Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

In one of those odd twists, I received within two days two completely different letters asking me about comments made by LDS apologist Barry Bickmore on the subject of celestial marriage and Matt. 22:23-30. To frame the issue, here's Bick's summary, and the passage in question:

Those who are married in Latter-day Saint temples are "sealed" so that the union lasts beyond the Resurrection and into eternity, provided the participants reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. (D&C 132:15-17) This is often considered one of the most bizarre LDS beliefs, especially given a certain statement by Jesus:

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him... Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:23-30)

Bickmore also notes the added answer from Luke that "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage..." Given this passage, one might suppose that this is a fee fi fo fum dropkick for any idea of celestial marriage as far as Jesus is concerned. But Bick needs a way around it, and it's the old end around of the begged question combined with a missed field goal:

One must realize that Jesus would never have cast this, his most precious pearl, before the Sadducee swine, who did not even believe in a resurrection and were only trying to trap Jesus in his words. Given that, what was Jesus talking about? The "children of this world", not the children of God, are the ones who remain separate in the resurrection. And indeed, the seven brothers in question were "children of this world", for they were apostate Sadducees ("there were with us seven brethren"). Jesus was merely warning the Sadducees of their ultimate fate without revealing His most sacred mystery. Those who fail to participate in this sacred rite in this world, whether in person or by proxy, "neither marry, nor are given in marriage," because all such contracts have already been finalized. Interpreted in this way, the passage is not at all contradictory to LDS belief.

Whoops. Problem with this is, Jesus specifically says, in the resurrection. That means everyone, good and evil. Not just Saduceean swine, but also Proper porkers as well. Jesus made no differentiation between resurrected baddies and resurrected good guys. "The resurrection" meant both good and evil people. Once that is understood, the rest of Bickmore's clumsy exegesis rattles to the ground like a wilted bridal bouquet.

Bickmore goes on to rattle a bit about secret traditions in the church, and that is a matter we previously addressed when we spoke to him here. For our purposes here it's enough to make the point that his handling of Matt. 22:23-30 wouldn't earn so much as a trip to the Las Vegas Chapel O' Love.