Friday, May 13, 2011

Why Mormons Build Temples 5-13-2011

Today I am going to be sharing a talk givin by Elder Mark E. Petersen in the January 1972 Ensign.

     Why do the Latter-day Saints build these temples? How are they used? Are they for worshiping assemblies or for ritualistic purposes? Just what takes place in them? Why have the Latter-day Saints made such investments in time, effort, and money in such projects as these?
For more than a century they have carried on the work of temple building. It began with the Prophet Joseph Smith, who erected two of these buildings and projected two more, all in the midwestern part of the United States.
     Following the pattern of biblical days, the Lord again in our day has provided these ordinances for the salvation of all who will believe and directs that temples be built in which to perform those sacred rites.
Anciently, to obtain the saving blessings of the Lord, it was necessary for an individual to do two things:
1. Live the righteous life described in the commandments of the Lord.
2. Participate in the saving ordinances administered by the Lord’s truly authorized servants.
    
     Although some of these ordinances could be performed wherever the people found themselves, others were so sacred that the Lord required that they be performed in a specially built edifice, such as the tabernacle or temple, as at first, or the great temple which replaced it. There the priesthood ministered in solemn rites. Not everyone could enter—only those of proven worthiness. Unauthorized officiators suffered the wrath of God. The holy ordinances were never fully made known to the world at large; they were too sacred, but the chosen and faithful participated in all solemnity.

     But how could a temple be so essential to one’s salvation? Was it so in ancient times? What part did the temple in Jerusalem play in the religious life of ancient Israel? That the temple in Jerusalem was more than a synagogue is well established. That it was a sacred place in which only the priesthood could minister is also recognized. That its “Holy of Holies” was reserved for the most faithful is well known. That sacred ordinances not in any way related to the usual synagogue worship were administered there is likewise a fact. And that they were not open to the view of the curious and the uninitiated is also admitted. The temple in Jerusalem was desecrated by the unworthy who came there and made it a marketplace in the days of Jesus, as will be remembered. It was that which so angered the Savior that he drove them out of the temple with the words, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Matt. 21:13.) Temples built in latter days are equally sacred, and therefore, they too are reserved for only the most faithful members of the Church.

     But what goes on in a temple? Naturally there is curiosity about that which is kept from the public view.
As the temples have been built, they have been opened to public inspection and thousands have visited them and admired their beauty. After the buildings are dedicated and the usual activities of temple work are begun, no interruption is permitted to accommodate tourist groups. When visitors have gone from room to room prior to the dedication of these temples, explanations have been given concerning the work done there.
Always a center of interest is the baptismal font. In each of the temples this font rests upon the backs of twelve stone or bronze oxen, following in this, as in other particulars, the pattern given by the Prophet Joseph Smith as he instituted temple building in his day under the direction of the Lord.

     Why is there a baptismal font in the temple? Cannot people be baptized anywhere?
The living, yes. But the font in the temple is for vicarious baptisms performed in behalf of the dead.
Baptism for the dead? Is that a Christian doctrine? In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read about the forefathers of the faithful, and then the author declares “that they without us should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:40), showing a definite relationship between the salvation of the living and the dead.
Many peoples believe in some form of vicarious work for the dead and burn candles or say prayers in their behalf. The atonement of the Christ himself was a vicarious work. He died for us, that we might live. His suffering atoned for our sins. His was a vicarious sacrifice. “… God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16.)
“He was wounded for our transgressions … with his stripes we are healed.” (Isa. 53:5.) He gave his life as a ransom for us (Matt. 20:28), a vicarious offering. His blood cleanses us of all sin. (1 Jn. 1:5–7.) By his being slain, he redeemed us. (Rev. 5:9–10.)

     Vicarious work for the dead is a biblical and a Christian doctrine. If men are to participate in it, they should determine what kind of service is acceptable to God. Obviously every form devised by man could not be approved. To arrive at an answer to this question, we should ask ourselves what is required to save a living person and then inquire if the Lord sets up something different to save the dead.
What does the Bible say may be done by the living to help save the dead? Is it the burning of candles? Is it the saying of prayers? Is it bringing food to the tomb as in the Orient, or equipment for travel, or implements of war? People who die without having been taught the gospel may yet be saved in the presence of God. This is made clear in the scriptures. But how? That is the question. Jesus preached to the dead. The apostle Peter taught this in his day, saying that after the death of the Savior, and while his body lay in the tomb, the Lord, as a Spirit, went to the realm of the dead and there preached to the spirits of the people who previously had lived on the earth. (1 Pet. 3:18–20.) Then he gives us the reason for this preaching: “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Pet. 4:6.)

     These remarkable passages then make it known that—
1. Jesus was a personage of both spirit and flesh, like all of us.
2. When Jesus went to the realm of the dead, he was still himself, an individual, the humble “carpenter from Nazareth,” although a spirit divested of his body of flesh and bones which had been crucified.
3. The dead—even those who died in the flood—also were intelligent persons, still individuals, although spirits like Jesus himself.
4. These dead were so much in possession of their reason and their faculties that they could hear the gospel like men in the flesh although they lived in a world of spirits, and they were alive and alert and could use discretion in accepting or rejecting the teachings of Christ.
5. Jesus taught them the gospel, which was their opportunity for salvation.
6. Having heard the gospel, they might accept it or reject it and thus be “judged according to men in the flesh.” As they did accept it, they could then “live according to God in the spirit” just as the scripture indicated.

     Now, what are the requirements made by the gospel for the salvation of living persons? They must “live according to God” while they are in the flesh, conforming to both the laws and the ordinances of salvation, including, for example, such ordinances as baptism in water. Is baptism that necessary? Jesus considered it so and was baptized himself in order “to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matt. 3:15.) Can mankind do less than he?
Jesus’ disciples baptized even more than did John the Baptist. (John 4:1–2.) And it was Jesus who taught, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), making baptism as essential to salvation as faith itself. Then can we ignore baptism? If baptism is so essential for the salvation of the living, is it less essential for the salvation of the dead? Can we reasonably suppose that some other rite would replace baptism, such as, for instance, burning candles or saying prayers? But how can the dead receive baptism? History teaches that the early Christians baptized living persons in behalf of their dead. It was a customary practice. It was so in Paul’s day. In fact, he used this early Christian practice as evidence of the resurrection of the dead. To those who had doubted the resurrection he said, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:29.) This then is the real Christian doctrine of salvation for the dead. The same ordinance that was used for the living was used also for the dead. Nothing new was introduced. God did not require one thing for the dead and a different thing for the living. He treated them all alike and could therefore in all consistency judge the dead according to men in the flesh as Peter said, even while they lived in the spirit world.Inasmuch as the gospel was preached to the dead, its ordinances were made available in their behalf. Since baptism was an ordinance requiring immersion in water for all, whether living or dead, and since there was no way in which to baptize the dead personally, living people were properly baptized for and in behalf of the dead. As part of the restoration of the gospel in these last days, the Lord revealed this doctrine and practice to the Prophet Joseph Smith and commanded him to build temples in which these rites could be carried on.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Within the clasp of your arms 5-3-11

I have recently been reading through previous copies of the Ensign and i have found this one article that has stuck me with and i thought that i would share it.

Within the Clasp of Your Arms



Brethren, it is impossible to express the overwhelming sense of responsibility I feel tonight. Like the mule who entered the Kentucky Derby, I know I probably shouldn’t be here, but I surely like the company it lets me keep. Tonight I include in that special company my son Matt, whom I love with all my heart. I pray earnestly for the Spirit of the Lord to be with us in our assignment.
Brethren, a recent study conducted by the Church has forcefully confirmed statistically what we have been told again and again. That is, if loving, inspired instruction and example are not provided at home, then our related efforts for success in and around Church programs are severely limited. It is increasingly clear that we must teach the gospel to our families personally, live those teachings in our homes, or run the risk of discovering too late that a Primary teacher or priesthood adviser or seminary instructor could not do for our children what we would not do for them.
May I offer just this much encouragement regarding such a great responsibility? What I cherish in my relationship with Matt is that he is, along with his mother and sister and brother, my closest, dearest friend. I would rather be here at this priesthood meeting tonight with my son than with any other male companion in this world. I love to be with him. We talk a lot. We laugh a lot. We play one-on-one basketball; we play tennis and racquetball, though I do refuse to play golf with him (that’s a private joke). We discuss problems. I am the president of a small university, and he is the president of a large high school class. We compare notes and offer suggestions and share each other’s challenges. I pray for him and have cried with him, and I’m immensely proud of him. We’ve talked long into the night lying on his water bed, a twentieth-century aberration which I know, as part of the punishment of the last days, will one day burst and wash the Hollands helplessly into the streets of Provo (that’s another private joke).
I feel I can talk to Matt about how he is enjoying seminary because I try to talk to him about all of his classes at school. We often imagine together what his mission will be like because he knows how much my mission meant to me. And he asks me about temple marriage because he knows I am absolutely crazy about his mother. He wants his future wife to be like her and for them to have what we have.
Now, even as I speak, I know that there are fathers and sons in this meeting tonight who feel they do not have any portion of what is here described. I know there are fathers who would give virtually their very lives to be close again to a struggling son. I know there are sons in our meeting who wish their dads were at their side, tonight or any night. I have wondered how to speak on this assigned topic without sounding self-righteous on the one hand or offending already tender hearts on the other. In answer to that, I simply say to us all, young and old, never give up. Keep trying, keep reaching, keep talking, keep praying—but never give up. Above all, never pull away from each other.
May I share a brief but painful moment from my own inadequate efforts as a father?
Early in our married life my young family and I were laboring through graduate school at a university in New England. Pat was the Relief Society president in our ward, and I was serving in our stake presidency. I was going to school full-time and teaching half-time. We had two small children then, with little money and lots of pressures. In fact, our life was about like yours.
One evening I came home from long hours at school, feeling the proverbial weight of the world on my shoulders. Everything seemed to be especially demanding and discouraging and dark. I wondered if the dawn would ever come. Then, as I walked into our small student apartment, there was an unusual silence in the room.
“What’s the trouble?” I asked.
“Matthew has something he wants to tell you,” Pat said.
“Matt, what do you have to tell me?” He was quietly playing with his toys in the corner of the room, trying very hard not to hear me. “Matt,” I said a little louder, “do you have something to tell me?”
He stopped playing, but for a moment didn’t look up. Then these two enormous, tear-filled brown eyes turned toward me, and with the pain only a five-year-old can know, he said, “I didn’t mind Mommy tonight, and I spoke back to her.” With that he burst into tears, and his entire little body shook with grief. A childish indiscretion had been noted, a painful confession had been offered, the growth of a five-year-old was continuing, and loving reconciliation could have been wonderfully underway.
Everything might have been just terrific—except for me. If you can imagine such an idiotic thing, I lost my temper. It wasn’t that I lost it with Matt—it was with a hundred and one other things on my mind; but he didn’t know that, and I wasn’t disciplined enough to admit it. He got the whole load of bricks.
I told him how disappointed I was and how much more I thought I could have expected from him. I sounded like the parental pygmy I was. Then I did what I had never done before in his life—I told him that he was to go straight to bed and that I would not be in to say his prayers with him or to tell him a bedtime story. Muffling his sobs, he obediently went to his bedside, where he knelt—alone—to say his prayers. Then he stained his little pillow with tears his father should have been wiping away.
If you think the silence upon my arrival was heavy, you should have felt it now. Pat did not say a word. She didn’t have to. I felt terrible!
Later, as we knelt by our own bed, my feeble prayer for blessings upon my family fell back on my ears with a horrible, hollow ring. I wanted to get up off my knees right then and go to Matt and ask his forgiveness, but he was long since peacefully asleep.
My relief was not so soon coming; but finally I fell asleep and began to dream, which I seldom do. I dreamed Matt and I were packing two cars for a move. For some reason his mother and baby sister were not present. As we finished I turned to him and said, “Okay, Matt, you drive one car and I’ll drive the other.”
This five-year-old very obediently crawled up on the seat and tried to grasp the massive steering wheel. I walked over to the other car and started the motor. As I began to pull away, I looked to see how my son was doing. He was trying—oh, how he was trying. He tried to reach the pedals, but he couldn’t. He was also turning knobs and pushing buttons, trying to start the motor. He could scarcely be seen over the dashboard, but there staring out at me again were those same immense, tear-filled, beautiful brown eyes. As I pulled away, he cried out, “Daddy, don’t leave me. I don’t know how to do it. I am too little.” And I drove away.
A short time later, driving down that desert road in my dream, I suddenly realized in one stark, horrifying moment what I had done. I slammed my car to a stop, threw open the door, and started to run as fast as I could. I left car, keys, belongings, and all—and I ran. The pavement was so hot it burned my feet, and tears blinded my straining effort to see this child somewhere on the horizon. I kept running, praying, pleading to be forgiven and to find my boy safe and secure.
As I rounded a curve nearly ready to drop from physical and emotional exhaustion, I saw the unfamiliar car I had left Matt to drive. It was pulled carefully off to the side of the road, and he was laughing and playing nearby. An older man was with him, playing and responding to his games. Matt saw me and cried out something like, “Hi, Dad. We’re having fun.” Obviously he had already forgiven and forgotten my terrible transgression against him.
But I dreaded the older man’s gaze, which followed my every move. I tried to say “Thank you,” but his eyes were filled with sorrow and disappointment. I muttered an awkward apology and the stranger said simply, “You should not have left him alone to do this difficult thing. It would not have been asked of you.”
With that, the dream ended, and I shot upright in bed. My pillow was now stained, whether with perspiration or tears I do not know. I threw off the covers and ran to the little metal camp cot that was my son’s bed. There on my knees and through my tears I cradled him in my arms and spoke to him while he slept. I told him that every dad makes mistakes but that they don’t mean to. I told him it wasn’t his fault I had had a bad day. I told him that when boys are five or fifteen, dads sometimes forget and think they are fifty. I told him that I wanted him to be a small boy for a long, long time, because all too soon he would grow up and be a man and wouldn’t be playing on the floor with his toys when I came home. I told him that I loved him and his mother and his sister more than anything in the world and that whatever challenges we had in life we would face them together. I told him that never again would I withhold my affection or my forgiveness from him, and never, I prayed, would he withhold them from me. I told him I was honored to be his father and that I would try with all my heart to be worthy of such a great responsibility.
Well, I have not proven to be the perfect father I vowed to be that night and a thousand nights before and since. But I still want to be, and I believe this wise counsel from President Joseph F. Smith:
“Brethren, … If you will keep your [children] close to your heart, within the clasp of your arms; if you will make them … feel that you love them … and keep them near to you, they will not go very far from you, and they will not commit any very great sin. But it is when you turn them out of the home, turn them out of your affection … that [is what] drives them from you. …
“Fathers, if you wish your children to be taught in the principles of the gospel, if you wish them to love the truth and understand it, if you wish them to be obedient to and united with you, love them! and prove … that you do love them by your every word and act to[ward] them.” (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1966, pp. 282, 316.)
Brethren, we all know fatherhood is not an easy assignment, but it ranks among the most imperative ever given, in time or eternity. We must not pull away from our children. We must keep trying, keep reaching, keep praying, keep listening. We must keep them “within the clasp of our arms.” That is what friends are for. Of this I bear witness in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.