Post Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Do infants need the endowment?
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 6:46PM #1
grace7
Posts: 986
Last Sunday in Relief Society there was a question about baptism and how it isn't necessary until the age of accountability, but what about the endowment? Or are they saved through the sealing to their parents? Or are they just simply saved no matter what?

I have a friend who had a little sister who died (under the age of 8,) and his mother was proxy for the endowment. At least that's what he told me.

:confused:

Thanks!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 7:59PM #2
Ironhold
Posts: 11,396
If the parents were sealed, then that sealing covers the child.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 8:25PM #3
grace7
Posts: 986
Is it true that if parents lose a child in this life that they will be able to raise them during the millennium?

If so, then won't the child become old enough to eventually get baptized and make all of the rest of the covenants?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 8:56PM #4
moksha8088
Posts: 4,921
Saved no matter what.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 10:30PM #5
MMCSFOX
Posts: 1,531
“Is it true that if parents lose a child in this life that they will be able to raise them during the millennium?”
*
That is one of the things that many people would like to be true but is not. Now this may be true for someone that has had this as a blessing promise but is not normal.

Think about, it when a child has died they are without sin yet may have duties and callings to be put to use in the heavens where there are so many spirits that need to be taught. Why should they be held back when there is no need to do so and there is work to do.

True each of us has our own path we need to take but a sinless child is spared much of the tribulations and can directly take up whatever duties Father has for them.

Jesse F.
*
President David O. McKay said: "Our earthly existence is but a test to see whether we choose to follow and develop our carnal nature or our spiritual nature."
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 7:59PM #6
Ironhold
Posts: 11,396
If the parents were sealed, then that sealing covers the child.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 8:25PM #7
grace7
Posts: 986
Is it true that if parents lose a child in this life that they will be able to raise them during the millennium?

If so, then won't the child become old enough to eventually get baptized and make all of the rest of the covenants?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 8:56PM #8
moksha8088
Posts: 4,921
Saved no matter what.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 10:30PM #9
MMCSFOX
Posts: 1,531
“Is it true that if parents lose a child in this life that they will be able to raise them during the millennium?”
*
That is one of the things that many people would like to be true but is not. Now this may be true for someone that has had this as a blessing promise but is not normal.

Think about, it when a child has died they are without sin yet may have duties and callings to be put to use in the heavens where there are so many spirits that need to be taught. Why should they be held back when there is no need to do so and there is work to do.

True each of us has our own path we need to take but a sinless child is spared much of the tribulations and can directly take up whatever duties Father has for them.

Jesse F.
*
President David O. McKay said: "Our earthly existence is but a test to see whether we choose to follow and develop our carnal nature or our spiritual nature."
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2008 - 8:26PM #10
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,206
[QUOTE=grace7;456648]Last Sunday in Relief Society there was a question about baptism and how it isn't necessary until the age of accountability, but what about the endowment? Or are they saved through the sealing to their parents? Or are they just simply saved no matter what?

I have a friend who had a little sister who died (under the age of 8,) and his mother was proxy for the endowment. At least that's what he told me.

:confused:

Thanks![/QUOTE]

Unless some of the other churches, the LDS Church has no doctrine requiring anything of infants, nor are infants punished in any way for dying before any rite or ritual could be performed on their behalf.  Official LDS doctrine is that "sin" as we know it is not attributed to any person before the "age of accountability," which begins at age 8.  Even then, how much accountability are you going to attribute to an 8-year-old?

If baptism isn't necessary, is the Endowment?

There are lots of ways to argue the point, all of them purely speculative.  If baptism is for the remission of sins, and one hasn't lived long enough to be accountable, there's no point to being baptized.  On the other hand, it's possible to imagine a person living out the remainder of one's life during the millennium, at which point baptism could occur.  Then again, if someone has already lived and died, is a second incarnation a form of reincarnation?  And if that person has been resurrected, isn't it contradictory to imagine a baptism performed after the fact?

But that's baptism.  We haven't even gotten to the subject of the Endowment.

If the Endowment is offered vicariously to those who never had it in this life, one wonders why it isn't more often an issue with children who died young.  The typical response is that such children don't need baptism - even though everybody else needs it.  That seems odd in a church that prides itself on providing all persons the same rituals and ordinances, whether they're getting it in this life or beyond the grave.  It would seem that what is expected of one person should be expected of another, even if those expectations are accommodated through opportunities like temple baptisms and temple endowments.

How weird would it be to have a whole class of humanity who were never baptized and never Endowed?

But here's the thing.  All of these rituals and ordinances are just that.  There's nothing magical in the blessing of an infant, let alone a baptism, let alone the Endowment.  It's not that priesthood hands, font water or white robes do anything, in and of themselves.  These are media rendered sacred by their use as such.  It isn't the water or the priesthood of the baptizer that cleanses someone from sin.  It's the love of God.  The ordinance has been mandated, requiring the individual to go through a certain ceremony, in order to enjoy a blessing that was already waiting there.  Certain efforts are expected.  The reasons for this are several.  The ceremony helps the individual understand and appreciate what is happening.  The ceremony also instructs all in attendance, blessing them - including the officiator.  It gives the recipient something to do, even if that something is symbolic.  Not only does this require a certain degree of humility; it also represents all of the other things that go into the blessing.  My wife and I can be "sealed" in the temple, but the quality of our marriage depends almost entirely on the things my wife and I do to make our marriage a blessing.  These things are symbolized in the sealing.

Could God "change his mind" and come up with a different approach tomorrow?  He already has.  The baptismal prayers in the Book of Mormon and Book of Acts are not identical to the ones used today.  They may not even be identical to what was used in the early days of the LDS Church.  Periodically, the Endowment is updated.  It used to be live, which has become more of a rarity.  The script has gone through various updates, as has the temple movie.  While nobody has the right to make unauthorized changes, there's nothing inherently wrong with adapting to new circumstances.  It's not that the ordinance is magic.  It's that it's commanded.  Changes could be made at any time.  The blessing is not in the words or the dip or the arrangement - all of which are designed and updated to meet the needs of those who are to be blessed through obedience.

Could Endowment be necessary where baptism isn't?  To the extent that baptism is only required of those who've reached the age of accountability - subjecting them to sin - it's distinguishable from the Endowment, which is not so much about saving men from sin as about exalting them.  As a guide, the Endowment provides each person with an eternal perspective and an opportunity for formalizing certain covenants.  Do you need it in the Spirit World?  I don't know.  Is it possible that the Endowment will be later given to those who died without it?  Who knows? 

It's quite possible that, in an effort to discourage the belief in infant baptism, that infants were left out of baptisms for the dead, even if doing so made the baptismal doctrine less consistent.  Mormons believe that Jesus was talking about baptism when he told Nicodemus that a man must be "born of the water and of the spirit."  Is there an exception to the rule that all must be born again?  Do some people not need to be born again?  Does this make sense?

What if, in an effort to get rid of infant bapism as a practice, strict orders were given not to perform baptisms for the dead in the name of those who died early?  Given the distinction between baptism (which is for remission of sins) and the Endowment (which is about making the higher and more specific covenants), one could argue that the exclusion of baptism for the dead - for infants - should not extend to the Endowment. 

But in the end, it doesn't matter either way.  It's possible that none of this stuff was ever necessary.  It's also possible that some items are judiciously being put off until the millennium, and that people are being steered to focus on the most pressing issues.  You just never know.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook