A concise, 30-second clip from today’s General Conference has captured the attention of Reddit, featuring Elder Oaks advising members on the need for the church to slow down and pull in the reins concerning temple construction. The statement, which signals an abrupt shift in the pace of expansion, was immediately reinforced by Oak's declaration that there will be no new temple announcements:
The timing is exquisitely delicious. Not even a week after Rusty's passing, the Lord apparently decided that the temple expansion needs to slow down. Call me cynical, but the immediate shift in God's priorities seems to suggest one of two things: either Jesus has a surprisingly short attention span, or Rusty was leading a massive, uninspired real estate boom.
Nelson seems to have wanted to outdo his two predecessors, especially Hinckley, who embarrassed Nelson on occasion. Now that Nelson is no longer around to keep up that competition, sanity will return on a couple of fronts: temple construction and hopefully the name Mormon.
In the meantime, you are chalking up victories for Satan just by the way you express your hope. Aren't you ashamed, Rev?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
In the meantime, you are chalking up victories for Satan just by the way you express your hope. Aren't you ashamed, Rev?
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
I will write what I wrote many years ago: the Mormons don't need more temples. They have land and can conduct their ceremonies outside, under the stars, at sunrise or sunset. This thought was reinforced the other day when I saw an image on social media of a Christian assembly outdoors in a beautiful hills-type rock formation. It almost looked like Southern Utah at sunset with numerous people watching the presentation. They were bundled up, so it was cold, but the assembly looked packed. For 19th-century Mormons, the sun, moon, and stars—creation—were really important, and they could emphasize that under the stars.
It's true, In terms of the ordinances performed for and on behalf of the dead, the temples are completely unnecessary and superfluous, as is all of the genealogy work. Once one accepts the validity of the Mormon doctrine of ordinances performed vicariously, there is no reason one person could not simply do one ordinance one time for all the dead who have ever lived:
"Brother Oaks, I baptize you for and on behalf of every person who ever lived but is now dead, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holey Goat." Splash.
Boom. Done.
"Praise be to Allah"--President Donald J. Trump
"I love the inflation"--President Donald J. Trump
I will write what I wrote many years ago: the Mormons don't need more temples. They have land and can conduct their ceremonies outside, under the stars, at sunrise or sunset. This thought was reinforced the other day when I saw an image on social media of a Christian assembly outdoors in a beautiful hills-type rock formation. It almost looked like Southern Utah at sunset with numerous people watching the presentation. They were bundled up, so it was cold, but the assembly looked packed. For 19th-century Mormons, the sun, moon, and stars—creation—were really important, and they could emphasize that under the stars.
It's true, In terms of the ordinances performed for and on behalf of the dead, the temples are completely unnecessary and superfluous, as is all of the genealogy work. Once one accepts the validity of the Mormon doctrine of ordinances performed vicariously, there is no reason one person could not simply do one ordinance one time for all the dead who have ever lived:
"Brother Oaks, I baptize you for and on behalf of every person who ever lived but is now dead, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holey Goat." Splash.
Boom. Done.
Some people who are now dead are still alive until they are 115. Maybe that only applies to the baptized though.
Ban Whiskey permanently if that's the only way.
— Gadianton
I will write what I wrote many years ago: the Mormons don't need more temples. They have land and can conduct their ceremonies outside, under the stars, at sunrise or sunset. This thought was reinforced the other day when I saw an image on social media of a Christian assembly outdoors in a beautiful hills-type rock formation. It almost looked like Southern Utah at sunset with numerous people watching the presentation. They were bundled up, so it was cold, but the assembly looked packed. For 19th-century Mormons, the sun, moon, and stars—creation—were really important, and they could emphasize that under the stars.
It's true, In terms of the ordinances performed for and on behalf of the dead, the temples are completely unnecessary and superfluous, as is all of the genealogy work. Once one accepts the validity of the Mormon doctrine of ordinances performed vicariously, there is no reason one person could not simply do one ordinance one time for all the dead who have ever lived:
"Brother Oaks, I baptize you for and on behalf of every person who ever lived but is now dead, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holey Goat." Splash.
Boom. Done.
Then only one person gets to hoard all the blessings that come from performing the baptisms. That many blessings in one person might destroy him!
Once one accepts the validity of the Mormon doctrine of ordinances performed vicariously, there is no reason one person could not simply do one ordinance one time for all the dead who have ever lived.
No reason that you know of, right? One reason might be that baptism is the act of entering the door to salvation...one person at a time. A mass baptism would erase the personal nature of that covenant. Christ’s atonement is the universal enabler of salvation. Baptism is the individualized acceptance of that gift. One is the offering; the other is the response.
There may be other reasons.
Your argument is a common one that critics repeat again and again. You highlight...again...what is seen, by critics, as the inefficiency or arbitrariness of temple work.
Once one accepts the validity of the Mormon doctrine of ordinances performed vicariously, there is no reason one person could not simply do one ordinance one time for all the dead who have ever lived.
No reason that you know of, right? One reason might be that baptism is the act of entering the door to salvation...one person at a time. A mass baptism would erase the personal nature of that covenant. Christ’s atonement is the universal enabler of salvation. Baptism is the individualized acceptance of that gift. One is the offering; the other is the response.
There may be other reasons.
Your argument is a common one that critics repeat again and again. You highlight...again...what is seen, by critics, as the inefficiency or arbitrariness of temple work.
Regards,
MG
The juxtaposition of saying a single person doing something would erase the personal nature of a covenant, while simultaneously referencing Christ's atonement is fun.
I agree though. This is why I like the Jewish concept of gemilut chasadim as a form of atonement. It's individual acts of love and kindness by the person who needs to atone. A person atones for their own sins through action (not just ritual).
