Interesting conversion story

[nrajeffreturns]

I thought some of you might be interested in this story. I liked it.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765638411/Miss-Nevada-Teen-2010-now-serving-Mormon-mission-shares-LDS-conversion-story.html?pg=1

"I remember the first time I ever went to a Mormon church. I was 18 years old and a senior in high school. Trust me when I say I had no desire to be a Mormon. My parents divorced when I was a baby, and growing up my mom was a wonderful example of virtue, goodness and working hard to reach your potential. She brought us kids to a local Baptist church, where I learned to love the Lord as a little girl. I am thankful for my upbringing and my mother's powerful influence because I don't know who I would be or where I would be without her. I had just been crowned Miss Teen Nevada, and my dream was to become Miss USA...."

[RealFakeHair]

I thought some of you might be interested in this story. I liked it.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765638411/Miss-Nevada-Teen-2010-now-serving-Mormon-mission-shares-LDS-conversion-story.html?pg=1

"I remember the first time I ever went to a Mormon church. I was 18 years old and a senior in high school. Trust me when I say I had no desire to be a Mormon. My parents divorced when I was a baby, and growing up my mom was a wonderful example of virtue, goodness and working hard to reach your potential. She brought us kids to a local Baptist church, where I learned to love the Lord as a little girl. I am thankful for my upbringing and my mother's powerful influence because I don't know who I would be or where I would be without her. I had just been crowned Miss Teen Nevada, and my dream was to become Miss USA...."

It all makes sense now. One of the perplexing things about women is their blind devotion to male predators of the likes of Bill Clinton, Joseph Smith jr. David Koresh, and so on.
Oh, by the way if you were crowned Miss Teen Nevada today, you might be a girl or you might be a boy........lol

[nrajeffreturns]

Glad you liked the news article.

[RealFakeHair]

Glad you liked the news article.

I have to admit, I do watch Honey ****oo too! Now that would be a laugh to see that family covert to Joseph Smith jr. inc. lol

[RealFakeHair]

I have to admit, I do watch Hony ****oo too! Now that would be a laugh to see that family covert to Joseph Smith jr. inc. lol

Ha, Ha, astras in the place of Honey B oo Boo.lol

[tdidymas]

I thought some of you might be interested in this story. I liked it.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765638411/Miss-Nevada-Teen-2010-now-serving-Mormon-mission-shares-LDS-conversion-story.html?pg=1

"I remember the first time I ever went to a Mormon church. I was 18 years old and a senior in high school. Trust me when I say I had no desire to be a Mormon. My parents divorced when I was a baby, and growing up my mom was a wonderful example of virtue, goodness and working hard to reach your potential. She brought us kids to a local Baptist church, where I learned to love the Lord as a little girl. I am thankful for my upbringing and my mother's powerful influence because I don't know who I would be or where I would be without her. I had just been crowned Miss Teen Nevada, and my dream was to become Miss USA...."

It was indeed an interesting story, sounds like she is happy now. However, this quote:
"I didn't want other people's opinions, good or bad, to drown out what I wanted to feel in my life."
is an indication that she wasn't searching for truth, but only happiness, which I'm sure the Mormon religion can give, just as any religion can give it, if the person is willing to submit (regardless of whether it is the truth or not).

If a person is searching for the truth (according to my experience) they might ask other peoples' opinions, but they usually investigate everything themselves, and weigh the opinions against what they believe God is saying (regardless of how they feel about it). It sounds to me like what was done was she only listened to the opinions of those who made her feel good. This is simply another manifestation of "living according to the flesh," since she was judging "truth" according to her feelings rather than according to what evidence (outside herself) was showing.

It is unfortunate that the church she chose appeared dead to her. The cultic culture can happen in "orthodox" churches just as much as in cults like Mormonism or JWs. It depends on the leadership.
:)TD

[nrajeffreturns]

Thanks for the comments, TD. I prefer to ***ume that what she meant was that possibly she didn't know exactly what this true happiness was that she was seeking, but she had been around enough to know what it wasn't when she saw it.

I admit that one person's definition of true happiness can differ from another person's definition. For example, I had a co-worker who once told me "I hear you LDS believe that married people can stay married forever." I said "Yes." And I was ready to hear him say "Wow, how cool." But I jumped to the wrong conclusion. He said "Why would I want to stay married to my wife forever? I can hardly stand to be with her down here."

I learned that what would make me happy forever would be hell for someone else who doesn't place importance on the same things that I do.

Fortunately, if some people find happiness in being single forever, God is nice enough to give them what they want.

[Billyray]

Thanks for the comments, TD. I prefer to ***ume that what she meant was that possibly she didn't know exactly what this true happiness was that she was seeking, but she had been around enough to know what it wasn't when she saw it.

I admit that one person's definition of true happiness can differ from another person's definition. For example, I had a co-worker who once told me "I hear you LDS believe that married people can stay married forever." I said "Yes." And I was ready to hear him say "Wow, how cool." But I jumped to the wrong conclusion. He said "Why would I want to stay married to my wife forever? I can hardly stand to be with her down here."

I learned that what would make me happy forever would be hell for someone else who doesn't place importance on the same things that I do.

Fortunately, if some people find happiness in being single forever, God is nice enough to give them what they want.
But Christ himself told us that we are not married in heaven. So why do you persist in believing your false doctrine?

[nrajeffreturns]

But Christ himself told us that we are not married in heaven.
False. He didn't say that. You should have realized that by now, after the many times this has come up.


So why do you persist in believing your false doctrine?
You mean, why do I persist in believing the true doctrine that God is both willing and able to make marriages last beyond the grave? Because I believe in a God who has that much power and that much love and generosity. That's why.

[cheachea]

False. He didn't say that. You should have realized that by now, after the many times this has come up.



"Till death do us part"

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

[Billyray]

False. He didn't say that. You should have realized that by now, after the many times this has come up.

That is exactly what he said. Do you want to look at the verses again?

[Billyray]

You mean, why do I persist in believing the true doctrine that God is both willing and able to make marriages last beyond the grave? Because I believe in a God who has that much power and that much love and generosity. That's why.
Why on earth do you think God would do something that goes against what he clearly said in His word?

[James Banta]

Why on earth do you think God would do something that goes against what he clearly said in His word?

Isn't that sad? The LDS has a God that changes His mind adding requirements to gain salvation as it seem good to Him. Even the key and signs learned in their temples have changed.. I guess since the people that died before the change will now be giving the wrong information as they stand before the veil waiting their turn to enter exaltation.. We can count on our God.. He doesn't change and therefore we can trust His requirements to enter His presence.. We have obtained perfection in and through the life and blood of Jesus.. It is all about Him and what He has done, not one thing about what we do or must do to gain such a great gift.. His changelessness is wonderful.. I guess that is why the LDS can't be sure of their salvation.. Their God changes so often no one knows what his requirements will be in a few years.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

That is exactly what he said. Do you want to look at the verses again?

Sure, I can do this a few more times:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage% 22


soundly refutes both you and cheachea.

Some excerpts for those with too much ADD to read the whole article:

"There is no Biblical obstacle to the doctrine of eternal marriage. This doctrine is consistent with the Bible..

...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.... 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.

... Christ's answer is simply pointing out that none of these particular seven brothers had entered into valid eternal marriages with the woman.

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 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."

Any other questions, now that we have proven the incorrectness of the INCORRECT belief that Christ himself told us that we are not married in heaven?

[Sir]

Jeff,

Once again, your post is only met with silence. Of course, what else can the critics do except respond with a contrary remark. But I think you made smoke come out of their ears with that one.

Nicely done.

[Billyray]

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.... 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. . .


Matthew 22
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.

Huh? Are you saying that according to the verses above that none of the seven were married to the woman?

[MacG]

When I read this early in your resource: "So what is the scripture that the Sadducees erred by not knowing? We don't know for sure, but... " I realized that it was going be a speculative stretch. The scriptures they did not know were about the resurrection not marriage in the afterlife. "23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection," (this is the subject of this discourse, ask any English major).

I WILL AGREE that they were trying to trap him but it was about the resurrection which they denied. They thought they were wise in their own eyes and were trying to demonstrate how the resurrection was fallacious based on the example of consummated marriages. I ***ert it was consummated marriages because as your reference points out both Jesus and the Saducees most likely knew about Tobit and there was no question about whether those seven had consummated marriages for the demon killed all of the brothers prior to consummation so if there is a resurrection this poses no legal marriage problem and therefore no trap. The trap can only exist if the multiple marriage scenario they proposed were consummated and legally binding.

[Billyray]

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.


Matthew 22
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him.
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage;

Whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?

And the answer to this question is what?

[MacG]

I was looking at this last night but got lost in reading Tobit...

[nrajeffreturns]

Whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?
And the answer to this question is what?

The obvious answer to the question "Which of those 7 will be the lady's husband in the resurrection?" is:

None of them. But the reason none of the 7 will be her husband isn't because it's impossible for married people to stay married in the resurrection. People who think it's impossible for married people to stay married in the resurrection, don't understand the scriptures that relate to the issue and don't understand the power of God.

[Billyray]

The obvious answer to the question "Which of those 7 will be the lady's husband in the resurrection?" is:

None of them.

Right. Which is exactly what Christ said and was a direct answer to their question.



But the reason none of the 7 will be her husband isn't because it's impossible for married people to stay married in the resurrection. People who think it's impossible for married people to stay married in the resurrection, don't understand the scriptures that relate to the issue and don't understand the power of God.
Which verses are you referring to exactly that teach that men and women are married in heaven?

[nrajeffreturns]

Right. Which is exactly what Christ said and was a direct answer to their question.
You forgot the whole "Greek Grammar" issue, which proves that Christ's answer would have used a different word if He'd been saying that there's no such thing as married people in the resurrection. Depending on which Bible translation you read, Christ's answer to "Which of them--those 7 guys--will be her husband in the resurrection?" was "None of them" because "In the resurrection, THEY won't have marriage ceremonies."

Once again, anyone who tries to claim that these verses are saying that all marriages end at death, is wrong. Because these verses don't say that at all.


Which verses are you referring to exactly that teach that men and women are married in heaven?
The verses I was referring to are the verses that those Sadducees were also referring to: The verses in the Book of Tobit. The Sadducees didn't understand the story, as evidenced by their claim that each of those 7 men were really married to the lady. If you read it carefully, each of them died before they had a chance to make the marriage a valid one. Therefore, none of them was really her husband. As for the power of God that the Sadducees (and anti-LDS) were ig norant about, in that same story, God had the power to send to the lady the man who really WAS supposed to be her husband. None of the first 7 were that man. They all died before they could meet all the OT requirements to be husbands.

[nrajeffreturns]

By the way, it seems, from the context, that those Sadducees had ***umed that Jesus was unfamiliar with the Book of Tobit. They "borrowed" from the story and claimed the 7 men were friends of theirs. When they posed their question to Jesus, hoping to catch Him giving a bad answer, I bet they were astonished when they realized that not only was He familiar with this "scripture," He also understood it better than they did.

This must have made them really angry and increased their hatred for Jesus.

[RealFakeHair]

By the way, it seems, from the context, that those Sadducees had ***umed that Jesus was unfamiliar with the Book of Tobit. They "borrowed" from the story and claimed the 7 men were friends of theirs. When they posed their question to Jesus, hoping to catch Him giving a bad answer, I bet they were astonished when they realized that not only was He familiar with this "scripture," He also understood it better than they did.

This must have made them really angry and increased their hatred for Jesus.

Well, we know it didn't make Joseph Smith jr. angry, he just ignore what Jesus of the Holy Bible said, and started to make up his on story called, eternal marriage, or what I call the eternal ball and chain.

[nrajeffreturns]

Well, we know it didn't make Joseph Smith jr. angry,...
Yes, that much is true. Joseph Smith gratefully accepted what he learned from the scriptures.

[Billyray]

Depending on which Bible translation you read, Christ's answer to "Which of them--those 7 guys--will be her husband in the resurrection?" was "None of them" because "In the resurrection, THEY won't have marriage ceremonies."
But each of them were already married to the women. Did you forget that part of the story?

[Billyray]

Y
The verses I was referring to are the verses that those Sadducees were also referring to: The verses in the Book of Tobit.
And do you believe that this book is part of the inspired canon? I don't nor does Judaism consider it canonical.

[cheachea]

People are Not Married in Heaven Period.

[nrajeffreturns]

But each of them were already married to the women. Did you forget that part of the story?

No, the "scriptures" the Sadducees were plagiarizing the story from don't say that, but the Sadducees made the same mistake you did. According to OT law, none of the brothers had really been the woman's husband (each died on the wedding day, before the honeymoon). Anyone who studied Tobit carefully would have realized that.
The Sadducees, and you, didn't "get it."

But Jesus knew both the scriptures and the power of God quite well, and therefore gave the answer He did.
None of the brothers had really been the woman's husband in mortality--but in the Sadducees' incorrect version, they claimed otherwise. That's why Jesus said they didn't know the scripture.

Jesus knew that God has the power to enable married people to stay married in the resurrection. But the Sadducees didn't believe that. That's why He said they didn't know the power of God.

[Sir]

People are Not Married in Heaven Period.
delete............

[nrajeffreturns]

And do you believe that this book is part of the inspired canon?
What I believe is irrelevant to the issue. What's important is that the Sadducees believed Tobit was scripture, and Jesus apparently thought so, too, since His reply to them referred to it.


I don't nor does Judaism consider it canonical.
Currently, that is probably true. But again, irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the average 1st-century Jew, particularly the Sadducees, considered it to be scripture. Evidence says they did.

[Billyray]

What I believe is irrelevant to the issue.

It certainly is relevant to the issue because if you don't even believe that it is scripture then why use it to try and back up your case? That makes no sense at all.



What's important is that the Sadducees believed Tobit was scripture, and Jesus apparently thought so, too, since His reply to them referred to it.

The "Tobit" is not even part of the Jewish cannon so why do you think that Jesus was referring to the "Tobit" as scripture?

[MacG]

Did you see my post above between Billy's two posts(post 16?)? Was I just too obtuse to reply? My Doctor said the other day that I was morbidly obtuse. :)

[nrajeffreturns]

It certainly is relevant to the issue because if you don't even believe that it is scripture then why use it to try and back up your case?
Tobit doesn't need to currently be considered canonized scripture in order to explain what Jesus meant when he said what He said to the Sadducees. What's relevant is:

a) Whether the ancient Sadducees called it scripture, as they evidently did from the context in Matt. ;
b) What Jesus was referring to when He said the Sadducees misunderstood both the scriptures and the power of God.


That makes no sense at all.
Now you can see that it makes perfect sense.


The "Tobit" is not even part of the Jewish cannon so why do you think that Jesus was referring to the "Tobit" as scripture?
"The Book of Tobit is listed in the canon of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and Florence (1442), and is part of the canon of both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches...fragments of Tobit were among the Dead Sea Scrolls...Tobit may have been considered historical by ancient Jewish rabbinic scholars, as a truncated Aramaic version of Tobit is included in Midrash Berei**** Rabbah, an aggadic commentary on the Book of Genesis compiled circa 400–600 AD. It was also considered part of the Greek Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

[Billyray]

Tobit doesn't need to currently be considered canonized scripture in order to explain what Jesus meant when he said what He said to the Sadducees. What's relevant is:

a) Whether the ancient Sadducees called it scripture, as they evidently did from the context in Matt. ;
b) What Jesus was referring to when He said the Sadducees misunderstood both the scriptures and the power of God.

Jesus wasn't referring to the "Tobit" as scripture since it is not scripture.

[Billyray]

"The Book of Tobit is listed in the canon of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and Florence (1442), and is part of the canon of both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches...fragments of Tobit were among the Dead Sea Scrolls...Tobit may have been considered historical by ancient Jewish rabbinic scholars, as a truncated Aramaic version of Tobit is included in Midrash Berei**** Rabbah, an aggadic commentary on the Book of Genesis compiled circa 400–600 AD. It was also considered part of the Greek Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint)...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit
And don't forget to read the second line of the quote that you just gave me.


"It is listed as a book of the "Apocrypha" in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[2] Tobit is regarded by Protestants as apocryphal because it was not included within the Tanakh nor considered canonical by Judaism."

[Sir]

And don't forget to read the second line of the quote that you just gave me.


"It is listed as a book of the "Apocrypha" in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[2] Tobit is regarded by Protestants as apocryphal because it was not included within the Tanakh nor considered canonical by Judaism."

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?

[Billyray]

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[nrajeffreturns]

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

It's called the BOOK of Tobit I think. The Sadducees who tried to trick Jesus borrowed a story from it and used it as the basis of the tale they told Jesus. Jesus told them they understood neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

Whether Jews in general considered Tobit to be part of their canon is irrelevant to the "There's no such thing as married people in heaven" fallacy. The fact is that Jesus told the Sadducees who were questioning Him that their understanding of it was incorrect, because even though they CLAIMED that all 7 brothers were married to the woman, it wasn't true because each of them had died on their wedding day. Therefore NONE of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection. In the Tobit story, the eighth man to come along DID become her husband, and she lived happily ever after as a result. That 8th man was sent to her by an angel of God, who protected him from being killed by the evil spirit. Thus, none of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection, but the 8th man COULD be.

[Sir]

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

Do you ever answer a question posed to you before trying to ask a question?

[Billyray]

Do you ever answer a question posed to you before trying to ask a question?
You are being evasive. Here is the question again for you.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[MacG]

It's called the BOOK of Tobit I think. The Sadducees who tried to trick Jesus borrowed a story from it and used it as the basis of the tale they told Jesus. Jesus told them they understood neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

Whether Jews in general considered Tobit to be part of their canon is irrelevant to the "There's no such thing as married people in heaven" fallacy. The fact is that Jesus told the Sadducees who were questioning Him that their understanding of it was incorrect, because even though they CLAIMED that all 7 brothers were married to the woman, it wasn't true because each of them had died on their wedding day. Therefore NONE of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection. In the Tobit story, the eighth man to come along DID become her husband, and she lived happily ever after as a result. That 8th man was sent to her by an angel of God, who protected him from being killed by the evil spirit. Thus, none of the 7 would be her husband in the resurrection, but the 8th man COULD be.

If that be true then Jesus would have said You don't know the scriptures for she IS the 8th man's wife for God is the the God of the living not the dead. Tobit is not a parable.

They clearly are not talking about Tobit.

The Saducee's 'trap' was about the resurrection. They were in a dead lock of proof texts with the Pharisees and were trying to show their own that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

Perhaps the Saducees got the idea from Tobit but added the twist of consummated marriages, knowing that if they were not valid marriages the Resurrection Trap would not work.

"What about the seven brothers in Tobit? Whose wife will she be in this, this supposed resurrection?"
"He's no dummy. He'll just say they were not valid marriages, he knows the law."
"Ah! He knows the law! We say that we had "a friend" (wink wink, nudge nudge), seven of them really, all brothers consummated their wedding ceremonies with her just like the law requires before each of them died. Then whose bride will she be in this supposed 'resurrection'?"
"YES! If all marriages are valid then the trap exists. BRILLIANT!! We finally got him!"
"Yes but don't say 'supposed' resurrection. It can sound condescending and we are anything but."

Their scriptural error was denying the resurrection nor knowing the power of God to resurrect and to make the wise into fools.

[Sir]

You are being evasive. Here is the question again for you.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

Oh. So you are being evasive by ignoring my question.

Got it.

[nrajeffreturns]

If that be true then Jesus would have said You don't know the scriptures for she IS the 8th man's wife for God is the the God of the living not the dead.
Not necessarily. Their question was "WHICH OF THE SEVEN will be her husband in the resurrection?" and the correct answer to that was exactly what Jesus said: None of them.


They clearly are not talking about Tobit.
Seems to me they obviously were basing their trap on the Tobit story. What are the chances that it was just a random coincidence that these Sadducees just happened to know 7 brothers who all married the same woman because each husband died? Do you know what the odds are of such a situation actually happening in the lifetime of those Sadducees? I bet if you looked up the recorded marriages in Jerusalem between 20 A.D. and 30 A.D., you'd find ZERO that happened the way the Sadducees "claimed" to have personal knowledge about.

Plus, evidence shows that Sadducees were familiar with the Book of Tobit, even if most of them didn't consider it to be canonized scripture.

What seems most likely to me is that these Sadducees ripped off the Tobit story and tried to p*** it off as something that really happened to friends of theirs. I guess they ***umed that Jesus wasn't familiar with Tobit, and they hoped to trap Him into an answer they could use to accuse Him of something.

But Jesus was pretty wise, and well-read. He saw through their trap like He always did in these cases.

I see you have proposed a very similar scenario below.


The Saducee's 'trap' was about the resurrection. They were in a dead lock of proof texts with the Pharisees and were trying to show their own that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.
No argument from me on that.


Perhaps the Saducees got the idea from Tobit but added the twist of consummated marriages, knowing that if they were not valid marriages the Resurrection Trap would not work.
Makes sense to me.


"What about the seven brothers in Tobit? Whose wife will she be in this, this supposed resurrection?"
"He's no dummy. He'll just say they were not valid marriages, he knows the law."
"Ah! He knows the law! We say that we had "a friend" (wink wink, nudge nudge), seven of them really, all brothers consummated their wedding ceremonies with her just like the law requires before each of them died. Then whose bride will she be in this supposed 'resurrection'?"
"YES! If all marriages are valid then the trap exists. BRILLIANT!! We finally got him!"
"Yes but don't say 'supposed' resurrection. It can sound condescending and we are anything but."

Their scriptural error was denying the resurrection nor knowing the power of God to resurrect and to make the wise into fools.

An entertaining version of what happened. I like it even if I don't agree with a few small parts of it.

[MacG]

The Saducee's 'trap' was about the resurrection. They were in a dead lock of proof texts with the Pharisees and were trying to show their own that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

No argument from me on that.


Perhaps the Saducees got the idea from Tobit but added the twist of consummated marriages, knowing that if they were not valid marriages the Resurrection Trap would not work.

Makes sense to me.

So are we down to none of the husbands are her husband in the resurrection?

[nrajeffreturns]

So are we down to none of the husbands are her husband in the resurrection?

We are down to 'none of the 7 mentioned by the Sadducees will be her husband in the resurrection.'

I think our main disagreement is on whether Jesus was confining His comment about the power of God to the question of whether God has the power to resurrect people, or whether He also referred to God's power to keep people married in the resurrection.

[Billyray]

Oh. So you are being evasive by ignoring my question.

Got it.
It is a simple question, one I am sure you are able to answer.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[Billyray]

Oh. So you are being evasive by ignoring my question.

Got it.
Here was the question that you asked me.

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?
No I don't believe that the Tobit is scripture. Now that I answered your question let's see if you answer my question whether or not you believe the Tobit is scripture.

[nrajeffreturns]

Here's a question for ya, Billy:

Why should the book of *** be included in the canon, but not the book of Tobit?

[Sir]

Here was the question that you asked me.

No I don't believe that the Tobit is scripture. Now that I answered your question let's see if you answer my question whether or not you believe the Tobit is scripture.

Not surprising that you didn't actually answer MY question. You answered the question you wish I had asked. Ironic tactic coming from an anti-Mormon.

[MacG]

We are down to 'none of the 7 mentioned by the Sadducees will be her husband in the resurrection.'

I think our main disagreement is on whether Jesus was confining His comment about the power of God to the question of whether God has the power to resurrect people, or whether He also referred to God's power to keep people married in the resurrection.

The brothers in the Saducees trap had consummated the marriages or there is no trap. At least that is what I thought you had said too.

[Billyray]

Not surprising that you didn't actually answer MY question. You answered the question you wish I had asked. Ironic tactic coming from an anti-Mormon.
I answered your question. Here is your question again.

So because man deems something to NOT be scripture, it isn't possible for it to be scripture (ie. truth of God)?
You asked this question in the middle of the discussion on the book of Tobit. And I answered your question in context to that discussion which was that no I don't believe that the book of Tobit is scripture. If you want an answer that is out of context to what we were talking about then yes it is possible for something to be scripture that "man deems something to NOT be scripture". The Bible is a perfect example of this because many people today do not believe that the Bible is scripture and yet it is scripture.


Now how about trying to take a stab at my question for you. It really isn't that hard of a question--but you seem to be avoiding it for some reason.

Do you believe that the "Tobit" is scripture?

[Billyray]

Here's a question for ya, Billy:

Why should the book of *** be included in the canon, but not the book of Tobit?
Because the book of *** is considered scripture by the Jews and is part of the Torah and the book of "Tobit" is not.

[Billyray]

Not necessarily. Their question was "WHICH OF THE SEVEN will be her husband in the resurrection?" and the correct answer to that was exactly what Jesus said: None of them.

And since they were ALL married to her why do you think that Jesus gave us that answer?

[nrajeffreturns]

Because the book of *** is considered scripture by the Jews and is part of the Torah and the book of "Tobit" is not.

And you rely on the judgment of the Jews regarding what should be scripture and what shouldn't?

[nrajeffreturns]

And since they were ALL married to her why do you think that Jesus gave us that answer?

You don't understand the setup. None of the 7 will be her husband in the resurrection because none of them was really married to her. People who never get married will neither marry nor be given in marriage in the resurrection. They will be like the single beings whose *** is to be a messenger and servant--the angels in heaven.

The Sadducees messed up. They didn't understand the power that God has to make it so people who ARE married before the resurrection, can STAY married IN the resurrection if they want to.

Do you want to be single forever? Or would you consider it heavenly if you didn't have to be eternally single in heaven? Do you want to be like the messenger/servants? Or would you rather be a spouse and parent?

That's what it comes down to. No one will force to be married forever if that doesn't appeal to you. But if you don't want to be single forever, the power of God can make it so "what God has joined together, no one will be able to put asunder."

Note Jesus' answer to the question which of the 7 will be her husband in the resurrection--of those 7, THEY will neither marry nor be given in marriage in the resurrection, but will be like the angels.

He didn't say "And the WOMAN will have to be single forever, too." Because in the story, she had married the 8th man and had lived happily ever after.

[MacG]

1) the scripture which made it clear that Sara was really married to none of the seven, so the seven brothers died unmarried,

It seems we do not understand ancient Jewish marriage law. It appears that the seven husbands that Sara had in Tobit were legitmate marriages afterall:
"3.There were three states of a marriage in the Bible: (http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm)
a.Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)

i. The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".

ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet."

Upon further reading Tobit, the text does not say whether the men were brothers. There is no mention of levirate marriage since she was given seven times in marriage it is likely she was living with her father and not her first husband's brothers as the law stipulates (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0525.htm#5).

There is no doubt that the Saducees were talking about a bona fide levirate marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage) as they tried to show the folly of the resurrection. Matthew made sure that the reader knew that this is about the resurrection because he parens (who say there is no resurrection) to set off the significance of this particular showdown.

To me it is doubtful that they would give Tobit any time for it reports on the activities of demons which they also did not believe in "(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)" Acts 23:8

The scriptures they knew nothing about were about the resurrection. The marriages (ahem) proposed by the Saducees were valid whether actual or a personalized 'what if' scenario ('demonstrating the absurd by being absurd' as a popular radio host has been known to say). The number seven frequently represents perfection in the bible and the Saducees thought they had set the perfect trap.

MacG

PS
Incidentally, the ketubbah would explain why Joseph sought to divorce Mary even though they had not consummated.

[MacG]

Note Jesus' answer to the question which of the 7 will be her husband in the resurrection--of those 7, THEY will neither marry nor be given in marriage in the resurrection, but will be like the angels.

Men are not given in marriage but women are.

[Billyray]

You don't understand the setup. None of the 7 will be her husband in the resurrection because none of them was really married to her.
Actually they were ALL married to her. It clearly says so in the text. Perhaps you should read it again.

[MacG]

Be sure to see my post near the bottom at this time enti tled "new light. At least to me".

[Billyray]

Do you want to be single forever?

Tell me how you see a single person verses a married person in heaven. Explain how this is different in your mind.


Or would you consider it heavenly if you didn't have to be eternally single in heaven?

No I wouldn't consider it heavenly to be married. Do you? If so why?


Do you want to be like the messenger/servants?

You seem to think those who are single are servants and those who are married are not. Can you tell me what you mean exactly?


Or would you rather be a spouse and parent?
I am a "spouse and parent". How does a person who is a "spouse and parent" who is not eternally married differ from one who is eternally married? What does that mean to you exactly?

[nrajeffreturns]

Tell me how you see a single person verses a married person in heaven. Explain how this is different in your mind.
"The man is not without the woman, in the Lord."
But if you choose the kind of marriage that only lasts "till death do you part," then you WILL be without the woman in the resurrection, because God isn't fond of people shacking up.


No I wouldn't consider it heavenly to be married.
That is disappointing. What have you got against marriage? It was ordained of God, after all.


Do you? If so why?
I think being married is wonderful, because my wife and I have a relationship that isn't duplicated by any other relationship with any other human being. I think it would be awesome if our relationship could last beyond death. I see no good reason why we have to be divorced, or have our marriage annulled, at death.
Death is just a change of location from one place to another. I'd like to stay married WHEREVER I go next.

[Billyray]

But if you choose the kind of marriage that only lasts "till death do you part," then you WILL be without the woman in the resurrection, because God isn't fond of people shacking up.

So from what you said the main difference between a single person in heaven and a married person in heaven is that the married person has sex. Is that correct?



That is disappointing. What have you got against marriage? It was ordained of God, after all.

Marriage is a great thing and serves an important function here on earth but those functions are earthly not heavenly.


I think being married is wonderful, because my wife and I have a relationship that isn't duplicated by any other relationship with any other human being. I think it would be awesome if our relationship could last beyond death. I see no good reason why we have to be divorced, or have our marriage annulled, at death.
Death is just a change of location from one place to another. I'd like to stay married WHEREVER I go next.

But our relationships with each other such as with parents, spouses, children etc persist after death (***uming that those people are in heaven), so I don't know how this would be any different. Do you?

[James Banta]

So from what you said the main difference between a single person in heaven and a married person in heaven is that the married person has sex. Is that correct?


Marriage is a great thing and serves an important function here on earth but those functions are earthly not heavenly.

But our relationships with each other such as with parents, spouses, children etc persist after death (***uming that those people are in heaven), so I don't know how this would be any different. Do you?

Billy, Did God in the Holy Spirit not answer this issue through the Apostle Paul? Did he not make it clear that LOVE above all the other gifts of God continues? It continues when prophecy, tongues, bestowing our goods to feed the poor all cease. So will I still love my family then God calls me to glory? The answer is clear, Yes. We will be together? Again YES (1 Thessalonians 4:17).. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

So from what you said the main difference between a single person in heaven and a married person in heaven is that the married person has sex. Is that correct?
Is that really the only thing that's different between your relationship between you and your wife, and you and your Fantasy Football buddies who get together at the sports bar to watch the game on Monday Night?

[Billyray]

Is that really the only thing that's different between your relationship between you and your wife, and you and your Fantasy Football buddies who get together at the sports bar to watch the game on Monday Night?
So what else is different--besides sex--for an eternally married couple in heaven and a couple who was not eternally married?

[nrajeffreturns]

So what else is different--besides sex--for an eternally married couple in heaven and a couple who was not eternally married?

For those readers who don't know, people who are happily married to each other and who are bound together in holy matrimony are better than best friends. They can become so close that they plan everything together--their entire future--they sacrifice for each other--they spend more time with each other than with any "friends" or even their own moms and dads and siblings.

Besides what I have mentioned above, there are probably more ways and more reasons that make the inst itution of marriage different from ANY other relationship that a person has with anyone else.

[James Banta]

For those readers who don't know, people who are happily married to each other and who are bound together in holy matrimony are better than best friends. They can become so close that they plan everything together--their entire future--they sacrifice for each other--they spend more time with each other than with any "friends" or even their own moms and dads and siblings.

Besides what I have mentioned above, there are probably more ways and more reasons that make the inst itution of marriage different from ANY other relationship that a person has with anyone else.

According to my concept of mormonism, the planning used to "build" the earth was done by a committee and not by God and His wife (wives). So that would kill the idea that God and His wife planned the future.. God is in need of nothing:


Acts 17:24-25
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things

Sacrificing for more than those that hold faith in Him (His Children) is not something that He would be doing for someone who has equal status with Him.

By your own admission in your post God would be closer to His wife than His Father and Mother (His Gods). He would be breaking an eternal Law in doing so by putting anyone or anything before His God.. Look at this reasoning you offered and see how it fails and fails again.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

For those readers who don't know, people who are happily married to each other and who are bound together in holy matrimony are better than best friends. They can become so close that they plan everything together--their entire future--they sacrifice for each other--they spend more time with each other than with any "friends" or even their own moms and dads and siblings.

Again what is different in heaven for a couple who is eternally married and a couple who is not eternally married?

[Sir]

Again what is different in heaven for a couple who is eternally married and a couple who is not eternally married?

What is different on earth for couples who are married and couples who are not married?

:)

[James Banta]

What is different on earth for couples who are married and couples who are not married?

:)

A Union where people commit to each at least before the law is recognized by God as a marriage between a man and a woman as God appointed in the scripture and called it good.. Unmarried couples have no commitment at all. Either one can walk away often stranding the other with a financial burden or a burden of minor children that all too often go unsupported.. You know these things why did you ask? IHS jim

[Sir]

A Union where people commit to each at least before the law is recognized by God as a marriage between a man and a woman as God appointed in the scripture and called it good.. Unmarried couples have no commitment at all. Either one can walk away often stranding the other with a financial burden or a burden of minor children that all too often go unsupported.. You know these things why did you ask? IHS jim

So there ARE benefits that married couples have over non-married couples.

That makes Jeff's point.

Thank you.

That's why I asked.

[James Banta]

So there ARE benefits that married couples have over non-married couples.

That makes Jeff's point.

Thank you.

That's why I asked.

I would never argue that marriage in a world were the commandment to multiply and fill the earth isn't better than leaving women and children unsupported by an absent father. I will also say that Angels were never considered sexual beings.. Jesus says we will be like the angels in heaven.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

I would never argue that marriage in a world were the commandment to multiply and fill the earth isn't better than leaving women and children unsupported by an absent father. I will also say that Angels were never considered sexual beings.. Jesus says we will be like the angels in heaven.. IHS jim
Jesus didn't claim that WE will be like that. He said that "THEY" will be like the angels in heaven. "They" was referring to those people the Sadducees asked Him about.

PS--Do you think that Jesus was including Himself in the "we" that you claim He said? ***uming He said "WE will be like unmarried angels in heaven," was He including Himself in the "we" ?

[theway]

I thought some of you might be interested in this story. I liked it.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765638411/Miss-Nevada-Teen-2010-now-serving-Mormon-mission-shares-LDS-conversion-story.html?pg=1

"I remember the first time I ever went to a Mormon church. I was 18 years old and a senior in high school. Trust me when I say I had no desire to be a Mormon. My parents divorced when I was a baby, and growing up my mom was a wonderful example of virtue, goodness and working hard to reach your potential. She brought us kids to a local Baptist church, where I learned to love the Lord as a little girl. I am thankful for my upbringing and my mother's powerful influence because I don't know who I would be or where I would be without her. I had just been crowned Miss Teen Nevada, and my dream was to become Miss USA...."I liked this story, and I sent it to my son on his mission when he asked how I was able to get so many baptisms.

I included this story as an example of the most important of three criteria in which a successful missionary must have.

[Billyray]

Jesus didn't claim that WE will be like that. He said that "THEY" will be like the angels in heaven. "They" was referring to those people the Sadducees asked Him about.

Of course he was referring to them because that was a direct answer to the question that they asked him which was that none of those who were married to the woman are married to her in heaven because there isn't marriage in heaven.

[nrajeffreturns]

Of course he was referring to them because that was a direct answer to the question that they asked him which was that none of those who were married to the woman are married to her in heaven because there isn't marriage in heaven.

You are making the fallacious conclusion called non sequitur, or maybe you're generalizing from an isolated case and ***uming it applies to everyone. Either way, you don't have enough evidence to support you conclusion that what Jesus told those particular Sadducees in answer to that particular question, should be ***UMED to be a doctrinal statement on the issue of whether it's impossible for people married down here to stay married after they die.

[Billyray]

You are making the fallacious conclusion called non sequitur, or maybe you're generalizing from an isolated case and ***uming it applies to everyone. Either way, you don't have enough evidence to support you conclusion that what Jesus told those particular Sadducees in answer to that particular question, should be ***UMED to be a doctrinal statement on the issue of whether it's impossible for people married down here to stay married after they die.
Sure we have enough evidence, we have a direct question and a direct answer by Jesus.

[James Banta]

Jesus didn't claim that WE will be like that. He said that "THEY" will be like the angels in heaven. "They" was referring to those people the Sadducees asked Him about.

PS--Do you think that Jesus was including Himself in the "we" that you claim He said? ***uming He said "WE will be like unmarried angels in heaven," was He including Himself in the "we" ?

YES, I do.. I don't believe that Jesus was married here on earth nor at the right hand of the Father.. Never was never will be.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

So the Bible verses that claim that Jesus is a bridegroom at some future wedding--those verses aren't correct, in your opinion Jim?

[James Banta]

So the Bible verses that claim that Jesus is a bridegroom at some future wedding--those verses aren't correct, in your opinion Jim?

Not at all.. In that context the Church (the believers in Christ) are called the bride.. I have often told LDS people that I do believe in marriage in heaven as long as Jesus is the bridegroom and I am the bride.. :) IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Not at all.. In that context the Church (the believers in Christ) are called the bride.. I have often told LDS people that I do believe in marriage in heaven as long as Jesus is the bridegroom and I am the bride.. :) IHS jim


But "The Bible teaches that there's no such thing as marriage in heaven....." ????

[Billyray]

But "The Bible teaches that there's no such thing as marriage in heaven....." ????
Do you believe that the marriage super of the Lamb is the same ordinance that LDS practice in Temple marriage i.e. do you believe you will be married to Jesus just like you are temple married to your wife?

[dberrie2000]

Do you believe that the marriage super of the Lamb is the same ordinance that LDS practice in Temple marriage i.e. do you believe you will be married to Jesus just like you are temple married to your wife?

The sealing ordinances of the LDS Temples are designed to seal all of mankind together--and Christ to them. That is the reason for the final marriage to the Lamb. By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

Eternal, heavenly marriage is a reality in the Biblical text.


Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)


7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

[Billyray]

The sealing ordinances of the LDS Temples are designed to seal all of mankind together--and Christ to them. That is the reason for the final marriage to the Lamb. By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

So you will be married to Jesus and this is the exact same marriage you have with your wife?

[RealFakeHair]

The sealing ordinances of the LDS Temples are designed to seal all of mankind together--and Christ to them. That is the reason for the final marriage to the Lamb. By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

Eternal, heavenly marriage is a reality in the Biblical text.


Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)


7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Total BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why, or why do LDSinc. try this U-no-What on us?
Your temple cult ritual is nothing more than a Joseph Smith jr. trick to get under the bloomers of the female followers, both young and not so young. Don't try your 2013 trick of saying it was something more than that!

[Billyray]

Eternal, heavenly marriage is a reality in the Biblical text.


The Bible doesn't teach that humans will be eternally married such as you and your wife.

[Billyray]

By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.
So everyone in heaven will be temple married including couples who die without having a temple marriage?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000
By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

Posted by Billyray....
.So everyone in heaven will be temple married including couples who die without having a temple marriage?


I think dberrie200, might just go away after this out of the blue younder statement!

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---The sealing ordinances of the LDS Temples are designed to seal all of mankind together--and Christ to them. That is the reason for the final marriage to the Lamb. By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

Eternal, heavenly marriage is a reality in the Biblical text.


Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.


Total BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read your Bible, Hair. There will be an eternal marriage--and it will exist in heaven.


Why, or why do LDSinc. try this U-no-What on us?
Your temple cult ritual is nothing more than a Joseph Smith jr. trick to get under the bloomers of the female followers, both young and not so young. Don't try your 2013 trick of saying it was something more than that!

Kicking Joseph Smith between the legs won't help your cause. Your argument is with the Bible--it is the one that establishes eternal marriage in heaven.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---The sealing ordinances of the LDS Temples are designed to seal all of mankind together--and Christ to them. That is the reason for the final marriage to the Lamb. By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

Eternal, heavenly marriage is a reality in the Biblical text.


Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.


So everyone in heaven will be temple married including couples who die without having a temple marriage?

The scriptures show all will have an eternal marriage in heaven.

Billyray--you do acknowledge the existence of eternal marriage in heaven--right? Who else teaches that with the exception of Christ and the LDS?

[Billyray]

The scriptures show all will have an eternal marriage in heaven.


So my wife and I will be temple married just like you and your wife?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---The sealing ordinances of the LDS Temples are designed to seal all of mankind together--and Christ to them. That is the reason for the final marriage to the Lamb. By then--all the ordinances will be performed to seal mankind together, who has faith in Christ--there will be but one sealing ordinance to perform then--when we are married to the Lamb--sealed to Him eternally.

Eternal, heavenly marriage is a reality in the Biblical text.

Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.


Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---So everyone in heaven will be temple married including couples who die without having a temple marriage?


Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----The scriptures show all will have an eternal marriage in heaven.

Billyray--you do acknowledge the existence of eternal marriage in heaven--right? Who else teaches that with the exception of Christ and the LDS?


So my wife and I will be temple married just like you and your wife?

I'll leave that to you to decide--the scriptures have all within heaven sealed to Christ through an eternal marriage. That's eternal marriage in heaven.

[Billyray]

I'll leave that to you to decide--the scriptures have all within heaven sealed to Christ through an eternal marriage. That's eternal marriage in heaven.
So my wife and I will be temple married just like you and your wife?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---I'll leave that to you to decide--the scriptures have all within heaven sealed to Christ through an eternal marriage. That's eternal marriage in heaven.

So my wife and I will be temple married just like you and your wife?

Again--I'll leave that for you to decide. The Bible teaches eternal marriage in heaven:

Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Could you tell us if that is an eternal marriage that will exist in heaven?

[Billyray]

Again--I'll leave that for you to decide. The Bible teaches eternal marriage in heaven:

But you are the one who brought this up, don't you know the answer?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Again--I'll leave that for you to decide. The Bible teaches eternal marriage in heaven:

Revelation 19:7-9----King James Version (KJV)

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Could you tell us if that is an eternal marriage that will exist in heaven?


But you are the one who brought this up, don't you know the answer?

The answer is---eternal marriage in heaven is taught in the Bible.

[Billyray]

The answer is---eternal marriage in heaven is taught in the Bible.
So my wife and I will be temple married just like you and your wife?

[RealFakeHair]

The answer is---eternal marriage in heaven is taught in the Bible.

Man, that must be some kind of Kool-aid you folks drink over at your local Ward. No dberrie, the Holy Bible doesn't teach eternal marriage between a man and his wife, or in the case of your prophets, and their wives.
Keep at it though, it just goes to show LDSinc. Is in fact a cult.

[nrajeffreturns]

If you believe that God isn't willing and able to keep married people married even after they die, then "you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." :)

[Billyray]

If you believe that God isn't willing and able to keep married people married even after they die, then "you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." :)
Jeff can you show me anywhere in the NT church where temple marriage is mentioned like that taught in the LDS church?

[Billyray]

The Bible teaches eternal marriage in heaven:

The Bible teaches that there will be a marriage supper of the Lamb where believers will be joined together with Christ IN HEAVEN.

Does the Bible teach anything about a man and his wife being temple married--like that taught in the LDS church--on earth anywhere in the NT?

[nrajeffreturns]

The Bible teaches that there will be a marriage supper of the Lamb where believers will be joined together with Christ IN HEAVEN.

Does the Bible teach anything about a man and his wife being temple married--like that taught in the LDS church--on earth anywhere in the NT?

The books canonized in the NT were chosen partly as a way to share the basic good news of the gospel with the general public. Esoteric doctrines and rituals that were meant only for those who were more grown up in the gospel, and ready for advanced stuff, were left out of the NT.

So the answer is "no." But OTHER early Christian documents DO refer to such "secret" Christian practices as vicarious ordinances for dead people, and marriage ceremonies meant to last after death.

[Billyray]

The books canonized in the NT were chosen partly as a way to share the basic good news of the gospel with the general public. Esoteric doctrines and rituals that were meant only for those who were more grown up in the gospel, and ready for advanced stuff, were left out of the NT.

What books were left out of the NT?

[nrajeffreturns]

What books were left out of the NT?

I didn't say "books." But some of the documents from early Christianity, such as epistles, are mentioned in Mormonism and Early Christianity. You should read it.

[Billyray]

I didn't say "books." But some of the documents from early Christianity, such as epistles, are mentioned in Mormonism and Early Christianity. You should read it.
Here is your post

The books canonized in the NT were chosen partly as a way to share the basic good news of the gospel with the general public.

[nrajeffreturns]

and you will notice that I didn't say that any BOOKs were LEFT OUT.

[James Banta]

and you will notice that I didn't say that any BOOKs were LEFT OUT.

Maybe not but that is inferred in your comments.. Have you read the Book of Enoch? Do you believe that angels (Evil angels) came to the earth and took human women, and by this all of the evil of the world we know today was born? I had been taught that all those angels that rejected the Plan of Jesus were never born? Can spirits father the children of human women? Are they creative in their nature? Is that LDS doctrine now? That angels came to human woman and impregnated them? If mormonism hasn't changed again then the teaching that we have to p*** though mortality to gain the power of eternal procreation is still it's doctrine them the Book of Enoch would be false.. Should such be "Left out of the Bible"? YES because it teaches error. IHS jim