How then is there going to be temple work being done during the millennium if no NEW marriages are being entered into after the resurrection?
This, perhaps, is a misunderstanding of what the Temple ceremony actually is; presumably because the majority of posters here seem to be from the US.
Here in the UK (and across much of Europe - probably most of the non-US world) it is necessary to have a marriage ceremony outside of the temple for a legal marriage first, and then the temple
sealing is performed.
The sealing
allows (not makes, or forces) the marriage to continue to have effect after death - if the couple want it to, and if they keep the covenants they have made with each other and with God. It just so happens that the American laws permit the Temple ceremony to constitute a legal marriage also.
What I find odd is that LDS will bash our infant baptisms because an infant cannot agree and knowingly accept the baptism.
Yet they will baptize dead people who also cannot agree or knowingly accept AND even if their families are NEVER aware and NEVER approve.
Same with marriage. They will marry people WHO HAVE NEVER AGREED TO BE MARRIED.
Publisher’s answer has, as usual, been pretty accurate.
One of the reasons we reject infant baptism is that it requires (and the biblical record clearly shows that this has
always been the case) a
profession of faith by the individual being baptised; as an infant is clearly unable to do this, baptising them has no meaning.
Ultimately
everyone will receive a baptism by correct priesthood authority, whether in this life or by proxy. The choice to accept this opportunity into their (after)life remains entirely with the individual; whether alive or dead. Interestingly Augustine struggled with the same issue (albeit related to children primarily) that Baptism for the Dead is God’s solution to; that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation, yet there are many millions of people who have lived exemplary lives, and lacking only baptism will be denied entry into God’s kingdom - the idea is neither just, nor merciful and makes no sense (Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin 9, in PL 44:480—8).
As you know, our proxy sealings extend the efficacy of marriage beyond death, into the resurrection and the eternities beyond, not to
create a marriage that did not exist to begin with. I did notice you had found details of fictitious marriages that had apparently been sealed in the temple. You know as well as I do that the church does not condone this, but is not in total control of anything that individuals choose to do. Have you ever considered that some will be mistakes, others could be people not taking it seriously and seeing just how absurd an entry they might get away with (sad, but I expect it happens - it does in most anything else, so its very likely), and its even possible that there are those feeling somewhat vindictive upon deciding to leave, but before making the decision known. I believe the saying goes “it takes all sorts”; and applies equally well to any organisation - LDS, Catholic, political, this forum etc.etc.
Hmmm…ok…then why bash infant baptisms since we can say “so the kids have the opportunity to consent when they get older?”
Except they can’t, can they. As Publisher has already pointed out, repeatedly.
The difference (and I’m not sure I can say much more than Publisher to be honest) is that whatever the individual chooses after receiving a Catholic baptism, your belief is that it still has effect over them, still ‘marks’ them as Catholic, and still washes away original sin. If the deceased person chooses not to accept the ordinances effects, it is literally exactly as it if had never happened in the first place.
Forgive me for venturing into presumption here, but it seems a logical conclusion to draw; your doctrine states (rightly so) that baptism is an
essential step to take, and without it you “cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”. I am therefore suggesting that you would see it as better that an individual had been baptised, but rejected it, than never to have been baptised at all. Gregory of Nyssen certainly thought this way " It is better to be found among the number of the wicked who have reverted to sin after baptism than to end one’s life without having received baptism" - Gregory of Nyssen, On Baptism, in PG 46:424. The principle is the same as the reason that
everybody will receive a correct baptism either in life by an LDS priesthood holder, or by proxy in an LDS temple - it is better that everyone has the effects of that ordinance available to them, than anyone should be excluded from entry into heaven over such a simple thing.
Face it, the idea of baptizing or marrying people who have not consented and whose families have not consented is WRONG and it violates the very principles of free will that we are supposed to honor.
Let me present you with a scenario, and I’m going to do my best to place it within Catholic thinking, but do forgive me if I portray anything incorrectly, this is not my intention - but hopefully my point will still be clear.
Consider if you had died during your time spent as a catechumen, having not received a valid baptism; yet having lived a life otherwise acceptable in God’s eyes. Would you not feel disappointed that despite this being something you wanted, and were working towards, without it the rest of your good deeds count for nothing?
Would you not, then, be overwhelmingly grateful to the grace of God if He had provided some way whereby this one missing piece could be given to you?
