Christianity, Jesus, and the Family

[_bcspace]

In another thread, Buffalo makes the following claim to justify changes made in modern Bible translations regarding Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:23.

Jesus taught people to abandon their families, just as he himself did. Paul was explicitly anti-marriage in his letters. The original Christians were anti-marriage, anti-family. By definition, being pro-family makes you a heretic.

I know that neither were anti family but what do you think?

[_Fence Sitter]

What is the church's official doctrine on what constitutes a family?

[_the narrator]

In another thread, Buffalo makes the following claim to justify changes made in modern Bible translations regarding Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:23.

Jesus taught people to abandon their families, just as he himself did. Paul was explicitly anti-marriage in his letters. The original Christians were anti-marriage, anti-family. By definition, being pro-family makes you a heretic.

I know that neither were anti family but what do you think?

Jesus (as presented in the Gospels) and Paul believed that the end was imminent and that families would get in the way. They were clearly wrong.

Any surface reading of the scriptures makes it clear that since the Babylonic exile, prophets have been contradicting and rejecting things taught by previous prophets (a deeper reading makes it even more clear). If we can just accept that instead of desperately trying to force things to make them fit together nicely (like a child pounding the square-block through the circle hole) and recognize that things change, then can't we just move on such bickering and who said what?

[_bcspace]

What is the church's official doctrine on what constitutes a family?

It appears that ideally it's a married couple and any children they may have although technically the Church does recognize that in many cases the mom or dad or children may be missing.

Jesus (as presented in the Gospels) and Paul believed that the end was imminent and that families would get in the way.

I don't get that impression at all. In the aformentioned verses, Jesus is clearly refering to the participants in the parable the Sadducees put forth. Elsewhere, Jesus speaks about leaving family but only in the sense that the family is not with the invidividual spirtually or for some specific service. Paul elucidates on this further, stating it's better not to marry in a certain case but reaffirms the salvational requirement of marriage.

[_the narrator]

I don't get that impression at all. In the aformentioned verses, Jesus is clearly refering to the participants in the parable the Sadducees put forth. Elsewhere, Jesus speaks about leaving family but only in the sense that the family is not with the invidividual spirtually or for some specific service. Paul elucidates on this further, stating it's better not to marry in a certain case but reaffirms the salvational requirement of marriage.

Unlike his later followers, Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels) is, for the most part, not concerned with the afterlife. Concerning his response to the Sadducees, I guess one could read Jesus's denial of marriage in heaven as a rejection of his contemporary understanding of marriage as patriarchal ownership--ie., they were asking him which brother the woman would belong to, and his response is that in the resurrection such ownership does not exist. In this sense, Mormons could recognize that Jesus did deny marriage in heaven, but that LDS affirm a different kind of marriage--a divine one without the earthly patriarchal notions of ownership.

Paul, on the other hand, is pretty clear that he thinks that the end is immanent and that marriage is a hindrance to the work. Had he believed that the end wouldn't happen for another couple thousand years, then he probably would have thought differently (though he wouldn't have been Paul either, as his theology largely depends on an imminent end).

Concerning his teachings about men and women being necessary, this was largely a rejection of the patriarchal order (with exceptions to avoid too many issues--ie., men and women are equal, but to upsetting those infused with the patriarchal mind, it's best for the women to remain quiet). Reading eternal marriage into these passages is to take them out of the Pauline context.

This, of course, does not mean that Paul was against a view of egalitarian marriage relationships after a resurrection. It just means that he thought it was more important to warn others than be limited by familial responsibilities. As I noted in the other thread, in Howard W. Hunter's apostolic charge (given by McKay), he was told that his calling should come before anything else in his life--including wife and family. This is essentially the same idea expressed by Jesus ('abandon your family') and Paul.

[_Fence Sitter]

It appears that ideally it's a married couple and any children they may have although technically the Church does recognize that in many cases the mom or dad or children may be missing.

By 'married' are you talking about a temple marriage only or including any legal ceremony?

[_bcspace]

It appears that ideally it's a married couple and any children they may have although technically the Church does recognize that in many cases the mom or dad or children may be missing.

By 'married' are you talking about a temple marriage only or including any legal ceremony?

The ideal is temple, but 'nontemple' are considered families as well (for time only).

Unlike his later followers, Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels) is, for the most part, not concerned with the afterlife.

Which if true, has no bearing on whether or not he is antiFamily.

I guess one could read Jesus's denial of marriage in heaven as a rejection of his contemporary understanding of marriage as patriarchal ownership--ie., they were asking him which brother the woman would belong to, and his response is that in the resurrection such ownership does not exist.

I think the only logical way to read it is along these lines:

In the Apocrypha. . . we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9,) Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him "from the beginning" (Tobit 6:17.) This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God"
John Tvedtnes, "A Much-Needed Book That Needs Much," review of One Lord, One Faith, by Michael T. Griffith, FARMS Review of Books 9 (1997): 41

And that dovetails with Origen who reports in De Principiis that earlier christians, considered orthodox, believed in marriage after the resurrection.

Paul, on the other hand, is pretty clear that he thinks that the end is immanent and that marriage is a hindrance to the work.

No he doesn't. Only his type of work or a specific case. Other than that, he preaches the salvic necessity of marriage (1 Corinthians 11:11).

As I noted in the other thread, in Howard W. Hunter's apostolic charge (given by McKay), he was told that his calling should come before anything else in his life--including wife and family. This is essentially the same idea expressed by Jesus ('abandon your family') and Paul.

Such is taught to all LDS, that God comes before family, especially to those who are sealed in the temple. This isn't a rejection of marriage, but a rejection of relationships that come before God hence the necessity of being unified in marriage simultaneously with one's spouse and with God.

[_the narrator]

Unlike his later followers, Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels) is, for the most part, not concerned with the afterlife.

Which if true, has no bearing on whether or not he is antiFamily.

Which was my point. I don't think Jesus was antiFamily.

I guess one could read Jesus's denial of marriage in heaven as a rejection of his contemporary understanding of marriage as patriarchal ownership--ie., they were asking him which brother the woman would belong to, and his response is that in the resurrection such ownership does not exist.

I think the only logical way to read it is along these lines:

In the Apocrypha. . . we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9,) Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him "from the beginning" (Tobit 6:17.) This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God"
John Tvedtnes, "A Much-Needed Book That Needs Much," review of One Lord, One Faith, by Michael T. Griffith, FARMS Review of Books 9 (1997): 41

Actually, that is not the logical way to read it. Tvedtnes has to introduce the LDS conception of marriage sealing to force his interpretation. Had this interpretation been known when the Sadducees approached Jesus, their own question wouldn't have made sense. In Jesus's reply, he explicitly refers to the patriarchal ownership of marriage where women are treated as property exchanged through male hands ("marry, nor are given in marriage").

Paul, on the other hand, is pretty clear that he thinks that the end is immanent and that marriage is a hindrance to the work.

No he doesn't. Only his type of work or a specific case. Other than that, he preaches the salvic necessity of marriage (1 Corinthians 11:11).

Which are you denying? That Paul believed the end was immanent? Or that he believed that marriage was a hinderance to the work? Because if you deny either, you need to read your scriptures again.

I already addessed 1 Cor. 11:11. You are reading later LDS theology into that. Paul's concern was with gender roles in the "church."

Again, this says nothing about whether Paul was for or against the later LDS belief in eternal marriage--just that he had nothing to say about it.

As I noted in the other thread, in Howard W. Hunter's apostolic charge (given by McKay), he was told that his calling should come before anything else in his life--including wife and family. This is essentially the same idea expressed by Jesus ('abandon your family') and Paul.

Such is taught to all LDS, that God comes before family, especially to those who are sealed in the temple. This isn't a rejection of marriage, but a rejection of relationships that come before God hence the necessity of being unified in marriage simultaneously with one's spouse and with God.

No. I am told that if my calling makes it difficult to take care of my family needs, then my family needs to come first. LDS apostles (at least according to Hunter from McKay--one of his 4 apostolic charges) do not have such a clause. Like Paul, their apostolic calling comes first.

[_Buffalo]

The early Christians didn't even have a formalized marriage ceremony, let alone temple marriage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... ch_Fathers

This view of marriage was reflected in the lack of any formal liturgy formulated for marriage in the early Church. No special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage—despite the fact that the Church had produced liturgies to celebrate the Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation. It was not important for a couple to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses.[16]

At first, the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation.[16]

[_moksha]

When you think the end of the world is just around the corner, it dims your view as to the importance of marriage. The early Christians thought the end was near and that was what truly mattered to them.

We take our overwhelming concern for marriage as part of a remnant of the Church when there was a hankering for Polygamy. At one time the leadership of the Church were not gray hairs and the fire of passion and the male desire for a herd was overwhelming. After growing old, it was okay to listen to overwhelming reason and do what was necessary to save the Church by jettisoning polygamy, but the call of monogamy helped fill the void after the second manifesto and later on Temple enforcement barring polygamists.