Ask a Mormon, Part 3

[MagisterCultuum]

I still don't see how you can justify believing in marriage in heaven at all, given the words of Christ:

23The same day(AD) Sadducees came to him,(AE) who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24saying, "Teacher, Moses said,(AF) 'If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.' 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. 26So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27After them all, the woman died. 28In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."

29But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong,(AG) because you know neither the Scriptures nor(AH) the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither(AI) marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31And as for the resurrection of the dead,(AJ) have you not read what was said to you by God: 32(AK) 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." 33And when the crowd heard it,(AL) they were astonished at his teaching.

Eran rightfully pointed out that Jesus's point was meant to address the Sadducees' disbelief in the resurrection, but I can't see how that invalidates the statement and makes it acceptable to believe that there will be marraige in the next life. It is completely against Christ's nature to lie in order to avoid a hard question. Some also like to argue that he was only saying that no one would get married in the resurrection and not that they would not remain married, but that does not really make sense as it leaves the Sadducee's with a valid but unanswered question.

 

[Camber]

Let us look more closely at those verses. As you said, the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection and were trying to trick the Savior, asked Jesus a question about the resurrection. According to the Law of Moses, if a man died his brother would marry his widow to raise up children to the first brother. The Sadducees posed the theoretical question of brother after brother dying, and they asked, Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven [brothers]? for they all had her. In response, Jesus said the following (KJV).

Jesus answered and said unto them, 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)

Notice that Jesus did not say that marriages would not exist in the resurrection. Nor did he say that the woman would not be married to any of them. One way of looking at this is to say that "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" means that marriage ceremonies are not performed by resurrected individuals--that He was talking about the act of marriage not the condition of marriage. From this perspective, Jesus would have been been telling them, in effect, that if the wife were not married to anyone in this life, she would not be married in the next life either. But this would leave open the possibility that if she were married for eternity to one of the brothers, she would be his wife in the resurrection, but if she were not married to any of the brothers for eternity, she would be the wife of none of them since marriages are not performed in the life to come, but must be performed in mortality.

Another interpretation of the scripture passage that is consistent with LDS theology is that Jesus was answering the Sadducees according to their knowledge and conditions of marriage. Because they were an apostate nation (i.e., no longer led by prophets of God, having strayed from the truth, and having lost the authority of the priesthood to perform temple sealing ordinances), any example they would give would presuppose the conditions of marriage without proper priesthood authority. Therefore, the woman would have been sealed to none of the brothers, and her marriage would be invalid after she died. Note the last phrase in the passage, "but are as the angels of God in heaven." LDS theology teaches (see Section 132) that those who do not receive the sealing ordinance, but who are just and righteous in this life, will be angels in the next life. They will not be married, nor will they have any increase (no opportunity for advancement or progression, nor capacity for creating progeny). This phrase, to LDS readers, marks Jesus' comment as pertaining to those whose marriages are not sealed in the temple, which would apply to the Sadduccees. We would say that he met them where they were at, and spoke to their level of understanding, speaking to them of the "terrestrial law" (that applying to angels who did not receive the temple covenants) rather than the "celestial law" (that applying to those who make and keep temple covenants).

I recognize that this answer may not be satisfactory, and I can understand how you could arrive at the interpretation that you have, given the scriptures you have to go by. It comes down ultimately to a question of whether the additional scriptures in Mormonism (such as the teachings in Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants about the "celestial law" of marriage) are also the word of God.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Could you please explain...

I will too, as my answers may differ from Camber's (insofar as they deal with things that are not explicit doctrine, members are allowed to have their own opinions on things . . . )

2. The role that plural marriage plays in the LDS Church's soteriology?

When it is said that you need to accept plural marriage to be saved, it seemed to me that doesn't mean that you need to be in a polygamous marriage, just that you need to accept that it is a practice that can be not only allowed but commanded by God. I do think that there will be eternal plural marriages, if there are more women than men who gain exaltation.

3. As every prophet declared from Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball, Blacks were to be excluded from the priesthood because they weren't valiant in the pre-existence, which was made evident because they were born into bodies of the accursed black-skinned bloodline of Cain. Since the 1978 Declaration on the Priesthood, have Black people magically become un-cursed?

I am not aware of any prophet saying that, although it would not at all surprise me if (especially) Brigham Young or earlier prophets did. I think he was the one who used a verse from the Pearl of Great Price (I don't recall which) to justify it, but for various reasons I don't think that verse works to say that. At any rate, that wouldn't make it doctrine. And in 1978, giving blacks the priesthood was unanimously passed by the Apostles, even Elder McConkie. (FWIW, I think there is a lot of stuff in Mormon Doctrine that he said that I don't agree with, but it isn't official doctrine just because it appears there.)

4. Related to the previous two points, there is a common LDS slogan: "A living prophet trumps a dead one". With this in mind, how would you feel if Thomas S. Monson were to receive a revelation tomorrow that permitted homosexuals to be sealed in the temple, or women to receive the priesthood?

I actually think it is less likely that women will get the priesthood, at least any time soon, since at least as I understand it, they will exercise it in the next life along with their husbands. And women can preach and minister without the priesthood. But if a revelation changed that, I would accept it.

As far as same-sex sealings, I find that unlikely - it would represent a change not only in practice but in doctrine much greater than ending polygamy (all the scriptural references to it in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants imply that it was a practice allowable only when the Lord allowed it - if he said to stop, it needed to be stopped) or giving blacks the priesthood (there is, as far as I have been able to see, no doctrinal basis in the ban). But if President Monson were to say that a revelation allows one to be a member in good standing if one were to be in a same-sex relationship that were in some way solemnized by the Church or given civil standing, I would be fine with it. I am neither "for" nor "against" gay marriage as most people use the words anyways. Some people would leave the church (as they did in 1890, 1904, and 1978), but that is their loss.

4. The logic behind the belief that a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon's authenticity also confirms the legitimacy of the LDS Church (as opposed to legitimacy of another denomination in the Latter-day Saint Movement, another church in general, or no particular church at all)?

This is a question that has occured to me before - although it has always seemed to me that the LDS Church has the best claim to be the true sucessors to Joseph Smith, the best answer is simply that a spiritual confirmation of modern prophets can be gained the same way as a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon itself.

5. Why the the Word of Wisdom is today considered a matter of Temple worthiness, when D&C 89 clearly states that its dietary guidelines are not commandments, but recommendations, and that Joseph Smith regularly drank and served alcohol, even up to the hour of his assassination?

Again, this is why we have modern prophets. And I never considered drinking alcohol to be evil in and of itself - it would be for me to drink, but not a non-Mormon who has made no covenant to obey the Word of Wisdom.

5.5 Why only certain parts of D&C 89 are taken seriously, while others, such as those discouraging consumption of meat (except during winer or famines), are largely ignored?

Because the prohibitions are considered by modern prophets to be grounds for temple worthiness, but the other parts are considered advice or guidelines, as the whole section once was. This could change some day.

6. What a "Son of Perdition" is?

Someone who, having gained a true perfect knowledge of the Gospel, rejects it. Again, no one who has ever posted here can become one. They are the only ones who are "better off never being born", because everyone else, no matter how evil, will receive some degree of salvation in the next life.

 

[warpus]

When it is said that you need to accept plural marriage to be saved, it seemed to me that doesn't mean that you need to be in a polygamous marriage, just that you need to accept that it is a practice that can be not only allowed but commanded by God. I do think that there will be eternal plural marriages, if there are more women than men who gain exaltation.

Or more men than women - resulting in a woman being married to multiple men, right?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Or more men than women - resulting in a woman being married to multiple men, right?

That would be the necessary result of more men than women gaining exaltation, but I find that less likely than the reverse.

 

[warpus]

That would be the necessary result of more men than women gaining exaltation, but I find that less likely than the reverse.

Hmm are you saying that women are more likely to get into heaven?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hmm are you saying that women are more likely to get into heaven?

That would seem to be the case, to me. That would certainly explain eternal plural marriage anyways. I have no data to back that up, though.

 

[warpus]

That would seem to be the case, to me. That would certainly explain eternal plural marriage anyways. I have no data to back that up, though.

But that's sexist!

Maybe it will be like, a whole buncha dudes and 1 woman. Now that would be weird (and unexpected).

 

[Camber]

There was a humorous piece written in Dialogue magazine once (a semi-fringe periodical for Mormon intellectuals, and often frowned upon by LDS leaders) about the question of whether there will be more men than women or visa versa in heaven.

Often the logic goes that women seem to get baptized in greater numbers than males. Women also tend to stick with it more than males. I have been in congregations where the ratio of active men to women was as low as 1:8.

However, as the mentioned article suggests, male fetuses actually are conceived in greater numbers than female fetuses. Male fetuses tend to be less viable than female fetuses, but the ratio of boys to girls born (after the die-off in the womb) is still higher than 1:1 (boys slightly outnumbering girls). Boys then tend to die in greater numbers in childhood, from a combination of being a weaker sex (more likely to die from disease), and being more impulsive and risk-taking. By the time you get to adulthood, girls outnumber boys, and the ratio continues to skew in their favor throughout adulthood. In old age, women outnumber men by a hefty margin.

Enter the LDS doctrine of salvation by underage death. We teach that a child who dies before the age of accountability (age 8) will go straight to heaven. Now it is unclear whether all those unborn fetuses will go straight to heaven or not, but the babies and young kids certainly will.

And out of those insta-saved tykes, what will there be more of, girls or boys?

Boys.

Which suggests that in the next life, if anything, we might have more men than women in heaven.

Until 1950, the infant mortality rate for kids under the age of 8 was never above 50%. This means that for the vast majority of earth's history, more than half of the born population has died before reaching the age of accountability (sometimes much more than 50%). Again, this would favor a male-dominated heaven.

So, unless there is some other variable out there that we aren't aware of, it appears that if polygamy were practiced in heaven, it would be the women who got multiple spouses, rather than the other way around.

Again, just humorous speculation. And I don't believe there will be polygamy in heaven.

 

[Caltrop]

To be official doctrine, it must be ratified by the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, and put to a vote by the general church membership…. During Brigham Young's day, the doctrine [concerning the Word of Wisdom] changed.

When Young made the advice contained in the Word of Wisdom into binding doctrinal laws did he follow the above procedure?

Also, by "Heaven", which kingdom are you referring to: the telestial, terrestial, celestial, or all three?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Also, by "Heaven", which kingdom are you referring to: the telestial, terrestial, celestial, or all three?

As far as I know, eternal marriage only applies to the Celestial Kingdom . . . but we can use "heaven" to refer to any one them (just as the word "saved" can refer to at least 4 different things).

 

[Berzerker]

And out of those insta-saved tykes, what will there be more of, girls or boys?

Boys.

Which suggests that in the next life, if anything, we might have more men than women in heaven

children keep growing after they die?


I got a question for the Mormon, are there any traditions about the Moab area? Stuff like legends about weird terrain features etc?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

children keep growing after they die?

Spiritually, yes.

I got a question for the Mormon, are there any traditions about the Moab area? Stuff like legends about weird terrain features etc?

If you mean Utah, I don't know anything about lore associated with the area - I have spent all of two months there.

 

[Camber]

Caltrop, I don't know the answer to your question. Sorry.

Berzerker, I don't know the answer to your question. There is a natural arch at Lake Powell called Rainbow Bridge (which is huge), that the American Indians consider sacred. When I visited there, there was a very peaceful spirit. The ravens were even silent (we had been hearing them for days, but when we got to the arch, they were present and flying about, but oddly quiet). My mother had a prophetic dream when we were camped there that night, about my younger brother (then a toddler) falling into the lake. The next day, she recognized the exact same conditions as she saw in her dream, rushed to the spot where he was to fall in, and stopped him as he was wandering toward the edge.

Manti is not Moab, but it has some interesting Mormon lore you might find fascinating. It is about halfway between Salt Lake and Moab. There was a spot of ground, a very nice hill overlooking the valley, that was infested by rattlesnakes, known as the Manti Stone Quarry. Once Brigham Young designated the site for a temple, it became known as Temple Hill, and all the rattlesnakes left. On the morning of the site dedication, Brigham Young stated that Temple Hill had been previously dedicated by Book of Mormon prophet Moroni, during his post-Cumorah wanderings, for a future temple site. This would suggest that there might be some Mormon lore about other Utah locations (if Moroni was said to have visited the area), but I have not heard of any associated with Moab.

 

[Caltrop]

Caltrop, I don't know the answer to your question. Sorry.

So, you're tacitly admitting the possibility that doctrine can be altered or added to without the necessary bureaucratic procedure?

 

[Camber]

Official doctrine is one thing. Brigham Young's comments about Manti's Temple Hill wouldn't be considered to be doctrinal. There's a fairly large body of information that Mormons draw upon when trying to better understand their religion, which isn't official doctrine. My mother's dream would be a personal example that other families would find similar to their own experiences (i.e., it wouldn't be considered unusual) but which wouldn't have any real applicability outside our own family; stories about things Brigham Young said or did would be more applicable to the larger body of members, but no one is going to base his/her testimony or salvation on such stories.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, generally speaking, there are two categories for church knowledge...

1) Cannon: The scriptures and words from Prophets when acting in official business (like talks in church Conferences, or Proclamations). Perhaps slightly below that a few books that are actually *published* by the church, called the Missionary Library.

2) Other church books...books written by prophets/GA *not* acting on official business. These offer great insight, but not every single thing said in them may be 100% gospel. The book "Mormon Doctrine", for example...actually falls into the second category, which confuses people.

 

[_random_]

Why is there such a vast dissimilarity between ancient Hebrew and Native American languages?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why is there such a vast dissimilarity between ancient Hebrew and Native American languages?

Because . . . well, as I said above, the small group of Israelites who came to the New World are not the only ancestors of Native Americans - though there are some Mormons who hold this view, it is not official, and to me at least the Book of Mormon implies the opposite. So the effects that one small group had were much less than the effects of those already living here.

I am sure I am going to end up saying this again, though.

 

[warpus]

How did they get over here, anyway? I mean 1. what kinda boat and 2. which route did they take?

And why were they heading out so far west?