I stumbled upon this passage and found it quite interesting. Basically, a trick question is given to Jesus concerning marriage in the afterlife in order to discount resurrection. He is asked if a woman is widowed more than once and is married to multiple men over the course of her life, who will be her husband in the afterlife? Jesus answers: “In the resurrection, they neither marry nor or given in marriage, but are like angels of God in Heaven.” In other words, no eternal marriage.
Now, a Mormon take on this passage (which is also found with some variation at Luke 21:27-40) is the following:
Notice that Jesus did not say that marriages would not exist in the resurrection. What he did say was that they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, that is, marriage ceremonies are not performed by resurrected individuals. He was talking about the act of marriage not the condition of marriage. Jesus was telling them, in effect, that if the wife were married for eternity to one of the brothers, she would be his wife in the resurrection, but if she were not married to any of the brothers for eternity, she would be the wife of none of them since marriages are not performed in the life to come, but must be performed in mortality in LDS Temples.
This raises the question in my mind of what about all those people who don’t marry in LDS Temples? Or those who don’t marry, or have alternative or multiple loving companionships over the course of their lives? I continue to be baffled by the Mormon notion that everyone must marry and stay married to be happy and worthy in Heaven. It seems very ethnocentric.
I’m less inclined to accept the Mormon interpretation above because they neither marry, nor are given in marriage” to me means two separate things: getting married and being married. I’m curious other people’s takes on the passage.