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

[Mars]

It's also important to pick up on the reference to faith, repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost as being a clear signal to the intended audience, namely, the Latter-day Saint, that that list is by no means exhaustive. It means the foundation of the Gospel.

It wouldn't be necessary to enumerate every possible topic that was taught to the dead by the forces organized by the Savior during his 3 day ministry among the dead, but the imagery used is sufficient to deliver the message that the Gospel in its entirety was taught to the dead by the Savior and those whom He organized to preach it.

[Mars]

Why is it important to you? It doesn't matter to us!

"Inconsistencies" in the flow/timeline of the restoration of the Gospel point to it being man-made and not divine.

God would have gotten it all right the first time, and none of you nincompoops would have messed it up.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Mars

[mfbukowski]

"Inconsistencies" in the flow/timeline of the restoration of the Gospel point to it being man-made and not divine.

God would have gotten it all right the first time, and none of you nincompoops would have messed it up.

Yeah, that would be true if we were ready for it- but obviously we could only "take" it line upon line.

You see a flow and development in the restoration from the beginning to today- and we are still nowhere close to being where we need to be!

Edited June 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It's also important to pick up on the reference to faith, repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost as being a clear signal to the intended audience, namely, the Latter-day Saint, that that list is by no means exhaustive. It means the foundation of the Gospel.

It wouldn't be necessary to enumerate every possible topic that was taught to the dead by the forces organized by the Savior during his 3 day ministry among the dead, but the imagery used is sufficient to deliver the message that the Gospel in its entirety was taught to the dead by the Savior and those whom He organized to preach it.

Plus, for those who are familiar with temple ordinances, which our favorite guest is not, it is clear that the sealing is part of the endowment. If you are reading it on the internet, that is not clear at all.

[Vance]

I see you are continuing to be obnoxious.

Oh, the irony!

[Mars]

Yeah, that would be true if we were ready for it- but obviously we could only "take" it line upon line.

You see a flow and development in the restoration from the beginning to today- and we are still nowhere close to being where we need to be!

Y'know, I can kinda see where Rob's coming from, though.

Evangelical Christianity has essentially had 2000 years to bring it to where it is today. All the schisms, changes, fights, and in some case bloodshed (Cathars and Huegenots come to mind) that has brought Christianity to where it is today is being compared to the short 180 years or so of this dispensation's genesis and childhood. The idea of learning something line upon line, precept on precept, or grace by grace is almost unheard of. The Bible has always existed for today's Christian. Little thought is given to where it derived its authority because anyone who calls themselves Christian accepts it to be true.

It's easy to see an apparent discrepancy in the way Joseph Smith taught a principle and say "A-HA!!! I told you, this shows he was making it up as he went along!" The faithful Latter-day Saint's journey with the Savior didn't suddenly come upon us. Learning that the Book of Mormon is true, learning how and when revelation is real and not in your head, learning when an answer to a prayer is really an answer to a prayer, how to use the Priesthood properly, the Endowment... all of our spiritual journey for the Latter-day Saint is trial and error, line upon line, precept upon precept. So it doesn't bother us that the Prophet might have not understood a certain principle fully. For us, the important issue is that the principle is divine, and then we can figure out its application.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Incomplete" would be more accurate.

The idea of growing from grace to grace is not difficult, and I know you must believe it since Jesus did. Why would it not be the case for Joseph, too?

Lehi

I agree. I have to admit to Rob, that I did misspeak. I was thinking about D&C 138. The implication is there. I would say that JS view was indeed incomplete. I doubt if he were here and if Rob asked him that he thought that those that did not have a chance to get married in this life were damned and it was too late. After all we learn that "Those that would have accepted the gospel with their whole heart had they been given the opportunity here, would be saved in the CK".

One could ask if JS new the mechanisms that would allow this to happen?

[zerinus]

Vance quoted Joseph Smith in History of the Church as follows:

This statement makes an important point that everyone seems to be overlooking. Vance appears to have copied his quotation from an online version of an article by Douglas Brinley, "Joseph Smith's Contribution to Understanding the Doctrine of Eternal Marriage." That article does not quote History of the Church correctly. Here is the text of Joseph Smith's statement:

"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory." History of the Church 5:391; also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 300-301.

Now, twice in the above statement, Joseph Smith asserted that marriage for eternity must be entered in this life in order to have children after the resurrection in the celestial glory: ""Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory" (emphasis added).

This would seem to be a rather explicit statement that those who do not get married for eternity while still living in this mortal probationary life will miss out on something rather important in the LDS hope, namely, they will miss out on being able to have children in the celestial kingdom.

I am not here questioning that the LDS Church later began performing some proxy rites of marriage for eternity. I am asking, first, if the above passage does not raise some question about the general idea of performing such rites, and second, if there is any evidence that Joseph Smith taught the possibility of proxy temple marriages for the dead.

You know how Jesus sometimes liked to answer a challenging question with another question, instead of answering it directly? That is because sometimes that is the best way that such questions can be answered. I would like to adopt the same methodology in answering your question. I will ask you a question first, and after you have answered my question I will answer yours. In John 3:5 Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This makes it unmistakably clear that the baptism of water is as essential for entering the Kingdom of God as the baptism of the Spirit. So why do you Evangelicals say that the baptism of the Spirit (being "born again") is the only baptism that is required for salvation, and baptism of water is not a requirement?

[mfbukowski]

Y'know, I can kinda see where Rob's coming from, though.

Evangelical Christianity has essentially had 2000 years to bring it to where it is today. All the schisms, changes, fights, and in some case bloodshed (Cathars and Huegenots come to mind) that has brought Christianity to where it is today is being compared to the short 180 years or so of this dispensation's genesis and childhood. The idea of learning something line upon line, precept on precept, or grace by grace is almost unheard of. The Bible has always existed for today's Christian. Little thought is given to where it derived its authority because anyone who calls themselves Christian accepts it to be true.

It's easy to see an apparent discrepancy in the way Joseph Smith taught a principle and say "A-HA!!! I told you, this shows he was making it up as he went along!" The faithful Latter-day Saint's journey with the Savior didn't suddenly come upon us. Learning that the Book of Mormon is true, learning how and when revelation is real and not in your head, learning when an answer to a prayer is really an answer to a prayer, how to use the Priesthood properly, the Endowment... all of our spiritual journey for the Latter-day Saint is trial and error, line upon line, precept upon precept. So it doesn't bother us that the Prophet might have not understood a certain principle fully. For us, the important issue is that the principle is divine, and then we can figure out its application.

I am glad you brought this up.

Yes it is an entirely different paradigm of the sacred, which is what I have been trying to make clear. The old notion is that old Greek Neoplatonic idea of an unchanging God doesn't go well with dynamic revelation and an open canon of scripture.

Of course what they don't realize is that an Unchanging God also cannot respond to his children- it's a logical impossibility.

So we either have a loving Father God who loves us and with whom we can interact, who is like us in many ways, or we have the Stoic, Unchanging King of the Universe

THAT is really the difference. So yes I can sympathize with those who try to fight a God who progresses with the old paradigms.

They can never win- it's impossible. They just don't get it.

Edit: Read my Calmoriah quote in my siggy.

The gospel is a poem- a metaphor which will never be completed for any of us. It is the continuing saga of creation which will continue as long as creation continues.

Edited June 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Guess again. Look at verse 48.

The person who is guessing seems to be you. Previously, you claimed that other verses in D&C 138 were clearest on the point. Those didn't work, so now you are trying verse 48.

You wrote:

It's a little hard to be sealed to your children without being sealed to your wife.

I get that. But the fact is that D&C 138 says nothing about proxy marriages in the temple. In fact, D&C 138:48 is vague as to who the parents are and who the children are that are meant. Is it referring to sealing living children to living parents, sealing living children to dead parents, or sealing dead children to dead parents? Any of these readings seems to fit the language used.

You wrote:

I am not sure why you are so defensive when I am trying to help you learn the gospel so that you can be a better-informed critic.

Given all that you have said about me over the past several weeks, you'll understand if I view this statement as sarcastic.

You wrote:

I think clearly Joseph believed in the principle, but I really don't see why it is important if Joseph taught it specifically or not. Why is it important to you? It doesn't matter to us!

It matters to anyone who is studying the texts to understand what they are saying in their own context. Joseph's statement in HC 5:391 clearly shows that he did not believe in the idea of proxy marriages in the temple for those who did not get married in the temple during their mortal lives. If you want to say that Joseph was mistaken and that further revelation corrected that inadequate understanding, go ahead. But be honest with your own prophets' statements.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It matters to anyone who is studying the texts to understand what they are saying in their own context. Joseph's statement in HC 5:391 clearly shows that he did not believe in the idea of proxy marriages in the temple for those who did not get married in the temple during their mortal lives. If you want to say that Joseph was mistaken and that further revelation corrected that inadequate understanding, go ahead. But be honest with your own prophets' statements.

You cannot say this. For you to say that "HC 5:391 clearly shows that he did not believe in the idea of proxy marriages in the temple" you would need a statement from JS stating that "people cannot be married after this life once they pass on" I agree with Lehi, that JS view is incomplete as he does not even talk about the hear after.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

The person who is guessing seems to be you. Previously, you claimed that other verses in D&C 138 were clearest on the point. Those didn't work, so now you are trying verse 48.

You wrote:

I get that. But the fact is that D&C 138 says nothing about proxy marriages in the temple. In fact, D&C 138:48 is vague as to who the parents are and who the children are that are meant. Is it referring to sealing living children to living parents, sealing living children to dead parents, or sealing dead children to dead parents? Any of these readings seems to fit the language used.

You wrote:

Given all that you have said about me over the past several weeks, you'll understand if I view this statement as sarcastic.

You wrote:

It matters to anyone who is studying the texts to understand what they are saying in their own context. Joseph's statement in HC 5:391 clearly shows that he did not believe in the idea of proxy marriages in the temple for those who did not get married in the temple during their mortal lives. If you want to say that Joseph was mistaken and that further revelation corrected that inadequate understanding, go ahead. But be honest with your own prophets' statements.

LOL

Ok I think I will bow out for a while. Let's just say that I don't see your position as particularly strong from a debate point of view, and I am not here to make "points". I think I have said all I need to on this subject for now.

I quoted the whole revelation because it was all relevant- pick any verse you like.

[Rob Bowman]

Mars,

You wrote:

Y'know, I can kinda see where Rob's coming from, though.

Evangelical Christianity has essentially had 2000 years to bring it to where it is today. All the schisms, changes, fights, and in some case bloodshed (Cathars and Huegenots come to mind) that has brought Christianity to where it is today is being compared to the short 180 years or so of this dispensation's genesis and childhood.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Mormons inherited the fruits of the 1800 years of learning and development that came before its 180-year history. If Mormonism is the supernaturally revealed restoration of true and full Christianity to the earth, superior to everything that came before it, then it should not be taking steps backward or fumbling around for a century trying to figure out what its basic doctrine is.

You wrote:

It's easy to see an apparent discrepancy in the way Joseph Smith taught a principle and say "A-HA!!! I told you, this shows he was making it up as he went along!"

That's an oversimplistic, caricatured understanding of my perspective. If you'll review the thread you'll see that I never said anything like this. Bukowski and others would very much like to portray me as engaged in a nit-picky game of "gotcha" but that is simply not the case.

The evidence that Joseph Smith was "making it up as he went along" -- which I definitely think was the case -- goes far, far beyond picayune discrepancies or minor wrinkles in doctrine. But my purpose in this thread was to gain some perspective and further information about an apparent doctrinal development reflected in the changes to Gospel Principles that I cited there. I wanted to make sure that I knew as much as possible about what precedent there might have been for the idea reflected in those changes, because I want to state things as accurately as I can.

Setting aside for the moment the issue of whose religion is true, here's an interesting exercise I would suggest readers of this forum try. Compare this thread, in which I asked Mormons for explanations and clarifications regarding the new statements in GP that I quoted, with the thread that nackhadlow started in the Focused Discussions section in which he asked me for explanations and clarifications regarding my views about the billions who do not hear the gospel in this life. Specifically, compare the way many if not most of the Mormons here responded in this thread to the way I responded to nackhadlow in that other thread. I would think that an honest Mormon would be embarrassed by the arrogant, condescending, accusatory manner in which many of the Mormons in this thread have reacted to my opening post.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

You cannot say this. For you to say that "HC 5:391 clearly shows that he did not believe in the idea of proxy marriages in the temple" you would need a statement from JS stating that "people cannot be married after this life once they pass on" I agree with Lehi, that JS view is incomplete as he does not even talk about the hear after.

Joseph expressly said they needed to be married for eternity "while in this probation...in this life." If it must be done in this life, it cannot be postponed until the hereafter. Explaining this statement away by saying it is "incomplete" is simply not viable. If the practice of proxy marriages in the temple is legitimate, then Joseph was simply mistaken. What's so hard about admitting it, since you don't view that statement as scripture and don't even think scripture is inerrant?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

Joseph expressly said they needed to be married for eternity "while in this probation...in this life." If it must be done in this life, it cannot be postponed until the hereafter. Explaining this statement away by saying it is "incomplete" is simply not viable. If the practice of proxy marriages in the temple is legitimate, then Joseph was simply mistaken. What's so hard about admitting it, since you don't view that statement as scripture and don't even think scripture is inerrant?

Because I don't view it as such a black and white statement as you. I see him talking to the LDS members and telling them that they need to be married in this life. Which according to current LDS theology that if you have a chance to get married in this life and you don't get married, you don't get a second chance in the next life. This is a simplistic explanation if you want we can go into it more.

Hence, JS statement is accurate from a certain point of view.

But for the sake of the discussion Rob, I will admit what you request. I understand your pov and can respect that pov. And you are correct that it is not scripture and it is not inerrant. I would say that his view here is not completely accurate. However it is not completely wrong either.

Can you see my pov? Is there any understanding? Or am I just wrong and that is all there is to it?

[Mars]

Mars,

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Mormons inherited the fruits of the 1800 years of learning and development that came before its 180-year history. If Mormonism is the supernaturally revealed restoration of true and full Christianity to the earth, superior to everything that came before it, then it should not be taking steps backward or fumbling around for a century trying to figure out what its basic doctrine is.

But it's not an inheritance. The only inheritance to speak of is that Jesus lived, was the Son of God, died for the sins of mankind, and was resurrected on the third day. The very essence of this thread wasn't inherited. That's why it's new, and that's why we're talking about it. Please, don't try and paint a picture of an unknowing, making-it-up-as-we-go-along, pilotless plane has to try and figure out what it's "basic doctrine" is. The Endowment, of which is the sealing is a part, is hardly a 'basic' doctrine. The principles are true and divine: marriage and sealing between husband and wife, parents and children. How it was applied and how it was understood in its application might (and probably has) changed. That it must be done on this earth is true - but proxy sealings done on behalf of the dead satisfy that requirement.

That's an oversimplistic, caricatured understanding of my perspective. If you'll review the thread you'll see that I never said anything like this. Bukowski and others would very much like to portray me as engaged in a nit-picky game of "gotcha" but that is simply not the case. The evidence that Joseph Smith was "making it up as he went along" -- which I definitely think was the case -- goes far, far beyond picayune discrepancies or minor wrinkles in doctrine.

It was meant to be an oversimplified caricature and not a full length treatise of your approach. I apologize if it offended, but that you bring up perceived inconsistencies and use them as evidence that Joseph Smith made it all up is akin to try to and make us fall on our own sword, so to speak. It bothers me, especially, that your perfunctory, or rather nascent, understanding of Mormonism is sufficient to challenge those of us who live and breathe it. We do not see it as a discrepancy. We are trying to explain why by quoting relevant portions of scripture. When or if those explanations don't make sense, you're not understanding the issue the way a Mormon would.

But my purpose in this thread was to gain some perspective and further information about an apparent doctrinal development reflected in the changes to Gospel Principles that I cited there. I wanted to make sure that I knew as much as possible about what precedent there might have been for the idea reflected in those changes, because I want to state things as accurately as I can.

Fair enough.

Setting aside for the moment the issue of whose religion is true, here's an interesting exercise I would suggest readers of this forum try. Compare this thread, in which I asked Mormons for explanations and clarifications regarding the new statements in GP that I quoted, with the thread that nackhadlow started in the Focused Discussions section in which he asked me for explanations and clarifications regarding my views about the billions who do not hear the gospel in this life. Specifically, compare the way many if not most of the Mormons here responded in this thread to the way I responded to nackhadlow in that other thread. I would think that an honest Mormon would be embarrassed by the arrogant, condescending, accusatory manner in which many of the Mormons in this thread have reacted to my opening post.

I realize you get beat up a lot, but you have crossed a line, in my book, of refusing to object to your own institution's posting of our Temple content. It's something we object to very much. It hasn't and won't garner you any sympathy.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Mars

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You asked:

You know how Jesus sometimes liked to answer a challenging question with another question, instead of answering it directly? That is because sometimes that is the best way that such questions can be answered. I would like to adopt the same methodology in answering your question. I will ask you a question first, and after you have answered my question I will answer yours. In John 3:5 Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This makes it unmistakably clear that the baptism of water is as essential for entering the Kingdom of God as the baptism of the Spirit. So why do you Evangelicals say that the baptism of the Spirit (being "born again") is the only baptism that is required for salvation, and baptism of water is not a requirement?

First, John 3:5 does not mention baptism.

Second, if John 3:5 is referring to baptism in water, then the practice of proxy baptism is inconsistent with this verse, since it says that the person must himself be born of water and the Spirit, not that someone else can be born again in his place.

Third, assuming for the sake of argument that "water" here refers to baptism, the water is simply a symbol of the Spirit, not a separate requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God. As a parallel or example, I would point to John the Baptist's statement that Christ was going to baptize people "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16). This statement does not mean that literal fire is needed to be baptized with the Holy Spirit; it means that fire would symbolize the redeeming work and power of the Holy Spirit, as he did when he came on the apostles in Acts 2:1-4.

[Rob Bowman]

Mars,

You wrote:

I realize you get beat up a lot, but you have crossed a line, in my book, of thumbing your nose at our objections of you posting Temple content on your website. It hasn't and won't garner you any sympathy.

I didn't "thumb my nose" at Mormon objections to the temple content being posted on our website. First of all, as I pointed out, it was on our website years before I even joined IRR's staff. Second, I listened to the objections, engaged Mormons here in protracted discussions about those concerns, and posted a statement on the relevant page cautioning readers about Mormon sensibilities about the content being made public. You can disagree with the decision to keep the material on the site, but you can't plausibly claim I thumbed my nose at your objections.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph expressly said they needed to be married for eternity "while in this probation...in this life." If it must be done in this life, it cannot be postponed until the hereafter. Explaining this statement away by saying it is "incomplete" is simply not viable. If the practice of proxy marriages in the temple is legitimate, then Joseph was simply mistaken. What's so hard about admitting it, since you don't view that statement as scripture and don't even think scripture is inerrant?

The point is, that is true for baptisms and all the ordinances as well. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE DONE BY PROXY BY THOSE STILL IN THIS LIFE

That is the whole plan- to turn the hearts of the children to the fathers. We do for them what they cannot or did not do for themselves

That's an oversimplistic, caricatured understanding of my perspective.

That works two ways. You know better than this.

I hope.

I am not sure why you reprimand me for thinking you are uninformed when you make statements like that above.

Edited June 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Vance quoted Joseph Smith in History of the Church as follows:

This statement makes an important point that everyone seems to be overlooking. Vance appears to have copied his quotation from an online version of an article by Douglas Brinley, "Joseph Smith's Contribution to Understanding the Doctrine of Eternal Marriage." That article does not quote History of the Church correctly. Here is the text of Joseph Smith's statement:

"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory." History of the Church 5:391; also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 300-301.

Now, twice in the above statement, Joseph Smith asserted that marriage for eternity must be entered in this life in order to have children after the resurrection in the celestial glory: ""Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory" (emphasis added).

This would seem to be a rather explicit statement that those who do not get married for eternity while still living in this mortal probationary life will miss out on something rather important in the LDS hope, namely, they will miss out on being able to have children in the celestial kingdom.

I am not here questioning that the LDS Church later began performing some proxy rites of marriage for eternity. I am asking, first, if the above passage does not raise some question about the general idea of performing such rites, and second, if there is any evidence that Joseph Smith taught the possibility of proxy temple marriages for the dead.

It helps to have a correct impression of what is meant by "this probation", and for a clue I'll tell you that it includes the life we will live until we are resurrected.

Also, try this rephrase of what our dear brother Joseph said:

"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation [or before they are resurrected], by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life [including the life we will live before we are resurrected], and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory." History of the Church 5:391; also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 300-301.

You're welcome.

[David T]

Oh, sure, just TOTALLY ignore the all important conjunction "and" as well as the rest of the sentence.

Oh, sure, just TOTALLY ignore the all important conjunction "and" as well as the rest of the sentence.

A false analogy.

Corrected,

If someone says "everyone except for Tim got into the pool and played tag", would it not be the logical assumption that the intent is to say that Tim didn't get into the pool AND play tag?"

Tim might have gotten into the pool, or he might have played tag, but he did NOT do both.

?

That doesn't make sense. In Talmage's phrase, the second clause isn't a new verb, it's a qualifier for the action. While "Got into the Pool" and "Played Tag" are two actions, "Married for mortality" and "Primarily for the purpose of perpetuating...the name" are not two actions. The latter describes the reason for the former.

Again.

The Lord's meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died.

Talmage said everybody except the first:

a) Married her for mortal life only

And they did so:

b) For the primary purpose of perpeturating the brother's seed (the Levirite principle)

This is basic grammar.

And recorded for all to see.

Do you think William Clayton's private Journal for Joseph Smith was put on display and had public readings during Joseph's life in Nauvoo? Are you aware of all that Clayton recorded in the Journal that it is very clear was very very very much not for public consumption at that time?

[Vance]

Talmage said everybody except the first:

a) Married her for mortal life only

And they did so:

b) For the primary purpose of perpeturating the brother's seed (the Levirite principle)

This is basic grammar.

Yup!

THEY did both, the first didn't do both.

How much clearer could it be?

Do you think William Clayton's private Journal for Joseph Smith was put on display and had public readings during Joseph's life in Nauvoo? Are you aware of all that Clayton recorded in the Journal that it is very clear was very very very much not for public consumption at that time?

What I think is that number of parties that were involved here clearly indicates that it wasn't a private teaching.

And lack of evidence (as you continue to presume) isn't proof of absence.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Vance

[Mars]

I didn't "thumb my nose" at Mormon objections to the temple content being posted on our website. First of all, as I pointed out, it was on our website years before I even joined IRR's staff. Second, I listened to the objections, engaged Mormons here in protracted discussions about those concerns, and posted a statement on the relevant page cautioning readers about Mormon sensibilities about the content being made public. You can disagree with the decision to keep the material on the site, but you can't plausibly claim I thumbed my nose at your objections.

Fair enough.

I edited to my original commentary to say that you refuse to object to your own institution's posting of our Temple content.

You certainly had a protracted discussion. You just didn't agree with us wanting it removed.

[zerinus]

First, John 3:5 does not mention baptism.

According to Paul that is what it means:

Romans 6

:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were

baptized

into Jesus Christ were

baptized

into his death?

4 Therefore we are

buried with him by

baptism

into death:

that like as Christ was

raised up from the dead

by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk

in newness of life

.

Colossians 2

:

12

Buried with him in

baptism

,

wherein also ye are

risen with him

through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Second, if John 3:5 is referring to baptism in water, then the practice of proxy baptism is inconsistent with this verse, since it says that the person must himself be born of water and the Spirit, not that someone else can be born again in his place.

That doesn’t answer my question. You are sidetracking.

Third, assuming for the sake of argument that "water" here refers to baptism, the water is simply a symbol of the Spirit, not a separate requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God.

That is not what the plain text actually says. It says unless one is born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It doesn’t say one is a symbol of the other at all. See also Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and consequently not baptized] shall be damned.”

As a parallel or example, I would point to John the Baptist's statement that Christ was going to baptize people "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16). This statement does not mean that literal fire is needed to be baptized with the Holy Spirit; . . .

In a way it actually does. Fire is one of the physical manifestations of the Spirit:

Acts 2

:

3 And there appeared unto them

cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them

.

. . . it means that fire would symbolize the redeeming work and power of the Holy Spirit, as he did when he came on the apostles in Acts 2:1-4.

You are misreading that. There was an actual physical manifestation of fire. It was not just a metaphor. See also how it is taught in Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16.

Edited June 14, 2011 by zerinus

[David T]

Rob, I'm going to go back to the OP.

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.

By 'loophole' you mean the opportunity for Eternal Marriage without Marriage for Time as well in mortality?

Does it apply to single Mormons who simply never manage to find an acceptable mate?

Yes.

Does it apply to Mormons whose spouses leave the LDS Church or who do not leave but do not attain temple-worthy status?

Yes.

What about individuals who were married, divorced, and then join the LDS Church?

Divorced individuals are certainly able to pursue remarriage in 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?

The a) single individuals unable to find someone who will marry them, and b) those whose spouses do not permit a Temple marriage do have their hands tied.

If a) dies without a spouse, it is commonly assumed and understood that prior to the Resurrection, a) will have the opportunity to meet a1) in the Spirit World, and they will decide to be Eternally United. It is axiomatic that during the period of the Millennium, the will of this couple will be made known to those on earth, and the proxy ordinance will be comleted on their behalf.

In the case of b), it is likely that if b's spouse dies before they do, they will - as an act of hope - have a sealing performed where a proxy stands in for the deceased spouse. If it turns out that b's spouse eternally rejects this, then b will be in the same position as a), and that scenario will play out.

If so, when did the LDS Church begin practicing eternal marriages for the dead, for instance?

As has been said, I believe this was a regular process for those who had been temporally married to each other before their death at least in Early Utah. Hyrum Smith - who died in Nauvoo - was aware that he could be eternally married to his wife Jerusha, who had died years before the principle of Eternal Marriage was made known to him

However, it is not a current practice to seal random singles to each other. As far as I know, the only proxy marriages currently performed are for those who there are records of having been married for time. The assumption is that the records and will of the singles will be as the case of a). The work is focused now on those we currently do have records for.

And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?

Do you mean for the qualification of "For Eternity Only" instead of just "For Time Only"? There is precedent and evidence of Joseph Smith having been married to some of his plural wives for "Eternity" only, and not for "Time". This - much like living plural marriage in general - is not a current practice of the Church.

There may have been some early dynastic proxy sealings performed where such was the case, where individuals were not married in time, but were sealed following the death of at least one for eternity, but that's not an area I've delved into much at this point (I do know there's a major paper coming out soon about early Adoption sealings - there may be some interesting info there).

Hope that addresses some of what you actually were seeking.

Edited June 14, 2011 by nackhadlow