- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Church was asked by the Jews to quit baptizing holocaust victims, and the church agreed. It made me wonder why a church that focuses on the importance of baptism for the dead would make an exception for one religion. I know some Catholics who were quite offended to find out someone had done the work for their deceased Catholic ancestors. I don’t know why they get offended AP. If Jehovah Witnesses compiled records of my ancestors and did some ordinance something to make them part of the 144,000 to be saved, that wouldn’t make sense to me or bother me. Would it you? I think maybe the Holocaust was just so tragic and sacred, it seemed disrespectful to the dead. I think the Church saw that specific situation had some valid point to not ruffle feathers.
Be anxiously engaged in the salvation of mankind, but be respectful to others.
I think the value is in giving a person a reason to respond/serve in church-mandated ways after baptism. I think the early leaders saw that enthusiasm wore off in members after baptism, and “enduring to the end” became a grind. The temple provides a carrot and stick for the short term that keeps members behavior aligned with church interests — with a two-year check-in point. If you don’t pay tithing, and do all the other things you are supposed to do, then you lose priviledges, cannot see loved ones married, endowed, and cannot conduct certain ordinances. Baptizing, confirming, marrying every dead person who ever lived provides an ongoing job to keep us members on the path of serving the way the church wants.
I don’t believe temple ordinances literally are required for salvation or exaltation – or, at the very least, that we must do them for others. Even if they are necessary, we teach that they all will be done eventually. The service aspect that Holy Cow referenced is more the symbolic practice of honoring every single child of God in a physical, tangible way. It is the symbolism of turning our hearts to others and doing things for them they can’t do themselves There is extraordinary meaning in that principle, and I believe it is meant to carry over to our lives outside the temple – to make us more caring and compassionate toward the living, as well.
Unfortunately, those who see things more literally tend to miss that purpose, which often moves them in the other direction. Opposition in all things just is.
I believe the motive behind performing vicarious temple ordinances was a way to balance an equation, I don’t view it as a form of control. Baptism is billed as an ordinance that is required for our salvation, it was only natural for the saints to worry over the status of their deceased ancestors that had never received a “proper” baptism. JS introduced baptism for the dead during Seymour Brunson’s funeral. He’s quoted as saying:
Quote:…the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God.
I don’t remember many details but I seem to recall that people went nuts baptizing their ancestors in the MIssissippi. You could make the argument that the revelation that required baptisms for the dead to be performed in the temple was a way to inspire a populous that wasn’t enthusiastically working on constructing the temple to step up their efforts.
Old-Timer wrote:IIt is the symbolism of turning our hearts to others and doing things for them they can’t do themselves There is extraordinary meaning in that principle, and I believe it is meant to carry over to our lives outside the temple – to make us more caring and compassionate toward the living, as well.
I think that is beautiful symbolism. But I question if it is a good use of time and money. Wouldn’t it be better to put all that energy into helping the people who need it now? Think about the resources — the mission president, the workers, the upkeep, etcetera. I know the savior said “the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me with you” — as justification for the expense and labor that goes into keeping a temple working.
But I question that logic as I believe I can feel as close to God in my home as I can in a temple…at a fraction of the cost…
SD, for some, there are other options to feel a connection to the living – but there isn’t a better way than genealogy and temple work, ime, for many people to feel a loving, honoring connectness to people of the past – especially on an individual basis. Many religions have shrines and ceremonies of some kind to honor ancestors – and “holy space” is nearly universal in religion. If the only purpose was to connect to the living, temple work would not resonate for me as much as it does – but I truly love the concept and principle of sealing all of God’s children together as one united family.
YMMV
YMMV = your mileage may vary…for you urban dictionary newbies… I agree this is a personal perception on my part… I have also wondered what it means for all of humanity to be sealed . For example, I initiated a venture to get my natural family more united than in the past. I realized that even being a natural family on this earth didn’t really engender the kind of closeness and unity I would hope to have in my personal relationships. I wonder what the practical implications are for relationships,for depth, and intimacy (platonic) are when we are sealed as a large, human family. Aren’t we already that way now out of our common thread of humanity, and isn’t the practical nature of such unity really a matter of personal values and perception? How would the temple change any of that? In some cases it may even blunt it as it creates an in group and an out group.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.