Polygamy in the afterlife?


BusyB
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am aware of when he said this as I have read it in its entirety. Ambiguous? I think it was pretty straight forward and to the point.

I am sure that I have read the statements from those you mention and I think that if you will read them closely you will find that they say something to the order that exaltation is possible without living the law of the Patriarchal Order. In fact Joseph F. also says this. If people are willing to accept less than they can achieve that is their right. I think you should go back and read again what he said. He explains very clearly that you can have one wife through the eternities but cannot obtain ALL of the blessings available without living this law. So the question is what is to be achieved from living it? It is to become like our Father in Heaven. We cannot do that without living this law when the time comes that it is given again. As I said from the beginning this law is very difficult to understand and obey. Even Joseph Smith was reluctant. It took more than 10 years after it was revealed to him for him to bend his will to that of Father.

I am not a fundamentalist and I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED THAT PLURAL MARRIAGE MUST BE PRACTICED IN THIS LIFE. In fact if you will go back and READ what I have said you will find that it could be well after this life. It is by the laws of man and God that it not be practiced until the Lord again commands it, which I would suspect will come in the millennium.

Jerry

How about circumcision, will that come back too?

Genesis 17: " 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

Are we of the seed of Abraham either bought or literal? Even if circumcised, what mom stays in the hospital 8 days after the birth of her son for this to happen? It is typically done within 2 to 3 days. This is described as an "everlasting" covenant and yet we know it is a law that has been fulfilled. The wording is similar to Smith's. This is why we have prophets for our day and time. Just because it is a law and has been described as "everlasting" does not mean it will be practiced in the millennium or in the next life.

Everyone in every era will be judged by the laws of that day, of that time and if they are made available through revelation. And if a person doesn't follow the laws given to the best of their ability they will fall short of all they could have received in the next life. I think that is pretty universal. Over interpretation of it, though, should also then bring to mind the possibility of circumcision, animal sacrifice after delivery, animal sacrifice after having any kind of oozing skin lesion (Leviticus 14 and 15) etc. in the next life. You may say, 'those issues may not be a part of the next life, what kind of skin lesion would we have in the next life?' - BINGO! - same for plural marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I've never had an issue with the idea of polygamy in the afterlife. It doesn't bother me at all.

I think we will be at such a higher level of understanding at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I've never had an issue with the idea of polygamy in the afterlife. It doesn't bother me at all.

I think we will be at such a higher level of understanding at that time.

Or be free of things like money and worries and such...

Methinks its easier to focus on a strong relationship when things like money can't come along and ruin it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I've never had an issue with the idea of polygamy in the afterlife. It doesn't bother me at all.

I think we will be at such a higher level of understanding at that time.

The higher level of understanding might preclude the need for such a practice. We don't know all the reasons it was instituted but we do know that plural marriage is not the standard, it is the exception to the rule and temporary.

From LDS.org; "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise."

And; "Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord]” (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes.6 It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households;7 and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.8 Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,”9 covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition, willing to endure ostracism for their principles."

So, if we are in a place where there is no need to give birth to children in a Mormon home as opposed to some other circumstance, and we are already cohesive, and there is no reason to endure "ostracism for their principles", and there is no financial benefit, and there is no providing marriage to those who otherwise wouldn't have a chance for it, then we really do not have any reason to suspect plural marriage will be there any more than we will have a circumcision ceremony.

Some theorize that there will be more women to men there at at-least a ratio of 2:1 but I think that is even more of a theory than the statement found in LDS.org that one man married to one woman is the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we really do not have any reason to suspect plural marriage will be there

We do have reason to suspect that it will be there. It wouldn't make sense to have Israel divorce 3 of his 4 wives and disband the house of Israel. That would ruin too many hymns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, you're talking about breaking sealings. As if sealings actually have no real meaning. The theology of sealings alone gives us reason to suspect.

Very true. And, we also have to realize that there are many women sealed to more than one man. Which sealing is going to be cancelled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, you're talking about breaking sealings. As if sealings actually have no real meaning. The theology of sealings alone gives us reason to suspect.

They do have meaning even if not continued as such in the next life. The covenant part of the sealing is between the person and God. Think about what happens if one person is faithful to their covenant and the other is not. Will they still be married in the next life and will the one who is faithful receive all the blessings that come with that covenant? Who would they be married to if the one was not faithful?

Why is it that previous temple marriages (for example, an ex-wife for a man who is married again in the temple) are still listed in the record even if there were no children?

It is because the sealing still has meaning for the ex-wife; the blessings that pertain to that covenant are still available to the ex-wife if she is found worthy. She will be matched with someone who is equally worthy. Just like all those that faithfully practiced polygamy when it was commanded will receive a fullness of those blessings, however it will be arranged for. This will not be an uncommon thing as one thinks about all the marriages what will have to take place for those that die before the age of 8 (6.6 million died under 5 in 2012)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do have meaning even if not continued as such in the next life. The covenant part of the sealing is between the person and God. Think about what happens if one person is faithful to their covenant and the other is not. Will they still be married in the next life and will the one who is faithful receive all the blessings that come with that covenant? Who would they be married to if the one was not faithful?

Why is it that previous temple marriages (for example, an ex-wife for a man who is married again in the temple) are still listed in the record even if there were no children?

It is because the sealing still has meaning for the ex-wife; the blessings that pertain to that covenant are still available to the ex-wife if she is found worthy. She will be matched with someone who is equally worthy. Just like all those that faithfully practiced polygamy when it was commanded will receive a fullness of those blessings, however it will be arranged for. This will not be an uncommon thing as one thinks about all the marriages what will have to take place for those that die before the age of 8 (6.6 million died under 5 in 2012)

You are confused. The sealing power is not a covenant. It is contingent on covenants, yes. But it is the keys (held by one man on the earth at any given time) to bind in heaven what has been bound on earth.

That being said, the ordinance work (including the ordinances and covenants attached to sealing) must be performed in this world by those who are in mortality. There will be no swapping around of ordinances after this life. All marriages must and will be done in this life.

And, no, sealings cannot have meaning if not continued in the next life. That makes no sense at all. Eternal sealings are explicitly for the next life. The very idea that they don't have to continue in the next life flies in the face of the entire value of eternal marriages. Eternal means eternal. You're trying to say that some eternal marriages are not, actually, eternal. You're arguing that when a marriage is polygamous that "time and all eternity" really means "'til death do you part".

Yes, sealings are contigent on keeping covenants. That has no bearing on the discussion. A man who is sealed to two wives, wherein they keep their covenants, will still be sealed to those wives in the next life. They will not and cannot be discarded because of your discomfort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confused. The sealing power is not a covenant. It is contingent on covenants, yes. But it is the keys (held by one man on the earth at any given time) to bind in heaven what has been bound on earth.

That being said, the ordinance work (including the ordinances and covenants attached to sealing) must be performed in this world by those who are in mortality. There will be no swapping around of ordinances after this life. All marriages must and will be done in this life.

And, no, sealings cannot have meaning if not continued in the next life. That makes no sense at all. Eternal sealings are explicitly for the next life. The very idea that they don't have to continue in the next life flies in the face of the entire value of eternal marriages. Eternal means eternal. You're trying to say that some eternal marriages are not, actually, eternal. You're arguing that when a marriage is polygamous that "time and all eternity" really means "'til death do you part".

Yes, sealings are contigent on keeping covenants. That has no bearing on the discussion. A man who is sealed to two wives, wherein they keep their covenants, will still be sealed to those wives in the next life. They will not and cannot be discarded because of your discomfort.

You are confused; I didn't use the words "sealing power" I just used the word sealing. As it is used on the website LDS.org here; "In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord."

According to LDS.org, the "marriage sealing" is a saving ordinance in which "we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord."

If it is a saving ordinance, let me ask you this; why would a man need to perform a saving ordinance more than once? Any more than he would need to be baptized more than once?

We do believe in vicarious ordinances, keep that in mind.

I think you are being very closed minded about the blessings that came from polygamy. It allowed sisters and their future children to benefit from the covenent while here on Earth. Covenants are to help us here for their far reaching effects into the next life. The covenant is to allow the Lord to help us. LDS.org "A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions."

All who enter into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, by definition, will be sealed to each other, through the sealing of parent to child and back all the way to Adam and Eve. If all that is required is one marriage sealing and we will all be sealed to each other, there is nothing gained by being "sealed" to a second wife for the man who had righteously lived polygamy here in this life.

If it is a principle carried over to the next life and not just a commandment for a certain period of time and not the standard as is said by LDS.org ("The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2)") then all who find their self in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will be practicing it, not just some. If the highest glory is obtained by such a practice, then the child who dies before the age of 8 will have it and yet the child was never married in this life. When will those marriages take place that you insist "All marriages must and will be done in this life." take place?

Are you trying to say then that all the children that died before the age of accounability, millions and millions, will have to be matched up and the marriage for them will have to take place in this life?

For the 4 million plus boys that died before the age of 5 in 2012, where are the 8 million girls (assuming they will marry more than one)? 4 million could be from the same year but now we are short 4 million women just in one year.

The women who participated in plural marriage will not lose the benefits of their covenant with the Lord from their marriage sealing any more than one who has received such a blessing via vicarious work.

If I vicariously marry my great great great great grandparents and only one of them is accepting, will that person receive the benefits of that covenant or not? If yes, you are going to have to agree that a marriage will be arranged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, the ordinance work (including the ordinances and covenants attached to sealing) must be performed in this world by those who are in mortality. There will be no swapping around of ordinances after this life. All marriages must and will be done in this life.
That's not exactly true. Either Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman (can't remember which) said in an interview that LDS people who are homosexual and remain worthy throughout their mortal lives will no longer be gay once they have passed on. Thus, in the next life, they will have the opportunity to meet and marry someone of the opposite sex, and enjoy all the blessings that entails, for eternity.
And, no, sealings cannot have meaning if not continued in the next life. That makes no sense at all. Eternal sealings are explicitly for the next life.
Again, this is not exactly true. A woman can be married and sealed to all of her husbands, albeit posthumously, with the understanding that in the next life she will choose the one husband she wants to spend eternity with. So, many husbands' sealings will be undone.

I do agree with your position that LDS doctrine states men who have married and been sealed to two or more wives will live with all his wives in a "celestial marriage" for eternity. But there do seem to be a variety of ways sealings will be re/arranged in the next life, whether it be due to jilted husbands, or a single ex-gay who finds his wife from amongst the sinners he's teaching the gospel to in spirit prison.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not exactly true. Either Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman (can't remember which) said in an interview that LDS people who are homosexual and remain worthy throughout their mortal lives will no longer be gay once they have passed on. Thus, in the next life, they will have the opportunity to meet and marry someone of the opposite sex, and enjoy all the blessings that entails, for eternity.

Again, this is not exactly true. A woman can be married and sealed to all of her husbands, albeit posthumously, with the understanding that in the next life she will choose the one husband she wants to spend eternity with. So, many husbands' sealings will be undone.

I do agree with your position that LDS doctrine states men who have married and been sealed to two or more wives will live with all his wives in a "celestial marriage" for eternity. But there do seem to be a variety of ways sealings will be re/arranged in the next life, whether it be due to jilted husbands, or a single ex-gay who finds his wife from amongst the sinners he's teaching the gospel to in spirit prison.

Elphaba

It is still true. Nothing you are pointing out here means that we won't need to have these ordinances worked out via mortality and work for the dead. The reason sealings remain in place even in the case of women is so that it can be worked out without doing extra sealing work. But anyone to be "sealed" to someone must have that ordinance done via mortality and work for the dead.

Here's Joseph F. Smith

Will resurrected beings during the millennium actually take part in the endowment work of the temple along with mortal beings? The answer to this question is no! That is, they will not assist in performing the ordinances. Resurrected beings will assist in furnishing information which is not otherwise available, but mortals will have to do the ordinance work in the temples. Baptism, confirmation, ordination, endowment, and sealings all pertain to this mortal life and are ordinances required of those who are in mortality. Provision has been made for these ordinances to be performed vicariously for those who are worthy but who died without the opportunity in this life of receiving these ordinances in person. You can readily see that it would be inconsistent for a resurrected being to come and be baptized for the dead. The resurrected person has passed to another sphere where the laws and blessings do not pertain to this mortal life. This is equally true of every other ordinance. If it were permissible for resurrected persons to come and do work in the temples, then there would be no reason for us in this mortal life to act vicariously for them, for they would do it for themselves

The sealing ordinances must be done in mortality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confused; I didn't use the words "sealing power" I just used the word sealing. As it is used on the website LDS.org here; "In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord."

According to LDS.org, the "marriage sealing" is a saving ordinance in which "we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord."

It does not matter that you didn't use the word "sealing power". I was the one who said sealing gave reason to suspect polygamy post life. So I'm the one who's meaning on it matters. When I say you are confused, I'm saying that you are talking about something different than what I mean. You telling me I'm confused back is fine, but I'm not confused about what I mean. I'm saying that you are confused about what I mean. I am talking about sealing power.

Moreoever, marriage sealing is a form of sealing, but it is not the all encompassing meaning of sealing. It is a specific ordinance that utilizes sealing. There are many other forms and usages of sealing too. But in each case, each ordinance, each covenant, what the "sealing" part of it means is that what is bound here on earth is also bound in heaven.

Yes, the marriage sealing is an ordinance. Obviously. Yes, it is the new and everlasting covenant. But that is beyond the point that I made, which is, that the "sealing" part of it is not a covenant or an ordinance. The sealing part attends the covenant and the ordinance to ensure that the covenant and ordinance extends into the next life. You are contending that it doesn't, necessarily, extend into the next life. But it does.

If it is a saving ordinance, let me ask you this; why would a man need to perform a saving ordinance more than once? Any more than he would need to be baptized more than once?

Wherein does "only once" fit into the criteria for something being a saving ordinance? Can you source that? Yes, we only need to be baptized once, etc... But that is not because it's a saving ordinance. Anyhow, I'm not arguing, in any regard, that plural marriage is required for salvation. I'm simply making a case that there is good reason for us to suspect that there will be cases of plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom.

We do believe in vicarious ordinances, keep that in mind.

??? -- Not sure what you're point is. I believe my point is contingent on this point -- all sealing ordinances are to be done either in mortality or vicariously by others in mortality.

I think you are being very closed minded about the blessings that came from polygamy. It allowed sisters and their future children to benefit from the covenent while here on Earth. Covenants are to help us here for their far reaching effects into the next life. The covenant is to allow the Lord to help us. LDS.org "A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions."

I'm not sure where you get this from. I'm not saying anything about blessings that came from or didn't come from polygamy. I don't disagree with your points on covenants here. But the sealing power is not a covenant. Even if one took it as a covenant (and I'm not insistent that it cannot be viewed that way) it would still be a covenant (or power) that ties us to the eternities and is not for this life. Sealing is for the next world. The conditions of sealing, as set by God, are the keeping of our covenants. The promise given is that what has been bound on earth will continue in the eternities. Either way, I find it funny that you think me closed minded on our being blessed by covenants. As near as I can tell I've said nothing to allow such a conclusion to be drawn.

All who enter into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, by definition, will be sealed to each other, through the sealing of parent to child and back all the way to Adam and Eve. If all that is required is one marriage sealing and we will all be sealed to each other, there is nothing gained by being "sealed" to a second wife for the man who had righteously lived polygamy here in this life.

This isn't accurate entirely. Yes, we will all be sealed together. But not by marriage. And simply being sealed by marriage does not seal us into the rest of the chain. If so, a person who was baptized and then married would have no need to be sealed to their parents or any children they had prior to being sealed in marriage. The marriage sealing is NOT the same as being sealed to parents and children. It is a different sealing. The marriage sealing is using the sealing power and applying it to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. It is applying a power to that marriage that then makes it eternal. It is for that marriage and that marriage alone. If one takes a second wife when the law of plural marriage is being commanded, and they are sealed to that wife, then that sealing applies, once more, only to that marriage. It seals that marriage as eternal. But that person would still be required to be sealed to their parents and children born outside of the covenant.

If it is a principle carried over to the next life and not just a commandment for a certain period of time and not the standard as is said by LDS.org ("The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2)") then all who find their self in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will be practicing it, not just some. If the highest glory is obtained by such a practice, then the child who dies before the age of 8 will have it and yet the child was never married in this life. When will those marriages take place that you insist "All marriages must and will be done in this life." take place?

Anyone attaining the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom must needs enter into the new and everlasting covenant (otherwise known as a marriage sealing). The marriage sealing is a mortal ordinance and must be performed by the living. I expect, concerning children, that the work for the dead will be part of the millennial work we know will be done.

Are you trying to say then that all the children that died before the age of accounability, millions and millions, will have to be matched up and the marriage for them will have to take place in this life?

For the 4 million plus boys that died before the age of 5 in 2012, where are the 8 million girls (assuming they will marry more than one)? 4 million could be from the same year but now we are short 4 million women just in one year.

Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. But I'm not the one saying it. The D&C sets these standards. I didn't make them up.

D&C 131

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

The women who participated in plural marriage will not lose the benefits of their covenant with the Lord from their marriage sealing any more than one who has received such a blessing via vicarious work.

If I vicariously marry my great great great great grandparents and only one of them is accepting, will that person receive the benefits of that covenant or not? If yes, you are going to have to agree that a marriage will be arranged.

Why arranged? Cannot your great great great great grandmother/father in said situation choose their new eternal companion? Can they then not have it revealed to those still in mortality to do that work, as it must be done, in the temple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is still true. Nothing you are pointing out here means that we won't need to have these ordinances worked out via mortality and work for the dead. The reason sealings remain in place even in the case of women is so that it can be worked out without doing extra sealing work. But anyone to be "sealed" to someone must have that ordinance done via mortality and work for the dead.

Here's Joseph F. Smith

The sealing ordinances must be done in mortality.

What sealing ordinance (marriage sealing) is done for those millions that die before the age of 8 and to whom do they get sealed to? This is even a way bigger issue in comparison to the few that fall under the category of polygamy.

Bruce R. McConkie ; "Will children be married and live in the family unit?

Certainly. There can be no question about this. If they gain salvation, which is eternal life, which is exaltation, it means that they are married and live in the family unit. President Joseph Fielding Smith has so stated in plain words, and it is something that must necessarily be so. (See Doctrines of Salvation, 2:49–57.)"

You said; "The reason sealings remain in place even in the case of women is so that it can be worked out without doing extra sealing work." Why can't that be applied to women who were sealed in a polygamous marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sealing ordinances must be done in mortality.

Well, more properly, they must be done prior to the resurrection, by a person who is still in mortality. I don't see anything in President Smith's statement--or elsewhere in LDS teaching--that would preclude a temple worker's receiving a revelation that even though so-and-so were never married in mortality, they need to be sealed--and then having that ordinance done by proxy; so that the two individuals then come forth in the resurrection already lawfully sealed as husband and wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said; "The reason sealings remain in place even in the case of women is so that it can be worked out without doing extra sealing work." Why can't that be applied to women who were sealed in a polygamous marriage?

A direct sealing is to a specific person. You seem to be under the impression that it's a general thing, like once you're sealed to one you're directly sealed to all. That isn't the case. Sealings are very specific to people. I am sealed to my wife. That does not make me sealed to my neighbors wife.

A wife married in a polygamous sealing is sealed to that husband and that husband alone. If they are to be with someone else in the eternities, they must break that sealing and be sealed to another man. If that wife is already dead, then that change would have to be done vicariously via work for the dead in the temple. The sealing is not a general thing that can just be swapped to any ol' person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is still true. Nothing you are pointing out here means that we won't need to have these ordinances worked out via mortality and work for the dead.
I never said it didn't.
The reason sealings remain in place even in the case of women is so that it can be worked out without doing extra sealing work.
That's ridiculous. The policy actually creates a lot of extra sealing work. First, contrary to your claim, not all of the sealings remain in place. As I explained, once all parties have passed on, the wife chooses the husband she wants to spend eternity with, which essentially annuls the sealings of her remaining husbands. Then, these ex-husbands are free to find eternal wives for themselves, which requires new sealings. That's a LOT of extra sealing work.
But anyone to be "sealed" to someone must have that ordinance done via mortality and work for the dead.
Again, I did not dispute that. I was responding to your claim that sealings won't be swapped around after this life, when many will be. There will also be some new sealings arranged. Regardless, they will all be for people who have already passed on. I have no idea how the mortal temple workers are supposed to know about these sealings, but that's God's problem, not mine. :P

ETA: I just read JAG's explanation of a temple worker receiving revelation re: a sealing. That would work.

Elphaba

Edited by Elphaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone attaining the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom must needs enter into the new and everlasting covenant (otherwise known as a marriage sealing). The marriage sealing is a mortal ordinance and must be performed by the living. I expect, concerning children, that the work for the dead will be part of the millennial work we know will be done.

Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. But I'm not the one saying it. The D&C sets these standards. I didn't make them up.

Why arranged? Cannot your great great great great grandmother/father in said situation choose their new eternal companion? Can they then not have it revealed to those still in mortality to do that work, as it must be done, in the temple?

Regarding the issue of sealing we may have to agree to disagree. I tend to believe that what is bound in heaven from what is sealed and bound here on Earth pertains to all the blessings that are associated with such an arrangement and will hardly matter as to the exact person. When we all arrive in the Celestial Kingdom at the highest level and over the eternities, one Celestial diety would hardly differ from another as we ever approach becoming like God. Again, the "marriage sealing" specifically is an agreement with the Lord. And yes, that agreement with the Lord would remain and not be taken away even if the person would be set up with another worthy individual. The "sealing" is not broken. (that is what I am suggesting you have a closed mind about) Just like the "sealing" is not broken if a person were to marry in the temple who spouse later became unworthy of such a blessing. You agreed to that arrangement not causing a break in the seal. What's the difference between that and a second or third wife in a polygamous marriage being placed with a worthy individual during the millennium or whenever that would happen?

In a Celestial Marriage, especially a sealed one, all is shared between the couple (which you may disagree with that I suppose). If there are two such arrangements between a husband and more than one wife, then by definition there is something the husband has that the wife does not unless one wants to go as far as saying one wife is sealed to the other wife which is a whole other can of worms. We do not believe in a woman being in a "marriage sealing" arrangement with another woman so the two "sealings" would have to remain separate.

In the case of the past relative, you are suggesting that judgement would take place before the final judgement in time to make such arrangements?

Whatever blessing comes from mortal righteousness will have to come before the end of the second estate test (which is to say mortality - the all inclusive mortality from spiritual death to resurrection and final judgement.). I agree. But, you have to couch the D&C verses you quoted with the fact that those are commandments for mortality and for people that can abide by those commandments.

Again Bruce R. McConkie; "Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10)"

Meaning all the saving ordinances are done automatically, including marriage sealing.

Do we do baptism for the dead for infants? Do we do marriage sealings for infants? ...for the same reasons we don't do baptisms for the dead for them. It would be a mockery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it didn't.

Hmm. I guess I translated "That's not exactly true" to mean that.

That's ridiculous. The policy actually creates a lot of extra sealing work. First, contrary to your claim, not all of the sealings remain in place. As I explained, once all parties have passed on, the wife chooses the husband she wants to spend eternity with, which essentially annuls the sealings of her remaining husbands. Then, these ex-husbands are free to find eternal wives for themselves, which requires new sealings. That's a LOT of extra sealing work.

I have never once claimed all sealing remain in place. Please show me where I have said this. You are misunderstanding me.

I'm not sure how this is ridiculous. The church is reticent to break sealings because in the post life sealing can be broken, but they cannot be created. Any sealings that were broken in this life would remove the potential for that sealing to be chosen. By keeping the sealing in place, the wife chooses the husband with no other work needed. Still, I think that it would be a stretch to say this is the primary reason that the church is reticent to cancel sealings, so my phrasing may have implied that in this case, and certainly made it seem like I was saying it was "the" reason. It is, I think, one of the reasons.

Again, I did not dispute that. I was responding to your claim that sealings won't be swapped around after this life, when many will be. There will also be some new sealings arranged. Regardless, they will all be for people who have already passed on. I have no idea how the mortal temple workers are supposed to know about these sealings, but that's God's problem, not mine. :P

Elphaba

I should clarify that when I'm talking about sealings being "swapped" I mean to imply the idea of sealings being changed without work being done by persons in mortality. Per this understanding of my usage of "swapped", I stand by what I'm saying.

If I'm reading you right then you are taking my meaning to include all changes to sealings, which we know will happen, which means we're talking past each other a bit via miscommunication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again Bruce R. McConkie; "Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10)"

Meaning all the saving ordinances are done automatically, including marriage sealing.

Do we do baptism for the dead for infants? Do we do marriage sealings for infants? ...for the same reasons we don't do baptisms for the dead for them. It would be a mockery.

Just a thought here - Being saved automatically in the Celestial Kingdom is not a guarantee at exaltation. There are three degrees within the Celestial Kingdom and only the highest is for the exalted.

Just as being saved in general is no guarantee of Celestial Glory, Christ has saved all but the sons of perdition suggesting that all Kingdoms of glory represent a salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think infants are exempt from proxy baptism because baptism will never be necessary for them. I think it's because baptism (and "sealing", actually) connotes a covenant, which the infant was incapable of making at the time of his death. Aren't there statements out there from Joseph Smith to the effect that children who die in infancy will be raised to adulthood in the Millennium? Surely you don't think anyone--even a child who died in infancy--can attain exaltation without covenanting to follow Christ, to obey, to sacrifice, and so on?

And I wouldn't read too much into D&C 137:10, either. In the same vision Joseph sees his brother Alvin--who died in adulthood, but without baptism--in the celestial kingdom. The RLDS used to use that fact, as an argument against doing proxy temple work at all--why bother, when Alvin got into heaven without it? The answer is that Joseph wasn't seeing something that happened "automatically"--he was seeing what would be possible, through the grace of Christ--on the (there-unspoken) condition of adherence to specific laws and rites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the issue of sealing we may have to agree to disagree. I tend to believe that what is bound in heaven from what is sealed and bound here on Earth pertains to all the blessings that are associated with such an arrangement and will hardly matter as to the exact person. When we all arrive in the Celestial Kingdom at the highest level and over the eternities, one Celestial diety would hardly differ from another as we ever approach becoming like God. Again, the "marriage sealing" specifically is an agreement with the Lord. And yes, that agreement with the Lord would remain and not be taken away even if the person would be set up with another worthy individual. The "sealing" is not broken. (that is what I am suggesting you have a closed mind about) Just like the "sealing" is not broken if a person were to marry in the temple who spouse later became unworthy of such a blessing. You agreed to that arrangement not causing a break in the seal. What's the difference between that and a second or third wife in a polygamous marriage being placed with a worthy individual during the millennium or whenever that would happen?

The problem with this theory is that it implies that if my wife left me and some other woman's husband left her, then we could be married legally but not bother with a temple sealing because the sealings from before counted. This is just not the case. So, yes, we'll agree to disagree I suppose.

In a Celestial Marriage, especially a sealed one, all is shared between the couple (which you may disagree with that I suppose). If there are two such arrangements between a husband and more than one wife, then by definition there is something the husband has that the wife does not unless one wants to go as far as saying one wife is sealed to the other wife which is a whole other can of worms. We do not believe in a woman being in a "marriage sealing" arrangement with another woman so the two "sealings" would have to remain separate.

:) We've already had this conversation/debate, in this very thread. Polygamy is sexist. There's no getting around it.

In the case of the past relative, you are suggesting that judgement would take place before the final judgement in time to make such arrangements?

Whatever blessing comes from mortal righteousness will have to come before the end of the second estate test (which is to say mortality - the all inclusive mortality from spiritual death to resurrection and final judgement.). I agree. But, you have to couch the D&C verses you quoted with the fact that those are commandments for mortality and for people that can abide by those commandments.

Again Bruce R. McConkie; "Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10)"

Meaning all the saving ordinances are done automatically, including marriage sealing.

Do we do baptism for the dead for infants? Do we do marriage sealings for infants? ...for the same reasons we don't do baptisms for the dead for them. It would be a mockery.

Nothing in the McConke quote precludes the children having the marriage ordinance performed for them.

You are reading your own philosophies into the reason we don't do marriage ceremonies for children. Baptism is an ordinance for the washing away of sins. It is not required (and would be mockery) for children because they have no sins to wash away. Marriage, on the other hand, is something the children do not have and must receive, in the same way they needed to come to earth to receive their bodies. It would not be mockery to give them something they do not have and very much do need. The reason we do not do marriage for children is because we do not know who to seal them to. When that is revealed, we will do this work. We do, I would point out, do ordinances for children that we DO know of -- meaning that children who have died before the age of 8 are, indeed, sealed to their parents (unless they were born in the covenant). If sealing ordinances were comparable to baptism, as you are contending, then why do we seal them to their parents via work for the dead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share