- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Kevin Barney just wrote a post on By Common Consent about the performance of proxy marriages for the living. There is nothing deeply theological about it, but I think the concept helps take the “weirdness factor” out of our temple ordinances for the dead. The part I want to excerpt, along with links to the post and also to an article about the marriage to which he refers, in case anyone wants to read the post or the story:
Quote:The story was about a man and a woman who are both soldiers in Afghanistan and were married in a double proxy wedding by a man and a woman standing in for them in Montana (a handful of states have laws allowing for single proxy marriages, where only one party is not physically present; Montana is the only one with a law permitting double proxy marriages).
Military chaplains do not perform marriages in war zones. So a marriage by proxy was the only way this couple could get married now, as they wished to do.
BCC post —
http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/12/22/marriage-by-proxy/ Original Story —
http://www.theledger.com/article/20120919/NEWS/120919148 Thanks for sharing. I’ve never heard of this before and it’s good to know. I’ve always wondered about, for example, a married couple (civil ceremony) joins the church. Before they can go to the temple for their endowments & sealings, one of them dies.
Why couldn’t the surviving spouse go to the temple & have a proxy marriage to the spouse who died?
Or, maybe they can?
They can, Mike, as soon as the surviving spouse is able to go to the temple. It would be interesting if the Church ever adopted the policy of proxy sealings for the living, in cases where members live in really remote areas, have no means to attend a temple and petition the leadership to be sealed by proxy.
I find it ironic that we don’t have such a practice in the Church with regard to sealing, while governmental entities do with regard to civil marriage. It just strikes me as amusing, and, again, it points to the idea that our proxy ordinances aren’t nearly as weird, in concept, as most people think.
The obvious next application would be states who allow both same-sex marriage and proxy marriage for the living.
Quote:We typically just err on the side of sealing everyone to everyone, and then we can sort everything out in the spirit world.
Liked this comment from the BCC post. Now we don’t actually seal “everyone to everyone” but I think that is the final goal of the patriachal chain. We are all connected and intertwined.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I suspect that not all the people for whom temple work is done are dead. Some of them might just be very old, and living incognito somewhere! Roy wrote:Quote:We typically just err on the side of sealing everyone to everyone, and then we can sort everything out in the spirit world.
Liked this comment from the BCC post. Now we don’t actually seal “everyone to everyone” but I think that is the final goal of the patriachal chain. We are all connected and intertwined.
This is one of my sticking points with the church doctrine of sealing…in the end we do end up with everyone sealed together anyways…so the whole families can be together forever really just means all of us will be hanging out together…which means basically heaven as defined by other churches.
I also question the whole get to the temple to get more work done! Thing. Time is not running short…we have eternity…we have the time at the end of the world where all work will be finished supposedly…
Ugh…it all starts falling apart the more I think about it. Back to chanting : “The king is not naked, the king is not naked”
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
johnh, fwiw, the part I love about the sealing concept is the theological extension of it – that we actually get to participate in the creative process in some real way, which is the definition of “godhood” that resonates with me, and that there will be far more of us involved in that process than the rest of Christianity recognizes as possible. I’ve said here in other threads that our temple work during mortality isn’t about our ancestors, since the work will get done eventually if it really does need to be done. Instead, I see it as the manifestation that we really do believe all of God’s children are equal in his sight with the same eternal worth and goal – and I see that as an incredibly important belief for the here and now every bit as much as the there and then. It ought to have a deeper, broader impact on the entire church membership than it does, in lots of ways, but I love that it’s there within the theology.
I am not sure any of this sealing is necessary. We try to attach some meaning to it but it is not there for me. The church tries to put itself between you and your family in the hereafter but that seems bogus to me. I can not imagine God wanting to separate families based on a checklist of what they did or did not do. Sealing I believe is just a projection of our existence here. Marriage is a big deal here so we tend to make it a big deal in heaven. Eternal companionship is not contingent on some hand waiving exercise to validate it. It may exist because of the nature of the two or more individuals involved. Love transcends ordinances. IMHO we are more likely to be held accountable for time wasted in temple work when we could have spent it uplifting our own brothers and sister so to speak. The church to me expends a significant amount of resources to make people get a warm fuzzy about work for the dead but in reality they are not accomplishing anything of substance.
Respect your ancestors, admire their achievements, learn about them if you have the desire, but spend your time working exclusively working for the living in this life if you want to make a difference.
Also the proxy marriage for the living is completely different. Here you have two consenting adults that agree they want to be married. Work for the dead is just the opposite. In our arrogance we assume they want or need it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.