- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
MWallace, the problem is that such a stance would eliminate baptism for the dead at the practical level – since probably not one person who is not Mormon would want to be baptized into the LDS Church if s/he was offered that chance while living.
MWallace raises an interesting point though… If it’s mainly about turning the hearts of the children to the fathers, wouldn’t it be just as meaningful for us to do proxy ordinances that would have been meaningful to them? For example, coming from a Scottish background, I think it would be more meaningful (to both me and my non-LDS fore-father in question) if I performed an “Ode to a Haggis” on their behalf rather than a temple baptism or endowment. Those things simply were not part of their life nor meaningful to them… it can only be worse to the memory of those to whom it would be contrary (such as a Catholic priest), wouldn’t it?
This is my understanding and the way I view it. After this life we will have an opportunity to progress as well as be taught. Both those who have received their ordinances as well as those who haven’t. Say you were a stalwart strong as can be baptist and you died. Once you got up there you started hearing all these things and people talking about baptism and endowements and all sorts of stuff. Well you become curious and so you start investigating what everyone is talking about. The more you investigate the more you find out that you want your baptism and endowments done and you want to be sealed to your spouse. But you missed/never got the opportunity/or turned down the opportunity when you were alive. However, now you want all of it but you don’t have a body so you can’t receive any of it. Would you want to go eternity not being able to obtain it, just because you missed out on it or didn’t believe it in a previous life? Even though we perform the proxy ordinances doesn’t mean the people they are performed for have to accept them. If in the afterlife they still decide “No this is not for me, I don’t want it.” They don’t have to accept the ordinances and its like they never happened. Just because they are performed doesn’t mean they
haveto accept them. I would rather have the opportunity and the ability to turn it down rather than never have the opportunity at all, IMHO. Also I saw a comment about Catholic priests who had remained celebate having their temple work done and being sealed when they were never married. If this has happend I believe it is in great error, because sealings can’t/shouldn’t be done unless there was a marriage performed in this life. From all that I have heard and understand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.