The July 2009 issue of A Shield & Refuge Ministry Newsletter mentioned an interesting facet of LDS temple ordinances — that of proxy work done on behalf of excommunicated fundamentalist polygamists.
On June 2nd (2009) the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story about recent findings discovered by non-Mormon genealogical researcher Helen Radkey. The Salt Lake Tribune reported,
“Prominent fundamentalist Mormons, most of whom were excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for practicing polygamy while they were alive, have been posthumously re-baptized in LDS temples, a Salt Lake City researcher says.
“Helen Radkey said in a new report that she obtained church records on 20 fundamentalists — from murderer Ervil LeBaron to Joseph Musser to Rulon Jeffs — showing that they’ve been baptized and have had their plural marriages ‘sealed’ for time and eternity by proxy LDS members, one as recently as this year.” (The article, “Polygamous fundamentalists baptized by proxy into LDS Church, researcher says,” is in the Salt Lake Tribune archives and can be downloaded for a fee. However, the entire article can also be found at the ICSA website.)
On Mormon Curtain Ms. Radkey has detailed her research findings, including names, dates and historical background information on many of the fundamentalists for whom LDS temple work has been performed. For example,
“Rulon Clark Allred was born into a polygamous family in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Allred’s decision to take plural wives came in his twenties following what he described as a vision. That decision resulted in the estrangement of his first wife, Katherine Lucy Handy, whom he had been sealed to in the Salt Lake (LDS) Temple in 1926. Allred was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1940 for practicing polygamy. In 1941, his plural wives were also cut off from the Church… Allred was murdered in his office in Murray, Utah, on May 10, 1977, on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, the head of a rival polygamous group. At the time of his death, Allred was the husband of at least seven wives, the father of forty-eight children, and the spiritual leader of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists. Although the 1926 marriage sealing between Allred and Handy was annulled in 1942–Handy remarried in 1940–online IGI records still display the original 1926 sealing. Several of these records also list Mabel Finlayson, a plural wife of Allred, as an additional spouse. …Allred was posthumously baptized as recently as January 29, 2009 in the Ogden Utah Temple. He was previously baptized in 2001, 2002, and 2008. He was endowed and sealed to his parents in 2002 and 2008. Mormons gave plural marriage for Rulon Allred a recent thumbs up-when he was sealed by proxy to two of his wives, Ruth Rachel Barlow, and Ethel Jessop, on December 16, 2008 in the Ogden Utah Temple…”
A Shield & Refuge Ministry asks, “Why does the LDS Church condemn the practice of polygamy by Mormon fundamentalists, while at the same time, their temple system accepts deceased Mormon fundamentalists and many of their plural marriages?” That’s a good question.
It has long been understood within Mormonism that polygamy will be practiced to some degree in eternity. Three current Mormon apostles have been eternally sealed in the temple to two women each (Dallin Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson are all widowers who have been remarried for time and eternity). But the polygamy of Mormon fundamentalists is quite different. Unlike the Mormon apostles who have but one living wife at a time, the fundamentalists have multiple living wives, and that in defiance of the laws of the Church and the land.
The polygamy of Rulon Allred (and so many others) was a sin requiring excommunication from the LDS Church. These men never repented in life. If they do so in death, according to Mormonism, their forfeited Church-membership blessings may be returned to them. Additionally, because of vicarious temple ordinances their (illegal) plural wives will be theirs for all eternity as well. They will (perhaps) become Gods and reign forever with their wives in their polygamous kingdoms.
Joseph Smith reportedly taught that the “dominion and powr” of a man’s eternal glory was directly tied to the number of wives and children he gained in mortality (see Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 99; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 10-11). LDS author Todd Compton summarized,
“Thus in Smith’s Nauvoo ideology, a fullness of salvation depended on the quantity of family members sealed to a person in this life” (In Sacred Loneliness, 11, emphasis in the original).
How does all this fit together for the excommunicated Mormon fundamentalists and their wives? It appears they may gain a greater eternal glory than those faithful Mormons who obeyed the prophet and lived monogamously.
Well this all does make perfect sense but you have to be able to think Mormon to understand it. It’s just another one of those deep meaty spiritual truths that we nonMormon milk drinkers can’t even begin to understand. For me, the Mormon member’s psychological pretzel contortions are the interesting part of the whole issue. When you become a Mormon, you deposit your brain in a basin in the temple. From that time on, you just accept all this weirdness.
So we got a guy getting a revelation that he should practice polygamy. He and his wives get the boot from Utah based LDS Inc. He dies, and gets reinstated to practice the “ordinance” for which he got the boot. It all makes perfect sense in the world of Mormonism.
The hard core TBMs have had their brains pickled to an extent that they don’t even see the irony in this. I keep wondering what the Mormon women think about this whole program. They’re expected to give head-bobbing consent to anything that goes on in Mormonism so I doubt if they would even raise objections should any occur to them. When hubby is on the fast track to becoming a god, I suppose being wife number one would give a woman rank and the other wives would be her attendents and hubby’s concubines.
When someone buys a lie and gets their entire thinking process flipped, nonsense becomes sense. This is a picture of Mormonism.
Sharon, the nature of temple work being open to millions of members certainly gives room for anomalies.
David, see the other thread for my response to your post.
FALCON
There you go again with the insinuation that the LDS have no intelligence.
First of all, there is really no restriction as to whom you can act as proxy for in the temple. The only one i can think of is that they have to have been of the age at which such ordinances were required. Otherwise the church allows you to be proxy for anyone you want.
There was a time a short while ago that the church had to bring in computers to catalogue all the ordinances done in each temple into one easily accessable index, as there were people who were being baptized seven or eight times by different descendants in different parts of the world.
Now, as to the specific people you speak of, even though they had this work done, I highly doubt they will reap the reward of it. They had their chance, and have lost it. Considering LDS doctrine the very idea makes no sense whatsoever, as it is not the ordinance allone that brings salvation.
However, as I do not know for sure (though it would suprise me greatly if it was otherwise) I cannot make any deffinite comments. There is nothing wrong with a person to do the work for a loved ancestor. But altimately, it is the ancestors life in this mortal existance that will determine if they take effect.
What I got out of the information in this post is that it only blurs the LDS stance on polygamy. To me, it states that they really are just giving lip service to the ban and otherwise fully accept it. It makes me wonder if Utah had been allowed a state without the political pressure if they ever would have gotten rid of it.
Shem’s answer that he doubts they’ll recieve the benefit of baptizing is interesting, because it misses the point. The baptizing appears to condone what they did rather than being serious about what they were banned for and kept them out of the church. So, its not about what they’ll (those baptized) do after baptism, but why would the LDS church baptize them?
Well Shem,
You seem to be fixated on whether or not I think you and your fellow Mormons are very smart. I would guess you have at least average intellectual horsepower, but there’s a particular brand of identifiable, stereotypical form of thinking in Mormonism that keeps the adherents locked in the Mormon box. To breakout of it results, quite often, in the person leaving Mormonism.
So to insure that folks keep marching to the beat of the Mormon drum, there’s a pattern of conditioning that goes on that keeps the folks locked into the program and the primary motivator is fear. Once a Mormon can’t be intimidated any more by fear, they are set free to think big thoughts and live a life not dominated by group think and group sanctions, but on their own terms. For example, Mormons are conditioned to believe that if you leave Mormonism you’ll go to outer darkness….scary out there. If you leave Mormonism you’ll go crazy, end-up a drunk or a drug addict or a prostitute and of course you can never be happy a part from Mormonism.
Lyndon Lamborn recently released a book detailing his glide path out of Mormonism titled “Standing for Something More”. I haven’t read it but I intend to. He not only chronicles his path out of Mormonism but addresses the topic of the emotional, psychological mind set of folks trapped in groups such as Mormonism. That’s really why Mormonism builds into its structure, forms of thinking and sanctions for not thinking in a prescribed manner.
The beauty of coming to Christ in faith and knowing Him in a personal way, is the freedom a person experiences. Leaving Mormonism in and of itself would be freeing. Knowing Jesus in a personal way puts someone in a whole new demension of spirituality.
Shematwater,
You said that there are “really no restriction as to whom you can act as proxy for in the temple.” That’s not exactly the full truth is it? As I understand it Members are only to submit the names of family members, the person must have been dead for a year unless under 21 and “worthy” (who judges that I am not clear on), and the next of kin needs to give permission if the person died less than 95 years ago (how this is verified I am unclear on).
Now if this is just an “anomaly” like President Obama’s mother, and the Jewish Holocaust victims this brings into question how seriously many Mormons are taking their temple practices and why they feel compelled to ignore the instructions they are given regarding this work by their prophets.
gundeck,
You provide criteria or a type of performance standard by which these baptisms might be done. I think it’s embarrassing that excommunicated polygamist can be ritualized, after death, into the fast track of the Celestial kingdom. I doubt if these folks would have any more interest in the Utah Mormon church performing these rituals for them then Jews or members of any other religion.
The fundamentalist have their own revelation, their own temples and their own rituals. The FLDS is more aligned with Joseph Smith/Birgham Young Mormonism than is the current Utah bunch. The FLDS didn’t run scared when public opinion forced the SLC Mormons to change their practices. So it’s really presumptous on the SLC Mormons to be doing this at all.
But the bottom line is that Mormonism is a maze of confusion. Why else would they do the routine on Hitler when the guy was a murderer?
Falcon,
I understand what you are saying I just find it odd that Shematwater would misstate his Churches doctrine and that Jason Rae would chalk it up to “anomalies”. If the goings on in the temples are as serious as we are led to beleive why would there be “anomalies” and why are members ignoring or denying the clear teaching of their prophets?
I would just like to comment that Jason Rae is correct in that “the nature of temple work being open to millions of members certainly gives room for anomalies.”
Specifically, the process of adding family names to the IGI (International Genealogical Index) operates on an honor system and specifically requests that submissions be a direct relation to the submitter if the individual is recently deceased or within (I believe it is 95 years) of the birthdate. This is verified by the computer through the date of birth on the Personal Ancestry File submitted.
Hence, relatives of FLDS deceased can legitimately submit their relatives’ names given that the FLDS individuals were not members of LDS Church. It gets a little more complicated when dealing with ex-communicated LDS members as the IGI system does not discern disfellowshipment, excommunication or other Church status of names submitted.
Suffice it to say that the performance of proxy temple work by a relative does not ensure that such proxy work (i.e. baptism for the dead and sealings) will be accepted by the deceased in the hereafter. It is entirely up to the deceased to accept or reject any proxy temple work performed on their behalf.
Given that the individuals specifically referred to in this thread were excommunicated from the LDS Church it would seem unlikely that they would accept the Gospel in the hereafter which they had previously rejected in this life. However, that is not our judgment to make so we perform the temple ordinances for our ancestors regardless their past behavior.
I hope that this clarifies this issue.
To go on a bit with what St Crispin said, all people on this earth need to be baptised by the correct authority (according to the LDS church) to enter the CK. For those who did not receive that opportunity in this life, they are done by proxy work in the temple. Now in saying that, those who were excommunicated in this life from the LDS church can be ‘re-baptised’ into the church if they have shown proper repentance of their misdeed/sin. The process for this re-baptism is different to normal baptism and needs the permission of the First Presidency before this ordinance can be performed. these people who died while excommunicated still need to be baptised to give them the opportunity of repentance and re-joining the LDS church just the same as those who are still alive. Ultimately it is up to God to determine if they have accepted the batism or not – which determines whether they enter the CK or not.
As to their being sealed to all their wives, the same thing happens to everyone else who is now dead and had more than one spouse – including women, they are sealed to all the husbands they had in this life. The reason told to me about this is so they have their choice to whom they will remain sealed if they enter the CK. The other sealings will be null and void once the choice has been made. But that is for those who were not sealed on this earth – meaning that any member now who gets sealed to one spouse, she dies and he remarries and is sealed to the second, will keep both if the covenants are not broken. But no woman can be sealed to more than one man – except for the above circumstance, but in the CK she will have to make a choice to stay sealed to only one.
At least this is what I have been told/understand.
St Crispin, your 2nd to last paragraph is interesting when you compare with the following scriptures from the Bible:
Psalm 49: 7-8 ” 7 – None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give God a ransom for him: 8 – For the redemption of their soul is precious (and it ceaseth for ever:)
Isaiah 38: 18 “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee, they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.”
Ecclesiastes 9: 5-6 ” 5 – “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead not not any thing, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten., 6 – Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is no perished: neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”
Hebrews 9: 27, “And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”
Matthew 22: 31-32, ” 31 – But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying: 32 – I am the God of Abrahma, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
It’s scriptures like these that caused me to leave the LDS Church. Please read the Bible and pray about it.
Oops, I might of had type or two, not intended.
I think Larry brings out the second of two points regarding this practice. First of all the practice itself is bogus like the religion that it emanates from. It’s not supported by scripture, however in Mormonland, scripture takes a back seat to revelation. Revelation stands alone in Mormonism and doesn’t have to have a Biblical (certainly) foundation. Mormonism’s brag of continuous revelation in which basic foundational principals are violated in light of new revelation leaves it on a foundation of sand (if even that solid). The one thing it does do however, is allow the religion to dismiss previous practices or teachings and simply move on like it never happened.
I hate to be the one to break the news to our Mormon friends, but they aren’t hearing from God. It’s like that verse in the Bible that says the false prophets are speaking out of their own imaginations. Mormons are obliged to accept anything that comes from headquarters without even a whimper of dissent or disagreement. That’s why it would be the rare Mormon on this blog, who would say “This practice is idiotic. What in the world are they thinking?” It’s always support the party line without question.
1 Timothy 1:4 – “Neither give heed to FABLES and ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Titus 3:9 – “But avoid FOOLISH QUESTIONS and GENEALOGIES, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are UNPROFITABLE and VAIN.”
Acts 7:47-49 – “But Solomon built him [God] an house. Howbeit the most High DWELLETH NOT IN TEMPLES made by human hands; as saith the prophet. Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?”
Mormons, please explain how what you are doing for the excommunicated (sons of perdition) square up with your other teachings in the Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth”), Alma 34:31-36:
31 Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, NOW IS THE TIME and THE DAY OF YOUR SALVATION; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.
32 For behold, THIS LIFE is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of THIS LIFE IS THE DAY FOR MEN TO PERFORM THEIR LABORS.
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after THIS DAY OF LIFE, WHICH IS GIVEN US TO PREPARE FOR ETERNITY, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein THERE CAN BE NO LABOR PERFORMED.
34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies AT THE TIME THAT YE GO OUT OF THIS LIFE, that SAME SPIRIT will have power to possess your body IN THAT ETERNAL WORD.
35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and HE DOTH SEAL YOU HIS; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is THE FINAL STATE of the wicked.
36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in UNHOLY TEMPLES, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell;
Falcon wrote “The FLDS is more aligned with Joseph Smith/Birgham Young Mormonism than is the current Utah bunch. … So it’s really presumptous on the SLC Mormons to be doing this at all.”
Good point.
How would the Utah LDS feel if the FLDS baptized their dead in order to ‘restore’ them from the apostate (Utah) LDS movement?
Not enough wives? No problem, we’ll just do some proxy work by someone who has.
Perhaps there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about this Temple work, which is that it is done to benefit the deceased.
Its not.
Its done so that the faithful Mormon can earn further loyalty points by doing this proxy stuff, which will increase his ranking in the hierarchy.
You’ve got to work your way up that ladder, don’t you know. Take every opportunity to get those stamps – even if the ‘work’ makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Martin,
Spot on! Now if the Mormon church can figure out a way to extract the 10% $$$$$ from the excommunicated, now dead reinstated to good graces polygamists, those boys will be ushered by Joseph Smith right through the veil and into the highest range of the Celestial kingdom and onto their own godly thrones.
Actually these dead polygamists don’t need the blessing of the SLC bunch to get in anyway. Joseph Smith is probably doing back flips off of his own throne to have some dudes around that actually did, in life, what he directed them to do if they wanted to reach the highest realm of the Celestial kingdom.
The Utah Mormon bunch make-up their rules as they go along and call it revelation. Basically it’s a free-for-all; sort of like when right after Joseph Smith was killed and all of these guys were racing to have all sorts of folks “sealed” to them whether they were men or women. It was all about building up their own personal organization for the afterlife.
You’d think that these SLC Mormon faithful would catch onto the scam after a while.
Martin writes that LDS temple work is done “so that the faithful Mormon can earn further loyalty points”.
This is of course complete rubbish and Martin knows it.
The LDS Church would not be spending billions of dollars constructing hundreds of temples throughout the world so that its members could earn “loyalty points”.
As usual, Falcon’s incredibly inane comments are simply too idiotic to comment on. Falcon you should stick to your phallic fantasies of seeing mystical erections in the Book of Abraham. That is more on your level.
Andy is of course quoting scriptures out of context. The early Christians most certainly practiced baptism for the dead or why else would Paul make mention of its practice (see 1 Corinthians 15:29).
LDS temple work (i.e. baptism for the dead, sealings, and endowments) is performed in behalf of the deceased. It is the prerogative of the deceased to accept or reject the Gospel ordinances performed on their behalf.
st.crispin,
Your answer skirts my point. If the “IGI operates on an honor system”, why are faithful Mormons violating that system? The Church bureaucracy has been aware for quite some time that members of the Church are violating this honor system. If these rituals are so important one would expect the bureaucracy to implement safeguards to prevent or deter violations of the honor system.
Gundeck,
You ask a good question: “If the “IGI operates on an honor system”, why are faithful Mormons violating that system ?.”
As Jason Rae mentions in his post, millions of people are using the International Genealogical Index ( IGI system). It is not surprising that a few individuals may not necessarily understand how to use the IGI system or may not be following the posted guidelines which specifically state that names of recently deceased (i.e. deceased within the last 95 years) should not be submitted unless the submitter is a direct relative.
Still no system is foolproof and hence the anomalies.
The fact that the Bible says, You die once then the judgment happens and Jesus is the Only Mediator between God and Man shows a huge problem with LDS theology.
How can we die and have judgment if proxy baptism is true? They both cannot be true. Then if Jesus is the only Mediator, that poses a problem with the idea for LDS standing in the place of Jesus and being the mediator for us. Rick b
There are big problems there, and even worse the 1 Cor verse is badly taken out of context. Actually, I would submit that it is a great example of why you shouldn’t base doctrine off of one isolated verse. It only leads to problems, as exemplified above.
Hey Michael p,
Who are you speaking to when you said,
Rick,
SOrry for my unclear audience. But I was speaking generally, and echoing the sentiments that biblically Baptism for the dead (and the possibility folks will repent post death) is problematic. Then I said that it is problematic to base doctrine off of a single verse without careful consideration. The verse in Corinthians is a difficult verse, but in context, it is something very different than what Mormons portray it as. I read it as Paul saying it just isn’t necessary, and that the people who do it do it in error. I also read it in a way that suggests that the people who did do not really believe in Christ. This is an abbreviated summary, but in short, while it may be that people did baptize for the dead back then they were wrong for doing so.
As such, the present Mormon doctrine based off of the one verse only leads to problems.
St. Crispin asked why would Paul mention the practice? He fail to see the possibility that Paul was saying it was wrong!
polygamist attempt to claim legal license to more than one spouse this is illegal ….it’s not the norm but I accepted my first marriage when I was twelve and my second when i was twenty three…I love both with all my heart and would never hurt a hair on either head. sex laws and control have nothing to do with anything it’s about LOVE and if you don’t “get it” I’m sorry for you and I pray for you and recommend you re-read the gospels carefully. I’m not vocal about it mostly because I think it is too often abused and done irresponsibly or for the wrong reasons..BUT it is Good and blessed…If you are. Joe
Michael P.,
Paul does make mention of the practice of baptism for the dead. Indeed this ordinance was widely practiced by early Christians and STILL IS by the Coptic Church. The Roman Catholic Church replaced baptism for the dead with saying prayers and mass for the dead.
The notion that “the present Mormon doctrine is based off of the one verse ” is false. LDS doctrine concerning temple work is based on modern revelation. The brief mention by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:29) merely demonstrates (along with many other early Church documents) that the ordinance of baptism for the dead was widely practiced by early Christians.
Andy, Mormon critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is somehow anti-Biblical (as you cited 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9). However, the Bible clearly does not reject all uses of genealogy as evidenced by its many genealogical lists including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself (see Matthew 1:1-24 and Luke 3: 23-38).
What Paul was condemning was not genealogy per se but the practice of compiling long lists of ancestors to justify a claim to greatness or righteousness by way of lineage. In John 8:31-33 Christ was trying to teach a group of Jews that His word would set them free. Those Jews, themselves followers of Jesus, responded “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man”. They believed that their Abrahamic ancestry made them righteous. This is the attitude that Paul warned against in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9. This attitude is nothing like that exhibited by Latter-day Saints in their genealogical work today.
GUNDECK
From my words it should have been clear that I did not have a full knowledge, but to my understanding I gave.
Also, submitting names is not acting as proxy, and this restriction of submitting only your family members applies only to those who died in the past hundred years (or 95 or what ever the figure is). With so many people submitting so many names it should come as no surprise that things like this happen. There is no way on Earth to prevent it, and to try and prevent it would slow he work far too much.
These anomolies are allowed to pass through for the sake of those who are worthy. After all, if we fail to perform the work for 100 who are worthy because we are afraid of doing so for one who is not we have caused more harm than good.
MICHEAL
I do not think this shows an acceptance or condoning of those who are baptized accept on the part of the individuals who submitted the names. The church leadership is far to busy to go over every name submitted at every temple to make sure these things don’t happen. Even the individual temples are too busy to do background checks on each name.
This is an acceptance that people want to do the work for all men, and that they love their families. It is nothing more than this. This is my point.
Joe_cross,
You’ve got to be the first bonifide, real deal polygamist we’ve had on Mormon Coffee. Welcome, I hope you stick around and give us the scoop from your perspective. I don’t agree with anything you said, but I’m glad to have you around here and in the mix.
I’d be curious that when you die, if you’d like the SLC Mormons to do the ritual for you and seal your wives to you and that whole deal? Also, do you think these nonpolygamist Mormons are going to reach the highest rung on the Celestial scale if they don’t have more than one wife?
Thanks for your response.
The Falcon
FALCON
Your discription of the LDS church seems very foreign. I have never experienced anything like what you say, and people who have have not understood the doctrine.
I have never followed this church out of fear, and I don’t know anyone who has.
As to being cast into outerdarkness for leaving, this is simply not true. There are many good people who have left the church. While they will never be in the Celestial Kingdom, they will still most likely be in Terrestial, and thus still in heaven. It is only those who become hateful and violent towards the light that they left who will be cast into outer darkness (who concent to the Death of Christ as it is put in Section 132 of the D&C).
As to not being happy, this is a common side effect, but it is not generally refering to this life. This life of sorrow will be in the eternities. The reason is simple. If you leave you have lost your chance of an eternal family, and when you get to heaven you will realize this.
Let me ask you a simple question, and please answer it without preaching at how it can’t happen, because it is a hypothetical.
When you get to heaven, if you discover that the LDS church was right, how will you feel?
Shem, I’d like to give my response to your question to Falcon. If I die and find out Smith was correct, I will follow it. I will still have that chance, right?
But let me ask you the converse: if you die, and find out that Smith was wrong and the LDS faith is wrong, and we were right, how will you feel? What then can you do about it?
I am reminded of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man lobbies Lazarus to help get him out of hell. I don’t think that story helps you much.
As to the condoning, well, if they find out about it and do nothing, is that OK? What is that saying? I do understand you say that it is only to give people an option of being saved, but I’ll just say it this: something smells fishy about it, especially given that we have had discussions over the likes of Hitler and whether he oculd be saved, with us saying yes and you saying no. Yet, he has been baptized. The same logic should be applied when members have been banned, no? It kind of strikes me as the fluid faith you follow, where you can take whatever position is suitable to the situation.
I personally don’t think this is the most important issue from Mormonishm, that you baptize after their death those who were banned, but I do think it exemplifies how Mormons can bend to just about any position they see as necessary.
Shem,
I suggest you take a trip over to:
http://www.themormoncurtain.com
Pick any of the forums and read what the exMos or soon to be exMos are saying. Now this is just one website, but I could give you more where people who were in the Mormon program and left share their stories. Now it would be extremely easy to dismiss them giving the two standard Mormon responses for those who flee: 1. Someone offended them, 2. They’ve fallen into sin. I’d be curious as to your impression of what those folks say. Are they lying?
As to your hypothetical question, I don’t do hypothetical for a variety of reasons. It’s like with abortion; would you make a twelve year old deaf, blind cognitively disabled child who was raped by her stepfather have the baby? So if you say “yes” you’re an unfeeling, awful person. If you say “no”, now you’ve just gone on record supporting abortion.
But to play your game: I wouldn’t care one wit. Why? Because I’ve placed my trust and confidence in Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the Cross. If that’s not enough to secure eternal life for me, so be it. I haven’t found any other way to the Father except through Jesus. If you think the pathway to the Father is through Joseph Smith, you’re the gambler. Jesus or Joseph? I choose Jesus. I think I’m on firm ground.
I’d like to comment on the “love” rhetoric espoused by Joe_cross. There was a time when I was following a false spirit, having an affair with a woman who believed God had told her to practice inverted polygamy (I don’t know the technical term for when a woman has more than one husband). While following a false spirit, I was certain that the LORD was sanctioning my behavior because I “loved” her, and that we were living the “higher” law of love. The reason the “regular” members (Mormons) couldn’t be taught this at this time was because they didn’t quite understand the concept of love. During this time, I felt as if I was more in love with my wife than ever before. I experienced hair-raising spiritual experiences that all seemed to point me in the direction of believing that my affair was actually an act of obedience to God. I will not deny that my thinking or my behavior during this time was nothing more than my desire to satisfy the lust of the flesh and to rationalize it–the works of a reprobate mind. As I write this, I know there will be those who think they can discount what I say because of my past sin life (as you can see, the comments don’t keep me from praising my LORD for saving me while I was yet a sinner). The point is that a false spirit appears as an angel of light, and when we go by “feelings” rather than the revealed Word of God, we can quickly go astray. All I had to do was read the Bible to see that my “experiences” were not of God. I espoused the same rhetoric as Joe_cross, and felt like I had “gotten it.” Boy, was I wrong. But God saved me. His desire to save us is truly unfathomable. He saved me from the lies I had willingly believed. It’s not about my sins. It’s about the power and will of God to save such a soul as I! Mormons can’t grasp this concept, and it’s basic to the gospel message. My righteousness is Christ’s righteousness, and all praise and glory belong to Him for saving a wretch as I!
Peace and Grace
St.crispin-
1 Cor 15:29
Notice that Paul says “what should they do who baptize for the dead?”
He uses the word “they” not “we”. In the Greek it is baptizontai. It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.
In the nearby city named Eleusis, there was a pagan religion that practiced baptism for the dead.This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.The Corinthians were known for being influenced heavily by customs of others. Paul was refuting this idea of baptism for the dead. He is basically saying What shall the pagans do which are baptized for the dead?…why do the pagans do this? he is pointing out that the Corinthians are following the pagan customs which are incorrect.
I hope this helps to explain this verse a little better. It is just one of the many verses that Joseph Smith took and ran with creating an entire doctrine out of it.
jackg,
I don’t know how you do it, but I praise God that you have the courage to be so open in sharing your past experiences prior to coming to Christ. I know that when I read accounts like your’s, I don’t have a judgmental attitude because I know that the Bible tells us that if we’ve broken one of God’s laws weve broken them all. So in that sense we are all adulterers, fornicators, murderers, thieves, gluttons, drunks, slothful, prideful, greedy, envious slimey no good sinners.
You are right, Mormons don’t get the concept of God’s unconditional love, mercy and grace extended to us in our faith in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The blood of Christ is the only solution to our sinful condition. But when we come to Christ and repent of our sins, agreeing with God about who we are, we are born again. The life we then lead is a process of sanctification, where-by we are transformed in our behavior, by God’s Holy Spirit. Paul says something like “Should we continue in sin that God’s grace might abound still further? May it never be. How can those who have died to sin still live in it.” Best I can do from memory.
Roxanne,
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I’ve been trying to communicate to our Mormon friends the concept of correct and accurate Biblical interpretation. You provided an example of what needs to be done in order to comprehend the meaning of a Bible passage. My hair is blown back! It’s too bad that women are suppose to remain silent in the Church. (falcon humor)
My friend, Falcon,
Thank you for your kind words, but I have to say that it has nothing to do with courage, but more to do with bragging on Jesus Christ, my LORD and Savior, my God, my Redeemer, my EVERYTHING!!! His mercy and grace are beautiful beyond description. I understand that we live in a Fallen World, and that our proclivity is for sin. I call it the Adamic DNA. The wonderful thing is that our God UNDERSTANDS this about us and works to imprint His Spirit DNA into our hearts so that we are made into a new creature, a child of God, a saint instead of a sinner. It’s not about me, but about the love God has for me and His willingness to love me JUST BECAUSE!! Jesus found me as an adulterer and transformed me into a faithful husband and child of God. We have all been called to tell others of the wonderful work God has done in us so that others will know that we worship the true and living God, and to glorify His Name forever. Now, that is indeed GOOD NEWS!!
Grace and Peace!
Roxanne,
May I humbly suggest what you have written concerning 1 Corinthians 15:29 is your own forced interpretation (like that of so much of evangelical theology) and completely ignores the history of Christianity. Contrary to your incorrect assumption the Corinthians were not following some local pagan custom but were rather conducting an ordinance regularly performed in many other parts of the early Christian world.
The facts are straightforward and clear, baptism for the dead was a widely practiced ordinance amongst the early Christians and STILL IS amongst the Coptic (Egypt), Ethiopian and Mandaean (Iraq and Iran) churches. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church STILL practices proxy works by saying of prayers and mass for the dead.
This fact that the Church Fathers knew of and acknowledged the practice of baptism for the dead is attested to in many of their writings. Tertullian noted the existence of proxy baptisms amongst the Marcionites and wrote that the practiced was based on the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:29. St Chrysostom describes the Marcionite practice of baptism for the dead (Homily XL on 1 Corinthians 15).
The practice of baptism for the dead was phased out in the third and fourth centuries amongst some of the Christian Churches (Roman Catholic for example) but has continued to this day in the Coptic, Ethiopian and Mandaean Churches.
Evangelical theology, representing a rejection of apostolic Christianity, ignores much of the tradition of the early Christian church. Hence, it is not surprising that evangelical theology rejects the Christian priesthood ordinance of baptism for the dead along with all other Christian priesthood ordinances such as baptism for the living.
Crispin responded to my earlier comments as follows;
“Martin writes that LDS temple work is done “so that the faithful Mormon can earn further loyalty points”.
This is of course complete rubbish and Martin knows it.
The LDS Church would not be spending billions of dollars constructing hundreds of temples throughout the world so that its members could earn “loyalty points”.”
Crispin, please be more circumspect in assuming what I “know”. What I “know” is this; that there is a remarkable similarity between the Mormon system of religion and the European (Roman) Catholicism of the 16th Century on the eve of the reformation.
Protestants usually follow the development of theological thought through this period, but what I think gets overlooked is how these theologies shaped religion as a whole. Given that Luther’s theology was not that far removed from Rome’s (he didn’t challenge the idea of purgatory, for example) I wonder what was more important – the theology or the religious culture. Rather, it wasn’t the theology that mobilized the masses; it was the way it got worked out in practice.
If you look at pre-reformation religion, you’d see that one of its defining characteristics was that it was self-serving. The Roman Church had developed an elaborate system which fostered dependence on the church with the promise of personal reward at the end (sound familiar yet?).
The selling of Indulgences by John Tetzel in Luther’s home town brought this to a head. Now an indulgence was something that I bought in order to ease the purgatorial torments of my dead relatives (hmmm…). Originally, they were ‘bought’ by doing certain rites, pilgrimages and rituals, but when the Pope wanted to build St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, cash became acceptable.
The Reformers response was to argue the Gospel of Grace – they argued from scripture that you cannot ‘buy’ salvation, not for you or your dead relatives, which caused a bit of a problem with the ‘Temple-Builders’ in Rome.
…What might have given the Reformers popular support then, was their resistance to the self-serving culture of Roman Catholic religion.
We can go into length at how the Mass also fostered complete dependence on the Roman Priesthood, and why dissent against the church was popularly perceived to be a damnable, unthinkable thing.
What I find remarkable though, is that we could run through the issues that caused such division in the Reformation and line them up with almost identical issues in the conflict between Mormonism and Protestant Christianity. However, now, for example, instead of Indulgences, we have Proxy Baptism for the Dead. The dependence on the church for ‘heavenly blessing’ is another striking similarity.
I think the irony is that Mormonism hates the thing that it is most closely related to; pre-reformation Roman Catholicism.
St. Crispin-
I am well aware that many offshoots of true Christianity practiced pagan rituals. But, it was well known that the Corinthians lived in a pagan city. Corinth had false gods all over it. And the fact that there were pagans at the time practicing baptism for the dead and Paul refers to them as they, strongly suggests what my interpretation said. At any rate Paul was not talking about the Christians, he was talking to the Christians in Corinth. So to say “they” referring to who he is talking to makes no since at all.
To infer that, because some churches took one verse in the Bible and made a doctrine out of it, it makes the doctrine true is absurd.
I thought the LDS liked to claim that evangelicals stole all their interpretations from those of church history which went astray. Now you are claiming that we are ignoring Church history. Which is it? The LDS claim that church history is all wrong, so why are you borrowing from it here?
True Christians don’t follow the teachings of what the church taught historically, they follow the Bible.
shematwater,
Why so defensive? I am not sure what you mean “by my words it should have been clear that I did not have a full knowledge”. So by your words I should take it that you don’t know what you are talking about? It took me, a non-mormon, 2 minutes to Google the requirements, you didn’t have full knowledge of, when you said there were none.
I think that all of the “anomalies” (how many thousands of Jewish people do an anomaly make) show that the best way to ensure you baptize the correct people when they are alive.
st.crispin
Marcion was a heretic I am not sure you want to use him as a reference. It’s kind of like using a bank robber as a reference for a bank job.
Crisp,
How can I quote scripture out of context when all I did was write out the verses with no commentary? If you don’t like what it says, take it up with the Apostle Paul who said what he did in 1 Timothy 1:4; Titus 3:9. Nice spin job on trying to show a similarity in what the Mormons do compared to showing the genealogy tree of Jesus. I’m still deciding whether it’s worth my time to even bother going through this with you. This is really a peripheral subject as far as I’m concerned. Your god on a star near Kolob doesn’t exist so talking about your proxy baptistms for dead polygamists and other notable people such as Hitler really seems pointless. Waste your time in pagan temples going through pagan rituals via your seared conscience. Ignore the Bible – you won’t have any excuse at the judgment (Rom 1:16; 10:2). Do proxy work for me. I don’t care. I won’t be here. I’ll be with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8).
When a Mormon youth walks into a music lesson dripping wet holding a towel and proudly announces that he just left the temple and was dunked for over 100 dead people in one setting, is that boasting and a pride issue? Is that what the Apostle Paul had in mind if you think your spin of the text fits? Not hardly – nope.
When the LDS Church puts on a 4 day conference with 135 presentations at BYU on July 28-31 centered around genealogy work and family history gathering, is that out of balance and do you think the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ would go along with that? Can I find any scriptural support for this unbalanced amount of attention that has no scriptural example in the Bible or the Book of Mormon? Not hardly – nope.
Meanwhile, I see that neither you nor any of the LDS faithful cared to explain Alma 34:31-36 and spinned that to show support for baptisms for the dead, when the Book of Mormon shows no support for it in that text. Once again, all I did was list out the verses. The text speaks clearly and definitively on the issue. Spin away!
Martin,
I was reading an article on another site about what huge profit centers the Mormon temples are for the Mromon church. My understanding is that they get paid off in a couple of years following construction and the rest of the revenue from then on is pure gravey.
So the idea is to get people close to the temple so they don’t have to make a long trip to get there. I’m not up on all the ins and outs of who pays what for what when Mormons access their temples, but according to the articles something is levied when folks make the scene at the temple. Maybe someone can clue me in as to the details.
What we have here is a “false” religion (as far as Christianity is concerned) practicing rituals that have no basis in Christian scripture, tradition, theology or practice. It’s just one more thing that sets Mormonism a part from Biblical Christianity.
My concern is that Mormons see these practices as “spiritual” when in fact they are “spiritism”. Mormons have accepted a false god and have tapped into something that they think is deeply spiritual when in fact they are traveling in dark circles. Their founder was an occultist and the fact that they are conjuring-up spirits of darkness and calling it light makes me fear for them.
Andy,
As you keep saying, the main key to understanding scripture is context. Amulek is talking to a group of apostate Nephites in this chapter – ie, they knew the truth but have decided to follow another faith. That is the first part of context. Next, Amulek states in an earlier verse in the chapter.
Alma 34:30 And now, my brethren, I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.
As you can see it says here that these people have ”received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things”.
So these people being taught have already had the truth with witnesses for it, but have rejected it outright. For these people, they have made their choice in this life and received their chance to accept the truth. While they are still alive they still have the chance to change their choice and follow the truth. Why? Well here’s the ‘clincher’ and this goes for all of you on this site that have researched the LDS church but claim that if they see it being taught after death they will join (eg MichaelP) Alma 34:34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
In other words, if you don’t believe in the LDS teachings in this life, you sure as hell won’t in the next because your spirit will be the same then as it is now.
So this scripture is teaching that for all those who have had the opportunity in this life to hear and accept the truth but do not, there will be no second chance. It is not talking about those who did not have the opportunity. Now if you have a question about why baptise these ex-members, read my earlier post above.
Falcon,
No one pays anything to go to the temple and the ‘funding’ to build the temple comes mainly from the tithing given to the church with some extra donations made by willing members. And the temples are paid in full by the time (if not before) they are finished being built, not a couple of years after. The temple cannot be dedicated (and neither can the chapels) until they are paid off in full.
But this brings up one of the ‘beauties’ of the temple, and the LDS church. For my wedding, all we had to pay for was the catering, photographer and the florist. We were married in the temple (no cost) we had our reception at the local chapel (no cost) and the priest officiating at the marriage was – you guessed it – no cost. My father while bishop performed a number of marriages for LDS couples and non-member couples and what did it cost any of them? Nothing. The local LDS leaders and priesthood are not allowed to receive any recompense for performing their priesthood duties like marriages, blessings, baptisms, funerals, etc. As Bishop, though he had to be legally registered as a marriage celebrant but this does not stipulate that he could or could not get paid – unlike being a JP which is a non-paid celebrant.
What does it cost to get married in another Christian church? My brother-in-law got married in a pentacostal church (I believe). He had to pay for hiring the church hall for the marriage and the priest to perform the marriage.
So I don’t know where the person who wrote the article got their ideas from, because what they have written as far as I know is not true.
Ralph,
I found the article and I’ll quote liberally from it.
With all the threads lately about the McTemples that sit empty most of the time and speculation about whether TSCC is losing mney on them, I thought I’d post this information. (The author had a CPA friend that worked for the finance dept.)
*It takes at the most, 9 months for a mini temple to pay for itself.
*They do extensive statistical research to figure out how much of a surge in tithing they will have when they first build the temple. This is usually enough to finance the whole thing. If you’ve been slacking on the tithing thinking it’s too much trouble to drive 4 hours to the temple anyway and you’ll start paying 10% again the next time you have to go to a wedding…..there will be a big push on people to prepare themselves and sacrifice for “their” temple.
*Once the temple is paid for, it costs very little in upkeep. There are no property taxes. Not only do they not have to pay for grounds upkeep, janitorial workers, temple workers, etc. becuase they “call” people to these enviable positions so they can work for free, but it also keeps lower-income people paying because there is a push to call people as temple workers who might have had trouble keeping up on their tithing before.
*Even if your ward only has an assigned temple night one night a month or once a quarter, people still have to keep their recommends current (hence keep tithing current).
*Temples are a valuable asset on the books. They can technically say they don’t use “tithing money” for the malls, but they can use their great assets to finance other projects that DO bring in a lot of money.
*The temples are Mormon Money Machines. We’ll continue to see them built…..they need to populate the main money-generating areas of the church with them.
Ralph, I think that we can see why you get freebees at the Temple. It’s all run by increase in tithing in the area where the temples are and run by volunteers.
I guess it’ a matter of perspective, your version and the version of those who are blessed, interesting perspective Falcon, I just wonder why members seem to think that the Word of God concerning the blessing of tithing just might be true since they also believe in the Bible.
“A mother in West Africa shared her testimony about tithing. She was a trader in a marketplace. Every day she would come home, count out her tithing, and put it in a special place. Then on Sunday she would faithfully take it to her bishop. She shared with us how her business had grown and how her family had been blessed with health and strength and enough food to eat. Then with tears in her eyes she said, ‘But the greatest blessings of all are that my children love the Lord and we are a forever family.’ “This humble mother understood that one of the great blessings of being a full-tithe payer is the privilege of entering the house of the Lord and participating in the sacred ordinances that enable families to be together forever.”
Sheldon F. Child, “The Best Investment,” Ensign, May 2008, 81
What ever makes you happy, right? or might it be what ever your testimony is.
Richard 🙂
Falcon,
Now that you have shown the article I can see their perspective, even though I disagree with it. No one new, as far as I know, started paying their tithing when the temple was built near where I lived. It was just the same people and the same amount. I know this because I was the financial clerk around that time in the ward I lived in. But that does not mean that it doesn’t happen in other areas.
The temple where I live has an engineering section that are paid to keep the various pumps and air conditioning and other things going, and the temple grounds are contracted out to a member for up-keep (yes he is paid for it because it is his job both for the temple and for his family income). I only know this because I lived in the same ward that the head of engineering and the groundsman. If I hadn’t, I would have believed the article where it states that its the members that voluntarily look after it or who are called to the positions. So maybe they do it differently here in Australia than over there in America. I don’t know because when I was over there, I didn’t get to see much except the MTC.
As far as tithing goes, it is not just for the temple. It goes to building the chapels we use, the offices for area head quarters, paying those that are employed by the church (eg accountants, lawyers, etc), and other things.
Your last statement has me a bit stumped. Using your logic, if you are donating tithing to a church (and there are many on this site that say they do according to a blog a few months ago) shouldn’t you expect some freebies as well? If so then why do people still have to pay for the services of a minister and the hall when getting married? Why shouldn’t they get it for free as we LDS do?
Falcon,
It is apparent that your understanding of finance is as flawed as your understanding of the LDS Church. LDS temples are huge COST centers not profit centers. LDS temples generate NO profits.
Only a nominal fee is levied for rental of temple clothing (about $3.50 for the full set) this is barely enough to cover laundry and replacement costs and most members bring their own temple clothes anyway. Many LDS temples operate a cafeteria for their patrons convenience – again at a nominal fee (a delicious full course meal costs about $6 to $7).
The notion that the LDS temple is a”profit center” is complete and utter rubbish. Indeed, an LDS temple costs millions of dollars to construct and hundreds of thousands of dollars to run and maintain. The funds for constructing and operating an LDS temple come from the tithes of dutiful members.
Contrast that to the crassly commercial evangelical mega-churches where huge sums are raised to buy corporate jets and multi-million dollar mansions for the leaders.
Gundeck writes “Marcion was a heretic.”
Well, so was Martin Luther, John Calvin, and even Billy Graham. One man’s heretic is another’s evangelist.
Roxanne,
Yes, many of the people of Corinth were pagans, but so was most of the Roman Empire. Reread Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 15 – Paul is not referring to the pagans but to the practicing converts to Christianity who were practicing baptism for the dead.
Martin,
Your comparison of the LDS Church to pre-Reformation Catholicism is weak and without substance. The most “self-serving” churches I have ever come across are the evangelical mega-churches where lining the pockets of the leaders with filthy lucre is the all consuming corporate objective.
Here on MC, Mormons sometimes say things that demand quick rebuttal and exposure. I have read Crysostom’s Homily Book 40 on 1 Cor 15:29. For any Mormon out there who thinks that he is giving approval for this pagan practice that Mormons engage in needs to read him clearly. I quote:
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?
“He takes in hand again another topic, establishing what he said at one time from what God does , and at another from the very things which they practice. And this also is no small plea for the defence of any cause when a man brings forward the gainsayers themselves as witnessing by their own actions what he affirms. What then is that which he means? Or will you that I should first mention how THEY WHO ARE INFECTED WITH THE MARCIONITE HERESY PERVERT THIS EXPRESSION? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that YOU MAY THE MORE COMPLETELY AVOID THIS DISEASE: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath says in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. SO GREAT POWER HAS THE DEVIL OVER THE SOULS OF CARELESS SINNERS. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle has said, They who are baptized for the dead. DO YOU SEE THEIR EXTREME RIDICULOUSNESS? Is it meet then to answer these things? I trow not; unless it were necessary to discourse with MADMEN OF WHAT THEY UTTER IN THEIR FRENZY UTTER. But that none of the more exceedingly simple folk may be led captive, one must needs submit to answer even these men.” [emphasis mine]