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

[Messenger]

I think several of us have made the point that proxy sealings will be done throughout the millennium for those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in this life. But for some reason some keep acting like no point was made except the one they want to believe.

Yes, I don’t think enough attention has been brought to the conversation about the Millennium and the kind of interaction that the living will have during the Millennium with the spirit dead. It could be quite regular, and normal for everyone to have contact with the spirit dead who have died to perform work for them. Spirit couples may even visit the temple to have sealing work done. .... I’m just thinking outside the box!

[Messenger]

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

friendly

Yes, and Civil too ...

Edited June 9, 2011 by Messenger

[Calm]

The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 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]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

http://lds.org/study/topics/marriage?lang=eng

What is taught about proxy baptisms is applicable to other proxy work as well:

The vicarious ordinances we perform in temples, beginning with baptism, make possible an eternal welding link between generations that fulfills the purpose of the earth’s creation.

http://lds.org/liahona/2001/01/the-redemption-of-the-dead-and-the-testimony-of-jesus?lang=eng

Many people have lived on the earth who never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ and who were not baptized. Others lived without fully understanding the importance of the ordinance of baptism. Still others were baptized, but without proper authority.

Because He is a loving God, the Lord does not damn those people who, through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism. He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for them. A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples throughout the world.

http://lds.org/study/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng

For those concerned about those we have no current earthly records for on which to base proxy work:

True there are records in heaven, but what good are they there at present? Temple work cannot be done in heaven but must be done on earth. There will hardly be enough time during the thousand years of the Millennium to take care of the special cases of those whose records have been destroyed or overlooked. We should remember that out of approximately 6,000 years of time when billions of people have come and gone on the earth, we have records for only about the past 400 years. Much of the Millennium must therefore be reserved for those who need proxy work and who lived in times when no records were kept or for which records do not now exist. Then, also, the Ten Tribes have to bring their records too for their own temple work. That will also take a high priority in the Millennium.

http://lds.org/new-era/1974/09/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng&noLang=true&path=/new-era/1974/09/qa-questions-and-answers

[Calm]

On the absolute requirement for temple work and eternal marriage and the availability of these opportunities to all mankind in the Gospel Principles manual:

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have each been baptized and confirmed by one having the proper priesthood authority. Each of us may also go to the temple to receive the saving priesthood ordinances performed there. But many of God’s children have not had these same opportunities. They lived at a time or place when the gospel was not available to them.

Heavenly Father wants all of His children to return and live with Him. For those who died without baptism or the temple ordinances, He has provided a way for this to happen. He has asked us to perform ordinances for our ancestors in the temples.

http://lds.org/manua...istory?lang=eng

The section heading in the Eternal Marriage chapter makes it clear there are no "loopholes":

Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation

Our exaltation depends on marriage, along with other principles and ordinances, such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost....

As needed, help class members or family members know that all Heavenly Father’s children who are faithful to their covenants in this life will have the opportunity to receive all the blessings of the gospel in the eternities, including the opportunity to have an eternal family.

Eternal Marriage Must Be Performed by Proper Authority in the Temple

http://lds.org/manua...rriage?lang=eng

OTOH, If what Mr. Bowman is questioning is that perhaps it was once thought/taught that only those who were married in this life (for the time part of "time and eternity") were considered qualified for the opportunity of exaltation, that no marriages were considered possible to take place in the next life between those married outside of the temple or not at all and that now there has been a "loophole" put into place for those who were not temple married for "time" as well as "eternity", I would point to the quote I gave above from the 74 New Era regarding those who we don't even have records for, let alone records of temple marriage. The idea that the long dead would have the same opportunities of those who have access to temples has most likely been around as long as the teaching of the necessity of eternal marriage, at the very least as soon as Joseph sat down long enough to consider the implication of the absolute requirement of eternal marriage for exaltation for those not alive during the Restoration such as Alvin, Joseph's brother and decided to ask God what about him and others like him.

My memory says the essential language of the ordinance for the sealing is the same for the dead as the living, the language holding an essential symbolic meaning as opposed to a technical one. The substitution of "this life or the next" clarifies the technical side, but does not change the symbolic meaning of the temple language. Please if anyone is tempted to discuss actual temple language to confirm or deny my memory, don't. Just say I am right or need to be institutionalized.

Edited June 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

If I may first ask, why do you read our Sunday school manuals? Then I will answer.

[LeSellers]

If I may first ask, why do you read our Sunday school manuals? Then I will answer.

Well, doncha know—he's just theeeeeeeees far from asking for baptism (holding hand in "Q" position).

Lehi

[Nofear]

I think several of us have made the point that proxy sealings will be done throughout the millennium for those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in this life. But for some reason some keep acting like no point was made except the one they want to believe.

Quite so. They could instead spend their effort on a more interesting approach: "Why would God allow us to choose our eternal companion during the time when our ignorance is the greatest it has ever been and when our pool of potential partners is the smallest that it has ever been?"

Edited June 9, 2011 by Nofear

[Deborah]

Quite so. They could instead spend their effort on a more interesting approach: "Why would God allow us to choose our eternal companion during the time when our ignorance is the greatest it has ever been and when our pool of potential partners is the smallest that it has ever been?"

LOL. It would sure avoid a lot of mistakes if we could wait. Although one could argue that when we are all perfected we will be at our best and maybe that couch potato won't be so bad.

[Calm]

I am curious if Mr. Bowman believes he now understands the position of proxy marriage more clear than he apparently did before or if he still believes that somehow the change of wording marks a change in doctrine/belief/practice that the dead no longer need temple ordinances performed on their behalf.

[Messenger]

LOL. It would sure avoid a lot of mistakes if we could wait. Although one could argue that when we are all perfected we will be at our best and maybe that couch potato won't be so bad.

Can you imagine? I mean, just how HUGE the couches are in the Celestial Kingdom?!? Also, the cheese puffs, big screen TVs and everything else! LOL

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You asked:

If I may first ask, why do you read our Sunday school manuals? Then I will answer.

Proverbs 18:13.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I am curious if Mr. Bowman believes he now understands the position of proxy marriage more clear than he apparently did before or if he still believes that somehow the change of wording marks a change in doctrine/belief/practice that the dead no longer need temple ordinances performed on their behalf.

I didn't say that. You are knocking down a straw man. What I asked was whether those not married in a temple must have a temple marriage performed on their behalf in order to qualify for possible exaltation and, if so, whether the LDS Church regularly performs such proxy marriages now. The answers have been all over the map:

"Divine nature" isn't sure. Such marriages used to be performed but he thinks they "pretty much stopped," and he concludes: "I think that most members believe that it is something that will be taken care of during the Millennium." But this doesn't answer the question. Will it be taken care of by Mormons getting married for eternity by proxy in temples during the Millennium? Or will the dead who didn't get married in the temple be resurrected and given a chance to do so themselves during the Millennium? In a later post, he talks about some exceptional occurrences in which people in the past were sealed to departed spouses.

Bukowski also doesn't answer whether such ordinances are performed in the temples now, commenting, " It will all be sorted out in the Millenium- we just do our best- it's in God's hands." That sounds like a no, they are not being performed now, and again possibly they will during the Millennium but he doesn't say so directly.

Deborah seems sure those ordinances will be performed during the Millennium: "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." So that's a yes, they do need to be performed, and no, they're not being performed now. Later she writes, "I think several of us have made the point that proxy sealings will be done throughout the millennium for those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in this life. But for some reason some keep acting like no point was made except the one they want to believe." Again, Deborah seems to postpone the solution to the problem to the Millennium.

Thesometimesaint also says those not married in a temple will be given that opportunity during the Millennium; the same ambiguities apply here as to the similar statements already quoted.

zerinus does not know how the problem will be resolved: "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." He denies that a temple marriage in this world is needed: "Not necessarily in this world. God may have ways of doing it in the resurrection or beyond.... We don't ask how, when He hasn't chosen to tell us how."

Charles thinks it is "possible" for such proxy marriages to be performed, but only for deceased couples: "It is still possible, but, according to a temple president, both the man and the woman should be deceased." That doesn't sound like it happens regularly. He then adds: "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." Again, this is vague. Who undergoes the ordinance in the temple? When is this done? And how is this opportunity worked out? For example, if a couple died a thousand years ago and they are given an "opportunity in the next life" to be sealed in a temple (however this will be done), what if one of the spouses says no? Does the other person miss out on exaltation? Charles seems to realize there are unanswerable questions here: "Many of these details ('what if') have not been revealed, beyond what is taught in GP."

Mola said yes, they need to be married for eternity, and yes, they need a temple marriage, and yes, they can get one by proxy. But at first he didn't say if Mormons perform such proxy marriages today. Later he said they certainly do: "This is false, just 2 weeks ago I was in a sealing session with my wife were we were proxies for several couples to be married for time and all eternity." That seems straightforward enough, but then why are several other Mormons in the same thread so unclear or unsure about the answer?

Nackhadlow says "they certainly are regularly and substantially performed today," which is again odd because several others said the matter would be addressed in the next life or in the Millennium.

Lehi seems certain that temple marriages will be performed in the Millennium by proxy for the dead, who cannot do it for themselves: "We will do it for them in the millennium, but it will be done for them since sealings, like baptisms are earthly ordinances with eternal consequences. The dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. But we, acting for them, can overcome the obstacle that death threw across their paths." But then he asserts that they definitely are performed today: "No one has said we do not perform proxy sealings in the Temple. Anyone who's been a Temple-attending Saint for any length of time has done them. It's a huge part, the crux, even, of the whole 'turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children' thing. It's why there are Temples to a very great extent. Where do you think you read that?" Well, see above; some say they don't know how the problem will be resolved; some say such proxy marriages were done in the past but for the most part have stopped; some say or imply that such proxy marriages will be performed during the Millennium.

PacMan, after all of the above was said, commented: " Back in the day, it was a practice to seal woman to leaders of the church after they had both died (regardless of their relationship on earth) to assure they had their ordinances done. That's no longer the case, but the principle is still maintained. At whatever point an ordinance needs to be done by proxy and the participants are unknown, and some point it will be made known; a.k.a. what I refer to as the millennium catch-all." So PacMan doesn't know when the ordinance will be performed, which would seem to presuppose that he doesn't know they are being performed now.

Messenger seems to suggest that the departed spirits might come visit the temples themselves during the Millennium to be personally present (and involved?) in their temple marriages: "Yes, I don’t think enough attention has been brought to the conversation about the Millennium and the kind of interaction that the living will have during the Millennium with the spirit dead. It could be quite regular, and normal for everyone to have contact with the spirit dead who have died to perform work for them. Spirit couples may even visit the temple to have sealing work done. .... I’m just thinking outside the box!"

My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today.

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski also doesn't answer whether such ordinances are performed in the temples now, commenting, " It will all be sorted out in the Millenium- we just do our best- it's in God's hands." That sounds like a no, they are not being performed now, and again possibly they will during the Millennium but he doesn't say so directly.

Uh, ok

I guess I am shocked that anyone who has the entire endowment on their website would not know that the FULL endowment includes sealing for time and eternity.

Of course I haven't read what you actually have on your website. The fact that we do proxy sealings on a regular basis (daily) is known by everyone LDS. All one has to do is attend a meeting and hear it announced that "we have a sealing assignment next Friday" to know that.

Of course we still do them. How could you NOT know that?? Yes, Mormons also breathe air and drink water, in case you wanted an answer to that one. ALL TEMPLE ORDINANCES ARE DONE BY PROXY TODAY IN THE TEMPLE.

I hope that was clear enough. Really- this is not on your own website??

[mfbukowski]

My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today.

Being sealed is necessary for exaltation, and yes, proxy marriages are being performed today

Clear enough? I think we all didn't really understand what you were asking, This is fairly basic doctrine. If you were to actually read the endowment, you could figure this out.

What I thought you were asking is how do we know that we are sealing the RIGHT PERSON to the person that the dead person WANTS TO BE SEALED TO- THAT is what I meant when I said "it will all be sorted out in the Millenium"

I think no one had a clue that what you were asking is if these ordinances are done at all; if you don't believe me wait a few hours for the thundering "yeses" you will receive from all the others.

Trust me- on that we will be unanimous. YES they are being done by proxy today.

But this points to a central failing of your approach- you have "book learning" ABOUT Mormonism but you have no concept of how it all fits together in practice- and yet you presume to criticize what you do not even remotely understand!

Edited June 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think several of us have made the point that proxy sealings will be done throughout the millennium for those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in this life. But for some reason some keep acting like no point was made except the one they want to believe.

Gosh you nailed it didn't you?

One only sees what one wants to see!

[Vance]

My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today.

My conclusion so far is that Bowman doesn't really understand the responses to his rather vague question. The truth of the matter is that it is rather clear that Temple ordinances, INCLUDING marriage, are REQUIRED for exaltation. The only question is when, for a specific deceased individual, will they be completed, now, or during the Millennium.

[LeSellers]

Lehi seems certain that temple marriages will be performed in the Millennium by proxy for the dead, who cannot do it for themselves: "We will do it for them in the millennium, but it will be done for them since sealings, like baptisms are earthly ordinances with eternal consequences. The dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. But we, acting for them, can overcome the obstacle that death threw across their paths." But then he asserts that they definitely are performed today: "No one has said we do not perform proxy sealings in the Temple. Anyone who's been a Temple-attending Saint for any length of time has done them. It's a huge part, the crux, even, of the whole 'turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children' thing. It's why there are Temples to a very great extent. Where do you think you read that?" Well, see above; some say they don't know how the problem will be resolved; some say such proxy marriages were done in the past but for the most part have stopped; some say or imply that such proxy marriages will be performed during the Millennium.

Lehi is certain that the specific sealings (for the terrestrially unmarried) will be performed during the millennium. There is no "seems" about it.

As for the [generic] proxy sealings to which I referred, they are done, as I said, today, every day except Sunday and Monday (in most Temples). But it is just a slight variation on the theme: they're now done only for those who were married in this life. But the ordinance that we will perform in the Millennium for the unmarried will be exactly the same as the ones we do now for the married. The reason we do not do them now for the unmarried is because those we would be acting for have not made their choices, and we have no basis on which to pair them. During the Millennium, God will sort this all out. And we have a thousand years to do the work. The Temples will be open 144 hours a week then, and there will be an unending line of proxies anxiously waiting to do the work, and a vast army of reseachers to supply the names (with a near 100% overlap between the two groups).

I am with MFB: this is rudimentary, and it seems wholly unlikely that anyone with the least exposure to LDS doctrine on hese matters could be as confused as you pretend.

Lehi

Edited June 10, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

calmoriah,My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today.

Any Saint who does not know this has not read Doc&Cov 131~132. Any Saint who does not know that proxy sealings are done regularly in the Temples of God has not been to the Temple regularly. Any Saint who does not know that the Temples will be functioning 24 hours a day during the Millennium is woefully uninformed.

But now, you know all these things.

Lehi

[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.

Here is where you go wrong from the very beginning. It says what it means: "WE MUST BE MARRIED FOR ETERNITY EITHER IN THIS LIFE OR THE NEXT". Period. If you are not married here, then in the next life.

Your presumption that there is a "loophole" is where you go wrong. You are so into the "gotcha" mode you can't read straight English! Then we are to "contrast" this with the same words again and again! You see a conflict when the same words are essentially repeated! THERE IS no qualification!

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?

Now, convinced you have found a "loophole" you go on pursuing your non-existent "change"- when all it was is a clarification of the wording, which you were told repeatedly below!

And now you ask several other questions- and then are confused when you don't get the answer you are looking for- which is plainly stated!

We all end up answering your other questions, which you confuse with the answer to the primary question!

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.

The answer is right in front of you - YES we need to be sealed for time and eternity to be exalted- but you don't take it for what it says because it has to be a "loophole"!

[zerinus]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I didn't say that. You are knocking down a straw man. What I asked was whether those not married in a temple must have a temple marriage performed on their behalf in order to qualify for possible exaltation and, if so, whether the LDS Church regularly performs such proxy marriages now. The answers have been all over the map:

"Divine nature" isn't sure. Such marriages used to be performed but he thinks they "pretty much stopped," and he concludes: "I think that most members believe that it is something that will be taken care of during the Millennium." But this doesn't answer the question. Will it be taken care of by Mormons getting married for eternity by proxy in temples during the Millennium? Or will the dead who didn't get married in the temple be resurrected and given a chance to do so themselves during the Millennium? In a later post, he talks about some exceptional occurrences in which people in the past were sealed to departed spouses.

Bukowski also doesn't answer whether such ordinances are performed in the temples now, commenting, " It will all be sorted out in the Millenium- we just do our best- it's in God's hands." That sounds like a no, they are not being performed now, and again possibly they will during the Millennium but he doesn't say so directly.

Deborah seems sure those ordinances will be performed during the Millennium: "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." So that's a yes, they do need to be performed, and no, they're not being performed now. Later she writes, "I think several of us have made the point that proxy sealings will be done throughout the millennium for those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in this life. But for some reason some keep acting like no point was made except the one they want to believe." Again, Deborah seems to postpone the solution to the problem to the Millennium.

Thesometimesaint also says those not married in a temple will be given that opportunity during the Millennium; the same ambiguities apply here as to the similar statements already quoted.

zerinus does not know how the problem will be resolved: "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." He denies that a temple marriage in this world is needed: "Not necessarily in this world. God may have ways of doing it in the resurrection or beyond.... We don't ask how, when He hasn't chosen to tell us how."

Charles thinks it is "possible" for such proxy marriages to be performed, but only for deceased couples: "It is still possible, but, according to a temple president, both the man and the woman should be deceased." That doesn't sound like it happens regularly. He then adds: "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." Again, this is vague. Who undergoes the ordinance in the temple? When is this done? And how is this opportunity worked out? For example, if a couple died a thousand years ago and they are given an "opportunity in the next life" to be sealed in a temple (however this will be done), what if one of the spouses says no? Does the other person miss out on exaltation? Charles seems to realize there are unanswerable questions here: "Many of these details ('what if') have not been revealed, beyond what is taught in GP."

Mola said yes, they need to be married for eternity, and yes, they need a temple marriage, and yes, they can get one by proxy. But at first he didn't say if Mormons perform such proxy marriages today. Later he said they certainly do: "This is false, just 2 weeks ago I was in a sealing session with my wife were we were proxies for several couples to be married for time and all eternity." That seems straightforward enough, but then why are several other Mormons in the same thread so unclear or unsure about the answer?

Nackhadlow says "they certainly are regularly and substantially performed today," which is again odd because several others said the matter would be addressed in the next life or in the Millennium.

Lehi seems certain that temple marriages will be performed in the Millennium by proxy for the dead, who cannot do it for themselves: "We will do it for them in the millennium, but it will be done for them since sealings, like baptisms are earthly ordinances with eternal consequences. The dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. But we, acting for them, can overcome the obstacle that death threw across their paths." But then he asserts that they definitely are performed today: "No one has said we do not perform proxy sealings in the Temple. Anyone who's been a Temple-attending Saint for any length of time has done them. It's a huge part, the crux, even, of the whole 'turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children' thing. It's why there are Temples to a very great extent. Where do you think you read that?" Well, see above; some say they don't know how the problem will be resolved; some say such proxy marriages were done in the past but for the most part have stopped; some say or imply that such proxy marriages will be performed during the Millennium.

PacMan, after all of the above was said, commented: " Back in the day, it was a practice to seal woman to leaders of the church after they had both died (regardless of their relationship on earth) to assure they had their ordinances done. That's no longer the case, but the principle is still maintained. At whatever point an ordinance needs to be done by proxy and the participants are unknown, and some point it will be made known; a.k.a. what I refer to as the millennium catch-all." So PacMan doesn't know when the ordinance will be performed, which would seem to presuppose that he doesn't know they are being performed now.

Messenger seems to suggest that the departed spirits might come visit the temples themselves during the Millennium to be personally present (and involved?) in their temple marriages: "Yes, I don’t think enough attention has been brought to the conversation about the Millennium and the kind of interaction that the living will have during the Millennium with the spirit dead. It could be quite regular, and normal for everyone to have contact with the spirit dead who have died to perform work for them. Spirit couples may even visit the temple to have sealing work done. .... I’m just thinking outside the box!"

My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today.

There are two possible scenarios that present themselves in relation to this subject:

1. The case of worthy couples who were married in this life, but died without being sealed for eternity in their lifetimes.

2a. The case of those who for one reason or another never got married at all in this life, but lived a life that is worthy of exaltation.

2b. The case of a worthy person who was/is married in this life, but whose spouse fails to make the grade and therefore falls short of exaltation.

In the first case, the matter is dealt with by proxy baptisms as it has been already explained to you. In the cases of 2a and 2b, the precise details of how it will be resolved has not been revealed; but it is assumed that they will be provided with an eternal companion to whom they will be sealed for eternity either during the Millennium or in the resurrection.

Tell me what part of that is not clear, and I will explain it further.

[Calm]

My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today.

It is interesting how ignorance can lead to further misunderstanding. Did you bother to read the quotes I provided?

[zerinus]

There are two possible scenarios that present themselves in relation to this subject:

1. The case of worthy couples who were married in this life, but died without being sealed for eternity in their lifetimes.

2a. The case of those who for one reason or another never got married at all in this life, but lived a life that is worthy of exaltation.

2b. The case of a worthy person who was/is married in this life, but whose spouse fails to make the grade and therefore falls short of exaltation.

In the first case, the matter is dealt with by proxy baptisms as it has been already explained to you. In the cases of 2a and 2b, the precise details of how it will be resolved has not been revealed; but it is assumed that they will be provided with an eternal companion to whom they will be sealed for eternity either during the Millennium or in the resurrection.

Tell me what part of that is not clear, and I will explain it further.

I suppose there is a third scenario that I forgot to mention. That is the case of one who has had the opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel in this life, and it had been preached to them with the Holy Ghost witnessing of its truth, and they have hardened their harts against it and rejected it. These will not get a second chance. Their fate is sealed. They will not obtain exaltation.

[mfbukowski]

I suppose there is a third scenario that I forgot to mention. That is the case of one who has had the opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel in this life, and it had been preached to them with the Holy Ghost witnessing of its truth, and they have hardened their harts against it and rejected it. These will not get a second chance. Their fate is sealed. They will not obtain exaltation.

Glad you mentioned that one.

[PacMan]

This has turned into possibly one of the silliest threads. It's as if Bowman is waiting for someone to drop some great conspiracy confession that Bowman is peddling in some little fantasy but doesn't dare come out and reveal. This is really not rocket science, agree or disagree. Everyone needs the sealing ordinance, and practice is a practice. How the doctrine can be carried out can change. I fail to genuinely understand Bowman's beef/question/curiosity beyond what has been stated.

And don't be so presumptuous to "presuppose," because you're often going to be wrong.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Because I can't help myself....

Bowman:

"My conclusion so far is that most but not all of the Mormons here think that a temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. Some think these will be performed during the Millennium. Some insist they are being done today on a regular basis; others don't seem to be aware of proxy marriages being performed today."

First, one and two are not mutually exclusive and the underlying substance of both are true. Find me a Mormon who believes that temple marriage isn't necessary for exaltation and I'll show you an ignoramus whom doesn't understand his own doctrine. Likewise, find me a Mormon that believes proxy marriages are not being performed today and I will show you someone that apparently doesn't know what the word "vicarious" means.. How you are skewing these into some curiosity is beyond me.

PacMan

Edited June 12, 2011 by PacMan