Non confrontational question for any practicing Mormon (former mormons, please state so when posting)

[dianaiad]

You claim that we want to stop your religious beliefs (Baptising non-Mormon dead and sealing them), but if we speak about a revelation from your church that it isn’t necessary and you guys need to restrain yourselves and limit yourselves just to your own known LDS, that wouldn’t be us making the statement. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the LDS changed (or had a revelation) to be more empathetic. (When the LDS wanted statehood, there was a revelation that polygamy wasn’t to be practiced in this world; When there was a threat that colleges would no longer play sports should the LDS remain bigoted, there was a revelation to allow blacks to hold the priesthood; When there was “hew and cry” against the bloody oaths of vegenance for Joseph Smith’s death in the Endowment, they were taken out; When trends in fashion saw shortened hemlines, we saw the Garments shortened (and no longer looking like long underwear); When women objected to the rather indecent parts of the Endowment, that was modified so it wasn’t so any longer.) The point being, it’s been done on other issues–the LDS have changed (I hope that the LDS will also change it so non-Mormon parents can also witness their beloved child’s wedding, but that’s another issue.)

And as for stopping unwanted salesmen from knocking on an elderly lady’s door and harassing her, it would be only Christian to stop the harassment. And if it get’s worse, the law would stop it for her.

I see. So you believe that you have the right to make decisions for other people just because they are older than you are?

How presumptuous and arrogant can you GET?

I’m 60. If some idiot down the street sees me taking my healing knee out for a cane assisted walk and decided that he was going to keep those pesky Baptists and JW’s away from my door, I would NOT be grateful…and how the heck would you know that I didn’t WANT that Avon saleslady at my door, anyway?

Let me make my own decisions, young one. My knees may not work, but my brain does. I can’t think of a more condescending and arrogant attitude than this; to think that you have the right to decide FOR me who I can, or cannot, talk to, or slam the door in the face of.

As for allowing non-member parents to witness their children’s weddings…they can do that now. The children simply get married elsewhere, and then in a year, have that marriage sealed in the Temple.

Or (as my daughter did) marry in the Temple and have her father in law wait in the Temple foyer and be treated to a personal guided tour of the visiter’s center…and then be present for the ‘ring exchange’ outside Temple walls.

It will never happen that non-Temple recommend holders will be allowed in the Temple, even as witnesses to weddings, any more than it ever happened that anyone but the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple, and that only once a year. It was so sacrosanct that there is a common legend that he had to wear a rope around his leg so that if God struck him dead while he was in there, he could be dragged out. This legend is untrue, but it certainly illustrates the importance of place–and not making exceptions!

 

[AMDGtoo]

I see. So you believe that you have the right to make decisions for other people just because they are older than you are?

Not just because they are older, but because no one should be harrassed–there are laws against it. (Surprised that you don’t uphold those laws since I believe there’s an Article of Faith that claim that LDS do.)

young one.

Wrong presumption again. We’re the same age.

As for allowing non-member parents to witness their children’s weddings…they can do that now. The children simply get married elsewhere, and then in a year, have that marriage sealed in the Temple.

What is this? Why do I have to inform LDS folks about the rules for weddings? (Yes, I’ve had to do it before with the many sets of missionaries that have come to my door.) The LDS bishop emphasizes that to not have a temple wedding is insulting to God. (That’s the reason for the year wait between a civil wedding and a LDS temple one–it’s to discourage any other type of wedding. And it does a good job–the couple get to decide between LDS punishment or their family–that is unless they are lucky enough to live in Europe where there isn’t the year wait.)

Or (as my daughter did) marry in the Temple and have her father in law wait in the Temple foyer and be treated to a personal guided tour of the visiter’s center…and then be present for the ‘ring exchange’ outside Temple walls.

Please try to be honest, we both know that a “ring ceremony” is nothing like the wedding. The LDS bishop insists on that!

It will never happen that non-Temple recommend holders will be allowed in the Temple, even as witnesses to weddings,

I have learned that one should never say “never”.

any more than it ever happened that anyone but the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple, and that only once a year. It was so sacrosanct that there is a common legend that he had to wear a rope around his leg so that if God struck him dead while he was in there, he could be dragged out. This legend is untrue, but it certainly illustrates the importance of place

Actually, I think that it is true, but I know that the LDS temple is not the Jewish Holy of Holies and besides Jesus has “ripped the veil” separating us from God by His atoning death and resurrection.

 

[hosemonkey]

Or (as my daughter did) marry in the Temple and have her father in law wait in the Temple foyer and be treated to a personal guided tour of the visiter’s center…and then be present for the ‘ring exchange’ outside Temple walls.

Why is it that the holiest places in the world, the Churches and shrines in the Holy Land are open to all, without exception, while the false “Temples” of a manufactured religion are closed to true Christians, and open only to those who are members of the cult? Is Darkness practiced there? How could one know? The Vatican itself, is open even to non-Christians, even mormons. But the mormon “wedding cakes”, are not.
And the previous poster is correct, mormons said “never” to abandoning polygamy, admitting Blacks in the priesthood and to many other things. But “never” changed to “YES” when expediency was stronger than “divine revelation” and the Old Men of Salt Lake City got their feet held to the fire. Too cowardly to stick to their “divine revelations.” They should have been willing to die for their “sacred” principles, but alas, no.
BTW, is a white rope around the leg part of “Temple” equipment? “Sacred” place and all, you know.

 

[dianaiad]

Not just because they are older, but because no one should be harrassed–there are laws against it. (Surprised that you don’t uphold those laws since I believe there’s an Article of Faith that claim that LDS do.)

One knock upon the door is not harrassment. One offer is not harrassment. One offer to which the answer is permanent and honored is not harrassment.

Wrong presumption again. We’re the same age.

You still do not have the right to make decisions for me. y’know.

What is this? Why do I have to inform LDS folks about the rules for weddings? (Yes, I’ve had to do it before with the many sets of missionaries that have come to my door.) The LDS bishop emphasizes that to not have a temple wedding is insulting to God. (That’s the reason for the year wait between a civil wedding and a LDS temple one–it’s to discourage any other type of wedding. And it does a good job–the couple get to decide between LDS punishment or their family–that is unless they are lucky enough to live in Europe where there isn’t the year wait.)

What are you talking about…that year wait IS the consequence of having a "temporal’ wedding. It is discouraged, but if the couple is that determined to have Mom and Dad attend, that’s the choice.

And NO Bishop has EVER said anything about it being ‘insulting to God.’ That is one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever seen. What it is, is risky; one should want all the blessings of eternal marriage from the beginning.

Please try to be honest, we both know that a “ring ceremony” is nothing like the wedding. The LDS bishop insists on that!

No, it is not a wedding. All know it is not a wedding. It’s something, though…and which LDS Bishop do you have a mindlink to, that you know what he "insists’ on or does not?

I have learned that one should never say “never”.

Actually, I think that it is true, but I know that the LDS temple is not the Jewish Holy of Holies and besides Jesus has “ripped the veil” separating us from God by His atoning death and resurrection.

What, the legend of the priest with the rope around his ankle? Sorry, but no. It’s a legend. There is no reference to such a thing at all except in folklore that showed up well after the destruction of the temple itself. The raiment and preparations of the high priest are described in the OT…and a rope is not included.

(shrug) Not that it matters one way or the other.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I see. So you believe that you have the right to make decisions for other people just because they are older than you are?

How presumptuous and arrogant can you GET?

I’m 60. If some idiot down the street sees me taking my healing knee out for a cane assisted walk and decided that he was going to keep those pesky Baptists and JW’s away from my door, I would NOT be grateful…and how the heck would you know that I didn’t WANT that Avon saleslady at my door, anyway?

Let me make my own decisions, young one. My knees may not work, but my brain does. I can’t think of a more condescending and arrogant attitude than this; to think that you have the right to decide FOR me who I can, or cannot, talk to, or slam the door in the face of.

As for allowing non-member parents to witness their children’s weddings…they can do that now. The children simply get married elsewhere, and then in a year, have that marriage sealed in the Temple.

Or (as my daughter did) marry in the Temple and have her father in law wait in the Temple foyer and be treated to a personal guided tour of the visiter’s center…and then be present for the ‘ring exchange’ outside Temple walls.

It will never happen that non-Temple recommend holders will be allowed in the Temple, even as witnesses to weddings, any more than it ever happened that anyone but the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple, and that only once a year. It was so sacrosanct that there is a common legend that he had to wear a rope around his leg so that if God struck him dead while he was in there, he could be dragged out. **This legend is untrue, but **it certainly illustrates the importance of place–and not making exceptions!

Many are, your faith is not immune to that. It’s a curious admission and it sounds as if it was an experience that was not very pleasant for you, as a devout Mormon to undergo.

 

[AMDGtoo]

. It’s something, though…and which LDS Bishop do you have a mindlink to, that you know what he "insists’ on or does not?

No “mindlink”–convert daughter married a son of a bishop. And perhaps you didn’t have the comments about why a year waiting time is required, there is also a year waiting time from LDS baptism to wedding in the temple, but I have–unfortunately.

 

[dianaiad]

Many are, your faith is not immune to that. It’s a curious admission and it sounds as if it was an experience that was not very pleasant for you, as a devout Mormon to undergo.

uh…huh?

 

[StrawberryJam]

uh…huh?

Admission that legends may or may not be true, yet still practiced.

 

[dianaiad]

Admission that legends may or may not be true, yet still practiced.

Again…huh?

I was unaware that the Jews even had a temple currently, much less that a Jewish high priest now walks into the “Holy of Holies” with a rope around his ankle, especially since there is no reference to one having done so when there was a “Holy of Holies” to walk into. This legend never was practiced, in other words, and isn’t practiced NOW.

In other words, WHAT are you talking about?

 

[mfbukowski]

Ummm–one of my daughters is LDS while the other married into a family that is LDS, if you aren’t a member (and haven’t paid tithes plus don’t “volunteer” to work in the bishop’s storehouse) you don’t get it open to you. Of course some bishops might be more lenient than others, but as my daughter said “it’s only fair to require people to work”.

This is not the case. The bishop’s storehouse is available to all, member and non member, those who can work and those who cannot.

I have firsthand knowledge of precisely how this works.

 

[mfbukowski]

You are not a Book of Mormon person? What? I don’t know what this means. Are there different kinds of Mormons? What kind are you?

I am WAY behind in this thread, and I hope this has been resolved by now, but in case it hasn’t I will point out where the confusion lies

Zerinus said that baptism for the dead may not have been revealed “to Book of Mormon People”, though it is revealed to us.

Strawberry thought that Zerinus was saying there are a class of people called “BOM People” who were different than regular Mormons, hence the confusion.

All Zerinus was saying was that perhaps Baptism for the dead had not been revealed at the time historically, (600 bc-400 ad) when the BOM was written, just as say, some doctrines of Christ may have not been revealed to people in Old Testament times.

The LDS church now has doctrines that do not appear in the BOM because those doctrines have been revealed relatively recently, since Joseph Smith’s time.

So Zerinus is saying that perhaps baptism for the dead was revealed to Joseph Smith in the 1800’s, while those who lived in the BOM times, 600bc- 400AD, did NOT have that doctrine yet.

I suppose I am whipping a dead horse at this point, but this is just one illustration about how linguistic confusion can cause arguments over nothing at all.

 

[mfbukowski]

I don’t see why they can’t just go the full mile and assure you they won’t let it be done by anyone ever. That would be the best way to handle this.

Mormons? Why can’t she just get this assurance?

It would be like assuring you that if you left the Catholic church, no one in the future would ever light a candle for you in any church in the world.

THAT would be my personal wish, but I think I will have masses by the ton being said for me after I pass, though I also have no say in it.

It won’t hurt, I suppose – and that should be your attitude too.

 

[mfbukowski]

This has to be so frustrating for you. I was just thinking… I wonder how the good ole’ lds records division would handle your question/request if they received a certified letter from your attorney…

Good luck on that one. But you could pay me to write a letter, I will take your money! (I am not an attorney, but it will do just as much good)

I have never seen a lawsuit about what might happen in the future. Good luck on that.

 

[mfbukowski]

I have no idea whom the caller talked with, what was said, what was understood from what was said, what may have been misunderstood, and certainly a person answering the telephone is not necessarily in a position to know every answer to every question that may be brought up to them. The channel of asking questions is supposed to be that a member asks their bishop who may ask their stake president if it’s not in the General Handbook, and a non-member may ask a local bishop or may ask the mission president where they live. This way one goes through channels where these things can be looked up and answered using what has actually been approved and researched by someone who can take the time to do it.

I’ve seen this topic in writing, so it is not guess-work. It has been written up as a specific procedure to follow.

Howdy
I guess I should shut up. I was shooting off my mouth on this before I got to your post-- I am just wondering where you got your info that the church can assure someone that work will not be done for them after death.

As far as I know it is not in the General Handbook, though I have not researched my copy to see - I keep it locked up at church. I would like to know how to find the procedure if there is one, because this sort of thing does come up.

Thanks
Mark

 

[twopekinguys]

Good luck on that one. But you could pay me to write a letter, I will take your money! (I am not an attorney, but it will do just as much good)

I have never seen a lawsuit about what might happen in the future. Good luck on that.

Have you ever heard of an “injunction”?

They can, and do prevent future behavior.

“An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts.”

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction

I can see it happening. Possibly on a class action level. Whether it is successful or not is entirely another issue.

Although negative publicity surrounding it could sway public opinion.

 

[AMDGtoo]

This is not the case. The bishop’s storehouse is available to all, member and non member, those who can work and those who cannot.

I have firsthand knowledge of precisely how this works.

Well, perhaps it works your way for those “born in the covenant” (or that’s the story that is given to the people who are “investigating Mormonism”), but, I asure you that for both daughters I have watched it work the way I have described. If the Mormons help in anyway, there are “strings” attached. The one daughter who converted had to volunteer (and even described the method), the other daughter who married into the family that was Mormon (but didn’t convert) needed verifiable help, and actually won a “bet” (words only since she had nothing else) with her Mormon mother-in-law. (Her Mormon mother-in-law was absolutely sure that the bishop would help, while my daughter thought that he wouldn’t once he found out that she wasn’t Mormon–and my daughter was right.) A friend who did volunteer at the storehouse ended up selling my daughter some food items, at a reduced cost.

This firsthand knowledge enough for you?

 

[mfbukowski]

Well, perhaps it works your way for those “born in the covenant” (or that’s the story that is given to the people who are “investigating Mormonism”), but, I asure you that for both daughters I have watched it work the way I have described. If the Mormons help in anyway, there are “strings” attached. The one daughter who converted had to volunteer (and even described the method), the other daughter who married into the family that was Mormon (but didn’t convert) needed verifiable help, and actually won a “bet” (words only since she had nothing else) with her Mormon mother-in-law. (Her Mormon mother-in-law was absolutely sure that the bishop would help, while my daughter thought that he wouldn’t once he found out that she wasn’t Mormon–and my daughter was right.) A friend who did volunteer at the storehouse ended up selling my daughter some food items, at a reduced cost.

This firsthand knowledge enough for you?

I am sorry that this happened, and any sales of food from the storehouse should be reported immediately to any bishop. That food is never to be sold. That volunteer stole the food and sold it for a 100% profit, and anyone who would do that … well they shouldn’t do that. It would be like re-selling aid items given to Hatian earthquake victims- it is the lowest of the low. That “volunteer” was probably also a church welfare recepient who clearly should not have been.

People are encouraged to work for food given at the storehouse so that they can feel that they have earned it and have not been given a dole, but if they cannot do so for any reason, it is not required.

And church policy is that welfare can and should be given to anyone even if a non-member.

I have seen many homeless non-members being given food from the storehouse and there is in fact in each stake a bishop who is assigned precisely to do that sort of thing- he is called the “transient bishop”.

Unfortunately anything administered by human beings is not perfect, but what I am explaining here is what the church policy is. Unfortunately even Catholics sometimes do not follow Catholic church policy- we are all human!

Edit: There could have also been other factors at work here which you were not aware of which helped the bishop to decide against giving assistance. I will not speculate on what those might have been, but in certain cases bishops have to use their judgement in these matters about which you might not be aware- perhaps family situations in those families about which you do not know. I am only speculating, since I certainly don’t know you at all.

But what I explained is church policy.

 

[mfbukowski]

Have you ever heard of an “injunction”?

They can, and do prevent future behavior.

“An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts.”

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction

I can see it happening. Possibly on a class action level. Whether it is successful or not is entirely another issue.

Although negative publicity surrounding it could sway public opinion.

Assuming you were born in 1800, suppose such an injunction were in fact granted in 1850 to you personally in your favor, against having your work done, and in 2050 one of your descendants decides to do the work anyway.

What would be the legal ramifications of that? Who would enforce it?

 

[twopekinguys]

Assuming you were born in 1800, suppose such an injunction were in fact granted in 1850 to you personally in your favor, against having your work done, and in 2050 one of your descendants decides to do the work anyway.

What would be the legal ramifications of that? Who would enforce it?

Much of it would depend on the wording of the injunction. Whether it was permanent or temporary, and if power of enforcement is given to decendents, or remains with civil authorities, also whether the church is honorable enough to comply with the injuction. (law of the land)

Some ramifications would be huge amounts of negative publicity, large financial fines, jail time for those who violated the injuctions, and those who conspired to violate the injuction, just to name of few.

All of this is immaterial, because you could “what if” this to death.

My response was directly related to your statement below.
mfbukowski:6349904:

I have never seen a lawsuit about what might happen in the future. Good luck on that.

 

[mfbukowski]

Are you seeing any empathy on this thread for those who might not like their dead proxy baptized? If you do could you point it out to me.

And what of descendants of Catholics who do not want masses said for their dead?

(Not that I care, honestly, because I don’t believe that they do any good or bad)

Can’t you see it is the same?

What if a Buddhist prays for your dead ancestor? Is that a terrible thing?

Buddhists don’t do that… but what if?

Of if the Alien Church of Zardoz baptizes your ancestors? I wouldn’t care! I honestly don’t see the point whatsoever! Do you think you could be snatched out of heaven for something someone did to your spirit here on earth?

Perhaps that comes from the idea that praying for the dead helps them. If praying for the dead helps them, then I guess doing “negative things” to them could hurt them? Is that what you believe?