More examples of Mormon "eisegesis" (reading INTO the text):
This does not bear witness that Paul was not married, and his own evidence in other scripture infers strongly that he was.
This seems to be a common tactic by Mormons, to use phrases like "strongly infers". Something is either inferred, or it isn't. There is no "strongly or "weakly" abut it. And most of the time, at least in my experience, when a Mormon says something is "inferred", he ACTUALLY means "assumed".
ALL MINISTERS REQUIRED TO MARRY
It is my understanding that in Paul's day all ministers had to be married,
"It is my understanding...."
I'm an academic. That means when people make historical claims, supporting evidence is expected, and something more tangible than "it is my understanding".
however, I think the evidence is strong enough that Paul was married, based upon his own statement in
1 Corinthians 11:11:
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Here is a perfect example of Mormon eisegesis. There is absolutely NO reason to think this passage is referring to "marriage":
1 Cor. 11:8 For man was not
made from woman, but woman from man.
9 Neither was man
created for woman, but woman for man.
10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
This passage isn't about "marriage", but rather about "creation" order. This is what happens when you rip a verse out of its context, and try to assign a foreign context (like "marriage") onto it. You miss two verses earlier where it EXPLICITLY talks about "creation", and you miss the explanatory comment in v.12 where it explains:
1) woman was made from man (Eve out of Adam's side);
2) man is born of woman (men are dependent on women for our birth).
The point is that men and women aren't independent on each other, but interdependent.
The expression, "in the Lord," would certainly infer celestial marriage. That being true Paul would have to be a married man.
So "in the Lord" means "celestial marriage"?!
SERIOUSLY?!
And there's that magic word, "infer" again. If Mormons can't support something, they simply have to ASSUME it, and then use the magic word, "in the Lord".
PAUL'S COUNCIL TO TIMOTHY
It was Paul's council to Timothy that a bishop was to have a wife:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (
1 Timothy 3:2.)
Why is this even relevant?
Paul wasn't a bishop.
The same council was given by Paul to Titus:
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (
Titus 1:6.)
Funny thing, according to the KJV (which Mormons use), this passage is referring to ELDERS:
Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and
ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless,
the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
So if Mormons actually BELIEVE this verse, why do Mormons ordain 18-year-old "elders", who aren't married, in CONTRADICTION to this verse?
It would be inconsistent for Paul to teach others they had to be married and that marriage was essential for exaltation and then not be married himself.
Paul never mentioned anything about "essential for exaltation".
Thank you for sharing this, Prophet.
