Circumcision for the dead--time-dependance of temple work

[_truth dancer]

. . . 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

Can I stand on your soap box with you? (smile)

You are so right! For members to suggest there is no polygamy in the LDS church today is just NOT true. It is a flat out lie.

There are many men sealed to multiple women who are alive and well on this earth today.

The FLDS have one legal wife and multiple women on the side with whom they are spiritually sealed, so too with many LDS men. They may be legally married to one women but are spiritually sealed to others.

To pretend otherwise is to lie.

OK, my rant is over too! LOL!

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

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.

They don't have to drop genealogy, just drop the proxy work that appears very disrespectful and elitist to others.

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

I don't know, maybe circumcision isn't a saving ordinance. We don't do patriarchal blessings for the dead either. We don't even take the sacrament by proxy for them.

[_asbestosman]

I don't know, maybe circumcision isn't a saving ordinance. We don't do patriarchal blessings for the dead either. We don't even take the sacrament by proxy for them.

I wonder if I can be a proxy missionary for the dead, you know, so that deceased women will consider them worthy enough for marriage?

[_The Nehor]

I don't know, maybe circumcision isn't a saving ordinance. We don't do patriarchal blessings for the dead either. We don't even take the sacrament by proxy for them.

I wonder if I can be a proxy missionary for the dead, you know, so that deceased women will consider them worthy enough for marriage?

There's plenty of dead people. Let them go on their own Missions. Why not have them take their deceased wife to be with them. It's not like she'll get pregnant halfway through like what would happen if we did that with our 19 year olds.

[_asbestosman]

Why not have them take their deceased wife to be with them. It's not like she'll get pregnant halfway through like what would happen if we did that with our 19 year olds.

Missionary couples, and pregnancy. Oh dear, what a setup.

Anyhow, what if the deceased wasn't married (that's what I initially had in mind)?

[_Sethbag]

. . . 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 agree in the secular sense, but the LDS worldview isn't the secular sense. Sure, in the secular sense, a widower who is sealed to another woman is just remarrying after his first wife's death. No biggie. But in the LDS worldview, the first wife is still alive somewhere as a spirit, and is still married to the man, and the expectation is that after the resurrection the man will be together, physically, with both wives at the same time. So there is a very real sense in which modern-day LDS sealing practices represent at least the belief that one is practicing in polygamy. Maybe we should call it "spiritual polygamy" or "wishful polygamous thinking" or something like that?

What else do you call it when a man is sealed to a second wife after the death of the first, and holds strongly to the belief that he is in fact married, in the eyes of God, to two women simultaneously, and will be with them both in the hereafter? That's certainly not monogamy, at least in the spiritual sense.

[_The Nehor]

Why not have them take their deceased wife to be with them. It's not like she'll get pregnant halfway through like what would happen if we did that with our 19 year olds.

Missionary couples, and pregnancy. Oh dear, what a setup.

Anyhow, what if the deceased wasn't married (that's what I initially had in mind)?

If they couldn't find a spouse in this life, can they afford to be picky? ;)

[_asbestosman]

If they couldn't find a spouse in this life, can they afford to be picky? ;)

I wonder if they still have whale hunts in the afterlife? ;) *


* No, I don't judge women based on how much they weigh (skinny is overrated and anorexia is dangerous). I only judge men based on how much they weigh.

[_skippy the dead]

I agree in the secular sense, but the LDS worldview isn't the secular sense. Sure, in the secular sense, a widower who is sealed to another woman is just remarrying after his first wife's death. No biggie. But in the LDS worldview, the first wife is still alive somewhere as a spirit, and is still married to the man, and the expectation is that after the resurrection the man will be together, physically, with both wives at the same time. So there is a very real sense in which modern-day LDS sealing practices represent at least the belief that one is practicing in polygamy. Maybe we should call it "spiritual polygamy" or "wishful polygamous thinking" or something like that?

What else do you call it when a man is sealed to a second wife after the death of the first, and holds strongly to the belief that he is in fact married, in the eyes of God, to two women simultaneously, and will be with them both in the hereafter? That's certainly not monogamy, at least in the spiritual sense.

I was actually referring to two things - one, that polygamy means being concurrently married to more than one spouse. If you are married first to one, then to another, that's still monogamy. But I do like your "spiritual polygamy."

Two, modern LDS men can be sealed to more than one living woman at a time, which is polygamy if you hold that being sealed for time and all eternity creates a "marriage" bond. If a man marries Wife 1, then divorces her civilly, but does not have their sealing cancelled, he can still marry Wife 2 for time and all eternity in the temple, thus having the same bond with two living women at the same time.

I'm actually not worked up about sealings with dead folks. Dead is dead.