Despite protests by certain people, or groups of people, to stop baptizing their dead the Mormons persist.This has never really made any sense to me. While I no longer believe that proxy baptisms or any other proxy ordinance are in any way effective for the dead, I don’t really get being offended over them. Mormons don’t believe that the proxy ordinances are in any way binding on the deceased, or that they “make” you be Mormon, only that they are available to you should you decide in the next life to accept them. Since we know what we believe, and know that we won’t have an opportunity in the next life to accept them, because they are not “real” and our choices in this life and only in this life determine our eternal outcome, then why would it bother us what Mormons do in true sincerity on the behalf of the deceased? They are wrong in their belief, but the actions themselves are neither evil (which requires an understanding that they are against God’s commandment) nor even really “mean”, because they are honestly acting out of what they believe to be the best intentions for the deceased individuals.
To be fair to the Mormon church, they put out strict guidelines about who can have proxy baptisms done for them. No deceased individual is allowed to have ordinances (what catholics would call sacraments) done for them unless a direct descendent specifically authorizes it. Now, I am not going to say that this is strictly enforced. In fact, there is really no enforcement of it at all, except when a name is submitted there is generally a little tick box that says “I am a direct descendent or authorized by a direct descendent to submit this name” or something like that. It would be really really hard I think to verify each and every name before performing ordinances, which would bog up what Mormons consider very serious, important work, so I generally think it fair to instruct the membership to only submit names that they are directly related to, and then remind them about that instruction when the names are actually submitted.Despite protests by certain people, or groups of people, to stop baptizing their dead the Mormons persist.
That is what is offensive. A blatant disregard for the wishes of those who have spoken on behalf of their deceased.
They actually recently changed it: for recently deceased you also have to prove you’re the closest decedent (easy done since you submit through the family history website)…To be fair to the Mormon church, they put out strict guidelines about who can have proxy baptisms done for them. No deceased individual is allowed to have ordinances (what catholics would call sacraments) done for them unless a direct descendent specifically authorizes it. Now, I am not going to say that this is strictly enforced. In fact, there is really no enforcement of it at all, except when a name is submitted there is generally a little tick box that says “I am a direct descendent or authorized by a direct descendent to submit this name” or something like that. It would be really really hard I think to verify each and every name before performing ordinances, which would bog up what Mormons consider very serious, important work, so I generally think it fair to instruct the membership to only submit names that they are directly related to, and then remind them about that instruction when the names are actually submitted.
For the record, LDS rolls only apply the the living and no proxy baptisms apply. The only paperwork kept after a proxy baptism is done, is they write down when and where it done, so as to not duplicate efforts.IOne of my issues is say someone decides to “proxy baptize” me 100 after I die and I get “counted” as LDS (because we all know it’s about numbers for them) and my descendants see it and think I changed to LDS. Wow…great granny was a faithful Catholic, how did she end up on the LDS rolls?
It really doesn’t matter what the “safeguards” the LDS may or may not have. It is still a meaningless ritual. In heaven we will all be the same, Catholic.They actually recently changed it: for recently deceased you also have to prove you’re the closest decedent (easy done since you submit through the family history website)…
The interesting thing is that despite the efforts of the LDS church to not duplicate proxy temple work, it still manages to get done multiple times. And this is under their new system that is supposed to be better than what was done when it was all done by paper! I know this because I did a lot of family history work when I was LDS. I cannot tell you how many names had proxy work done 3+ times after 2005!For the record, LDS rolls only apply the the living and no proxy baptisms apply. The only paperwork kept after a proxy baptism is done, is they write down when and where it done, so as to not duplicate efforts.
I don’t know when they decided to do this, however Jewish people have asked them to stop baptizing their dead and Catholics don’t appreciate that they attempt this with our beloved saints.To be fair to the Mormon church, they put out strict guidelines about who can have proxy baptisms done for them. No deceased individual is allowed to have ordinances (what catholics would call sacraments) done for them unless a direct descendent specifically authorizes it. Now, I am not going to say that this is strictly enforced. In fact, there is really no enforcement of it at all, except when a name is submitted there is generally a little tick box that says “I am a direct descendent or authorized by a direct descendent to submit this name” or something like that. It would be really really hard I think to verify each and every name before performing ordinances, which would bog up what Mormons consider very serious, important work, so I generally think it fair to instruct the membership to only submit names that they are directly related to, and then remind them about that instruction when the names are actually submitted.
A little like talking out of both sides of their month. We’ll give an official statement regarding proxy baptism, but *wink wink - we’ll keep ding what we wantThe interesting thing is that despite the efforts of the LDS church to not duplicate proxy temple work, it still manages to get done multiple times. And this is under their new system that is supposed to be better than what was done when it was all done by paper! I know this because I did a lot of family history work when I was LDS. I cannot tell you how many names had proxy work done 3+ times after 2005!
Upforgrabsism. So easy to imagine Mormons telling one another, “My witness is better than your witness, therefore I believe official doctrine and you don’t.”My experience with Catholic’s on this site is that they always want to know what is “official”. But again, you will not find a definitive answer outside of this: The Holy Ghost will whisper the truth to members of the church. This is as it should be.
Sterling M. McMurrin: The Theological Foundations of the Mormon ReligionI don’t mean to be pedantic, but I can’t see how an exalted man is worthy of worship, nor how this infinite regress (eternal progression is a euphemism) is meant to be bridged. There are a whole host of logical and philosophical problems with Mormon belief. Have there been any LDS philosopher who’s attempted to address the problems of infinite regress?
If you want to know “How do Mormons actually believe what they do?”, maybe you should ask a Mormon
Most Mormons of my acquaintance are insufficiently familiar with either psychology or epistemology to provide adequate answer to the question.
One does not need a degree in a subject in order to understand it, any more than one must be a member of a religion or political party or sport team in order to understand that religion, political ideology, or sport.Would you say that a psychology or epistemology degree is required to have faith or explain why/how you believe what you do?
Nor is it true that one can only understand how a category of people believe what they do, if one is himself a member of that category.
There are atheists who have studied and can provide presentations on Catholic beliefs better than some Catholics. There are Catholics who have studied and can provide presentations – arguments and counter-arguments – on atheism far better than a great many professed atheists.Would you not say a Catholic is the best person to ask why a Catholic beliefs? Or am I supposed to ask an atheist? I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but it means sound protocol to get answers from primary sources.
Yes, a person not of that group can understand another, but that by definition makes them a secondary source.
Then you have not followed through with your investigation of comparing which churches are “most in line with scripture,” “most in line with logic,” and most in harmony with nature and sociology. Your personal conversations with God are another issue. But there are many churches which conduct themselves much more in harmony with scripture (excluding for the moment the Doctrine and Covenants but not the Book of Mormon) than does the Mormon Church. And there are religions with a much stronger support from logic than the Mormon Church has, most notably the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and Islam - and, imo, a couple of other non-traditional religions.Because I find it to be the most in line with scripture, logic, my observations of life/nature/sociology, and my personal conversations with God.
History per se is in effect a primary source. Someone telling you what is true could be a secondary source, or a tertiary source, depending on where they are getting their information from. Mormons of my acquaintance habitually accept what someone tells them if that someone holds a certain status in the Church hierarchy, or is a certain sort of teacher in the Church. I have never met a Mormon who seriously recounted a series of conversations with their priesthood leaders in which they told their leader, “Hold on, I think you might be wrong. You’ll have to let me ask God about that.” Likewise, no one has ever said, “I rejected what the Bishop (or Apostle, or Prophet, or other officer) said a few times, because I had a personal testimony that I should do so, and I am still a member in good standing.”I find history and “because someone told me so” to be poor methodologies for discerning truth (both are secondary sources).
I wonder then why you post on forums whose members do that very thing – critically (in the proper sense of the word) analyze (“dissect”) and compare the history and teachings and practices of their own and others’ religions.I respect that other people’s views differ, and have no interest in critically dissecting their reasons, or vise versa.
By “history” you mean historical accounts, not history per se. Even there, however, I’m afraid you are not entirely correct when you limit historical accounts to those produced by victors. That is *generally *true in the case of World War I and World War II, at least in the west, though less so in the Middle East and Far East. It is not, however, the case of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire – that has been written by people far enough divorced from the topic that they can rightly be considered neither victors nor vanquished, and in some cases read like rather disinterested parties altogether. Historical accounts of Mormonism, for example, have been written by passionate, sometimes paid, Mormon apologists, free-lancing lay apologists, anti-Mormon demagogues, fair-minded critics, and disinterested authors writing just to make a buck or get a good grade for turning in a term paper.“History” is the incomplete recounting of past events, recounted by the victor, and interpreted by who fallible beings whom live in a completely different world when things occurred. Hence my opinion of it’s poor usefulness for discerning Truth. .
Having studied both Catholicism and Mormonism in depth, I can say that Catholic doctrine is more in line with the Bible and Book of Mormon, based on logic a hundred times more sound, more self-consistent , more in harmony with the appearance and workings of the universe, and possessed of my explanatory power in the area of human nature and society, than Mormonism can ever hope to be without becoming a quite different religion than that founded by Joseph Smith. A good place to start with Catholicism, other than the obvious attendance at Mass and meeting with currently practicing Catholics, would be to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Papal Encyclicals (especially those by Pope John Paul II).I totally get the sentiment (I’m here to satisfy curiosity about Catholicism, after all
They can have all the rules they want in an effort to make it look good but without consequences for those who break them the rules are meaningless.They actually recently changed it: for recently deceased you also have to prove you’re the closest decedent (easy done since you submit through the family history website)…
This is my point exactly. While only the LDS actually believe in proxy baptism for the dead, it is so offensive to Christians that I’m a little surprised they are still admitting publicly that it is done. When polygamy became a “problem” with statehood, it went underground rather than being stopped.They can have all the rules they want in an effort to make it look good but without consequences for those who break them the rules are meaningless.