passages, remember that it says in Matthew 23:24:

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

[Daybreak79]

"Oh, my. Keys of eternal bondage, huh? Sounds like the kind of movie we are counseled to avoid."

I just about spit out my water when I read that!

[Gwen]

As for my last quote from titus, I believe it is important for everyone who stands for a belief to be able to fully back their position of such faith or belief. Whether it is you or i who rebuke, I don't think that's the relevant point of it. It's for clarity and sound doctrinal propaganda. Not personal agendas.

It is relevant "who" rebukes. If you are asking for correction that is totally different than coming here to correct us. I don't go to the local church's anti mormon classes and rebuke them. If that is what they want to do with the time they set aside to worship god then they will have to address that with him at another time. Not my problem. So yes if you came here to "rebuke" us for our beliefs it does matter. I have no desire to have discussions with such ppl.

As for what I put in bold. If one has faith and they stand for that testimony you believe they should be able to "fully back" that position? How? Isn't that part of the definition of faith? A belief in something you can not prove. So how exactly would you like me to "back" my position without simply sharing testimony that I know it to be a true principle and going about my business? I can explain some of the logic of why I believe what I do but in the end I don't believe it because of logic or proof. I believe because of the witness of the spirit, something that is to each their own, I can't give it to you nor you to me.

How do you back your position that there is a god?

In the end you decide that you will either attack and try to prove my statements wrong or you accept them as my truth just as you have your personal truths that you can prove nor disprove any better than I can mine. In accepting that you can have a civil christian discussion that allows us to better understand and accept each other. Build upon our similarities and learn form the differences. Doesn't mean you have to accept it as a personal belief. I wouldn't want you to unless you also received a witness of what I say through the spirit.

So again I ask, Why are you here? Do you want to understand (part of that accepting and taking someone at their word) or do you want to rebuke?

[Backroads]

May I ask how your wife feels when you attack her beliefs like this? Since you don't believe in marriage, why did you marry her?

[FunkyTown]

Gwen? I think all of your answers can be found here:

This covers pretty much everything.

[Jesterss]

It is relevant "who" rebukes. If you are asking for correction that is totally different than coming here to correct us. I don't go to the local church's anti mormon classes and rebuke them. If that is what they want to do with the time they set aside to worship god then they will have to address that with him at another time. Not my problem. So yes if you came here to "rebuke" us for our beliefs it does matter. I have no desire to have discussions with such ppl.

I am asking for understanding.. If it be to correct me, so be it, as Vort did in his first post about my misunderstanding or given of wrong information by prior mormons...I have accepted that correction and moved forward but with the same intent of trying to understand the deep driven logic behind marriage, and marriage temples.. which you have neglected to address.. I understand you feel that "rebuke" may be a derogatory term or act of aggression but my simple stating of Titus was not meant out of aggression of an argument, as I clearly stated directly above that... only of thought of biblical exegesis.. Sorry if I have come off as "over-bearing".. please overlook my fault there and try to discuss an understanding..

As for what I put in bold. If one has faith and they stand for that testimony you believe they should be able to "fully back" that position? How? Isn't that part of the definition of faith? A belief in something you can not prove. So how exactly would you like me to "back" my position without simply sharing testimony that I know it to be a true principle and going about my business? I can explain some of the logic of why I believe what I do but in the end I don't believe it because of logic or proof. I believe because of the witness of the spirit, something that is to each their own, I can't give it to you nor you to me.

See there's a difference between sharing testimony and sharing your thoughts on what you believe I came here for. You already took the defensive approach by asking me how would I prove my faith.. I would prove my faith by discussing religion with anyone, any subject, at any time.. That's how.. If you have faith or stand for a testimony, wouldn't you assert what that testimony is, then explain why you believe it?.. That's all I expect.. There's no need to prove to you that there is a God, we both can agree upon that.. The Old and New Testament's of the bible are our foundation..

How do you back your position that there is a god?

rhetorical? I'll assume it wasn't. But I'll back my position that there is a God and he is supreme because I have seen miraculous things and I have read of miraculous things performed by him and through him. A historical Jesus did exist and that Jesus told us about God and how we can become a son of God.

Would you be interested in renting a video to watch? It's not anti-mormon or anything of that sort. It is called "The Star of Bethlehem" it's a documentary done using astronomy and the accuracy of Jesus.. It's pretty cool. I would also suggest watching the documentary called "Mountain of Fire" (you can YouTube that one for free)

In the end you decide that you will either attack and try to prove my statements wrong or you accept them as my truth just as you have your personal truths that you can prove nor disprove any better than I can mine. In accepting that you can have a civil christian discussion that allows us to better understand and accept each other. Build upon our similarities and learn form the differences. Doesn't mean you have to accept it as a personal belief. I wouldn't want you to unless you also received a witness of what I say through the spirit.

So again I ask, Why are you here? Do you want to understand (part of that accepting and taking someone at their word) or do you want to rebuke?

I explained why I was here.. To receive an answer and understanding through biblical exegesis to explain to me your belief system and why you believe it... Through passages... pretty simple really..

Really? Not one person has had an answer? Or not one person has had an answer that you were willing to listen to?

I came here to search for an answer still, so are you going to provide one or just assume that I'm not willing to listen?.. As Gwen may feel that I'm here just to stir things up but that is not my intentions, my intentions are to discuss a topic that I started in search of an answer from your side (that of the mormon belief system).. The answers I have received from mormon missionaries are that upon Luke 18:29-30, they say that Jesus is talking to his disciples so it is ok for them to be single.. I took that as an "answer" but not a full answer.. Because I think asked about 1 Corinthians 7, and the only answer I received on that was that I need to pray that Joseph Smith was a true prophet... So do you care to shed some light on the actual subject?

May I ask how your wife feels when you attack her beliefs like this? Since you don't believe in marriage, why did you marry her?

My wife doesn't discuss religion with me because she says its too deep and she doesn't really have an answer... it's just the way she was raised.. which is why if you read what I posted initially you would understand my line of questioning here..

[estradling75]

Why do we believe in Eternal Family? Because the scriptures say so..

Doctrine and Covenants 131 

and

Doctrine and Covenants 132 

We accept modern revelation. And we consider the two links provided above as scripture equal in authority to any other scripture you have quoted.

[Vort]

We can continue the discussion, if you wish. But estradling's post is really the last word on the subject.

[Gwen]

You already took the defensive approach by asking me how would I prove my faith.. I would prove my faith by discussing religion with anyone, any subject, at any time.. That's how.. If you have faith or stand for a testimony, wouldn't you assert what that testimony is, then explain why you believe it?.. That's all I expect.. There's no need to prove to you that there is a God, we both can agree upon that.. The Old and New Testament's of the bible are our foundation..

rhetorical? I'll assume it wasn't. But I'll back my position that there is a God and he is supreme because I have seen miraculous things and I have read of miraculous things performed by him and through him. A historical Jesus did exist and that Jesus told us about God and how we can become a son of God.

I explained why I was here.. To receive an answer and understanding through biblical exegesis to explain to me your belief system and why you believe it... Through passages... pretty simple really..

I'm not defensive, I just don't share my pearls with ppl that don't seem to really care to hear it anyway. Just trying to figure out who you are. You are the one that said if someone takes a stand of faith they should be able to back it up. I'm just asking the same of you.

Let's say we didn't agree that there was a god. Your evidence would be less than convincing. "I have seen miraculous things and I have read of miraculous things performed by him and through him" isn't enough. Let's say I haven't seen miraculous things or I have good reason to think the things you've read about him and done through him are nothing more than fairy tales. That's the point I was trying to make.

To answer your question...... Why do I (as a mormon) believe in eternal families and marriage? Because I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true church on the earth today. We have living prophets. The living prophets have said that eternal family is most important.

More importantly I've sought the answer for myself. I have pondered it and prayed and gotten an answer. I am a child of god. Not just a creation but a child. Before we came we were (still are) a family. The grand counsel where the plan of salvation was presented wasn't with a god, it was with my father. I didn't leave the presence of "god" but I left home, i left my father. Once here, in a fallen state, with the imperfections and trials of this world I became in need of a savior and a god to direct my life, a supreme power. My view of father became that of a god, his role changed. So we call him that and worship him. You may not believe those things but the spirit speaks peace to me when I ponder them. I have received a witness from the holy spirit that it's true. I consider that pretty miraculous.

Any time I've had a hard question I turn to that concept to answer it. It always fits because it's true. Even god turns to the concept of a family to get us to understand his words. The verses following the scripture I already posted he compares himself to a loving parent. That's enough for me. I could go into all the examples but it won't change your mind and would make this very very long.

So is my testimony enough for you? Or do you desire to continue to question why or how I could believe? My statements are no different than yours. You have personal revelation that there is a god, personal experiences. I have personal revelation and experiences that family is eternal. It's that simple.

[Backroads]

My wife doesn't discuss religion with me because she says its too deep and she doesn't really have an answer... it's just the way she was raised.. which is why if you read what I posted initially you would understand my line of questioning here..

I did read your original post. You mentioned nothing of the sort.

[FunkyTown]

I am asking for understanding.. If it be to correct me, so be it, as Vort did in his first post about my misunderstanding or given of wrong information by prior mormons...I have accepted that correction and moved forward but with the same intent of trying to understand the deep driven logic behind marriage, and marriage temples.. which you have neglected to address.. I understand you feel that "rebuke" may be a derogatory term or act of aggression but my simple stating of Titus was not meant out of aggression of an argument, as I clearly stated directly above that... only of thought of biblical exegesis.. Sorry if I have come off as "over-bearing".. please overlook my fault there and try to discuss an understanding..

With thanks to FAIR for this:

Latter-day Saints believe that the faithful will live in family units in Heaven. We believe that this world is patterned after the Heavenly world, and we are simply practicing in this life that which will be eternally enjoyed. (See Eternal Marriage)

Objections to this belief are usually based on Matthew 22:30: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Notice, it does not say matrimonial relationships do not exist in Heaven, but that no one marries in Heaven. Mormons do not believe that anyone actually marries in Heaven. We believe marriage is an earthly ordinance and must be done here. We believe those who were sealed in the Temple here on earth, and live faithful to their covenants with God, continue their family relationships in Heaven.

We believe that if you to choose to wait until after the resurrection to seek eternal marriage, it is too late and you will spend eternity as a serving angel. For those who did not have the opportunity for eternal marriage in mortality, God will make allowances. Therefore, LDS beliefs are in accordance with this interpretation of scripture. However, there is additional evidence of the concept of eternal marriage contained within the Bible. It is important to recognize that one verse of scripture does not define all eternal truth. To properly understand the scriptures, it is crucial that we bring all relevant passages into the discussion so that our understanding is placed into proper context.

Let's start at the beginning, with Adam and Eve. "And the LORD God said, [it is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18) Here the Lord God makes a declarative statement that not only is marriage acceptable, but it is good. To remain single and alone is not good (evil). Does heaven contain good or evil things? If heaven contains good things, then it must contained married couples, since marriage has been defined by God himself as good. Also, our first parents were married by God in the Garden of Eden. Remember that before they partook of the fruit, there was no death. Therefore, when God married them, he intended for them to stay married forever, which is clear Biblical support for the concept of eternal marriage. "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:" (Ecclesiastes 3:14) What did Jesus Christ say about marriage? "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6)

But due to the effects of the Fall, death entered into the world. It is true that except for an atonement, Adam and Eve would have been forever separated from each other and from God. However, there was an Atonement made by Jesus Christ that overcame the effects of the Fall. If the Atonement is not powerful enough to restore the eternal marriage of Adam and Eve, then it is not infinite and eternal. In which case, no one has any hope of salvation because an infinite and eternal atonement was not made. Furthermore, if the atonement was not powerful enough to restore the eternal marriage of Adam and Eve, then that means the purposes of God have been frustrated eternally, since he intended from the beginning for them to be eternally married. But it is my testimony that the Atonement of Jesus Christ was infinite and eternal, and because of it, the promise of salvation and eternal marriage is extended to all. We will all be resurrected. Those who became "one flesh" through eternal marriage will rise in the resurrection as one flesh, even eternally married.

As final point on Matthew 22:30, please keep in mind that Christ is addressing this statement of doctrine to the Sadducees. Jesus made his response to the Sadducees after they asked him the trick question concerning the brothers and the woman. Remember that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, immortality, or eternal marriage. His answer to them must be understood in that context.

Before someone learns advanced gospel principles, like eternal marriage, it is necessary for him to master the basic ones like the resurrection. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." (Hebrews 5:12) Before one understands the basic principles, a person is not capable of understanding, much less appreciating, the precious pearls of the gospel. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6) It is clear from these Biblical passages that Jesus did not believe that all things should be taught to all people.

Because the Sadducees rejected the simple doctrine of the resurrection, there was no need to explain the advanced doctrine of eternal marriage, for how can one accept the realities of resurrected life before one accepts the resurrection itself? Considering how unreceptive his audience was to the basic concept, Jesus decided that this was not the appropriate time to give a full discourse on this precious pearl. This understanding of scriptural development is understood by both Jews and Christians alike. For example, Jewish theologians have struggled to explain why there is no clear teaching about the resurrection and afterlife in the Old Testament. Moses Maimonides, one of the most famous Jewish medieval philosophers, answered the question this way:

"Simply put, the answer is that the people of that age were not ready to accept that doctrine. They did not believe in miracles and in prophecy, only in the predictable course of nature. Teaching them about the miracle of resurrection would have led to its rejection and even to the rejection of revelation as a whole." (Summary of Maimonides’ explanation as found in Gillman, N., The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Vermont: Jewish Lights, 1997, p. 162.)

It is absolutely true that the doctrine of eternal marriage is ambiguously taught in the Bible (See Can you prove [insert the doctrine of your choice] strictly through the Bible?). This is one of the reasons the latter-day Restoration of the Gospel was needed, along with it's clarified prophetic teachings. However, there are strong implicit teachings on eternal marriage in the Bible if one studies that sacred work in totality and context.

and:

Latter-day Saints do not derive all of our beliefs and doctrines from the Bible. While Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be the word of God, we do not consider it to contain all of God's words. We accept, in addition to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as true scripture. These four scriptural collections are called the Standard Works. In addition, we believe in continuing modern revelation and believe that Joseph Smith and all subsequent presidents of the church were and are prophets and representatives of Jesus Christ.

Occasionally, someone, usually a person who believes that the Bible is the complete and all-sufficient revelation from God to man, will ask that we prove a certain doctrine using only the Bible as a reference. While I could most likely give you some Biblical references to support the LDS view of a particular doctrine, I don't think that would be a productive exercise. First, Latter-day Saints are usually reluctant to engage in the "Bible-bashing" debates that characterize most of the Christian world. We feel that contention is unchristian behavior:

"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." (The Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:29)

Second, the entire supposition is based upon flawed premises. Obviously, if all of our beliefs were fully explained in the Bible, then we would have no need of the additional scriptural sources noted above. The reason we need these additional scriptures is because the Bible is incomplete regarding God's plan for the human family. While LDS beliefs are certainly consistent with the Bible, since it is one of our standard works, a person must also use these other sources of God's teachings if he or she wants to understand what Latter-day Saints believe. Furthermore, Latter-day prophets and apostles, equal in authority to prophets and apostles of ancient times, have further clarified and elaborated gospel doctrines beyond what the scriptures explicitly teach.

[Jesterss]

So basically as far as biblical explanations are concerned, there is no answer, the answer is based solely on the Book of Mormon and what Joseph Smith taught?

I guess that explains why the missionaries told me to pray about it and ask if Joseph Smith is true..

[NeuroTypical]

Basically correct. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration Gospel church. We claim additional sources of information, in the form of additional scriptures and living prophets, that the rest of Christianity doesn't have. We have more recent information about God's dealings with His children, and what He wants from us and for us.

So yeah, we don't ask you to just take our word for it - we urge you to read and receive the BoM, and kneel in prayer to God, asking with a sincere heart and real intent, if this incredible story is actually true or not.

If He says yes, then the burden lies on you to act accordingly.

[estradling75]

So basically as far as biblical explanations are concerned, there is no answer, the answer is based solely on the Book of Mormon and what Joseph Smith taught?

I guess that explains why the missionaries told me to pray about it and ask if Joseph Smith is true..

It does... Start with the Book of Mormon... It is tangible evidence of Joseph Smith's claims. It gives you something you can touch, read, study and pray about.

And don't dismiss it 'based solely on.' During the days of Noah those that boarded the Ark did it based solely on believing that Noah was a prophet of god. The children of Israel followed Moses based on believing he was a prophet. In Peter's day the gospel went to the Gentiles based on the strength the belief that Peter had the vision and was God's chosen to lead.

[Jesterss]

Well I must say this is why I came to this forum, because even though it may not represent "the full authority of said church" it is easier for those of the faith to be more straight forward and provide an answer that others may have been dancing around when there are no obligations being enforced..

And that I respect..

Not really the answer I wanted but at least straight forward and honest.. but then again, we definitely never receive everything we want..

Thank you to those who participated and provided the feedback.. I appreciate it

[volgadon]

Hi Jestress,

Just FYI, this is not a debate board. This is a 'learn what Mormons believe' board. If you're here to prove us wrong or argue, I would suggest LDS apologetic boards like mormondialogue.org. You can contend and debate all you like over there.

He is there. I guess that he forgot to mention the fact.

[Vort]

Sorry, I lost track of this and never responded.

So here's the Bible quote we are both speaking of:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

So you say that it is simply a "Sealing power" that was given to Peter. Well we both can agree that is true. Peter received some sort of sealing power. But then you go straight to saying that the sealing power can be used for marriages.

Well, don't you think that "whatsoever" (or "whatever" in your translation) includes marriage? Or do you think the word implies "anything at all, except for marriage"?

But we both agreed that Peter didn't use the only Temple that existed. Therefore did not "seal marriage in a temple".

Not so. I did not say Peter didn't use the Jerusalem temple. I said I suspected he didn't. But whether he did or not is irrelevant. The phrase "temple marriage" is used only because we today contract such marriages in a temple. The more precise phrase is "eternal marriage".

Where does it teach that Paul was unmarried?

1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

That teaches that Paul was unmarried...

Your translation is faulty. The actual Greek text is:

Λέγω δὲ τοῖς ἀγάμοις καὶ ταῖς χήραις καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ἐὰν μείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ

This translates as:

I say therefore it is to the unmarried and it is to the widows good for them if they abide as even I

μείνωσιν they abide can be translated they remain or they live. The "unmarried" part in your faulty translation is an addition by the translators, made because they assumed Paul was unmarried and, therefore, that must be what he was referring to. This is not supported by the text, but is an interpolation made by the translators based (I assume) on their preexisting beliefs.

More evidence please? I don't see how I was wrong...

Your claim was, "I don't think you can rightfully in your heart or mind say that it's the answer..." I showed you that you were mistaken; we do indeed say rightfully in our heart and in our mind that it's the answer.

If Paul says it's better to remain as he is and stay single, why then is it BEST to be married and especially in the mormon temple if Paul himself remained single?

You have yet to demonstrate that this is true. It's merely an assumption on your part, and not a very likely assumption, in my view.

As it is my belief that Jesus was also single..

Perhaps it's your view Jesus was a kumquat. You may have that view if you wish. Your view and five bucks will buy you a cup of java at Starbucks.

If we're talking about eternal truths of salvation, your opinion on the matter (or, for that matter, my opinion) is worth pretty much squat. Revealed truth is your friend. Seek for it. Thirst for it. The answers are there for those with ears to hear and hearts to understand.