- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been thinking about baptisms (and other temple work) for the dead (possibly a bit too much), and now I’m wondering why we even bother. Humans have been on this earth for around 150,000 years, but we only started writing less than 6000 years ago. In the last 6000 years, I’d imagine that we’d be lucky to have records of 10% of the people who have lived. If we do the work for every person that has ever been recorded, we’ve still only just started.
We have to do proxy ordinances because the dead are dead and don’t have bodies. Because Jesus died and is risen we have been promised that we’ll all be resurrected. Is there any reason why they can’t just be baptised, etc. for themselves after they’re resurrected?
Wow!!! That’s an interesting thought. I never thought of it that way….I guess we could point to the fact that in being baptized by proxy now, people who have deceased and are without physical bodies will be able to receive blessings of baptism now. They won’t have to wait until they are resurrected. I believe we do it for the symbolism and what it does for us. It really is an important part of the living Gospel for me, but that’s mostly because I accept the symbolism as extremely powerful and paradigm-altering. I love it for that reason. Of course, if that is the case, if we miss the symbolism and what it can do for us, it’s just another dead work. (pun not intended when written, but . . .
:clap: )If you want some more perspectives, there is a thread in our archives from two years ago about this topic:
“Why Ordinances for the Dead?” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=549&hilit=vicarious A lot of times I am unsure about just how I feel about ordinance work for the dead. I tend to think of it as something I’m doing to remind myself (and sometimes a renewal) of the faith I live more than as being a savior on Mt. Zion myself. Most of the time I agree with Romans 1:19-32. God has made himself known to ALL and so ALL are without excuse for their actions. I’ve heard this from a lot of Christians as their perspective of what happens to people who die without knowing God (or Christ). And like I said, Most of the time, I agree.
I was going to say it’s a powerful gesture for humanity – the desire to assist those who have passed on. …or what Ray said. That is alot of energy and effort going into dead people. Imagine if all that time effort and money was used for the living. We may actually get something accomplished. I found estimates that 100,000,000,000 people have lived on this earth. There are 12,000,000 listed Mormons. Assuming all are temple recommend holders with easy access to the temple, that is 8333 unique names and sessions each. Of course it is really probably 3-4x that for each of us that has easy access to the temple and a recommend, so probably 25,000+ each. Get started, huh? đŽ I’ll throw in my two cents – * It was great for me to be able to do work for my father who died when I was young. I’ve always felt like I could do nothing to indicate the love and respect I still have for him. In that sense, I’m marking my respect for my parents, whether or not they will ever receive it. (I think, and hope they have)
* Family history is great, in the sense that it shows how interconnected we are. I was not raised LDS, or come from the USA, but I almost certainly have some common ancestry with at least one Mormon prophet, David O. McKay (can’t prove it for sure, but there’s a lot of indirect evidence). I baptized an adult investigator, and have since found out that we have common ancestry from the 19th century.
* It’s a gesture as Orson says. I am all for charity work (and don’t diss it), but this is another way to be selfless.
The get out clause, is that I believe many people are supposed to be baptized during the Millenium.
“Humans have been on this earth for around 150,000 years, but we only started writing less than 6000 years ago. In the last 6000 years, I’d imagine that we’d be lucky to have records of 10% of the people who have lived. If we do the work for every person that has ever been recorded, we’ve still only just started.”
Not official doctrine here, but if Jesus visited them, and there are missionaries for the dead, then I’m sure there would be some way these folk might be accommodated.
Remember that the global population is now many times bigger than it’s ever been before.
“Imagine if all that time effort and money was used for the living. We may actually get something accomplished.”
Not completely applicable to the LDS. I see more inactivity in other churches towards charity, although I love the Salvation Army’s work, and I know someone who takes sick people to Lourdes (Catholic). Some other churches it’s less obvious…
I have seen many LDS people who give up a lot of time for charity, and I respect them for it. I wish more of us were like them, but still…
Quote:“Imagine if all that time effort and money was used for the living. We may actually get something accomplished.”
If all that time, effort and money was used for the living, we would lose MUCH of what is so compelling for so many people about our theology.
I agree, DA, that too many members seem to prioritize the dead over the living, but doing away with temple work and its underlying theological foundation would make us nothing more than one more Protestant denomination – and I don’t want to see that happen. There’s a LOT of good people and good beliefs and wonderful service provided in and by those denominations, but I don’t want to lose the uniqueness of temple theology to focus exclusively on the living. Even though I see what we do in the temple as symbolic and not “objective, immutable need” – I still love what it symbolizes and really would hate to lose it.
True, Ray. Baptism for the dead is the underpinning of the great LDS near-universalist view of humanity. Quote:Is there any reason why they can’t just be baptised, etc. for themselves after they’re resurrected?
Absolutely no reason they couldn’t be, imo – and if some kind of formal ordinance really is required by God, I suspect it will happen much like the question above posits.
I should say explicitly that the above question – and others in the same vein – are the primary reason that I focus on the principle and symbolism of having OUR hearts turned to those who have gone before. I see it as a grand theological way to keep us from developing the kind of pride that accompanies social Darwinism and help us remain humble and caring in the face of the kind of rampant narcissism that has been ever-present in society throughout time.
I think many members lose sight of (or never understand) that grand theology when they take it so literally, but I also think most members really do have a sense of eternal purpose in their view of the temple that is a very good thing in and of itself.
Also, just to put it out there, I can’t read 1 Corinthians 15:1-29 and reach any logical conclusion other than the early Christians believed in and practiced baptisms for the dead. I’ve read and heard multiple alternative interpretations, but they just don’t make sense in the full context of that passage.
My calling is in a single adult branch and today a young woman spoke about being an ordinance worker in the temple in our area. She’s in the baptistry and talked about her experience in being baptized for the granddaughter of a woman who was to frail to act as proxy. The feelings she described in that encounter were quite remarkable and to me seem to make the whole encounter worth it. I, for one, would hate to see that sort of experience lost. A non-Mormon Irish reporter wrote this back in 2009,
Quote:Whatâs the difference, anyway, between baptising the dead and baptising babies? A tiny infant will have as much understanding as a dead person â none at all â of the complex philosophical belief-system itâs being inducted into when baptised, say, a Catholic. Transubstantiation? Thereâs daily communicants go to their deaths without any clear understanding of the concept. So what chance the mewling tot?
Indeed, given that all Christian Churches believe that the soul lives on after death and retains understanding and consciousness of self, doesnât it make more sense to baptise dead adults than live babies?
Apart from which, if the Catholic bishops hold that the beliefs of the Mormons are pure baloney (as they must), and their rituals therefore perfectly meaningless, how can it matter to them what mumbo-jumbo Mormons might mutter over Catholic cadavers?
âŚ
Letâs look at the facts as understood by the early followers of Christ. For more than 300 years after the Crucifixion, baptism of the dead was widely accepted, its biblical basis located in 1 Corinthians 15, 29: âOtherwise, what shall they do who are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptised for them.â In other words, a deceased person could be baptised by proxy: otherwise, how could such a person be included in the Resurrection? A good question.
The radical Cerinthians and the Marcionites were especially energetic baptisers of the dead. It was to wrong-foot these sects, seen as competitors with the official Church at a time when it was consolidating its position as the State religion of the Roman Empire, that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) voted, after bitter debate, to condemn the practice.
I talked more about this. If you’re interested, see
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/03/04/baptism-for-the-dead-so-what/ Tom Haws wrote:True, Ray. Baptism for the dead is the underpinning of the great LDS near-universalist view of humanity.
It’s also one of the most misunderstood. The amount of times I’ve read stories about people going around graveyards looking for bodies…
Yeah, Sam, there is that. :clap: MH, I really like that quote. Thanks for sharing it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.