1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For LDS only...some tricky questions

Discussion in 'Latter-day Saints DIR' started by Truth_Faith13, Feb 27, 2016.

  1. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,821
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Orontes – I think your explanation is wonderful and clear. I thought I would make a simple comment on 1 Peter 3:18 and the context of the various versions of this text in the many early Greek New Testaments.

    The Greek of 1 Peter 3:18 is : Οτι Χριστος απαξ περι αμαρτιων υπερ ημων (1) επαθεν δικαιος υπερ αδικων ινα ημας προσαγαγη θεω (2) θανατωθεις μεν σαρκι ζωοποιηθεις δε ενπνευματι. 19 εν ω και τοις εν τω αδη / φθλακη κατα (κε)κλεισμενοις (3) πνευμασιν πορευθεις εκηρυξεν,...

    For Christ died for our sins (1), once for all, the righteous for unrighteous, that we may approach God (2). Put to death in flesh but made alive spiritually, 19 in which also to those spirits in the locked prison below (3) he went [and] preached


    (1) At least 18 important ancient versions of early NT texts say “for our sins” (א2, A,C,K,L,33,81,614, 630, 945, 1739, al, t, vg, sy-hmg, Lt-lat, Cyp, Cyr, etc), rather than simply “for sin”. The difference is subtle, but the contextual shift is important. (for example, unrepented sin was not covered by the atonement in early Christian worldviews)

    (2) The single greek word here is “Προσαγαγη”. It is often rendered in english by the phrase “bring us to God”. However, if the ancient intent was transitive, then it meant "to approach God” (i.e. the atonement allows us to "approach" God). In compounds, the word was used in the context of a circuit, meaning “to return to God”, (the completion of a circuit). That is “to bring back to” God. (i.e. in the manner of eccl 12:7 where "...the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it". The concept of leaving a pre-mortal existence with God and then returning to him are implied in multiple, similar, textual assumptions.

    (3) At least three ancient greek versions of this New Testament phrase use “in [the] hades” (614, pc; ambst) and at least 5 ancient versions say “φυλακη κατα (κε)κλεισμενοις” (C al z vg.mss; Aug), or to those spirits "in the locked prison below…”. (the word order matters here). In any case, the early concept of hades being a place where spirits were locked and unable to rescue themselves but by the grace of Jesus who descends and opens the locked gates of hades and leads them out, is the theme also reflected in early Christian Literature and, obviously is the restorative model familiar to LDS.

    If one compares such early New Testament descriptions with early Christian interpretations and descriptions such as the descent of Jesus into Hades as described in the Gospel of Nicodemus with restorational theology, the parallels are striking and frequent and profound. These repeating patterns tell us what early Christianity believed and importantly, what an authentic restoration of early Christianity will look like.

    Thanks for your insight Orontes.

    Clear
    φυνετωφιω
     
    #341 Clear, Dec 6, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2016
  2. Orontes

    Orontes Master of the Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,154
    Ratings:
    +112
    Religion:
    LDS
    Cheers
     
  3. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,653
    Ratings:
    +637
    This is what I've come to learn.

    1. Joseph was likely sealed to around 34 women. List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

    2. 11 of these women were already married to men alive at the time.

    3. One of these women was Marinda Hyde. Joseph sent her husband on a mission and secretly married her while he was away.

    4. 7 of the women were teenagers. At least one was as young as 14 (which I personally think is shocking, consummated or not).

    5. Among the women was a mother-daughter set, and at least three sister sets, including sisters that Joseph was fostering at the time.

    6. Joseph claimed an angel with a drawn sword threatened to destroy him if he didn't follow through with these marriages.

    7. Joseph denied he was a polygamous and had a printing press that told otherwise destroyed. This set in motion the events that led to his death.

    8. Joseph may have been practicing polygamy before the sealing power was even restored.

    9. The scriptures suggest God authorizes polygamy only to raise up seed (i.e., to multiply and replenish the earth). Many Mormon apologists suggest Joseph never had sexual relations with these additional wives, which begs the question of why he was marrying them if God only approved the reason of multiplying and replenishing the earth.

    That's all I have time for, but before anyone accuses me of debating in a DIR forum, please note that much of this information is available at the Church's own website and essay on the topic. I think that's fair to point out on a DIR, and I'm not looking for a debate.

    Thanks.
     
  4. Truth_Faith13

    Truth_Faith13 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +15
    Hi all,

    Hope you are all set for Christmas!

    As Jane will know, I have been spending a lot of time over on the catholic forums. One of my threads involved discussing marriage in heaven and Matthew 22:30. In my research I found the following on another site and was wondering how you read the other verses?

     
  5. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,557
    Ratings:
    +5,489
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Merry Christmas to you too! I was hoping you'd stop by here again before the holiday!

    You have quoted Matthew. The same incident is also discussed in both Mark and Luke. Unless I am mistaken, John is the only gospel writer who does not include it in his account. I believe that these verses are among the most universally misunderstood of any in the New Testament. At first glance, they do appear to be saying that marriage does not survive the grave. But for those willing to look a little deeper, there are some significant clues which imply that the truth is a bit more involved. I’ll cover some of these points in this post. First, here are Mark’s and Luke’s words.

    Mark 12:18-25 “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

    Luke 20:27-36: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

    I would also post the entire text of John 17, because it is very important to an accurate understanding of these passages on marriage, but that would make what will already be a pretty long post even longer. You may, however, wish to review that chapter yourself. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the subject:

    1. We need, as always, to be aware of who Jesus’ audience was. In this instance, He was speaking to the Sadducees. What do we know about the Sadducees? First of all, they didn’t believe in a resurrection at all. In asking a question of this sort, do you honestly think they were looking for the truth? Or do you think that, as on many other occasions, they were simply trying to stump Jesus by asking a question that would cause Him to have to contradict something He’d previously taught. It’s entirely logical to assume that Jesus, knowing their hearts as perfectly as He did, would have given them an answer that, while entirely honest, would pertain to them specifically. In teaching a truly receptive audience, His answer would likely have been expressed somewhat differently.

    2. John 17 (which I referred to earlier) makes frequent use of the phrases “of the world” and “not of the world.” These phrases are, in fact, used so many times that it’s almost impossible to brush them off as inconsequential. In the prayer recorded in this chapter, Jesus made a clear distinction between His followers, in other words, those individuals who, like Him, were “not of this world,” and those who rejected Him, thereby falling into the group who were “of the world

    In Luke’s account of this event, Jesus once again uses the phrase, “of the world.” Jesus was telling the Sadducees, who were obviously “children of the world” what they could expect in the next life. Because they were not His followers, they would not receive the blessings of eternal marriage, but would instead be as angels. Jesus did not explain to them the blessings that the children “not of this world” would receive. Why should He have done? They would have believed Him to exactly the same extent that they believed they would be resurrected.

    3. Looking at Mark’s account, we see another important indication of what Jesus really meant. Here, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Ye know not the power of God.” What on earth could He have meant by that? The power of God to do what – un-marry someone? In the context of His statement, He could only have meant that the Sadducees did not understand that God has the power to unite a husband and wife forever. Without such power, death would certainly end the marriage covenant, but with it, the covenant is eternal. Jesus gave Peter the keys to bind in heaven that which he would bind on earth. Having that authority, he would be able to exercise the power of God to make the marriage relationship endure. We know from the Old Testament that “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” When Peter received the keys to the kingdom of God, he received the power of God to do something that would have eternal significance.

    4. Finally, it is significant that Jesus never did say that no one would be married in Heaven. He merely said that no one would get married in Heaven. There is a difference between these two things. The Greek word translated as “marry” is “gamosin,” the third-person form of the verb “gameo,” which means “to enter into the marriage state or to get married.” The term “gamizonai” (“giving in marriage”) is another way of saying the same thing. But, He never used the word, “gemesas,” (as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:33) to describe “a married person.” He never said that there will be no married individuals in Heaven; He only said that marriages won’t be performed there. And I believe this to be the case.

    In Ecclesiastes 3:14 (KJV), we read, "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it." The same verse, from the New English Bible, says, "I know that whatever God does last forever; to add to it or subtract from it is impossible." I think so much hinges on the concept that there are marriages performed by a priesthood power that binds in heaven what is bound on earth, and then there are marriages performed without that power. If the power of the priesthood is, in fact, God's power, which He has given men to use to act in His name, then it seems to me that the question is settled. If a marriage is performed by the power of God, it will last forever.

    I'm wondering if your Catholic friends can tell you why God would not want a marriage to last beyond the grave. Why would something that was so important to Him for us to have here on earth suddenly be taken from us? If our love for our spouse will endure, why would He dissolve the union between us? In 1 Corinthians 11:11, we are told that, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." I believe that "in the Lord" is the operative phrase here. Not every earthly marriage is "in the Lord" -- even those that were performed in churches, cathedrals, mosques or synagogues.
     
  6. Truth_Faith13

    Truth_Faith13 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +15
    Thanks Katz, Merry Christmas to you to. Im not sure I explained properly apologies. We had already discussed Matthew and I agree there is a difference between no marriage and marriage occuring in Heaven (at the resurrection). However in light of Romans and Corinthians as well..they do appear to suggest marriage ends at Death otherwise a woman would still be bound to her husband and committing adultery?

    • Romans 7:2-3, "For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man."
    • 1 Corinthians 7:39, "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."
    It was these verses I was asking what the LDS view was.
     
  7. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,557
    Ratings:
    +5,489
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'm sorry, I guess I just kind of spaced the verses you were most concerned with. To me, all these verses are saying is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." I was married in the temple. Therefore, I believe that we are "sealed" for both this life and the next. But if my husband were to die, I would be free to remarry. That marriage would be dissolved at death, but my eternal sealing to my husband would not be. Does that help.
     
  8. Truth_Faith13

    Truth_Faith13 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +15
    A little but what about your husband, if he remarries, he can be sealed to another woman?
     
  9. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,557
    Ratings:
    +5,489
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Yes, he can, provided it's her first temple marriage. That's not good, is it? (Of course, if he knows what's good for him, he won't marry number two in the temple. :D ) Actually, that's what happened when my grandmother died. She and my grandfather had been married in the temple. He remarried, but not in the temple, to a woman who had been married to her deceased husband in the temple. So their marriage was just until one of them died. I think that's actually a much, much commoner scenario than the man being married to two women in the temple.
     
    #349 Katzpur, Dec 24, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2016
  10. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,821
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Christian
    My current model for understanding this story involves some tentative assumptions :

    First, I assume that the Sadducees who did not believe in resurrection as other Jews did, were asking about conditions in the resurrection and trying to point out the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection. Secondly, I assume Jesus’ answer had to do with resurrection. The third point is that I think the sadducees were speaking in context of levirate marriage where the purpose of producing “seed” was to produce and heir and continue the family line and name. Fourthly, I assume the sadducees were taking their example from a version of this story of which Jewish Old Testament Tobit is an example. These tentative assumptions affect the context and meaning of Jesus answer.

    For example, when “Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?” I assume he was speaking of the scripture describing the 7 brethren and not meaning to say they did not know all scriptures. And when Jesus answered them “When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Mark 12:18-24) he is not saying that all individuals become angels upon dying.

    The context of the several “brethren” first married Sara seems to be that they did not marry Sara (the widow in the story) for love, but for lust and for the dowry that came with her. Also, they were not related brethren, nor did they have right by the law of Moses to enter into a levirate marriage with Raguels daughter Sara. For example, the angel Azarias tells Tobias that “the right of inheritance (ie Saras' family wealth) doth rather appertain to thee than to any other” (that is, the other seven did not have the right). “seeing thou only are of her kindred” (the others were NOT a “brother” to Sara but were generic “brethren” who married her).

    The angel also tells Tobias “for she is appointed unto thee from the beginning”. Whether this is a reference to pre-existence or simply a pre-ordained match, the context of the angels discussion is that Sara was NOT intended for the other brethren, but was for Tobias only.

    On the night of their marriage, the prayer of Tobias indicates his reason to marry her was morally correct. The scripture says “his heart was effectually joined to her” (and this was even before he knew her). On the night of their marriage, Tobias said to Sara “Sister, arise and let us pray to God,” and part of his prayer says “ And now, O Lord, I take not this, my sister for lust, but uprightly, therefore mercifully ordain that we may become aged together.”

    So, when the Sadducees indicate was single when she died, Jesus tells them that “you do not know the scriptures”. Is he saying they were not telling the story correctly and/or that important things were being left out of their telling of the story. For example, in the Story the only correct marriage was to Tobias. In the Story, Tobias and Sara DO have children. Certain important details are missing and changed in the Sadducees version.

    Also, when he uses the word “neither do “they” marry, the “they” is he speaking of the brethren who married improperly and for lust and for money, or does one attempt to apply this specific “they” to ALL individuals? I think “they” is “they”.

    Also, the reference to “marry” and be “given in marriage” refers to men (who marry of their own choice) and to women who, in the levirate model are “given” to another person almost like property to a man they did not even know. The sadducees were using this example to make conditions in resurrection appear absurd. Is Jesus saying that the context of the levirate marriage in their reference do not exist in the resurrection. Women are not “given” at all, nor does the need for levirate marriage exist since there is no need to produce offspring, or heirs, or to make provisions to survive, etc. The entire concept of buying and selling of women and the legal contracts that accompany such types of marriage simply do not exist nor need to exist after the resurrection. Levirate marriage was created inside the context of death whereas this condition does not exist after resurrection. In the resurrection, individuals will not die, but “will be as the angels of heaven” and thus, will not be subject to death.

    I think that Jesus understood that marriage was instituted in the order of creation before the fall of Mankind and was given to beings who were, at that time, not subject to death, whereas his discussion to the Sadducess was of their understanding of a marriage grounded in assumptions of the conditions after the fall of mankind and those who were subject to death.

    I need to stop here and go tickle a child since it is Christmas eve and I am visiting family. But, these are a few things to think about in trying to figure out what Jesus meant in the context in which his discussion takes place.

    See you

    Clear
    σετωακτζω
     
    #350 Clear, Dec 24, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2016
  11. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,653
    Ratings:
    +637
    I have found no evidence of "eternal marriage" in the Bible. I think it strictly came about by purported latter-day revelation.
     
  12. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,821
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Christian
    I've never done any significant survey of discussions of marriage in ancient Judeo-Christian literature. I think the relative dearth of description and discussion of the more sacred aspects of this union is due to it’s inclusion as part of the Μυστηριον (eng. Mysteries) of Early Judeo-Christianity. The Koine linguist Moulton tells us this word denotes a secret “known only to the initiated, which they are not at liberty to disclose.

    In his Studies on this point, J. A. Robinson demonstrates the N.Testament sense of this word as “not a thing which must be kept secret. On the contrary it is a secret which God wills to make known and had charged his Apostles to declare it to those who have ears to hear it.

    For example, the use of this term in the Didache (xi.ii) μυστηριον κοσμικον εκκλησιας (indicating the mysteries of the organized church) is a type of “sacrament” or “ordinance” used to describe marriage (the word μυστηριον still means “sacrament” in modern greek). The concept of “the seal” or “sealing” or “ordinance” or “sacrament” as applied to other covenants and “ordinances” helps form some basic context for early reticence concerning these ordinances or sacraments.

    The descriptions that are included in early Judeo-Christian literature and their context of marriage, demonstrate multiple textual traditions where it is assumed that family ties exist beyond the grave. For contextual examples :

    The context of an eternal “home”.

    One basic context for understanding early Christian worldviews regards the base nature of mortality itself. Christians did not see this mortal world as their real “home”. The discovery of the logia of Jesus that “This life is like a bridge. We pass over but we do not make our home here.” Is a basic principle which is part of the early Christian periscope. And often, the context of relationships were described inside the concept that Heaven was the ultimate and “real” home of the Christian worldview.

    The Apostolic Father Diognetus describes this Christian philosophy. "They [Christians] live in their own countries, but only as aliens; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like everyone else, and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food but not their wives. They are 'in the flesh', but they do not live 'according to the flesh'. They live on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven….The soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body; likewise Christians dwell in the world, but are not of the world” The Epistle to Diognetus 5:5-9 & 6:1-2:

    The same concept exists in Jewish literature. The haggadah (first things created, ch 1) tells us that : "In the beginning…before the Heaven and the earth….The Torah...the Celestial Sanctuary directly in front of God, having a jewel on its altar graven with the Name of the Messiah, and a Voice that cries aloud, 'Return, you children of men.' " Mankind were sent temporarily to Earth, but it was always part of the plan that they would return to their real home in heaven.

    The concept that our real “home” is heaven and this life is merely a school to which we are sent to receive experiencial tutoring is important. This life was seen as a vague reflection of our “true home” with God. Thus, the Christian concept which describes marriage existing in heaven maintains the union between a husband and wife is different in heaven than here in mortality : “Whereas in this world the union is one of husband with wife...in the Aeon the form of the union is different, although we refer to them by the same names." (The gospel of Phillip). The concept that though we use the name “marriage” to describe this union, there is something different about this union in the next world should be familiar to restorationists. For example, the LDS actually refer to this eternal union, not as a “marriage”, but more properly as a “sealing” and place it into the context of a “patriarchal order” in describing it. It should come as no surprise if the ancient Christians did the same.


    The earliest sacrament/ordinance of “marriage” involved the union of immortal beings


    Jewish Haggadah describes the early teaching about the “wedding” of immortal Adam and Immortal Eve. (As phillip reminds us, even the term “wedding” is not an accurate representation of the union represented). The text however, tells us that “The Wedding of the first couple was celebrated with pomp...God himself, before presenting her to Adam, attired and adorned Eve as a bride...and God pronounced the blessings upon the bridal couple.... The Haggadah (Woman). I haven’t taken the time to see what the Hebrew terms used actually were, but I expect that the term “wedding” is inaccurate and used for the convenience of the translator and ancient descriptions of ordinances would use different terms.

    The texts continually use a familial context in reference to post resurrection events
    The texts continue to use family terms in discussing the relationship of Adam and Eve and their children whether they existed in the immortal state, then after their fall in the mortal state and then after death while in the world of spirits where they await resurrection.

    For example, in the decensus literature, when the still living Adam is speaking to Seth, he tells Seth about three angels who visited him in the Garden of eden. The messengers teach him about the future messiah. Adam spoke of Seth as his son and they spake of Eve as Adam’s wife. The angel said: “Rise up, Adam, from the sleep of death, and hear about the aeon and the seed of that man to whom life has come, the one who came forth from you and from Eve your wife." The Apocalypse of Adam 2:1-6-7, ch 3:1;

    Adam, speaks to his son Seth of the promise of a Savior made to him after his fall from the Garden. "Adam said to Seth, his son, You have heard my son, that God is going to come into the world after a long time, (he will be) conceived of a virgin and put on a body, be born like a human being, and grow up as a child…” and speaking of the promise by Jehovah to him quotes Jehovah as saying “and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven." Testament of Adam 3:1-4 Even after Adams' and Seths death Seth is still referred to in the literature as Adams son, and Adams posterity are still his posterity. (In other Texts, it is clear that Eve is still referred to as his wife. )

    In the decensus literature, in the Gospel of Nicodemus, after Christs’ death during the three days when his body lay in the Tomb, Christ spirit went to free all those spirits of righteous individuals who had lived and whose spirits were in the “prison of Hades”. There, Adam again refers to Seth as his son. The text tells us that Adam, (who was a spirit in the spirit world) “cried out to Seth his son, saying: Declare unto thy sons the patriarchs and the prophets all that thou didst hear from Michael the archangel, when I sent thee unto the gates of paradise that thou mightest entreat God to send thee his angel to give thee the oil of the tree of mercy to anoint my body when I was sick." G. of Nicodemus III (XIX)

    The concept of eternal family simply becomes woven into common textual descriptions so seamlessly that they often go unnoticed. For example, the blessings that are given to the obedient of Israel were that “it might go well with them and with their children forever” is buried in the commonplace promise of the Lord to Moses : "And the Lord said to Moses, ….keep all My commandments always, so that it might go well with them and with their children forever. " (Deut 5:28-29)

    Similarly when God promises adam a savior in the Christian text, Testament of Adam, the promise was that the future resurrected adam will have justice of heaven restored “ to you and to your posterity”. It is a future and resurrected Adam whose family/posterity is to be blessed in this promise. Testament of Adam 3:1-4.

    The point is that the early Judeo-Christians did possess the belief that the family unit existed after death, and in the immortal state. Perhaps when I have time, I may do a survey of the literature to see what I can find, specifically regarding the union of husband and wife in the immortal worlds.

    In any case, good luck coming to your own beliefs concerning this point of relationships and what they are like in a future, social heaven.

    Clear
    σεδρσεσεω
     
    #352 Clear, Dec 26, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  13. Truth_Faith13

    Truth_Faith13 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +15
    I have a very random question... I occasionally watch "my 4 wives" on TLC. They mentioned that two of their daughters had tried to join the LDS church but were rejected based on their parents polygamy. They are both 19. I know the church won't baptise children of gay couples until 18 but why wouldn't they baptise someone based on their parents polygamy at all (assuming that they don't themselves want to practise it)?
     
  14. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,557
    Ratings:
    +5,489
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    If the children were at least 18 years old, not living with their polygamous parents and not intending to practice polygamy themselves, I believe they would be permitted to be baptized. Something tells me that the information given on the show is perhaps "the truth" -- just not "the whole truth."
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,653
    Ratings:
    +637
    I think Katz's answer is spot on. The only thing I would add, and this is pure speculation on my part, is perhaps they refused to denounce their parents' lifestyle - something the Church may have wanted given the reality TV publicity.
     
  16. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,928
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    Actually, that's generally required of all children of polygamists who seek baptism. They need to be legal adults (18+), they need to not be living with their parents, and they need to renounce/denounce/disavow their parents' lifestyle. To be clear, I don't think they need to say more than something like, "Polygamous marriage is contrary to God's plan for families" so we're not talking about cutting off contact with their parents. But yes, it sounds like this is the criteria they failed to meet.
     
  17. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,557
    Ratings:
    +5,489
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'm glad you posted this. I think it's important for people to understand that they aren't being asked to disown their parents or to cut off contact from them. They aren't asked to condemn them either -- but to disavow the lifestyle.
     
  18. Truth_Faith13

    Truth_Faith13 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +15
    Thank-you, I think both girls still live with their parents so that is definitely probably the reason.

    OK, so I have started reading The Great Apostasy by James Talmage. I'm a little confused by a few things (although I am not very far into the book). Firstly, he seems to be in agreement with the Catholics that there were 12 apostles and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas based on them having spent time with Jesus etc and that Paul while an "apostle" in a sense wasn't the same as the twelve. However if he agrees that an Apostle has to have known Jesus etc, why would he expect the present day church (IE in his mind LDS) to have 12 apostles since none of them can fulfill the biblical requirements of an apostle which Talmage seems to accept? Secondly, he mentions that Jesus set up two churches...One in Palestine and then one in the Americas (IE the Book of Mormon etc) with a whole new set of 12 apostles etc. I thought LDS believed Jesus established one church? Not two?
     
  19. Scott C.

    Scott C. Just one guy

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,851
    Ratings:
    +640
    Religion:
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    Hi

    I believe that the modern apostles must have revelation of Jesus Christ which qualifies them to give witness as certain as the witness given by the original 12. In other words the modern 12 are as certain of his resurrection as we're those who saw the resurrected Christ in the NT. That certainty comes by revelation.

    There is only one church of Christ, but in Book of Mormon times, the old and new world's were so separated that God provided autonomous leadership in both areas. The 12 in the BOM are referred to as disciples but not Apostles. There was a subtle difference as to their priesthood office. At least that's my understanding.

    Both of your questions are good.
     
    #359 Scott C., Jan 30, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2017
  20. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    The church in the New World and the church in the Old World were one church in regards that they taught the same doctrines, had the same priesthood, and the same head (Christ). They were two different churches in regards to human-based logistics- obviously Peter couldn't personally tell the New World people what to do, he didn't even know the New World existed! So he lead the Old World church where he was and physically could lead, and the New World leaders likewise in their area.

    In modern times logistics are such that the entire world can hear the voice of one man instantly, so there's one leadership team.
     
Loading...