Matthew 19:12 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Compared to.

“Another thing that we must not forget in this great plan of re- demption and exaltation, is that a man must have a wife, and a woman a husband, to receive the fulness of exaltation. They must be sealed for time and for all eternity in a temple; then their union will last forever, and they cannot be separated because God has joined them together, as he taught the Pharisees” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:43-44. Italics in original).

Nah.

First, I never said that I wasn’t speculating. Paul gives his advice because of “the Present distress” that faced the saints in Corinth, and thus should be taken only in the context of that distress. As we do not know what that distress was (he never tells us) we don’t know the context.

I never said anything else until you asked “Under any circumstance whatsoever how in Mormon theology could Paul say that you can serve God better unmarried?” To answer this I gave you a very clear circumstance in which people are encouraged not to get married so they can serve God. I then showed how this same circumstance could be what Paul was referring to. I never said it was, only that it was a possibility.
Now, you point out the persecution, which is another possibility. When the saints were driven from Nauvoo Brigham Young told them to leave with haste and not wait for Temple ordinances, saying that new temples would be built. While the people did do these ordinances in Nauvoo, if they hadn’t they would have been justified.
So, you asked a question, and I answered it; I answered it directly and completely. You then blew me off and told me that I was not contributing to the conversation in any way. If directly answering a direct question is not contributing than I think we have different definitions of the term.

You later said I was “hoping that somehow this chapter might support LDS theology.” You don’t seem to understand my point at all. I don’t think that 1 Corinthians chapter seven supports the doctrine of Eternal Marriage. My point is that it does not contradict it either. That is the point.

Now, speaking of Matthew 19, just before this the Pharisees had been asking about divorce. Christ, in response, gave the famous quote “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” After this discussion with the Pharisees the disciples asked Christ if it was better not to marry. Christ answered them.
“All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

So, who is not able to receive the marriage state. Eunuchs, which are those who are unable to engage in a sexual relation, which is one of the major aspects of married life. There are those who are born with defects that make these relations impossible. There are those who are taken by other men and made Eunuchs. Then there are those who, for whatever misguided reason, have destroyed their ability to engage in such. When any of these are converted to the gospel they are not required to enter the marriage state, as they are incapable of engaging in the sexual relation.
This in no way denies the doctrine of the church.

Your right I think I had too much coffee or something the other day, sorry if I came across badly. As mucb as I like this kind of dialogue there is no substituting face to face. I dont suppose your in the Utah area are you? I am there next month and would love to grab a coke or something if you are, please drop me an email on [email protected] if this works.

Anyway, I think I was a bit quick in throwing out my thoughts on Paul being married. My thoughts on it are that I dont dispute or have a problem with the strong possibility that Paul was married before conversion. However I see nothing to suggest that as a Christian he was married nor had any concern with being such. I can see where you perceive me contradicting myself and thats mostly because of me being a bit quick to throw my points out. I see Paul as being unmarried at the time of this letter and I also see him encouraging those that are also unmarried to stay that way. You have rightly picked up on the fact that Paul addresses widows here.

However I do not accept at all that by the word unmarried he is simply referring to widowers. There is no logical reason to assume that when he says someone can more fully serve God single that this is referring to those that have once been married.

Interestingly verse 11 says this

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

You cannot be saying that the word unmarried here means widower? He is talking about a woman for one thing, I think you are making an unmerited leap here.

As I have also pointed out Jesus in Matthew 19 says 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Jesus brings encouragement to those that decide for the kingdom of God to be in that state. Nowhere does Jesus say this:

“Another thing that we must not forget in this great plan of re- demption and exaltation, is that a man must have a wife, and a woman a husband, to receive the fulness of exaltation. They must be sealed for time and for all eternity in a temple; then their union will last forever, and they cannot be separated because God has joined them together, as he taught the Pharisees” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:43-44. Italics in original).

Or this

“Man is not complete without woman. Neither can fill the measure of their creation without the other. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Only through the new and everlasting covenant of marriage can they realize the fulness of eternal bless- ings. As a matter of priesthood responsibility, a man, under nor- mal circumstances, should not unduly postpone marriage. Breth- ren, the Lord has spoken plainly on this matter. It is your sacred and solemn responsibility to follow his counsel and the words of his prophets” (Howard W. Hunter, “Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Ensign (Conference Edition), Nov.1994, p. 49).

Rather we are complete in Christ.

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Again we see Mormonism upholding man to the expense of where are to find our true joy and satisfaction. As a married man I am certainly not saying, nor do I believe Paul is saying that we should not get married, you are totally right that we are not talking commandments here. Rather I am saying that singleness is a blessed route to take which brings with it the freedom to serve God more fully with less distraction (albeit a worthwhile one) and that this is encouraged for those that with too by Christ and Paul and therefore is utterly in contradiction to the Mormon teaching that without a spouse we cannot receive the fullness of salvation.

And yes I stand by my points of Shematwaters speculation. I hope you can see I am not doing the same here even if you disagree with my conclusion.

And seriously if you are in utah, would be great to meet.

 6 But I speak this by permission [concession], and not of commandment.
 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
 8 I say therefore to the unmarried [widowers] and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1. He is speaking to “the unmarried and widows.” The word translated “unmarried” in our English editions is the Greek word “agamos” which means either bachelor or widower in Greek. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da%29%2Fgamos .

In contrast the word translated “widows” (chera) means only widows, not the never-married women.

So it seems most logical that Paul is using the word “agamos” to mean widower, juxtaposed as it is against a word that means widows. Paul is thus directing this advise to widowers and widows.

2. Paul makes it clear that this advise is not commandment, but just a concession or permission.

3. He is saying: I speak here by concession or permission, and am not giving a commandment. I wish that all men were as strong as myself, but we all have our different gifts from God. I therefore say to the widower or widow, it would be good for you to do as I do [implying that you not remarry and rather devote yourself to building the kingdom] but if you are not strong enough to withstand sexual temptations, it is better for you to remarry, than to suffer the consequences of sexual sin.

Nothing in that is inconsistent with the concept of celestial marriage.

To summarize:

A major premise of Carter’s article is: “how can Kimball use Paul to justify Mormon marriage as necessary to exaltation as ordained by God if Paul himself was not married?”

Shematwater replied: “1 Corinthians 9: 5 does not clearly say that Paul was unmarried….”

You then told shamtwater: “It literally blows me away that Mormons seek to deny that Paul is saying he was unmarried and this is the height of good evidence that Mormons read into the Bible rather than from it.”

I then cited an article by a Baptist minister providing good evidence that Paul likely had been married, and at the time of writing these passages, was a widower.

You then, with some self-contradiction, responded, “I certainly never doubted that Paul was once married….”

You then speculated: “I imagine its safe to say that Paul’s wife was no Christian…” and you stack on your speculation a misrepresentation of Mormon doctrine by stating, “therefore, he could not be exalted with her…” This totally discounts the wonderful Mormon and New Testament doctrine of baptism for the dead, and the possibility of spirits after death accepting the gospel.

(Author Carter makes a similar improper speculation, stating that, even if Paul once was married, Paul here said he was “unmarried,” therefore his marriage could not have been an eternal marriage–forgetting that the Greek word translated as “unmarried” also means widower).

After all that speculation, you accuse shematwater of promoting: “A load of speculation based on nothing.”

You are bringing no substance to this argument other than speculation, hoping that somehow this chapter might support LDS theology, which if read for what it say does not. I will reply to you if you can bring more substance in your response otherwise the last word is yours.

You are right that we are never told directly that Paul was once married. It is also true that we are never told directly that he wasn’t. So this point made in the article is proven false as it claims that Paul does say directly that he wasn’t married.

As to the other points, I can think of one very clear reason why not to marry that God has justified in our day, and what I would believe is what Paul is speaking about. That reason is missionary work. Missionaries are not to be married, but are told to delay marriage until after serving. So, it is completely possible that Paul is advising the saints in Corinthians to focus more on the ministry, which seems to have been struggling at the time, rather than marry. Thus his statement to be even as he is would be more telling them to be ministers and missionaries of the faith.
Just as missionaries today are not condemned for being unmarried if they die while on their mission, no saint in those early days would have been condemned for devoting themselves to the ministry instead of being married.

Speaking of Paul’s wife, I am sure you are familiar with the work we do for the dead. If she wasn’t a Christian (though we have no real proof she wasn’t), Paul could have been sealed to her through proxy and that takes care of that problem. The doctrine that this life is the time for us to do our work speaks to those who have the truth available to them, not to those who do not. Those determinations we leave to God.

I imagine its safe to say that Paul’s wife was no Christian, therefore he could not expect to be exalted with her according to the ample Mormon material saying that this life if the time to earn our exaltation. So therefore Paul should still have been seeking a mate, even with that aside there would be nothing to stop him remarrying in light of being widowed as I believe Elders Oaks and Nelson have. However Paul seems to be speaking against a firm LDS belief here in saying that it is a greater service to God to be unmarried as our priorities are not then divided, as Christ says in Matthew 19:9-12