Marriage in the next life?

[Anonymous]

I have heard talk that single and faithful LDS people, if they can’t find a mate in this life, will be blessed with marriage in the next. Surely this must be the case with little children who die, are promised salvation, and yet it is required that marriage must exist for them or they can’t be exhaulted.

So, I want to ask if anyone has some good quotes/resources/hyperlinks or something that talk about this topic. I don’t want the speculation from membership or even the Seventy level–I want apostle or first presidency. Just want to review this topic and see what is hearsay (if I can find that out) and what is being taught as doctrinal.

[Anonymous]

This is the way life is going for me. :crazy:

[Anonymous]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/06/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

Quote:

Now, what about the child who dies before reaching that age? Granted that he doesn’t need baptism for remission of sins, does he still need to be baptized for entrance into the celestial kingdom?

The question probably arises because of the Church’s teaching that baptism is one of the essential ordinances in qualifying for the highest degree of glory. But “little children,” we are told, are “alive in Christ” (Moro. 8:12, 19; see Moses 6:54). The Savior’s atonement covers any transgression they may commit in their ignorance, and since they are not yet accountable, they cannot sin. For these reasons, according to the Prophet Joseph Smith they “are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven” (D&C 137:10). As to whether such salvation is automatic without baptism, Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve has replied that “the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application.” (Ensign, April 1977, p. 4.)

Granted that little children are saved in the celestial kingdom, does that mean they will be exalted and have eternal life? And if so, do they need to comply at some point in their progression with such ordinances as baptism, bestowal of the Holy Ghost, the endowment and temple marriage? The first question was answered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who reports that “children will be enthroned in the presence of God” and “will there enjoy the fullness of that light, glory and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 200.)

Regarding the second question, Nephi explained that the Savior’s baptism manifested his willingness to be obedient to the Father in all things (2 Ne. 31:7), set an example for us by pointing out “the narrowness of the gate” by which we enter in to the kingdom of God (2 Ne. 31:9), and gave Jesus the right to say to us, “Follow thou me” (2 Ne. 31:10). But precisely what the Lord will require in the form of ordinances, or other requirements, for spirits who died as infants or children on earth in order to receive exaltation has not been revealed. Certain it is that we do not currently endow children who die before accountability nor do we seal them to a spouse. But this does not mean that the blessings of these latter ordinances are unavailable to them. President Joseph Fielding Smith once said:

“The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to exaltation.

“We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth …

“The Lord is just and will not deprive any person of a blessing, simply because he dies before that blessing can be received. It would be manifestly unfair to deprive a little child of the privilege of receiving all the blessings of exaltation in the world to come simply because it died in infancy.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 2:54.)

[Anonymous]

Thank you Roy.

What about adults who don’t marry? For example, Gay or Lesbian people? And, what about heterosexual individuals who don’t marry because they can’t find a suitable partner?

Should they marry simply to keep the commandments, even if they don’t find attraction or love for their partner? Should they “settle” to keep the commandments?

Any quotes on this stuff?

[Anonymous]

ETB said:

Quote:

I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings.

I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind.

Quote:

But also, do not expect perfection in your choice of a mate. Do not be so concerned about his physical appearance and his bank account that you overlook his more important qualities. Of course, he should be attractive to you, and he should be able to financially provide for you. But, does he have a strong testimony? Does he live the principles of the gospel and magnify his priesthood? Is he active in his ward and stake? Does he love home and family, and will he be a faithful husband and a good father? These are qualities that really matter.

And I would also caution you single sisters not to become so independent and self-reliant that you decide marriage isn’t worth it and you can do just as well on your own. Some of our sisters indicate that they do not want to consider marriage until after they have completed their degrees or pursued a career. This is not right. Certainly we want our single sisters to maximize their individual potential, to be well educated, and to do well at their present employment. You have much to contribute to society, to your community, and to your neighborhood. But we earnestly pray that our single sisters will desire honorable marriage in the temple to a worthy man and rear a righteous family, even though this may mean the sacrificing of degrees and careers. Our priorities are right when we realize there is no higher calling than to be an honorable wife and mother.

Quote:

Dear sisters, never lose sight of this sacred goal. Prayerfully prepare for it and live for it. Be married the Lord’s way. Temple marriage is a gospel ordinance of exaltation. Our Father in Heaven wants each of His daughters to have this eternal blessing.

Therefore, don’t trifle away your happiness by involvement with someone who cannot take you worthily to the temple. Make a decision now that this is the place where you will marry. To leave that decision until a romantic involvement develops is to take a risk the importance of which you cannot now fully calculate.

And remember, you are not required to lower your standards in order to get a mate. Keep yourselves attractive, maintain high standards, maintain your self-respect. Do not engage in intimacies that bring heartache and sorrow. Place yourselves in a position to meet worthy men and be engaged in constructive activities.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1988/10/to-the-single-adult-sisters-of-the-church?lang=eng

This same idea has been echoed by many. It is usually specifically in reference to single sisters.

I would say – Yes that the instruction is to make marriage a priority. Never bend on your standards to marry in the temple. But be prepared to reasonably bend on your standards of how attractive, athletic, or successful you may hope your spouse to be.

I do not generally see this applied to men because the old wisdom was that if a man wanted to get married he could just go out and ask someone. Once in institute we had the temple president give this same promise to the sisters. I asked if that would also apply to the men. The TP replied that if I asked a different woman every day to marry me for the rest of my life and they all turned me down then yes, that promise would apply to me as well. It is a double standard and it is sexist but it is what it is.

I do not know of this ever being applied to members with SSA. I can only point to the quote by BYU Prof. Millet in saying that the faithful young gay man will one day be changed by the atonement. Theoretically he would then be able to enjoy the “blessings” of celestial heterosexual marriage. I know that I have used Millet’s quote before and that it does not rise to the level of a church authority but it is all that I have at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Rob4hope wrote: “Surely this must be the case with little children who die, are promised salvation, and yet it is required that marriage must exist for them or they can’t be exhaulted.”

I have never seen any scripture, talk, or quote that addressed temple marriage for deceased young children.

[Anonymous]

I think it is a lovely thought that means a lot to me, and I hope it is “true”, but I also think it is speculation based on a title for God and our Atonement theology.

It breaks down in a hurry for people who have to be changed in fundamental ways in order to want it – or not be repulsed by the idea. I think our theology (especially the use of “the gods” and our view of eternal matter and creation through organization) has room to embrace alternatives to our accepted assumptions / traditional speculation, but it would take a major reinterpretation that might never be acceptable to the large majority.

I think there is room for much that is not orthodox now, but orthodoxy exists because majorities exist. I don’t want to eliminate the idea of marriage after death; I want to expand the possibilities.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I do not generally see this applied to men because the old wisdom was that if a man wanted to get married he could just go out and ask someone. Once in institute we had the temple president give this same promise to the sisters. I asked if that would also apply to the men. The TP replied that if I asked a different woman every day to marry me for the rest of my life and they all turned me down then yes, that promise would apply to me as well. It is a double standard and it is sexist but it is what it is.

Why not club a woman upside her head and drag her by the hair back to the cave? 🙄

Rob4Hope wrote:

So, I want to ask if anyone has some good quotes/resources/hyperlinks or something that talk about this topic. I don’t want the speculation from membership or even the Seventy level–I want apostle or first presidency. Just want to review this topic and see what is hearsay (if I can find that out) and what is being taught as doctrinal.

My grandmother was always quick to quote what Jesus said:

Quote:

The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

It was always a tough hill to climb coming back from that one. I never did have a good answer for her.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

It was always a tough hill to climb coming back from that one. I never did have a good answer for her.

Nibbler,..this scripture came to my mind as well. And the only way I can harmonize it with what Roy said is that marriage happens in the Spirit World prior to the resurrection. How could it be any other way? However, (and this I don’t know for sure), isn’t marriage something that belongs to this world?

This whole topic?….there is so very little known about it.

I will say this much: I think the LDS faith is hostile towards heterosexual men (and I mean no disrespect to others who I am leaving out–just focusing on this one group) who are not married, and have limited prospects for marriage for whatever reason. I have that good friend, for example, who hurts. He is not happy about this situation, but he is also damaged inside, and has lost hope. Some of the quotes from the GA’s don’t help much–in fact, they erode hope even more.

Hey….so what. After all, aren’t servants needed in the CK for the rest of those who are there? And, what’s so wrong with being a servant in a place like that?

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I will say this much: I think the LDS faith is hostile towards heterosexual men (and I mean no disrespect to others who I am leaving out–just focusing on this one group) who are not married, and have limited prospects for marriage for whatever reason. I have that good friend, for example, who hurts. He is not happy about this situation, but he is also damaged inside, and has lost hope. Some of the quotes from the GA’s don’t help much–in fact, they erode hope even more.

I’ve got a good friend in the same boat. I’ve mentioned this before, from his perspective he has received the message that single sisters are the victims and the single brethren are the perpetrators.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Hey….so what. After all, aren’t servants needed in the CK for the rest of those who are there? And, what’s so wrong with being a servant in a place like that?

I wouldn’t want someone serving me in the CK. If we follow the traditional definition of serving someone, it’s adding insult to injury to ask someone who has already suffered in mortality to be someone else’s servant for eternity.

Here’s a thought. Let’s combine two statements attributed to Jesus:

Quote:

The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

Quote:

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Maybe the single people that end up as ministering angels are the ones that reach the “highest” level of the CK and all the married people are only fooling themselves. :angel:

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Maybe the single people that end up as ministering angels are the ones that reach the “highest” level of the CK and all the married people are only fooling themselves. :angel:

OK…so if you are resurrected and single,..and you are in the Telestial Kingdom cuz you were BAD! You got the parts cuz you are man or woman,…right? So, no nookie there?….just gotta live without the fun stuff?

I have wondered about this. In the temple, the LOC kicks in for the Terrestial right? so,…what is going on down there in that bottom one…..I mean really? They are in the Telestial, and have to abide that law right? But LOC is for the higher kingdoms….at least the way I was taught.

This is a rather confusing question. If you have to obey all of the commandments, then why be in the lower kingdom? Cuz you are obeying all the commandments anyway,…right?

[Anonymous]

It’s all speculation.

I don’t think there is sex as we know it in the next life.

Solves a lot of issues quite nicely.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

It’s all speculation.

It is speculation…and that is what makes it frustrating.

I want to mention something about this “sex” topic. If there is nothing like that in the next life…I have wondered why it wouldn’t be advantageous to kill all of those feelings here. That way you feel no desire or longing there….

I am convinced that feelings CAN be shut off here using suppression all the way up to aversion techniques that are not so gentle. (Now I am not suggestion self abuse or something morbid…but for the sake of this discussion, I am just making a point).

Why not? We have this speculation about such things that frustrates a lot of people, including but not limited to gay folks who have to remain completely celibate,…and if there is no sex in the next life, why not just kill those feelings here, after the children are in the family from the heterosexual marriages?

And,…let me reiterate,..it is speculation. The message basically is this for those who are gay or in less than marriages: “Whatever God has for you in the next life, it is worth sacrificing whatever it takes [including sex] to obtain.”

That message, which I have loosely thrown out there, is basically the answer I have heard to many hard questions….

I don’t mind the answer,..I am just saddened that such messages are needed because there is no information available sometimes.

[Anonymous]

I read an article (maybe from Rational Faiths?) that was talking about how other faiths, like the Catholics, kind of revere those who choose, or have to choose, celibacy. Whereas in our church, they are looked down on in a way, or at least like they are lesser than those who marry. I really wish our church could become more like others and praise and honor those who give up something so desired in order to follow the gospel. Can you imagine how different singles and gays would feel in our church?

[Anonymous]

journeygirl wrote:

I read an article (maybe from Rational Faiths?) that was talking about how other faiths, like the Catholics, kind of revere those who choose, or have to choose, celibacy. Whereas in our church, they are looked down on in a way, or at least like they are lesser than those who marry. I really wish our church could become more like others and praise and honor those who give up something so desired in order to follow the gospel. Can you imagine how different singles and gays would feel in our church?

It would make a difference. I know several heterosexual women (and some men as well) who have not been privileged to marry. They all have different reasons and concerns–and those are VERY valid and painful to them. They hate…HATE…the church teaching moments about the eternal family,..but the thing that can sometimes hurt the most are the long lonely nights. Several of them have pets that give some type of outlet for affection as they run their fingers through those pets fur…but it is not the same as being held and loved “that way” (ie sex) from that special someone.

There is an epidemic of problems out there in marriage, including in the LDS faith. I spoke with Laura Brotherson about this, and her opinion goes like this: about 50% of marriages divorce; of those that stay together, about 20% actually get it and are connected emotionally and sexually. The rest are like ships in the night that sometimes pass, but the deep intimacies are no longer there. Those numbers are chilling, and I believe them–from my observations, that is what I see. The sad news (but it works in their favor in a sick way) seems to be that many people ignore their health (see WoW discussion in other thread) so that their bodies fall apart and they loose their desire levels anyway–so why have sex any more in that situation?

I have a new question to keep this thread moving forward. Can someone tell me something that can ONLY be had in marriage and not outside of marriage without breaking moral law? I know–because i have thought about this–that the following don’t count:

1. Children. I know a single woman who adopted a child, and was allowed to have that child sealed to her.

2. Affection. I have brushed my sisters hair and held her closely and caressed her after she had a serious and painful surgery. Didn’t break any rules or laws…it was a tender moment.

3. Finances. Two people can merge their assets, live in the same home, and share the same posessions without breaking moral law. I know 2 widdows who have done just this, and love each other’s company and the financial help they receive as they share resources.

4. Emotional Intimacy. I have had long an deeply emotional intimate talks with both male and female close friends. Didn’t break any rules, and the friendships are blessings in my life.

5. Religious observance. I’ve been to the temple and participated in sealing with women who I wasn’t married to. Didn’t break any rules, and got the job done for her family. Felt good about it as well.

Well,…I am interested in knowing something that is unique to marriage,….can ONLY be had there,…but you can’t say sex. That one is off the table.

[Author]

Posts