View Single Post
Old 10-09-2008, 02:25 PM   #68
ERCougar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,589
ERCougar is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grapevine View Post
BRM in sevenly deadly heresays said it was waste of time to do vicarious work for someone that flat out rejected gospel to eat drink and be merry, And I can't remember were I read this but SWK said same thing of how he knew a couple that rejected the gospel but just knew they would be together. SWK said they could say that a hunderd times but would do no good. And in MOF said vicarious temple work is for those that don't have the oppurtunity.

I recently heard a high councilor say how the temple would help some people who didn't make it in this life. Will God be mocked if they rejected it now. Temple work won't do then if you reject it now.


SWK told of someone that was killed an hour after civil marriage in Salt Lake could of gone to temple since God won't be mocked. Another morbid story before Rexburg Temple was built couple got married in Rexburg no temple there a week later groom killed in accident. Planned to go. Nelson is not the first to say such things. Kimball and McConkie and several others said just as much. Job to teach doctrine. Not what sounds popular.
It's opinions like these that make me wish Elder Nelson would be a little more careful in his phrasing.

I actually enjoyed Elder Nelson's talk. I don't think his intent was to condemn any departed loved ones--it was to encourage those who are married to honor their covenants and those who aren't married to set temple marriage as an important goal. I particularly liked his thought that all activities in the Church are directed toward the goal of creating exalted families. I think the obituary example was a little overboard and unnecessary as he'd already made his point, but that's just my opinion.

On a sidenote, the number of times you hear the Proclamation quoted as "marriage between a man and a woman is sacred" make me wonder if the Church is really understanding others' objection to Prop 8. I think we all agree that heterosexual marriage is sacred; the objection is to how large of a role a religion should play in secular politics.

Last edited by ERCougar; 10-09-2008 at 02:27 PM.
ERCougar is offline   Reply With Quote