Why Ordinances for the dead?

I’m looking for answers as to why beyond a blanket statement to the effect of “man can not be saved without baptism.”

If the answer comes from scriptures that’s great. Though I haven’t found anything other than commands for work to be done in my own research.

hawkgrrrl, you are probably correct about the endowment. However, vicarious sealings were done as early as 1851-where at least one spouse was deceased. Baptism’s for the dead were started before the saints went to Nauvoo. All the vicarious sealing I have in my family done before the 1890’s did not have an endowment done until years later.

Interestingly, one of my ancestors went to the temple when she was 13 years old and did her own endowment, her father did his and then she acted as proxy for her mother and father being sealed!

Now that I have revealed myself as the family history geek that I am………I hope I’m not the only one who finds this stuff fascinating. :geek:

jcl, I believe that the vicarious ordinances are symbolic rituals. The meaning of the symbols differ from person to person. I do think there is more than one “right” answer. But really, what it means to you is the most important answer. You will find people here with widely differing views on temple work.

Here are some of my favorite positive interpretations of the symbolic ritual of vicarious work.

*Perhaps there is truth to ALL of humanity being saved together. We cannot be saved w/o our ancestors and they can’t be saved w/o us. To me it is a glorious concept that none of God’s children will be lost-we will save eachother.

*The idea that we are acting as saviors in this capacity is pretty awesome. Think about it, in the baptism ritual we are acting out as savior for another.

*Like hawkgrrrl, I see value in learning about our ancestors and the past. We have much to learn from it.

*The symbolism of binding families together for eternity is a strong and beautiful one.

On a totally practical note I think that rituals are more meaningful when repeated. Vicarious work gives our faith community something to bind us together, set us apart, impart symbolic lessons, give peace and use the temples that we have gone to so much time and expense to build.

Please let me start by saying I don’t have the answers, but here is how I personally decided to reconcile the whole topic of temple work for the dead. I don’t have the answer, just a way of looking at it that helps my mind and my logical intellect (as opposed to my heart and emotions) be at peace about these religious rituals. I don’t have any problem with the symbolic nature, which really appeals to my emotion.

How do I make sense of it? I think the whole plan of salvation is a metaphor. It isn’t literally true (my current view, I don’t really know). It is a pointer that points to a lot of important wisdom. So the pointer is a tool. It isn’t true or false, not any more than a hammer or a screwdriver is true or false. A lot of members of the Church on some level are hyper focused on the pointer. They believe the needle on the Liahona is “true,” while forgetting to look up and see that it is pointing AT something that God wants us to see. “All hail the needle!” they shout. The needle on the compass is True! It is the one and only true needle ever made on a compass. All the while they are still standing next to their tent in the desert, not moving towards the promised land.

Does baptism for the dead really save the dead? Do the math. 70 Billion+ people have lived. Fewer than 0.001% of them ever heard of Jesus Christ let alone the LDS Restored Gospel. That is the great plan of salvation? One with a 99.999% failure rate that requires 70 billion vicarious baptisms, endowments and sealings after the fact to fix the problem?

The logical part of me thinks this was a teaching to fill in gaping holes in our Church’s beautiful doctrines of universal salvation. Those are some of my favorite parts of Mormonism. Don’t get me wrong. I probably sounded very negative up there, but I am not. I have MORE FAITH in the Gospel, in the temple, and find it 100X more valuable to me spiritually with my new perspective. It does more for me now than it ever did. I had to stop believing to find faith again though. I believe our LDS Plan of Salvation is divinely inspired. It contains important messages relevant to us in our day from God. I just don’t believe it is actually “true”… it is the needle on the Liahona, not the thing God wants us to see.

Religion is the science of paradoxes.

I just like the opportunity to reflect on my ordinances and the covenants I made when I was so much younger that I didn’t understand them all when they were happening. I get to reflect on their meaning every time I participate now in my current state, and that benefits me, even if when I do the math like Valoel did, my mind can’t grasp God’s ways for everything and if things are literal requirements or symbolic meanings (I lean towards the latter).

Aaaabsolutamente! I also really like the other comments made in this thread!

To me, the temple is our version of the ‘Western Mystery Tradition’, and as such is focused on teaching us how to pierce the veil. We are the *only* Christian religion to have such a thing that I know of, though of course Christians (and others) can always become Freemasons…

I have not thought of the temple in terms of ‘saving the dead’ in a long while, though I have to admit when I hear cousin Paul (who is deeply into geneology and temple work) say that he saw our GGrandpa accept his ordinances in the temple, I don’t doubt for a minute that this is the case.

Nevertheless, I look back at ordinances such as baptism. Baptism is a word from the Greek meaning “to dip”. Early Jews did something in a Mikva, which was to ‘dip’ people and things into the ‘living water’ and say a prayer, to purify them. Today if you were to convert to orthodox Jewry you would have to be so ‘dipped’. The women, at least, had this done on a regular basis (to say more would be TMI). In the early years of our Church (LDS) we baptized people multiple times. Today we simply allow that the sacrament takes care of that sort of need.

Temple teachings are VERY important to us, if we seek “further light and knowledge”. I honestly think that while it is good for us to be ‘saviors on mt. Zion’ by redeeming our dead, it is more important for *us* to comprehend how it is that we are to pierce the veil. Thus, by attending the temple over and over, perhaps a few more of us may be inspired to see that this is not all just for the dead, or even for us after we die. Why do you suppose that prayer circles were conducted in a Stake setting throughout the Church until the 1970’s? This is why: we have great need to pierce the veil for our own guidance and obtaining to “further light & knowledge”. We are taught how. We must give strict heed!!

Ok, that’s enough for now from this heretic…

HiJolly

Just something to add on the stats. The estimate is that 70 billion humans have lived. Some of those died in infancy (infant mortality rates have widely varied from about 1% to 40%, so it’s tough to adjust for that). So far, there have been vicarious ordinances for 86 million. Meaning, that in the short time vicarious work has been done, over 1.2% have been completed. If you adjust for infant mortality at an assumption of 25%, you get 1.6% completed. Just wanted to provide some additional number crunching for the sheer heck of it.

Oh man, my comment will seem so negative.

Am I the only one that sees the possibility that we do temple ordinances in the temple to reinforce our commitment to the organization? I mean, I’m not mad about it, but look at the covenants. At least two of them are completely dedicated to the organization and its leaders. And in the older versions of the endowment, the lovely gruesome oaths, coupled with vengeance on the nation for Joseph’s and Hyrum’s death seem to be in this vein. I’ll be honest, it’s pretty cult like.

Having said this, I don’t think this is the complete, or only explanation. I like what everyone else said about the symbolism and geneology etc. I choose to look at this more than the other. But I do think strengthening our commitment to the organization is at least part of the reason for the temple ceremony. And what better way to keep us coming back than to suggest we must do it for everyone who died? It’s beautifully self-perpetuating.

Sorry, I know that’s cynical, I apologize. Once again, I like the symbolism too and I think it’s important.

Of course I think you are right, jmb. I believe the intent of the temple ordinances is good, but I am not uncomfortable suggesting that they may miss the mark by a mile. At the same time, that doesn’t prevent them from being wonderful for many people, a source of heavenly inspiration, and an occasion for visions and learning. Heaven isn’t stingy.

I’m probably in a quandary as to just how much of LDS-ism I will have to choose to believe in as I continue in it. I don’t know that I am really that well served to choose to make LDS-ism my spiritual language as Ray has. On one hand, I have to consider, like you, whether LDS-ism is really and truly up to the task of serving as my spiritual language. On the other hand, life isn’t all about spiritual language (I suppose God can take care of that with each person), and adopting all I can of LDS spirituality would certainly reduce the sore spots and grease the loving along the way.

For now, I remain inwardly quite aloof, going just far enough to say I don’t disbelieve and I see that it can be good for a lot of people. Whether I will ever be ready, willing, or prompted to plunge back into the world of LDS testimony, I really can’t say (I’m keeping an open mind here).

Let me give an example. Ray blogged about Grace, using the Atonement of Christ as a talking point. I, however, would feel unfaithful to the Highest to use a motif (Atoning Sacrifice) that suggests He needs an excuse to forgive His children. I see deep spiritual meaning in Atoning Sacrifice. But I can’t bring myself to teach we are forgiven only because of the Blood of the Lamb. If I saw a prevalent view of a vengeful Father God, I might use the motif of a sacrificial Son God to explain mercy. But I don’t see that view. And I believe perpetuating it harms the meaning of parenting for fathers who internalize the teaching. Nothing is academic.

So how LDS am I staying?