There are a couple of standard responses. 1. All marriages are settled prior to the resurrection. (This goes against recent expressions of sympathy for members of the church who never met the right person). 2. The woman and the brothers used in the hypothetical case presented to Jesus weren't sealed by the proper authority. (Of course, that information isn't provided in the Sadducees' challenge).
That the ordinances must be completed on earth before judgment, and by proxy for those who died without the opportunity and therefore cannot do it for themselves.
You point up one sure-fire hint that a ''religion'' is completely man-made: According to Mormons, God Almighty can't do it for them, either. If god has to be impotent for the ''religion'' to work, it isn't from God, it is from man.
I agree that it is contradictory to believe in an all powerful god but then limit what he can do, so how do you know where the line? Some things God expects us to do for ourselves right? Maybe god can't force us to marry the same way he can't force us to believe in Christ?
This is the very scripture that started my journey out of TSCC. I couldn't believe in a god that destroyed loving relationships because they hadn't been "sealed for eternity".
well you have certainly discounted MORmON Jesus' love of unmentionable stupid secret handshakes and the magic sealing power that those handshakes have ...... those secret handshakes are what makes filthy nasty sex OK ! Elohim probably did secret handshakes with the virgin mary before he molested her to sire MORmON Jesus. No wonder you quit "THE" church, you are not much of MORmON ! Geniuses / non Dodo MORmONS like Elder Holland understand this sacred stuff perFUCTly.
Actually, this one scripture has no REAL explanation in mormonism. I have read the footnotes and tried to lookup any info on the topic and the resulting mormon answer is:
All these rules and speculations about marriage in Mormonism give me a migraine, plus make my heart ache for a dear naive trusting friend who takes it all so seriously.
She is ready, after three failed marriages, to take back the first in line who cheated on her. His appearance doesn't make her happy, he drinks alcohol some, and he does not attend church. But, he was dunked Mormon, served a mission, and then exed. Therefore, she and relatives are ready to dead dunk him once he passes on so all will be well and they will be together on Kolob.
The mental exercises to get to B from A and then maybe to C in the Mormon Marriage Soap Opera is irritating and exhausting and funny.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2015 11:49PM by presleynfactsrock.
I'm rather confused about that passage as well. Some versions are more explicit and say "no men are have wives in the resurrection." But to "be given in marriage" can mean no one lives in marriage after/or in the resurrection.
Mormons are up the river without a paddle, I guess?
In my experience, anything in the bible that didn't jive with other Mormon ideas was written off as a "translation" error. Of course, in Mormonism, translation conveniently doesn't mean what it means to the rest of the world.
That scripture is why Mormons teach that they must do proxy sealings for the dead.
The implication in Mark that there won't be any marriage in the afterlife is either a mistranslation, or Mark was speaking as a man. That is always the universal Mormon escape clause.
I think I explained it to myself by thinking that it was one of those things that had been corrupted through time, Changed by apostates in the early church or something. As time went on it just seemed more and more like Christ didn't believe the same thing as Joseph Smith.
That they only accept the bible "as far as it is translated correctly." This one, they'll say, must have been translated incorrectly.
Of course, since we don't have the original "Mark" to translate from, there's no way to tell if it was "translated" correctly or not...which gives the mormons an easy out.