Aaron32-ism: A Perspective of Mormonism

Aaron32

Well-known member
... but are like angels in heaven.

Why did you forget to quote that part, Aaron?
Angels aren't "married".
Ummm....I'm pretty sure I addressed that when I said: "Those not married are angels, the lowest level in the celestial kingdom."
"The Sadducees made this one of their objections to belief in the resurrection body, revealing thus their own ignorance of the true resurrection body and the future life where marriage functions do not exist. [...] The angels are directly created, not procreated."
-- A.T. Robertson, "Word Pictures"

"[T]his passage teaches that the peculiar relation of marriage will not exist. It does not affirm, however, that there will be no recollection of former marriages, or no recognition of each other as having existed in this tender relation."
-- Albert Barnes, "Notes on the New Testament"

"They are as the angels—Incorruptible and immortal. So is the power of God shown in them! So little need had they of marriage!"
-- John Wesley
Extra-biblical sources.
Jesus' answer would be very BIZARRE in light of the LDS understanding.
Not really if you can understand the law in which the marriage was authorized.

Thank you for the substantive post.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Ummm....I'm pretty sure I addressed that when I said: "Those not married are angels, the lowest level in the celestial kingdom."

Extra-biblical sources.

Not really if you can understand the law in which the marriage was authorized.

Thank you for the substantive post.

I love it....
You summarily dismiss Bible scholars as "extra-biblical sources".

Then you quote your own LDS philosophers!

Double standards much?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I love it....
You summarily dismiss Bible scholars as "extra-biblical sources".

Then you quote your own LDS philosophers!

Double standards much?
Ok. Fair enough. Sorry to be dismissive on your quotes.

Where in the bible does it teach "The angels are directly created, not procreated" from what biblical evidence does A.T. Robertson get that conclusion?

Do I just accept "the peculiar relation of marriage will not exist" based on the appeal to the knowledge of Albert Barnes?

Seems like a direct appeal to authority. It doesn't explain anything. It does nothing to expand my understanding. I guess I just have to take their word for it.

I don't disagree with John Wesley's quote. Celestial people, married or not, are Incorruptible and immortal due to the power of God.

In contrast, let's look at the reasoning according to my source:

First, it explains why our teachings don't show up in the Bible. On the principle of not showing pearls before swine.
Second, it affirms what I said in my response to OG's question.
Third, it recognizes that marriages under the Mosaic Law can't stand for time and all eternity.
Fourth, he references where Jesus supports marriage.
Fifth, it recognized the authority given to the Apostles to bind things in Heaven and Earth.

Do you see the difference? Your quotes are an appeal to authority. I can only accept it or reject it based on if I accept your sources as authoritative..
My source gives the reasoning behind the statements, tied to other statements in the Bible, which you can look up and validate yourself. And because I cited from my own church's website, we don't need to have a discussion if this is my personal interpretation or not.

So, I don't see my response as a double standard.

Now, can you do the same for me - meaning: read the linked article I posted and explain why it's wrong?
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
In the resurrection people do not marry (verb), nor are given (verb) in marriage. That doesn't say people are not married (adjective). Just as people don't get baptized (verb) in heaven, yet are baptized (adjective). All ordinances need to be performed in mortality. That's why we have temples.Those not married are angels, the lowest level in the celestial kingdom.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Here is the context of which Jesus (Yeshua) made the statement to the Saducees. It revolved around Levarite marriage found in the Torah and even before in Genesis. I am quoting from the following article:

Levirate Marriage

Blaine Robison, M.A.



Torah Requirement

Levirate marriage refers to the duty of a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother in the event his brother had produced no male heir. The term "levirate" comes from the Latin levir meaning "husband's brother" and translates the Hebrew word yabam, which occurs only in the passage above and Genesis 38:8. Levirate marriage, called yibbum in Judaism, is a custom whose origin lies in antiquity, long before God issued a regulation concerning the practice. God preferred that men marry women within their tribe, as illustrated in the specific ruling given for the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 36:6). The reason was simple. The land of Israel had been apportioned among the tribes and then within each tribe further apportioned to the clans. Marriage wasn't just about romance but maintaining the tribal name and the land associated with the name.

Ordinarily a man could not marry his brother's wife (divorced or widowed, Lev 18:16; 20:21), so the conditions necessitating the marriage only applied when the deceased brother had ein ben ("no son," TLV), i.e., no male heir at all. The Hebrew word ben, which occurs over 5,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, basically, but not exclusively, means "son" (BDB 119). When used as an expression in the plural, benim may mean children or descendants generally. The LXX translates ben in the Deuteronomy passage with sperma (seed or child), which may indicate a child of either sex, and the Sadducees in the Besekh seem to take it in this sense (Mark 12:19) as does the first century Jewish historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, IV, 8:23).

Some versions translate ein ben with "childless" or "without children" (CJB, DRA, JPS, JUB, KJV, NJB, OJB) as if the Heb. word was zera ("seed" or "descendant"). The entire context requires the interpreting ein ben as lacking a male heir. Otherwise, what is the point of the first son born to the marriage of the widow and her brother-in-law being given the name of the deceased brother? In yibbum the biological father becomes a surrogate for the first son, but every other child born to the union would be his. The primary purpose of the yibbum law was to preserve the dead man's name in Israel and insure that assets belonging to him and the widow remained in the family to be passed on to the son. Caring for widows and assuring their security is a continual theme throughout the Bible. God insisted that the family shoulder the responsibility of its widows rather than burdening the community as is common in modern times.

The act of assuming the marriage responsibility for the deceased brother is a serious Torah requirement. If the brother-in-law refused to perform the duty of marrying the widow in order to produce an heir for his deceased brother, then the widowed sister-in-law had to perform the ceremony of chalitza and publicly disgrace her brother-in-law by removing his shoe before the village elders and spitting in his face. From that moment on, he would be known throughout Israel as "the house of him who has his shoe loosed" (Deut 25:10; TWOT 1:359f). Failure to perform the duty did not result in any criminal kind of penalty or require atonement, but he would have to live with the social disgrace. The requirement of yibbum was expected even if the surviving brother already had a wife, polygamy being an acceptable practice in the Torah. In addition, traditional Jewish interpretation also required the ceremony if the widow declined to marry the brother-in-law.



Teaching of Yeshua

"Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.' Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.'" (Matt 22:24-28)

The fact that certain Sadducees pose the hypothetical situation of seven brothers having married a widow after each of them died demonstrates that yibbum was still practiced by the Jews in the first century. If Yeshua was opposed to the duty mandated by the Torah that he himself gave to Moses, he failed to take any action to overturn the law. It would have been strange for Yeshua to criticize the practice since, in the flesh, he directly descended from the unions of Judah and Tamar (Matt 1:3) and Ruth and Boaz (Matt 1:5). Instead the Lord's concern was to correct the basis for the Sadducee rejection of the resurrection, as well as to clarify the nature of resurrection in relation to marriage. We might assume that the silence of Yeshua on the application of yibbum law affirmed its continued practice, but he had no legal authority to make such a decision.

Jesus did not validate eternal marriage. IN fact he said just the opposite. He said this:

Matt 22:29-30
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
KJV

Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven but that people would be as angels of God. Not angels themselves, but AS the angels. Jesus answered the attempted trip-up story of seven brothers marrying the same woman saying there is no marriage in heaven or a giving in marriage. This could not be more clear.

There is no biblical scriptural foundation for eternal marriage between man and woman other than born-again believers (the church) and the Lamb of God (Jesus).

Joseph Smith was very wrong concocting this belief.
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Well-known member
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Here is the context of which Jesus (Yeshua) made the statement to the Saducees. It revolved around Levarite marriage found in the Torah and even before in Genesis. I am quoting from the following article:

Levirate Marriage

Blaine Robison, M.A.



Torah Requirement

Levirate marriage refers to the duty of a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother in the event his brother had produced no male heir. The term "levirate" comes from the Latin levir meaning "husband's brother" and translates the Hebrew word yabam, which occurs only in the passage above and Genesis 38:8. Levirate marriage, called yibbum in Judaism, is a custom whose origin lies in antiquity, long before God issued a regulation concerning the practice. God preferred that men marry women within their tribe, as illustrated in the specific ruling given for the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 36:6). The reason was simple. The land of Israel had been apportioned among the tribes and then within each tribe further apportioned to the clans. Marriage wasn't just about romance but maintaining the tribal name and the land associated with the name.

Ordinarily a man could not marry his brother's wife (divorced or widowed, Lev 18:16; 20:21), so the conditions necessitating the marriage only applied when the deceased brother had ein ben ("no son," TLV), i.e., no male heir at all. The Hebrew word ben, which occurs over 5,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, basically, but not exclusively, means "son" (BDB 119). When used as an expression in the plural, benim may mean children or descendants generally. The LXX translates ben in the Deuteronomy passage with sperma (seed or child), which may indicate a child of either sex, and the Sadducees in the Besekh seem to take it in this sense (Mark 12:19) as does the first century Jewish historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, IV, 8:23).

Some versions translate ein ben with "childless" or "without children" (CJB, DRA, JPS, JUB, KJV, NJB, OJB) as if the Heb. word was zera ("seed" or "descendant"). The entire context requires the interpreting ein ben as lacking a male heir. Otherwise, what is the point of the first son born to the marriage of the widow and her brother-in-law being given the name of the deceased brother? In yibbum the biological father becomes a surrogate for the first son, but every other child born to the union would be his. The primary purpose of the yibbum law was to preserve the dead man's name in Israel and insure that assets belonging to him and the widow remained in the family to be passed on to the son. Caring for widows and assuring their security is a continual theme throughout the Bible. God insisted that the family shoulder the responsibility of its widows rather than burdening the community as is common in modern times.

The act of assuming the marriage responsibility for the deceased brother is a serious Torah requirement. If the brother-in-law refused to perform the duty of marrying the widow in order to produce an heir for his deceased brother, then the widowed sister-in-law had to perform the ceremony of chalitza and publicly disgrace her brother-in-law by removing his shoe before the village elders and spitting in his face. From that moment on, he would be known throughout Israel as "the house of him who has his shoe loosed" (Deut 25:10; TWOT 1:359f). Failure to perform the duty did not result in any criminal kind of penalty or require atonement, but he would have to live with the social disgrace. The requirement of yibbum was expected even if the surviving brother already had a wife, polygamy being an acceptable practice in the Torah. In addition, traditional Jewish interpretation also required the ceremony if the widow declined to marry the brother-in-law.



Teaching of Yeshua

"Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.' Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.'" (Matt 22:24-28)

The fact that certain Sadducees pose the hypothetical situation of seven brothers having married a widow after each of them died demonstrates that yibbum was still practiced by the Jews in the first century. If Yeshua was opposed to the duty mandated by the Torah that he himself gave to Moses, he failed to take any action to overturn the law. It would have been strange for Yeshua to criticize the practice since, in the flesh, he directly descended from the unions of Judah and Tamar (Matt 1:3) and Ruth and Boaz (Matt 1:5). Instead the Lord's concern was to correct the basis for the Sadducee rejection of the resurrection, as well as to clarify the nature of resurrection in relation to marriage. We might assume that the silence of Yeshua on the application of yibbum law affirmed its continued practice, but he had no legal authority to make such a decision.

Jesus did not validate eternal marriage. IN fact he said just the opposite. He said this:

Matt 22:29-30
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
KJV

Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven but that people would be as angels of God. Not angels themselves, but AS the angels. Jesus answered the attempted trip-up story of seven brothers marrying the same woman saying there is no marriage in heaven or a giving in marriage. This could not be more clear.

There is no biblical scriptural foundation for eternal marriage between man and woman other than born-again believers (the church) and the Lamb of God (Jesus).

Joseph Smith was very wrong concocting this belief.
I can appreciate your viewpoint, but it boils down the separate foundations we draw our beliefs. See the link I posted in post #61. That's the Mormon viewpoint.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Yep. I believe in being saved by faith alone.
I think you mean, your definition of faith-alone which I don't believe is the same definition as our critics. First, your faith alone isn't alone. It's Faith plus works or Faith followed by works. Second, the question needs to be answered, if you don't do the works, can you be saved? IOW, if you have faith that baptism is a sign of accepting Christ into your life and you don't get baptized, did you accept Christ into your life? If you have faith that, as promised, your wife will get pregnant and you don't do anything about it, a. Will she get pregnant? and b. did you even have faith?

The problem here is that without the works, faith doesn't exist. If faith doesn't exist, then no one can be saved. Therefore, faith is never alone. It's just a phrase that our critics like to teach as part of their easy salvation religions. I don't believe your definition is the same as theirs.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
a) Does "saved" merely mean "resurrection"?
Everyone gets that regardless of their faith or works. So, no. I don't believe we mean that.
b) Does "saved" mean "exaltation"?
Nope. Faith in exaltation merely means getting sealed in the temple for time and eternity, but that sealing does not secure salvation.
c) Does "saved" mean something different (please define: ________ )
Saved in the kingdom of God to live with him in his presence forever. But we won't get that either if our faith is alone (since there is no such thing).
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
I can appreciate your viewpoint, but it boils down the separate foundations we draw our beliefs. See the link I posted in post #61. That's the Mormon viewpoint.
And therein lies the primary issue. Do we believe what God has said in His written word-- the Bible-- or do we rely upon other texts such as BOM, POGP and D&C which teach contrary to God's written word in the Bible. God is consistent. His word will be consistent. Eternal marriage other than the church to Christ is unbiblical and wrong.

Yes we have differing viewpoints. You will need to decide at some point whom to believe-- God and His written word in the Bible or Joseph Smith and his non-biblical writings.

Stay out of the heat. we are going to flirting with triple digits this weekend.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I think you mean, your definition of faith-alone which I don't believe is the same definition as our critics. First, your faith alone isn't alone. It's Faith plus works or Faith followed by works.
This again. No, my works are not independent of my faith. No works outside of my faith have any saving power. Action in faith should be a given. I think our critics understand this.
Second, the question needs to be answered, if you don't do the works, can you be saved? IOW, if you have faith that baptism is a sign of accepting Christ into your life and you don't get baptized, did you accept Christ into your life? If you have faith that, as promised, your wife will get pregnant and you don't do anything about it, a. Will she get pregnant? and b. did you even have faith?
How many times must we address this?
Salvation comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in the works is legalism. I don't believe in legalism.
If I have faith in Jesus Christ I try to do the best to fulfill his commandments, knowing that salvation is only upon the merits and mercy of Christ.
To the question: if you have faith that baptism is a sign of accepting Christ into your life and you don't get baptized, did you accept Christ into your life? No, because your putting faith in your works BEFORE Christ. It's does not reflect the attitude of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. It's not humbly submitting to God in all things out of love, it's acting out of fear out of self-preservation. That's legalism. Essentially, your worshipping yourself, because you're serving yourself, not God.
To answer: If you have faith that, as promised, your wife will get pregnant and you don't do anything about it, a. Will she get pregnant? If I had faith in immaculate conception, then maybe. That's why it's important to understand truth as we have faith. I get that you're trying to convey "by grace we are saved after all we can do" - I get that. Yet, what I'm trying to say we listen to our mind and our heart. Sometimes we are led by the Spirit, not having a plan. Other times, when we aren't given direction, we have to use our own devices and agency to figure it out (Nephi fixing the broken bow, the brother of Jared finding stones). In both cases, we are checking in and being led by the Spirit FIRST.
Ironically, infertility is something I can relate to. I was promised that I'd have kids in my patriarchal blessing, but unfortunately medical reasons said otherwise. So, we had to adopt. By seeking the Lord's will, we experienced miracles. We became foster parents, and had the easiest case in history, basically we got a baby left at the hospital. We had to be selective and inspired to have such an outcome. We had to say "no" to some cases because it didn't feel right. Other people we knew in foster care and wanted to adopt, and they just took anything that came along because they were so desperate to get a child in their home, and spent the next 6 years battling the system. That's the difference between having faith in the works we think will get us there, and having full faith and trust in God. Faith in works is burdensome and exhausting, faith in God is effortless and edifying. Anyway, we adopted 3 kids, and then received an anonymous check in the mail so we could do IVF. Can I claim that it was because of what I did? Heck no. I just tried my best, but God made it happen.

The problem here is that without the works, faith doesn't exist. If faith doesn't exist, then no one can be saved.
Yet, works can exist without faith and we deceive ourselves thinking we're saved when we're not.
Therefore, faith is never alone. It's just a phrase that our critics like to teach as part of their easy salvation religions.
If you truly understand what faith is, in terms of real salvation, it encompasses everything that follows. Thus, it is alone which is encompassed by grace alone.
You could say we are saved by grace through faith through repentance through baptism through the the gift of the Holy Ghost. It's one layer on top of the other. It's a natural progression. If, by some reason, we can't make it to the end of that process due to circumstances outside of our control, God is merciful and knows our hearts. Thus, explaining the salvation of the thief on the cross, and Alvin Smith, and the multitude of all people who claimed salvation in the scriptures without (or before) getting baptized.
I don't believe your definition is the same as theirs.
Then hopefully any lurking Christian critics will speak up and tell us which side they side with.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
This again. No, my works are not independent of my faith. No works outside of my faith have any saving power. Action in faith should be a given. I think our critics understand this.

How many times must we address this?
Salvation comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in the works is legalism. I don't believe in legalism.
If I have faith in Jesus Christ I try to do the best to fulfill his commandments, knowing that salvation is only upon the merits and mercy of Christ.
To the question: if you have faith that baptism is a sign of accepting Christ into your life and you don't get baptized, did you accept Christ into your life? No, because your putting faith in your works BEFORE Christ. It's does not reflect the attitude of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. It's not humbly submitting to God in all things out of love, it's acting out of fear out of self-preservation. That's legalism. Essentially, your worshipping yourself, because you're serving yourself, not God.
To answer: If you have faith that, as promised, your wife will get pregnant and you don't do anything about it, a. Will she get pregnant? If I had faith in immaculate conception, then maybe. That's why it's important to understand truth as we have faith. I get that you're trying to convey "by grace we are saved after all we can do" - I get that. Yet, what I'm trying to say we listen to our mind and our heart. Sometimes we are led by the Spirit, not having a plan. Other times, when we aren't given direction, we have to use our own devices and agency to figure it out (Nephi fixing the broken bow, the brother of Jared finding stones). In both cases, we are checking in and being led by the Spirit FIRST.
Ironically, infertility is something I can relate to. I was promised that I'd have kids in my patriarchal blessing, but unfortunately medical reasons said otherwise. So, we had to adopt. By seeking the Lord's will, we experienced miracles. We became foster parents, and had the easiest case in history, basically we got a baby left at the hospital. We had to be selective and inspired to have such an outcome. We had to say "no" to some cases because it didn't feel right. Other people we knew in foster care and wanted to adopt, and they just took anything that came along because they were so desperate to get a child in their home, and spent the next 6 years battling the system. That's the difference between having faith in the works we think will get us there, and having full faith and trust in God. Faith in works is burdensome and exhausting, faith in God is effortless and edifying. Anyway, we adopted 3 kids, and then received an anonymous check in the mail so we could do IVF. Can I claim that it was because of what I did? Heck no. I just tried my best, but God made it happen.


Yet, works can exist without faith and we deceive ourselves thinking we're saved when we're not.

If you truly understand what faith is, in terms of real salvation, it encompasses everything that follows. Thus, it is alone which is encompassed by grace alone.
You could say we are saved by grace through faith through repentance through baptism through the the gift of the Holy Ghost. It's one layer on top of the other. It's a natural progression. If, by some reason, we can't make it to the end of that process due to circumstances outside of our control, God is merciful and knows our hearts. Thus, explaining the salvation of the thief on the cross, and Alvin Smith, and the multitude of all people who claimed salvation in the scriptures without (or before) getting baptized.

Then hopefully any lurking Christian critics will speak up and tell us which side they side with.
Neither. You’ve both got it wrong.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
And therein lies the primary issue. Do we believe what God has said in His written word-- the Bible-- or do we rely upon other texts such as BOM, POGP and D&C which teach contrary to God's written word in the Bible. God is consistent. His word will be consistent. Eternal marriage other than the church to Christ is unbiblical and wrong.

Yes we have differing viewpoints. You will need to decide at some point whom to believe-- God and His written word in the Bible or Joseph Smith and his non-biblical writings.
Essentially the question is of the truthfulness of "Sola Scriptura". I believe that to be unbiblical.
We are taught of God's will not only by scripture, but by the Holy Ghost (John 14:26) and the Church (Eph 4:11-13).
It's the Holy Ghost that tells me the the Bible is true, along with the BoM, D&C, PGoP, and teachings of Church leaders. It's the alignment of those sources that helps me provide correct interpretation of each sources.
Your lack of understanding of Eternal Marriage stems for your lack of understanding and acceptance of gospel dispensations. There's a reason we study the six days of creation in the temple. That's the key to understand to Biblical full story of the gospel from beginning to end. The story of Abraham's family is just a random case study in the Old Testament to non-Mormon Christians, if you can't see how the story is congruent from beginning to end, and how God's pattern of creation explains man's origins and collective destiny then you will never grasp my understanding and the Mormon position, and why you'll always see Mormonism as a cult.

My faith is not founded in Joseph Smith, but the fruits of the Spirit.
Stay out of the heat. we are going to flirting with triple digits this weekend.
Thank you! You as well.
I have special plans for the next week. Be sure to see the PM I'm sending you.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Eternal marriage and polygamy are both beliefs in Mormonism. :rolleyes: You may not believe polygamy is part of Mormonism, but you'd be wrong.
I guess we'll have a clear picture of marriage in the next life, and then I'll either explain how polygamy there is different from polygamy here, and say I told you so, or concede my point.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's going to be like Big Love or Sister Wives. When you say "polygamy" that's what the general public thinks of. Notice, the church rarely used the term also and often uses the term "plural marriage" instead. Why do you think that is?
 
Top