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

[StrawberryJam]

As I said before, those names are usually submitted by close family members of the deceased who happen to be Mormons; and they have as much right to decide as anybody else. If I did the work for my dad, and my uncle didn’t like it, why should he have a say and not me?

Zerinus,

All analogies can fall flat if we analyze them, you know that as an apologist.

This one particularly if you give it some more thought.

I understand that this rite is done by Mormons for family members, and that it is a work done by Mormons because they believe it is a loving act for their family.

In good consience I can’t agree that a family member always has an objective viewpoint in regard to the best for that said member.

Can you understand that family members are not always offering reliable and objective views, and even if they are close to being reliable,can we assume they are sure when coming out with ideas about what another family member wanted after they died?

Why should hearsay offered by a second, third or more distantly related party be valid when given testimony from the living person about their actual position on the matter?

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
I certainly can understand why one would assume that to call “headquarters” is to find the best source for answers to questions, but the “headquarters” folks don’t have access to the General Handbook of instructions unless they also happen to be bishop or a stake president or other leader

OK, now your logic is getting worse.

Are you trying to tell me that no one in “headquarters” has access to that handbook? Aren’t they the ones that print it up? Am I the only one that sees the fact your statement makes no sense?

, and it is not as though there is an online resource for answering every question that may come up. A “customer service” person may have a specific area of responsibility, and may not know where such a question as that should be referred, particularly if the person was acting in a way that seemed impatient.

Again, not logical.

I retired from the world headquarters of an extremely large company that you may have heard of, Caterpillar Inc.(Maker of BIG Yellow construction equipment.) In all of my years there (20+) and in all of the different positions I held, we all knew how to transfer a call. If we couldn’t find the dept. in our company directory, there was a little thing called a “switchboard operator”, or “dept. head” that would know where the call needed to be sent in order to get an issue resolved.

We are talking about people, and people do imperfect kinds of things in this imperfect world.

Agreed, but what we are really talking about here is an obvious refusal to answer a question as opposed to someone not knowing the answer.

I’m sorry, but there is no way you can convince me that this particual question had never come up before, and the person didn’t know the answer. They just simply refused to provide it.

As I had noted, a mission president would be a resource for a non-member who had a specific question about baptism for the dead especially as relates to a former member, and he could look it up in the General Handbook of instructions that is given to priesthood leaders.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana and ParkerD-
Believe earlier in the thread someone advised that you could find out if family members were baptized on Familysearch.org, and another person advised that it could NOT be viewed. Can you advise if there is indeed a way to see if a family member has been baptized after death in the Mormon Church?

Secondly- can you advise how far back in lineage someone could go? Specifically,my uncle married a lovely Momon woman and they had a daughter, my lovely cousin. I was wondering if perhaps they had baptized my uncle (who fits criteria as being dead for wellllll over a year), and then wondered about my grandparents.

When I first read this I must admit I tizzied out. What bothered me was not so much the fact they were baptized Mormon, just that they (the deceased) was not making that choice. Not to be flippant though, but, they have passed and hopefully are with Jesus and that is all that matters.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

I believe that your first question has been answered by another poster. I’m going to address the last one, about choice.

The deceased is the only one here who CAN make the choice. I don’t quite know how to put this strongly enough, Scott…but we LDS type Christians have a real problem with the idea of coercion. Free agency (free will) is one of THE most important concepts we have. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, we could do for anybody that would mean anything without their willing acceptance and choice.

When I see objections to this practice, I am struck by a very strange duality of thought those objections represent: those who object do so because we are 'doing this without their permission…" as if their belief in an afterlife is simply lip service; they can’t really let themselves believe that their departed loved ones really DO have wills of their own, and the ability to think and make choices. What we do is utterly dependent upon the idea that they DO have that ability to choose.

I can tell you this; if we, as members of the CoJCoLDS thought for one second that those for whom we do the work did NOT have absolute control over whether that work means anything, we wouldn’t be doing it.

In sum, then, our critics think what we do is a lot more effective than we think it is…and that, when you consider the matter, is rather ironic.

Diana

 

[AMDGtoo]

I more than understand that Mormons believe that they are only lovingly providing a needed rite for the family member. But since both my family and I are vulnerable to this (due to the fact of having a daughter convert to Mormonism), I feel that I have more than a little “right” to comment.

When a person desires someone else to act in his stead, he gives that person he designates legal papers so that he can. Without those legal papers, the designated person can do nothing. Even when the person dies, those legal papers are necessary. (I know, since my own mother died a few years ago, it was not enough to just produce a death certificate, to “speak for her” and still do things in her name, legal documents showing that legal authority had to be produced.) And so what the person “stood” for and believed in, in life, is still respected. I honestly don’t see this in the Baptism for the Dead–regardless of Mormon talk of “free agency”. It’s disrepectful of the dead person’s life. It’s as if one person is imposing his will on another–one who can no longer say “no”. And somehow I don’t think it’s right for me to always be vigilant and have to say to my daughter and grandchildren “Don’t do Baptism for the Dead for my mother and family”. Somehow it seems to put more of a division between us than already is.

Oh, yes, I have heard the claim that providing Baptism for the Dead just gives the dead the opportunity to accept or refuse–I think they refer to it as an ordinance. Well, I don’t believe it because it is obvious that Mormons don’t believe it. (After Baptism for the Dead, they continue with sealing for the Dead. And yes, the sealings might be to someone the dead had no intention in life.)

Yes, I have once (a long time ago) been to that website mentioned and I have seen some of my relatives–who were not Mormon listed as having been baptized Mormon. It was sad. It was disrespectful. Don’t they know that the dead should rest in peace?Haven’t looked since–it saves me from being upset. It doesn’t seem to matter what we might think, the Mormons are going to do it anyway. I know of no way to stop it.

 

[scottj]

I believe that your first question has been answered by another poster. I’m going to address the last one, about choice.

The deceased is the only one here who CAN make the choice. I don’t quite know how to put this strongly enough, Scott…but we LDS type Christians have a real problem with the idea of coercion. Free agency (free will) is one of THE most important concepts we have. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, we could do for anybody that would mean anything without their willing acceptance and choice.

**When I see objections to this practice, I am struck by a very strange duality of thought those objections represent: those who object do so because we are 'doing this without their permission…" as if their belief in an afterlife is simply lip service; they can’t really let themselves believe that their departed loved ones really DO have wills of their own, and the ability to think and make choices. What we do is utterly dependent upon the idea that they DO have that ability to choose. **
I can tell you this; if we, as members of the CoJCoLDS thought for one second that those for whom we do the work did NOT have absolute control over whether that work means anything, we wouldn’t be doing it.

In sum, then, our critics think what we do is a lot more effective than we think it is…and that, when you consider the matter, is rather ironic.

Diana

Diana,
Just a question- if there is a belief that they (those who have departed) do have a choice, would that not mean that without any “assistance” from us on earth that they could not make that choice on their own? With the premis that they are in Heaven and in full or more knowledge of things on earth and heaven- I would think they would have done things on their own already. Just a thought- not meant to be disrespectful to what you have already stated in that LDS in no way supports or promotes coersion. Just trying to understand.
Thanks
Julie

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

All analogies can fall flat if we analyze them, you know that as an apologist.

This one particularly if you give it some more thought.

This is not an “analogy”. This is a situation that can happen in real life. There are lots of cases where someone may be the only member of his (or her) family who is a Mormon. He may want to do the work for his dad, and his uncle may not like it. If I wanted to do this work for my dad, and my uncle didn’t like it, his opinion would be respected and duly considered, but ultimately I will make the decision that I consider to be right, not what he considers to be right. And if he doesn’t like it, tough luck for the uncle!

I understand that this rite is done by Mormons for family members, and that it is a work done by Mormons because they believe it is a loving act for their family.

In good consience I can’t agree that a family member always has an objective viewpoint in regard to the best for that said member.

Can you understand that family members are not always offering reliable and objective views, and even if they are close to being reliable, can we assume they are sure when coming out with ideas about what another family member wanted after they died?

The point is that baptisms for the dead do not hurt anybody, either the living or the dead. If you don’t believe it has any effect on the dead, then it is nothing that you need to worry about. If you think that it does have some effect on the dead person, what kind of effect do you think it might have other than what we believe it does?

Why should hearsay offered by a second, third or more distantly related party be valid when given testimony from the living person about their actual position on the matter?

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Once a person is dead, what we do here on their behalf either affects them in the next life or it doesn’t. If you believe it doesn’t affect them, then what difference does it make to you? If you think that it does affect them, what effect do you think it has on them other than what we believe it does?

 

[AMDGtoo]

The point is that baptisms for the dead do not hurt anybody, either the living or the dead.

Actually it does (if you happen to call damaging reputations “hurting”.) It shows Mormon arrogance–that they don’t care about respecting the person in life or what anyone happens to think. It also drives a tiny wedge between living non-Morman family members who seek to honor the memory of the dead and the Mormon branch, since the non-Mormon needs to be “on guard” and ready to “speak up” at all times (for all the good it does.) I swear, it’s like “picking at a scab” unwantingly dragging up Mormon vs us talk.

It’s like your not allowing parents to see their child wed in the Temple deal. Bad publicity for you guys. Yet you have brought it on yourselves.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I more than understand that Mormons believe that they are only lovingly providing a needed rite for the family member. But since both my family and I are vulnerable to this (due to the fact of having a daughter convert to Mormonism), I feel that I have more than a little “right” to comment.

When a person desires someone else to act in his stead, he gives that person he designates legal papers so that he can. Without those legal papers, the designated person can do nothing. Even when the person dies, those legal papers are necessary. (I know, since my own mother died a few years ago, it was not enough to just produce a death certificate, to “speak for her” and still do things in her name, legal documents showing that legal authority had to be produced.) And so what the person “stood” for and believed in, in life, is still respected. I honestly don’t see this in the Baptism for the Dead–regardless of Mormon talk of “free agency”. It’s disrepectful of the dead person’s life. It’s as if one person is imposing his will on another–one who can no longer say “no”. And somehow I don’t think it’s right for me to always be vigilant and have to say to my daughter and grandchildren “Don’t do Baptism for the Dead for my mother and family”. Somehow it seems to put more of a division between us than already is.

Oh, yes, I have heard the claim that providing Baptism for the Dead just gives the dead the opportunity to accept or refuse–I think they refer to it as an ordinance. Well, I don’t believe it because it is obvious that Mormons don’t believe it. (After Baptism for the Dead, they continue with sealing for the Dead. And yes, the sealings might be to someone the dead had no intention in life.)

Yes, I have once (a long time ago) been to that website mentioned and I have seen some of my relatives–who were not Mormon listed as having been baptized Mormon. It was sad. It was disrespectful. Don’t they know that the dead should rest in peace?Haven’t looked since–it saves me from being upset. It doesn’t seem to matter what we might think, the Mormons are going to do it anyway. I know of no way to stop it.

AMDGtoo,

I agree. What astounds me is that Mormons decide whether or not we should be offended by this practice.

Baptism by proxy is, IMO, a violation of religious freedom. I have refused Mormonism in life, through formal resignation. I don’t want my name associated with Mormonism now or ever. My objections have nothing to do with whether or not I believe the baptism by proxy will have an effect on my soul.

There is an arrogance in insisting baptism by proxy shouldn’t matter. It does matter. It matters to me a great deal.

Anna

 

[zerinus]

AMDGtoo,

I agree. What astounds me is that Mormons decide whether or not we should be offended by this practice.

Baptism by proxy is, IMO, a violation of religious freedom. I have refused Mormonism in life, through formal resignation. I don’t want my name associated with Mormonism now or ever. My objections have nothing to do with whether or not I believe the baptism by proxy will have an effect on my soul.

There is an arrogance in insisting baptism by proxy shouldn’t matter. It does matter. It matters to me a great deal.

Anna

Do you think it will still matter to you after you are dead?

 

[sablouwho]

The point is that baptisms for the dead do not hurt anybody, either the living or the dead.

Well, yes and no, IMO. Some of the living are clearly offended by them. I will use my own religious background (which is a bit complicated) to try and illustrate. I’m both Jewish and Christian, and almost a card-carrying-Catholic, and I spent a lot of time seriously considering the LDS, so I think that I can see multiple perspectives here.

History is a hard teacher, and it has taught the Jews that what non-Jews believe about can hurt Jews very much. Applying this to Mormons, (whom I have found in general to be quite philo-Semitic, this despite the issues about some LDS baptizing Jews) I can see quite clearly why other Jews (some, not all) are deeply offended by baptism-by-proxy.

It is basically offensive to Jewish sensibilities that there is something “wrong” with them the way they are, and some other group (any group who affirms Jesus, not just limited to LDS) who purport to “know more” than they do about God is going to come in and “take care” of them, either by actively trying to get Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah in this lifetime, or by proxy-baptism.

This can be very alienating for living people. And this isn’t limited to the Jews. Just as Jews can be offended by the idea that Jesus-affirming groups (mainline Christians, LDS, etC)think that Jews are “missing” something vital, mainstream Christians appear to be similarly offended by the LDS viewpoint which implies that they too are missing something vital.

The problem is that groups who purport to have THE TRUTH can seem quite offensive to those who don’t embrace what the group believes.

If you don’t believe it has any effect on the dead, then it is nothing that you need to worry about. If you think that it does

 

[scottj]

Bear with me, as I’m still trying to understand this. I looked up the Baptism of the dead and wiki offer this explanation:
*Baptism for the dead, vicarious baptism or proxy baptism is the religious practice of baptizing a living person on behalf of an individual who is dead; the living person is acting as the deceased person’s proxy. Those who practice this religious rite place great importance upon baptism and view it as a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God. So it is with this practice, an individual is baptized to give those who have already died without the opportunity to receive baptism the opportunity to receive it by proxy if they wish. *

What if it is known for a fact that the decedent has already been baptized in their own faith? Could is potentially be interpreted that the LDS does not consider any baptism that was performed while the decedent was alive invalid?
Again, just trying to understand. Am not trying to be beligerent when I ask that the answer given is not “what does it matter”.
Thanks

 

[sablouwho]

What if it is known for a fact that the decedent has already been baptized in their own faith? Could is potentially be interpreted that the LDS does not consider any baptism that was performed while the decedent was alive invalid?

LDS believe that there is only one kind of baptism that is efficacious–their own. They believe that they are the only ones who have the proper priesthood authority to baptize, as that the priesthood authority vanished from the earth shortly after Christ’s first coming, and was restored around 1800 years later with the events that happened to Joseph Smith.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,
Just a question- if there is a belief that they (those who have departed) do have a choice, would that not mean that without any “assistance” from us on earth that they could not make that choice on their own? With the premis that they are in Heaven and in full or more knowledge of things on earth and heaven- I would think they would have done things on their own already. Just a thought- not meant to be disrespectful to what you have already stated in that LDS in no way supports or promotes coersion. Just trying to understand.
Thanks
Julie

That is the problem with the idea that baptism (and marriages and everything else) must be done here, in mortal life. How in the world would you baptise a spirit? That is one concept that is shared by Catholic, LDS and Protestant beliefs alike…that this stuff has to be done in mortality–and if it isn’t done here, it isn’t done.

However, there are all those people who have been born. lived lives of faith and courage, and never had a chance to hear the gospel. What of them?

I know that Catholics have told me that they will have faith that God will take care of this,and the faith they have is held against the very clear information in the scriptures that here and now is the only place and time that such things can be done.

They are right to have that faith…but if there was ever an example of ‘blind faith,’ that has to be it.

We also have faith…but we also believe we know how this situation is handled…via proxy work on behalf of the dead.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually it does (if you happen to call damaging reputations “hurting”.) It shows Mormon arrogance–that they don’t care about respecting the person in life or what anyone happens to think. It also drives a tiny wedge between living non-Morman family members who seek to honor the memory of the dead and the Mormon branch, since the non-Mormon needs to be “on guard” and ready to “speak up” at all times (for all the good it does.) I swear, it’s like “picking at a scab” unwantingly dragging up Mormon vs us talk.

It’s like your not allowing parents to see their child wed in the Temple deal. Bad publicity for you guys. Yet you have brought it on yourselves.

How in the name of all that is wonderful does it damage a reputation? I mean, really.

 

[scottj]

Originally Posted by scottj
What if it is known for a fact that the decedent has already been baptized in their own faith? Could this potentially be interpreted that the LDS does not consider any baptism that was performed while the decedent was alive valid?

LDS believe that there is only one kind of baptism that is efficacious–their own. They believe that they are the only ones who have the proper priesthood authority to baptize, as that the priesthood authority vanished from the earth shortly after Christ’s first coming, and was restored around 1800 years later with the events that happened to Joseph Smith.

(have corrected my above statements, but thanks Sablouwho, you understood what I was saying)
Thanks Sablouwho- Wow.

Wow is all I have to say… I know through the posts that LDS standpoint is, it’s not forced, the dead person in heaven can say “No Thanks”, and “what does it matter”, but some people may consider that disrespectful to the decedent’s and what religion was observed in life.

This is why I joined CAF- to learn. And I sure am receiving and education.
:ehh:

 

[ParkerD]

Bear with me, as I’m still trying to understand this. I looked up the Baptism of the dead and wiki offer this explanation:
Baptism for the dead, vicarious baptism or proxy baptism is the religious practice of baptizing a living person on behalf of an individual who is dead; the living person is acting as the deceased person’s proxy. Those who practice this religious rite place great importance upon baptism and view it as a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God. So it is with this practice, an individual is baptized to give those who have already died without the opportunity to receive baptism the opportunity to receive it by proxy if they wish.

What if it is known for a fact that the decedent has already been baptized in their own faith? Could is potentially be interpreted that the LDS does not consider any baptism that was performed while the decedent was alive invalid?
Again, just trying to understand. Am not trying to be beligerent when I ask that the answer given is not “what does it matter”.
Thanks

Julie,
I hope you’re having a splendid day. (I have used your name as you closed in your response to Dianaiad. I hope that’s OK with you.)

I hope that you can associate baptism with the gift of the Holy Ghost that was given by the apostles and was the “baptism of the spirit” taught by Christ to Nicodemus. The reason to associate the two “baptisms”–baptism of water and baptism of the Spirit–is so that it may come to mind that receiving the gift of knowledge and guidance that the Holy Ghost brings to a spirit in the spirit world is a very real thing that helps them tremendously as they continue to learn and grow. “Baptism for the dead” is accompanied by giving that person (by proxy) the “gift of the Holy Ghost” if they choose to receive it, and such a gift only comes if properly authorized, as taught in the New Testament by the apostle Paul and by Peter. So the more important part of these “baptisms” (the second being the baptism of fire which is their spiritual rebirth) is the gift of the Holy Ghost if received by the person in the spirit world. This cannot be received if the giving of the gift was not authorized by God through an authorized priesthood on earth. Thus a need that is perceived by the LDS members for their ancestors who didn’t have that gift during their life on earth. It is a gift of greater light, if they choose to receive it, but they certainly can choose not to but at least they then have an opportunity afforded them.

 

[AMDGtoo]

How in the name of all that is wonderful does it damage a reputation? I mean, really.

It damages your Mormon reputation of wanting everyone to believe that you guys are kind and understanding and family oriented when in reality it’s just the Mormon belief of “I’m better than you and you can’t stop me from doing whatever I want to–so there”. Be honest, that’s exactly how you act. We tell you that we are offended and you tell us that you don’t care.

 

[sablouwho]

We also have faith…but we also believe we know how this situation is handled…via proxy work on behalf of the dead.

This is a good example of what I have observed are different approaches and thinking styles in various religions. My observation is that the LDS culture is one where things are more spelled out, more literalist, and it seems that LDS peeps seem, on the whole, to need that. Whereas in Catholic thinking, there appears to be way more allowance for mystery, and Catholic adherents, on the whole seem to need that or feel more comfortable with it.

I think that this bit has very little to do with God, and a whole heck of a lot to do with us. But that’s me…

 

[zerinus]

Well, yes and no, IMO. Some of the living are clearly offended by them. I will use my own religious background (which is a bit complicated) to try and illustrate. I’m both Jewish and Christian, and almost a card-carrying-Catholic, and I spent a lot of time seriously considering the LDS, so I think that I can see multiple perspectives here.

History is a hard teacher, and it has taught the Jews that what non-Jews believe about can hurt Jews very much. Applying this to Mormons, (whom I have found in general to be quite philo-Semitic, this despite the issues about some LDS baptizing Jews) I can see quite clearly why other Jews (some, not all) are deeply offended by baptism-by-proxy.

It is basically offensive to Jewish sensibilities that there is something “wrong” with them the way they are, and some other group (any group who affirms Jesus, not just limited to LDS) who purport to “know more” than they do about God is going to come in and “take care” of them, either by actively trying to get Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah in this lifetime, or by proxy-baptism.

This can be very alienating for living people. And this isn’t limited to the Jews. Just as Jews can be offended by the idea that Jesus-affirming groups (mainline Christians, LDS, etC)think that Jews are “missing” something vital, mainstream Christians appear to be similarly offended by the LDS viewpoint which implies that they too are missing something vital.

The problem is that groups who purport to have THE TRUTH can seem quite offensive to those who don’t embrace what the group believes.

Two points here. Firstly, if I believe that there is something “wrong” with being “Jews” because they are not Christians or Mormons, how does my not performing baptisms for the dead alter that fact? If that is what I believe, then that is what I believe, whether I perform baptisms for the dead or not. That is point #1. Point #2 is, you have investigated Mormonism, as you say. Now let us suppose that you has become a Mormon, and you wanted to do this work for your own mom or dad. What has that got to do with other Jews?

True, if a person believes that there is no effect, than there is nothing to worry about for the deceased. But there is still the effect on the living of belief in such practices, as I stated above.

But why should it? That is what I am trying to find out. I don’t see why it should. If I went to the Amazon jungle, and discovered an aboriginal tribe there who believed in doing tribal dances to save the souls of my dead ancestors, and that was a part of their tradition, and I believed that it had no effect on me or my ancestors whatsoever, why should I be offended that they should do it?

Well, the Jewish part of me would say that if it DOES have an effect, it is (from the Jewish perspective) having some outside group invalidating what it means to be a Jew. That is very offensive to a Jewish person. It’s murdering a Jewish soul, according to some Jews I know (regardless of whether the conversion is done in THIS life by a mainline Christian group or the next life via proxy baptism).

The Christian part of me sees it similarly to the Jewish part of me does, only now, apply the thinking I relayed above more broadly, and not just to Jews.

Well that sounds crazy to me, I don’t know about you.

All of that having been said, I also can see that from an LDS perspective, they are doing what they believe is necessary to give all people the opportunity to be in the presence of God, and that, at the least the LDS that I know personally truly seem to believe that they do proxy work out of love for humankind, and not because they are trying to be arrogant or “RIGHT” while at the same time making everyone else wrong.

It is not “for all people” and “mankind”. The Lord has placed the responsibility for the descendants of the deceased. I have a responsibility to do this for my own dad, not for your dad. And it affects my salvation if I neglect it. Your dad is your responsibility, not mine. If don’t want to accept the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ for yourself, that not only affect your salvation, but your dad’s salvation for whom you might have had the opportunity to do this work; and that counts against you further. That is what we believe. You are free to disagree.

Really, I think it’s a no-win situation. It’s easy for people to get offended…no matter what.

Ultimately, who cares? We do our best to accommodate them; but in the end we do what we have to do to save ourselves and our dead as the Lord has commanded us.

 

[scottj]

Julie,
I hope you’re having a splendid day. (I have used your name as you closed in your response to Dianaiad. I hope that’s OK with you.)

I hope that you can associate baptism with the gift of the Holy Ghost that was given by the apostles and was the “baptism of the spirit” taught by Christ to Nicodemus. The reason to associate the two “baptisms”–baptism of water and baptism of the Spirit–is so that it may come to mind that receiving the gift of knowledge and guidance that the Holy Ghost brings to a spirit in the spirit world is a very real thing that helps them tremendously as they continue to learn and grow. “Baptism for the dead” is accompanied by giving that person (by proxy) the “gift of the Holy Ghost” if they choose to receive it, and such a gift only comes if properly authorized, as taught in the New Testament by the apostle Paul and by Peter. So the more important part of these “baptisms” (the second being the baptism of fire which is their spiritual rebirth) is the gift of the Holy Ghost if received by the person in the spirit world. This cannot be received if the giving of the gift was not authorized by God through an authorized priesthood on earth. Thus a need that is perceived by the LDS members for their ancestors who didn’t have that gift during their life on earth. It is a gift of greater light, if they choose to receive it, but they certainly can choose not to but at least they then have an opportunity afforded them.

Parker-
That is fine to use my first name (and anyone else who wants to as well…).
I understand what you are saying regarding the baptism by water/fire. And again, I understand the standpoint of “they’ll take it if they want it”.
I guess what I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is that LDS considers only LDS the authorized preisthood on earth. In my mind (and believe from reading different threads involving LDS) Jesus is the Messiah- through him our salvation comes. Right? His words gave as you may say, an addendum to some of the things from the old testament. So basically what I’m saying is, what he said goes.
Now, I understand that Joseph Smith was a prophet, which I do not trivialize at all as a prophet is a gift indeed- but… I don’t know as that I can personally accept a prophets word over the Messiah’s. Soooo, if he (Jesus) told Peter that whatever he binds on earth… you know the quote; and Jesus binds what is in Heaven, then how does the words of a prophet trump Christs?
I understand that God speaks to prophets, but again, I don’t know as that the words of a prophet would trump the Messiah.
I guess this is one thing that we are going to have to just agree to disagree about.
And to a certain extent, when an LDS member says ‘what does it matter’, your right. In the creed, Catholics openly acknowledge ONE baptism, that being the one we received on earth. Since Catholic’s believe what Christ told Peter, Catholics are covered. It just seems a little disrepectful to ‘push’ an LDS baptism on a dead person when their fate (heaven or hell) has already been determined by Jesus- since they are now on his turf.
With Much Respect-
Julie