Can you get to the highest level of heaven without being married in an LDS temple ???

[Booko]

what kind of Barriers?

"Severe disabilities."

Those could be physical, mental or psychological.

Take my neighbor's boy, who is the only survivor of SIDS in the Western Hemisphere. The boy will spend his entire life in a wheelchair unable to do the simplest tasks. He's hardly marriage material.

Or take my cousin, who has 7 separate personalities. She has enough, er, "company" without adding a spouse in there as well, you know?

 

[Booko]

I don't believe that God would hold that against someone. Many members of the church (including me) believe that those who do not have the opportunity to marry in this life will still be able to be paired up and inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

Thanks, Jonny!

 

[Bishka]

so why even have " RULES"? or doctrines and covenants? If they can change at any time.

it seems like LDS like to change them when you think of the possibility that Paul could not be in the highest kingdom accoring to the "rules" already established. am i wrong?

It's pure speculation (people's opinions), why bother with it if you do not believe in it anyways? If you are interested in the actual "word-for-word" that the Church has, visit here at the LDS Church's site on the topic marriage.

Marriage


It may clear up some misconceptions that you have. Hope it was helpful.

 

[Booko]

That and we do not believe in pre-marital sex, so we would rather get married then break the law of chastity. In order to be married in the temple, you need to be worthy, and living the law of chastity is one of those worthiness bits that we stick to. So, instead of waiting awhile, we usually (and because of the sex drive of many young adults) get married rather quickly.

Frankly, this makes more sense than expecting people to live through the height of sex hormones and remain chaste.

My own religion's writings seem to assume marrying earlier as well. The ideal is that the parents have to give approval, and that can help avoid the teenagers marrying sheerly on infatuation.

 

[jonny]

Frankly, this makes more sense than expecting people to live through the height of sex hormones and remain chaste.

My own religion's writings seem to assume marrying earlier as well. The ideal is that the parents have to give approval, and that can help avoid the teenagers marrying sheerly on infatuation.

The fact that the LDS Church has an impressive system of congregations for young single adults ("Singles Wards") and Institutes at just about every major college in the United States that are pretty open about their objective of pairing people up and marrying them off helps.

 

[Aqualung]

There clearly must be marriages in the Celestial kingdom, because we obviously can't marry those we don't have records for or for those couples in which one will be saved in the Celestial kingdom and the other not.

I was under the distinct impression that this would happen during the millennial reign.

 

[Katzpur]

so why even have " RULES"? or doctrines and covenants? If they can change at any time.

Rules change as needed. You ought to know that. If you don't think the rules changed between Old Testament and New Testament times, you need to go back and read both testaments again.

Doctrines, on the other hand, don't change. They are constant and eternal.

it seems like LDS like to change them when you think of the possibility that Paul could not be in the highest kingdom accoring to the "rules" already established. am i wrong?

Of course you're wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

I was under the distinct impression that this would happen during the millennial reign.

So was I. Still am.

 

[FFH]

I don't thing there will be marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. Marriages will occur in Paradise or not at all.

Okay, fair enough assumption...

 

[FFH]

so why even have " RULES"? or doctrines and covenants? If they can change at any time.

it seems like LDS like to change them when you think of the possibility that Paul could not be in the highest kingdom accoring to the "rules" already established. am i wrong?

I'm not changing the rules, all I am saying is there are exceptions to the rule, if you will, as with the case of Jesus and Paul, who apparently were not required to marry...

A way will be provided whereby all who did not marry in this life will have that opportunity in the next, that's all I'm saying...

We have seen the rules change from the Old to the New testament. Christ changed them while he was yet alive....

Forgiveness for adultry instead of stoning a person to death, for example, that's why I say the rules change or certain people are exempt from certain rules, as was the case with Jesus, since he is the rule, if you will...

Obviously in Paul's time there was no such thing as Celestial marriage on earth. How would also Jesus be required to marry in a temple as we have today, when there were no such things at the time, only Old Testament temples...

Jesus and Paul were exempt, as were all else since obviously there were no temples as we know them today...

That's why I say the rules can and do change...

 

[FFH]

I was under the distinct impression that this would happen during the millennial reign.

I'm sure it will happen then to, the point is that it won't stop, even into the eternities, to think otherwise just does not make any logical sense.

Don't put restrictions on God...

Marriage will continue through the eternities, in my opinion, but only in the Celestial kingdom..

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sure it will happen then to, the point is that it won't stop, even into the eternities, to think otherwise just does not make any logical sense.

Don't put restrictions on God...

Marriage will continue through the eternities, in my opinion, but only in the Celestial kingdom..

Thanks for adding "in my opinion." If you're right (and I concede that it's possible you are), you're right, but the fact is, there is no doctrinal statement to that effect.

 

[Buttons*]

There are lower levels of paradise/heaven in which many will enter into without being LDS or marrying in an LDS temple, no doubt, so don't get me wrong, I'm only talking about the highest level where God the Father and the Son live for ever with those who have met all their particular requirements.

God meets us half way if we don't make it all the way...

There are different levels of paradise/heaven and hell...but all will eventually be redeemed from hell to inherit a better world than this one..

To them it will be a paradise...

Only those who enter into Outer Darkness will be in a worse place than this life affords us. These are they who refuse/deny all light and truth given to them by the Holy Ghost..

believe it or not... that's exactly what I was talking about. And my answer is still the same!

 

[FFH]

Thanks for adding "in my opinion." If you're right (and I concede that it's possible you are), you're right, but the fact is, there is no doctrinal statement to that effect.

Yeah, I added that for you Katzpur, to save you and myself grief... I know that we don't know if marriages will be performed in the Celestial kingdom, but what about all those who have died and gone straight to the Celestial kingdom, infants and children under the age of eight,, surely they will find a spouse and want to marry.

Should they then not be allowed to marry ??? Of course not... That's why I put two and two together and can assume there are marriages in the Celestial kingdom between such individuals and all else who did not have the opportunity to marry on this earth or who did not have the restored gospel, like all those who have lived and died before the gospel was restored, who would have accepted it and married in LDS temples if they had the chance, LIKE PAUL FOR INSTANCE AND JESUS, THAT'S WHY THEY ARE EXEMPT. THEY WERE NOT BORN UNDER THIS LAW AND THOSE WHO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW ARE ALSO NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE IT. (ROCKA DOES THIS ANSWER YOUR PERSISTANT QUESTION ?)...

Jesus included in this... No temples existed whereby Jesus could enter into this holy covenant with a spouse of his choosing, so it would make sense that he would not have married or would have been required to marry, since it would not have been eternally binding anyway...

Jesus saved marriage for a later time in the eternities when he has finished his mission which is to save as many souls as possible...

 

[FFH]

believe it or not... that's exactly what I was talking about. And my answer is still the same!

I know you understand this concept, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and that others know where I stand on this issue....

You're so spiritual...hehe

Seriously you have a good spirit about you and a great understanding of LDS doctrines...

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm sure it will happen then to, the point is that it won't stop, even into the eternities, to think otherwise just does not make any logical sense.

Don't put restrictions on God...

Marriage will continue through the eternities, in my opinion, but only in the Celestial kingdom..

Admit it - you only need to believe that it will continue on after Judgement to justify your belief that Christ wasn't married in this life - right?

 

[rocka21]

all else who did not have the opportunity to marry on this earth or who did not have the restored gospel, like all those who have lived and died before the gospel was restored, who would have accepted it and married in LDS temples if they had the chance,

Paul and Jesus had opportunity, and if it so important to get to the highest level, they would have done so.

I see where you are coming from FFH, but Man........ thats a lot of ifs, ands, and buts.........

being married to get to a higher level does not make sense. The KJV proves it. the only way around it is to MAKE the scripture FIT the doctrines of LDS. If you like going down " what if " rabbit trails, thats your right.

Even the LDS on this thread cannot agree on the topic ( for the most part).

I am sure they will have some official meeting and exempt Paul, Jesus, and whoever else does not FIT the Joe smith doctrine. O well.........

 

[Bishka]

Even the LDS on this thread cannot agree on the topic ( for the most part).

Actually we do agree for the most part, we just feel FFH is wrong on his interpretation is some parts. If you see the rest of responses, you will see that we are generally unified on this subject and most others. FFH does have his own interpretations sometimes, and many a time they are not exactly doctrinal. For the most part, most Christians cannot agree, there are thousands (if not more) different denominations of Christianity.

I am sure they will have some official meeting and exempt Paul, Jesus, and whoever else does not FIT the Joe smith doctrine. O well.........

It's sad, you claim to want to know what we believe and then you go and mock us. To me that isn't very Christ-like nor do I believe Christ would act in that way. He said to love all, not to mock and make fun of all.

 

[madhatter85]

Miracle of Forgiveness is not doctrinal, nor does it hold us in any way, shape or form.

It is Doctrinal, and it does hold us in many ways, it was written by our beloved prophet Spencer W Kimball. It has been called "the 5th standard work" by our general authorities.

The Lord said in the D&C somethign to the effect of-
"[Wether is be from the voice of my servants, of from me, it is the same]"

I suggest you read it, i would suggest everyone read it it is an amazing book.

 

[Bishka]

It is Doctrinal, and it does hold us in many ways, it was written by our beloved prophet Spencer W Kimball. It has been called "the 5th standard work" by our general authorities.

It is not doctrinal, if it was it would be in our Standard Works. Ask any of the LDS here if they think Miracle of Forgiveness is doctrinal.

In fact, President Kimball states in the beginning of the book,

"I accept full responsibility for the contents of this book. Specifically, the Church and its leaders are totally absolved from the responsibility for any error which it may be found to contain." (p. xii)

Could you point out to me where any General Authority has called it the "5th Standard Work", and I like to see how doctrinal those statements are as well. If it really was doctrinal in would be included within our curriculum in Sunday School as well as Gospel Doctrine and several other Church-held classes. It is not doctrinal -- whatever is in our Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) is.

I suggest you read it, i would suggest everyone read it it is an amazing book.

Again, it is not doctrinal, and I have read it, twice, I am on my third reading right now.