Doesn't Matthew 22:30 simply mean that there will be no marriage ceremonies in heaven?
LDS take “given in marriage” in Mat. 22:30 (cf. Mk. 12:25, and Lk. 20:35-6) to refer only to a ceremony in the resurrection, and Jesus clearly ruled that out. This allows LDS the open question as to whether a temple marriage may be conducted prior to the resurrection. This understanding has a couple problems.
First, LDS have Jesus dodging the Sadducees’ question, since they are wondering about who in this life that has undergone the marriage ceremony will be married to this woman in the resurrection. The simple answer is to determine who was properly sealed to the woman in the temple in this pre-resurrection life. Why would Jesus go into an exposition of this life being the only time to get sealed for eternity? It makes no sense. Ah, thanks for that bit of info Jesus, but back to the question at hand… whose husband will be sealed to this woman in the afterlife? There was a point in answering the Sadducees question about marriage: the afterlife exists (the Sadducees denied an afterlife), and it is not an extension of the pleasures we can enjoy here on earth.
Second, LDS make no difference between the act of marrying and being allowed to remain married. LDS overlook the use of the terms “neither” and “nor” in this passage. But the passage distinguishes the acts in order to encompass marriage in general being ruled out—either by a ceremony to enter into the state of marriage or just being allowed to be in marriage (regardless of the ceremony or a carry-over from before the resurrection).
Being “as the angels” applies to both states of marrying and being married, and thus they will all be single. Even the LDS D&C 132:17 teaches that the angels are single.
There are good reasons to think this is actually what Jesus taught. There is a consistency with the other gospel writers. There is a consistency with all the New Testament manuscript testimonies. There are quotes from lectionaries and early Church fathers as well. This is why New Testament scholars (conservative or liberal), who are not LDS, don’t buy the LDS view with Mt. 22:30. With this as a basis, the burden is on LDS to show the inconsistency with manuscript testimony. Until that happens, it is innocent until proven guilty.
The Bible does not give another passage stating that marital bonds may be eternal. If there was another passage that contradicted Mat. 22:30, then they both cannot be true, and we would have a reason not to believe that God’s big enough to take care of His word. Jesus would be a liar when He said that “scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35). Given progressive revelation, God continues to reveal more truth as time goes by. So whatever passage comes after and contradicts the former, then that latter-day passage must be damned (Acts 17:11 and Gal. 1:6-9). Since LDS scripture comes after the fact, and it contradicts this established truth of marriage, among other doctrines, LDS scripture must be rejected.
R. M. Sivulka