- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It turns out that most English Bible translations render 1 Timothy 1:4 this way. http://bible.cc/1_timothy/1-4.htm Quote:Neither give heed to fables and
endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. (Includes a number of different versions, plus commentary by many, including Wesley)
Interestingly when I googled the phrase on its own, an LDS link came up –
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/EndlessGenealogy.htm Quote:The genealogy Paul was warning against was not genealogy per se, but the practice of making long lists of ancestors to justify a claim to greatness or righteousness by way of lineage. Many genealogies in his day were heavily embellished with heroic actions, capitalizing on the doctrinal falsehood that the righteousness of one’s ancestors was a type of justification before God.
Obviously it must be specific examples that are being thought of here, rather than genealogy and fables (parables!!!)
Yeah, I read this as being in direct opposition to the idea common among the Jews that they were special specifically because “we have Abraham to our father” – or, in modern Mormon terms: Quote:“I am a descendant of pioneers – 7th generation Mormon – and therefore special and righteous.”
Okay, that wasn’t an aspect that I’d thought of, but nice one. I just related it to our incessant family research.
😆 Although for what it’s worth, I have considerable grounds to think that I might be related to at least one latter-day prophet via the old country. If we don’t have a common ancestor within the past five hundred years, I’ll eat my hat. Put it this way, a lot of my ancestors come from a small rural parish, and it turns out that the prophet in question’s ancestors come from the parishes on either side, and we have at least one or two surnames in common…
(David Icke is probably thinking that this makes me part of the Merovingian bloodline!!!)
I do think it fits those who neglect the living in pursuit of the dead. Well, that’s true… but family research makes an interesting hobby if nothing else. Amen – but it’s not one I am pursuing currently. Fortunately, I have a father-in-law and a grandmother who allow me to make excuses and neglect it for now. 
Well, you’ve got your priorities right IMHO. I don’t have many close relatives, and none in the church. So unlike a lot of BIC people, my genealogies not quite “fished out”. We have a family in the ward with ten children. I can’t imagine that all ten could do all that much more than their parents, but I suppose they could probably do it faster. Food for thought. Over a hundred expensive buildings, built to facilitate the saving of deceased people on those endless genealogies. But concerning the thousands of children whose lives are threaten daily by poverty and lack of food in Africa (and elsewhere), I sometimes question the priorities for those who would act as “Saviors of Mount Zion.” This life, next life, why is a chose so difficult? I realize there are ordinances for the living as well, I respect that. Wasn’t the original “tabernacle” made of tents, so it could be moved? Any old testament scholars out there? PS: My current calling is family history specialist. I am known as a research helper mostly, not so much focused on the vicarious end of the program.
Yes, George, the original temple was made of tents so it could be moved. However, it appears that a permanent temple was always supposed to be built. The original tabernacle dates to the wandering of Moses and the children of Israel for 40 years. Remember that all the older generation needed to die off and quit worshipping the The Egyptian gods (such as the Apis Bull). So God commanded Moses to build a tabernacle as they wandered all that time. But Solomon built the first permanent temple. Your food for thought is excellent. Let’s not forget that we do offer Fast Offerings. Worldwide poverty is an age-old problem. Perhaps the church could do more to combat poverty and hunger, but they aren’t completely neglecting it either.
Old-Timer wrote:I do think it fits those who neglect the living in pursuit of the dead.
I agree.
Cadence: Quote:Old-Timer wrote:
“I do think it fits those who neglect the living in pursuit of the dead.”
“I agree.”
I once knew a stake high councilman who claimed to have been raised on peanut butter sandwiches, as his “mother, the genealogist,” was much too busy saving dead ancestors to do much concerning meals or keeping the house ship-shape. He talked about her several years on Mother’s Day. I wasn’t sure if it was meant to be faith promoting or a cry for professional counseling. “Maybe a little bit of both” (Forest Gump)
A few months ago someone in Idaho had the child Jesus baptized and sealed to his parents, God the Father and his wife Mary. I can’t begin to tell you how much this action infuriates me. Talk about “Endless Genealogies.” Guess John the Baptist had no authority to baptize Jesus in the Holy Land. Guess God had no priesthood to accomplish his Plan to have a Savior born to save mankind. I don’t know about you guys but MIL has all of her genealogy work done back to Adam and Eve! Her SIL (husbands sister) sat there and looked at her like she was a complete nut when she said it and I asked if she had everyone on Earth done, in that case. I’m sorry but a silly claim deserved an even siller response! DH (TBM) told me to ignore her. I think her family did most of this work though so there was no neglecting on her part. Everything in moderation including work for the dead. If it makes folks feel better and more “secure” to do temple ordinances for decease loved ones and ancient relatives – it’s fine by me. I don’t see the point personally, and I really just don’t believe that god puts those kind of limits and restrictions on himself, and his children – that would amount to a fraction of a fraction of the souls on this planet being “saved.” Just doesn’t make much sense to me. Work for the dead is, IMO, a human theology (not gods) to teach people about their own roots and spiritual pathway. IMO, It is a symbolic ritual that JS used to teach and “strengthen” the early saints, and I guess he NEVER intended for it to become what it has today. I think it is another one of those cultural commandments that has taken on a life of its own – much like the WoW
cwald wrote:If it makes folks feel better and more “secure” to do temple ordinances for decease loved ones and ancient relatives – it’s fine by me. I don’t see the point personally, and I really just don’t believe that god puts those kind of limits and restrictions on himself, and his children – that would amount to a fraction of a fraction of the souls on this planet being “saved.” Just doesn’t make much sense to me. Work for the dead is, IMO, a human theology (not gods) to teach people about their own roots and spiritual pathway.
IMO, It is a symbolic ritual that JS used to teach and “strengthen” the early saints, and I guess he NEVER intended for it to become what it has today. I think it is another one of those cultural commandments that has taken on a life of its own – much like the WoW
I totally agree. When Joseph Smith introduced baptisms for the dead, it was very limited in scope. You were baptized for the deceased relatives you knew, your parents and grandparents. It was important that you could confirm they were of good character and would accept spiritual truth. Murderers for example, were not to have work for them. Today, we baptize Hitler and the Nazi leadership, and claim to have lines back to Adam. We upset Jews by casting aside the horrors of war and use names of those who were lost for being Jewish. Finally, one jerk decides to baptize Jesus himself and seal Him to God and Mary (also sealing Mary to her second husband Joseph of course). Why is this allowed? What has happened to reason? To critical thinking? A loving ordinance has become a nightmare…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.