Difference between revisions of "Mormon ordinances/Marriage/Eternal marriage"

Revision as of 10:12, 12 September 2009

Criticism

Critics attack the LDS view of marriage as essential on the following grounds:

1. "If marriage is essential to achieve exaltation, why did Paul say that it is good for a man not to marry? (1 Corinthians 7:1)"
2. "Why does the Mormon Church teach that we can be married in heaven when Jesus said in Matthew 22:30 that in the resurrection man neither marry, nor are they given in marriage?"
3. Since all members of the Church are not married, doesn't this mean they won't be exalted?

Source(s) of the Criticism

• Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 15. ( Index of claims )
• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 520.( Index of claims )
• Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

Response

In brief, the critics misstate the Biblical evidence:

1. Paul does not say it is good not to marry, but quotes the Corinthian saints' comments in a previous letter to him. Paul is responding to this claim, and he critiques it.
2. The original Greek does not support the critics' reading of Jesus' remark to the Sadducees.

The critics also misunderstand or misrepresent the LDS doctrine on the necessity of marriage for salvation.

Each of these points is detailed below.

Main article: Jews and early Christians on marriage after death

Paul and "good not to marry"

Paul does not say it is good not to marry, but quotes the Corinthian saints' comments in a previous letter to him. Paul is responding to this claim, and he critiques it. This claim also fails to take into account other statements made by Paul about marriage.

Paul’s teachings, as recorded in letters that were sent to churches and saints in various stages of spiritual progression, reflect the character and experience of a man who understands family relationships and can speak with authority on the subject.

In the first place, Paul himself was likely to have been married because of his Judaic background. In his defense before the Jewish crowd outside the Roman barracks of the Antonian tower, Paul states that he was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers and was zealous in living that law. (See Acts 22:3.) Again, in his defense before the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul claims that he is a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. (See Acts 23:6.) To the Galatians, Paul had written that he was more zealous in fulfilling the requirements of his religion than others of his time. (See Gal. 1:14.) The emphasis that the Jews put on marriage as part of their law and tradition would certainly have been used against Paul in view of such statements if he had not been married.^[1]

Further evidence that Paul was married is found in the likelihood that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. One of the qualifications for becoming a member of that body was that a man must be married and the father of children, ^[2] which was thought to make him more merciful in dispensing justice in the courts. Paul (Saul) was one of the official witnesses of the stoning of Stephen (see Acts 7:58), an action ordered by the Sanhedrin. He also gave his vote with the Sanhedrin against the Christians prior to his conversion. (See Acts 26:10.) ^[3] Further evidence of Paul’s position is found in Acts 9:1–2 where Paul went before the high priest and requested letters authorizing his “official” persecution in bringing Christians to trial and imprisonment. In view of these evidences, most non-Mormon scholars do not argue that Paul had never been married, but that he was either divorced or was a widower by the time he wrote to the Corinthian church.

But let us take a closer look at 1 Corinthians 7: to see if the evidence supports this last conjecture. At the outset, Paul refers to a letter the Corinthians wrote to him: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Although the King James Version does not make it clear who makes the statement, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” the Greek text and the [JST] both make this a statement of the Corinthians. We do not know the context of this statement, because we do not have the Corinthian epistle to Paul. The only context we can supply is Paul’s answer and, fortunately, that does give us some clue as to their problem. Paul wishes (see 1 Corinthians 7:7) that all men were as he was. But what is that? Could it be that he wishes all men were divorced or that all had lost their companions in death, or does he simply wish that men would be so dedicated to the work of the Lord that they be as though single?

Evidence of the latter possibility can be found later in the chapter. In verses 10 and 11, [1 Corinthians 7:10–11] Paul does not tell the married saints to become separated, but if they are separated, he suggests either that they remain that way rather than marry someone else or that they become reconciled. Paul even enjoins against separation in part-member families if the husband and wife are compatible (1 Corinthians 7:12–14), because the member may someday be able to help save his spouse (see 1 Corinthians 7:16). Some scholars conjecture that Paul was divorced as a result of a “mixed” marriage, but the Corinthians would have thrown this advice right back to him if such had been the case.

One reason Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning these matters is found in verse 29 [1 Corinthians 7:29], where he states, “this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that … they that have wives be as though they had none.” He further states (1 Corinthians 7:32) that the unmarried saints (and those who are as though unmarried) care for the things of the Lord, but too often a married person puts other things before the work of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:33). Paul is simply reminding those who have been called to God’s work to put that calling first, even before earthly matters.

In the [JST] Joseph Smith made an important addition to 1 Corinthians 7:29 that supports this interpretation: “But I speak unto you who are called unto the ministry. For this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is but short, that ye shall be sent forth unto the ministry. Even they who have wives, shall be as though they had none; for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord’s work.” Contrary to generally accepted interpretations, Paul is not condemning marriage in this chapter but is evidently replying to a problem regarding missionaries who desire to become married. His advice is that while they are on their missions (and he declared that the time for missionary work is short) they should be concerned with the work of the Lord and not with family or personal matters.

Concerning the importance of marriage for a member of the church and the relationships of family members toward each other and the Lord, Paul exhorts the saints to be followers of himself, especially in the ordinances of the church. (See 1 Corinthians 11:1–2.) He teaches that the husband is to honor the Lord as his head and the wife is to honor the husband as her head, and that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:11.)

What sense would these statements make if they came from an unmarried man? In view of all that Paul has said on marriage in 1 Corinthians, it is quite unlikely that the Corinthians would accept his epistle and his arguments if he had been divorced or separated from a wife. The message of 2 Corinthians 7:, however, is that the first epistle was accepted and many Saints repented.

It is evident from the frequency of Paul’s counsel on marriage and family that he placed great importance on the subject. Paul exhorts the women in the Ephesian branch of the church to submit themselves to their own husbands (literally, become subject or obedient to), as they would to the Lord, comparing the husband and the family to Christ and the Church. (See Ephesians 5:.) But he also charges the husbands to love their wives (see Eph. 5:25) as their Savior loved the church, so that they might sanctify and perfect their families through love. Paraphrasing one of the great commandments—to love one’s neighbor as oneself—Paul says, “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Ephesians 5:28.) A husband is not to rule as a tyrant over his wife but is to preside in love. (See Ephesians 5:33.)

Paul’s letter to Philippi deserves special consideration in pursuing this subject. Philippi was the first European city in which Paul preached and was one of the most righteous branches of the church at that time of which we have record: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence. …” (Philippians 2:12.) During Paul’s missionary travels and while in prison at Rome, the Philippian church was the only one to remain in constant communication with him by courier, sending gifts and necessities to their beloved apostle. (See Philippians 4:15–18.) In his letter to this faithful group, Paul addresses some of the sisters: “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

“And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women who laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers.” (Philippians 4:2–3; italics added.) Gnésie syzuge, the words translated “true yokefellow,” are here taken as feminine, and is a noun that means “wife.” Ancient commentators believed that Paul was addressing his wife (e.g., Clement of Alex., Strom. 3:53:1, and Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad. Rom. 1:1), and this is the most sensible translation of the Greek in this context. If he were married at the time, one would expect Paul to leave his wife with a faithful group of saints, where she would least suffer from want and lack of support during his absence. Both her presence in Philippi and the love of the members there for Paul would account for the constant communication with the apostle, and, if this interpretation is true, it is natural that Paul would ask his wife to assist some of the women who had done so much on his behalf.

Finally, in Paul’s last epistles, which were written to Timothy and Titus, he places further emphasis on the desirability of marriage. In listing the qualities necessary for a bishop, Paul includes being married (see 1 Timothy 3:2) and being a good leader over his house: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5; cf. Titus 1:5–9). Even those called “deacons” in that day (the Greek literally means “one who serves” or a “helper”) were to be married and have orderly households. (See 1 Timothy 3:10–13.)

The evidence of Paul’s writings leads to the conclusion that he not only tolerated marriage among the saints, but encouraged and exhorted them to marry and bear children. He indicated that marriage is an essential part of the gospel framework, and asserted that one of the signs of apostasy in the last days would be teachings against marriage. (See 1 Timothy 4:1–3.) Certainly Jesus was foremost in importance to Paul, just as he should be in the hearts of men today, and on occasion Paul had to remind men called to the ministry to be fully dedicated to the Lord’s work. Nevertheless, Paul understood and taught that in the presence of the Lord, the man will not be without the woman, neither the woman without the man.^[4]

Jesus and "neither marry nor given in marriage"

Matt. 22:23-30 (or its counterparts, Mark 12:18-25 and Luke 20:27-36) is often used by critics to argue against the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage. The Sadducees, who didn't believe in the resurrection, asked the Savior about a case where one woman successively married seven brothers, each of which died leaving her to the next. They then tried to trip up Jesus by asking him whose wife she will be in the resurrection. Jesus' answer is almost identical in all three scriptural versions.

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:29-30)

This scripture is one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible. Everyone notices the parts of it they think they understand and ignores the other parts. For example, in verse 29, Christ says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." What scriptures did he have in mind? Where is it written in the Old Testament that marriages do not continue in heaven? And how is the power of God displayed by severing the marriage between a man and a woman who have lived their lives together in love? In fact, the New Testament says exactly the opposite. In 1 Corinthians 11:11, Paul says

Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

which certainly sounds like an eternal principle. And Jesus says, in Mark 10:8-9,

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Bible teaches that the power of God unites. There is no mention anywhere of death changing anything — no "till death do you part." It is man who insists on separating married couples.

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures"

So what is the scripture that the Sadducees erred by not knowing? We don't know for sure, but there is one scripture which the Sadducees should have known which seems to bear on their question. This is in the Book of Tobit in the Old Testament Apocrypha (which was universally accepted as scripture in Christ's time). Tobit tells the story of a young Jewish girl from the Medean city of Ecbatane, Sara, the daughter of Raguel, who "had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with her." Tobit 3:8 Since none of these marriages were ever consummated, she was not truly married to any of the brothers, or, in the words of Tobit, "neither [was she] named after any of them." Tobit 3:8 One night, Sara was praying at her window that God would find her a husband, and that same night an old man named Tobit was also praying. Tobit and his wife Anna had a son, Tobias, who was not yet married. In Jewish culture, finding a wife for a son was the responsibility of the parents, so Tobit prayed for God to take away his reproach. That night, God sent an angel to both Sara and Tobit. The Book of Tobit says, "And Raphael was sent to heal them both, that is, to scale away the whiteness of Tobit's eyes and to give Sara the daughter of Raguel for a wife to Tobias the son of Tobit, because she belonged to Tobias by right of inheritance." Tobit 3:17 Raphael then led Tobias to Sara and told him not to fear for his life if he married her, because it was he whom God had chosen to be her rightful husband. They were married and lived happily ever after.

So If the Sadducees were indeed referring to this story from Tobit, then they did indeed err, not knowing: 1) the scripture which made it clear that Sara was really married to none of the seven, so the seven brothers died unmarried, and 2) the power of God, who could send an angel to see that she married the husband to whom she rightly belonged and by whose priesthood she could be married to him, not to the others, for eternity.

At any rate, whether the Sadducees and the Savior had in mind this episode from Tobit or not, Matthew 22:25 — there were with us seven brothers — means that the situation they are asking about was not an imaginary one. These brothers really existed. And Christ's answer is simply pointing out that none of these particular seven brothers had entered into valid eternal marriages with the woman.

"they neither marry nor or given in marriage"

But, regardless of who the parties were in the Sadducees' question to Jesus, doesn't verse 30 — For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage — just mean that everyone is single in heaven? Absolutely not. And here's why we can say this so confidently.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the tenses of verbs in Greek can convey very different information from those in English. The Greek verb for 'marry' is gameô. In verse 30, it is written in the form gamousin, indicating that it is in third person plural (they) and in the present tense, so it is translated simply as "they marry."

Now it is important to note that the present tense represents an action, something performed at some particular time. It does not represent a condition. We can be sure of this because the Greek does have a verb tense called the 'perfect tense' that does represents a present condition resulting from a past completed action. There is no English counterpart to this tense, so it is hard to translate unambiguously, but the point here is that the verbs in Matthew 22:30 are not in the perfect tense. If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ said, "Neither are they now in a married state," the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have simply written in the present perfect tense, oute gegamêkasin. He did not; so that cannot be what he meant. Christ said nothing about the marital state of those who are in heaven.

Please note that the use of the perfect tense is just standard Greek. Everyone used it. Matthew used it. A few chapters later, Matthew writes "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you"Matthew 25:34, in which 'blessed' is the perfect-tense Greek eulogêmenoi, literally 'those who are now in a blessed state due to a previously completed blessing,' and 'prepared' is the Greek hêtoimasmênen, meaning 'now in a prepared state due to a previously completed preparation.' We also have Paul writing to the Corinthians, saying "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" 1 Corinthians 7:10, where the Greek word translated 'married' is gegamêkasin, meaning 'those who are now in a married state due to their previously completed marriages.' This is the same perfect-tense Greek word that Matthew could have used in Matthew 22:30 if he had wanted to state that there are no married couples in Heaven. By using the present tense, Matthew has Jesus simply saying, "In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed." And, of course, the requirement that marriage ceremonies be performed on Earth, not in heaven, is one of the main themes of LDS temple work. Our reason for seeking the names of our ancestors and then, by proxy, sealing them together as couples and families, is just what the Savior said to the Sadducees — that the ordinance itself is not done in heaven. And, since work for the dead did not begin until after the resurrection, the seven brothers the Sadducees asked about were unmarried when they died and were still unmarried in heaven.

"as the angels of heaven"

But what about the Savior's statement that these seven brothers, who were unmarried in heaven, will be as the angels of heaven? Doesn't that indicate that the unmarried state is the heavenly ideal? Well, what is an angel? It is a wonderful calling, but it is not the heavenly ideal. The ideal would be Christ, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews identifies as

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. [Hebrews 1:4] (emphasis added)

Christ receives his place in heaven by inheritance, and he will not inherit alone, for

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. [Romans 8:16-17] (emphasis added)

The angels are not heirs of God. That place in heaven is reserved for Christ and all those who are glorified with him. The place of the angels in heaven is explained in Hebrews. There, speaking of the angels, Paul writes:

Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? [Hebrews 1:14] (emphasis added)

The verb 'to minister' is diakoneô, literally 'to serve.' Those who are fail to marry will, like the seven brothers in Matthew 22, serve on Earth and in heaven and will assist those righteous married couples who are heirs of God with Christ. Matthew agrees entirely with the Doctrine & Covenants on this subject.

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. 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. [D&C 132:15-16]

A non-LDS reading

A non-LDS biblical scholar understands this exchange in a similar way:

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state. Jesus, then, would seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of levirate marriage. In the eschatological state we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Levirate marriage existed precisely because of the reality of death. When death ceases to happen, the rationale for levirate marriage falls to the ground as well. When Jesus says…that people will be like the angels in heaven in the life to come, he does not mean they will live a sexless identity (early Jews did not think angels were sexless in any case; cf. Genesis 6:1–4!), but rather that they will be like angels in that they are unable to die. Thus the question of the Sadducees is inappropriate to the conditions of the eschatological state…In Mark 10 Jesus grounded normal marriage in the creation order, not in the order of the fall, which is the case with levirate marriage (instituted because of death and childlessness and the need to preserve the family name and line). Thus Jesus is intending to deny about the eschatological state “that there will be any natural relation out of which the difficulty of the Sadducees could arise.” (emphasis added)^[5]

What of members who are not married?

In discussing the nature of marriage for time and eternity, McKeever and Johnson ask the following:

Although continued good works are essential, Mormonism teaches that a person must be married in the temple to have a chance at exaltation. But what happens if a person does not get married, for whatever reason, and dies single? ^[6]

In his article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, James T. Duke explains the LDS doctrine on this subject:

People who live a worthy life but do not marry in the temples, for various reasons beyond their control, which might include not marrying, not having heard the gospel, or not having a temple available so that the marriage could be sealed for eternity, will at some time be given this opportunity. Latter-day Saints believe it is their privilege and duty to perform these sacred ordinances vicariously for deceased progenitors, and for others insofar as possible.^[7]

This is not a new teaching. In 1957 Joseph Fielding Smith said to the single sisters of the Church:

You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under nay obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.^[8]

Likewise Harold B. Lee counseled the single women of the Church:

You young women advancing in years who have not yet accepted a proposal of marriage, if you make yourselves worthy and ready to go to the House of the Lord and have faith in this sacred principle, even though the privilege of marriage dies not come to you now, the Lord will reward you in due time and no blessing will be denied you. You are not under obligation to accept a proposal from some one unworthy of you for fear you will fail of your blessings.^[9]

Bruce R. McConkie also taught this principle when he wrote:

I am perfectly aware that there are people who did not have the opportunity [of celestial marriage] but who would have lived the law had the opportunity been afforded. Those individuals will be judged in the providences and mercy of a gracious God according to the intents and desires of their hearts. That is the principle of salvation and exaltation for the dead.^[10]

While LDS doctrine states that Celestial marriage is necessary for exaltation with God, the doctrine also states that worthiness is more important than an ordinance, and that the worthy will be provided with all the opportunities necessary so that they do not lose their chance at any blessings. This is one of the great purposes of the LDS temple work for the dead.

Conclusion

There is no Biblical obstacle to the doctrine of eternal marriage.

1. Some of Paul's statements addressed specific situations (e.g., missionaries wishing to leave their labors to be married), and some refuted false ideas in the Christian churches about avoiding marriage. There is textual evidence for the importance of marriage in the early Church, and some evidence from early Fathers and the Bible that Paul was, in fact, married.
2. It will be too late for weddings after the resurrection, but the state of marriage itself can exist eternally, if entered into via the Lord's way. This is supported by the details of the situation described in Matthew, and the original Greek.

Latter-day Saints do not, however, draw their doctrine from a reading of the Bible—as in all things, they are primarily guided by modern revelation.

That same revelation assures them that no worthy person who was unable to marry will be denied any blessing in the hereafter.

Endnotes

1. [note]  Mishnah, Aboth 5:21, trans. H. Danby, p. 458. “At five years old (one is fit) for the scripture, at ten years for the Mishnah, at thirteen for (the fulfilling of) the commandments, at fifteen for the Talmud, at eighteen for the bride-chamber, at twenty for pursuing (a calling), at thirty for authority, at forty for discernment, at fifty for counsel, at sixty to be an elder, at seventy for grey hairs, at eighty for special strength. …” See also David Smith, Life and Letters of St. Paul, p. 30f.
2. [note]  Sanhedrin 36:2.
3. [note]  Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 59, 64. The Greek of Acts 26:10 is technical terminology, and literally means: “I cast my vote against them,” meaning that Paul voted for condemnation of the saints. Such language has reference to a formal court, and Paul would have to be a member of the Sanhedrin before he could cast his vote in a judicial proceeding.
4. [note]  C. Wilfred Griggs, "I Have a Question," Ensign (February 1976): 34.off-site
5. [note]  W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible, vol. 26: Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 273-274.
6. [note]  McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 218-219
7. [note]  James T. Duke, "Marriage: Eternal Marriage," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 2:859.
8. [note]  Joseph Fielding Smith, Elijah the Prophet and His Mission (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1957), 51.
9. [note]  Harold B. Lee, Youth and the Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1955), 132.
10. [note]  Bruce R. McConkie, "Celestial Marriage," The New Era (June 1978): 17.

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Template:CultureAttitudeWiki

FAIR web site

Template:CultureAttitudeFAIR

External links

Template:CultureAttitudeLinks

Printed material

Template:CultureAttitudePrint