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).
That might seem to be the case. Those under eight probably ghosted the board the moment "redemption isn't passive' came into the conversation. It is true that there is a "sacred space" or allowance for innocence, while at the same time seemingly requiring that 'the rest of us' are pressed into 'choosing' redemption actively. Grace and agency seem to be dancing partners in a sense. The real tension isn’t between grace and agency—but between theological consistency and institutional necessity. Christ's redemptive powers include all that have or will live on the earth. How those powers are administered in the afterlife vs. theological/institutional consistency here in the world, and how justice/grace/agency interplay is a good/worthy question.
When grace and agency are dancing partners: one leads, the other follows...but only if you’re old enough to hear the music. Another way of looking at it might be that grace initiates the possibility of salvation. But agency, the ability to choose, covenant, and act, is what makes that salvation personal. Children under 8 aren’t held accountable because they’re not yet spiritually “tuned in.” They’re covered by grace until they’re ready to respond with agency.
That might seem to be the case. Those under eight probably ghosted the board the moment "redemption isn't passive' came into the conversation. It is true that there is a "sacred space" or allowance for innocence, while at the same time seemingly requiring that 'the rest of us' are pressed into 'choosing' redemption actively. Grace and agency seem to be dancing partners in a sense. The real tension isn’t between grace and agency—but between theological consistency and institutional necessity. Christ's redemptive powers include all that have or will live on the earth. How those powers are administered in the afterlife vs. theological/institutional consistency here in the world, and how justice/grace/agency interplay is a good/worthy question.
When grace and agency are dancing partners: one leads, the other follows...but only if you’re old enough to hear the music. Another way of looking at it might be that grace initiates the possibility of salvation. But agency, the ability to choose, covenant, and act, is what makes that salvation personal. Children under 8 aren’t held accountable because they’re not yet spiritually “tuned in.” They’re covered by grace until they’re ready to respond with agency.
Regards,
MG
And we're back to AI-generated meaninglessness. What do these analogies mean? Salvation is already personal, why is agency needed for that? Children over and under have salvation, is mg's AI suggesting children might NOT receive salvation if they don't 'choose well' after eight? Has the mental gymnast's AI been watching Indiana Jones on the sly??
Just like numerous examples in the AI thread, mentalgymnast's AI-generated posts are full of analogies, signifying nothing. This one is just utter nonsense:
"The real tension isn’t between grace and agency—but between theological consistency and institutional necessity. "
That might seem to be the case. Those under eight probably ghosted the board the moment "redemption isn't passive' came into the conversation. It is true that there is a "sacred space" or allowance for innocence, while at the same time seemingly requiring that 'the rest of us' are pressed into 'choosing' redemption actively. Grace and agency seem to be dancing partners in a sense. The real tension isn’t between grace and agency—but between theological consistency and institutional necessity. Christ's redemptive powers include all that have or will live on the earth. How those powers are administered in the afterlife vs. theological/institutional consistency here in the world, and how justice/grace/agency interplay is a good/worthy question.
When grace and agency are dancing partners: one leads, the other follows...but only if you’re old enough to hear the music. Another way of looking at it might be that grace initiates the possibility of salvation. But agency, the ability to choose, covenant, and act, is what makes that salvation personal. Children under 8 aren’t held accountable because they’re not yet spiritually “tuned in.” They’re covered by grace until they’re ready to respond with agency.
Regards,
MG
And we're back to AI-generated meaninglessness. What do these analogies mean? Salvation is already personal, why is agency needed for that? Children over and under have salvation, is mg's AI suggesting children might NOT receive salvation if they don't 'choose well' after eight? Has the mental gymnast's AI been watching Indiana Jones on the sly??
Just like numerous examples in the AI thread, mentalgymnast's AI-generated posts are full of analogies, signifying nothing. This one is just utter nonsense:
"The real tension isn’t between grace and agency—but between theological consistency and institutional necessity. "
Meaningless, nonsensical AI cut-and-paste.
Fibber, have you no shame?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
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
You are not making any sense. How is it “personal” for you to get dunked in a tub in a temple in 2025 for some dude who lived hundreds of years ago? The “personal” part is that long-dead person accepting (or rejecting) the gospel message in the spirit world. The ordinance performed by a living person is no less “personal” if done by one person than if done by many individual people for and on behalf of people they have never personally known.
Temple work is, objectively, inefficient and arbitrary.
"Praise be to Allah"--President Donald J. Trump
"I love the inflation"--President Donald J. Trump
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
Is Jesus going to have to be mounted on the cross and beaten to death over and over and over..., once for each of us? Same rationale as needing baptism done one at a time.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
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
You are not making any sense. How is it “personal” for you to get dunked in a tub in a temple in 2025 for some dude who lived hundreds of years ago? The “personal” part is that long-dead person accepting (or rejecting) the gospel message in the spirit world. The ordinance performed by a living person is no less “personal” if done by one person than if done by many individual people for and on behalf of people they have never personally known.
Temple work is, objectively, inefficient and arbitrary.
I think that the individual nature of doing temple work is based upon a couple of scriptures:
Moroni quoted from Malachi: “For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. . . . Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. . . . And he [Elijah] shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his [Christ’s] coming” (Joseph Smith—History 1:37–39).
and:
“The earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children. . . . For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also” (D&C 128:18)
It seems that the gospel plan is a plan in which all are involved in a collaborative/community effort to bring souls to Christ and His gospel. This quote succinctly encapsulates this concept:
Vicarious, or proxy, work is the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Savior’s Atonement in our behalf was a vicarious act, the strong doing for the weak that which they cannot do for themselves if they would only comply with His principles and ordinances. It is the same in the spirit world. Water and the laying on of hands are elements of this physical world and are essential features of redemption. They must be complied with here. It is an act of purest love to make it possible for the living to comply with earthly ordinances in behalf of those who never had that opportunity. May I commend all faithful temple workers who unselfishly devote hours of loving service in behalf of the worthy deceased. May I also compliment those untiring servants of the Lord who spend countless hours researching to locate names, dates, places, and relationships that make temple work the blessed work it is. Small wonder that the Prophet Joseph Smith should issue his fervent appeal to those of us who live today, to us whose hearts have turned to our fathers in the world of spirits, who never had the chance to comply with the ordinances of salvation: “Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free” (D&C 128:22). https://rsc.BYU.edu/sperry-symposium-cl ... -dead-dc-2
You are not making any sense. How is it “personal” for you to get dunked in a tub in a temple in 2025 for some dude who lived hundreds of years ago? The “personal” part is that long-dead person accepting (or rejecting) the gospel message in the spirit world. The ordinance performed by a living person is no less “personal” if done by one person than if done by many individual people for and on behalf of people they have never personally known.
Temple work is, objectively, inefficient and arbitrary.
I think that the individual nature of doing temple work is based upon a couple of scriptures:
Moroni quoted from Malachi: “For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. . . . Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. . . . And he [Elijah] shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his [Christ’s] coming” (Joseph Smith—History 1:37–39).
and:
“The earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children. . . . For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also” (D&C 128:18)
It seems that the gospel plan is a plan in which all are involved in a collaborative/community effort to bring souls to Christ and His gospel. This quote succinctly encapsulates this concept:
Vicarious, or proxy, work is the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Savior’s Atonement in our behalf was a vicarious act, the strong doing for the weak that which they cannot do for themselves if they would only comply with His principles and ordinances. It is the same in the spirit world. Water and the laying on of hands are elements of this physical world and are essential features of redemption. They must be complied with here. It is an act of purest love to make it possible for the living to comply with earthly ordinances in behalf of those who never had that opportunity. May I commend all faithful temple workers who unselfishly devote hours of loving service in behalf of the worthy deceased. May I also compliment those untiring servants of the Lord who spend countless hours researching to locate names, dates, places, and relationships that make temple work the blessed work it is. Small wonder that the Prophet Joseph Smith should issue his fervent appeal to those of us who live today, to us whose hearts have turned to our fathers in the world of spirits, who never had the chance to comply with the ordinances of salvation: “Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free” (D&C 128:22). https://rsc.BYU.edu/sperry-symposium-cl ... -dead-dc-2
Regards,
MG
Nah, it's just dumb busy work to keep the cultists paying, praying, and obeying.
"Praise be to Allah"--President Donald J. Trump
"I love the inflation"--President Donald J. Trump
Nah, it's just dumb busy work to keep the cultists paying, praying, and obeying.
Maybe not so dumb? What's so dumb about paying tithing, praying to God, and obeying His commandments?
A lot of people may tend to think that this is actually the wise course of action. It's interesting that some critics just kinda' brush things off as "dumb". One might think they could have reasons for doing so that might be 'worldly/culturally/carnally based' rather than 'heavenly based'?
Granted, that's hard to know/tell unless one actually knows where a person is coming from by knowing them in real life rather than some anonymous persona on a message board.
Meaningless, nonsensical AI cut-and-paste.
