Marrying For Eternity "Either In This Life Or In The Next"

[Rob Bowman]

All,

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on some interesting changes in Gospel Principles. In the new, 2009 edition, the following statement appears in the chapter on exaltation: “We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next” (278, emphasis added). Contrast this statement with the unqualified statement found in the same place in earlier editions of the book: “We must be married for time and all eternity” (Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 226); “We must be married for time and eternity” (1997 ed., 303). The same sort of qualification or exception seems to be suggested in some footnotes in the chapters on family and marriage (2009 ed., 208, 213, 220). Again, these footnotes do not appear in earlier editions of the book.

I have a number of questions here, all focused on what the background is to these changes to Gospel Principles and what exactly the qualification or "loophole" here means. Does it apply to single Mormons who simply never manage to find an acceptable mate? Does it apply to Mormons whose spouses leave the LDS Church or who do not leave but do not attain temple-worthy status? What about individuals who were married, divorced, and then join the LDS Church? How do such individuals obtain eternal marriage in the hereafter: are they dependent on Mormons getting sealed in eternal marriages as proxies for them? If so, when did the LDS Church begin practicing eternal marriages for the dead, for instance? And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?

I have done some searching to look for LDS comments on these statements in Gospel Principles but have yet to turn up anything. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on the matter.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[stemelbow]

My guess would be more for the first option than any of the others.

[LeSellers]

In the new, 2009 edition, the following statement appears in the chapter on exaltation: “We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next” (278, emphasis added). Contrast this statement with the unqualified statement found in the same place in earlier editions of the book: “We must be married for time and all eternity” (Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 226); “We must be married for time and eternity” (1997 ed., 303).

Just a minor change in the way Temple work is presented.

Lehi

[divinenature]

Eternal marriages for the dead were started in Utah pretty early on. Sealings of dead spouses to living spouses was done prior to the completion of the first temple in Utah. Sealings of spouses was done on dead couples after the completion of the first Utah temple.

Men used to have dead single women sealed to them in those early years. There are examples of it with Joseph Smith and I've seen various other leaders do the same. I know of one stake president who had a couple of single cousins sealed to him, for example. This was pretty much stopped, probably around the time adoption to a leader stopped.

I have heard of a instance since then where a family felt impressed to seal a dead woman to a dead man that she never knew during her life.

I think that most members believe that it is something that will be taken care of during the Millennium.

[mfbukowski]

All,

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on some interesting changes in Gospel Principles. In the new, 2009 edition, the following statement appears in the chapter on exaltation: “We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next” (278, emphasis added). Contrast this statement with the unqualified statement found in the same place in earlier editions of the book: “We must be married for time and all eternity” (Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 226); “We must be married for time and eternity” (1997 ed., 303). The same sort of qualification or exception seems to be suggested in some footnotes in the chapters on family and marriage (2009 ed., 208, 213, 220). Again, these footnotes do not appear in earlier editions of the book.

I have a number of questions here, all focused on what the background is to these changes to Gospel Principles and what exactly the qualification or "loophole" here means. Does it apply to single Mormons who simply never manage to find an acceptable mate? Does it apply to Mormons whose spouses leave the LDS Church or who do not leave but do not attain temple-worthy status? What about individuals who were married, divorced, and then join the LDS Church? How do such individuals obtain eternal marriage in the hereafter: are they dependent on Mormons getting sealed in eternal marriages as proxies for them? If so, when did the LDS Church begin practicing eternal marriages for the dead, for instance? And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?

I have done some searching to look for LDS comments on these statements in Gospel Principles but have yet to turn up anything. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on the matter.

What was/is believed hasn't changed at all. Anyone who purports to understand Mormons should know that.

They changed the phrasing to closer accommodate the belief.

If you had ever been in a sacrament service on Mother's day , you would know that single sisters are honored as much as mothers are.

This is why your criticisms are so silly. Mormonism is a culture and you don't have clue 1 and yet think you can criticize what you don't understand, and never will. To understand it, you have to live every nuance.

You are wasting your time trying.

[mfbukowski]

I have a number of questions here, all focused on what the background is to these changes to Gospel Principles and what exactly the qualification or "loophole" here means. Does it apply to single Mormons who simply never manage to find an acceptable mate? Does it apply to Mormons whose spouses leave the LDS Church or who do not leave but do not attain temple-worthy status? What about individuals who were married, divorced, and then join the LDS Church? How do such individuals obtain eternal marriage in the hereafter: are they dependent on Mormons getting sealed in eternal marriages as proxies for them? If so, when did the LDS Church begin practicing eternal marriages for the dead, for instance? And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?

It applies to all of the above.

The problem is your legalistic, fundamentalistic mentality. It will all be sorted out in the Millenium- we just do our best- it's in God's hands.

We do work for the dead for ourselves- for our own enrichment- at least as much as we do it for others. It is the "turning the hearts of the children to the fathers" which you do not understand. What is important is that we are thinking about them and doing our best to do a loving act on their behalf.

God will sort it out as needed.

[Deborah]

When it says in this life or the next, "the next" means that work will be done during the millennium for those who die without a spouse and otherwise were worthy. It has always been that way and this just clarifies it.

[mfbukowski]

Bowman:

This is why your series on Gospel Principles is so ludicrous - you treat it as if it is a "legal manual for all truth" when all it is in fact is a very simple manual to explain many simple truths in a simple way using simple language.

You find endless "gotchas" where none exists.

It's really pretty funny.

[ELF1024]

Swing and a miss....

[Kenngo1969]

Swing and a miss....

How many strikes is that for Ol' Rob? (He only gets three ... )

[zerinus]

All,

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light on some interesting changes in Gospel Principles. In the new, 2009 edition, the following statement appears in the chapter on exaltation: “We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next” (278, emphasis added). Contrast this statement with the unqualified statement found in the same place in earlier editions of the book: “We must be married for time and all eternity” (Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 226); “We must be married for time and eternity” (1997 ed., 303). The same sort of qualification or exception seems to be suggested in some footnotes in the chapters on family and marriage (2009 ed., 208, 213, 220). Again, these footnotes do not appear in earlier editions of the book.

I have a number of questions here, all focused on what the background is to these changes to Gospel Principles and what exactly the qualification or "loophole" here means. Does it apply to single Mormons who simply never manage to find an acceptable mate? Does it apply to Mormons whose spouses leave the LDS Church or who do not leave but do not attain temple-worthy status? What about individuals who were married, divorced, and then join the LDS Church? How do such individuals obtain eternal marriage in the hereafter: are they dependent on Mormons getting sealed in eternal marriages as proxies for them? If so, when did the LDS Church begin practicing eternal marriages for the dead, for instance? And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?

I have done some searching to look for LDS comments on these statements in Gospel Principles but have yet to turn up anything. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on the matter.

In Mormonism it is taught that if you live a life that is worthy of exaltation, if for whatever reason you die without being sealed to a worthy spouse, that you will have that opportunity provided for you in the next life, so that you will not suffer any losses as a consequence through no fault of your own. Exactly how that is accomplished is not important here. God is omnipotent, and is able to fulfil His promises in ways that we may not always understand. The main thing is that God is a fair and just God, and is an omnipotent God, and has it worked out so that you will not suffer any losses in the eternal worlds as a result of such anomalies in mortality, provided that you keep your side of the bargain. That I believe is the meaning of the relevant change in the Gospel Principles manual.

[Vance]

How many strikes is that for Ol' Rob? (He only gets three ... )

It is well past three, but he keeps swinging.

[cdowis]

Men used to have dead single women sealed to them in those early years. There are examples of it with Joseph Smith and I've seen various other leaders do the same. I know of one stake president who had a couple of single cousins sealed to him, for example. This was pretty much stopped, probably around the time adoption to a leader stopped.

It is still possible, but, according to a temple president, both the man and the woman should be deceased.

[cdowis]

Bottom line:

1. There is no change, only clarification.

2. Any worthy person who did not have an opportunity to be sealed in the temple here in this life will have this opportunity in the next life. The ordinance itself is done in the temple.

3. An individual can accept or reject any ordinance, including sealing.

4. Many of these details ("what if") have not been revealed, beyond what is taught in GP.

Edited June 7, 2011 by cdowis

[CV75]

I wonder if anyone here can shed some light

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on the matter.

I don't think I can shed any more light than has been shed in the replies so far, and if it were me receiving so much light, I would then make my study of this spiritual topic a matter of prayer for confirmation that truth has been spoken.

[ERayR]

Bowman:

This is why your series on Gospel Principles is so ludicrous - you treat it as if it is a "legal manual for all truth" when all it is in fact is a very simple manual to explain many simple truths in a simple way using simple language.

You find endless "gotchas" where none exists.

It's really pretty funny.

For me it is not so much funny as pathetic to see someone who can't seem to comprehend simple concepts couched in simple phrases of the time period involved.

[ERayR]

All,

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on the matter.

It is impossible to give light to someone who stands in a dark locked room and shuts his eyes.

[Log]

Sigh. Maybe I'm naive - no, I'm certainly naive - but the OP wasn't quite disrespectful. I know Bowman has a history with you guys, but the negativity aimed at him is mentally draining to read.

[ERayR]

Sigh. Maybe I'm naive - no, I'm certainly naive - but the OP wasn't quite disrespectful. I know Bowman has a history with you guys, but the negativity aimed at him is mentally draining to read.

Bowman's mo is to pretend ignorance and then try to come up with gotchas from the sincere answers. No need to defend Bowman he has paved his own path.

[David T]

. Sealings of dead spouses to living spouses was done prior to the completion of the first temple in Utah. Sealings of spouses was done on dead couples after the completion of the first Utah temple.

Actually, I'm pretty sure some sealings to dead spouses were done in Nauvoo. I believe Hyrum Smith specifically was sealed to his dead first wife while he was still alive in Nauvoo.

EDIT: Perhaps I'm mistaken. I was basing that off of this comment from Rough Stone Rolling, p. 495

"Knowing her basic faith, Hyrum thought Joseph should show Emma a written revelation on plural marriage. Hyrum had been reluctant to accept the principle himself until Brigham Young explained that it allowed him to be married to both Jerusha Barden, his deceased first wife, and to Mary Fielding, his current spouse. At the same time, he had the spiritual confirmation so many others reported."

I see that's actually kind of vague.

Edited June 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Messenger]

I loved the OP. Actually this has been something that I've been thinking about a great deal. I mean, there are people out there that see a non-married Mormons, and say to themselves, "oh that poor single person will never make it'. That’s pretty judgmental.

Personally there are many factors, and there is nothing anywhere that I've read that says active members should be sealed here in person on earth in order to "make it". After all, is the sealing ordinance only for people who aren’t members on this earth? I think it’s also for those members that have died, who haven’t married and want to be. We don’t know who they are today, but certainly during the millennium we will find out. The spirit world seems like a great place to meet a real person and know who they really are.

[mfbukowski]

Sigh. Maybe I'm naive - no, I'm certainly naive - but the OP wasn't quite disrespectful. I know Bowman has a history with you guys, but the negativity aimed at him is mentally draining to read.

So don't read it. "Change the channel", read a different thread, don't plunk down your money for this movie.

I see him as an enemy of all I hold sacred. Of course he could repent and I pray he does. He has no respect for us and doesn't even attempt to cover that.

As long as he holds himself out to oppose the church, I will oppose him. It isn't personal at all- and I don't blame him for trying to get us "saved" since he believes he is doing something to help us. Good for him!

But frankly I can't think of a stupider strategy in trying to convert someone is to attack their present beliefs, and do things on a website which those I am trying to convert find highly offensive.

Can you think of a stupider strategy?

I think it is my duty to oppose him as much as I have time to do so.

Edited June 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[divinenature]

Actually, I'm pretty sure some sealings to dead spouses were done in Nauvoo. I believe Hyrum Smith specifically was sealed to his dead first wife while he was still alive in Nauvoo.

EDIT: Perhaps I'm mistaken. I was basing that off of this comment from Rough Stone Rolling, p. 495

"Knowing her basic faith, Hyrum thought Joseph should show Emma a written revelation on plural marriage. Hyrum had been reluctant to accept the principle himself until Brigham Young explained that it allowed him to be married to both Jerusha Barden, his deceased first wife, and to Mary Fielding, his current spouse. At the same time, he had the spiritual confirmation so many others reported."

I see that's actually kind of vague.

Yes, I was trying to leave my comment open to Nauvoo proxy sealings by saying there were some dead spouses sealed to living spouses prior to the first Utah temple being completed. In fact, I think that the plural wives of Joseph Smith were among the first to have that done in the Nauvoo temple. It appears that in some cases the leader who acted as proxy for Joseph was then sealed to the wife/widow. I have an ancestor who had his new wife act as proxy for his dead wife, so he was sealed to them both the same day. That was in the Endowment House in Salt Lake.

I am not sure when Hyrum was sealed to his dead wife. I might have to look that up.

Ok, I looked it up. This is interesting. Hyrum was sealed to his wives by proxy after his death in the Nauvoo temple. So, now I know of marital sealings for two deceased people as early as 1846. This is probably when the proxy sealings were done for Joseph. I think it was very rare, however, until the 1880s.

[LeSellers]

Bowman's mo is to pretend ignorance and then try to come up with gotchas from the sincere answers.

One imagines Mike Huckabee and his "off-the-cuff" "question".

Lehi

[sjdawg]

It is impossible to give light to someone who stands in a dark locked room and shuts his eyes.

friendly