Quote:
Originally Posted by Vort
Oh, my. Keys of eternal bondage, huh? Sounds like the kind of movie we are counseled to avoid.
Jesus gave Peter the sealing power, which is the power to seal on earth and have it sealed in the heavens and to loose on earth and have it loosed in the heavens. With the sealing power, it is possible to forge relationships that transcend death; without the sealing power, no such thing is possible.
For example, marriage is a social arrangement that lasts "until death do we part." But being married ("sealed") in the temple, the marriage is a candidate to last for all eternity and not merely for this lifetime.
The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. This restoration included the restoration of the sealing power. This sealing power, held by the apostles, is conferred upon some men who then act as "sealers". Theirs is the duty and privilege to bind on earth and have it bound in the heavens, at least insofar as marriage goes.
|
So here's the Bible quote we are both speaking of:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
So you say that it is simply a "Sealing power" that was given to Peter. Well we both can agree that is true. Peter received some sort of sealing power. But then you go straight to saying that the sealing power can be used for marriages. Essentially equating to keys that bond marriages eternally.. Sealing power was used by you. But we both agreed that Peter didn't use the only Temple that existed. Therefore did not "seal marriage in a temple".
I suppose if you say that he "could" have performed these marriage ceremonies of eternal sealing then I can't really argue against that directly. But we do have Paul who discusses it very heavily..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vort
Where does the Bible teach that Paul was unmarried? Paul's epistles say that he would that other missionaries abide as he does, which apparently means without sex. That does not necessarily mean Paul was unmarried; it was not uncommon for travelers of the time to leave their homes for many years on end. For that matter, Paul may have been widowed. We don't know. All we know is Paul's counsel that it is better for missionaries to remain undistracted from their missionary work, but ultimately, it is better to marry than to burn with desire.
|
Where does it teach that Paul was unmarried?
1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
That teaches that Paul was unmarried... and that those who have not married, should remain as he as, single, devoted to the lord only. because a married man is worried and concerned of the world, but a single man is worried about the kingdom of heaven..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vort
Now you know that you are mistaken, and that we do indeed say rightfully in our minds and hearts that eternal marriage is indeed the answer.
|
More evidence please? I don't see how I was wrong...
If Paul says it's better to remain as he is and stay single, why then is it BEST to be married and especially in the mormon temple if Paul himself remained single?.. As it is my belief that Jesus was also single..