Ancestry and the LDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Millie123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
campeador said:
According to wiki, Mormons have performed temple ordinances on behalf of a number of high profile people including the Founding Fathers of the U.S., Presidents of the U.S., Pope John Paul II, John Wesley, Christopher Columbus, Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Irving Berlin, Jewish Holocaust victims, etc. (link)
Click to expand...
And people get offended and up in arms about a ceremony they don’t even believe in. 🤷
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
That’s different, the LDS are trying to imitate the Jews.
Jews have (or *had *rather) a Temple, LDS have temple(S).
Jews kept strict record of their genealogy, LDS do likewise.

What Jesus’ ancestry was about was proving that Jesus was a descendant of King David.

The writers of the Gospels aren’t a modern cult trying to copycat ancient practices.
Click to expand...
Jesus was a Jew, and the Gospel writer’s followed the Jewish custom of recording his ancestry. It also happened to be relevant to the proving the prophesy that the Messiah would of the house of David. If the Jew’s hadn’t recorded their ancestry, this information would not be available and various prophesies could never be proven. I fail then to see your claim that the Jew’s were motivated by “vanity”.

The LDS may be imitating the ancient Jews, but I fail too to see how this is vanity.
 
iepuras said:
Well, Mormons have the goal to proxy baptize everyone (except apostates) and the dead person has the opportunity to accept or reject the baptism in the spirit world. But why would the dead spouse of a faithful Mormon qualify for proxy work after their death? Didn’t they have an opportunity to hear the Mormon gospel while alive? Why didn’t the Holy Ghost not bother to testify of the truthfulness of Mormonism to that person, especially since he or she is married to a Mormon? The Mormon spouse often tries to convert the non-Mormon spouse at least once. Don’t they reject the Mormon gospel as well, in a similar manner as an apostate? They had a chance to accept it while alive and rejected it. Why do they get a second chance but not the apostate? I guess apostates only get second chances while alive.
Click to expand...
👍👍

Hitler’s been baptized a few times. Anne Frank, St. Damien, and let’s not forget the debacle they were involved in with baptizing victims of the Holocaust.
 
Country_Gal said:
And people get offended and up in arms about a ceremony they don’t even believe in. 🤷
Click to expand...
What they fear is that the Mormon records of the Holocaust survivors may be the only surviving records in 10,000 years. This would create a purposefully flawed archeological record that 6 million Mormons were slaughtered in the gas chambers.* The Mormons already make many unsubstantiated archeological claims already regarding ancient Christians in North America. It would be tragic for their fudged records became the only documentation of our times available in the distant future.

The Catholic Church will certainly still exist to dispute their claims, but its not inconceivable that over 10,000 years, the vast majority of documents could be lost due to failing hard drives and natural disasters consuming the paper trail. (We have certainly lost the birth certificates for Cain and Abel, born in a similar time frame ago!) All that is needed is one surviving Mormon vault to potentially cause a crisis of faith sometime in the future, based on wholly fabricated history.
  • (Slaughtered by a man who himself ultimately repented and received a Mormon baptism, as they have posthumously baptized Adolph Hitler).
 
runningdude said:
What they fear is that the Mormon records of the Holocaust survivors may be the only surviving records in 10,000 years. This would create a purposefully flawed archeological record that 6 million Mormons were slaughtered in the gas chambers.* The Mormons already make many unsubstantiated archeological claims already regarding ancient Christians in North America. It would be tragic for their fudged records became the only documentation of our times available in the distant future.

The Catholic Church will certainly still exist to dispute their claims, but its not inconceivable that over 10,000 years, the vast majority of documents could be lost due to failing hard drives and natural disasters consuming the paper trail. (We have certainly lost the birth certificates for Cain and Abel, born in a similar time frame ago!) All that is needed is one surviving Mormon vault to potentially cause a crisis of faith sometime in the future, based on wholly fabricated history.
  • (Slaughtered by a man who himself ultimately repented and received a Mormon baptism, as they have posthumously baptized Adolph Hitler).
Click to expand...
That is a very farfetched explanation. I seriously doubt that all other documentation for the Jewish Holocaust could vanish, only leaving Mormon records.

I’m certain the Jews actually just feel like it’s disrespectful to the memory of the victims.
 
Country_Gal said:
That is a very farfetched explanation. I seriously doubt that all other documentation for the Jewish Holocaust could vanish, only leaving Mormon records.
Click to expand...
Stranger things have happened in history. The chances of all physical documentation having degraded or been lost by 10,000 years from now is very likely. Digital storage, in terms of far long term survivability, is sort of iffy. We don’t actually know what the long term survivability of modern hard drive plates would be like. Frankly, complete digital storage worries me as an archaeologist. Unless we come up with a much more stable storage system to which we convert all current primary sources, it is very likely that at least half and more likely the majority of all primary accounts of such things as the holocaust will be lost to history in 10,000 years time, so future historians and archaeologists will be stuck trying to weed through secondary and tertiary sources, just like we often have to today for certain events and periods of history. Over that period of time, secondary source bias or ignorance can turn into major misunderstandings of what actually happened in history.

I shudder to think of a future in which Mormon records are the best primary source for what happened in the 20th century and before in North America. All I can say is that if the 19th century Mormon interpretations of the Mississippian burial mounds ever becomes the standard interpretation, there’s going to be one angry ghost haunting Moundville.
 
They baptize people that even the deceased family members ask them not to.

there is no respect shown
 
TexanKnight said:
They baptize people that even the deceased family members ask them not to.

there is no respect shown
Click to expand...
Very true. There is not much respect when it comes to doing as many proxy baptisms as possible.

When I learned that some zealous Mormons very sneakily proxy baptized Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene and had them sealed (married), I was very offended. For a ceremony that means nothing, I found it highly offensive. Even though I am no fan of Mormonism, I gave them the benefit of the doubt when I first heard it, but it did happen. When it was finally noticed, the ordinance work for Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene was removed from Family Search. My question is why in the world would a Mormon think that Jesus Christ would need to be baptized by proxy?!
 
iepuras said:
Very true. There is not much respect when it comes to doing as many proxy baptisms as possible.

When I learned that some zealous Mormons very sneakily proxy baptized Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene and had them sealed (married), I was very offended. For a ceremony that means nothing, I found it highly offensive. Even though I am no fan of Mormonism, I gave them the benefit of the doubt when I first heard it, but it did happen. When it was finally noticed, the ordinance work for Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene was removed from Family Search. My question is why in the world would a Mormon think that Jesus Christ would need to be baptized by proxy?!
Click to expand...
I remember hearing something about this… What can I say?? That’s just highly offensive & flies in the face of what Jesus came here to do? Why does God need to be baptised??? :dts:
 
debbie_h said:
I remember hearing something about this… What can I say?? That’s just highly offensive & flies in the face of what Jesus came here to do? Why does God need to be baptised??? :dts:
Click to expand...
Uh well he was baptized by John… read your Bible.
 
Anyway, let us not forget that LDS “baptisms” are not baptism at all. They are invalid and have no spiritual effect. To worry or take offense from them happening to non-Mormons is like atheists worrying about Christian baptism.
 
Elizium23 said:
Anyway, let us not forget that LDS “baptisms” are not baptism at all. They are invalid and have no spiritual effect. To worry or take offense from them happening to non-Mormons is like atheists worrying about Christian baptism.
Click to expand...
’

What is wrong with their baptisms?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
For the purpose of baptizing the dead, plus I think it’s a matter of pride. I also suppose
that it may have something to do with mimicking the Jews who, before the Temple was
destroyed (first &/or second time), carefully recorded their genealogy, which may actu-
ally go back to pride, almost showing off.
Click to expand...
The tribal cultures of the middle east handed their genealogies down mostly through oral tradition (the Bedouins still do this today). Ones descendants were very important in one’s identity (we worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). It was not out of pride, but rather a sense of family. Family was not looked at in the same way it is in our modern world. Those alive in any given generation were seen as trustees of a family that started with the Patriarch and would extend generations into the future. Unfortunately most of us go back to our great grandparents and forget about it. its really kind of a shame, IMO.

With the Mormons. however, it is my understanding that the main purpose is for baptism of deceased family members.
 
Country_Gal said:
’

What is wrong with their baptisms?
Click to expand...
I don’t believer their baptisms count to the Catholic Church for one, Mormons being
polytheists and all, denying the Divinity and Eternality of Jesus Christ and so forth.

And going back to their baptisms for the dead, that doesn’t work either.
 
Country_Gal said:
’

What is wrong with their baptisms?
Click to expand...
It is the fact that they do not mean what the Catholic Church or any Christian faith tradition means by the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. They hold them to be separate and distinct divine beings which, by definition, means that they believe in (at least) three distinct and separate gods and are therefore polytheistic (among other doctrinal problems).

The Catholic Church does not even consider the LDS Church to be heretical. It is so far removed from Christianity that it is considered as an entirely different religion altogether. Therefore its baptisms are not considered valid.
 
Elizium23 said:
Anyway, let us not forget that LDS “baptisms” are not baptism at all. They are invalid and have no spiritual effect. To worry or take offense from them happening to non-Mormons is like atheists worrying about Christian baptism.
Click to expand...
But true Christian baptism can only be performed on a person whilst they are alive. There is choice there, either from the parents of the child or from the person themselves making that choice in their adult lives. Whether or not it is deemed as valid, posthumously changing a persons religion doesn’t make sense.
 
debbie_h said:
But true Christian baptism can only be performed on a person whilst they are alive. There is choice there, either from the parents of the child or from the person themselves making that choice in their adult lives. Whether or not it is deemed as valid, posthumously changing a persons religion doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
I personally could care less. They might as well turn around three times and throw salt over their left shoulder. It would have about the same affect on my soul. They believe they are doing a good thing; saving souls, so to speak. I do have to admit that it gripes me a little bit when I hear of them baptizing the pope, for instance. But in reality, they’re doing nothing so its pretty harmless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top