ESF’s interpretation is interesting, but I’d agree with TT that it seems like a bit of a stretch for the reasons he listed.

My biggest concern with applying her interpretation to Mormonism would be that I think current church teachings on the afterlife make it out to be unquestionably patriarchal, though we can hope the church changes on that in the future. There is a strong framework within the LDS church for an egalitarian complementarianism (as opposed to what the evangelical world usually calls “complementarianism,” which really isn’t), and that could be applied to both real life and teachings on the afterlife someday.

On female angels, some Christians today interpret Zechariah 5:9 as describing female angels:

Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven. (ESV)

Unfortunately, I don’t know if any surviving ancient commentators agreed with that interpretation.

I’ve also been intrigued at considering the possibility that when God talked about the necessity of man ‘leaving father and mother’ to marry, that Adam’s father and mother were Heavenly Parents. Probably not a new notion, and I have no idea if it’s a notion that holds water, but it’s something I have wondered about.

Mrs. Mornis,

Thanks for stopping by! First, I think it is relevant that at least some texts in antiquity seem to indicate that angelic beings had sex and/or sexual abilities (see TT’s comment just above, for instance). I have blogged, for instance, on Genesis 6, which states that the members of the divine council (later interpreted as angels, but originally they were gods) mated with human women. This tradition was then later expanded upon in the book of Enoch. See my post here:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/05/wait-thats-in-the-bible-celestial-sex/

Although I also believe with you that God in a significant sense is a community of three divine persons, I don’t believe that this is a teaching found in the Hebrew Bible (or Second Temple Judaism, or the New Testament really), and so I don’t think it can factor into a historical-critical interpretation of what the the P (Gen. 1.1-2.4a) and J (Gen. 2.4b ff.) stories of creation meant. God in the Hebrew Bible is simply seen as one divine person, not three persons in one God. See my posts on this subject here:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/02/listen-o-israel-yahweh-is-our-god-yahweh-is-one%E2%80%9D-does-the-bible-teach-radical-monotheism/

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/12/the-divine-council/

Finally, you said:

“Once we are in Heaven, we are told we will be face to face with God. Therefore, is it really necessary to continue marriage?”

I would point out that Adam was “face to face” with God in the J story of creation (again, Gen. 2.4b ff.), yet God still deemed it appropriate for him to have a wife as an equal partner. I can see no reason as to why marriage, sexuality, and sexual differentiation is theologically inappropriate in the next life in se if one accepts that it was/is deemed appropriate and positive by God for humankind in his/her state before expulsion from the garden of Eden, as well as in this life.

(P.S. I have several posts on the creation stories and separating sources (i.e., P and J). They can be found here:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/02/creation-in-genesis-1-3-part-4-the-heavenly-council/

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/12/genesis-1-3-and-the-documentary-hypothesis-again/ )

—

TT,

I also can’t think of any texts that specifically mention traditions of female angelic beings. I wonder, however, given the textual evidence from antiquity that seems to indicate that at least some angelic beings were sexually male (and sexually active!), if this silence is simply on account of the fact that the few relevant texts which we have access to are typically quite androcentric and patriarchal in focus, content, and tone.

I would also like to ask that, if you accept this controversy-dialogue between Jesus and the Sadducees as an authentic Jesus saying/tradition, how an interpretation of this story that posits that Jesus believes in the elimination of sexuality and sexual differentiation could be appropriated for the LDS tradition and its belief in eternal marriage, etc.

Best wishes,

TYD

The only problem with that interpretation is that it never happened…

And I, too, am sorry for the threadjack. Again, thanks for the interesting article.

I think that equality is being oversimplified. However, it does appear that we are on different ends of this spectrum. My problem is not with the idea that the genders are different, be the traditional vocabulary and paradigm used to classify and define those differences.

TYD,
Sorry for the threadjack.