- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m well aware of the numbers problem, but I think there could be a get out clause we don’t know about. I think that the ordinances for the dead (apart from the endowments, which may I say, are a little too time consuming) are a wonderful way of demonstrating our connection to those who ahve gone before us, and appreciating that without them, we would not exist.
It is also a notion of “no one left behind”, which I think is great too.
But what about the people I have done baptisms for? Well, there’s at least one murderer in there and one person involved in political corruption. Will they get through? Who knows…
Brian, as mentioned by many others…. your compass needle post was so thought provoking, i feel fortunate to have stumble on this past thread today and spent much of my Sunday morning contemplating the meaning of your words in my life…you truly live up to your moniker “Valoel”— “Angel of Peace — Wakes us with a serene feeling of inner peace and assists us in resolving conflict within our hearts.” SamBee, I really like that thought…we can connect to OUR relatives. How to solve the numbers thing may be a mystery beyond our ability, but at least for me and my house, we can try to connect. I find peace in that thought. Yes, Heber, and I think it’s probably even more important with more and more of us living in “the eternal present”. We live in a time when many people are divorced in a practical way from their own immediate and extended family, as well as their neighbors – much less their ancestors. We live in a radically disconnected time. Anything that breaks down that type of wall, even in a symbolic way, has real power, imo. When it’s used to turn around and build mortal walls, it’s a problem – but the principle and concept are wonderful to me.
Yeah, and they think fifty years ago is a long time ago too… We recently saw the reaction of another religion to our belief/practice of ordinances for the dead, when Elie Wiesel and other Jews strongly objected to the Church baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Many were angered, and we saw the Church’s response, to instruct members to only submit their family names, not those of people they aren’t related to. It seems like the discussion on this thread could also look at how our temple ordinances are perceived by those of other religions, and how baptizing their ancestors might be perceived by them.
I have a Roman Catholic friend who said she would be absolutely appalled if someone in the Church were to try to do temple work for members of her family. I said that Mormons’ philosophy in doing temple work was that the ordinance is done in order that the gift of the Gospel could be offered to those who had not had a chance to receive it in this life. I stated the rationale (that I have always heard in the Church): The person will have the chance in the spirit world to either
accept or rejectthe “gift.” My friend countered by saying temple ordinances are a form of spiritual coercion to those who are dead. She talked about herself first, and said that when Mormon missionaries come to her door, she has said to them, “But I already have the gift. What can you possibly give me that I don’t already have?” (and this woman is who prays several times a day and who really does have a strong faith in God).
Then she gave me this analogy – “Suppose that you are coming over to my house. I fix you a wonderful dinner – a real feast – the best china, cloth napkins, etc. But I don’t tell you about it. You come into my home and I say to you, ‘Look what I’ve prepared for you! Come on in, sit down, I’ve made all your favorite foods, just for you.’ The problem is you have already eaten and you don’t want to eat the meal. I didn’t tell you what I was doing. But look at all the work I went through. I spent hours preparing the meal for you. Are you going to ‘reject’ my ‘gift’? No, you will feel obliged to eat it, even though you’ve already eaten. So, how is that a free gift? Can the person who is passed on really make a free choice ‘to accept or reject’ the gift?'” Then she said, “don’t try to baptize me when I’m gone, or any of my ancestors. If you do, I’ll come back to haunt you.”
So what do you think? How would you respond? Can people who have passed on truly “accept or reject” the ordinance that was done for them?
Queen Esther
If I don’t take the temple literally, then I might as well do a session for John Doe as much as someone else I don’t know, and more important than the name is to focus on the symbolism. If anyone is offended or asks me to not do their work, I would honor and respect that. But it is out of my control what other zealous Mormons do or who they submit, but for sure I can promise any friends or family not wanting me to submit their names.
I think it has evolved to what we have today, but to me it has meaning when it binds known family members together, all other names are just names.
To a friend using that analogy of the meal, I would tell them they have every right decline the invitation. Mormons believe strongly that choice is an important part of the plan, and the only reason we do proxy work is to give those spirits a choice…it is ALWAYS done under the assumption there are choices and that is actually a cool doctrine that we believe there are still choices and people working on their salvation even after this life.
I kind of get why people become offended when someone of their faith or family has temple work done for them without their permission, but I think that what it boils down to is that they are really offended about the fact that “we” think our faith/church is better or truer than theirs, and that won’t be changing any time soon. If the LDS religion isn’t really “true” then there is no meaning, much less power of coercion associated with the rituals in this life or in any other. It’s just people saying words. What doug said – with one additional thought: Pretty much every other Christian religion sees baptism as binding – as something done only AFTER someone decides to do it.They simply don’t understand how it could be anything but binding. Therefore, no matter what we say, they see vicarious baptism as binding – as coercive. It’s not how we see it, but it absolutely is how they see it. What do we do about it?
Nothing, except to keep saying that we aren’t coercing anyone – that we don’t see it as binding. In this case, we are the ones seeing it symbolically, while the rest of the world takes it literally – because they personally take baptism literally.
Frankly, again, this is one of the reasons I love Mormon theology way more than that of the rest of Christianity. It’s one of the prime examples of how we are so much more universalist than they are when it comes right down to it – and I personally think we ought to emphasize that rather than any other aspect of the disagreement.
Old-Timer wrote:Pretty much every other Christian religion sees baptism as binding – as something done only AFTER someone decides to do it.
I challenge that today. Although they don’t have an answer to the quesiton, I believe most thinking christians do not require baptism for all those in the world that do not have access to christianity.Old-Timer wrote:Frankly, again, this is one of the reasons I love Mormon theology way more than that of the rest of Christianity. It’s one of the prime examples of how we are so much more universalist than they are when it comes right down to it – and I personally think we ought to emphasize that rather than any other aspect of the disagreement.
I remember a story on this. I was at a conference in Geneva Switzerland with probably a dozen and a half other speakers at the conference. So, I noticed that there were 17 beers on the table, and one coke. Yeah, that was in my fully observant days…So the guy across from me was asking where I went to school…and of course I said BYU…then he said, “You’re mormon, aren’t you?”
I responded yes.
“You mormons have solved the problem that all christians have failed to solve — people don’t actually have to become mormons or christians to be saved in your church.”
I said, “well, uh, I don’t think that’s actually what we believe”
He said, “Sure it is, you believe in vicarious ordinances for your ancestors, so that if they don’t have a chance to have the gospel, then they can get it, including baptism, eventually, right”
I said, “Oh, yeah, I see your point.”
So here’s this german guy, enjoying his beer, teaching me about my church.
Now whether or not the ordinance is necessary, LDS doctrine tries, at least, to be fair to everyone. It’s a pretty amazing principle.
As well, we repeat Malachi 4:6, which says, “And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
So we understand that the heart of the children to the fathers means doing geneology work for them. I wonder what it means to turn the heart of the fathers to the children?
wayfarer, I said Christian religion, not thinking Christians. :ugeek: In answer to Queen Esther’s question, and to piggy back on Wayfarer’s comment, I did a post a few years ago quoting an Irish writer. It’s especially appropriate given that the person was Catholic. Quote:What’s the difference, anyway, between baptising the dead and baptising babies? A tiny infant will have as much understanding as a dead person — none at all — of the complex philosophical belief-system it’s being inducted into when baptised, say, a Catholic. Transubstantiation? There’s 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, doesn’t 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?
…
Let’s 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: “Otherwise, 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.” 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.
See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/03/04/baptism-for-the-dead-so-what/ This is my current stance on the topic. I am about 83% confident on this. Since I have not had an open revelation on this, it is completely subject to change, might be complete rubbish, etc. Caveat emptor. Baptisms for the dead was a late doctrine. If you read the sections in the D&C on the topic, you get the impression that it was evolving. Had Joseph not been killed, who knows where it would have gone. If you study the D&C, you get into this theme of the fulness of the gospel and the redemption of the dead. You can’t separate those things. They are coupled. The theme in the D&C presents a series of attempts at building Zion. There is a command to gather, a call to go on missions, a command to care for the poor, and a command to build a temple. That’s the packet that occurs over and over. With the failure of Nauvoo (God commanded it to be built within a certain amount of time, and it never was; God promised the fulness to the institution if they finished, and a curse including rejecting their baptisms for the dead if they failed–they failed), the Lord promised that the baptisms would not count anymore. I have yet to see any scriptural or revelatory argument that the Lord’s rejection has been reversed.
As far as the endowment goes, it is NOT an essential ordinance. The endowment is to exaltation as a temple prep class is to going to the temple. For those who are not able to learn on their own, it can help, but it is not necessary. The endowment represents the progression of an individual to the presence of God. It is not literally the progression of an individual to the presence of God. Both those who are endowed and those who are not will have to make the same changes to their lives in order to qualify to be redeemed from the fall. Does that make sense? It is an aid. It is my belief that Joseph gave the pieces to Brigham because he knew the institution would fail to obtain a fullness (ie establish Zion), and he knew he would be killed, and he wanted them to have something that would lead the truth seeker to the Lord, like breadcrumbs. It has been mutilated and modified from it’s original (and still imperfect) form. It’s still worthwhile to experience, but I don’t see why anyone would consider selling their house to pay for the trip or any other comparable level of sacrifice. It is not the end, but a means to the end.
As far as other ordinances for the dead, NONE were performed during Joseph’s life. I am convinced that they were instituted without revelation, and not binding in any way. Denver Snuffer makes an argument of why the sealing power as we speak of it ceased to be in operation among church leaders after Joseph’s death. I don’t agree with him 100%, but I have done my own study and come to the same conclusion.
Here is my current understanding of how the dead are to be redeemed, based on what I have read and felt:
The individual is meant to follow the Holy Ghost until they are redeemed from the fall and given the sealing power from God himself. They are then sealed up to eternal life, and they can then seal their descendants and ancestors to themselves, then seal themselves to the closest dispensation head. If you research this for yourself, I will believe you will come to the same conclusion. No endowments, no temple sealers, etc.
Here are some bread crumbs to lead you along: Read D&C 132. You will see that a “real” sealing is immediate and permanent provided there is no murder committed. Now go to a sealing, and listen to the words. THEY ARE CONDITIONAL. You aren’t really sealed by the sealer. He just says, in effect, “if you continue to be righteous, someday you will be sealed.” It would appear that the only way to really get sealed today is directly from God. (Also note that in 132 it is clear that only one man can hold the authority to “really” seal at a time in all the world. IF President Monson has that authority, to follow what it says here and the evidence of how Joseph did it, he would either have to seal everyone personally or else authorize each individual ordinance, requiring an intimate knowledge of the worthiness of each candidate. You can study about that. Joseph knew each person very very well. You would have to to seal people permanently).
I hope that doesn’t open up an ugly can of worms for anyone. I am a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Learning these things has not booted me from the church, I am still active. Learning them has, however, strengthened my dependence on Christ and helped me to abandon trusting in the arm of flesh. God is still intimately involved in the salvation of his children, and he has not abrogated that to a man or some group of men. Jesus Christ is the only one that can save you, he employs no servant at the gate to heaven.
optimusmoose wrote:This is my current stance on the topic. I am about 83% confident on this. Since I have not had an open revelation on this, it is completely subject to change, might be complete rubbish, etc. Caveat emptor.
…
As far as the endowment goes, it is NOT an essential ordinance. The endowment is to exaltation as a temple prep class is to going to the temple. For those who are not able to learn on their own, it can help, but it is not necessary. The endowment represents the progression of an individual to the presence of God. It is not literally the progression of an individual to the presence of God.
Wow, that is a very interesting point of view, and I’m excited to learn more. I don’t have time to study what you’ve written right now, but I’m really looking forward to it.Since this is your first post, can we get to know you, by virtue of you posting an introduction in the relevant forum?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.