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

[dianaiad]

Oh, I have to answer this because your ideas are really mistaken.

A Mass (offered in the memory of the dead) is nothing but a prayer. A wish for the person’s welfare. A wish that God acts in their life. It’s not baptizing them (and making them something that they weren’t while they were living. It’s not “sealing” or marrying them to some person (even if they had taken a public vow to remain celibate).

Yet your prayers are not to the dead person, nor even consider what that dead person might think, believe or want. They are prayers to God, or to Saints to intercede with God, for Him to do something for or to the dead, will they, nill they. You don’t even put the dead in the loop. Please do not get me wrong here: I am NOT criticizing your practice of prayer for the dead, candle lighting or Masses said for them. It is your faith, and you should practice it. I AM saying that given the facts of what you consider the effects of what you do to be, you really are off base criticizing US for doing something that is far less coercive. We are not, after all, begging God to step in and fix things–to make the dead do something, or be something, that they were not in life, nor might want to be now.

WE, however, simply perform the ordinances. It is the dead who are in complete control over whether those ordinances are effective or valid. Their choice. Their wishes. Nothing we do can coerce them…and we certainly do not ask God to change their minds!

And your confusion of baptizing infants is quite Protestant (and wrong). snip explanation, for space only…

I’m not the one who came up with the ‘indelible mark’ bit. While I certainly understand your view point, the fact is that baptism DOES something, in the Catholic mind and doctrine, that remains with the Catholic soul no matter what happens after that; whether the child is raised Catholic or not, whether he is confirmed or she ever takes communion. If this were not so, why bother to baptise an infant? Why not wait until he or she is old enough to understand what’s going on? No…you obviously consider that there is something about the actual baptism that is important, over and above what happens later, and it is THAT which I am talking about here; that ‘something’ which is done without the infant’s participation, acceptance or knowledge; that something very, very permanent.

By the way, our view of that episode with Christ has nothing to do with baptism, except perhaps to reinforce that children don’t need it. After all, Christ did not say 'for such may be the Kingdom of Heaven if you let them get baptised." He said " for such IS the Kingdom of Heaven." He was literally telling the folks around Him to let the children THAT day come and see him at THAT time–because children already ARE ‘the Kingdom of Heaven,’ being utterly innocent.

No, what I have said, and will continue to say, is that our dead (as Paul says, have run the race), and they deserve to rest in peace, their memories lovingly intact.

We do nothing to their memories. Nothing we do, or can do, can alter one second of their lives or choices here on earth…nor can they alter anybody else’s perceptions of them, unless that someone else isn’t thinking. Sorry to be so blunt, but I absolutely cannot understand how anybody can look at a record that has a death date of a year or more BEFORE any record of proxy work can possibly see this as any sort of messing with their memories!

BTW, we have records, very accurate records of all Sacraments (so accurate that Social Security accepted my Grandmother’s Baptismal records when her birth certificate was lost). You all ought to know that we keep accurate records, the LDS sent armies of folks out to copy them for your own uses (baptism of the dead) and that’s why the Vatican has now come out to try to stop the practice.

Yes, but that wasn’t the point. Records kept of baptisms (done against the will, permission or knowledge of the infant…) are one thing. What was mentioned was what YOU do for and in behalf of the dead; prayers, lit candles, Masses…evidently you don’t keep records of those, and if you really believe that the memories of those who have passed on should be left in peace, why in the world are you doing all THAT? At least what we do is a one time offer, something that is completely up to the person involved, and at least we understand that the decision is THEIRS!

 

[dianaiad]

By a “positive feeling about the mercy of God”, are you saying prayer?

So by saying “not generally”, it does happen then.?

Again, “not generally” to me implies that it does happen

Part of the grieving process also involves worrying about the soul of the deceased. So if we are praying to comfort those who grieve, aren’t we also praying for the deceased?

Oh, I’m sure I would.

I have to tell you, I have been to funerals of just about every religion. Hindu, Jewish,various protestant, Catholic, you name it. I honestly cannot think of a single funeral, or visitation/wake where there wasn’t some sort of prayer offered for the deceased.

Without prayers at these services, I just can’t picture what a mormon funeral would consist of.

Thanks Parker.

We pray for the living. After all, the dead are taken care of; but the living need comfort.

 

[dianaiad]

I read that linked article from which the quotes came. I have to agree w/you Diana, that the persons quoted do not appear, from what they said, to understand the nature of what LDS believe proxy baptism does and doesn’t do.

However, I would argue that in some ways, it doesn’t matter if they understand that part of it. Because, as I had mentioned earlier (was it in this thread, or another one, I don’t remember anymore!), even just “making the offer” to the deceased is enough to offend the sensibilities of many Jewish people, even if it isn’t their direct relative receiving the proxy work.

I don’t really see a solution to this. Seems like there is an impasse and that the two groups have trouble seeing the others’ viewpoint.

The problem with cross cultural sensitivity is that it’s often not really cross cultural. The idea behind it is that both cultures should try to learn, and accept the truth about, the other one. If, as in this case, culture A strenuously objects to the actions of culture B, and their objections are based upon a complete misunderstanding of what those actions really are or what they mean, how is it being culturally sensitive for culture B to abandon THEIR culture and beliefs because culture A refuses to look at what culture B is really doing?

Once both cultures understand what’s really happening, and culture A STILL has objections that are based in what culture B actually is doing, THEN culture B should start paying attention.

In the case of proxy work, I think that the church has come up with a workable solution; not that (in spite of what our critics and enemies think, we are NOT mind numbed robots utterly controlled by Salt Lake City…) everybody is going to adhere to the rules, but we can try. Restricting proxy work to those who are relatives is something I agree with…for at least two or three generations back.

I do not think that most people would (even if they privately think so…) consider that they have more say over what happens than a close relative does–that is, some advocacy group that is unrelated to the deceased really doesn’t have the right to forbid a grand daughter from doing the proxy work for her grandparents.

 

[twopekinguys]

Actually, some people who have done this work believe that they have 'recieved responses." It’s a faith thing.

How nice for them.

Guys, you are being disengenuous in the extreme here. What part of “We do not assume…” that they have or have not seemed to have whizzed over your head? The only thing our records indicate is that the offer was made, not that anybody actually accepted it.

Their argument comes from a basic misunderstanding of what we do, and what we claim for what we do. They are (as you seem to be) claiming that our proxy work on behalf of the dead does something that we adamantly insist that it does NOT do.

So the whole world misunderstands this concept except the mormons? Yeah Right. Nice try.

Now how logical is it for someone who claims complete disbelief in what we do claim that it actually does something we insist that it does NOT do? Really…why should we honor objections that are based on incorrect assumptions?

If the lds weren’t going to honor the objections, why enter into an agreement with them to corrrect the situation? Want to talk disingenious now? Or would you rather call it an out right lie?

Perhaps we do not know the dead for whom we do the work, nor have a clue whether they would accept or reject what we offer; that’s fine. We aren’t the ones who are assuming that we DO know. It is, after all, entirely their choice. However, the people who object so strenuously ALSO do not know these people, and THEY are the ones who are preventing the choice, not us.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to ignore the rules set up by your own church and baptize. Wouldn’t you say members of the Jewish community knew these people? How arrogant of you to assume otherwise.

It is the arrogance of this practice that we hear from mormons that give it a bad name.

Your own leadership has made statements in the past that the work is to be done for family members. Who got President Obama’s permission?

HOW does it 'disparage the memory of a deceased person?" We aren’t lying about them, or doing anything to them. We are the ones who are respecting the dead, assuming that they actually can make their own decisions still.

It seems to me that it is those who have the chutspah to assume that they know better than anybody else what these folks REALLY want are the ones who are disparaging their memories.

Obviously you did not read any of the link I gave you.

In fact, if I had two people arguing with each other about whether one of them could ask me a question, trust me; I would percieve the insult coming from the one who assumes that, even though he doesn’t know me AT all, figures that he knows what I would think, believe, feel and say. I would not be grateful to the obstructionist. Being an independent sort, I’d like to make my own decisions, thankyouverymuch.

So again, your opinion counts over those of family of the deceased. Your arrogance astounds me, and just reinforces my earlier statement about how the arrogance surrounding this is what puts people off the most.

“We will continue opposing this wrongful act which assimilates our dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes”
jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

The above is like saying that I will continue to object to the wrongful acts of Jews as described in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion." They can object to acts which 'assimilate [their] dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes" all they want to, but they are objecting to a strawman. NOTHING we do assimilates Jewish dead in any way. There is no way that anything we do would make it impossible…or even slightly difficult…to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes. If you are going to quote objections, try quoting reasonable ones. The above simply are not.

…because we do not disparage the dead, nor do we ‘assimilate’ them in any way. We make an offer that they can completely ignore, or decline…or whatever. If as a result of what we do these people DO ‘become assimilated,’ it will be because THEY choose to do so, not because we forced them into anything…and even if they do accept, the records HERE will always clearly show that they were born, lived and died Jewish.
dianaiad;6355710:

Baloney. These things are asking God to do something to the deceased that the deceased have no control over. The deceased are up there, either waiting for those prayers or ignoring them…but what THEY think matters not one whit to what you do, does it? If you ask God, and He answers you, then THEY get what you asked for. Where is there free will in any of that?

Again, your arrogance is astounding, as well as your willfull ignorance.

As you like to say, what part of candles and masses being directed to God on behalf of the deceased do you not understand?

Not to mention, your statement smacks of telling me, and other Catholics, Christians and Jews believe. Something you are very fond of trying to pin on others.

From you. You were the one who objected, not because we forced anything on anybody, but because we actually keep RECORDS.

cont. on next post

You have a real problem with context don’t you?

 

[Jay53]

Yet your prayers are not to the dead person, nor even consider what that dead person might think, believe or want. They are prayers to God, or to Saints to intercede with God, for Him to do something for or to the dead, will they, nill they. You don’t even put the dead in the loop.

I think you have misunderstood. The prayers or Masses for the deceased are not for God to “do something for or to the dead”. They are asking God to have mercy on them, forgive them their sins and bring them to everlasting life with God. If the deceased, for whatever reason, would not want this done then they’re probably not in Purgatory or Heaven anyway.

 

[twopekinguys]

cont. from previous post

No it’s not.

That’s funny, that isn’t what you yourself say below. You say you are required to do your own. That is a requirement isn’t it?

I can see that you are getting a little desperate and moving the goal posts. Your argument here really IS a strawman argument, m’friend. The only thing that is ‘REQUIRED’ is that we get our OWN work done. Anything we do over and above that is a priviledge, not requirement…which is one of the reasons we need Temple recommends to do it.

Please don’t accuse me of using your tactics. I never made a distinction between doing your own work, and the work for others. That is all on you.

Good try though. Maybe next time you will have a valid argument.

You do this…something that you do without consulting or even allowing for the opinion or choice of the deceased…and you tell ME that it’s ok because you don’t keep records? That…is the very definition of ‘sneaky.’

I am suprised you don’t have carpal tunnel from the way you try to twist things. We’re sneaky because we light a candle. We’re sneaky because we say a prayer for the deceased. Notice I said “for”. That means we aren’t praying to them, therefore we are not bugging them like your so called baptismal offers. We are praying to God!!! Get it?
There really is a difference there. Your baptismal offers are going to the deceased, our prayers are going to God.

Let’s go back to the sneaky thing. Mormons baptise Obama’s mother. (without permission) . Mormons baptise St. Damien, and seal him to a spouse (without permission) Mormons baptise thousands of Holocaust victims (without permission).

Again, this goes to your arrogance of thinking that only your opinion counts. How sad for you.

We know about it, right? If we know about it, it’s not sneaky. That’s the whole point of records.

Now there is a statement you should really be proud of. Doing something sneaky like the examples above, but it’s ok, because you know about it. How noble…NOT

I wonder how many people have lit candles or said prayers or even said a Mass for her…but we’ll never know that, will we?

Candles, no, because that is an individual thing. Fortunately, the Catholic Church doesn’t need, or use a database to keep track of someone’s soul. I am sure there is probably some count of the number of masses offered for the deceased, but the names would not be submitted and tracked. After all, we aren’t keeping tabs on peoples souls like the mormons.

Because you don’t keep records of such things. That’s…I hate to say this, but that’s sneaky.

Yes, you should be proud that you have a database that keeps track of your sneakiness.

The only consent that matters is that of Damien…and none of us know what he thinks about it. But again, since there are records, it’s not sneaky, is it? “Sneaky” is doing something behind everybody’s backs and not telling anyone. Since pretty much anyone has access to the records showing who has, and has not, had proxy work done I utterly fail to see how ‘sneaky’ comes into what WE do.

If you aren’t doing something behind someone’s back, then why isn’t this information up front and available? Nobody was upfront about Obama’s mother now were they. I would say that was done behind his back wouldn’t you? So yes, it is sneaky.

Thats funny, your own church says if the individual submitting the name is not related to the individual, then permission has to be obtained from the nearest living relative. But hey, don’t let the rules get in your way. After all, it is only your opinion that counts. How sad for you.

You.

If the genealogical records are available, so is the ‘ordinance information.’ By the way…do try to remember WHO insisted that these records not be made available. It was not, in case you haven’t been paying attention, US.

That’s funny. When I search Prs. Obama’s Mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), her name comes up on the index, but it doesn’t say anything about ordinances, or proxy baptisms. Yet we know that it was done.

So who insisted that the records not be made available? What is your reference for that?

 

[twopekinguys]

You baptize infants who have absolutely no chance to object, accept, prevent or participate in the deal. At least we believe that those for whom we do the work are in complete control over whether that work is valid; you believe in this ‘indelible mark’ that is put upon the soul of a baptised infant, will he, nill he.

Apples and oranges. As an infant, it is the parent’s right, and duty to act on their behalf in all matters. Sorry to tell you, another failed arguement on your part.

As I have stated before, and I will repeat it again. We are not bugging the dead, We don’t even know if lighting candles or having Masses said ARE effective. We leave that to God. He is the only one that knows for sure. We are merely asking that he show his mercy. BIG difference./.quote]
dianaiad;6355717:

I see. So…when we say that we don’t know whether the dead will accept or reject what we do, and that the validity of what we do is ENTIRELY up to them, not us, that is unacceptable to you, but you don’t know whether lighting candles or having Masses said are effective; you just leave it up to God…and that is just fine–and the wishes of the people for whom you pray, light candles and say Masses aren’t even considered, much less consulted or worried about?

It is not acceptable to most of the world.

God is the one that makes the decisions. Or haven’t you figured that out yet? When I die, if I’m on my way to hell, of course I am going to want another chance. God has made it clear in the scriptures you only get one chance.

Dang, I love irony.

Why, indeed? The point is, twopekinguys, you are the one who brought up the point that its not the work that’s the problem, its that we write it down.

You just don’t get it. Your arrogance is just amazing, right along with your willfull ignorance.

I’ll bet the Jewish community wouldn’t pay much attention to us objecting to, say…any Jew becoming a banker because they are greedy, would it? …and of course, they would be completely right to ignore such objections. After all, the REASON Jews have been associated with banking, wealth and money lending is that for several hundred years Catholics were forbidden from BEING money lenders or bankers. Since these professions were rather necessary, the only folks left who could engage in them were, well…Jews.

Wow, now that verges on anti-semitism. You should be really proud of yourself on that one. Any other sterotypes you want to bring up?

This made it rather easy for the Christian community to identify and persecute the Jews, too…that’s where the money was, and since of course Jews didn’t get all the legal protections Christians did, robbing them was not only easy, it was even considered, well, pius. So for any non-Jew to criticize a Jew for ‘greed’ is not only stupid, it’s ironic…and an objection utterly based on a complete misunderstanding of Jewish/Christian history and interaction.

Since the Jewish objection to what WE do (as evidenced by the quotes you have given me here) are obviously based on just such an utter misconception of what it is we do, and what we think the effect of what we do is, kindly tell me why we should pay attention?

…wouldn’t it be better to simply explain the truth of what it is we do, and keep doing it?

Total diversion. Nice try. Obviously you didn’t read the link. Again, everyone is wrong but you.

If the whole world has a “misconception”, then maybe you aren’t doing such a hot job of explaining what you’re doing now are you? Or could it be that in fact you are wrong? I, along with the rest of the world appear to vote for the latter.

Tell me, if I were to tell you to NOT light a candle or have a Mass said for my uncle who passed away two years ago, would you figure I had a right to request it? More importantly, do you figure I have the right to stop you?

Yes, you have the right to request it. As a christian, it is my moral responsibilty to respect that request.

Let me go you one step further. On Christmas Eve, 2006, I had to sign the orders to discontinue medical treatment for my mother. She ultimately passed away on 12-27-2006. Her request of me before passing away. was, “I don’t want a minister, prayers, or anything religous at my funeral”. Did I honor that request? Absolutely. Did I like it? Absolutely not.

It has been 3 years now, and she has not had any Masses said for her, or candles lit for her.

Does that answer your question?

…and by your own admission, what you do is more coercive by far than what we do.

Your wrists have got to be killing you by now with all of the twisting you are doing.

Again, you are not comprehending anything. We are not doing anything “to” the deceased. We are going to God. What part of this are you having a problem understanding? It really isn’t that difficult.

How can a prayer to God be considered coercive to the dead? I’ll save you the time. It isn’t.

 

[mfbukowski]

Have you ever gotten a response to any of these so called “offers”?

Interesting you should ask this question.

I was at the temple tonight with a bunch of young people, and we did baptisms for the dead.

One of the workers there recounted a story of a young man who had a reputation for being hyperactive, and very irreverant, and his bishop was not sure it was a good idea for him to go to the temple because the feeling was that he would not be able to sit still long enough to wait his turn to do baptisms.

But when he was actually in the temple he was strangely calm especially afterwards. He was unusually subdued and not messing around with his buddies as he usually would be. One of the leaders took him aside to make sure he was all right.

He said that he had seen every spirit of every person he was baptized for, and that each of them had thanked him for his service. He was overwhelmed by the experience.

Now I don’t expect you to believe that story, but I am confident that it was a true story, because I knew the temple worker personally who related the story, and who had been there.

 

[mfbukowski]

Calling people “deluded” does not help your case in the least, and to be honest is quite rude and offensive.

And you think WE have a persecution complex! I didn’t say Catholics were deluded. Are you saying there are no one who is deluded in the world?

 

[hosemonkey]

Let’s not forget what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with false religion, with false doctrine, bizarre rites practiced by deluded people, in disobedience to the Scriptures, having absolutely no effect whatsoever, except to annoy Christians by inflicting bogus “baptisms” and “sealings” upon those who would abhor mormonism in life and encounter its’ heresies again in death. You are arguing about how many mormons can dance upon the head of a pin…or how many pin-headed mormons can dance the macarena, or something. Waste of time…

 

[mfbukowski]

I think you have misunderstood. The prayers or Masses for the deceased are not for God to “do something for or to the dead”. They are asking God to have mercy on them, forgive them their sins and bring them to everlasting life with God. If the deceased, for whatever reason, would not want this done then they’re probably not in Purgatory or Heaven anyway.

So showing them mercy or bringing them to everlasting life is not doing something for them?

 

[hosemonkey]

Interesting you should ask this question.

I was at the temple tonight with a bunch of young people, and we did baptisms for the dead.

He said that he had seen every spirit of every person he was baptized for, and that each of them had thanked him for his service. He was overwhelmed by the experience.

Now I don’t expect you to believe that story, but I am confident that it was a true story, because I knew the temple worker personally who related the story, and who had been there.

Thorazine is amazing stuff! Levels you right out.
[/QUOTE]

 

[twopekinguys]

And you think WE have a persecution complex! I didn’t say Catholics were deluded. Are you saying there are no one who is deluded in the world?

Your comment was specifically directed to people on this board. That is why it is rude and offensive. (bolding mine)

But if they did not really have the opportunity because they were deluded about or doctrine say,** as many here are also**, you will have an opportunity AFTER your really understand what we are all about to make that decision on the other side.

 

[twopekinguys]

Interesting you should ask this question.

I was at the temple tonight with a bunch of young people, and we did baptisms for the dead.

One of the workers there recounted a story of a young man who had a reputation for being hyperactive, and very irreverant, and his bishop was not sure it was a good idea for him to go to the temple because the feeling was that he would not be able to sit still long enough to wait his turn to do baptisms.

But when he was actually in the temple he was strangely calm especially afterwards. He was unusually subdued and not messing around with his buddies as he usually would be. One of the leaders took him aside to make sure he was all right.

He said that he had seen every spirit of every person he was baptized for, and that each of them had thanked him for his service. He was overwhelmed by the experience.

Now I don’t expect you to believe that story, but I am confident that it was a true story, because I knew the temple worker personally who related the story, and who had been there.

I am afraid you are right. I don’t believe that story. But if you do, then great for you. You have the confirmation that you need.

 

[twopekinguys]

So showing them mercy or bringing them to everlasting life is not doing something for them?

God is the one that is bringing them to everlasting life. God is the one showing mercy.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

 

[StrawberryJam]

**So showing them mercy **or bringing them to everlasting life is not doing something for them?

This could be the key to unlocking the door to misunderstandings here.

In no way does a catholic who prays for a soul in purgatory think that they are showing the soul mercy. They are petitioning God to show that soul mercy. That soul, is not having a rite preformed for them that in any way is binding upon God.

God already has decided at the moment of their death, what their state will be, or not be if I am not mistaken from reading about the catholic faith. The Catholic faith that allows the person, while alive, and God to make their peace together before death.

Without any arbitrator middleman.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Right.

We have free will (I believe that’s called “free agency” by Mormons). And we cannot “make” God do anything (He is afterall God and we are simply His adopted children–His creation.) However, we pray for each other because we have been told (in the Scriptures) to have concern for each other and pray for each other. This does not in any way force God to do anything. (It also doesn’t do damage to the Scriptures–acting like people who have “passed on”,“run the race”–like Paul said, have to keep running.)

In no way does a catholic who prays for a soul in purgatory think that they are showing the soul mercy. They are petitioning God to show that soul mercy. That soul, is not having a rite preformed for them that in any way is binding upon God.

God already has decided at the moment of their death, what their state will be, or not be if I am not mistaken from reading about the catholic faith. The Catholic faith that allows the person, while alive, and God to make their peace together before death.

Without any arbitrator middleman.

 

[twopekinguys]

I failed to mention in my last post.

Diania, you are now on my ignore list.

Enjoy oblivion.

 

[AMDGtoo]

baptism DOES something, in the Catholic mind and doctrine, that remains with the Catholic soul no matter what happens after that; whether the child is raised Catholic or not, whether he is confirmed or she ever takes communion.

You do know that a priest is supposed to make certain that the baby presented for baptism will be raised in the Faith or he can, according to canon law, decide to delay Baptism of the baby until the parents of the child “get their act together”.

why bother to baptise an infant?

Told you, but you snipped it out. It’s at Jesus command, “Be Baptized and believe.” And of course, there’s Luke 18:15-16 (especially verse 16 where Jesus says “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kindom of God.”–KJV)

Why not wait until he or she is old enough to understand what’s going on?

Told you, but you snipped it out. The New Covenant Baptism was supposed to be a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It was supposed to be “the better way”. In the Old Covenant, the parents of babies (whom God even recognized as responsible for their offspring) expected that their babies would be welcomed into the Chosen Faith (circumcision of baby boys at 8 days). When circumcision was no longer a necessary sign of being in the Chosen Faith ) and Jesus made Baptism the sign of having God’s grace, the parents, rightly, still expected that their babies would naturally be included (and naturally the parents are the ones that fulfill the “teach” command of Jesus that is the Sacrament of Confirmation.)

because children already ARE …being utterly innocent.

Catholics believe that babies have no personal sin–they are innocent. Of course, they don’t have God’s life–His grace–within them either (that is until Baptism which restores that grace) because Adam lost all the wonderful gifts of God for us and you know that you can’t pass on things to you children when you no longer have them.

I absolutely cannot understand how anybody can look at a record that has a death date of a year or more BEFORE any record of proxy work can possibly see this as any sort of messing with their memories!

I couldn’t understand either at first, but it was “brought home to me” when my son was in fifth grade. He had a genealogy assignment in public school and his Dad brought him to one of the Family Centers run by the LDS, and came home with "I didn’t know Aunt __ was Mormon–why didn’t you tell me? Had to have that little discussion, “son, we never told you because she wasn’t Mormon”. (This was also my awakening to the fact that my husband didn’t share my understanding of my hobby of genealogy–because he evidently had no answer for our ten year olds questions.)

Yes, but that wasn’t the point. Records kept of baptisms (done against the will, permission or knowledge of the infant…) are one thing. What was mentioned was what YOU do for and in behalf of the dead; prayers, lit candles, Masses…evidently you don’t keep records of those, and if you really believe that the memories of those who have passed on should be left in peace, why in the world are you doing all THAT?

Huh? About the Baptisms of Infants, have discussed this–and yes, the infant knows–year in and year out the parents are to fulfill their obligation–there are memory things–certificates, candles, gifts, cards, photos. As for simply wishing the person–living or passed on to his reward–well by prayers, they are not Sacraments so why on earth would official records from the Church be kept (other than the funeral records of the one who has “run the race”.) Prayers are a personal thing.

 

[sablouwho]

The problem with cross cultural sensitivity is that it’s often not really cross cultural. The idea behind it is that both cultures should try to learn, and accept the truth about, the other one. If, as in this case, culture A strenuously objects to the actions of culture B, and their objections are based upon a complete misunderstanding of what those actions really are or what they mean, how is it being culturally sensitive for culture B to abandon THEIR culture and beliefs because culture A refuses to look at what culture B is really doing?

I see what you are saying here, but I don’t really think it applies quite so neatly. First, I don’t think it is a complete misunderstanding, in this case, it is only a partial misunderstanding.

Second, the Jewish community, to the best of my knowledge, do not appear to have been interested in the proxy baptisms one way or the other UNTIL the LDS started baptizing deceased Holocaust victims. By taking this action, the LDS, whether unwittingly or not, kind of “engaged” the Jewish community, even if the LDS didn’t mean to do so.

Third, I think it was naivete or not thinking about ramifications carefully on the part of those involved if they assumed that the Jewish community wouldn’t be offended once they found out. (Of course, I don’t know what was in the minds of those who did it, I am only speculating.)

Once both cultures understand what’s really happening, and culture A STILL has objections that are based in what culture B actually is doing, THEN culture B should start paying attention.

I disagree here–IMO, it should be obvious, in advance, to any Jesus-affirming group that Jews are quite likely going to be offended by activities that proselytizes/evangelizes Jews, regardless of whether those Jews are living or dead. I know that before I had faith in Jesus, knowing my Jewish mindset, I would have been offended by any such practice.

Thus I think it should have been pretty obvious to the LDS, if had they given thought to the matter beforehand, that Jewish leaders would react badly to this. And if they did not give thought to the matter before doing it, I think that was an unfortunate, and rather big oversight. Either way, from the information that I have (and I don’t claim to have all the info, so I am forming an opinion based only on what I do know) it seems as if there was a lack of empathy on the part of those who did the baptisms.

Problem is, according to what I’ve heard from the LDS on this matter, the members who were doing the baptisms were doing so apparently without the knowledge of the higher-ups. So the church had a PR nightmare on their hands.

In the case of proxy work, I think that the church has come up with a workable solution; not that (in spite of what our critics and enemies think, we are NOT mind numbed robots utterly controlled by Salt Lake City…) everybody is going to adhere to the rules, but we can try. Restricting proxy work to those who are relatives is something I agree with…for at least two or three generations back.

I agree, however, there are reports that this is still going on despite the agreement. However, I do not know whether I believe those reports–I simply don’t have enough info and haven’t investigated the matter…

I do not think that most people would (even if they privately think so…) consider that they have more say over what happens than a close relative does–that is, some advocacy group that is unrelated to the deceased really doesn’t have the right to forbid a grand daughter from doing the proxy work for her grandparents.

I generally agree. I think that in this case of some prominent Jews and Holocaust victims, the Jews who were baptized were not related to anyone. But going forward I think this policy makes sense and is reasonable. I know that back when I was considering joining the LDS church that I would have wanted to do work for my own ancestors, who are Jewish. Hypothetically, thought, this would have probably offended my parents if they were to have found out that I was baptizing their parents, etc.

Anyway, my point in bringing up the Jewish proxy baptisms way back when wasn’t so much to debate that specific issue, but rather, to make a larger point. Namely, just as Jews can get offended by those who try to “share the good news” with them, mainline Christians may also find it offensive when LDS share their version of the gospel. It isn’t just baptism by proxy that can seem offensive. Rather, I think that the notion that the LDS is the only true church, can seem arrogant, particularly to mainline Christians, but probably also more generally. Note that I am not in any way saying that the LDS should be prevented from sharing that message or sending missionaries. I am merely saying that it would be nice if there was more awareness on the part of some LDS (some who have posted on CAF) that this stance can and does offend others.