Okay, so it’s not a plan to take over the world, per se. It’s just a plan to be healthy, wealthy, and wise (and that’ll help me take over the world, right?). I’m going to become an early riser.

I stumbled across a couple of Steve Pavlina’s posts about sleep and becoming an early riser last year on Jordan’s del.icio.us links. I initially thought Pavlina was mildly crazy, but some of his ideas about sleep made a lot of sense to me. His posts on How to Become and Early Riser and How to Get Up Right Away When Your Alarm Goes Off have especially good advice in them. I used to think some people were morning people and others weren’t, but Pavlina claims that anyone can become a morning person if they’re willing to discipline themselves, and he offers some practical (albeit slightly unorthodox) ways of doing just that.

I’m not sure why I didn’t put these ideas into practice back when I read this stuff the first time, but Tom’s del.icio.us links recently drew my attention back to Pavlina’s site and this time around I’ve decided to go for it.

I’ve never been a morning person. Quite the contrary, I’ve always been something of a night owl, staying up until 1:00 am or later and then crashing. Since I got married, though, my wife drags me to bed around 10:00 pm every night claiming that it’s the only way for her to warm up her feet. We’ve only been married a year and a half, so I still think that’s cute and I usually oblige. Even though I go to bed early now, I still typically roll out of bed around 8:00 am and make it to work around 9:00, but I’m pretty worthless until about noon, when I finally start to wake up. It’s crossed my mind once or twice in the past year that I’ve been sleeping 10 hours a night, and that’s probably why I’m so tired all the time, but I’ve never bothered to do anything about it.

Lately, though, I’ve been riding my bike to work two or three days a week. It gets my adrenaline and endorphins flowing and really makes me feel awake and alive. I guess that’s one reason why I didn’t simply pass over Pavlina’s pointers this time around. My bike riding has made me want to feel healthy and alive in other areas of my life. My wife keeps asking me what I did with her husband because I want to start taking vitamins and eating salad and fruit and stuff, but for the first time in a long time I really feel good about myself and I have real energy in the morning.

For two days in a row, I’ve gotten up more than an hour earlier than necessary. Yesterday I got up at 6:15 am and today I got up at 5:30 am. I think I’m going to make 5:30 my fixed wake up time, but if this works out I may move back to as early as 5:00. Getting up at 5:30 gives me a solid hour and a half between getting ready in the morning and having to leave for work.

One commitment I’m making is to spend this extra time on myself. That may seem selfish, but I spend a lot of my time working on other peoples’ projects. I need to learn how to say no to projects I know I won’t have time for, and I’ve been doing better, but so many of my own projects like my blogs have been pushed aside since I started working full time and doing school. So here I am blogging, and I hope to do this much more often starting today.

Speaking of blogging, I’m thinking of combining my two blogs back into one and turning it into more of a tumblelog like Jordan’s excellent Swirlee. I know it’s kindof a fad right now, but I don’t intend to copy exactly what anyone else is doing. I think it will be a nice way (at least a better way than the one I use now) to bring together my del.icio.us links, my Flickr photos, and the other things I post around the net.

Anyway, I’ll keep you posted on my adventures in waking up, so stay tuned.

This is the third post in a series about the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage that began on May 27 with “Eternal Companion: Introduction“.

Paul’s counsel to remain unmarried

Another good set of passages on the subject of marriage that comes up once in a while is Paul’s counsel to avoid marriage. In Mormon thought, celestial marriage is required for a person to attain to the highest kingdom of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. Contrarily, Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:6-9:

Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Later in the same chapter (vv. 26-28, 32-40) Paul explains further:

I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. …

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

It’s clear to me that Paul is giving privileged status to the unmarried.

Joseph Smith’s translation

It’s worth noting here that Joseph Smith’s translation ((See Wikipedia » Joseph Smith Translation.)) of the Bible clarifies in 1 Cor. 7:26 that Paul is speaking directly to those who were called to the ministry, namely full-time missionaries. This is one reason LDS missionaries serve their two year missions at age 19 before they are married. Outside of the Joseph Smith translation, however, I see nothing in the context that indicates that Paul was speaking only to missionaries. In fact, he specifically states that he’s speaking to the unmarried and widows in verse 8 and to virgins in verse 25.

There is a bit in the center of the chapter (vv. 17–24) that talks on the subject of living as you have been called. One could construe from this section that Paul is talking to those called to ministry, but a closer inspection reveals that the calling in this sense refers to your lot in life. Are you a slave? Don’t seek to be free. Are you uncircumcised? Don’t worry about getting circumcised. These are your “callings” in life. Likewise, are you married? Don’t seek to become single. Are you unmarried? Don’t be in a rush to get married. These again are your callings in life and Paul’s advice is that you would do well to remain as you are.

So, I suppose we are at somewhat of an impasse here. If you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, these verses about remaining single are easy to dismiss because they only apply to missionaries. If you don’t believe in Joseph Smith, however, all people would do well to heed this advice because it seems to apply to everyone.

Some Q & A

I’ve received a number of good comments on this series and I don’t want to leave them unanswered.

Steve said:

Joey, I am surprised. Normally, you do a decent job at researching, developing, and explaining Latter-day Saint doctrine before attempting to discredit it with Biblical passages. Often, you cite your sources of Mormon doctrine.

I thought I did cite my sources in the first post in the series. I suppose I didn’t do much in the way of explaining the doctrine, but I trust my readers can follow the links and gain a good enough understanding of the doctrine for themselves. I’d rather have them go to the source than do an insufficient job trying to explain it myself. However, I agree that I’ve done better in the past and will try to stay committed to explaining things better in future series. I do appreciate your thoughtful exposition on the subject. You cited some good sources I had not found in my original research.

Have I sufficiently proven with my words above that the doctrine of eternal marriage is true and consistent with the New Testament? Of course not. I hope you didn’t actually think I would.

Eternal marriage is a huge subject, which five arguments from two or three authors will neither prove nor disprove. Furthermore, it generally is not considered a New Testament doctrine, even by Latter-day Saint faithful. Eternal marriage is a restored doctrine that the Bible does not address directly.

You bring up a good point here. As I said above, we’re at a bit of an impasse. As I see it, and it appears that you agree with me, the doctrine of eternal marriage hangs or falls on the legitimacy of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling. I’m willing to leave it at that for now.

I maintain that anyone who tries to prove controversial religious doctrines with the Bible will fail. If it were possible to prove an interpretation of these doctrines, they would not remain controversial after two thousand years of Christianity and thousands more of Judaism. Readers can often validly interpret one or two (or two hundred) biblical passage several different ways, and some passages even contradict others.

While I agree that an appeal to scripture is never in itself sufficient to prove something (hence our constant need for the Holy Spirit’s guidance), I maintain that this doctrine wasn’t controversial until Joseph Smith brought it up. With very few exceptions (in fact, none that I know of), the rest of the Christian world agrees that marriage ends at death.

Let the jurors ask the Lord in sincere prayer and seek diligently for the truth, wherever it may be.

Amen.

Keith said:

Why would God choose the term “marriage” as a metaphor for his relationship with those who are born again if he also explicitly stated that the institution of marriage is absolved at death? If marriage is understood as something that is absolved at the time of death, then wouldn’t the use of the word “marriage” or “bridegroom” imply that salvation is also absolved at death?

Did God make a bad choice of words to describe the covenant relationship?

An excellent question. It’s interesting that you would ask it, because I’ll be going in that direction in the next installment. I have been planning to do so since my earliest outline of the series. As such, I’ll leave a more thorough answer until later. Suffice it to say now, I think God’s use of marriage as a metaphor for our relationship with him is one of the strongest arguments for marriage ending at death, for “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” (1 Cor. 13:10). Human marriage is but a type and shadow of the perfect eternal companionship we will have with God in heaven, and as such it must pass away when the fullness is ushered in.

I presented my testimony to a group of students from Azusa Pacific University last night up at Salt Lake Theological Seminary. They send one or two groups to Salt Lake every summer on mission trips, and I’ve shared with a previous group before. It was a pleasure and a blessing chatting with you guys and I just want to reiterate that if you have any questions or comments, feel free to use my contact form to drop me a line. Cheers!

This is the second post in a series about the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage that began on May 27 with “Eternal Companion: Introduction”.

Jesus and the Sadducees

Most Latter-day Saints have already encountered one common objection to celestial marriage put forward by Evangelicals: the story of Jesus being questioned by a group of Sadducees who don’t believe in the resurrection. As told in Matt. 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, and Luke 20:27-40, the Sadducees pose a rather outrageous hypothetical situation in which seven brothers in turn marry the same woman out of obligation to raise children for the previous brother who has died. After setting up the situation, the Sudducees ask Jesus whose wife the woman will be in the resurrection. Jesus replies that she won’t be married to any of them, for “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.”

The easy refutation of this passage for the Latter-day Saint is to point out that Jesus only says no one gets married in heaven. He doesn’t say no one is married in heaven. Couple that with a claim that this woman wasn’t eternally sealed to any of these husbands, and it seems easy to explain away this passage. However, this is not the only Biblical passage on the subject of marriage after death, and others are not so easy to explain away.

Paul’s epistles teach that marriage ends at death

It surprises me that I never encountered Romans 7:1-3 or 1 Corinthians 7:38 while I was LDS. I know I read them, as I read the entire New Testament twice on my LDS mission, but I must’ve skimmed over them or simply never realized their impact on the subject of celestial marriage. I don’t think clearer passages can be found concerning marriage and whether or not it endures beyond death:

bq. Or do you not know, brothers — for I am speaking to those who know the law — that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

bq. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Here it is explicitly stated that the institute of marriage is absolved at death. I can’t find these passages (let alone an explanation of them) anywhere on the “FAIR”:http://www.fairlds.org or “SHIELDS”:http://www.shields-research.org websites. I would be very interested to see how a Latter-day Saint would interpret these verses.

I’ve still got a few more aspects of this doctrine to consider, so stay tuned.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m teaching a series of small group Bible studies on the subject of Hebrews. One of the study guides I’ve been using has an interesting title for chapter 7: “Eternal Companion”. If you know very much about Mormonism you probably know this phrase has special significance to Latter-day Saints. They hold a doctrine known as the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which states that a person can be sealed to their spouse for “time and all eternity.” In such a marriage, it’s customary for a husband or wife to refer to his or her spouse using the term “eternal companion.”

I find this chapter title fascinating, because I think it illustrates a primary difference between Mormonism and Protestant Christianity. The chapter, which predictably covers chapter 7 of Hebrews, is about how Christ is our eternal companion. The chapter never comes close to mentioning Mormonism or even marriage, but, without meaning to, it teaches an idea that I think runs directly contrary to Mormon doctrine.

I have a tendency to start writing really long posts and never finish them. I’ve actually been working on this post for a while and have decided to break it down into smaller pieces so I can finally get it published. Stay tuned for a few more posts on this subject.

In the meantime, here are some references regarding celestial marriage for those who may not be familiar with it:

* True to the Faith: Marriage
* Mormon.org: Families can be together forever
* Gospel Principles: The Family Can Be Together Forever
* Gospel Principles: Eternal Marriage
* FAIR Topical Guide: Celestial Marriage (Sealing)