LDS Baptizes and Seals St. Damien to a "wife"

[cmdtenor]

OK, I have a couple of questions for our mormon friends on here.

The biggest responses that we keep hearing regarding this baptism of the dead is, “It is an offer”, and “They are free to accept or reject it”, and “It doesn’t make them mormon”.

With that being said, please answer these questions as briefly as possible if you would.

1. All of these baptisms and sealings are done only at temples, and not at local meeting houses correct?
2. The mormon church spends millions and millions of dollars on temples around the world, obtaining geneology records, maintaining a huge database, etc., all for a maybe? How is that logical?
3. As I understand it, marriage sealings (temple weddings) are only for temple worthy mormons. How can you seal a dead person to a spouse if you aren’t sure they accepted the mormon baptism?

4.These proxy baptisms, etc. can only be done by temple worthy mormons right? 50% +/- of all mormons don’t have temple recommends, so how are all of these baptisms, etc being done by non family members?

You ought to check out a booklet published by San Juan Catholic Seminars entitled "Beginning Apologetics 2: How to answer JW’s and Mormons, by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. You can get it cheap at catholicapologetics.com.

The whole series is fantastic, but that one will answer a lot of your questions.

 

[ParkerD]

OK, I have a couple of questions for our mormon friends on here.

The biggest responses that we keep hearing regarding this baptism of the dead is, “It is an offer”, and “They are free to accept or reject it”, and “It doesn’t make them mormon”.

With that being said, please answer these questions as briefly as possible if you would.

1. All of these baptisms and sealings are done only at temples, and not at local meeting houses correct?
2. The mormon church spends millions and millions of dollars on temples around the world, obtaining geneology records, maintaining a huge database, etc., all for a maybe? How is that logical?
3. As I understand it, marriage sealings (temple weddings) are only for temple worthy mormons. How can you seal a dead person to a spouse if you aren’t sure they accepted the mormon baptism?

4.These proxy baptisms, etc. can only be done by temple worthy mormons right? 50% +/- of all mormons don’t have temple recommends, so how are all of these baptisms, etc being done by non family members?

1. Correct.
2. It is logical if one really understands love for all humankind and the necessity of knowledgeable choice rather than limited availability of choices. People make choices all the time based on limited understanding and limited choices available to them at the time. Should they be judged based on that limited understanding or those limited choices? No.

Understanding that principle, Mormonism says that baptism really was meant to be a necessary ordinance (for those reaching age 8 in their life) for accessing the full blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and really was meant to be an authoritative ordinance by immersion by priesthood authority given to mankind by God. The millions of dollars spent are worth it because providing access (if chosen) to the full power of gospel covenants is worth any reasonable cost. He who paid the Ultimate Price in suffering would understand and want mortals to understand that monetary costs are worth such a gift to others, particularly ancestors–the gift of knowledgeable choice and access to the power of the covenants and the Holy Spirit’s comfort and inspiration in the spirit world.

1. There again, those other ordinances are only made available to them through worthiness and there is not an assumption that those have been accepted. The spirits in the spirit world would only be aware of those other ordinances if they were in a frame of mind to want to know about them because they were ready for them. Otherwise, they will be just as unknowing about them as are people on earth who aren’t allowed entry into a dedicated LDS temple.
2. Really good question. Names are submitted based on extended family ancestral research, but then others often do the necessary ordinances based on the names having been submitted and cleared. Youth groups are “baptized for the dead” for many who are not their personal ancestors, but whose names have been submitted by others.

 

[ParkerD]

You proved my point ParkerD. You must attempt to discredit me to prevent people from hearing the truth about the LDS Church.

Anna

Anna,
People can get on the internet and read, listen to or watch many, many LDS general conference sessions and see multitudinous references to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They needn’t just get their information from you.

I referred earlier to “selective memory”. I would assume people are familiar with that aspect of life. It doesn’t make people a “liar”. It just means they bring their own background, perspective, and “hearing” to any experience they have.

 

[twopekinguys]

1. Correct.
2. It is logical if one really understands love for all humankind and the necessity of knowledgeable choice rather than limited availability of choices. People make choices all the time based on limited understanding and limited choices available to them at the time. Should they be judged based on that limited understanding or those limited choices? No.

Understanding that principle, Mormonism says that baptism really was meant to be a necessary ordinance (for those reaching age 8 in their life) for accessing the full blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and really was meant to be an authoritative ordinance by immersion by priesthood authority given to mankind by God. The millions of dollars spent are worth it because providing access (if chosen) to the full power of gospel covenants is worth any reasonable cost. He who paid the Ultimate Price in suffering would understand and want mortals to understand that monetary costs are worth such a gift to others, particularly ancestors–the gift of knowledgeable choice and access to the power of the covenants and the Holy Spirit’s comfort and inspiration in the spirit world.

1. There again, those other ordinances are only made available to them through worthiness and there is not an assumption that those have been accepted. The spirits in the spirit world would only be aware of those other ordinances if they were in a frame of mind to want to know about them because they were ready for them. Otherwise, they will be just as unknowing about them as are people on earth who aren’t allowed entry into a dedicated LDS temple.
2. Really good question. Names are submitted based on extended family ancestral research, but then others often do the necessary ordinances based on the names having been submitted and cleared. Youth groups are “baptized for the dead” for many who are not their personal ancestors, but whose names have been submitted by others.

Thanks Parker,

Question 2,

I’m sorry, I just can’t see that the mormon church is doing all of this on a “maybe”. Good intentions or not, I don’t think most people see it that way, including the mormons who are doing it. Personally, I think deep down many believe they are actually baptizing the individual into the mormon religion. Now, that begs the question…are they being taught correctly about what they are doing? After all, if you baptize a live person, they’re mormon right? Don’t you think most people would see baptizing a dead person the same way?

Question 3.

I think you’re almost there with your answer. Let’s look at it this way. If I as a Catholic and my wife show up at a temple, and want to have a temple wedding (sealing), we would be rejected at the door in no uncertain terms. (which is fine, I can respect that) But yet, a mormon can seal someone who is dead to a spouse (temple wedding) and they aren’t even sure they accepted the baptism? Again, does this seem at all logical? Do you see the conflict here?

Question 4

Don’t the guidelines of the mormon church say that these baptisms, etc. have to be done by family members? Aren’t these people in violation (for lack of a better term) of your own church’s teachings?

Also, isn’t it true that in order for a person who is non mormon to receive these ordinances that the nearest living relative has to give approval? People submitting names for individuals just because they may be distantly related doesn’t mean it is a valid submission if there are closer living relatives, correct?

For example, both of my parents are deceased. My 2 brothers and I are the closest living relatives. We have 1 cousin who is mormon (inactive), and her daughter, who submitted a letter of resignamtion. In a perfect world, she would have to get our permission for these to be done, correct? Bottom line wold be, just because your name shows up on someones family tree doesn’t mean you are the closest living relative right?

 

[Janet1983]

I didn’'t believe the story either time I read it. I still don’t. It just does not match the reality of what happens in LDS ward meetings nor what a child would say about their beliefs.

As in every group there are people who behave wrongly. It might not have been the typical LDS behavior that Anna experienced, but it was the way she did experience it with the people that were there.
I wasn’t there adn you weren’t there. It did not happen in your ward, so how can you know?

 

[Janet1983]

However, here at CAF, I’ve never had anyone, other than LDS Members, call me a liar, or question the truthfulness of my posts.

Well it is a Mormon topic… To say something about CAF however: My story was never doubted by other Catholics which I appreciate. I was however told that in some instances the people whom I dealt with did not behave in a way that would represent all of Catholicism.

 

[cmdtenor]

As long as you guys keep misrepresenting this as ‘being subjected to’ as if the person for whom the work is done has no choice in the matter, we will never come to an agreement on the issue. Nobody is subjected to anything. "subjected,’ according to the dictionary, means “forced sumission to control by others.”

WE aren’t the ones doing that! There is no force here. There is no coercion. There is nothing there but an offer; here is what we teach. Since you are no longer mortal, you can’t do this for yourself if you decide we are correct. Therefore we will do the work for you, so that if you come to believe, and want it, it’s done.

It’s about as far FROM being ‘subjected’ to something as can possibly be.

In fact, we aren’t the ones doing the subjecting. YOU are. After all, with us they have a full, free and fair choice. They can accept it—or not. If you succeed in preventing us from offering this choice, which of us is doing the subjecting? Which of them is forcing his religious opinions upon them, and denying them the right to come to their own decisions?

Do you think that being famous, or influential in someway, has somehow made them less able to make their own decisions in the afterlife?

And NOTHING we do, or can do, would change that.

In other words, because he is famous; because you want to think of him as some larger than life stereotype, or icon, you feel you have the right to decide his eternal future for him? That you don’ thave enough faith in him (in spite of what you are saying here) that he would turn it down?

Free will means, among other things, that you have to ALLOW others their free will, whether doing so insults YOU or not.

Even when the man you allow the freedom to choose is someone famous.

:tiphat: Greetings, and God bless!

How do you know if the person being “baptized” agrees? Why assume everyone accepts and enter their names in your book. It doesn’t make much sense that they are entered as baptized into the LDS community when, as you say, they are free to reject your offer… and you will never know either way.

Even the Book of Mormon shows that the practice of “baptism of the dead” has no effect. Check out “Alma 34: 31-35” which states that if a person procrastinates repentance even unto death (catholic term “final impenitence”) then you have become subjected to the spirit of the devil and you are sealed as his own… and this is the final state of the wicked. See also some other passages: “Alma 5: 28, 31”; “2 Nephi 9: 38”; “Mosiah 16: 5, 11”; and “Mosiah 26: 25-27.” Now if it has no effect anyway, and people are free to choose to reject it- which they all will reject since it has no effect, why do it?

At any rate, the heart of this matter is heresy. There has not yet been the “great apostasy” that your faith has been founded upon, any thorough research of history will show that the Catholic Church teaches today exactly the same doctrines as the Apostles did, as they were passed on to them by Jesus Himself. Yes many people were heretics and apostates to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith- just as there are many this day. They were thoroughly condemned (not eternally) as such by the Church.

And Jesus is, in fact, God. Jesus can not be a great moral teacher and prophet if He is not and always the eternal God. This is simply because He said that He is God. So, he is either God, a liar or a lunatic. We humans are not in an eternal progression to God-hood, as there is and can only be ONE GOD! By your doctrines, Jesus would not be qualified for the highest “Celestial Kingdom” as He wasn’t a baptized Mormon, He did not devoutly follow Mormon teachings, He was not married, and His (non-existing) marriage was never sealed “for time and eternity” in the Mormon temple.

I hope this helps to eliminate some confusion about this topic. Read “Beginning Apologetics 2: How to Answer Jehova’s Witnesses and Mormons” by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham for more information. It is available from San Juan Catholic Seminars at: catholicapologetics.com

May God bless you in abundance.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna Scott,
Was it you or someone else who posted exactly the same story with exactly the same words a couple of months ago on this website? It would come across as more believable if you would at least change some of the words rather than use exactly the same content with no variation. Do you have it memorized?

It is my story. I have posted it a number of times. It sounds the same, because it is easier to do a “cut and Paste,” than to keep rewriting the experience.

I first posted it to Finrock in Post #616, Jun 14, '09, 9:48 am:

**Thread: **What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5324407#post5324407

I think I confused whether Kolob is a star or planet–same idea either way.

Anna

She told her story before and she did what every person with at least half a brain would do: Go back to the other thread, copy and paste…
Since when was it your business to declare whether someone’s story is true or not?

Anna,
I didn’'t believe the story either time I read it. I still don’t. It just does not match the reality of what happens in LDS ward meetings nor what a child would say about their beliefs.

You proved my point ParkerD. You must attempt to discredit me to prevent people from hearing the truth about the LDS Church.

So, now you resort to calling me a liar. That is really very sad.

Anna

Anna,
People can get on the internet and read, listen to or watch many, many LDS general conference sessions and see multitudinous references to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They needn’t just get their information from you.

I referred earlier to “selective memory”. I would assume people are familiar with that aspect of life. It doesn’t make people a “liar”. It just means they bring their own background, perspective, and “hearing” to any experience they have.

ParkerD:

This is not a case of “selective memory.” The “Mormon” experience will forever be etched in my memory. It was all the more painful, because the Mormon Bishop and his wife were neighbors and personal friends.

As I said yesterday, I called Member Records Division, LDS Church. I told the guy in the Records Division, I am aware that baptisms and other rites are performed by proxy. I told him I did not want any done in my name. He told me this would not be done, "while you are still living."

So, it’s still not over. Now I have to write a letter to the Member Records Division, of the LDS Church, stating no proxy baptism or any other rites are to be performed for me, now or after my death. And, even when I send the letter, there is no guarantee proxy work will not be done, in spite of my wishes.

You stating, “I didn’t believe the story either time I read it;” is just one more assault from the LDS church.

I just want it to be over.

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

Twopekinguys,

Thanks Parker,

Thank you for this expression, sincerely.

Question 2,

I’m sorry, I just can’t see that the mormon church is doing all of this on a “maybe”. Good intentions or not, I don’t think most people see it that way, including the mormons who are doing it. Personally, I think deep down many believe they are actually baptizing the individual into the mormon religion. Now, that begs the question…are they being taught correctly about what they are doing? After all, if you baptize a live person, they’re mormon right? Don’t you think most people would see baptizing a dead person the same way?

My children go with youth groups and we’ve done it as a family and this is always understood that those spirits are just being given a choice, which they may or may not be accepting or may accept later since the teaching that goes on does not happen all at once in the spirit world. The concept of choice is really a paramount concept taught in the LDS religion.

Question 3.

I think you’re almost there with your answer. Let’s look at it this way. If I as a Catholic and my wife show up at a temple, and want to have a temple wedding (sealing), we would be rejected at the door in no uncertain terms. (which is fine, I can respect that) But yet, a mormon can seal someone who is dead to a spouse (temple wedding) and they aren’t even sure they accepted the baptism? Again, does this seem at all logical? Do you see the conflict here?

I suppose it would seem to you like a waste of a great deal of time since many will not be accepting those other ordinances or even know about them in the spirit world. But Mormons don’t have the view that it is a waste of time. I can see why others would think it would be.

There is another reason involved that has to do with eventually the sealing line of those who really do accept those ordinances bridging all the way back to Adam and Eve, skipping over those who did not accept. It is a linking with our ancestors.

Question 4

Don’t the guidelines of the mormon church say that these baptisms, etc. have to be done by family members?

No. Family members don’t have to be involved in doing the ordinances, and often are not involved.

Also, isn’t it true that in order for a person who is non mormon to receive these ordinances that the nearest living relative has to give approval?

That would apply for those who died within the past who have a child still living.

People submitting names for individuals just because they may be distantly related doesn’t mean it is a valid submission if there are closer living relatives, correct?

No, the exception being when there are living children of the person whose ordinance work is being submitted.

For example, both of my parents are deceased. My 2 brothers and I are the closest living relatives. We have 1 cousin who is mormon (inactive), and her daughter, who submitted a letter of resignamtion. In a perfect world, she would have to get our permission for these to be done, correct?

Yes, correct.

Bottom line would be, just because your name shows up on someones family tree doesn’t mean you are the closest living relative right?

Correct.

 

[ParkerD]

As in every group there are people who behave wrongly. It might not have been the typical LDS behavior that Anna experienced, but it was the way she did experience it with the people that were there.
I wasn’t there and you weren’t there. It did not happen in your ward, so how can you know?

Janet,
Here was a direct quote:
“I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken.”

This could not possibly be true. The prayer at the beginning and at the end of the meeting would use the words, “in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” The sacrament prayers that occur at every sacrament meeting use the following verbatim prayers:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

These things happen in every sacrament meeting in every ward in the LDS church throughout the world. Testimonies are expressed “in the name of Jesus Christ” also. She may not have heard the words, but that wasn’t because the words weren’t being said.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,

Thank you for this expression, sincerely.

My children go with youth groups and we’ve done it as a family and this is always understood that those spirits are just being given a choice, which they may or may not be accepting or may accept later since the teaching that goes on does not happen all at once in the spirit world. The concept of choice is really a paramount concept taught in the LDS religion.

I suppose it would seem to you like a waste of a great deal of time since many will not be accepting those other ordinances or even know about them in the spirit world. But Mormons don’t have the view that it is a waste of time. I can see why others would think it would be.

There is another reason involved that has to do with eventually the sealing line of those who really do accept those ordinances bridging all the way back to Adam and Eve, skipping over those who did not accept. It is a linking with our ancestors.

No. Family members don’t have to be involved in doing the ordinances, and often are not involved.

That would apply for those who died within the past who have a child still living.

No, the exception being when there are living children of the person whose ordinance work is being submitted.

Yes, correct.

Correct.

Alright, now we’re getting somewhere.

Now, if names are submitted by someone who circumvents the nearest living relative, and these ordinances are done, are they still considered valid in your church? (obviously, we don’t think they’re valid to begin with) i.e. President Obama’s mother.

Now, good intentions aside, many, if not most people view baptism as adhearing to a particular faith. If a live person is baptized in a Catholic church, they are considered Catholic. The same goes for Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. etc. Do you see how people outside of the mormon religion attach the two? Live person baptized in mormon meeting house, and, dead person baptized in mormon temple?

Going back to the example of my parents. Since my brothers and I are living, my cousin cannot submit their names, if I understood you correctly. Let’s carry it a step further. If my brothers and I are not living any longer, Would this cousin be able to submit their names even though my brothers and I have living children? Keep in mind that a grandchild would be a closer living relative than a cousin.

As far as who can actually be the proxy, I am going to do a little more research on that. I am sure I read somewhere that the mormon guidelines say it has to be done by a relative. Of course I can’t find that link right now,( I think it was a byu link) so I’m going to do a little more research.

 

[ParkerD]

Alright, now we’re getting somewhere.

1–Now, if names are submitted by someone who circumvents the nearest living relative, and these ordinances are done, are they still considered valid in your church? (obviously, we don’t think they’re valid to begin with) i.e. President Obama’s mother.

2–Now, good intentions aside, many, if not most people view baptism as adhearing to a particular faith. If a live person is baptized in a Catholic church, they are considered Catholic. The same goes for Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. etc. Do you see how people outside of the mormon religion attach the two? Live person baptized in mormon meeting house, and, dead person baptized in mormon temple?

3–Going back to the example of my parents. Since my brothers and I are living, my cousin cannot submit their names, if I understood you correctly. Let’s carry it a step further. If my brothers and I are not living any longer, Would this cousin be able to submit their names even though my brothers and I have living children? Keep in mind that a grandchild would be a closer living relative than a cousin.

As far as who can actually be the proxy, I am going to do a little more research on that. I am sure I read somewhere that the mormon guidelines say it has to be done by a relative. Of course I can’t find that link right now,( I think it was a byu link) so I’m going to do a little more research.

Twopekinguys,

1–No, they would not be valid.

2–Of course, especially with baptism viewed as being done by parents in the behalf of the child’s choice, but the LDS view of baptism is sustantially different. It has a different purpose, a different intent, and the free will intent of the individual person is absolutely vital. That is why it is considered totally conditional on the free will decision (in the spirit world) of the person whose name was submitted. It would have not the slightest impact if a person has not made their own decision in the spirit world, because it is only a beginning step in the whole covenant-making and spiritual growth process that is entailed in accepting the atonement of Jesus Christ in full measure.

3–It is my understanding that the rule about closest living relative has to do with children of the person, not grandchildren versus grandnieces and grandnephews.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet,
Here was a direct quote:
“I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken.”

This could not possibly be true. The prayer at the beginning and at the end of the meeting would use the words, “in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” The sacrament prayers that occur at every sacrament meeting use the following verbatim prayers:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

These things happen in every sacrament meeting in every ward in the LDS church throughout the world. Testimonies are expressed “in the name of Jesus Christ” also. She may not have heard the words, but that wasn’t because the words weren’t being said.

Well really talking about Him and using His name in prayer endings is quite a difference… What the heart is full of… That’s just my guess… I wouldn’t consider adding “in the name of Jesus Christ” to every prayer really talking about Him.
But you know as much as I do that this is a personal thing and I am just guessing. I don’t know more about her ward than you do, except for maybe the formal parts that should be the same for you and for her…

 

[ParkerD]

Well really talking about Him and using His name in prayer endings is quite a difference… What the heart is full of… That’s just my guess… I wouldn’t consider adding “in the name of Jesus Christ” to every prayer really talking about Him.
But you know as much as I do that this is a personal thing and I am just guessing. I don’t know more about her ward than you do, except for maybe the formal parts that should be the same for you and for her…

Janet,
I think it’s important to understand that the LDS church considers the use of the name of Jesus Christ even in meetings to be a sacred expression that is not done with the kind of frequency that is probably done in other denominations. They (we) probably use the term “Lord” more frequently than the name itself, out of respect for the use of the name.

 

[Janet1983]

I attempted looking for Karol Józef Wojtyła (1920-2005), but there seems to be a maintenance going on…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Janet,
Here was a direct quote:
“I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken.”

This could not possibly be true. The prayer at the beginning and at the end of the meeting would use the words, “in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” The sacrament prayers that occur at every sacrament meeting use the following verbatim prayers:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

These things happen in every sacrament meeting in every ward in the LDS church throughout the world. Testimonies are expressed “in the name of Jesus Christ” also. She may not have heard the words, but that wasn’t because the words weren’t being said.

Well really talking about Him and using His name in prayer endings is quite a difference… What the heart is full of… That’s just my guess… I wouldn’t consider adding “in the name of Jesus Christ” to every prayer really talking about Him.

But you know as much as I do that this is a personal thing and I am just guessing. I don’t know more about her ward than you do, except for maybe the formal parts that should be the same for you and for her…

Janet,
I think it’s important to understand that the LDS church considers the use of the name of Jesus Christ even in meetings to be a sacred expression that is not done with the kind of frequency that is probably done in other denominations. They (we) probably use the term “Lord” more frequently than the name itself, out of respect for the use of the name.

Janet:

You are correct in saying that talking about Jesus Christ and using His name in prayer endings is quite different.

I heard numerous personal testimonies of LDS church members, and almost without exception, they began with some sort of statement regarding believing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

I heard the name of Joseph Smith repeatedly. Jesus was not prominent in the content of lessons or sermons.

My son, who was about 10 years old, at the time, told me he did not like the church because they never talk about Jesus. Children are very perceptive.

Anna

 

[kimmielittle]

Janet,
I think it’s important to understand that the LDS church considers the use of the name of Jesus Christ even in meetings to be a sacred expression that is not done with the kind of frequency that is probably done in other denominations. They (we) probably use the term “Lord” more frequently than the name itself, out of respect for the use of the name.

But you have Jesus Christ…in your Church Name

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
People can get on the internet and read, listen to or watch many, many LDS general conference sessions and see multitudinous references to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They needn’t just get their information from you.

I referred earlier to “selective memory”. I would assume people are familiar with that aspect of life. It doesn’t make people a “liar”. It just means they bring their own background, perspective, and “hearing” to any experience they have.

Janet,
Here was a direct quote:
**“I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken.”

This could not possibly be true.** The prayer at the beginning and at the end of the meeting would use the words, “in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” The sacrament prayers that occur at every sacrament meeting use the following verbatim prayers:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

These things happen in every sacrament meeting in every ward in the LDS church throughout the world. Testimonies are expressed “in the name of Jesus Christ” also. She may not have heard the words, but that wasn’t because the words weren’t being said.

Janet,
I think it’s important to understand that the LDS church considers the use of the name of Jesus Christ even in meetings to be a sacred expression that is not done with the kind of frequency that is probably done in other denominations. They (we) probably use the term “Lord” more frequently than the name itself, out of respect for the use of the name.

Which is it Parker D?

“Multitudinous references to Jesus Christ”

or

“The use of the name of Jesus Christ even in meetings to be a sacred expression that is not done with the kind of frequency that is probably done in other denominations.”

 

[ParkerD]

Janet:

You are correct in saying that talking about Jesus Christ and using His name in prayer endings is quite different.

I heard numerous personal testimonies of LDS church members, and almost without exception, they began with some sort of statement regarding believing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

I heard the name of Joseph Smith repeatedly. Jesus was not prominent in the content of lessons or sermons.

My son, who was about 10 years old, at the time, told me he did not like the church because they never talk about Jesus. Children are very perceptive.

Anna

Anna,
Children may be “very perceptive,” but sometimes they may not listen very well.

There is a copyrighted children’s song titled “I’m Trying to Be Like Jesus” that you will find on the internet through lds.org if you look for it. It is one of the most frequently sung Primary (children’s) songs, sung at church by the children. Another very popular children’s song is “I Wonder when He Comes Again,” talking about the Savior. It is copyrighted also.

The words of both of these songs are a treasure. I’m sorry your son never heard them or understood what they were about if he did hear them. There are perhaps fifty or more others that talk about Jesus or in other words the Savior. One can look up children’s lesson plans on lds.org under Gospel Library-Lessons-Primary and find many, many lessons dealing with Jesus and the New Testament teachings which also have His name mentioned in the context of those lessons.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,

1–No, they would not be valid.

2–Of course, especially with baptism viewed as being done by parents in the behalf of the child’s choice, but the LDS view of baptism is sustantially different. It has a different purpose, a different intent, and the free will intent of the individual person is absolutely vital. That is why it is considered totally conditional on the free will decision (in the spirit world) of the person whose name was submitted. It would have not the slightest impact if a person has not made their own decision in the spirit world, because it is only a beginning step in the whole covenant-making and spiritual growth process that is entailed in accepting the atonement of Jesus Christ in full measure.

3–It is my understanding that the rule about closest living relative has to do with children of the person, not grandchildren versus grandnieces and grandnephews.

1 Since they aren’t valid in the eyes of the mormon church, is there a mechanism for having this corrected/removed?

2 I believe you are strictly talking about the proxy baptisms here, when my comparison was between baptisms for the living and the dead. Like I said in an earlier post, If a live person is baptized Presbyterian, they are considered Presbyterian. Why is a proxy baptism looked at as only an offer. Is there a scriptural reference that shows the difference?

3 So are you saying that once the children of the deceased have passed away, the grandchildren wouldn’t have any say? A grandchild in this example would in fact be the closest living relative, as opposed to a sibling of the deceased, cousins, etc. After all, even from biblical times, everything was passed down to the eldest son, or child.

Just as a side note, I don’t believe you have addressed the issue of temple marriages/sealings for people that have been baptized by proxy. If the baptism is merely an offer, and you have no way of knowing whether or not it has been accepted, how can a temple marriage/sealing be done for these people? After all, only worthy mormons can be married/sealed in the temple right?