Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_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.

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.

It doesn't matter that Mormons think it's done out of love. Jews and Catholics are offended at Mormon behavior directed at them and their loved ones. They haven't done anything to disrespect your ancestors, but in their minds you are absolutely disgracing the memory of their loved ones. This really shouldn't be a mystery to anyone.

[_Inconceivable]

Laop,

It is a contemptable mockery and disrespect for personal beliefs and culture. It is to some an act of desecration.



I'm surprised you don't understand this concept.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Clearly not every one that gets a calling in the LDS Church is going to get it based on revelation or inspiration. Indeed you beleive that there is ZIPPO inspiration in the LDS Church. So assuming the LDS Church is just another organization trying to do what they do in the best way they know how you still cannot lay the abuse of anyone person on the LDS Church's doorstep. They did not do the abuse, they did not cause the abuse. Some people that are LDS mayby could have done much better in dealing with abuse they became aware of. Society as a whole has been slow to deal with this problem.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think that LDS would say that vicarious baptism is an act of love.

Of course they do. They believe baptism is an essential ordinance for salvation.

I don't see it that way

Well that is too bad.

at all and understand why it is offensive to believer and non-believers of all stripes.

I can understand why some may be offended sure.

There is nothing Biblical about it.

That is debatable but really so what? Mormons do not rely on the Bible alone for their doctrine or practice. So it is a moot point.

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.

I think your cynicism on this point is rather shameful. LDS don't do it to score points. Most do it because they really believe they are helping towards someone' salvation.

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.

I am not sure how that would result in more tithing at all.

[_cksalmon]

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.

Goodness, LOAP. Why invoke a binary here?

Can't you just say, "I disagree with your position, but I sympathize with your loss?"

----------------------------------------------------------------



PP: I am so sorry to hear of this, no doubt, devastating loss you and yours are fighting through.

Chris

[_the road to hana]

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.

Two things:

1) You might think that baptism for infants has no efficacy, either, but you might also consider it to be an abomination and an affront, and would prefer that no one baptize your infant. Does that mean you think it's valid? Not at all. You just don't want it done, don't believe in it, and even if you think it's benign, it's against your beliefs.

2) You're ignoring that greater issue about a church's right to its own--its own records, its own members, its own practices, its own teachings. This business about the Catholic Church deciding to not release parish records to the LDS Church because of the proxy baptism thing needs to be seen through the lens of whether or not the LDS Church views its own records (records of ordinances particularly) and intellectual property to be proprietary. Is there any non-LDS church in the world which could ask for the personal membership and ordinance records of the LDS Church and receive them, even if it did it under the guise of wanting to further genealogical research? It's highly doubtful. The LDS Church doesn't even like people to have access to the CHI.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'll take this in small pieces, Jason.

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.

I think your cynicism on this point is rather shameful. LDS don't do it to score points. Most do it because they really believe they are helping towards someone' salvation.

Answer this question, Jason. Can LDS achieve the Celestial Kingdom/exaltation to godhood, if they fail to do the work of vicarious baptism in this life on earth?

Here's the next piece:

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.

I am not sure how that would result in more tithing at all.

Can an LDS person enter the Temple to perform vicarious baptism without a TR? Can an LDS person secure a TR without tithing?

[_harmony]

Is there any non-LDS church in the world which could ask for the personal membership and ordinance records of the LDS Church and receive them, even if it did it under the guise of wanting to further genealogical research? It's highly doubtful. The LDS Church doesn't even like people to have access to the CHI.

Now that is a very interesting perspective, Road. And I think you're right. No way would the church allow any other church access to our records for any purpose whatsoever. No way.

[_Yong Xi]

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.

Apparently Jews and Catholics are offended. Might you be offended if you were Jewish or Catholic? Do you get to decide whether they are offended or not? The fact is, they don't like it.

Maybe you should change your name to HDoaS. (Hot Dog on a Stick)

[_guy sajer]

I would guess that barring baptisms for the dead would have to be part of a broader strategy that would forbid masses for the dead, prayers for the dead, invoking the memory of the dead, and, perhaps, thinking of the dead altogether.

I am sorry, Dan, but your analogies do not work. Baptizing a deceased person into the Mormon Church is an act that goes substantially beyond praying, invoking memory, etc. I think you're smart enough to figure this out.

Have you every tried to understand this from the position of someone who might find this objectionable? Your curt dismissal suggests that you have not.

I suspect that families of Holocaust victims, for the most part, don't mind if others remember, pray for, hold mass for, etc. the deceased victims. But they DO appear to have a problem with the Mormon Church baptizing them, post mortem, into the Mormon Church. Why do you think that is?

Perhaps it might help to hold down your knee to keep it from jerking so quickly and take a moment to ponder this and to try to put yourself in someone else's position.

I cannot help but wonder how members of the Mormon Church would feel on learning that their deceased loved ones were being inducted into the Jehova's Witness en masse. I'd bet that were this to happen, that they would, at last, learn some empathy.