Comments on: Obama’s Mom, Holocaust Survivors and Proxy Temple Work

By: annegb

annegb — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:08:03 +0000

I wonder if Obama has some distant Mormon relative who justified submitting his mother’s name. #6 is correct, I’ve submitted relative’s names. I submitted my husband’s stepmother. I felt fine about it, she was LDS and we were very close. I knew she wanted it. But her son was kind of disconcerted. He still loves me, but he’s not LDS and I don’t think he felt comfortable with it. But….as far as I was concerned, she was as much my mother as she was the rest of the family.

By: Jonathan Green

Jonathan Green — Sun, 10 May 2009 17:59:02 +0000

Ardis, I could loan you some spare pixels, if you’re up to the task, but you’ll have to borrow every remaining moment until the heat death of the universe from someone else.

By: Left Field

Left Field — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:04:00 +0000

I should add that 137:7-10 does not imply that authorized baptism is not required for those who lived to the age of accountability. The whole of section 128 indicates otherwise. See especially verses 5 and 18. Baptism for the dead doesn’t make anyone a Mormon. It provides an authorized and required ordinance for those non-Mormons referred to in 137:7-9. The whole idea of baptism for the dead and sections 127-128 and 137-138 is that required ordinances, the gospel, and salvation are available to non-Mormons.

By: Left Field

Left Field — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:42:14 +0000

Actually Greg, from a Mormon perspective, I’m absolutely right. From a Mormon perspective it doesn’t matter what church you belonged to as long as you receive the gospel and are baptized by authority (or die before the age of accountability). Otherwise baptism for the dead would be pointless. See Doctrine and Covenants 137:5-6 and 138:38-49 for a list of specific people who are saved, including Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elias, Malachi, the Nephite prophets, and Alvin Smith. Not a single one of these was ever a Mormon. (Now of course, you could *define* a Mormon as anyone who is saved and then observe that only Mormons are saved, but to do so would be a meaningless tautology, and would tell us nothing about who is saved.)

Doctrine and Covenants 137:7-10 is quite explicit that membership in a denomination is not a requirement for salvation and that lots of non-Mormons will find themselves in the Celestial kingdom.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sun, 10 May 2009 08:00:04 +0000

I realize that these “musings” are not based on any doctrine

Common ground!

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:17:38 +0000

Hi Ardis: Thank you for your reply at #46. I actually stated only three doctrinal points in my comment.

The first: That a Mormon baptism or baptism for the dead is a precondition to being “saved” (without going into the details of the various kingdoms of heaven).

The second: That the Mormon Church is the only true Church.

and the third: The reference to DC 137:7-9.

Unless I slept through my Gospel Doctrine classes, I think all three statements are correct statements of church doctrine.

The rest of my comment can be summed up as simply asking questions, or drawing conclusions, or offering suggestions. I realize that these “musings” are not based on any doctrine, but merely presented as food for thought.

BTW, I believe my reference to allowing blacks to hold the priesthood is accurate as well, although not technically a doctrinal comment.

As for Left Field’s comment at #49; now that’s thinking outside the box. If he’s right (and from a Mormon perspective he is absolutely wrong) it wouldn’t matter what church you belonged to as long as you got baptized.

By: Left Field

Left Field — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:59:00 +0000

The philosophical foundation for baptism for the dead has nothing at all to do with what denomination you have to belong to to be saved. It does have to do with who is authorized to administer baptism. In Mormon belief, not everyone baptized by proper authority is a Mormon and not everyone who is saved is a Mormon.

Even if a deceased person accepts a proxy baptism, it doesn’t make them a Mormon. It just makes them someone who has received a valid (in the eyes of Mormonism) Christian baptism. I somehow suspect that the whole concept of “denominations” is irrelevant in the hereafter.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:23:48 +0000

Matt, see A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work at lds.org. One bullet point under "General Guidelines" is:

If the person was born within the last ninety-five years, obtain permission for the ordinances from the person’s closest living relative. This relative often wishes to receive the ordinances in behalf of the deceased or designate someone to receive them. In some instances, the relative may wish to postpone the performance of the ordinances. Also, be aware that acting in conflict with the wishes of the closest living relative can result in bad feelings toward you and the Church.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:37:36 +0000

Ardis RE the 95 years, I have never heard this rule. I have sent about 7000 names through the temple in the last 9 years, and I have heard ask the next of kin, but never have heard the 95 years part. Where did you get that from?

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:08:34 +0000

I can’t let that last comment stand as the last one on this thread, although there aren’t enough pixels in the known universe to go point by point and note the doctrinal misunderstandings of such a proposal.

I can think of a great many comments that should be reconsidered and perhaps done away with. A refresher course in the Gospel Essentials class would work wonders, too.