Question for LDS "Do you Marry the dead?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you saying that the LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong?
I have to back ParkerD up on this. Anything Joseph Fielding Smith wrote I believe was properly identified as opinion, even if published by a formal LDS company. Mormonism has similar safeguards on statements of even the highest authorities in Catholicism. Whatever the Pope says, unless he presents in a particular manner it is not considered dogmatic, and really serious things take the Bishops to decide. Mormonism has the same. They consider it scripture that the Prophet’s words are only God’s words when the Prophet formally and specifically speaks in his capacity as prophet. Otherwise he speaks as any other man expressing an opinion. A very informed opinion in their eyes, but an opinion nonetheless.

Consider Pope Benedict XVI’s books on Jesus of Nazareth. He has specifically stated that these are not dogmatic statements as Pope, but expressions of his own personal Christology (that alone, to me, makes them more worth reading than if they were dogmatic statements. They give us an unprecedented view of such a man’s personal perception of his relationsship to otu Lord).
 
Are you saying that the LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong?
Campeador,

When he wrote the item that was quoted in the link, he was not the “LDS prophet”–he was the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He was giving his own opinion, which was not the same thing as stating the official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was allowed to do this, even as an apostle. Active Latter-day Saints know about the difference between official doctrine and opinions of leaders or members.

I can think he was “wrong” on that point, and don’t need to feel any sense of obligation about it–so to summarize, in my opinion his opinion was valid for him but is not valid for me.
 
Campeador,
I was being sincere. I have never heard the matter discussed in any class, nor privately among friends. I have read speculation by a couple of people–that’s all, and it simply doesn’t seem important to spend time puzzling over it.
Parker - it appears that it was pretty common thought among the early leaders of the lds church.

(edited for length - bold mine)

from fairlds:

Question
Do Mormons believe Jesus Christ was a polygamist?
Answer
The easy answer is that no, Latter-day Saint doctrine does not teach that Jesus was married, polygamist or otherwise. In fact, there is no official Church doctrine on this issue. **Members are free to believe as they wish concerning this matter. **

**Since members in the nineteenth century were commanded to practice polygamy, many presumed that Jesus would have had to also practice this law. **

Early LDS views
Jedediah M. Grant said:

…This ancient philosopher says they were both John’s wives. Paul says, “Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.” He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were “Mormons.”

Orson Hyde
I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.
All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfil all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only “did that which he had seen his Father do.”[2]
Hyde is again not focused on Jesus’ matrimonial state, and notes that being married and begetting children—polygamously or otherwise—is no evil, but is in accordance with God’s commandments from time to time. We remark too that Hyde indicates his uncertainty: “if Jesus begat children,” he is only following the pattern of God the Father, who also had a Son.

Orson Pratt: The Seer

From the passage in the forty-fifth Psalm, it will be seen that the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a Polygamist, as well as the Patriarch Jacob and the prophet David from whom He descended according to the flesh. Paul says concerning Jesus, “Verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (Heb. 2: 16.) Abraham the Polygamist, being a friend of God, the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that he approbated the plurality of Wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensations in which His Polygamist ancestors lived.
We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as His Only Begotten in this world. We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; and that God the Father has already begotten many thousand millions of sons and daughters and sent them into this world to take tabernacles; and that God the Son has the promise that “of the increase of his government there shall be no end;” it being expressly declared that the children of one of His Queens should be made Princes in all the earth. (See Psalm 45: 16.)
Jesus says there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." (Luke 13: 28.) There are many in this generation so pious that they would consider themselves greatly disgraced to be obliged to associate with a man having a plurality of wives; would it not be well for such to desire a place separate from the kingdom of God, that they may not be contaminated with the society of these old Polygamists? And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies of Christendom, how can you endure such a scene as this? Oh, what will you do, when you behold on the very gates of the holy Jerusalem the names of the Twelve sons of the four wives of the Polygamist Jacob? If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked, and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of polygamists and their wives, do not venture near the holy Jerusalem, nor come near the New Earth; for Polygamists will be honored there, and will be among the chief rulers in that Kingdom.[3]
.

The Church does not take an official position on this issue.
 
Hi Parker - No, my question is specific to Blesseds John Paul II and Mother Theresa.

If Saint Damien was sealed to someone then are you saying he told someone while he was alive that he wanted to be married?

Also, were Blessed John Paul II and Mother Theresa sealed to anyone after their deaths?
Yes or No.
:compcoff:
 
from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Baptism for the Dead: LDS Practice
Author: BURTON, H. DAVID

Baptism for the dead is the proxy performance of the ordinance of baptism for one deceased. Joseph Smith taught, “If we can baptize a man in the name of the Father [and] of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins it is just as much our privilege to act as an agent and be baptized for the remission of sins for and in behalf of our dead kindred who have not heard the gospel or fulness of it” (Kenney, p. 165).

The first public affirmation of the ordinance of baptism for the dead in the Church was Joseph Smith’s funeral sermon for Seymour Brunson in Nauvoo in August 1840. Addressing a widow who had lost a son who had not been baptized, he called the principle “glad tidings of great joy,” in contrast to the prevailing tradition that all unbaptized are damned. The first baptisms for the dead in modern times were done in the Mississippi River near Nauvoo.

So this is how it all started?

Why not just perform baptisms for infants and avoid the problem all together?
 
I have to back ParkerD up on this. Anything Joseph Fielding Smith wrote I believe was properly identified as opinion, even if published by a formal LDS company.
Didn’t Joseph Fielding Smith affirm a ‘married Jesus’ as true then specifically tell his followers to deny this as an official LDS teaching? If Parker and other LDS now deny it, aren’t they just following the LDS prophet’s directive to deny it?
Mormonism has similar safeguards on statements of even the highest authorities in Catholicism.
I’m no scholar, but I can find no parallel of this situation in Catholic history.
 
Originally Posted by lax16
Hi Parker - No, my question is specific to Blesseds John Paul II and Mother Theresa.

If Saint Damien was sealed to someone then are you saying he told someone while he was alive that he wanted to be married?

Also, were Blessed John Paul II and Mother Theresa sealed to anyone after their deaths?
Yes or No.
Hi, Lax16,

Again, I’m going to be redundant in answering this, but here you go:

I think the person who submitted the sealing in marriage for Saint Damien was confused by some document about a marriage that was his brother’s marriage, since brother’s wife had a very similar name to the name that was submitted as the “wife” of Saint Damien.

So, that person who made the submission made a mistake, and that happens in family history research because people make assumptions using limited information that they find. So some is correct, and some is incorrect, and the incorrect work means nothing at all as far as what goes on in the spirit world. It doesn’t bind anyone. All such ordinances need to be ratified by the Holy Ghost, anyway, as a “true covenant” with “free will choice” involved by the actual people for whom the ordinances were completed. Since an error was made, then the Holy Ghost would obviously not ratify such an ordinance.

As far as the other two, there is not the slightest question that the person, Helen R, who communicated her findings to the Salt Lake Tribune would have jumped all over any such similar finding just as she jumped all over the baptisms having been done. The data is unavailable, for good reason, and if anyone tried to submit erroneous work for those names I have no question that the system would block the submission since the programming has obviously been set up to block both the availability and any further such errors.
 
Hi, Lax16,

Again, I’m going to be redundant in answering this, but here you go:
It really isn’t Parker. Since these records are not available for all one needs to ask someone these questions.
I think the person who submitted the sealing in marriage for Saint Damien was confused by some document about a marriage that was his brother’s marriage, since brother’s wife had a very similar name to the name that was submitted as the “wife” of Saint Damien.
If it was an error, as you believe, why didn’t the LDS church respond as such?
So, that person who made the submission made a mistake, and that happens in family history research because people make assumptions using limited information that they find. So some is correct, and some is incorrect, and the incorrect work means nothing at all as far as what goes on in the spirit world. It doesn’t bind anyone. All such ordinances need to be ratified by the Holy Ghost, anyway, as a “true covenant” with “free will choice” involved by the actual people for whom the ordinances were completed. Since an error was made, then the Holy Ghost would obviously not ratify such an ordinance.
We don’t know that it was a mistake, only that it was discovered.
As far as the other two, there is not the slightest question that the person, Helen R, who communicated her findings to the Salt Lake Tribune would have jumped all over any such similar finding just as she jumped all over the baptisms having been done. The data is unavailable, for good reason, and if anyone tried to submit erroneous work for those names I have no question that the system would block the submission since the programming has obviously been set up to block both the availability and any further such errors.
These marriage sealings would not have been done at the same time - the deaths are too far apart.
Why would the data be unavailable? There should be nothing to hide.

Because the LDS never apologized and said there was an error with Saint Damien, then I don’t believe it was an error.
I do believe that Blessed John Paul II and Mother Theresa were probably also sealed in marriage.
 
Lax16,

If the LDS Public Affairs or Family History Department were to feel the need to research and apologize for every family history error made by people doing family history research, they would need a staff of hundreds and there would be no end to the questions–they would keep coming. There are just more important things to do than research and figure out why the person who made the error in submission did so.

Of course it was an error, unless you’re saying he was married, which obviously you’re not saying.

There are thousands or hundreds of thousands of deceased male adults, who have no marriage but who have their other ordinance work completed. I have many among my ancestral “cousins”–either they weren’t married or we haven’t been able to find the information about a marriage. Until we do, we don’t just up and come up with a fictitious name and seal them just for the sake of having a sealing in marriage.

The LDS church would not treat a prominent person any differently than any other person in the world as to thinking they would need a sealing in marriage. It is a level (all people equal status) situation. The Founding Fathers asked for their work to be done, so it was done for them.

How about we “call it a day”?
 
:eek: Parker thats all I needed to know after all of these posts I now know that the LDS Church has sealed unmarried men and women. And that it could be a mistake but one that could keep on happening. Honestly I am surpirsed. And a little concerned, would you seal a man to another women if he dies before his wife but they where not sealed in the temple.
 
Parker,

If this is true. Then why can’t family names be removed by their children, grand children, etc. Who know for sure. Their family was not Mormon.

🤷
 
Parker,

If this is true. Then why can’t family names be removed by their children, grand children, etc. Who know for sure. Their family was not Mormon.

🤷
Irishfree,

There are several databases involved in family history research. I don’t know what database you may be referring to. Some of them have nothing to do with submitting names for temple ordinances.

If an ordinance was completed for a deceased person, the information is stored so that hopefully there will not be a duplicate of that done by some other relative somewhere in the world at some other time. There has been quite of bit of duplicate ordinance work done before they had the linkage that brings all the ordinance work done for ancestors online, but with the caveats that I have previously noted.

By the way, have you ever heard of Lygawary, Ireland? I have ancestry from there, a Sharp family line who came to Pennsylvania and then moved to Virginia, then South Carolina. They were generally Presbyterian.
 
Maby my post was not clear I read and was confused.

Parker lets say a man dies and leaves a wife but they where not sealed in a temple. Would they wait for the wife to die to perform a sealing ceramony for the two or would you perform a sealing ceramony for the man with some other women?
 
Lax16,

If the LDS Public Affairs or Family History Department were to feel the need to research and apologize for every family history error made by people doing family history research, they would need a staff of hundreds and there would be no end to the questions–they would keep coming. There are just more important things to do than research and figure out why the person who made the error in submission did so.
In other words the LDS church is unable and unwilling to even try to live up to it’s promises.
 
Irishfree,

There are several databases involved in family history research. I don’t know what database you may be referring to. Some of them have nothing to do with submitting names for temple ordinances.

If an ordinance was completed for a deceased person, the information is stored so that hopefully there will not be a duplicate of that done by some other relative somewhere in the world at some other time. There has been quite of bit of duplicate ordinance work done before they had the linkage that brings all the ordinance work done for ancestors online, but with the caveats that I have previously noted.
Nice how accurate record keeping (computers are so helpful in this regard) can be used to the churches advantage here but are useless when it comes to living up to the promise to not baptize certain people or addressing members who don’t follow the rules. Also odd that an individuals membership number can be traced when purchasing “garments” but it never comes into play when an unauthorized baptism is performed.
 
Maby my post was not clear I read and was confused.

Parker lets say a man dies and leaves a wife but they where not sealed in a temple. Would they wait for the wife to die to perform a sealing ceramony for the two or would you perform a sealing ceramony for the man with some other women?
Rock17,

The family, if adult children were LDS and temple worthy, would wait for their mother to die if they wanted their father to be sealed in marriage, and wouldn’t seal him to someone else. There is no rush.
 
Nice how accurate record keeping (computers are so helpful in this regard) can be used to the churches advantage here but are useless when it comes to living up to the promise to not baptize certain people or addressing members who don’t follow the rules. Also odd that an individuals membership number can be traced when purchasing “garments” but it never comes into play when an unauthorized baptism is performed.
Excellent point(s)!!
 
Lax16,

If the LDS Public Affairs or Family History Department were to feel the need to research and apologize for every family history error made by people doing family history research, they would need a staff of hundreds and there would be no end to the questions–they would keep coming. There are just more important things to do than research and figure out why the person who made the error in submission did so.
Usually, Parker, such things are not handled this way. Your Prophet meets with a Rabbi to issue an apology, the newspapers cover the story, and it gets covered that way.
Of course it was an error, unless you’re saying he was married, which obviously you’re not saying.
I am sure Saint Damien was not of the marrying mind when he became a priest (by choice), volunteered to work with the lepers on Molokai, knowing eventually he would be covered with oozing sores and die of leprosy.
There are thousands or hundreds of thousands of deceased male adults, who have no marriage but who have their other ordinance work completed. I have many among my ancestral “cousins”–either they weren’t married or we haven’t been able to find the information about a marriage. Until we do, we don’t just up and come up with a fictitious name and seal them just for the sake of having a sealing in marriage.
Really, the obsession with this…🤷
The LDS church would not treat a prominent person any differently than any other person in the world as to thinking they would need a sealing in marriage. It is a level (all people equal status) situation. The Founding Fathers asked for their work to be done, so it was done for them.
The difference is prominent people are already well known so it easier to do research on them, I am sure. Starting with Karol Wojtyla - his place of birth and family history is very well know making it pretty easy to do research.

The Founding Fathers of the USA asked for their work to be done? Please explain.
 
Irishfree,

There are several databases involved in family history research. I don’t know what database you may be referring to. Some of them have nothing to do with submitting names for temple ordinances.

If an ordinance was completed for a deceased person, the information is stored so that hopefully there will not be a duplicate of that done by some other relative somewhere in the world at some other time. There has been quite of bit of duplicate ordinance work done before they had the linkage that brings all the ordinance work done for ancestors online, but with the caveats that I have previously noted.

By the way, have you ever heard of Lygawary, Ireland? I have ancestry from there, a Sharp family line who came to Pennsylvania and then moved to Virginia, then South Carolina. They were generally Presbyterian.
Thanks Parker,

I don’t remember exactly which data base it was. You are right. There are many of them.

What county is Lygawary in?
 
This is from a Jewish publication called JewishGen

Has the church done anything to uphold its decade-old agreement with the Jewish community? The bad news is that the Mormons continue to hijack Jewish genocide victims and other Jewish dead. Moreover, when a Jew is baptized, the door is open for all of his deceased ancestors to be baptized as well. Regrettably, their baptismal records place before the public a revisionist view that these deceased Jews were Mormons, a position they would have rejected in life.

Parker - what do you say in reply to the parts I have put in bold?

thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top