Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_antishock8]

Listen, LDS people, if the Catholic church, or various Jewish factions were to take YOUR ancestor specifically, and perform what you would consider a very disrespectful ordinance aimed specifically at that ancestor, that in of itself is disrespectful. If a Catholic priest were to have a Send to Hell Ceremony in which YOUR ancestor was specifically named, singled out, and a rite was specifically performed sending him or her to Hell.... That would be offensive.

Jesus Christ. What the hell is wrong with you apologists? You have no sense.

Opposing belief systems are hard enough to manage without people going apesh**, but when you specifically target a member of their family... That's a whole new level of sh**ty.

[_guy sajer]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the standard is not whether YOU would be offended.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't my argument or what I had in mind.

Would I be offended if I were Catholic? Probably. Would I be (or am I) offended at Catholic views on abortion if I were (or since I am) pro-choice? Probably. Would I change my actions or ideas just to avoid offending them? Nope. Do I expect others to change their actions to avoid offending me? No, not always. I simply expect them to be willing to live with the consequences of offending me. Is it better to offend God or man? Well, if God doesn't exist, then I suppose it's a no-brainer. If God does exist, it's also a no-brainer.

But there is an obvious disconnect in abortion vs templework. Templework doesn't have the urgency and physical health considerations that abortion does. That's not the point of the analogy, but yes it does mean that perhaps one has more leeway in avoiding offense for templework than in abortion--depending on the whole God factor.

What is clear is that plenty of other people ARE offended, including Jews and Catholics, and I would be willing to bet many others as well.

No doubt as I'm certain I conceded.

I'm frankly surprised Ab-Man that you fail to grasp this, as you are pretty reasonable about other things.

I am not saying that offending others doesn't matter. I am not saying that it doesn't matter because I wouldn't be offended if people did it to my ancestors. I'm saying that offensive actions are something to take into consideration, not something to let control your life. I recommend discussing things as reasonably as possible. When that fails (as with abortion debates) weigh the options of continual offense.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

Granted, one cannot always avoid giving offense. But one CAN avoid giving offense in obvious ways by doing or saying things that he/she knows will (and reasonably so) offend others.

The Mormon Church desperately wants to be considered mainstream, but it seems to have a hard to fathoming that things like this (along with its truly wacky beliefs and its association with polygamy) will forever (or at least the foreseeable future) cause others to view it as weird and set apart.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Listen, LDS people, if the Catholic church, or various Jewish factions were to take YOUR ancestor specifically, and perform what you would consider a very disrespectful ordinance aimed specifically at that ancestor, that in of itself is disrespectful. If a Catholic priest were to have a Send to Hell Ceremony in which YOUR ancestor was specifically named, singled out, and a rite was specifically performed sending him or her to Hell.... That would be offensive.

I wouldn't be offended in the least.

[_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.

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.

It's the general idea that Brian Laundrie believes the LDS Church is a big hoax, a scam, meaningless, etc. Thus, it would follow that LDS ordinances have no efficacy in the mind of Brian Laundrie and are thus irrelevant.

[_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.

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.

We see things differently. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[_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.

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.

I certainly don't see it as money-motivated, and I personally don't see it as being across the board related to earning "points."

Additionally, the concept of vicarious work is what Christianity is based upon, so there is actually something Biblical about it. Baptism is Biblical. Vicarious work is Biblical. The debate continues regarding Paul's baptism for the dead comment to the Corinthians. To claim it is "not Biblical" is simply not true.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I can understand why some people see it that way. Personally I don't see it that way. When I die, if you'd like to perform in my behalf vicarious unbaptism, or vicarious wedgie or whatever you'd like to do I am perfectly fine with it.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

This is not a good comparison from my point of view. Moroni gives specific reasons why infant baptism is called an abomination. Two of the largest being that it denies the mercy of God, and it puts faith strictly in "dead works." I think a better argument could be constructed on the second point.
As far as the Catholic thing; their records, their rules, I gather.

[Guest]

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.

There are also members of other Churches who are not offended by the practice. One specifically said he had "holy envy" because of the vicarious work, and called it "beautiful." There are some who are opposed, some who don't care, and some who think it is impressive. There is a spectrum here.

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

I don't follow.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

What if FLDS were vicariously baptizing LDS into their church? Would any of you find that offensive?

I wouldn't.