posted
Alexa:""What does marriage add?" I asked my Patriarch.
His response (paraphrased):
"When you get sealed, you are not being sealed to eachother, you are being sealed into the celestial kingdom. It is the final ordinance you must recieve to qualify for entry into the Celestial kingdom."
Well, I would agree with that definition if applied solely to the sealing between parents and children.
However, the sealing between husband and wife is different. They really ARE being sealed to each other, the reason being that a man or woman alone cannot become perfect/whole. In order to attain exaltation, and become perfect, the union of male and female is a necessity.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am new. My best friend introduced me to this site a while ago, and I sometimes read her posts. I only ever read it with her by my side, but the past few days I have had free time at work and read more of hatrack (not just forums).
I wanted to discuss my question with a variety of people that understood LDS theology, history, and was comprised of members and non-memners alike. I posted here.
If that standard you use is true, then my mom who was sealed in the temple (but later had her husband leave) is nto eligible for the highest degree of glory.
I have a hard time believing someone as faithful as her who had all ordinances done, is going to be someone elses angel because her husband ran off with a younger model (using like a car model not a professional model).
I do think her being sealed will get her into the Celestial Kingdom and there she will have the opportunity to be sealed or married or be with a worthy man.
According to your analysis, our ultimate salvation CAN be tied to someone elses sins.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa, not at all. Your statement that no otherwise qualifying person will be excluded solely because of an unfaithful spouse is absolutely correct. That does not change the fact that every person will eventually need to be sealed in marriage to at least one other person in order to become perfect. As you said, there will be arrangements made to cover all contingencies.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I have many LDS friends, and dated an LDS guy for awhile -- I still have an uneasy time understanding many LDS beliefs (and don't agree with many of them -- but that is irrelevant to my point here).
I have a very good friend -- male. He was married to a woman. Both were LDS, and grew up LDS, although they were NOT married in the temple, nor sealed. They had two children.
Then they divorced.
(This is all before I met him, so I don't know details).
I do know that he is very upset that she (his ex) is going to have the children "sealed" to her in the temple -- which, as I understand it -- will totally cut him off from his kids 'in the next life' (if you want to call it that). He truly believes this and it rips him up emotionally.
How can she be the better LDS -- when her sole goal is to cut the kids off from their father? When she is using sealing in a vindictive way?
posted
FG -- her's my take. The mother is not "cutting off" the father -- they were never sealed together in the first place. They are not cut off from him any more than if neither one of them ever re-married.
But that's from a doctirnal standpoint. From a human standpoint, I see why this would bother him. Those kids can only be sealed to one set of parents, and by the mother doing this, it makes it so that the father can never be sealed to his kids.
It always makes me sad to think of the pain that comes and never leaves when people get divorced. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl:"I do know that he is very upset that she (his ex) is going to have the children "sealed" to her in the temple -- which, as I understand it -- will totally cut him off from his kids 'in the next life' (if you want to call it that). He truly believes this and it rips him up emotionally."
Then he completely misunderstands Church doctrine. But that's okay, lots of members do.
The fundamental difference between a parent-child sealing and a husband-wife sealing is completely missed by many people, probably because the two so often occur simultaneously.
People imagine these little households in heaven, with their own children gathered around their knees forever just because they are sealed. This is poppycock. Ideally, each of those children will be sealed to a spouse of their own, and to children of their own. You can easily see that this "household" would eventually be infinite in size, and this is in fact what happens. The "household" is the family of God, and all his qualifying children will be there. Thus, the only "special" sealing relationship is between husband and wife.
So many people agonize over who a child is sealed to, when in fact it makes absolutely no difference at all, as long as they are sealed to somebody.
posted
Farmgirl: Ouch. This is one of the reasons why divorce is such a painful thing for LDS. I am very aware of the fact that if I my husband (porteiro) and I were to become unsealed for some reason, but both of us went on to be faithful LDS and married different people, to whom would our children belong?
But then, that is a lot of hypotheticals. The chances of us unsealing ourselves and both going on to be fully faithful LDS is pretty slim, IMO. Not that it doesn't happen, just that the chances are slim. In our faith, the breaking of an eternal family is not a thing to be taken lightly.
I understand that this is a painful thing for him, but what else can be done? Obviously unless the two of them become sealed to each other, the children won't be sealed to them both. If he believes in the doctrine, there is no easy answer. If he does not believe in the doctrine, then it won't bother him nearly so much.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's rather a simplification that her "goal" is to cut the children off from their father. Her "goal" is to be with her children for eternity.
We're not totally clear on what the eternities will be like, but I'm sure that anyone who qualifies for eternal life will NOT be cut off from any of their family members who also qualify for eternal life. If your friend is worthy enough to make it into the celestial kingdom, and his children are there too, he will be with them.
We believe that the important thing is that everyone has the ordinances performed. As was mentioned before, parent/child sealings are based on individual righteousness and we trust that God will sort things out in the next life. I feel comforted by that, since so many of us have really made a mess of things in this life...
posted
Ooops. I just noticed. You are having me assume that her SOLE purpose of getting sealed to her kids is to cut him off. Is that true? I find that difficult to believe.
If she is doing it out of faith and wanting to be with her kids, then from an LDS perspective, if we eventually gets married or sealed and goes to the Celestial Kingdom, he can be by his kids and associate with them.
Shout out to UofUlawguy
I think we are arguing semantics. You are right..ultimately, you need to be sealed. I was just pointing out that in this life, we only really need to worry about IF we have been sealed. Whatever happens in this life, will be sorted out in the next.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The chances of us unsealing ourselves and both going on to be fully faithful LDS is pretty slim, IMO.
This is what actually happened to my step-mother, her ex-husband, and their children. They divorced after 30 years and both remained faithful and temple-worthy until his death four years later.
I don't know exactly how they worked out everything - my step-mom was sealed to my dad and the previous one done away with.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do know that he is very upset that she (his ex) is going to have the children "sealed" to her in the temple -- which, as I understand it -- will totally cut him off from his kids 'in the next life' (if you want to call it that). He truly believes this and it rips him up emotionally.
How can she be the better LDS -- when her sole goal is to cut the kids off from their father? When she is using sealing in a vindictive way?
As far as I understand, that won't "cut him off" from his kids. There aren't restraining orders in heaven, nor is there child custody. As UofUlawguy said, the children aren't going to be living at home in the eternities. They're going to be grown up and sealed to their own spouses. If they all make it to heaven, I think he'll have just as much access to the kids as she will.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of those Mormon doctrine I don't get and don't agree with. How does all this jive with Matthew 22:22-32? Jesus quite plainly told the Saduccees that people aren't married nor given in marriage after the Resurrection. How does Mormon doctrine accomodate that, is there another interpretation you use?
I personally don't see any other way to take that other than there will be no marriages in eternity. Angels aren't married, don't have children. Christ specifically says we will be "as the angels in heaven."
No disrespect y'all - I'm genuinely curious, this sealing, and marriage for eternity has been something I never understood because it seems to me that it contradicts something specifically stated by Christ.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point! I will read Joesph Smith's Translation of the bible and see if he addresses that issue.
I personally think the afterlife will be both a culture shock to everyone and yet be familliar.
As far as sealings go...Motherhood is defined by itself. If I have a child, whether I get sealed or not, by definition, I am the parent. Right? How can I suddenly not have a daughter--you could place her on the other side of the universe, but I still gave birth to her. ** (hypothetically of course)
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the first thing I've found that might address that question, Belle. Unforunately, I'm working, so I don't have a lot of time to go looking.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I am not qualified to sufficiently answer your question.
But here's a partial answer: As I understand it, LDS doctrine views this statement by Jesus as a very clever way of giving an answer without answering the question at all. He was very good at answering questions in a clever way that did not give more information than He felt people were ready to receive.
Christ could have chosen this moment to discuss eternal marriage with them. He decided that they were not ready for/would not benefit from such a revelation.
Now to explain: We believe that those who have been married lawfully in life may be sealed to each other by proxy (someone living stands in for them to have the sealing performed). I assume that at some point, probably after Christ returns to the earth to rule here and much more is revealed than is now known to us, people who would like to have been married but never had the opportunity will be given that opportunity here on the earth. My understanding is once you are resurrected and judged, that's it, no more marrying. You are where you are, single or married. So if you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like a contradiction.
EDIT: Oh, and we believe the term "angels" refers to people who have entered into God's kingdom yet are single.
posted
Hmm..I read it Jon Boy, but I don't think it addresses the issue. I mean, if you are sealed and married in eternity, and Christ says there is no marriage in eternity, then we have a contradiction.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring it up, so I'm just wondering what the explanation is. Is there an alternate interpretation of this chapter in Matthew? 'Cause, let's say I was interested in becoming a convert to LDS (I'm not, this is hypothetical), this would a huge stumbling block to me. I would be wary of any church doctrine that seemed to directly contradict the words of Jesus.
I'll go googling and see what I can find.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and we believe the term "angels" refers to people who have entered into God's kingdom yet are single.
As in, not sealed (in both form and substance). Which would be everyone who isn't in the highest level of the celestial kingdom.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The standard LDS response to the passage where Jesus tells the Sadducees that there is no marriage in the resurrection is that this is, in fact, true. Nobody who has been resurrected will get married thereafter. Any effective sealing (the only kind of marriage that is of any effect in the hereafter) must have taken place before resurrection.
Now, of course, this raises a lot of questions about why he responded this way to the question. As was said by someone else, many of us believe that Jesus was deliberately refraining from giving a complete answer to the specific question asked, because it was not a sincere question to begin with. After all, the Sadducees didn't even believe in the resurrection -- therefore, the basis for their question was dishonest.
Another interpretation, that doesn't contradict the above, is that none of the seven (?) marriages were sealed in the first place, so none of them could be efficacious in the next life, and all of the participants would fail to be exalted because of their lack of a sealing.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Bev that doesn't work for me either. It's a little plainer even in Luke.
quote: Lu 20:34 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Lu 20:35 but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Lu 20:36 for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
The word marry in this case is the Greek gameo which doesn't just mean "marry" as the verb, but also the act of leading in marriage, taking to wife, being married.
It's not just that the marriage ceremony won't be performed anymore, but that people won't BE married anymore after the resurrection. Wes will not be my husband in eternity, we will both be children of God.
dkw? Am I wrong? (I'm using my study materials, of course, not being a Biblical scholar)
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, this is not intended to be an argument to change anyone's mind. I intend it as a discussion among friends about different ways of looking at things.
I have a feeling we are all probably wrong in our internal ideas of what the afterlife will be, because I don't think the human mind has the capacity to truly comprehend Heaven. In other words, we'll all be plesantly surprised.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I don't have a good answer for you, but I do know that we use the King James Version of the Bible and LDS doctrine disagrees with some of the ways the Bible has been translated since then. I don't know about the Greek word usage. For all I know, that could be a wrong translation to. One of the LDS articles of faith states that we believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly.
I will see what I can find.
EDIT: Nevermind, that looks like the King James version to me now
I just read the answer to your question. I started by reading the new testement you quoted. I then thought, "Aha, Joseph Smith said the Bible was often mistranslated. and was working on a Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. Surely the JST will shed new light."
Well, it didn't. That part of Matthew was never "retranslated." On the LDS website http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22 they have "resurrection" "marry" and "angel" highlighted in verse 30.
When you click on the link, it takes yo uto D&C 132 (which was already quoted here).
In answer to your question imho, mormons make it jive by saying modern prophets take precedent over ancient prophets, and when Joseph Smith was inspired to talk about needing to be married and sealed to enter the highest kingdom, then his revelation is "more complete" then what is recorded in the bible.
Remember, mormons don't need to justify everything with the Bible...there are so many contradictions in the Bible, that it takes 3 more books (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and D&C) PLUS living prophets to understand God's plan.
As far as contradicting Christ, I understnad yoru concern and will always maintain that eternal truth is ONLY understood through prayer. If we each gave our honest opinions (since eternity is so abstract a thought with no way to understand it) we woudl sound like talking fools. Back to my assertation that religion is only used to acquire a relationship with Diety and to shape character.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it makes more sense to me when taken in context with D&C 132:15-17.
Here is the text for ease of reading:
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage•; but are appointed angels in heaven•, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels• of God forever and ever.
posted
Belle, I agree with you. I think that in the kingdom of God we’ll find out that we’re all members of one family – the family of God. Loving relationships don’t end, but the institutions we use to structure our society in this world will be irrelevant in the next.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this is coming down to I'm not Mormon and you guys are.
This is a case where I can't possibly agree with your stance because I don't accept as scripture something you do and I don't accept as prophets people you do. We are at a friendly impasse.
Thanks, though, that's what I wanted to know was how you looked at it. A question that has been bugging me is now answered.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is sweet, but I think my view is even sweeter. All of us living in harmony, the closeness and love I feel with my husband won't be lost, it will only be multiplied and shared with the millions of other believers. It's going to be quite remarkable. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Alexa, I believe that the entire Bible was restranslated, but very little of it made it into the LDS Church's version of the Bible. I believe that the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church) is in possession of Joseph Smith's complete manuscript, though they've made further changes (I think).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, that's actually not all that different than how I imagine it being. But then I guess we all have to wait to see what really awaits us.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:mormons make it jive by saying modern prophets take precedent over ancient prophets
I'm not sure that this is the most accurate way to state this. Rather, we believe that due to varying factors and states of readiness of those willing to hear the Word, the Gospel is revealed in various permutations and practiced in various forms throughout history and with different emphases in different societies.
We also believe that many parts of the Gospel (including much of what is involved in our temple worship) have been part, in some form or another, of early incarnations of the "true Church of Christ," but that many things have been lost or obscured, either by accident, or because of not wanting to reveal those things to the those who are not prepared to receive them.
This semi-relativistic (or perhaps conditional would be a better term) approach makes people uncomfortable -- even some Mormons are discomfited by doctrines or practices that were revealed by earlier prophets but are no longer part of current Mormon theological discourse -- living in a communitarian-style type of society for instance. But it makes a weird kind of sense, imo. The Gospel never changes, but how it is manifested is tailored to be most effective for current cultural, societal and political conditions. Thus the need for modern revelation.
---- Belle:
Just to state the obvious [EDIT: Okay so you beat me to it]. Any Mormon answer is going to be unsatisfactory because your approach to Christianity is to go for the *best* interpretation of the New Testament text. I think this is a good approach and am glad you asked this question because I think us LDS need to 1. be more familiar with the Bible 2. be more familiar with how other denominations intepret the Bible 3. be very clear about where our interpretations of Bible verses are reasonable and where they may be stretching things a bit
quote:It is sweet, but I think my view is even sweeter. All of us living in harmony, the closeness and love I feel with my husband won't be lost, it will only be multiplied and shared with the millions of other believers. It's going to be quite remarkable.
I think that is wonderful. I've always thought that mainstream Christian conceptions of heaven were totally boring, but the way you put it here makes it seem more attractive that I had previously thought --- althought it, naturally, doesn't get my blood stirring anywhere near as much as the Mormon conception of the afterlife does.
I also have gained an appreciation from your post that it's a wonderful expression of faith in God -- that since it will be with him it will be amazing beyond imagine even if it isn't quite clear what it will exactly be.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry I'm a little delayed in my answer (the thread has moved on)
But thanks for those of you who replied to me above. Perhaps I didn't understand all of his story right, and yes, I am probably only seeing it as being vindictive and I didn't think of it in the other lights you have now shown me. So perhaps she is only trying to do what she thinks is the best thing for her kids -- and I can hardly fault her in that.
That's what happens when you only get to hear one side of the story -- and I never thought of it from her side.
The other question, then, that your comments bring to mind-- if this mother has her kids "sealed" to her in the temple, and then later after she passes on or whatever, any of those kids choose to instead to be "sealed" to their dad instead, can they do that? Or can they not do that because he has never been sealed to anything?
Farmgirl
btw -- my own personal beliefs fall in line with what dkw posted above. I only ask these things about my Mormon friend so I can better understand what he believes when I have conversations with him.
posted
Perhaps Hatrack is the Utopia we have all been seeking. Allowing for a few exceptions, people are amazingly respectful and considerate. Darn smart and witty too!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl: Assuming their mother is sealed to a man (which I guess she would have to be in order to have the kids sealed to her, it would be her and a father figure) and they remain faithful all their lives, probably not. But I don't really know. Perhaps that is what bothers this guy, is the idea that they are sealed to another man as their father instead of him.
My mother's parents divorced when she was 11, neither one LDS. Her mother then married an inactive member, got him to be involved in his faith again, and joined the church themselves. They were all sealed in the temple. So I have a blood-relation grandfather that I am not sealed to. I'm sure that bothers him. We really try to include him and show him our love, though, we still recognize him as an important part of our family.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been wanting to post to this thread, but didn't have time until now to do it justice.
First of all, I want to welcome Alexa and say we're delighted to have you with us. I hope you stay around for a long time.
I am LDS, a convert for three years now, and I am in favor of allowing gays the full rights of citizenship, including marriage. I don't see a conflict between this view and church doctrine.
I do believe totally in the teachings of the church on the family. But I believe we are in a situation now similar to the time in the seventies when blacks were not allowed to be members of the priesthood. I believe that as a church we are taught line by line, precept by precept, only that for which we are ready. If we as a church were ready for this, if it would not tear the church apart, then we would be told to receive our gay brothers and sisters with open arms.
I am not in rebellion against the church leadership at all. I know that my stewardship extends over my own life and callings, and they are doing the right thing, what God tells them to do, with their own stewardships. I do pray and look forward to the day when we can as a church extend equal welcome to gay couples, just as in the seventies people prayed for the priesthood to be extended to all worthy members regardless of race.
To me, the fact that some people can be born with ambiguous gender means that the physical body must not be the determining factor of spiritual gender. So what "man" and "woman" mean spiritually, I'm not sure we completely understand in all particulars. Certainly I know many openly gay people who are celibate outside lifetime partnerships, and who love their partners as deeply as any heterosexual spouse does.
I don't believe people choose to whom they will be attracted. I know I didn't choose to like guys. I just discovered that I did. I don't believe being gay is a sin. Sin blights people's lives. You can tell it's sin independent of any church teaching, because you can see the blight it causes. Happy gay couples in committed relationships don't have any such blight on their lives, that I can see. The only blight they suffer comes from the sins of others, from their hatred and intolerance.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
This was the type of thoughtful post I was looking for. I never compared the church not accepting gay couples to blacks. Interesting thought that the church does not condone it because the membership are not yet ready. Very insightful.
I could never see the church giving active homosexuals the priesthood (as that is sinful in any mormon doctorien), but I could see them welcomed with the same rights in our community.
Hey, I just found out that Jospeh Smith ordained black people to the priesthood and it was Brigham Young who took it away. Anyone else know about that?
I am reading a book written by a black member telling his accounts of discrimination faced in the church and as a missionary right now.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joseph Smith did ordain at least one black man to the priesthood. I used to know his name, but it's not coming to me right now.
There are claims of others, but last I heard they were still disputed. The one I mention above, though, is accepted as real.
However, neither Smith nor any other early Church leader made a common practice of ordaining black men. It was truly an exceptional occurrence.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was extremely excited to read that Brigham Young was in favor of sisters having other callings, such as doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc., in addition to motherhood and marriage. I did not know until a year or two after I joined the church, that the early church actually pioneered many areas of women's rights. In Utah, women always had the vote, for instance, until the United States of America, in its wisdom, outlawed that practice along with other "heathen" practices of Mormons such as polygamy. Even then, early LDS sisters such as Emmaline B. Wells were champions of womens suffrage, and traveled the country speaking out about the subject.
I feel so totally in the same spirit as those sisters. I am very proud of what they did, and hope to live up to their legacy.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, what a great thread. I don't know how Alexa did it, but we've finally got a gay marriage thread on this forum that isn't full of hurled epithets and hard feelings. You're quite the amazing androgynous humanoid presence. You remind me of a dude I knew in high school... the type that could go into the final round of a state championchip debate tournament with no prior experience and come out the winner, and friends with the opposing team to boot. Good on you, mate.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
]![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Anna, wow! That is my first 
