Question for Mormons: Explain your practice of 'sealing' the departed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zaffiroborant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StephenKent said:
Latter-day Saints read Genesis 2:25 and 3:3 to suggest that Adam and Eve were husband and wife *prior *to the time death was introduced into this world. In other words, the institution of marriage came into existence in this world *before *death was introduced into this world. And thus, Latter-day Saints glean from this the notion that in the original establishment of the institution of marriage, God did not make it an “until-death-do-you-part” proposition. That is a simple introduction to the belief of the Latter-day Saints that marriage is and institution that, in the first instance, did not take into account the existence of death.

Latter-day Saints read the phrase “giving in marriage” to mean what they feel its original underlying meaning implies: that of a father “giving” his daughter as a bride to a man in marriage. The Latter-day Saints look at the word “marrying” as meaning not that a marriage ceremony is performed in some post-mortal spirit existence but that all marriages are performed in this world. All “marrying” and “giving in marriage” occur in this life, not in the next. Latter-day Saints believe that a marriage performed here *on behalf of *a departed soul is much like a baptism performed by a living person *for *a departed soul, being akin to the baptism for the dead of which the Apostle Paul spoke (1 Cor. 15:29).

Contrary to the way in which the question is worded, Latter-day Saints do not speak of “marrying the departed” either in the sense of someone living marrying someone dead (which is one unfortunately confusing implication of the way in which the inartfully worded question can be misunderstood to mean) or in the sense of performing an actual marriage of two departed souls. It is, rather, a concept solely of performing a “sealing” ordinance on behalf of the departed (much in the same spirit that Roman Catholics will pray *for *the deceased); we believe the departed are dead in body only, but continue to live as souls. We apply the language of the scriptures to the concept: what is “sealed” on earth is “sealed” in heaven.

Of course, with that simple explanation, I trust that the attacks will come from many readers. That’s fine. It seems to be the tilt taken in these threads. But I thought at least some perspective could be offered to address the question.
Click to expand...
How do Mormons respond to this?
Matt 22:
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
 
Title changed 2nd time by request.
I am on the verge of changing it to Godzilla Vs. the Smog monster.
😉
 
1voice said:
How do Mormons respond to this? Matt 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Click to expand...
I believe Latter-day Saints would simply read that scripture for what it states and not read into it what it does not state. The word “marry” is an active verb and the phrase “given in marriage” is an act (“given” being an active verb). The Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but only that there would be no marriages made or entered into in the resurrection.

According to Dummelow’s A Commentary on The Holy Bible, “The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that a ‘woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.’” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927, p. 698.) Most Jews at the time believed in a material resurrection, and so the question had some importance to them. (Ibid.) But the Sadducees, of course, did not believe in the resurrection; so their question was, simply put, one by which they sought to bait the Lord.

Latter-day Saints would simply respond that Jesus was stating that marriages are to take place prior to the resurrection and, in fact, he did not state anything about any non-existence of marriages beyond the resurrection.
 
RebeccaJ said:
There are documented instances of single Catholic saints being sealed to someone in a Mormon temple.
Click to expand...
That is truly unfortunate and, if done on purpose (unlikely), greatly condemned and, if done accidentally (likely), on account of shoddy ancestral research, most unfortunate. Latter-day Saints are taught to research their kindred dead and obviously someone must have had an ancestor with a similar name and researched the wrong birth record.

Jozef De Veuster was born in the village of Tremelo in Flemish Brabant in 1840. There easily could have been one or two or even numerous others named Jozef who were born to parents with that surname in that time period in that locale. Obviously, whoever performed the research did not have sufficient information to discern that the person researched had never married and could not be an ancestor of the researcher. Truly unfortunate for all involved.
 
StephenKent said:
I believe Latter-day Saints would simply read that scripture for what it states and not read into it what it does not state. The word “marry” is an active verb and the phrase “given in marriage” is an act (“given” being an active verb). The Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but only that there would be no marriages made or entered into in the resurrection.

Wow…THAT is a stretch. Sadly, though IF the LDS is restoring what already existed, then the woman referred to in that part of Matthew would have been sealed, and Jesus corrects them, so your point would be incorrect. And, I, for one, know that is is taught that there will be polygamy in heaven. So, for that to be true, there WILL be marriages in heaven.
Click to expand...
 
StephenKent said:
That is truly unfortunate and, if done on purpose (unlikely), greatly condemned and, if done accidentally (likely), on account of shoddy ancestral research, most unfortunate. Latter-day Saints are taught to research their kindred dead and obviously someone must have had an ancestor with a similar name and researched the wrong birth record.

Jozef De Veuster was born in the village of Tremelo in Flemish Brabant in 1840. There easily could have been one or two or even numerous others named Jozef who were born to parents with that surname in that time period in that locale. Obviously, whoever performed the research did not have sufficient information to discern that the person researched had never married and could not be an ancestor of the researcher. Truly unfortunate for all involved.
Click to expand...
And how unfortunate that the mistake to baptize Pope John Paul II occurred six times!
 
Originally Posted by 1voice
How do Mormons respond to this?
Matt 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
StephenKent said:
I believe Latter-day Saints would simply read that scripture for what it states and not read into it what it does not state. The word “marry” is an active verb and the phrase “given in marriage” is an act (“given” being an active verb). The Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but only that there would be no marriages made or entered into in the resurrection.

According to Dummelow’s A Commentary on The Holy Bible, “The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that a ‘woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.’” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927, p. 698.) Most Jews at the time believed in a material resurrection, and so the question had some importance to them. (Ibid.) But the Sadducees, of course, did not believe in the resurrection; so their question was, simply put, one by which they sought to bait the Lord.

Latter-day Saints would simply respond that Jesus was stating that marriages are to take place prior to the resurrection and, in fact, he did not state anything about any non-existence of marriages beyond the resurrection.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with why the Sadducees were asking the question.

Referring to your explanation…
I have heard that line of logic. It ignores the context of Jesus’ conversation. Jesus is solving the puzzle of 7 husbands presented by the Sadducees. He is responding to a question about a woman that was, according to the questioners, married in this life. His explanation indicates that the dilemma presented by the Sadducees is solved by the fact that she wont have to figure out whom she is married to in her resurrected future because she wont be married to any of them… He explains that she will be like the Angels in Heaven who neither marry nor are given in marriage.

If Jesus clearly explains in that conversation that the woman wont be married … how is it assumed that Jesus’ explanation applies to her but not to others?
 
Here’s one that always gets me. First let me give you the scenario, and then I’ll give you who the Mormons sealed in their temple. Imagine a person who lived a bad life. A really bad life. Died a horrible death due to said bad life. But with the Mormon “Get out of Jail Free” card of post-death baptism, they get baptized. Plus, since the ordinances are getting done for them, they also get endowed (which comes with a ceremony that anoints with oil and “our sins are forgiven and you are clean every whit.”), and sealed to their spouse. At this point, this “horrible” person has the opportunity to accept the LDS religion as true and Christ as their savior, and all of their life sins are washed away. And because they are sealed to their spouse in life, they are able to go to the Celestial Kingdom (heaven).

Second person lived life as a faithful converted Mormon. He was even given his temple recommend in hospice. However, he never did kick that nasty habit of smoking until he was too weak to hold up a cigarette (and truth be told, he would not have gotten his recommend had his wife not screamed at the Bishop to come over and take care of business). Because he struggled with the Word of Wisdom until his dying day, he probably doesn’t warrant the Celestial Kingdom, seeing as how he got his temple recommend unworthily. So even though he has an image of Moroni on his headstone and was buried in his temple garments and temple wardrobe, his death did not merit eternal life with Christ. Because of this, his wife also cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom, because while a man can enter the Celestial Kingdom alone, the woman cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom without being pulled through the veil by her priesthood holding husband.

The man in the second story? My father.



The man in the first story? Adolf Hitler. Sealed to Eva Braun.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If a Mormon can explain to me how in the world that is right, I’ll put my garments back on right now.
 
HonoraDominum said:
Here’s one that always gets me. First let me give you the scenario, and then I’ll give you who the Mormons sealed in their temple. Imagine a person who lived a bad life. A really bad life. Died a horrible death due to said bad life. But with the Mormon “Get out of Jail Free” card of post-death baptism, they get baptized. Plus, since the ordinances are getting done for them, they also get endowed (which comes with a ceremony that anoints with oil and “our sins are forgiven and you are clean every whit.”), and sealed to their spouse. At this point, this “horrible” person has the opportunity to accept the LDS religion as true and Christ as their savior, and all of their life sins are washed away. And because they are sealed to their spouse in life, they are able to go to the Celestial Kingdom (heaven).

Second person lived life as a faithful converted Mormon. He was even given his temple recommend in hospice. However, he never did kick that nasty habit of smoking until he was too weak to hold up a cigarette (and truth be told, he would not have gotten his recommend had his wife not screamed at the Bishop to come over and take care of business). Because he struggled with the Word of Wisdom until his dying day, he probably doesn’t warrant the Celestial Kingdom, seeing as how he got his temple recommend unworthily. So even though he has an image of Moroni on his headstone and was buried in his temple garments and temple wardrobe, his death did not merit eternal life with Christ. Because of this, his wife also cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom, because while a man can enter the Celestial Kingdom alone, the woman cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom without being pulled through the veil by her priesthood holding husband.

The man in the second story? My father.

http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2011/339/12523057_132322143048.jpg

The man in the first story? Adolf Hitler. Sealed to Eva Braun.

http://www.utlm.org/images/hitlertemplerecord1.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/hitlertemplerecord2.gif

If a Mormon can explain to me how in the world that is right, I’ll put my garments back on right now.
Click to expand...
That thing about Hitler just wierd.

Your description of your Mom and Dads last few hours together puts a whole new light on the Mormon rituals and the power that they can hold over people’s lives. Thank you. It must have been a wrenching thing for you to tell your family you couldnt do it anymore.
 
This thread is expanding in thought and depth…incredible posts today…
 
StephenKent said:
That is truly unfortunate and, if done on purpose (unlikely), greatly condemned and, if done accidentally (likely), on account of shoddy ancestral research, most unfortunate. Latter-day Saints are taught to research their kindred dead and obviously someone must have had an ancestor with a similar name and researched the wrong birth record.

.
Click to expand...
This would be easier to believe if it happened only occasionally, but that’s not the case as a Reuters article shows. Celebrity baptisms and sealings are common practice.
 
KathleenGee said:
This thread is expanding in thought and depth…incredible posts today…
Click to expand...
And still no support for Mormon_cultist’s claim that there is evidence that early Christians believed and practiced sealing dead people in marriage.
 
1voice said:
That thing about Hitler just wierd.
Click to expand...
I’ll take this one, Steven:

Adolf Hitler was born in the village of Ranshofen in Upper Austria in 1889. There easily could have been one or two or even numerous others named Adolf who were born to parents with that surname in that time period in that locale.
 
StephenKent said:
I believe Latter-day Saints would simply read that scripture for what it states and not read into it what it does not state. The word “marry” is an active verb and the phrase “given in marriage” is an act (“given” being an active verb). The Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but only that there would be no marriages made or entered into in the resurrection.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it Mormon teaching that people who die single will have a chance to marry in a period of time you call the millennium?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top