looking to convert from mormon to catholic

[zaffiroborant]

That’s disgusting, Zaff. You want us to label members who accidentally submit names of persons who happened to die in the holocaust, as if they were adulterers, wife beaters, or deadbeats who abandon their children? Shame on you for proposing such a thing.

Shame on your church for making promises it had no intention of keeping.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Also, no one has addressed the fact that many persons with Jewish ancestry and names, that died in the Holocaust, were in fact Christian. In fact, some of them were LDS. Why should we not be allowed to do the temple work for our own? It’s a repugnant argument.

Why should anyone address these individuals, the agreement wasn’t about them but about Jewish victims being baptized.

 

[twopekinguys]

It’s not “direct descendants” but ancestors and their general relatives, including cousins, uncles, aunts, etc.

At the time this incident started, all of the literature from the lds church said direct decendants. Another part of that agreement dealt with that issue as well. It is also an lds requirement that if the person submitting the name is not related, they are to get consent from the closest living relative. Evidently, that didn’t happen either.

Since when is gleaning public records not research?

The eventual goal of the work for the dead, as set more than 100 years before the holocaust, is to do the work of ever man, woman, and child back to Adam. We’re supposed to focus on our own ancestors, but someone that does more, isn’t considered to have committed “abuse.” Why should we impose nonmembers’ hangups on our theology?

We’re talking 380,000 +/- names here that were submitted by 9 people. That is not research, in the real sense of research.

I wish that the church ever entered into this agreement. It’s a repugnant affront to religious freedom. It’s also stupid, since the time that the hatemongers started to howl, all of the work for that group in Germany had already been done.

I agree, plus it has created a horrible PR nightmare. Whether the work for that group had been done or not is really immaterial. It never should have been done in the first place. The real Christian thing to do is to make amends when you offend someone, but unfortunately the lds didn’t follow through.

Also, no one has addressed the fact that many persons with Jewish ancestry and names, that died in the Holocaust, were in fact Christian. In fact, some of them were LDS. Why should we not be allowed to do the temple work for our own? It’s a repugnant argument.

I agree, you should be able to do work for your own, but that’s where your own church records come in to play. The names and records submitted for the 380,000 weren’t from lds church records. See the difference?

 

[twopekinguys]

If the agreement was as extensive as you say it was, then there’s no person in the church who had the authority to make such an agreement. That would be a fundamental change to our doctrine, and would require submission to common consent of the LDS church.

I find it notable that the persons whom the church made the agreement with, aren’t the ones who are whining that the agreement’s been broken.

Actually, everything was run through the first presidency.

 

[blueadept]

We’re talking 380,000 +/- names here that were submitted by 9 people. That is not research, in the real sense of research.

I would like to see the reference for this since it’s a curious point I would like to read up on…

 

[twopekinguys]

I would like to see the reference for this since it’s a curious point I would like to read up on…

LOL…I actually got it from the link you provided in a previous post.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Actually, everything was run through the first presidency.

And I’m telling you, the first presidency lacks the authority to make the deal that you describe See D&C Section 50.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

At the time this incident started, all of the literature from the lds church said direct decendants. Another part of that agreement dealt with that issue as well. It is also an lds requirement that if the person submitting the name is not related, they are to get consent from the closest living relative. Evidently, that didn’t happen either.

I question the right of the church hierarchy to institute such policies without common consent. I question the conscience of any person that makes the demands that you are making, and yet claims to be support freedom of conscience and religion.

I agree, plus it has created a horrible PR nightmare.

Hatemongers will be hatemongers, and this is just a pretext.

The real Christian thing to do is to make amends when you offend someone

If someone starts shrieking over something that we do privately, in our temples, without affecting them, I don’t consider that we’ve offended them; they are seeking to be offended. They are intruding where they do not belong.

I agree, you should be able to do work for your own, but that’s where your own church records come in to play.

It’s simply none of anyone’s business whose names are submitted. This public intrusion into our most sacred ceremonies is offensive. The equivalent of people screaming and protesting outside your Cathedrals because they don’t like your doctrine of the Eucharist.

 

[twopekinguys]

And I’m telling you, the first presidency lacks the authority to make the deal that you describe See D&C Section 50.

Ok, let’s look at it from these angles then.

If the first presidency lacked the authority, then

1. Are they unware of D & C 50, and acted outside the boundries of lds scripture?
2. Are they aware of D & C 50, and chose to ignore what it says, and therefore willfully ignored lds scripture on their own?
3. Due to no definitive teaching from the lds leadership, everyone from the top down is interpreting it for themselves, and drawing their own conclusions.
4. The Holy Spirit revealed to them that they should go against doctrine, and they would reveal it later? (be careful with this one, because that is what Joseph did with polygamy)

As you can see, this is a very slippery slope.

 

[Miriam1947]

Why don’t I do family history research through LDS sites?

Because I don’t want any person to post-death baptize me or anyone in my family. Some people don’t take issue with it but, even though I know it’s not a true Trinitarian baptism and you can only be baptized once, it just plain bothers me.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

More likely, you have misunderstood the scope of the agreement.

That theory is supported by the fact that none of the actual parties to the agreement are coming out and saying that it was broken.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Why don’t I do family history research through LDS sites?

Because I don’t want any person to post-death baptize me or anyone in my family. Some people don’t take issue with it but, even though I know it’s not a true Trinitarian baptism and you can only be baptized once, it just plain bothers me.

Human pride’s a funny thing, and we all have it. I likewise know atheists and pagans who get upset at the thought that a Christian somewhere is praying for them.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Ok, let’s look at it from these angles then.

If the first presidency lacked the authority, then

1. Are they unware of D & C 50, and acted outside the boundries of lds scripture?
2. Are they aware of D & C 50, and chose to ignore what it says, and therefore willfully ignored lds scripture on their own?
3. Due to no definitive teaching from the lds leadership, everyone from the top down is interpreting it for themselves, and drawing their own conclusions.
4. The Holy Spirit revealed to them that they should go against doctrine, and they would reveal it later? (be careful with this one, because that is what Joseph did with polygamy)

As you can see, this is a very slippery slope.

More likely, you have misunderstood the scope of the agreement, and that the First Presidency actually made an agreement that was within the scope of its authority.

That theory is supported by the fact that none of the actual parties to the agreement are coming out and saying that it was broken.

 

[pablope]

I question the right of the church hierarchy to institute such policies without common consent.

Be careful of your demands, Cowboy…you may get suspended again…

Going to what you stated…why do you question it now? Wasn’t this policy already instituted with common consent before?

And being the hierarchy…don’t the hierarchy institute policies based on already approved guidelines?

So why question it if they instituted a policy based on previously approved guidelines?

I question the conscience of any person that makes the demands that you are making, and yet claims to be support freedom of conscience and religion.

Sorry, but it seems you are ranting. Freedom of religion is freedom from the state to practice religion, and not restrict the practice of religion. I fail to see the connection between freedom of religion and the demands you are ranting about. Can you explain further?

If someone starts shrieking over something that we do privately, in our temples, without affecting them, I don’t consider that we’ve offended them; they are seeking to be offended. They are intruding where they do not belong.

It’s simply none of anyone’s business whose names are submitted. This public intrusion into our most sacred ceremonies is offensive.

If my name was submitted, I would be offended.

The equivalent of people screaming and protesting outside your Cathedrals because they don’t like your doctrine of the Eucharist.

How so? Seems you are hot under the collar again…

 

[twopekinguys]

I question the right of the church hierarchy to institute such policies without common consent. I question the conscience of any person that makes the demands that you are making, and yet claims to be support freedom of conscience and religion.

Imposing your religion by baptizing the dead is infringing on the freedom of religion of those you are doing this “work” for. It works both ways.

Something to remember is that being Jewish is more than being of one particular faith, it is a culture, and a heritage. Just like it is for any other religion.

It is also very misleading. 150 years from now when someone is doing legitimate geneological research, it is going to appear the person converted when they really haven’t.

This is just like the way Boyd Packer’s speech at a recent conference was edited AFTER he made some remarks that upset people. The spoken word was out there, but what was recorded for posterity is something totally different.

Hatemongers will be hatemongers, and this is just a pretext.

Correct, and people exposing the truth, are exposing the truth.

If someone starts shrieking over something that we do privately, in our temples, without affecting them, I don’t consider that we’ve offended them; they are seeking to be offended. They are intruding where they do not belong.

I don’t think shrieking is a fair assessment of this situation at all, and really borders on sensationalism. The Jewish federation worked with the lds for quite sometime before this agreement was signed in 1995, and continued to work with them for at least 10 years after. I don’t think they were “seeking” to be offended at all.

So, using your logic about what you do privately in your temple is your business, does that go for things like drug manufacturing in a persons home? Identity theft from a person’s home? (insert any activity from home) Not to mention, the way the records are obtained is dubious at best. Never is it disclosed that these massive name requests are going to be used for this activity. Why do you think the Pope closed baptismal record requests of this nature?

It’s simply none of anyone’s business whose names are submitted. This public intrusion into our most sacred ceremonies is offensive. The equivalent of people screaming and protesting outside your Cathedrals because they don’t like your doctrine of the Eucharist.

What is offensive is the way the names gathered for “geneological research” are being used by the lds church for something different. What is offensive is how they are revising history, What is offensive is how the lds church refuses to recognize the faith heritage of millions of people, and are simply ignoring a signed agreement.

Comparing the Eucharist to baptisms for the dead is a red herring, and at best an apples and orange comparison. No one is forcing the Eucharist on anyone. No one is gathering millions of records and making them look like they received the Eucharist. Also, when we celebrate the Eucharist, we aren’t doing it behind closed doors in a members only club. It is out in the open for all to see and witness. BIG difference.

 

[twopekinguys]

More likely, you have misunderstood the scope of the agreement, and that the First Presidency actually made an agreement that was within the scope of its authority.

That theory is supported by the fact that none of the actual parties to the agreement are coming out and saying that it was broken.

Ummmm… you must have missed all the news about the Jewish Federation doing just that.

 

[twopekinguys]

If my name was submitted, I would be offended.

 

[blueadept]

Human pride’s a funny thing, and we all have it. I likewise know atheists and pagans who get upset at the thought that a Christian somewhere is praying for them.

I’ve always been amused that LDS have no issues if others pray for their loved ones (even though many draw the line in satanic individuals who perform these same acts) versus Christians who have issues with the LDS performing proxy baptisms. LDS maintain that the individual has the right to accept or deny the work being performed on their behalf and essentially it’s same as Catholics praying for those that are deceased.

This said, as a Catholic I still would prefer not to have the proxy baptisms performed on my behalf. In my case, it’s a hopeless cause since I’m technically a 6th generation LDS even though I’ve been raised a Catholic my entire life. Oh well. :knight2:

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Imposing your religion by baptizing the dead

It’s not “baptizing the dead,” it’s a proxy baptism. Physically it doesn’t involve the other party any more than you praying for someone else.

150 years from now when someone is doing legitimate geneological research, it is going to appear the person converted when they really haven’t.

How so? Has someone fed you the line that the records don’t distinguish between someone that converted, versus someone that had the work done with them posthumously? Have you looked into that?

Shrieking and sensationalism are words that describe the hatemongering articles that started this whole argument.

The purpose of the work for the dead is to do the work for every human being that ever lived, and allow them to accept or reject those ordinances in the next life. If you think that should be illegal, then take us to court. The church leaders should never have engaged in this discussion; they are too nice and accommodating, and should have known that they were being set up.

No one is forcing the Eucharist on anyone.

No one is forcing our work for the dead on anyone.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Our family attorney is already on notice to file suit against the lds church if they find that any or our family members are baptized after death.

Good. I’ll see you in court. I’ll bet your attorneys are working by the hour, and not on commission.

I also bet that your attorneys have set up the contract so that you are responsible for paying any Rule 11 penalties for frivolous filing.

I hope that you’re filing in California, where SLAPP laws apply to people who abuse the legal process to trample others First Amendment rights.