Now, if these Jews were to answer for the blood of their progenitors because they neglected the salvation of their dead, then, may we not ask; will not we have to answer for the blood of our dead if we neglect these ordinances in their behalf? It matters not even if we have been baptized and have had hands laid on our heads for the reception of the Holy Ghost; if we wilfully neglect the salvation of our dead, then also we shall stand rejected of the Lord because we have rejected our dead; and just so sure their blood will be required at our hands. Now, what is the attitude of the "Reorganized" Church in relation to the salvation of the dead, the neglect of which the Church--yes, and also the individual--was to stand rejected of the Lord? I have here a copy of a resolution that was passed by the general conference of that sect in 1886, at the time that Mr. Briggs withdrew. This resolution is in reply to his charge that he could not accept the principle of "baptism for the dead." Here it is: "That as to the alleged Temple building and ceremonial endowments therein, that we know of no Temple building, except as edifices wherein to worship God, and no endowment except the endowment of the Holy Spirit of the kind experienced by the early Saints on Pentecost day." "'Baptism for the dead' referred to belongs to those local questions of which the body has said by resolution: "'That the commandments of a local character, given to the first organization of the Church are binding on the Reorganization only so far as they are either reiterated or referred to as binding by commandment to this church. And _that_ principle has neither been reiterated nor referred to as a commandment." Just think of that! They declare that we were rejected because we failed to build a house where these ordinances were to be performed, and yet they actually have the audacity to say that the work of salvation for the dead is not binding on them because it has not been reiterated or referred to as a commandment binding on them. Now is that consistent? They call it a local commandment, yet we have seen that this commandment was the burden of the Scriptures and the greatest responsibility that God has placed upon us, and we are obliged to save our dead if we would ourselves be saved. And yet, this commandment without which the whole earth was to be utterly wasted and destroyed--this eternal commandment that had been prepared before the foundation of the world--is not binding on them! "A local commandment!" "A permissive rite!" My friends, from the teachings of Joseph Smith the Prophet, which I have presented, you may well judge which is the Church "rejected with its dead."[14] Footnotes