"If you have a thin skin . . . you are in the wrong place . . . "
Latter-day Saints believe that when God instituted marriage, death was not involved. Like Roman Catholics, Latter-day Saints believe that marriage is a holy institution. “What God hath put together, let no man put asunder.” As with Catholics, Latter-day Saints believe God does not condone divorce. Marriages should endure. Latter-day Saints do not read the phrase or concept of “until death do us part” in the scriptures and believe marriage is an institution created by an Eternal God who created the institution as an eternal one.
On the side-topic: The title of the thread is “Question for Mormons: Explain your practice of ‘sealing’ the departed?” (see post #1). Because the thread is originally titled “Question for Mormons” and because the forum rules (
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91) state that “Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike,” it seems reasonable to expect that Latter-day Saints would welcome the opportunity to answer the question, namely, to “explain [our] practice of ‘sealing’ the departed.”
The title of the thread was promptly changed (post #2) to “Marrying dead people.” That moved the focus from asking about an LDS practice to asking about what Latter-day Saints do not practice. Latter-day Saints perform sealing ordinances in temples “for and on behalf of deceased persons,” persons married in life to one another only “until death do us part.” Latter-day Saints believe if a deceased persons accept such a “sealing,” their marrige would be a marriage “for time and for all eternity.” It is a practice that stems from a belief, not at all foreign to Roman Catholics, that the living can indeed perform acts of love for those who have died (Roman Catholics pray for the deceased, a perfectly acceptable and understandable Christian sentiment).
The change in the subject line (at post #2), fomented a number of comments expressing incredulity that a living person would
marry a dead person. That simply is not a Latter-day Saint belief or practice. But it did precipitate some scoffing posts that seem to reflect poorly on the posters: See post #9 (laughing heads spinning); post #11 (asking about consummation of such a “marriage”); #20 (“comedy horror” and “Scary Movie”); #28 (“zombie romantic comedy”); #39 (cheaper receptions); #60 (“Out of Pollutions’ Depths it Slithers”); #63 (“lol” in response to the statement that “I am on the verge of changing it [the thread title] to Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster”); #84 (“Got to have the red velvet with satin trim if you’re going to marry dead people”); #56 (“Weird. Leave it to the Mormons for just plain weirdness”); #57 (“I heard they are even more Rigor-ous than normal weddings though” [a play on the words “rigorous” and “rigor mortis”]); #113 (“AAAACKKK!!! GAAHHHH!!!
barf”).
Numerous postings requested a response from a Latter-day saint (see posts ## 7, 8, 25, 26, 27, 32, 48, 73, 110 [post #111 is mistaken]). Not until post number 51 is there a response by a present Latter-day Saint (mine). The CAF email I received on Feb., telling me of the thread, called the thread a “Question for Mormons.” (I am a member of CAF and receive such emails). The forum rules invite anyone to join and participate in the discussion, the title of the thread is specifically addressed to Mormons, and I saw in some posts requests for a response by a Latter-day Saint. So I responded.
After my first post, the conversation turned to baptisms erroneously performed for Holocaust victims, Hitler, Catholic Saints, roadshows, movies, and the like. Regarding mistakes in genealogical research, evil motive is assumed, possibility of mistake is wholly rejected, and scoffing begins.
For my second post (#85) I address the unfortunate proxy baptism and proxy marriage performed for Jozef De Veuster (later in life known as Father Damian, recently canonized as a Saint). Whoever researched the name most likely did not know which birth record pertained to his own ancestor and which pertained to Father Damian. I pointed out how it is simple for a research error of this type to occur.
JHow understands, from experience, that what I said is probably accurate. See post #91.
But Iloveangels (post #93) continues: “Hello. This is Catholic Answers Forum, not Mormon Answers Forum. If Mormons want to prosetylize among Catholics and convert them to their own weird religious views, then let them set up their own forums and get their own posting members. How stupid do you think we are, anyway???”
Well, hearkening back to the *title *of the post, it was an indication that the thread was to address a question posed *to Mormons *(“A question for Mormons”). And answering a question is not “prosetylizing.”
The response? “Drop the silly Mormon doctrines.” (Post #93.) Twopekinguys (post #104) states: “I don’t think I’ve noticed where anyone has ‘bashed’ the poster. I also haven’t seen any ‘personal attacks’. Perhaps I have overlooked them, could you please link to them?” RebeccaJ (post #124) states: “No one has been bashing.”
Some are mentioned above (
see paragraph that begins with “The change”); however, my comment was about “these boards” not solely this thread, and others are found at the thread titled “Scriptural evidence for “pre-mortal existence”. Is there any?” – namely, “I doubt they could recognize the truth if it bit them on the… nose” (elipses in original; post #104); pray for the Mormons “so they can see through the dark veils that they wear” (
id); “You apparently have no understanding of God” (post #155 in same thread); “To be honest, I have found discussing with Mormons is not much different than JW’s. One gets no where since they are far-out in left field” (post #270); “The foundation of your religion is not Christ” (post #308).
Glad to contribute. Appreciate the respectful posts.
We can laugh. Can’t you?
