Eternal marriage & temple endowment handshakes, tokens, signs & passwords

[Imwashingmypirate]

When I was a "Molly Mormon" and I understood that baptising by proxy was opening the opportunity for those in the afterlife to decide, it still felt wrong. I understand the perspective that all that is happening from what we are taught is that you are giving people the choice. But I don't think it's as simple as that. I don't think all the truth is shared. It's witchcraft and If I recall correctly there is no choice in the prayer. There's not even any respect or dignity. You are dunked one after the other. The same prayer over and over with no break between.

Also, what I find odd is that I did temple baptisms in 2005/2006. But in 2017, I had to be rebaptised because it turned out I wasn't even a member in the first place. Something went wrong somewhere. And in 2007 I was told I wasn't a member but they decided not to do anything about it and assumed it was a mistake in the paperwork. I remembered being baptised but didn't go to church the following week because my dad went crazy and decided we weren't going to church anymore. So I don't remember being confirmed. I was 8 so they said it was probably done the same day. So when I was to be rebaptised I asked about the people who were baptised by proxy and they said it won't matter. So how does it not matter if I wasn't a church member going to the temple? My thoughts were that those baptisms can't be right.

[Kishkumen]

When I was a "Molly Mormon" and I understood that baptising by proxy was opening the opportunity for those in the afterlife to decide, it still felt wrong. I understand the perspective that all that is happening from what we are taught is that you are giving people the choice. But I don't think it's as simple as that. I don't think all the truth is shared. It's witchcraft and If I recall correctly there is no choice in the prayer. There's not even any respect or dignity. You are dunked one after the other. The same prayer over and over with no break between.

Also, what I find odd is that I did temple baptisms in 2005/2006. But in 2017, I had to be rebaptised because it turned out I wasn't even a member in the first place. Something went wrong somewhere. And in 2007 I was told I wasn't a member but they decided not to do anything about it and assumed it was a mistake in the paperwork. I remembered being baptised but didn't go to church the following week because my dad went crazy and decided we weren't going to church anymore. So I don't remember being confirmed. I was 8 so they said it was probably done the same day. So when I was to be rebaptised I asked about the people who were baptised by proxy and they said it won't matter. So how does it not matter if I wasn't a church member going to the temple? My thoughts were that those baptisms can't be right.

Thanks for sharing that story! That is quite a messy experience with baptism. I respect your feelings about proxy baptism, but I don’t share them.

[Imwashingmypirate]

When I was a "Molly Mormon" and I understood that baptising by proxy was opening the opportunity for those in the afterlife to decide, it still felt wrong. I understand the perspective that all that is happening from what we are taught is that you are giving people the choice. But I don't think it's as simple as that. I don't think all the truth is shared. It's witchcraft and If I recall correctly there is no choice in the prayer. There's not even any respect or dignity. You are dunked one after the other. The same prayer over and over with no break between.

Also, what I find odd is that I did temple baptisms in 2005/2006. But in 2017, I had to be rebaptised because it turned out I wasn't even a member in the first place. Something went wrong somewhere. And in 2007 I was told I wasn't a member but they decided not to do anything about it and assumed it was a mistake in the paperwork. I remembered being baptised but didn't go to church the following week because my dad went crazy and decided we weren't going to church anymore. So I don't remember being confirmed. I was 8 so they said it was probably done the same day. So when I was to be rebaptised I asked about the people who were baptised by proxy and they said it won't matter. So how does it not matter if I wasn't a church member going to the temple? My thoughts were that those baptisms can't be right.

Thanks for sharing that story! That is quite a messy experience with baptism. I respect your feelings about proxy baptism, but I don’t share them.

That's ok. We all have different understandings and feelings. I don't understand, to me, if people are allowed to convert in the afterlife, why can't their spirits be baptised?

[Kishkumen]

That's ok. We all have different understandings and feelings. I don't understand, to me, if people are allowed to convert in the afterlife, why can't their spirits be baptised?

From the appearance of the Book of Mormon, Mormon doctrine was that acts of salvation had to occur in the mortal sphere. I think salvation of the dead presented a problem. How can salvation occur after this life if “now is the day,” so to speak. Proxy ordinances are a work around. That’s my secular explanation and a guess.

[Imwashingmypirate]

That's ok. We all have different understandings and feelings. I don't understand, to me, if people are allowed to convert in the afterlife, why can't their spirits be baptised?

From the appearance of the Book of Mormon, Mormon doctrine was that acts of salvation had to occur in the mortal sphere. I think salvation of the dead presented a problem. How can salvation occur after this life if “now is the day,” so to speak. Proxy ordinances are a work around. That’s my secular explanation and a guess.

I think there could be a whole discussion on this. Your explanation makes sense. I wonder though if change of heart is part of the act of salvation that should happen in the physical sense maybe. Or is it more for people who weren't given the opportunity to know.

Don't know. I get the idea. Taking the kids on an Easter hunt today. Even this Easter egg hunt is strange. My kids ask questions about what Santa has to do with jesus. And why we celebrate Easter and Christmas. Curious minds. Anyway...

[Kishkumen]

The problem starts with Mormons doing vicarious rituals on behalf of people who haven’t requested it. It is Mormons creating the issue and the burden of understanding sits entirely with them. Simply stop doing the rituals for people who haven’t requested it. End of problem.

It’s not a harmless activity if people feel harmed. You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn’t acceptable. Common decency suggests that no institution should be using the names of people for any purpose unless they have permission to do so. It’s a breach of an individual’s privacy. It’s taking someone’s name in vain.

People won’t tolerate Mormons riding roughshod over the names of their deceased ancestors without permission. That’s not bigotry. It’s cause and effect. If Mormons want to express their faith in the afterlife by performing a set of weird rituals on behalf of others, fine. Just do it with names for which permission has been granted. Or do it generically. End of problem.

You don’t say to a person who’s just been punched “stop being offended and intolerant of the guy who thrust out his fist” do you?

The comparison is so revealing. Punching a person and performing a ritual that makes it possible for someone to be saved in the afterlife. So similar, eh? The intent behind them is very different, and the outcome too. I am not on board with treating feeling upset the same as being physically harmed. That’s a dangerous road to go down. It is the conflating of those two things that made me part ways with the extreme left. A right not to be offended is not a winning proposition.

[I Have Questions]

When a person’s name has been farmed by the Church, put on a database to have Mormon rituals done using that name, what record of that activity is made by the Church?

How does the Church obtain a persons details, in order that they can have Mormons do rituals using those details?

If, say, a Satanic order was doing something similar with the names of deceased Mormons, would their Mormon relatives be wrong to feel aggrieved?

Freedom of religion is the freedom for people to practice their religion for themselves. It’s not freedom to practice their religion on people not of their faith. I’ve explained before that Mormon temple rituals for dead people are not essential. People are born and live and die without any record of them ever being made. On that basis, they won’t have vicarious temple rituals done for them. So it’s inescapable within Mormon beliefs for there not to be another way for these people to receive “the offer”.

And, as you know, the rituals are not worded as an offer. They are worded as if the person is there, agreeing to it. The idea that it’s an offer is simple pr spin to try and deflect criticism about what they are doing with peoples names without their, or their living relatives permission.

If you can’t baptise someone who is living without their permission, why is it okay after they’ve died?

Here’s something the Church could do to halt the problem which it is causing by members doing rituals for random dead people. Insist members only do vicarious temple rituals for their own ancestors. Job done, end of problem.

After discussions with Mokotoff and other Jewish leaders, the LDS church in 1995 established a rule barring baptisms of Holocaust victims except in rare cases where they are direct ancestors. It also bars proxy baptisms on celebrities.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/Mormons-d ... t-victims/

Why are celebrities more worthy of protection from having vicarious baptisms performed in their name without their permission than other non-celebrity non Mormons?

[Kishkumen]

I’d say that it is always better to respect the feelings of others, naturally. Better to go that route for sure.

Personally, I don’t care if people do rituals to my ancestors. Have at it. I won’t lose any sleep over it. I don’t see why anyone does, but I also see no need to provoke people or disrespect their feelings.

[Marcus]

Freedom of religion is the freedom for people to practice their religion for themselves. It’s not freedom to practice their religion on people not of their faith.

This remains the single best response to 'freedom of religion' arguments and the idea that people object only because they hate the Mormon religion.

And, as you know, the rituals are not worded as an offer. They are worded as if the person is there, agreeing to it. The idea that it’s an offer is simple pr spin to try and deflect criticism about what they are doing with peoples names without their, or their living relatives permission.

The after-the-fact spin is a strategy frequently used in the lds church. Their current argument that confession to a bishop is confidential is another example. That only became a thing when it came to light that Mormons were protecting abusers through mis-use of the hotline. Ironically, when the hotline is called it is called by bishops who are breaking confidentiality.

[sock puppet]

From the appearance of the Book of Mormon, Mormon doctrine was that acts of salvation had to occur in the mortal sphere. I think salvation of the dead presented a problem. How can salvation occur after this life if “now is the day,” so to speak. Proxy ordinances are a work around. That’s my secular explanation and a guess.

I don't care if someone in the bayou makes a doll of my image and sticks pins in it. It's meaningless, so if they want to waste their time doing it, "party on." That's what I view the LDS temple ordinances for the dead to be, but instead of trying to inflict pain and suffering on the deceased being, the LDS are trying to save them.

The notion of a work around however is laughable. God is so rigid and insistent about these 'ordinances' being done by mortals, but its okay if done by mortals by proxy for the dead that didn't get it done here? Is the LDS God one that relishes imposing requirements but is okay with workarounds and that does the trick? What a silly being the LDS God must be.