- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In continuation of the ToPoC lessons… I’m a few weeks early with this, I wanted to get out ahead of the lessons so they could dangle for several days before the lesson is given. I noticed that the lessons tend to have pictures to break up the text walls. I may try to do the same.
Chapter 14: Hastening Family History and Temple WorkYou knew I was going there. Hastening. Seriously?
š” A few years back did someone in the COB dare someone else to work the word “hastening” into every conversationto see if anyone would noticegrumblegrumbleFrom the Life of Howard W. HunterIt sounds like genealogical work was a passion for Howard Hunter. This will be a fun lesson for people that are really interested in genealogy. Every ward has a few people that are
reallyinto genealogy. 
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YLJBSv7.png [/img] “You see? Fred is really excited about today’s lesson. Why can’t you all be more like Fred?”I do like how Hunter enjoyed visiting places his ancestors have lived. I’ve considered doing that myself, visit the places that inspired my ancestors to pack up everything and leave.
1) Temples are built for performing ordinances that are essential for the salvation and exaltation of Godās children.Are temple ordinances really essential for salvation? If they are is it essential that the ordinances be done ASAP?
1a) Baptism for the deadThis section details the logic behind the LDS practice for baptisms for the dead, a real “move along, nothing to see here” section for people that have heard it all before. Of course this section cites 1 Corinthians 15:29. I was curious so I went looking for alternate explanations for this verse from non-LDS perspectives:
There’s
Montanism:sick: - One website mentioned that it was a confusing verse with a myriad of explanations, therefore we should approach the topic with humility… and in the very next sentence they basically say “but the one thing we do know is that the Mormons have it all wrong.”
- Perhaps the most compelling alternate explanation is that the chapter was Paul’s attempt to prove that there is a resurrection. A group teaching that there was no resurrection was starting to make inroads in Corinth and the verse was Paul’s way of highlighting an inconsistency in beliefs displayed by that faction. If Paul had facebook perhaps he would have turned it into one of those well worn political memes, “the same people that don’t believe in the resurrection are the same people that baptize for the dead.” The support for this argument is based on the context of the chapter and Paul switching from more inclusive pronouns like us, we, and you to the exclusive pronoun they. “They are baptized for the dead,” not “we are baptized for the dead” or “you are baptized for the dead.”
1b) The endowment, 1c) Celestial marriagePerson that’s attended at least one church meeting in the last 3 months: “ZzzZzZzZzZzZzzzZZzZzZzZzzzZzzZz”
[img]http://i.imgur.com/mKX0ZRz.png [/img] “
Are you not entertained!?!?!?!?!”2) The objective of family history work is to make the blessings of the temple available to all people.
Quote:Yet there are many members of the Church who have only limited access to the temples. They do the best they can. They pursue family history research and have the temple ordinance work done by others. Conversely, there are some members who engage in temple work but fail to do family history research on their own family lines. Although they perform a divine service in assisting others, they lose a blessing by not seeking their own kindred dead as divinely directed by latter-day prophets.
Initially I got a real, “rest assured, despite you’re best efforts you’re probably screwing up in some way you probably never even stopped to consider” vibe from this paragraph. It also goes out of the way to name drop divinely directed prophets at the end. Subtle. There are probably better ways to say we can add value to our lives by studying family lines other than framing it as missing out on blessings due to a failure to do something.
Quote:The objective of family history work is to make the blessings of the temple available to all people, both living and dead.
I love this concept. It’s very inclusive. Another benefit to doing family work… more often than not we’re far enough removed from the people we’re doing ordinance work for that passing judgment never enters our minds. We don’t stop to think, maybe I shouldn’t be doing this ordinance for this person because they were a hen thief. Being removed from the drama of the lives of the dead and doing unconditional service for them might help us practice overcoming the tendency to apply conditions to our service for the living. Just a thought.
3) May we be valiant in hastening our family history and temple work.
Joseph Smith wrote:The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead.
Nah, not even close. For me the living take priority over the dead. The dead aren’t going anywhere and there are plenty of dead to bury them.
Quote:With regard to temple and family history work, I have one overriding message: This work must hasten.
…with a call to have wisdom in all things and recognize that we can’t run faster than we are able. Temple work has its place on the list of priorities and everyone should feel free to determine what priority temple work has.
The lesson suggests asking the question: How can we increase our participation in this work? I think I’d leave it at presenting the work as one of many opportunities to grow spiritually. Not everyone is into genealogy work. Also, I think as a church we tend to misinterpret the spirit of increasing our participation. I no longer feel that same sense of urgency to do temple work but for those that do it’s important to remember why there’s a sense of urgency and the why isn’t to inflate a stat line that gets shared during a conference call or to make sure that this year’s number is last year’s number + 1. It’s about quality, not quantity.
I’ve got to say, this lesson has the potential to bore most people (like me) to tears. It reiterates lots of stuff we’ve all heard before. If I were teaching the lesson I’d solicit a few quorum/relief society members that are passionate about genealogy well in advance of the meeting to give them time to prepare and ask them to share a story or two about a deceased ancestor. Have them bring in family pictures and relics if they’d like. Have them show the class how their lives were enriched through investigating the lives of their family members in an effort to get that spirit to rub off on class members. Leave all the other lesson material unsaid. I might also instruct the people sharing their experiences to not share stories of famous people that are in their genealogical lines, make the lesson about average Joes and plain Janes, give them a moment in the sun.
Okay, so listening to stories about someone else’s ancestors might be every bit as interesting as listening about someone else’s dream they had last night but it probably beats out listening to the logic behind baptisms for the dead one more time.
Quote:Are temple ordinances really essential for salvation?
How I wish we could have a kind, respectful conversation. Has anyone here ever witnessed a real discussion of this on church property?I have on multiple occasions – but only because I initiated it and started with a statement about how much Inlove the symbolism of the temple. It helps that even Boyd K. Packer has said it’s all symbolic in the temple, so I focus on what that symbolism means to me and why it is so powerful even if I don’t take it literally. It’s tricky, but I have had decades of practice negotiating the trickiness – and everyone knows I am fully active and a temple worker. 1) I always use 1 Corinthians 15:29 when I talk about baptism for the dead, specifically because the ONLY logical interpretation is that people in that day believed in vicarious baptism for the dead (“Which are baptized for the dead,” can’t be read any other way.) and that Paul approved of it, since he used it as his capstone argument in support of the resurrection. Literally, his argument for the resurrection in that chapter culminates in that verse, after which he shifts into a descriptive narration of it for the rest of the chapter. It doesn’t prove the actuality of the resurrection, but it proves Paul approved of the practice, regardless of who it was performing the baptisms. I often have described alternative interpretations by Christians who simply can’t accept the only logical reading due to the fact that the Mormons have reinstituted the ordinance. (We do it with some other verses, and I have made that point at times, as well.)
2) I start almost every lesson I teach about the temple with the statement that everything in the temple is symbolic, and I have a couple of quotes handy just in case someone challenges me on that. I then focus the lesson away from the benefit to others and onto the benefit to us. For example, I would focus genealogical research on how it can bind our hearts to our ancestors and teach us about ourselves in important ways.
I can take every quote in the lesson and refocus it that way – and I have found people like that focus more than one more rehash of the same message they’ve heard all their lives.
Old Timer wrote:1) I always use 1 Corinthians 15:29 when I talk about baptism for the dead, specifically because the ONLY logical interpretation is that people in that day believed in vicarious baptism for the dead (“Which are baptized for the dead,” can’t be read any other way.) and that Paul approved of it, since he used it as his capstone argument in support of the resurrection. Literally, his argument for the resurrection in that chapter culminates in that verse, after which he shifts into a descriptive narration of it for the rest of the chapter. It doesn’t prove the actuality of the resurrection, but it proves Paul approved of the practice, regardless of who it was performing the baptisms. I often have described alternative interpretations by Christians who simply can’t accept the only logical reading due to the fact that the Mormons have reinstituted the ordinance. (We do it with some other verses, and I have made that point at times, as well.)
Curt, I am no expert on the topic but it does seem that some experts on the topic do disagree. I believe that Paul did use it in support of his argument yet, he also did not seem to endorse or “own” the practice. I imagine that in the early days of the original church there were probably many diverse practices and beliefs that were coexisting within the church and had not yet been declared heretical and cast out. This was around the same time when the big controversy in the church was whether or not circumcision was required. What was orthodox and what was not was very much in a state of flux.
I believe (again with no claim of expertise on the subject) that Mormons reinstated a the ordinance of Baptism FTD that was practiced by a subset of early Christians. It would therefore qualify as a Christian practice/ordinance but not a central one. The restoration of this ordinance also would not sway me either way as to the divinity of the church. To me, it is as though the LDS church restored a early Christian doctrinal tangent.
Roy, reread what I said. I didn’t say early Chriatians performed it. I said Paul framed his argument in such a way that the only logical conclusion is that some people baptized people for the dead, and Paul approved of it and used it as evidence of the resurrection (at least in the way we have that chapter recorded today). I have read and understood other interpretations, but they simply don’t fit the text – and, as I said, we do that same thing to other verses where the most straightforward interpretation doesn’t fit our beliefs.
It doesn’t work as proof for people who don’t claim the Bible is authoritative and/or inerrant, but there literally is no other way to read the actual passage and verse that makes sense logically and linguistically. Seriously, as worded, it is about as clear and unambiguous as it is possible to be.
Ann wrote:Quote:Are temple ordinances really essential for salvation?
How I wish we could have a kind, respectful conversation. Has anyone here ever witnessed a real discussion of this on church property?Back in 2009 (IIRC) I was called to be a PH instructor (one of the few years I wasn’t a ward missionary
We can certainly have that discussion here. My short version is that I believe that temple ordinances can aid us in our quest for salvation but they aren’t essential to our salvation. No disrespect to the temple whatsoever but a bacon cheeseburger with little blue cheese bits cooked into the burger can aid me in my salvation right about now.
š As to the what Paul meant debate… I only included that in the OP because I was genuinely curious as to how other denominations got around that verse. When I found that people dedicated a portion of their explanation to attempt to convince others that the Mormons were wrong it felt like people were just being defensive of their faith. The Mormons are unique in their perspective and practices, people may have felt uncomfortable with the implications of the Mormons being correct on this principle, thus you get a section of your explanation dedicated to preaching against the competition.
I agree Roy, I think the verse clearly implies that baptisms for the dead was a practice at the time but it’s hard for me to say one way or the other whether Paul fully endorsed it. Whether Paul endorsed it may be immaterial, isn’t the question whether Christ would endorse the practice? For the record, I like the practice. Baptisms for the dead is my favorite part of the temple. It feels like a practice that unites people.
Sometimes we have to make peace with people who have passed on. The temple provides an outlet for that.
Okay – I am not a family history/genealogy gal, however family connections float my boat. I love listening to the stories of older generations. I love the idea of visiting their places of once upon a time if I can. If I were teaching I would invite people to share some fun family stories. Ask a week earlier for everyone to bring a favorite family story and turn the class time over for that. Heroic, religious, memorable, humorous, etc. Explain that the stories don’t have to be church related. Did you ever do a work project with Grandpa? Did Grandma make really great pies and everyone in the family tried to hide their favorite so they didn’t have to share? (True story in my family). Is there a family legend, like we came from the line of the Braveheart family?”
Let the class have it. Wrap it up with a quote from Howard W. Hunter on his love of it. Let the rest go. If someone brings up temple work, nod and move along.
mom3 wrote:Okay – I am not a family history/genealogy gal, however family connections float my boat. I love listening to the stories of older generations. I love the idea of visiting their places of once upon a time if I can.
If I were teaching I would invite people to share some fun family stories. Ask a week earlier for everyone to bring a favorite family story and turn the class time over for that. Heroic, religious, memorable, humorous, etc. Explain that the stories don’t have to be church related. Did you ever do a work project with Grandpa? Did Grandma make really great pies and everyone in the family tried to hide their favorite so they didn’t have to share? (True story in my family). Is there a family legend, like we came from the line of the Braveheart family?”
Let the class have it. Wrap it up with a quote from Howard W. Hunter on his love of it. Let the rest go. If someone brings up temple work, nod and move along.
:thumbup: My favorite lessons are ones like you describe Mom. I’ve gotten to the point where if the teacher starts with “Would someone like to read the first two paragraphs….” I get up and walk out. (OK, sometimes I only symbolically walk out.) I might actually get to teach this lesson – our ward is off track and we probably won’t get to it until next month (as in August). I could see myself doing exactly as you suggest.I could probably teach this lesson by focusing on the binding and healing aspects of the temple. We could tell stories about how it’s helped family members forgive each other, create affection, and so on. That’s the way I look at it, and I always thought there wasn’t much harm done in viewing it more literally: Do this, or you don’t have your family. But, honestly, the talk from April 2016 conference that has stuck with me is Elder Waddell’s. Since it’s on the top of the pile of hits when searching this subject, I’m guessing it will be used a lot when this lesson is taught. He tells this story:
Quote:During a stake conference assignment a few years ago while serving in South America, I met a couple that was grieving the recent death of their infant son.
It was in an interview during the course of the conference that I first met with Brother Tumiri and learned of his loss. As we spoke, he shared that not only was he deeply saddened by the death of his son, but he was also devastated at the thought of never seeing him again. He explained that as relatively new members of the Church, they had saved enough money to attend the temple just one time, prior to the birth of their little boy, where they had been sealed as a couple and had their two daughters sealed to them. He then described how they had been saving money for a return trip to the temple but hadnāt yet been able to take their little boy in order to be sealed to him as well.
Recognizing a possible misunderstanding, I explained that he would indeed see his son again, if he remained faithful, because the sealing ordinance that had bound him to his wife and daughters was also sufficient to bind him to his son, who had been born in the covenant.
Amazed, he asked if this was really true, and when I confirmed that it was, he then asked if I would be willing to speak with his wife, who had been inconsolable during the two weeks since their sonās death.
Sunday afternoon, following the conference, I met with Sister Tumiri and explained this glorious doctrine to her as well. With the pain of her loss still fresh, but now with a glimmer of hope, she tearfully asked, āWill I really be able to hold my little boy in my arms again? Is he really mine forever?ā I assured her that as she kept her covenants, the sealing power found in the temple, effective because of the authority of Jesus Christ, would indeed allow her to be with her son again and hold him in her arms.
Sister Tumiri, though heartbroken by the death of her son, left our meeting with tears of gratitude and filled with peace because of the sacred ordinances of the temple, made possible by our Savior and Redeemer.
I felt so far removed from everyone in the conference center, who (at least in my mind) were nodding, and thinking what an endearing misunderstanding this all was. I wanted to stand up and say, Wait a minute! Isn’t this wrong – telling
anyone, ever,that their loving family is lost unless they do this ordinance? It no longer feels to me like something we should teach stone-cold literally to humble, accepting investigators. And it’s especially off putting to have their “misunderstanding” used in a GC talk that is probably attempting in part to make first world members feel ungrateful for easy access to temples. I do recognize the good that flows from the temple, but am I really a Mormon if I think this story – which is supposed to be sweet and inspiring- is distressing?
Quote:Curt wrote:
I have on multiple occasions – but only because I initiated it and started with a statement about how much I love the symbolism of the temple. It helps that even Boyd K. Packer has said it’s all symbolic in the temple, so I focus on what that symbolism means to me and why it is so powerful even if I don’t take it literally. It’s tricky, but I have had decades of practice negotiating the trickiness – and everyone knows I am fully active and a temple worker.
I like what you’re saying, but, for instance, if the story about the South American couple is told, how could your idea get into the discussion that would follow? Because it all hinges on the ordinance being essential and literal.Great thread…I have so many thoughts swirling…not sure how to frame it all. Nibbler, thanks for really starting this thread that makes this interesting to me. Because so many things at church and with lessons each week on sunday make me feel…IDK…hollow? There are announcements, and greetings and social exchanges which is nice. Then there is about 20 minutes of actual material to discuss…and we scratch the surface…with introducing same old, same old surface stuff that actually doesn’t make a lot of sense to me on some topics, then we end and go home. To me…it is the problem with church. It becomes boring and pointless… …unless I focus on people. People coming together to share thoughts, plan some activities, try to inspire to do good works and find some friends and peace and support.
So…in all these lessons, the material is lacking, the material is rote, it is boring in and of itself. Only when I make it about the people and we share our stories with each other does it become meaningful. And when others share their views, like a literal interpretation, I just remember that is how they see it. SO, I rarely debate it. But I do like to share my views on it being symbolic or mystical. People usually catch on that it is how I see it. Some times people appreciate my views. Sometimes not. Sometimes I am not sure people even are listening. But I guess this prompted me to share how I process all these lessons. People are important to me. The lesson material…I work through that stuff on my own, and come here to share with you all. It doesn’t much matter that others will never agree with me.
Staying LDS for me is about people…despite differences in thought.
OK…anyway…thanks for posting these nibbler. I got side tracked. I will post another posting on the topic at hand.
Regarding “hastening the work” and also this quote:
nibbler wrote:1) Temples are built for performing ordinances that are essential for the salvation and exaltation of Godās children.
Are temple ordinances really essential for salvation? If they are is it essential that the ordinances be done ASAP?
I have hesitancy in buying into this or knowing how to apply it to my life. I have so many priorities…frankly…I’m just not in the season of my life where this really rings true to me that it is so essential or so pressing. Instead, it comes across as someone else’s agenda item. The HPG leader who needs to energize people on this, because they are told to. Prior to being told to…they didn’t make it that priority for their life either. Yet…it helps to have someone push us to remember things we can choose to do. Yes…there will be some people in the ward that love this and take to it and it blesses them.But to make it such an urgency for ALL members. Nah.
How can their be “urgency” for this work? Does God only allow some time to be critical for eternal salvation…his work and glory? And yet…God is totally OK with letting almost 2,000 years go buy without giving people the gospel on the earth to work on it? Is it really urgent to God?
I don’t think so. I think the idea of proxy work for the dead opens the door to help us see God has a way for all, no matter when or where they lived.
So what are our leaders teaching us about urgency?
I think they are teaching us to make use of today, because today is the only time we have to do something. So we should
choose to do good thingswith the time we have today. For me…I have better things to do with my time than genealogy work and temple work. If I didn’t, then this might be something for me to consider. But it isn’t.
I process this “urgency” thing through my filter, and see how the church is teaching me
thisQuote:Here is another suggestion: Donāt worry about those things which you cannot change. If something can be done, do it. If nothing can be done, donāt worry about it. Several years ago, I read an article written about Elder LeGrand Richards. He had just turned age ninety-three. Someone asked him what his secret was for living such a long, happy, and useful life. He said, āI have a verse that has been part of my philosophy throughout my life. Here it is:
āFor every worry under the sun,
There is a remedy, or there is none;
If there be one, hurry and find it,
If there be none, never mind it.ā
[snip]
President Ezra Taft Benson: āIf we want to keep the Spirit, we must work. There is no greater exhilaration or satisfaction than to know, after a hard day of work, that we have done our best. ā¦ Ours is a gospel of workāpurposeful, unselfish and rendered in the spirit of the true love of Christ.ā (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988, pp. 483ā84.)
Each day we live is a day of eternity.
Let us make each day a good day by:
Nourishing faith
Growing through repentance
Following the Savior
Serving in the kingdom
Being happy with ourselves
Not worrying
Working diligently
I do not think Pres Hunter would think I’m unwise if I am using my time to serve the living today, if what I’m doing is in harmony with Christ’s teaching.
We have time, we have eternity, we have a plan that allows for work for the dead. The urgency is using my time today for the best thing I can think of. Today it isn’t genealogy. Maybe tomorrow…I’ll ask the question again then.
I might not tell the South American family story for the same reason you wouldn’t, Ann – but, if it was mentioned, I still would say that the ordinance is symbolic of what the Church teaches (being with lost loved ones again) but not automatic and literally binding. I would say that we all believe that, since we believe people won’t be bound to evil people, for example – by a temple marriage or a baptism or any other temple ordinance. The ordinances symbolize the desires of our hearts – and our faith that God will honor those desires, especially if we show our sincerity by our actions.
At the heart of it, I think that is all Elder Waddell was trying to say, and I think that is what the people listening heard – so I give him and them a pass even though the wording isn’t how I would have said it.
Another thought as I was reading…. Quote:There’s Montanism, an early Christian sect that supposedly engaged in the practice of baptizing corpses. I’m glad that interpretation didn’t float to the top. Poor choice of words.
:sick: One website mentioned that it was a confusing verse with a myriad of explanations, therefore we should approach the topic with humility… and in the very next sentence they basically say “but the one thing we do know is that the Mormons have it all wrong.”
While others focus on how wrong mormons get it (to them), we do it too. We seem to hang our hat on how right we have it and how unique we are and what a blessing it is to have the truth, when everyone else has it wrong. I mean…we seem to think “how can others not see that Paul was teaching this, and yet, we are the only ones…blah blah blah…” as if it proves how wrong others are. We really shouldn’t get pulled in to these arguments about us vs them and who is more right. But we do. And other do too. We are really not as unique as we think. Joseph Smith was just a master at repackaging ancient ideas into one way that seemed to make sense to people.
I am totally in agreement with what mom3 wrote:
Quote:If I were teaching I would invite people to share some fun family stories.
To me, that is what makes it a good lesson.
Ann wrote:I wanted to stand up and say, Wait a minute! Isn’t this wrong – telling anyone, ever, that their loving family is lost unless they do this ordinance? It no longer feels to me like something we should teach stone-cold literally to humble, accepting investigators.And it’s especially off putting to have their “misunderstanding” used in a GC talk that is probably attempting in part to make first world members feel ungrateful for easy access to temples
…
how could your idea get into the discussion that would follow? Because it all hinges on the ordinance being essential and literal.
To me, it seems to become problematic to make it fit into a literal thing, unless you just accept the literal story works for me, I’m not sure how it works for others, but God will make it right. Or…it doesn’t work for me, even if others claim it makes sense to them…so…God will make it right.
In other words…it doesn’t fit nice and neat. There is a level of uncertainty and paradox that leaves room for me to practice faith. Because it isn’t all knowledge.
or…better…just what Ray said. He said it better.
Old Timer wrote:The ordinances symbolize the desires of our hearts – and our faith that God will honor those desires, especially if we show our sincerity by our actions.
At the heart of it, I think that is all Elder Waddell was trying to say, and I think that is what the people listening heard – so I give him and them a pass even though the wording isn’t how I would have said it.
I wish we said, In Mormonism we take conscious steps out of the world and into the temple, God’s consecrated place, to commit ourselves to each other and to Him. Etc. Something like that, instead of whatever combination of lessons and scriptures that imply, If you want to be with your family, this must happen.Quote:I might not tell the South American family story for the same reason you wouldn’t, Ann – but, if it was mentioned, I still would say that the ordinance is symbolic of what the Church teaches (being with lost loved ones again) but not automatic and literally binding. I would say that we all believe that, since we believe people won’t be bound to evil people, for example – by a temple marriage or a baptism or any other temple ordinance.
I realize that we give a little “out” when we talk about it, but it’s just not un-automatic and un-literal enough for a fair number of people in present time. I’m thinking about a good friend whose daughter divorced after a disastrous year-long marriage. She’s not even 23 and the desire of her heart is to be unsealed from her ex, who has remarried in the temple. My husband pulled out a big, long justification for keeping her sealed to him and my eyes glazed over. To me it just looks like antique sexism, and I feel for my friend who’ll be thinking of her daughter during this lesson.Maybe I think too much about the outliers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.