- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always had a hard time putting any spiritually or personally significant reason behind the LDS doctrine and obsession over genealogy. I find it very hard to believe that God just wants us to go to the temple to repetitively do proxy ordinances for people we don’t even know. I believe the temple to be far more spiritually significant than that, and it is much more for our own benefit and should be much more a “house of learning” than anything else. Family History is a cool hobby and all, I guess for some, but other than learning menial dates and numbers there isn’t much more personal relevant that I can see. In the book “The Mysteries of Godliness” towards the end it estimates the time it would take for us to actually complete all the temple work for every person that has ever lived on this earth and it concluded that even if all the earth’s population suddenly became LDS and we all worked on it 24 hours a day not even the millennium would give us enough time to complete it all. Being born again is much more important than the actual performance of baptism and I’m sure the knowledge learned from the other ordinances can also be said to be of tantamount significance. The ordnances as I see it, are just another language, written in ritual, to convey different aspects of the gospel. I don’t doubt that the endowment ceremony or ritual, for example, is the best medium to communicate the topics contained within but it also doesn’t mean that it is the only way. What if someone is in the spirit world and has progressed to a point where they are willing and ready to receive knowledge equivalent to that contained in the temple endowment, does God really withhold that information from them until one of us down here on earth goes through the endowment for them? I think that sounds just a little absurd and nonsensical. I don’t have all the answers, maybe I’m wrong, let me know what you think… Admin Note:Great topic, but there are some existing threads on this exact topic. I will try to find the most extensive ones tonight and provide a link to them. I attended the Sons of Utah Pioneer meetings a few weeks ago. BYU professor Richard E Bennett spoke about temple work. From 1840-the 1890’s, there was no temple work for the dead performed. LDS were sealed to prophets and apostles–they couldn’t be sealed to parents that weren’t members of the church, so they were sealed to LDS leaders. It was called the Law of Adoption. For example, John D Lee (of MMM infamy) was sealed as a son to Brigham Young. Bennett said that the first vicarious work for the dead (other than baptisms) was performed in the St George Temple. He said that Pres Wilford Woodruff believed that temple work was more important than polygamy. Bennett believes that Woodruff was concerned that the temples would fall into government hands. Woodruff’s writings indicate that he had a revelation that work for the dead needed to move forth more than it had in the past. Approximately 1894, Woodruff made a change in church policy to have members start doing genealogy so they could be sealed to their ancestors. So, while the Law of Adoption wasn’t officially replaced, it does seem that the emphasis on genealogy is a result of the change.
I’ve said this before here, but I’ll say it again. I think the sealing between a man and a woman is a wonderful ordinance. But this whole business of sealing parents to children just makes no theological sense to me at all. My parents were sealed in the temple. I’ve been sealed to my wife in the temple. If the purpose of this life is to obtain exaltation, I’m not going to be hanging out in my parent’s exalted living room. The sealing to the man and the woman is what is important, not parents to children.
I read a book called “More Wives Than One” by Kathryn Daines. She discusses polygamy in Manti, Utah. She notes that there were some sealings done in Nauvoo to children who were too young to get married. If I remember correctly, a 12-year old boy was sealed to a 10 year old girl because the Saints knew they were moving west and wouldn’t have a temple to be sealed in. However, the “couple” was not actually married–they never consummated the marriage and continued to live with their families. The 2 ended up marrying other people and never had a “real” marriage with each other. They were sealed simply so that they could receive the sealing ordinance which they knew probably wouldn’t be available as they traveled west. Frankly, it reminded me of Catholics baptizing infants simply to avoid Hell if they died right away. This sort of sealing seems odd to me. While such sealings were rare, it indicates to me that the sealing between husband and wife is of supreme important, rather than parents to children.
I believe that this whole idea of being “born into the covenant” is a similar mindset. A young child “needs” to be sealed to someone, so until they become of age to be sealed to a spouse, they are “temporarily” sealed to a parent. The real sealing is between a man and a wife.
I think the emphasis for baptism for the dead and endowments is really where the focus should be. Spouses should be sealed to each other, but from a theological perspective, sealing children to parents doesn’t make any practical sense to me. I believe it is done merely to seal a child to a parent in case the child isn’t sealed to a spouse due to early death or some other reason like that. Posthumous sealings by proxy only seem “necessary” if a child dies too young to obtain a spouse.
I like your thinking on this issue, MH – and I think it points to the fact that the “Restoration” didn’t distill all Truth in undiluted, perfect (“complete, whole, fully developed”) form. The saints took a concept that I really do believe is transcendent and wonderful (being one eternally with those you love) and implemented a lot of ways to profess that concept that made sense to them at the time. That hasn’t changed at all in our time. I really do love the concept and the symbolism inherent in it – so I just don’t care much about the specific interpretation at any given time.
I really do think temple work is more about drawing the hearts of families (from multi-generational to new couples) together, and personal spiritual growth, than it is about specific practical utilitarian legalistic work. What’s the spiritual value? Well, it’s a lesson in interconnectivity. One has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-great parents and so on, back to the Garden of Eden… Of course, some of these vast numbers were the same people, but it still makes you think. Many many thousands of people went into making just one individual. And moreover, you’re distantly related to other people… I suppose it’s all about loving the human race too. Learning your family history can be humbling, teach you about hereditary problems and tendencies, and so on.
I concluded some time ago that work for the dead of any kind is not really relevant. I have a hard time understanding how God would want us to spend the energy and resources that we do for dead people. Sure genealogy is a cool hobby and it is rather interesting to know about ones ancestors, but the idea that they are all somehow locked out of heaven until someone here does some ordinance for them is not rational. Considering some 99.9% of the people who have every lived there is no record of their existence, it seems strange we are chasing that minuscule amount we have records for. Just think of Assia in general. How many billions have come and gone with no one to mark their time here. Perhaps if we redirected all that effort and money to the living we could make a difference here and now. I am sure the dead will not mind.
John Delhin interviewed Greg Kearney a few years ago about the connections between Masonry and Temple worship. One of the thing Kearney said was that Joseph realized early on how to teach great spiritual insights using the symbolism of the temple. Get your speakers and listen–it’s an interesting podcast at Mormon Stories and you can listen to it at http://mormonstories.org/podcast/MormonStories-005-Masonry.mp3 (I think it’s a hour or 2 long–well worth the listen.)
Cadence wrote:Just think of Assia in general. How many billions have come and gone with no one to mark their time here.
Actually Asia is not a good example. Subsaharan Africa is.
Just talking to someone the other day about China. Someone found a shrine the other day due to be knocked down by the government. It had almost two thousand years worth of names on it.
Certain people in that other major Asian country, India may be able to trace their ancestry back millenia too.
Fwiw, I’m not sure I (individually) can ever be perfect (complete, whole, fully developed) without an undersdtanding of how I came to be who I am – and that is possible, to a large degree, only by knowing something of my genetic heritage. That’s me, not necessarily everyone else – but it is me. That’s why adoptees usually long to know of their birth parents – and why those with traumatic amnesia flounder until they rediscover themselves – and why orphans and only children often are the most enthusiastic genealogists. There is a deeply embedded drive in humans to know who we area. Temple work, imo, takes that drive and channels it universally – and I really do believe the symbolism can be powerful.
I also believe temple work really isn’t about the dead but rather about us. God will save whom he will save through whatever means he designates. He also will teach transcendant truth in whatever way works for his children. I just happen to love the current way that works for me.
Ray, that’s a very interesting post that got me thinking. I am an adoptee (from birth) and I just recently have had somewhat of a desire to find out exactly who my birth parents are. I was kinda disappointed as well to find that the records that I do have contain hardly any information at all. If I get the time and energy, I just might search out my birth parents. I do not look anything like the rest of my family (plus I’m at least 6 inches taller than everyone!) and it would be really cool to see someone that I’m genetically related to and share common physiological characteristics. In my family, (the one I know and call family) they all share very common hereditary characteristics; my brother looks just like my mom and dad and so forth. Also the idea of “home” has always been very interesting to me. My parents split up when I was younger and I spent time going back and forth between parent’s houses and they both moved around quite a bit so I never felt like I had a specific place I could call “home”. The closet thing I’ve had to that in my life is a friends house whom I spent a lot of time with and in consequence gained another mother and a few more siblings. But still that isn’t “my home”. Now that I’m in college I move around at least yearly to different apartments and condos and I can’t exactly call those places home either. The Israelites all throughout time continuing into modern times have longed for their “home” and desperately search it and even place theological significance behind it. I guess in some way genealogy and temple work, can help us better understand this concept of family and home. Never thought of it like that before.. Old-Timer wrote:…I also believe temple work really isn’t about the dead but rather about us. God will save whom he will save through whatever means he designates. He also will teach transcendant truth in whatever way works for his children…
That is well said, and sums up my opinion of temples and temple work and this topic in general.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.