Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_antishock8]

Why do they even use names?

Instead of a name they should just say "For a person who is dead"

This would be much more efficient. You would get a 1 to 1 Ratio of every temple session to person that is allowed to spirit paradise. Right now many of the same people get their work done for over and over and over again. People get the names messed up, dates wrong, etc and the work does not help anybody else out on the other side. Also think of the many people that have to hang out in spirit prison because nobody knows their name.

I would hate to be the records clerk on the other side. "Sorry Alphonse Diedrick, they didn't get your name quite right so you have to hang out here in spirit prison until they do".

Sorry to hear of your loss Boaz.

The better question is, why not do a single ordinance to cover all, living and dead, and get it done?

When you have the answer to that, you have the answer to why proxy ordinances for the dead exist in LDS culture in the first place.

Ever read Animal Farm? I was reminded of that book often when doing temple work. It's not sacred. It's busy work to keep the proletariat occupied and stupid.

[_the road to hana]

It's busy work to keep the proletariat occupied and stupid.

Yes, and numb to it enough not to see it. That's the point of genealogy work, too--it's the ultimate endless task.

I guess it could be worse. The could be doing Sudoku for Salvation.

[_Jersey Girl]

Dancer, I guess you have found that logic has no room in Mormon theology.

Hey why not have Christ come down a do one session inthe SLC temple in the name of all humanity?

Oh but then the LDS temples would get little use...

Actually, according to the Bible (accepted by LDS a scripture), Christ did come down to do one session on the cross.

I see what your point is here regarding temple use and tithing as you mentioned in a previous post. Your position is that vicarious baptism (and other ordinances) are not just for the sake of spiritual purposes but also bring in revenue, if you will.

I agree with you on that.

In terms of what is right/wrong or ethical to do regarding your deceased loved one and how to stop it. It can't be stopped. In that regard, I think you have to simply ignore it for what it is to others and how little meaning it holds for you.

You can't stop people from living out their religious beliefs or contributing their hard earned money to do it. It's their choice to do it and believe it has merit. It's your choice not to.

You have my sincere sympathy.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

I gave him the only "serious" answer he's going to get other then the answer that there is no way. Admittedly it was kind of silly since he's unlikely to be willing and/or able to fulfill all the requirements. Still, sometimes reality is damn sick and can be a joke.

A normal person would think that when someone poses two questions regarding vicarious baptism for the dead and marks it "serious", that an actual deceased person might be involved. A person who claims to be a follower of Christ, might actually take the opportunity to contribute a serious response delivered in kindness or compassion. Maybe even muster up a little grace in light of the possibility that the one who wrote the OP might be grieving.

But not you.

You chose to respond with your typical lack of depth and insight.

Jersey Girl

[_Inconceivable]

The point is, Jason, is that the Mormon God gave no heads up, no standard or precedences as the law of the land has done in the past 15 to 20 years.

Yes, for the church to claim that they receive continuing revelation, they are technically responsible as well as irresponsible. Truth is, if they were inspired at all on how to deal with sexual predators, it was from Satan Himself. Many hearts have died, peirced with deep wounds. The ripples in the pond are legion.

My first hand experiences demonstrate over and over that the Mormon God had no discernable opinion on such abominations and did little, if anything, to intervene - ever.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If the LDS Church is false I see no reason to be concerned over someone performing proxy ordinances that have no efficacy. If there was a person in Oklahoma who "unbaptized" me by proxy, I would not be offended in the least. I realize that is a personal view, but to be short, concern like this seems to be based on hate for an organization rather than actual concern for a loved one.

[_bcspace]

Is it possible to prevent the zealous temple monkeys from using a specific name in their stupid temple ceremonies for the dead?

Is it possible to request a name removal of a deceased person who was only baptized?

Since this stuff ostensibly doesn't have any affect at all, why would anyone want to prevent such?

[_Jersey Girl]

If the LDS Church is false I see no reason to be concerned over someone performing proxy ordinances that have no efficacy. If there was a person in Oklahoma who "unbaptized" me by proxy, I would not be offended in the least. I realize that is a personal view, but to be short, concern like this seems to be based on hate for an organization rather than actual concern for a loved one.

Please repost any comments by B&L that lead you to believe that the OP was posted out of "actual concern for a loved one". I'd like to know where you get that from.

[_antishock8]

If the LDS Church is false I see no reason to be concerned over someone performing proxy ordinances that have no efficacy. If there was a person in Oklahoma who "unbaptized" me by proxy, I would not be offended in the least. I realize that is a personal view, but to be short, concern like this seems to be based on hate for an organization rather than actual concern for a loved one.

This is a false dilemma. It's just offensive and disrespectful behavior. It means you don't respect their religion because they can see that in your mind their religion is insufficient and you're correcting something erroneous. That's offensive and disrespectful. They're not extremists for feeling that way.

[_Jersey Girl]

If the LDS Church is false I see no reason to be concerned over someone performing proxy ordinances that have no efficacy. If there was a person in Oklahoma who "unbaptized" me by proxy, I would not be offended in the least. I realize that is a personal view, but to be short, concern like this seems to be based on hate for an organization rather than actual concern for a loved one.

This is a false dilemma. It's just offensive and disrespectful behavior. It means you don't respect their religion because they can see that in your mind their religion is insufficient and you're correcting something erroneous. That's offensive and disrespectful. They're not extremists for feeling that way.

I think that LDS would say that vicarious baptism is an act of love. I don't see it that way at all and understand why it is offensive to believer and non-believers of all stripes. There is nothing Biblical about it. It is intended to make LDS feel that they're doing something useful for another person in the eternities when the more likely outcome is that they are attempting to score points with God. What B&L seemed to object to was the real possiblity that his deceased loved one would be used in such a way that her vicarious baptism would result in more financial gain for the church through tithing.

Unless I read him wrong.