I recently read, and greatly enjoyed, Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. (Yes, I know there’s a reading group going on; I don’t want to spoil it, but wanted to make a comment about the book generally, rather than about a specific chapter.)
One of the things Bushman did well was to describe some of the processes of Joseph’s doctrinal developments, particularly the doctrine of baptism for the dead. There was a very productive tension in Joseph between necessary, authoritative ordinances and a universalism arising from his understanding of the mercy of God. As he put it in his letter to Nancy Rigdon:
Our heavenly father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive, and at the same time is as terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of his punishments, and more ready to detect every false way than we are apt to suppose him to be.
The same tension between the mercy and the authority of God is at work in modern statements regarding the faithful who have no opportunity to marry in this life: the mercy of God will allow them the opportunity to receive all the same blessings in eternity, and we assume that some ordinance will be involved in keeping with the commandments of God.
Proxy ordinance work for the dead was an inspired solution to this seeming dilemma — a dilemma that other churches are currently wrestling with, and have been for some time. There are so many aspects of Joseph’s revelations that resonate with me, but this one, I think, is particular evidence of his prophetic stature: the revelation of a universal God of all people, who wants to make all of us his chosen, and has provided a means to reconcile these seemingly opposing ideas of chosenness and universalism: Saviors on Mount Zion.
Not just proxy work, but our whole theology of the spirit world and the work done there. Of course a lot of that was added to by the revelation to Joseph F. Smith. But I earnestly think that in terms of judgment, most of what counts will come from the spirit world and not here. Consider that for many, many people they will spend 10 – 100 times their lifetimes in spirit prison. And almost certainly the vast, vast majority of people who will accept the gospel will accept it there rather than here.
Clark is right, I don’t think that it would be too far off to think that revelation regarding temple ordinances for the dead are not only eternal ordinances, but also prayed to come to pass by those in the Spirit world — not that Clark was insuating that but it could eb an extension of what he has said. I think this might be kind of like Enos when he prayed that the plates would be preserved and that at some future day the Lamanties would again be brought to the truth, and they both have happened. So, perhaps the revelations given are in answer to prayers from those in the Spirit world. Hmmm, interesting thought…anyone wanna add to this?
Christopher, I agree with you. I also think the doctrine of baptism for the dead answers a lot of questions that other religions don’t have an answer for. There is a significant amount of evidence that 1st and 2nd century AD Christians believed in baptism for the dead, evidence that has been noticed by many historians. This evidence is difficult to explain away for many non-LDS Christian academics, so they tend to ignore it.
I like to think this although I know that there are a lot of people who will argue that God will obey his laws.
1. We don’t know all His laws to the last jot and tittle
2. He decides who gets into His kingdom
3. My job is to be obedient