DiscussMormonism.com

How dependent is templework on time? Today we give black males the priesthood, and we do so for the dead as well, but before 1978 we didn't do that (well, besides Elijah Abel and a few exception).

Before 1890 the church officially allowed polygamy, but today we only allow serial polygamy. When doing templework for a non-LDS polygamist, will we only seal the man to his first polygamous wife? What happens when we do temple work for an FLD person? What happens when we do templework for some other polygamist? Does it depend on when the deceased passed away? Do we ever seal a man to a mistress?

Why was circumcision such a big deal in the Old Testament but not today? Was there ever a time when people performed circumcision for the dead?

Why don't we ever do 2nd annointings for the dead? If it's not a vital saving ordinance then why do it at all in the first place?

Why don't we do baby blessings for the dead?

What would happen to templework if we limited all ordinances for the dead to either your immediate family (spouse, children, and parents) or to people who passed away at least 100 years ago? Would that allow templework to continue and yet keep us from offending the memories of departed loved ones?

asbestosman wrote:. . . serial polygamy. . .

There is no such thing. Polygamy = more than one living spouse. The church today allows concurrent sealings for time and all eternity for men and living women, which is polygamy straight up (if you consider the sealings to bind a man to a woman, regardless of civil recognition of the marriage). Having individual wives in succession is serial monogamy, not serial polygamy, plain and simple.

I see Daniel Peterson using that term, and it's simply nonsense; it just a disingenuous means of trying to make both the term and the idea more palatable or acceptable.

Strike the phrase from your vocabulary!

/pet peeve rant off

Hi Asbestosman,

The answer to the first several questions is: Because the leaders in SLC want it that way. When various practices or rituals or "doctrine" becomes a PR nightmare or when public pressure becomes significant things change.

Which brings us to the final question...

When enough mon-members realize what the LDS church does with their ancestors names, the resentment toward Mormonism will increase and eventually the policy/teaching/doctrine will change. No question about this.

I'm guessing many other mainstream Christian churches will follow the example of the Catholic church... this is a practice that is really weird and cultish to outsiders.

There is really no need whatsoever for the current practice (proxy work could more easily be done during the millennium), so when leaders find the practice destructive to their image or when enough people speak out, there will be new light and knowledge... like that which you received. ;-)

~dancer~

I doubt anyone has ever considered circumcision for the dead. I'm not a male, but I'm fairly positive circumcision can only be performed once, so once a male has that done for himself, how could he possibly do it by proxy for someone else?

If necessary, the uncircumcised dead are just going to have to be circumcised after they're resurrected. First thing, I'm sure. That's going to be a bummer. Or, maybe they'll be resurrected without foreskins? Nah. That would be too easy. In Old Testament times, God made males with foreskins and then commanded that they be removed. I guess God saw what he created and called it good, with the exception of foreskins. They didn't make the cut and had to go.

KA

KimberlyAnn wrote: They didn't make the cut and had to go.

HA !

KimberlyAnn wrote:I guess God saw what he created and called it good, with the exception of foreskins. They didn't make the cut and had to go.

KA

LOL! Genius.

skippy the dead wrote:it just a disingenuous means of trying to make both the term and the idea more palatable or acceptable.

Actually I used the word polygamy to concede that the church still believes in polygamy in the afterlife. I used the word serial to convey that there are differences with polygamy in the church today not to say that those changes make everything acceptable. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous as I would hope context would convey. I was discussing the problematic nature of the church's change on polygamy since now the church does not allow concurrent marriages for the living even though it used to and even though it does for the dead under certain circumstances.

skippy the dead wrote:

asbestosman wrote:. . . serial polygamy. . .

Strike the phrase from your vocabulary!

and replace it with "circumcision for the dead". That's the way to turn heads.

KimberlyAnn wrote:In Old Testament times, God made males with foreskins and then commanded that they be removed.

He also made females with leg hairs.

I'm glad I don't have to wax my facial hair off since God recently decided that facial hair is bad for BYU students, missionaries, and by implication everyone.

truth dancer wrote:There is really no need whatsoever for the current practice (proxy work could more easily be done during the millennium), so when leaders find the practice destructive to their image or when enough people speak out, there will be new light and knowledge... like that which you received. ;-)

Actually, I doubt the church will be so keen to drop templework. It is my understanding that interest in geneology is one of the church's big ways of advertising itself.