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

[Kishkumen]

In my view, the proxy ordinances are not intrusive. They are the opening of a door that one can step through or not. That’s it. There is no compulsory magic here. Are the “optics” bad? I think there is no question they are. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation.

[Marcus]

In my view, the proxy ordinances are not intrusive. They are the opening of a door that one can step through or not. That’s it. There is no compulsory magic here. Are the “optics” bad? I think there is no question they are. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation.

My spouse's sibling died this last summer. The family's catholic ceremony was touching and hugely meaningful, and reflected the family's and the sibling's lifelong and sincerely held beliefs.

The outrage, the pain, the anguish they would have felt, had I explained that because of my Mormon connection and my Mormon family's zeal in imposing their beliefs on others, their sibling might not only be baptized by proxy into a religion they see as a cult, but that he would also have temple 'ordinances' performed for them (whatever that weird thing is), and that they would be "offered" the option to leave their chosen religion and join a cult in the afterlife would have been overwhelming.

Let me repeat, their outrage, pain, and anguish would have been overwhelming.

It is a level of pain and disrespect I would not wish on any person. I cannot imagine people being complacent enough to think this is just 'optics,' and that "proxy ordinances are not intrusive." It is an ugly and horribly rude intrusion into the ceremonies surrounding the death of a family member, it is disrespectful to the wishes of the one who has passed, and it is definitely heartlessly disrespectful to the wishes of the family members left behind. How one can calmly view actions like this as nonintrusive is beyond my capacity to understand.

[Kishkumen]

My spouse's sibling died this last summer. The family's catholic ceremony was touching and hugely meaningful, and reflected the family's and the sibling's lifelong and sincerely held beliefs.

That's wonderful. I recently witnessed the Catholic funeral of a dear friend, and it was very consolatory, not to mention beautiful.

The outrage, the pain, the anguish they would have felt, had I explained that because of my Mormon connection and my Mormon family's zeal in imposing their beliefs on others, their sibling might not only be baptized by proxy into a religion they see as a cult, but that he would also have temple 'ordinances' performed for them (whatever that weird thing is), and that they would be "offered" the option to leave their chosen religion and join a cult in the afterlife would have been overwhelming.

I am sorry that they see the LDS Church as a cult. That is where the problem begins. Bigotry against Mormonism makes the entire thing seem completely unacceptable on any level for sure. If others have what I see as a bigoted view of someone else's religion, there is work to be done to inform them better.

It is impossible to manage other people's feelings completely. They will feel as they choose to feel. And I am certainly OK with that. On the other hand, we can choose to be outraged at what other people choose in their lives, or we can choose not to. If someone casts a magical spell so that I have a nice day, I will probably not get worked up about it. I am more likely to take comfort in the fact that someone wishes me well, regardless of the fact that I don't share their beliefs in magic or their religion, etc.

Let me repeat, their outrage, pain, and anguish would have been overwhelming.

It is a level of pain and disrespect I would not wish on any person. I cannot imagine people being complacent enough to think this is just 'optics,' and that "proxy ordinances are not intrusive." It is an ugly and horribly rude intrusion into the ceremonies surrounding the death of a family member, it is disrespectful to the wishes of the one who has passed, and it is definitely heartlessly disrespectful to the wishes of the family members left behind. How one can calmly view actions like this as nonintrusive is beyond my capacity to understand.

Yes, it is a tough one. People take it hard that the LDS Church performs vicarious ordinances that enable the dead to accept Mormonism after this life, if the dead want to. If one seeks to make the whole thing out to be some kind of travesty and horrible offense, there will always be people who will join the chorus to take what is meant as a good and a blessing and make it out to be some kind of terrible insult to a person's memory.

I suppose a lot depends on how one views the dead. LDS people view the departed as people who are still learning, growing, changing, and making choices. The living often want to focus on the memory of their departed loved one as they viewed them in the past. I don't think I will ever completely empathize with those who do not believe in Mormonism and yet would be anguished over someone performing a ceremony for a departed loved one that they do not even believe in, one the departed person can accept or reject.

I think the bottom line is that the ritual changes nothing. It does not make the departed person a Mormon. If the whole thing is pointless nonsense, then all that is really wasted is a lot of good time and resources making those performing the rituals feel better that they have done what they could for the salvation of the dead person. I can go my way secure in the knowledge that nothing was changed.

It seems to me that if you are not bigoted against Mormonism and you understand the intentions of those performing these rituals, then you probably won't lose any sleep over it. The trouble is that so many people do. They hate Mormonism. They are offended that Mormons would offer their departed loved ones the opportunity to become Mormons. And that is a real problem. But isn't just a problem the Mormons own. It also has to do with hatred for Mormonism.

[I Have Questions]

The trouble is that so many people do. They hate Mormonism. They are offended that Mormons would offer their departed loved ones the opportunity to become Mormons. And that is a real problem. But isn't just a problem the Mormons own. It also has to do with hatred for Mormonism.

I disagree. The problem lies 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.

[Kishkumen]

I disagree. The problem lies 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.

I disagree. The problem is that people are unaccepting of others who wish them well and hope to do well for them. Intolerance of others who are different is what leads to such misunderstandings. There is nothing intrusive about vicarious ordinances. Take away the bigotry, end of problem. Also the end of people thinking temples are weird or occult or evil. There is a common theme here, and it is a theme of anti-religious bigotry.

ETA: Let me add that I am a proponent of the religious freedom that would allow others to pray for me even if I don't believe what they believe. Or they can certainly cast happy spells at me to help me out. Or they can baptize me to change genders in the afterlife. I have no problem with any of this. Religious freedom should accommodate all of these fundamentally harmless activities. What other people choose to do as an expression of their faith that does no harm is fine with me. I think it must be tolerated by everyone in a truly pluralistic and diverse society.

[sock puppet]

I've always been perplexed with two of the LDS 'church's' continued practices because of their direct conflict with Biblical scripture as well as logic/common sense given doctrine...

1. Why, if God and Christ know each of us, our hearts, our actions, our thoughts, etc., do they apparently require secret handshakes, passwords, tokens and signs that are taught in the temple to pass guardian angels to enter their presence???

2. Why does the 'church' practice eternal marriage with the requirement of being 'sealed' to a spouse for all eternity in a temple when Christ taught in the Book of Matthew that not only is there no such thing as eternal marriage, there is no marriage in heaven at all after we die???

Question 1 boils down to, if God is omniscient and knows us to our core, why would God deny the true of heart entry into heaven if they don't do the hoky-poky and turn themselves around? Because God is not interested in the true of heart, but only in those that will do whatever others in the name of religion request? Because it is some form of virtue-signaling to one's self? Maybe "that's what its all about."

Question 2: Name me any religion that follows every iota of the Bible, without adding other things to it? Religionists love to leverage the "word of God" to subjugate followers, at least those parts that the religionist is fond of--and add a few other things into the mix, i.e., the religionist's favorite notions outside of the Bible. The Bible is a tool that religionists use over their fellow man to get the religionist's objectives.

[Marcus]

I disagree. The problem lies 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.

I agree. Being tolerant of religious beliefs doesn't include being tolerant of people who specifically impose their religious beliefs on others without permission. There is a vast difference between

a) telling someone I said a prayer for you in my (different) religion, and

b) 1)hunting up their family member's information, including their full name, and up to and including possibly the date and location of their birth, their death, and any marriages, and

b) 2)including names of spouses and children, and then,

b) 3) typically without any permission of the person or their descendants, performing multiple rituals of a different religion than their chosen one on them, and then

b) 4) recording and storing all of that information in their data base, which they then make publicly available, which database then

b) 5) implies that this person is now a member of the LDS religion and has had multiple intimate rituals performed in this religion, and further,

b) 6) the lack of permission to do any of this, as far as I know, is not indicated,

b) 7) nor are any records of other rituals from other religions, chosen by that person, documented (although on this I am only relying on my personal knowledge of records I've seen).

Without saying the name of any religion, if you asked people whether they would consider behaviors such as (a) and/or (b1 through b7) intrusive and outside the realm of acceptable behavior, the answer would be predictable. The behaviors of (b1 through b7) are unacceptable, and in my opinion people would state that, without knowing anything about which religion violates privacy like this.

On a side note, Mormonism is typically so unknown that the idea that hatred for Mormonism is driving the objection to the intrusiveness of these rituals is laughable.

[Res Ipsa]

I disagree. The problem lies 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.

I disagree. The problem is that people are unaccepting of others who wish them well and hope to do well for them. Intolerance of others who are different is what leads to such misunderstandings. There is nothing intrusive about vicarious ordinances. Take away the bigotry, end of problem. Also the end of people thinking temples are weird or occult or evil. There is a common theme here, and it is a theme of anti-religious bigotry.

ETA: Let me add that I am a proponent of the religious freedom that would allow others to pray for me even if I don't believe what they believe. Or they can certainly cast happy spells at me to help me out. Or they can baptize me to change genders in the afterlife. I have no problem with any of this. Religious freedom should accommodate all of these fundamentally harmless activities. What other people choose to do as an expression of their faith that does no harm is fine with me. I think it must be tolerated by everyone in a truly pluralistic and diverse society.

My initial reaction was the same as IHQ's. But, I have to admit, I signed on to a concept that I first heard from a guy named George Hrab: how to be a self respecting atheist in a world of theists without being an asshole. So, when one of my theist friends says they will pray for me, I thank them. What I hear them saying is "I'm going to take the time to do something nice that will help you." And what possible objection would I have to that?

On the other hand, I grew up believing in baptism for the dead. I did baptisms for the dead. So, they seem normal to me. Given that I don't believe in any sort of life after death, performing some kind of religious ceremony after I die makes no never mind for me. Heck, it might be cool if a First Nation people did a ritual for me. But it really won't matter to me -- I'll be dead.

On the other hand (yes, that's three hands now), I can see how LDS performance of baptism for the dead would be offensive to members of other religions. And I don't think it's fair to blame that entirely on the bigotry of the offended. Baptism of Jews killed in the holocaust is, I think, the clearest example. But, performing religious ordinances for an adherent of another religion without their consent seems to me to cross a line that gives people a reasonable grounds to object without being accused of bigotry. I understand that it's well intentioned, but the road to hell and all that.

[Kishkumen]

I agree. Being tolerant of religious beliefs doesn't include being tolerant of people who specifically impose their religious beliefs on others without permission.

I don’t see any imposition of religious beliefs on others here. Who is forced or imposed upon? How?

[I Have Questions]

I disagree. The problem lies 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.

I disagree. The problem is that people are unaccepting of others who wish them well and hope to do well for them. Intolerance of others who are different is what leads to such misunderstandings. There is nothing intrusive about vicarious ordinances. Take away the bigotry, end of problem. Also the end of people thinking temples are weird or occult or evil. There is a common theme here, and it is a theme of anti-religious bigotry.

ETA: Let me add that I am a proponent of the religious freedom that would allow others to pray for me even if I don't believe what they believe. Or they can certainly cast happy spells at me to help me out. Or they can baptize me to change genders in the afterlife. I have no problem with any of this. Religious freedom should accommodate all of these fundamentally harmless activities. What other people choose to do as an expression of their faith that does no harm is fine with me. I think it must be tolerated by everyone in a truly pluralistic and diverse society.

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?