I admit. You can never justify doing things to people without their consent. I used to prosecute guys who did that to others. And if so fallacious, then why did your church agree to stop doing so to Jews? Yes, I know the LDS Church went back on their word, but why did they if people should not be offended?
That of course is incorrect. I have repeatedly stated that consent is necessary, and that Latter-day Saint ordinances, including baptism for the dead, are not effective (i.e. they do not do anything) unless the individual they are being performed on, whether in this life or in the next, consents to it having the desired effect.
See above. Also, please be precise in your statements. The Church of Jesus Christ has never agreed to stop performing baptisms for the dead for deceased Jews. What it has agreed to is to remove names of Jewish Holocaust victims, and to not perform vicarious ordinances for them, unless they are ancestors of LDS members (as the 1995 agreement states), which also goes back to the general policy of only submitting names of direct ancestors, unless permission is given by immediate family of the individual in question). Individual Latter-day Saints that attempt to do so are going against Church policy. The reasoning for said policy has nothing to do with consent (see above for why) or your attempted argument that we have gone through multiple times
How dare anyone do anything to me or my family without consent. But, LDS could care less what families want…it is what THEY want that is more important. Got it.
No, that is incorrect. The idea of needing consent is not based on the effectiveness of the act. Instead, the effectiveness of the act is based on the consent given. As mentioned numerous times before, the baptism (i.e., the act) is not effective unless consent is given. The deceased maintain their ability to choose, and can therefore consent and accept the baptism. If they reject it, nothing happens to them. Your attempted analogy therefore fails.
Again, the policy in place states that names should not be submitted unless they are direct ancestors of the submitter, or they have received permission from relatives to perform the ordinance. This applies to Holocaust victims as well, and is the same policy for everyone besides them.
This of course is still incorrect. See above.
No…it is, again, spot on.
Sorry, that is false, and it is clear to all other readers that you are misconstruing the argument. Again, the idea of needing consent is not based on the effectiveness of the act. Instead, the effectiveness of the act is based on the consent given. As mentioned numerous times before, the baptism (i.e., the act) is not effective unless consent is given. The deceased maintain their ability to choose, and can therefore consent and accept the baptism. If they reject it, nothing happens to them. Your attempted analogy therefore fails.
Again, as already stated, those that do so are in violation of the policy of the Church of Jesus Christ. The rules also have nothing to do with your point, since the theology behind the practice, which is what we are discussing, remains the same: nothing is done to the individual soul unless that individual decides to accept the baptism. It is this point that you have not addressed despite your repeating that things are being done to someone without consent.
No TexanKnight/AtticusFinch/SirThomasMore, I clearly mean that your misconstruing of my argument is very obvious, as I have already demonstrated, including the fact that you did not engage my response to your attempted analogy and my demonstration that you reversed the actual premise of the LDS theology in question.
That is not what you said. You spoke for ALL the readers. You did so without their consent.
Oh dear. By stating “it is clear to all other readers that you are misconstruing the argument.”, I clearly mean that what you are doing is obvious, i.e. it is obvious that you reversed the premise of LDS proxy baptism theology and consent, as evidenced in my already given argument.
What happened between the moderators and me is between the moderators and me. Like I said, I have no reason to hide. This does not explain your various names. But, it does not matter to me. My integrity is intact.
I of course do not have various names here.
I agree. It has been going nowhere for sometime now as you refuse to engage my actual arguments, posit false analogies, move the goal posts, etc.
Please cite the specific post where I acquiesced to any such thing. I know that you cannot.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Mormon authorities”. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ordinary members can perform baptisms for the dead. You do not have to be someone in authority to do so.
How sad. One Latter-day Saint woman recently shared her own conversion experience from Islam to the Church of Jesus Christ in her new book called “The Worth of A Soul: From Muslim to Mormon”.
No, it is not. Baptism for the dead has nothing to do with control, since we don’t believe that we can force people to accept something that they do not want to. The baptism does not force that person to be a Latter-day Saint. They must choose to accept (or reject) that baptism. Therefore there is no “unjust control”.
So then, who are you?
I am me…
LivingWaters7, are you truly a new poster and have never posted before using another name?
LivingWaters, if you have been honest with me that you have been lurking for only a few months, then how would you know the above screen names?
I do believe I already stated in this very thread-“I of course do not have various names here.”