Oh the hypocrisy of Provo professors!!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Like, there is no difference between praying for a dead person of another religion, and performing an act that makes them a member of your religion?

I'm unaware of any act that, if performed, would do this.

[_Chap]

Like, there is no difference between praying for a dead person of another religion, and performing an act that makes them a member of your religion?

I'm unaware of any act that, if performed, would do this.

In their naïve way, you will find that a lot of Jews are under the impression that Christian baptism is the rite by which one becomes a Christian. That is why many of them were prepared to undergo extraordinary hardships in order to avoid undergoing it.

But now doubt they are wrong about that, as about so many other things.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're either playing dumb again, Chap, or you don't understand the LDS practice of vicarious baptism.

Were you ever a Mormon?

[_Joey]

You're either playing dumb again, Chap, or you don't understand the LDS practice of vicarious baptism.

Were you ever a Mormon?

This is all just continued apologetic tap dancing around the issue of LDS hypocrisy.

Just a simple question:

Why the need for the 1995 agreement to stop the baptisms if not out of "respect for religious sensibilities"
?

Jason, Peterson, ???

[_Daniel Peterson]

Since Chap seems to be gone, and since I can't be around here all day, I'll just go ahead and explain:

Latter-day Saints do not believe that vicarious baptisms "make" anybody Mormon. Such baptisms are offered to the dead, but the dead must choose whether to accept them or to reject them. (In this, they are quite different from ordinary baptism for living people, who must, in order to receive that ordinance, have already chosen to do so.) Freedom of choice is an absolutely central principle of Mormon belief.

People for whom vicarious baptisms have been performed are not added to Church membership rolls; we do not know whether the ordinance has been received or declined, and would not, in any case, knowingly enroll the dead among living members.

[_Chap]

You're either playing dumb again, Chap, or you don't understand the LDS practice of vicarious baptism.

Were you ever a Mormon?

If there is one thing that might convince me that the CoJCoLDS preserves genuine remnants of semitic practice, it could be that someone can take these words:

"Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for and in behalf of [full name of deceased person], who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

and then say that they haven't baptised the dead person. That requires pilpul logic at its finest. Me and those Jews must just be too dumb to get the point.

[_Some Schmo]

You're either playing dumb again, Chap, or you don't understand the LDS practice of vicarious baptism.

Were you ever a Mormon?

Were you ever a Jew? Who's the one playing dumb now?

It's not about what the Mormons believe about it, it's what the Jews think. It is, after all, their relatives we're talking about.

Why is it not the least bit surprising you don't seem to get this simple point?

[_The Nehor]

Me and those Jews must just be too dumb to get the point.

YES!!!!! Now you understand.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If there is one thing that might convince me that the CoJCoLDS preserves genuine remnants of semitic practice, it could be that someone can take these words:

"Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for and in behalf of [full name of deceased person], who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

and then say that they haven't baptised the dead person. That requires pilpul logic at its finest. Me and those Jews must just be too dumb to get the point.

Sarcasm duly noted again, and given its appropriate evidentiary weight.

What you think Mormon doctrine ought to be isn't the question. It's what Mormon doctrine is.

And Latter-day Saints have consistently taught, from the very beginning of the practice, that the dead retain their agency and that vicarious ordinances are offered to the dead for either free acceptance or free rejection. You will, I'm absolutely confident, find no authoritative Latter-day Saint figure arguing otherwise. Ever.

[_Chap]

If there is one thing that might convince me that the CoJCoLDS preserves genuine remnants of semitic practice, it could be that someone can take these words:

"Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for and in behalf of [full name of deceased person], who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

and then say that they haven't baptised the dead person. That requires pilpul logic at its finest. Me and those Jews must just be too dumb to get the point.

Sarcasm duly noted again, and given its appropriate evidentiary weight.

What you think Mormon doctrine ought to be isn't the question. It's what Mormon doctrine is.

And Latter-day Saints have consistently taught, from the very beginning of the practice, that the dead retain their agency and that vicarious ordinances are offered to the dead for either free acceptance or free rejection. You will, I'm absolutely confident, find no authoritative Latter-day Saint figure arguing otherwise. Ever.

Why yes. If only those Jews would listen carefully enough to the explanations furnished to them by representatives of the First Presidency, they could not possibly sustain their objections to having their dead relations vicariously baptized.

Maybe you need to explain again.