Mormon ordinances/Marriage/Eternal marriage

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|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"

Matthew 22:23-30 (or its scriptural 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 even believe in the afterlife, deliberately tried to trip up Jesus by asking which of seven husbands a woman, who outlived them all, would belong to. The wording is almost identical in all three versions. Jesus answers:

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)

We must appreciate three things in order to address the critics' objections:

1. The Restored Gospel is not "biblicist" in nature, meaning we believe that the word of God is not subject to individual interpretation, but is that which proceeds from the mouth of a living prophet.
2. The Sadducees tried to set Jesus up with a hypothetical, self-contradictory question.
3. The original Greek in which the Gospels were written does not support the critics' claim that there will be no marriage in heaven.

Biblicism vs. Continuing Revelation

Believing in continuing revelation means the LDS believe we have prophets who can receive revelation on an ongoing basis on behalf of Jesus Christ. So to answer an objection like this it suffices only to show that the Bible does not contradict the doctrine of eternal marriage; we do not have to show from where in the Bible we get the doctrine. We teach from the scriptures but we teach the Restored Gospel, not the traditional collection of philosophy, creeds and theologies put together by men over the past nearly two millennia.

Deliberate Word Trap

There are a number of interpretations possible for Matthew 22:23-30. But Jesus side-steps the doctrinal issue by responding with a reproach of the Sadducees for not understanding the scriptures.

Translation is difficult and a translated passage does not always convey the nuances in the original. It helps our argument that all three versions of this account consistently use the same words in the earliest Greek. And in each version it says that "giving in marriage" will not occur after the time of the resurrection. It does not say that marriage, as an institution, will not occur

This difference is the key to understanding the LDS interpretation of these particular scriptures. We believe the institution of marriage is divine and marriage bonds created under God's authority will not normally be dissolved, either in this life or in the life to come. However, we also believe that this life is the time to commit to follow the whole Gospel, and that includes the time to enter into celestial matrimony. After the resurrection it will be too late, as marriages will not be able to be entered into then (in other words, there will be no "giving in marriage," exactly as Jesus says).

We appreciate that not all people have the opportunity to hear the Restored Gospel here on Earth, let alone enter into celestial marriage. That is why God in His wisdom allotted the period between death and the resurrection, in a place we call Paradise or the Spirit World, as the time during which all of this can be completed. This is where God will resolve the kinds of issues raised by the Sadducees, as insincere as they might have been.

Interestingly, a non-LDS scholar has also made a similar point about the fact that apparent contradictions are, according to original Christian belief; to be sorted out in the afterlife:

[Matthew 22:2]9 You are wrong..." Jesus' reply is based on two premises:

(a) the Sadducees are wrong because they are transferring to the resurrection-life considerations which properly belong only to life before death, a mistake which Scripture, for all its imagery, poetic or homespun, never makes.

(b) God, who gave the Law, a Law which contains provisions for the regulation of marriage and the raising of children, cannot be unaware of considerations posed by the test case. On the main question of resurrection, the same two premises apply. The power of God is not confined by the mundane considerations adduced by the Sadducees, and in the resurrection-life marriage and birth are irrelevant to the discussion.^[5]

It is ironic, and telling, that the critics make the same mistake as Jesus' attackers, the Sadducees.

The original Greek

A quick look at the original Greek of this passage emphasizes that there is a difference between the state of marriage and "marry[ing]" or "giving in marriage," or wedding ceremonies, as referred to in Matthew 22:30. The word translated as "marry" is "gamousin," the third-person form of "gameó," which means "to enter the marriage state, to wed, to get married," and thus clearly refers to an action at a point in time, not a state of being—"he/she/it marries," as we'd say in English. The second term in the verse, "giving in marriage" is "gamizontai," an alternative way of saying the same thing (with the nuance that one is doing it for one's own benefit; called the Middle Voice in Greek).

Some people may say that if you have been married, you have been "given in marriage," and this is true. So what's the difference between the "given in marriage" in this sense, and in the sense of "being married?" In 1 Corinthians 7:33 we see exactly the phrase that describes a married person: "But he that is married ("gamésas" = "the married one") careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

If Jesus had wanted to deny the existence of eternal marriage, this is the word that would have been used in chronicling his confrontation with the Sadducees.

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.