In case this is of use or interesting to anybody.
4/15/2012 EQ
President George Albert Smith Manual Lesson 8, Temple blessings for ourselves
and our ancestors
Discussion Question
Who knows
when the doctrine of seeking out our ancestors, doing their temple work, and sealing children to parents,
parents to grandparents, and so forth began?
---------------------
God has
wrought out a salvation for all men, unless they have committed a certain sin;
and every man who has a friend in the eternal world can save him, unless he has
committed the unpardonable sin. And so you can see how far you can be a savior.
--------------------
It wasn’t
until President Woodruff, in 1894, that temple work as it is done today began
to be established. Before then, people didn’t regularly seek out their
ancestors do to temple work. Furthermore, people usually didn’t get sealed to
their own lineage once they ran into a non-member. Instead, if their parents or
ancestors were not members of the church, they sealed their line to a faithful
priesthood holder that they knew would be saved, such as Joseph Smith or
Brigham Young. The following is from the President Woodruff manual (
http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/the-life-and-ministry-of-wilford-woodruff?lang=eng&query=woodruff+1894):
Acting
according to “all the light and knowledge [they] had,” [church members] often
had themselves sealed, or “adopted,” to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or other
Church leaders of their day rather than to their own fathers and mothers. As
President of the Church, President Woodruff referred to this practice, saying:
“We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the
revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children
and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did
President [John] Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has
attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt
that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.”48
That
additional revelation came to President Woodruff on April 5, 1894. Three days
later, in a general conference address, he told of the revelation: “When I went
before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to … , the Spirit of God said
to me, ‘Have you not a father, who begot you?’ ‘Yes, I have.’ ‘Then why not
honor him? Why not be adopted to him?’ ‘Yes,’ says I, ‘that is right.’ I was
adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and
so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to
see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty
commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. … That is the
will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples in
these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take
away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this?
No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly
what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last
days [see Malachi 4:5–6]. …
“We want the
Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can,
and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their
parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it. …….
Discussion question
What do we
do if we are sealed to our ancestors and they are unrighteous?
The full discourse
where President Woodruff gave this address can be found here:
http://woodlandinstitute.com/doctrine/woodruff.php.
The following quote addresses some of the concerns people had at the time about
being sealed to their ancestors who may or may not have been righteous:
“ ‘But,’
says one, ‘suppose we come along to a man who perhaps is a murderer.’ Well, if
he is a murderer, drop him out and connect with the next man beyond him. But
the Spirit of God will be with us in this matter.
Another
principle connected with this subject I want to talk about. A man has married a
woman, and they have a family of children. The man lays down in death without
ever hearing the Gospel. The wife afterwards hears the Gospel and embraces it.
She comes to the temple and she wants to be sealed to her husband, who was a
good man. The feeling has been to deny this and to say, "No, he is not in
the Church, and you cannot be sealed to your husband." Many a woman's
heart has ached because of this, and as a servant of God I have broken that
chain a good while ago. I have laid before every woman this principle and let
her have her choice. Why deprive a woman of being sealed to her husband because
he never heard the Gospel? What do any of us know with regard to him? Will he
not hear the Gospel and embrace it in the spirit world? Look at Joseph Smith.
Not one of Joseph Smith's fathers or brothers or sisters were in the covenant
when he received the keys of the kingdom of God and translated the Book of
Mormon. They afterwards received it. Every brother and sister that he had, and
his father and his father's brothers, except Uncle Jesse Smith, embraced the
Gospel. Now, suppose that any of these had died before they had the opportunity
of entering into the covenant with the Lord through the Gospel, as his brother
Alvin did; they would have been in the same position as Alvin, concerning whom
the Lord, when Joseph saw him in the celestial kingdom, said: "All who
have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if
they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of
God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would
have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I,
the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire
of their hearts."
So it
will be with your fathers. There will be very few, if any, who will not accept
the Gospel.”
To me,
knowing the context behind this quote makes it very powerful.
-------------------------------------------
Discussion Question:
There has
been great controversy, recently, about Mormons baptizing random dead celebrities
and, especially, holocaust victims. Why are they so upset? How do we shift from
a defensive, apologetic attitude to one of excitement to share the gospel under
the face of scrutiny?
It might be
that they don’t understand our doctrine. With Romney as the Republican nominee,
we will be more in the spotlight this year than we have ever been. It’s
important that we understand our doctrine and have at least a vague idea what
other people think about us. We don’t believe our temple ordinances are
automatically converting people, rather just giving them a chance. It’s like a
credit card offer in the mail. People can choose to accept or reject our
message now, as they can do in the spirit world. We’re not trying to offend
anybody, we just want to give the entire world a chance to be saved according
to the mercy and grace of God(D&C 138:32-35, 58).
We really
don’t have to be apologetic about this. When understood, I think this is one of
the most powerful doctrines in our church. It reconciles the seemingly
contradictory scriptures that say all men must be baptized or forfeit their
ability to enter Heaven (John 3:5) and other scriptures in the Bible discussing
being saved by faith. Are good people with faith who never had the opportunity
for baptism damned to Hell? There has been a dramatic shift with Christians in
recent decades to not believe this anymore, yet they are stuck citing seemingly
contradictory scriptures in the Bible to satisfy their intuition that God
couldn’t possibly be so unfair. Baptisms for the dead and temple work are one
of the most beautiful doctrines ever set forth that clearly delineate what the
grace of God is and how it applies to all mankind, allowing God to be both
merciful and just.
Also, notice
that most Christians out there don’t believe their family structures will be
broken up after they die. The idea of being together as families in the afterlife
is something people intuitively grasp, and they probably don’t realize it’s
what their church teaches. Again, we need not be apologetic about temples, but
rather excitedly share it with others.
There’s a time and a place for everything. The
time for doing ordinances for everyone might be something better suited for the
millennium. After all, it’s not like we have the records for everyone to even
do all the ordinances at this time. For now, in order to not cause offense, we
are trying to just limiting it to people within our lineage.
-------------------------------
First
Presidency letter Feb 2012
Dear
Brothers and Sisters:
We would
like to reiterate the policies first stated in 1995 concerning the submission
of names for proxy temple ordinances:
Our
preeminent obligation is to seek out and identify our own ancestors. Those
whose names are submitted for proxy temple ordinances should be related to the
submitter.
Without
exception, Church members must not submit for proxy temple ordinances any names
from unauthorized groups, such as celebrities and Jewish Holocaust victims. If
members do so, they may forfeit their New FamilySearch privileges. Other
corrective action may also be taken.
Members are
encouraged to participate in FamilySearch indexing which is vital to family
history and
temple work.
----------------------------------
Read story from manual
I will be
the first to say that I don’t get to the temple as much as I want to or I
probably should. We are all busy, and it seems like life only gets busier and
busier. On that note, let’s read the following story from GAS about two
brothers, one who was a farmer and another a business man.
“I am here
reminded of a story of two brothers who lived in a northern Utah town: The
older brother, Henry, was a banker and merchant, and had ample means. The other
brother, George, was a farmer, and did not have very much beyond his needs, but
he had a desire to do temple work for their dead. He searched out their
genealogy and went to the temple and worked for those who had passed on.
One day
George said to Henry, “I think you should go down to the temple and help.”
But Henry
said, “I haven’t time to do anything like that. It takes me all my time to take
care of my business.” …
About a year
after that, Henry called at George’s home and said, “George, I have had a
dream, and it worries me. I wonder if you can tell me what it means?”
George
asked, “What did you dream, Henry?”
Henry said,
“I dreamed that you and I had passed from this life and were on the other side
of the veil. As we went along, we came to a beautiful city. People were
gathered together in groups in many places, and every place we came they shook
your hand and put their arms around you and blessed you and said how thankful
they were to see you, but,” he said, “they didn’t pay a bit of attention to me;
they were hardly friendly. What does that mean?”
George
asked, “You thought we were on the other side of the veil?”
“Yes.”
“Well, this
is what I have been talking to you about. I have been trying to get you to do
the work for those people who are over there. I have been doing work for many
of them, but the work for many more is yet to be done. … You had better get
busy, because you have had a taste of what you may expect when you get over
there if you do not do your part in performing this work for them.”
I have
thought of this story from the lives of two brothers a good many times. Many
people do not understand the seriousness and the sacredness of life; they do
not understand the sacredness of eternal marriage. There are some of our people
who have no interest in their genealogy. They care nothing about their
forebears; at least you would think so by the way they behave. They do not go
into the temple to do work for their dead. …
… After we
have been to the House of the Lord for our own blessings, let us think of our
responsibility to our forebears. What will be your reception when you go on the
other side? Will you be the one they will reach out to and bless throughout the
ages of eternity, or will you be like the brother who was selfishly working out
his problems here and letting those who could not help themselves go on without
his help?”
Discussion Questions
Do you think
the farmer had more free time than the business man?
What do you
think is an appropriate reason to go to the temple?
When you
plan a trip to the temple, do you view it as checking off a box of things you’re
supposed to do and obligations you’re supposed to meet to be a good Mormon?
Do we
actually look forward to serving somebody when we plan a trip, and do we view
it as real service?
Is it OK to
for the main reason to be going to be for yourself, to be able to spend time in
a holy place and feel the spirit (rather than service)
----------------------------------------
Some of the "Why’s" that we don’t really
know:
It is
important that we think about our doctrine enough to realize that we might not
know the reason or details behind everything. Even in discussions with others
not of our faith, I believe they might appreciate our honesty that we don’t
know everything and we don’t have a clear reason for everything, but testifying
that we are acting on faith can actually be more powerful than anything else.
For example, things we don’t know:
-Do we know
why priesthood ordinances can't be performed in the spirit world? Dead people
can accept baptisms by proxy, but why can’t they actually receive the baptisms
themselves? Can their spirit body not go
underwater?
-Why,
exactly, are ordinances so essential? As far as I know, our current ideas are
that they help us commit to following the savior, that we follow the example of
Jesus being baptized, and that we do it because God said so. These are good
reasons, but I think we should realize that they might not completely satisfy
everyone.
