Temple question

[Dwight Schr-ute]

On a side note: If you have a bunch of attractive college co-eds getting soaking wet while wearing whtie clothing, and you can get guys to participate, then maybe there is a bigger issue going on.

You missed the part where he said Rexburg.

[The Rambam]

This is incorrect. There were several Nauvoo-ites who were very excited when the learned about BFTD and went right away to the Mississippi. When Joseph heard about these irregularities, he specifically wrote a letter to correct the practice stating that: male proxies for males and female proxies for females; those who had been done otherwise would need to be redone; and the proper place for BFTD was a temple, but that BFTD outside the temple would be acceptable for a short time until the Nauvoo temple could be finished.

I am skeptical that there is a letter that says all this.

Yes, the gender indiscriminate proxy baptisms were stopped, but I am unaware of any doctrinal reason given. I believe the policy just made sense in the Puritanical and Victorian sexist culture of the time (as it does to the current Church which continues the same culture). I don't believe there is any doctrine behind the policy.

The talk I heard Susan Easton Black give was on baptism for the dead in Nauvoo and she talked at length on the beginnings being trans-gender. She never mentioned that the ordinances had to be redone. Odd for her to leave that out. Do you have a cite? I'd love to read the letter.

[ewth8tr]

This is incorrect. There were several Nauvoo-ites who were very excited when the learned about BFTD and went right away to the Mississippi. When Joseph heard about these irregularities, he specifically wrote a letter to correct the practice stating that: male proxies for males and female proxies for females; those who had been done otherwise would need to be redone; and the proper place for BFTD was a temple, but that BFTD outside the temple would be acceptable for a short time until the Nauvoo temple could be finished.

From what I can find, this doesn't seem to be true, at least according to this.

Gender distinctions between proxy and heir were not made until after
the Prophet's 1844 martyrdom, when Brigham Young assumed leadership
of the majority of the Saints. Young stated in 1845 that "a female
should not be baptized for her male relations," since such was deemed to
be inconsistent with the laws of heaven. Wilford Woodruff later noted,
"When that [baptism for the dead] was first revealed . . . a man would be
baptized for both male and female [but] afterward we obtained more
light upon the subject and President Young taught the people that men
should attend to those ordinances for the male portion of their dead
friends and females for females" (JH 9 April 1857; Nauvoo Baptisms
1841; Whitney n.d.).

Interestingly, 43.9 percent (2,937) of the baptisms performed in 1841
were the cross-gender ordinances that Brigham Young later opposed.
This may explain why a large number of the proxy baptisms from the
Nauvoo years were redone in Utah.

Members of the Prophet's immediate family were active participants,
too. His wife, Emma Smith, was baptized in behalf of her father,
Isaac Hale; Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, performed the ordinance
for her parents, Solomon and Lydia Mack, and for her sister, Louisa
Tuttle; Joseph's brother Samuel was baptized for Uncle David Mack; and
Hyrum Smith acted as proxy for his brother Alvin, whose earlier vision
to Joseph had initiated baptisms for the dead.

[SoonerCoug]

There are some pretty interesting implications of doing ordinances for those of the opposite gender. You could end up with two dudes getting married in a proxy sealing.

[creekster]

This discussion raises interesting questions about the nature of the temple oridnace for the dead and what, exactly, is essential about a proxy. If it isnt gender, what is it about the live body that is needed? WHy do we need ANYONE at all to do it? Why can they all be put in a big scroll and held over the font while a representative shapes is immersed?

[cougjunkie]

not a bad return post.

Other than the fact that it is factually incorrect.

[RC Vikings]

This discussion raises interesting questions about the nature of the temple oridnace for the dead and what, exactly, is essential about a proxy. If it isnt gender, what is it about the live body that is needed? WHy do we need ANYONE at all to do it? Why can they all be put in a big scroll and held over the font while a representative shapes is immersed?

I would like to hear some answers to these questions. Is temple work really more for the living than the dead. To me it still seems like they could streamline the whole process and save a bunch of time and money.

[The Rambam]

Other than the fact that it is factually incorrect.

I assure you Sister Black said exactly what I said she said.

[Sullyute]

There are some pretty interesting implications of doing ordinances for those of the opposite gender. You could end up with two dudes getting married in a proxy sealing.

Especially considering that in past that sealing ceremony ended with the couple kissing.

[Clark Addison]

Didn't they put a stop to missionaries in the MTC doing sealings a while ago, as for some elders this was as much contact as they could legally have with a girl?

I know this isn't completely relevant to the thread, but it made me think of it.

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will admit that I did sealings in the Provo temple while in the MTC, and that I did have a preference as to which sister in our district was on the other side of the altar. I never looked her up when I got home, though.

[The Rambam]

I would like to hear some answers to these questions. Is temple work really more for the living than the dead. To me it still seems like they could streamline the whole process and save a bunch of time and money.

I don't believe in a formalistic God who is standing at the pearly gates greeting those who passed the sentinels' tests along the way (whew!), only to turn back the poor bloke who's two popped up at baptism unnoticed by the witnesses.

I believe that God is above all this silliness. I don't believe the ordinances are for God's benefit. They do nothing for him; unlock no mystical gate; satisfy no greater law to which God is bound.

So they must be for us. Many pages have been written about how participation in ordinances can assist us to learn and deepen commitment to a cause. Maybe more so in previous generations, but ordinances seem to be helpful to most adherents. I don't feel particularly inspired by them, but it isn't all about me.

And they seem to matter greatly to those in the Spirit world.

The first revelation of this dispensation (setting aside the personal first vision) was Moroni citing various scriptures to Joseph. The only one recorded and placed in the DC is now found in section 2 and is a slight variation of Malachi's promise of the return of Elijah and the turning of the hearts of fathers and children.

When John the Baptist comes, recorded in DC 13 and Oliver's version (in the appendix to the JS-H), he says that the priesthood is "that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness".

Joseph, directly and deliberately falling into to the language of John the Baptist (including calling us the Sons of Levi), tell us in DC 128:

"that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation."

Anyone who does family history will have a story or two or twenty about divine assistance in finding records or miraculous communications with or from the dead. I find them too numerous and too close to home to discount as complete fiction.

It seems clear from these instances and others that it matters greatly to those in the spirit world that proxy work be done for them here on earth. The whole earth being wasted is pretty strong language.

But I reject the literal necessity of the ordinances--I just can't by a God that is that petty and concerned with formality. So why do those in the Spirit World care so much?

1. Maybe I am completely wrong and God really is bound by or chooses to impose some restriction overcome by my immersion in water and learning secret handshakes.

2. Maybe those in the Spirit World are wrong. They care, but they shouldn't. I note that the veil is still present in the Spirit World. It is Mormon doctrine that we die and go wait for the resurrection. The see there through the same glass darkly. Sure we know life extends beyond death and that certain tenants of certain religions are therefore false. But we don't know everything. Maybe there is a cult of ordinances in the Spirit World that is really really important. Maybe people are desperate to get their work done. And maybe they are wrong in believing such proxy ordinances are salvational.

3. Any other ideas?

In summary, because I don't believe in the necessity of ordinances to save us, I certainly don't care about whether the ordinance is done gender consistent. Because I believe ordinances are for those participating and not for God, as long as those participating accept the ordinance, the form is unimportant. So because gender roles have been very significant in our Mormon culture, and because dead men have to have a proxy priesthood ordination (and we can't let women get close to that!), fairly quickly after the free-flowing early Nauvoo period of proxy work, gender requirements were imposed.

Such gender rules won't be lifted until and unless the people would get the same benefit in their lives--basically we are stuck (probably appropriately) until sexism dies. And because we are talking about people in the Spirit World, people who lived in far more sexist cultures than ours now, I'm not holding my breath for this change.

[Solon]

Fantastic, Rambam. You have a great way with words.

I think it's interesting that many cultures, over time and distance, have venerated and worshiped their ancestors. The cult of remembrance is one thing, but there's more to it; ancestors are often looked to for guidance and protection. In ancient Greece, it was necessary to leave food and drink, both as offerings but also to commune with the spirits of the dead, who could "share" a meal with the living. (I don't think it's coincidental that the sacrament is a communal meal with a departed god.) It was also necessary to take care of the grave-marker as a sign to other people that the deceased's descendants continued to thrive and were able to pay respects to the departed ancestor.

I think there's a deeply ingrained impulse to look to the ancestors, both in honor/reverence and also for guidance/protection. I consider LDS temple ordinances more in this vein than in the sense of us actually doing anything for the deceased. They've passed on and remain involved only to the extent that the living will recognize them. The focus of all these things is on the here-and-now of those still living.

[fusnik]

I would like to hear some answers to these questions. Is temple work really more for the living than the dead. To me it still seems like they could streamline the whole process and save a bunch of time and money.

It's for the spiritually dead among the living.

If it was about dead people why does the endowment take two hours for one person?

You could streamline the endowment, similar to that which happens for baptisms, and complete thirty ceremonies in the time it takes to do one.

So why do we go through the ceremony, so why the minutiae?

It's to teach the spiritually dead among us to live a God centered existence, to come into full fellowship with ones maker.

Think about the endowment, step by step, promise by promise the church (Peter, James and John) takes you closer to God. But it only gets you so far, there comes a point when you have to go directly to God to get the answers you are looking for. Notice that the things they teach you aren't what God is seeking. You give him answers he ignores your answers and finally tells you directly what he wants you to know. Those who find God are admitted into his presence and thus are spiritually reborn, those who don't go back to the temple again a week, month, year, whatever it is down the line to try again.

[Sullyute]

And they seem to matter greatly to those in the Spirit world.

...

Anyone who does family history will have a story or two or twenty about divine assistance in finding records or miraculous communications with or from the dead. I find them too numerous and too close to home to discount as complete fiction.

It seems clear from these instances and others that it matters greatly to those in the spirit world that proxy work be done for them here on earth. The whole earth being wasted is pretty strong language.

...

1. Maybe I am completely wrong and God really is bound by or chooses to impose some restriction overcome by my immersion in water and learning secret handshakes.

2. Maybe those in the Spirit World are wrong. They care, but they shouldn't. I note that the veil is still present in the Spirit World. It is Mormon doctrine that we die and go wait for the resurrection. The see there through the same glass darkly. Sure we know life extends beyond death and that certain tenants of certain religions are therefore false. But we don't know everything. Maybe there is a cult of ordinances in the Spirit World that is really really important. Maybe people are desperate to get their work done. And maybe they are wrong in believing such proxy ordinances are salvational.

Great post. With as many faith fill stories that you hear about ancestors visting members to do their proxy work, it really does make you think that it is needed. However, maybe with the veil in place, the acceptance of the LDS version of the gospel is just as hard a sell in the next life as it is here. This might explain why only a few of our ancestors are clamouring for their work to be done while others seem to remain silent. Very interesting ideas to think about.

I think it's interesting that many cultures, over time and distance, have venerated and worshiped their ancestors. The cult of remembrance is one thing, but there's more to it; ancestors are often looked to for guidance and protection. In ancient Greece, it was necessary to leave food and drink, both as offerings but also to commune with the spirits of the dead, who could "share" a meal with the living. (I don't think it's coincidental that the sacrament is a communal meal with a departed god.) It was also necessary to take care of the grave-marker as a sign to other people that the deceased's descendants continued to thrive and were able to pay respects to the departed ancestor.

I never thought of the sacrament that way and it opens up a whole new meaning. Thanks!

Think about the endowment, step by step, promise by promise the church (Peter, James and John) takes you closer to God. But it only gets you so far, there comes a point when you have to go directly to God to get the answers you are looking for. Notice that the things they teach you aren't what God is seeking. You give him answers he ignores your answers and finally tells you directly what he wants you to know. Those who find God are admitted into his presence and thus are spiritually reborn, those who don't go back to the temple again a week, month, year, whatever it is down the line to try again.

So is this the excuss that you can give to your bishop as to why you don't have a current temple recommend - I have already communed with God and been spiritually reborn so I don't need to go back.