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

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Thing is a man cannot get a sealing cancellation only a clearance. A woman who is divorced from hubby number 1 and wants to be sealed to hubby number 2 has to get a cancellation. Then I assume that the first sealing for hubby 1 is canceled from his view point as well.

[_truth dancer]

If one really appreciates the true motive behind it is not elitist or disrespectful at all. Though I understand how some may see it that way.

by the way, keep in mind that this practice you think so odd is primarily responsible for probably the best treasure trove of genealogical data in the world. So the world does get something back from it.

Hey Jason...

Well, the purpose of proxy work is to give those who have passed on the opportunity to accept the true gospel and have eternal life/exaltation, without which they would not abide in the highest heaven (CKHL).

Implicit in this doctrine/practice is the belief that without the LDS church's ritual the deceased would NOT make it to heaven (CKHL). This is pretty disrespectful to most people who devote their lives to their beliefs, who have lived a holy life, who have believed and had faith in their chosen religion.

Regardless of the intent behind it, it is elitist.

I understand both sides of this issue but feel that since there are those hurt by the practice, the LDS church should honor the wishes of loved ones and let whatever work needs to be done, be done in another time when it will be more accepted and less hurtful.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Yong Xi]

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.

This is a good example of how inconsistent and insane LDS theology can be.

If a man is sealed to a woman in the temple, and they receive a civil divorce, he's still considered sealed to her, even if he remarries some other woman. But if he has sex with his ex-wife, that's now adultery. How can it be adultery if they're still sealed? And it's commonly understood in LDSdom that a sealing isn't worth jack shyte if the covenants are broken. How does the civil divorce not constitute some kind of reneging on these covenants? Why is it that the LDS church deems a sealing to still be in effect after a civil divorce? Is it just a "principle of the thing" kind of thing that wants to set up priesthood acts as being something the civil law can't touch?

It's all so stupid.

I am aware of a couple who were married in the temple at later divorced civilly (they had no children). They continued to have sex after the divorce. The man, feeling guilty, confessed to his bishop. The bishop took no action because neither had remarried and, according to the bishop, were still married in the eyes of the Lord. As I understand it, the bishop advised them to stop, but that ecclesiastical action could not be taken against them.

[_moksha]

At least the Holocaust victims would not have to fear Circumcision for the Dead...

[_msnobody]

Does anyone know the link to a ministry or countercult website that has a cartoon that shows a Jewish rabbi talking to a LDS missionary outside the gate to Brigham Young's burial site with the caption reading "We bahmitzvahed (sp?) Brigham, we knew you wouldn't mind." <<< may not be an exact quote. Anyway, I forgot which website had the cartoon. Does anyone know?

[_asbestosman]

Implicit in this doctrine/practice is the belief that without the LDS church's ritual the deceased would NOT make it to heaven (CKHL). This is pretty disrespectful to most people who devote their lives to their beliefs, who have lived a holy life, who have believed and had faith in their chosen religion.

Not performing their vicarious templework will not change our beliefs about people NOT making it to heaven, so I don't see how waiting logically solves the problem of disrespect. I'm not saying they have no right to be offended or that we're safe in ignoring their feelings. I'm just pointing out that I doubt it's based on logic. That, of course, is irreleavent. People are offended by whaterver they are offended by and if something else is a compromise that doesn't offend them it really doesn't matter if that compromise is logical or not.

I understand both sides of this issue but feel that since there are those hurt by the practice, the LDS church should honor the wishes of loved ones and let whatever work needs to be done, be done in another time when it will be more accepted and less hurtful.

Seems reasonable, but then I'm not in charge.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Abman,

Not performing their vicarious templework will not change our beliefs about people NOT making it to heaven, so I don't see how waiting logically solves the problem of disrespect. I'm not saying they have no right to be offended or that we're safe in ignoring their feelings. I'm just pointing out that I doubt it's based on logic. That, of course, is irreleavent. People are offended by whaterver they are offended by and if something else is a compromise that doesn't offend them it really doesn't matter if that compromise is logical or not.

I always heard that during the millennium, books and records would be open for genealogy, everyone would realize Christ had returned, He would reign on the earth and temple work would be flourishing. I'm assuming under these circumstances pretty much everyone would want their work to be done.

If this were the case, no one would be offended right? ;-)

So, why not wait?

:-)

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

If this were the case, no one would be offended right?

Sure, but there's no logical reason that waiting would solve the issue of offending others. We'd still believe that their lives were insufficient for them to make it to heaven and that they still require baptism. Your argument was that they were offended because we believe that without the ritual that the deceased will not make it to heaven. I agree that may be the case, but even if we don't perform the ritual we still believe they won't make it to heaven without eventually performing the ordinance. Hence the logical problem in being offended for performing the ritual when supposedly the offense is in the belief. That said, if they're offended, they're offended and pointing out logic won't be sufficient to remove the offense.

So, why not wait?

I'm not in charge so I don't know. Maybe the one in charge will decide to wait. It would make sense from my point of view.

[_truth dancer]

Sure, but there's no logical reason that waiting would solve the issue of offending others. We'd still believe that their lives were insufficient for them to make it to heaven and that they still require baptism. Your argument was that they were offended because we believe that without the ritual that the deceased will not make it to heaven. I agree that may be the case, but even if we don't perform the ritual we still believe they won't make it to heaven without eventually performing the ordinance. Hence the logical problem in being offended for performing the ritual when supposedly the offense is in the belief. That said, if they're offended, they're offended and pointing out logic won't be sufficient to remove the offense.

If everyone wanted to be a member and believed they had to have the rituals performed who would be offended at the belief that everyone had to have the ritual?

The only ones who are offended at the disrespect and elitism are those who do NOT believe the ritual is essential for exaltation. My understanding is that during the millennium everyone will either be or want to be a member of the LDS church so, by my way of thinking there will be no one to be offended.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Maybe it's to punish divorcees. In the case of the woman, she can't get sealed again without a temple divorce. I thought men there were some restrictions for men who were divorced too although I think they may be different since a widower can get a second temple sealing but a widow generally can't.

Male divorcees, in addition to widowers, can be sealed to a second wife after a civil divorce from the first (with the proper "clearance"), whereas a living woman cannot do the same (unless the first sealing is "cancelled") -- it is all based on polygamy in the hereafter.