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

[AMDGtoo]

The bottom line is that I am going to do this work on behalf of my deceased ancestors, and I don’t see anything wrong with that; and if some people don’t like it, they can lump it! Try and stop me if you can!

This is the ugly arrogance of the LDS that I have been talking about. For all the lip service about caring, they do not. Very bad PR.

 

[ParkerD]

This is the ugly arrogance of the LDS that I have been talking about. For all the lip service about caring, they do not. Very bad PR.

AMDGtoo,
If one stops and thinks about the frame of reference, then by our withholding some blessings that we know are available to our ancestors because some people are offended that those ancestors are their ancestors also, means that we would be paying lip service to our inner-core beliefs and listening to the voices of the world rather than the voice of the Holy Spirit. The guidance of the Holy Spirit says to do this temple work for our ancestors. LDS people in many places have experiences that confirm that some of those ancestors have wanted and waited for their work to be done for them, and have rejoiced when it is done.

Religion is about spiritual experiences and spiritual guidance. It is not about trying to please the world or live by the world’s standards–it is about living by God’s specific guidance and direction–He who loves all of His children, and He who revealed to Abraham that in his seed “all the families of the earth would be blessed.” That is a covenant mission that is not to be taken lightly or reluctantly by someone who cares more about what the world thinks than about what God thinks.

I care about what God thinks–so I assist in temple work for my ancestors and the ancestors of other LDS members.

Peace to all, and may each also care about what God thinks and act accordingly with love in their heart.

 

[Xavierlives]

Well, I’m sure that we will, and they do. How else would those who have died understand enough to make a decision whether to accept the offer or not? (grin)

As to the point I think you are attempting to make…well…you can’t get baptised when you are dead. That’s why it’s done FOR you. You can accept or reject that proxy work, but you can’t go get dunked yourself. This is a mortal thing.

In this, too, the example of current proxy weddings might help…a serviceman who wants to marry his sweetheart and bring her to the USA has to, by law, marry her FIRST, and in a way that is recognized by US law. He can’t do that where she is, so…he has to come home and marry her by proxy. If she is happy with it, she says yep, he married me in New Jersey, it’s OK by me–and the wedding is valid. However, if she says " I changed my mind and no deal…" it’s not valid. She has to ‘sign’ for it.

Err… WHAT? Where can you go can get married with the person being present in another country? I think Texas has some of the most liberal marriage laws in the country and it basically states that a couple need not appear together to seek a license. So, a man could leave his betrothed in an idling car out in the 15-minute loading zone, while he runs in sign his papers, then he go to the car to wait and his beloved does the same (all very romantic). Then they have a license.

The only other proxy-type marriage might be an inmate wedding, but those wouldn’t fall under a license, it would be more of a “ceremonial wedding.” but again, for it to be valid, it would need to be performed in Texas (and a license would not be required). Also, a common law marriage in Texas requires the cohabitation as one of the requirements. So this idea of proxy marriage seems even foreign to me.

But more specifically a person in the military desiring to marry a person from another country need only fulfill the requirements of that country (ie, get married in Thialand) then take the license to the consular’s office and have it authenticated. Then all the fun starts with visas and citizenship and whatnot. There is no US marriage license requirement.

But she couldn’t marry where she was; wrong country, wrong laws…he wasn’t there…this is how it has to be done. Catholics understand form; a non-Catholic may baptise, when required, if the proper FORM is used and the proper intent is there. However, if the form is wrong, or if the intent isn’t there, the baptism isn’t valid.

Baptisms must be done in the mortal realm. Like using the right form for baptising a Catholic, it’s one of the rules.

Poor Dismas was never baptized and he is in paradise (or has he been given a proxy baptism)?

Of course…how ELSE do you think we let people know what’s going on? How can they make a decision this important if they don’t know what it’s about?

Apples and oranges, Julie. We don’t have a ‘baptism of intent.’ It has to be the real deal, performed by someone who has the authority to do it. So while you are right that the information is given, and the decision is made there, the actual baptism has to be done here.

So when I leave this world, I am still stuck here (or there) but waiting for things here to unravel either in my favor or not? What happens to the countless hordes of people where no record is made? Lets say, Fred the farmer from 1012 AD? Who redeems him?

 

[Xavierlives]

The bottom line is that I am going to do this work on behalf of my deceased ancestors, and I don’t see anything wrong with that; and if some people don’t like it, they can lump it! Try and stop me if you can!

Hmmm… try to stop you? Is this an earthly challenge or a spiritual challenge?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hmmm… try to stop you? Is this an earthly challenge or a spiritual challenge?

No one can stop anyone from doing things that are repugnant to others.

We can only know what is evident to us. We can evaluate what we know. Beyond that, we have an ability to suspend what is evident to us and have faith/belief. That is fine.
I have no problem with that, and feel that many ought to if it is meaningful to them and helps them in life.

I do think about this rite often since posting this thread because I know more about catholic theology now on this matter than I did before I posted. It is even more objectionable from a moral standpoint to me than I had initially imagined. Yes, I realize you and many others will wonder how can I understand objective morality?

Funny, no Mormons are on the apologetics threads fighting that position now.

 

[sablouwho]

This is the ugly arrogance of the LDS that I have been talking about. For all the lip service about caring, they do not. Very bad PR.

AMDGtoo, I can appreciate what you are saying here. I was honestly at a loss when I read that post.

Yet, I do have to be honest and say that I find Zerinus’ reply to me above to be rather unusual as it is quite atypical of my experiences with LDS folk. This is honestly the first time I’ve ever encountered an LDS who speaks in such an unflattering manner/rude tone, and who seems to lack empathy skills, and asks questions only to reply, essentially “I don’t care” when an answer is supplied in earnest to address those questions. In general I have found LDS to be rather caring and selfless people.

 

[StrawberryJam]

AMDGtoo, I can appreciate what you are saying here. I was honestly at a loss when I read that post.

Yet, I do have to be honest and say that I find Zerinus’ reply to me above to be rather unusual as it is quite atypical of my experiences with LDS folk. This is honestly the first time I’ve ever encountered an LDS who speaks in such an unflattering manner/rude tone, and who seems to lack empathy skills, and asks questions only to reply, essentially “I don’t care” when an answer is supplied in earnest to address those questions. In general I have found LDS to be rather caring and selfless people.

I think Zerinius is not the real offender of sensibilities here, even though I am not a fan of this rite admittedly.

I think Zerinius is simply telling people what his faith is in his eyes and his heart.

Other LDS members I have had dialouge with here, seem to use emotional appeal arguements as their defense for any of their beliefs.

Then there are other Mormons, most likely very much like the one my family member knew personally.

Not all Mormons will be the same, just as not all Catholics will be, or Muslims, or Jewish believers.

I know this.

I respect the stress Mormons put on family time. I wish all people did the same.

God or no God.

But, where I can not just walk away and say it is okay, is where one faith is stepping over another in a very serious rite, after death.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,
Again thanks for your reply. Still can’t wrap my head around the LDS idealogy or necessarily agree with it. Like I told Parker, I guess it’s just something we agree to disagree about. Thanks for your patience and time today. Not saying I’m done with the questions… just done for now… well maybe… LOL.

And I still say, on those things that LDS and Catholics are in agreement on, would love to see a joint effort to instill positive changes in Christs name…

Peace Out-
Julie

I’m all for that, and indeed the Catholic church has worked with the Mormons quite frequently in terms of charitible works and such. However, we do disagree doctrinally in several areas, though our moral compasses seem to point in the same direction.

 

[dianaiad]

I guess it’s a matter of degree. From a Jewish perspective just holding the opinion, while offensive, is the private opinion of one person. But holding the opinion AND doing something about it (proxy baptism) is more offensive because it is done as part of the corporate beliefs of a church, a group of people. This doesn’t mean every Jew will agree with me. I am just trying to present what I feel would be a general Jewish reaction to this.

There is a kinship among Jews that can be very hard for non-Jews to understand, but it is very real for us. The best way I can describe it is to use, ironically, a NT example–the way Paul describes the body of Christ, with all the people being different parts of one body. Jews have a tendency to think this way about their own–even though they obviously aren’t going to tend to think about it in the way Paul wrote about it. The loss of a Jew to another religion is offensive and upsetting, even if the Jew isn’t your immediate relative. From a Jewish perspective, for instance, I might be looked at as being a traitor, for (wrongly, in their view) believing that Jesus is the messiah.

The example leaves out an important aspect of LDS culture that I think is really key to understanding why the proxy baptisms can bother non-LDS. It’s the concept of “WE are right and YOU are wrong, WE have the TRUTH and YOU have less truth than we do.” It can come off as very arrogant, elitist, and totally lacking in empathy.

But don’t you see that this isn’t what WE are doing…it’s what those who object and characterize us as arrogant are? What we do is utterly dependent upon the decision of the person for whom the work is done. It is an offer…nothing more and nothing less. There is absolutely NO coercion involved. Nothing we do alters anything about the person for whom it is done, unless THAT person actively desires it. It is, in other words tentative.

What I see is a bunch of people who are so convinced that Mormons are wrong, a cult, and not worthy of even being acknowledged as a Christian group that they feel quite justified in limiting our freedom of religion, even when it means that they are making decisions for others. Perhaps they don’t have any faith in their ancestors…I don’t honestly know. It seems to me that if they are so convinced that their ancestors would not join us that they would show a little faith–and let those ancestors make that decision for themselves. Instead, they yell and scream and present what we do as if it does something it absolutely does NOT do–that is, coerce or change them in any way against their wishes.

It’s true; perhaps Great Aunt Hattie, a life long and devout Presbyterian, would NOT want to have anything to do with Mormonism. She is quite capable of telling us that herself.

I think it is rather unfortunate to see that you apparently don’t have much regard for how Jews feel about this. Especially since my experience with most LDS is that they are very sensitive towards Jews. Think about what happened to Mormons and how horribly they were treated when they were kicked out of every place they tried to settle until they got to SLC. Think about all the terrible suffering they went through. Now, imagine if that had been going on for 5000 years. Add in the Holocaust/WW2…it might help you have an idea of what Jews feel like.

Some Mormons, in an excess of zeal, felt that the only thing they COULD do for their Jewish brethren who were massacred in that way is to offer the very best they had. this is, possibly, because we had been on the recieving end of just such persecution. It was in no way meant to be an insult; it was an offer of something incredibly important to us…and it was an offer only. From what I can see here, in this case, at least, the Jews are looking so hard for insult and anti-semitism that they couldn’t see what it really WAS…which is the exact opposite. We knew that nothing we could do would alter their ‘Jewishness…’ that is the absolute last thing we would WANT to do, even if we could. However, as a Jew turned Christian yourself, I think that you are aware that coming to believe that the Messiah came doesn’t really alter who you are, does it? Good grief, Sablou…Jesus Christ Himself came FIRST to the Jews. How much greater a mark of respect and honor can there be than that? And how can the same honor, offered by us, be seen as less than a gesture of love and respect…because that’s exactly what it was!

In fact, even as we are being accused of a lack of empathy towards the Jews, those Jews who rail against the practice of proxy work and characterize it as the epitome of anti-semitism are showing a complete lack of comprehension regarding what it actually is, and why we do it. They are ascribing motives to us that simply do not exist.

Now I am of the opinion that, at least for now and for a long time to come, we should concentrate on our own family lines; nobody really has time to branch out. That said, if a Mormon’s grandfather happens to be Jewish, when did his “Jewishness” trump his being a grandfather?

In this case, I think that the Jews just might want to consider the intent of what was done here; no insult was ever intended. We in no way intended to change them or 'make them Mormons…" We simply wanted to offer them the very best of what we had…and we did it out of order. We shouldn’t have done it, but not because we did something horribly wrong; offering the best of what you are to someone else is never an insult.
<snip to end, for space>

 

[sablouwho]

But don’t you see that this isn’t what WE are doing…it’s what those who object and characterize us as arrogant are?

I’d like to address your question but I want to make sure I first understand what you are saying. I am not sure what the word “this” refers to in the above statement?

What we do is utterly dependent upon the decision of the person for whom the work is done. It is an offer…nothing more and nothing less. There is absolutely NO coercion involved. Nothing we do alters anything about the person for whom it is done, unless THAT person actively desires it. It is, in other words tentative.

Yes, I understand all this. Really, I do.

What I am trying to relay is that I see that even just the offer itself, can and is seen as offensive.

It’s really to me a very similar kind of thing to what Jews experience when they meet a mainline Christian (generally some sort of Protestant evangelical type) who wants to share the good news. Even the mere suggestion that there is something wrong with them (the Jews) the way they are, can be rather offensive.

What I see is a bunch of people who are so convinced that Mormons are wrong, a cult, and not worthy of even being acknowledged as a Christian group that they feel quite justified in limiting our freedom of religion, even when it means that they are making decisions for others. Perhaps they don’t have any faith in their ancestors…I don’t honestly know.

A few things here. I personally think I see both sides. I hope that you have gotten to know me well enough now to know that I don’t make those assertions myself. So there is at least one Christian (mainline) who doesn’t do this–and I am sure that there are others like me. But I certainly won’t disagree with you that some mainline Christians do exactly as you say.

Some Mormons, in an excess of zeal…[snipped]… From what I can see here, in this case, at least, the Jews are looking so hard for insult and anti-semitism that they couldn’t see what it really WAS…which is the exact opposite. We knew that nothing we could do would alter their ‘Jewishness…’ that is the absolute last thing we would WANT to do, even if we could

Right, but what I’m trying to explain is that from the Jewish viewpoint, even the mere act of making the offer itself can be seen as insulting and anti-Semitic. Though not by everyone, for certain. I can think of some Jews I know personally who would probably just shrug their shoulders and not really care.

cont…

 

[sablouwho]

…cont…

However, as a Jew turned Christian yourself, I think that you are aware that coming to believe that the Messiah came doesn’t really alter who you are, does it?

In some ways I believe I’m not altered at all, and in other ways, I am. It’s something that I am still working through, trying to understand my “dual citizenship” and what it means. Being a “completed Jew”…it’s a hard thing for me to wrap my mind around.

Good grief, Sablou…Jesus Christ Himself came FIRST to the Jews. How much greater a mark of respect and honor can there be than that? And how can the same honor, offered by us, be seen as less than a gesture of love and respect…because that’s exactly what it was!

I agree that Christ coming for the Jews first is indeed a major mark of respect and honor. Yet, that is probably because I am a believer in Jesus that I see it this way. Thus, most Jews, who obviously don’t affirm Jesus’ messiahship, are going to be offended by any suggestion from *any *Jesus-affirming group (not just LDS, that is) that is making any kind of offer of this nature.

And from a mainline Christian PoV, well, some people in that group are probably going to be offended too, for similar reasons, which are namely that from the mainline Christian perspective, the LDS offer is suggesting that something is lacking in the person the way that they are. That is sometimes going to be offensive TO THE HEARER, regardless of how the lovingly the person making the offer does so.

Honestly, it is hard for me to comprehend why people, despite their religious convictions and good intentions, do not see why their actions and words are interpreted by others (ho don’t share their beliefs) in a different way than the speaker intends it. And please understand I am not limiting this comment to LDS – I see mainline Christians who just don’t understand (or won’t understand) why their offer to Jews is often perceived as offensive by the Jew to whom they are witnessing.

In fact, even as we are being accused of a lack of empathy towards the Jews, those Jews who rail against the practice of proxy work and characterize it as the epitome of anti-semitism are showing a complete lack of comprehension regarding what it actually is, and why we do it. They are ascribing motives to us that simply do not exist.

From their perspective, the mere offer of “something that they lack” can make them feel that their very identity is being threatened and that their soul is being murdered. So they may tend to perceive that the motives are other than what LDS say they are. Not a problem I know how to solve.

Just want to clarify that I am not making such an accusation in my PP. I was saying that I felt zerinus, specifically, appeared to be lacking empathy in his(?) reply. I hope that it was evident in my words that I was not painting with broad strokes.

If a Mormon’s grandfather happens to be Jewish, when did his “Jewishness” trump his being a grandfather?

I think that I really do understand why a Mormon believer would want to do proxy work for their Jewish regardless of the religion of the deceased relative. But I can also understand the Jewish perspective. Each group feels a certain way based on what they believe. Each will presumably argue that their beliefs trump the other. I am not saying I have a solution to this, because I really, really don’t.

In this case, I think that the Jews just might want to consider the intent of what was done here; no insult was ever intended. We in no way intended to change them or 'make them Mormons…" We simply wanted to offer them the very best of what we had…and we did it out of order. We shouldn’t have done it, but not because we did something horribly wrong; offering the best of what you are to someone else is never an insult.

Well, sure, not from the giver’s perspective–it is not an insult. But on the receiver’s perspective, it can be a very different story.

That there are different perspectives and that people with different outlooks can be easily offended shouldn’t be that hard to understand. Let’s look to the secular realm for examples–think of diplomats and foreign dignitaries. They have to do research before meeting with people from other countries/cultures to make sure that they don’t accidentally insult them while trying to be gracious to them.

There are customs that in the host culture that are understood by the members of that culture as being gracious. It is part of their “background of obviousness”. To serve certain foods at a meal, or to bow to your guest in a certain way, would be ways of offering “the best of what you are” to the guest.

But problems can arise in cross-cultural situations where a gesture, a gift, a bow, or a certain food, etc, doesn’t hold the same meaning in the GUEST country. So it is VERY possible to have the best of intentions, but wind up insulting someone.

Example from my own life: my step-mom is from a foreign country. If you give her tulips, she’d be insulted, because in her culture, they are ONLY used at funerals. You’d in effect be telling her “I wish you were dead.” But of course, the giver of the flowers didn’t know this–they may have grown those flowers themselves and meant it as a gift in the best way possible!

 

[dianaiad]

…

But problems can arise in cross-cultural situations where a gesture, a gift, a bow, or a certain food, etc, doesn’t hold the same meaning in the GUEST country. So it is VERY possible to have the best of intentions, but wind up insulting someone.

Example from my own life: my step-mom is from a foreign country. If you give her tulips, she’d be insulted, because in her culture, they are ONLY used at funerals. You’d in effect be telling her “I wish you were dead.” But of course, the giver of the flowers didn’t know this–they may have grown those flowers themselves and meant it as a gift in the best way possible!

I understand how Jews could…AT FIRST…react badly. Believe me, I do. However, as in your example of the diplomats studying things, and in the case of your step-mom, this is a two way street, isn’t it?

Once you step-mom understood that in the perspective of the giver there is nothing funereal about a tulip, she wouldn’t continue to be offended, would she? I do know, being a teacher, that cross-cultural education means CROSS cultural education. The idea isn’t to totally submit to one view or the other, but to get both sides to understand, so that one one side offers a specific bow or hand gesture that HE means to be respectful is not seen as disrespectful by the receiver. It’s a matter of allowing both people to be who they are.

To use a different analogy: we have two, oh…cheer leading squads for competing schools. They both have very different routines and costumes. They might even cheer for different sports. The blue team, admiring the yellow team, offers to teach them some new routines so that the yellow team can go to the cheer leading competitions…IF, that is, those routines fit in and they like them. The yellow team is outraged. How DARE the blue team put themselves forward like that? How DARE they suggest that anything THEY have is worth even a second of our notice? Why, it is an insult of tsunami proportions for the blue team to even consider speaking to a member of the yellow team!

Which team is offering the worse insult…the blue team, which is honestly offering, as a free gift, that which they value most, or the yellow one who is quite definitely letting everybody know that the yellow team’s best is beneath contempt?

Because from at least one viewpoint, that’s what is happening here. We are offering our best and most precious gift, that they may accept or reject freely—and they are telling us that we are worse than skunks at a wedding; we have no right to even approach them, they are so far superior to us; How DARE we think that we have anything at all that a Jew might want to learn?

that’s what we see.

Which do you think is the more offensive behavior?

WE do not see Jews as ‘lesser.’ Far from it–and those who take offense at what we do need to actually look at the motives behind it…and at what exactly it is we ARE offering–which is NOT an assumption that they are ‘lesser,’ but that we just might have something pretty wonderful that they might like to ADD TO. I know that if someone offered to teach me about their own religion and culture, I would not consider it an insult. I would be grateful for the chance to learn something new.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I know that if someone offered to teach me about their own religion and culture, I would not consider it an insult. I would be grateful for the chance to learn something new.

But it’s not being done like that. It’s being done like “I can do it, so who care’s what you think”. Really you LDS, need to be more empathetic to those around you or you’ll forever be saying “Poor us. We are so persecuted and don’t know why”.

 

[sablouwho]

I understand how Jews could…AT FIRST…react badly. Believe me, I do. However, as in your example of the diplomats studying things, and in the case of your step-mom, this is a two way street, isn’t it?

Yes, but when someone is hurt deeply or badly, it can be VERY hard for them to see the perspective of the other person…

Once you step-mom understood that in the perspective of the giver there is nothing funereal about a tulip, she wouldn’t continue to be offended, would she?

Actually, I picked her as an example precisely because she’s very set in her ways and would likely continue to be offended. For how long, I don’t actually know, since the situation is hypothetical, and at that point the analogy breaks down anyway. But for her, certain things just “do not compute”, which I think, does translate to the way the Jews feel in “evangelizing situations.”

I do know, being a teacher, that cross-cultural education means CROSS cultural education. The idea isn’t to totally submit to one view or the other, but to get both sides to understand, so that one one side offers a specific bow or hand gesture that HE means to be respectful is not seen as disrespectful by the receiver. It’s a matter of allowing both people to be who they are.

But when a group thinks that they have THE truth, and that everyone else needs that truth, and even though that truth is offered in a way that the bearers of it feel is the most loving way possible, it is STILL, nonetheless, going to tend to make the receivers feel that they are NOT being allowed to be who they are. Because the Truth, and the need to spread it to those who don’t know it, seems to trump the “cross” part of cross cultural education.

Believe me…I know this from personal experience as a Jewish Christian. I have a very strong witness of Jesus being the real deal. Yet I also deeply understand that if I say this to my Jewish friends/family, most will probably be extremely offended. Even if I offer to them my testimony in the most loving way I can possibly think of, and try to explain it most delicately, it would likely be received very very badly.

In matters religious, things just don’t always work out so cleanly, unfortunately.

As for the cheerleading team, I don’t see it as a matter of who did “worse”. I see it as the initiators either not understanding good boundaries of human relations or psychology, or being ignorant of the same. In such cases where a boundary is violated, it can lead to an angry reaction.

Because from at least one viewpoint, that’s what is happening here. We are offering our best and most precious gift, that they may accept or reject freely—and they are telling us that we are worse than skunks at a wedding; we have no right to even approach them, they are so far superior to us; How DARE we think that we have anything at all that a Jew might want to learn?

Wow–I think that the above really represents a lack of understanding of the Jewish perspective. They don’t consider themselves superior (some egotistical individual people might, but corporately, Judaism does not). I kinda think that they just want people who believe in Jesus to leave them alone. But instead, they are evangelized by people/groups who have an agenda. Given the history, it can be REALLY scary. I’d liken it to group post traumatic stress disorder.

WE do not see Jews as ‘lesser.’

My own experience with LDS is that they are philo-Semitic.

Far from it–and those who take offense at what we do need to actually look at the motives behind it…

Why do they *need *to, assuming that they didn’t ask to be approached?

and at what exactly it is we ARE offering–which is NOT an assumption that they are ‘lesser,’ but that we just might have something pretty wonderful that they might like to ADD TO.

Well, I hit a speedbump is with the ADD TO part. That concept tends to be inherently offensive to Jewish sensibilities because it usually suggest that Jesus is the part that is missing. They don’t tend to see it as wonderful. And I’ve lived that firsthand, so I understand it very well from the insider perspective. That isn’t a put down of you or anything, I’m just saying that I understand that viewpoint from having lived it. (Just as I understand having a testimony of JC, having lived that, too.)

I know that if someone offered to teach me about their own religion and culture, I would not consider it an insult.

Well, if done with the intent to proselytize, particularly when the claim is made that that one way is the only true way and that everyone else has only partial truth, many do consider it an insult. Motivation matters.

I would be grateful for the chance to learn something new.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and if you were able (magically) to experience being Jewish from the inside, I really do wonder if you would might possibly feel differently. Just saying…

Though, said learning might be a wholly different thing if it came without any kind of agenda.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I understand how Jews could…AT FIRST…react badly. Believe me, I do. However, as in your example of the diplomats studying things, and in the case of your step-mom, this is a two way street, isn’t it?

Once you step-mom understood that in the perspective of the giver there is nothing funereal about a tulip, she wouldn’t continue to be offended, would she? I do know, being a teacher, that cross-cultural education means CROSS cultural education. The idea isn’t to totally submit to one view or the other, but to get both sides to understand, so that one one side offers a specific bow or hand gesture that HE means to be respectful is not seen as disrespectful by the receiver. It’s a matter of allowing both people to be who they are.

To use a different analogy: we have two, oh…cheer leading squads for competing schools. They both have very different routines and costumes. They might even cheer for different sports. The blue team, admiring the yellow team, offers to teach them some new routines so that the yellow team can go to the cheer leading competitions…IF, that is, those routines fit in and they like them. The yellow team is outraged. How DARE the blue team put themselves forward like that? How DARE they suggest that anything THEY have is worth even a second of our notice? Why, it is an insult of tsunami proportions for the blue team to even consider speaking to a member of the yellow team!

Which team is offering the worse insult…the blue team, which is honestly offering, as a free gift, that which they value most, or the yellow one who is quite definitely letting everybody know that the yellow team’s best is beneath contempt?

Because from at least one viewpoint, that’s what is happening here. We are offering our best and most precious gift, that they may accept or reject freely—and they are telling us that we are worse than skunks at a wedding; we have no right to even approach them, they are so far superior to us; How DARE we think that we have anything at all that a Jew might want to learn?

that’s what we see.

Which do you think is the more offensive behavior?

WE do not see Jews as ‘lesser.’ Far from it–and those who take offense at what we do need to actually look at the motives behind it…and at what exactly it is we ARE offering–which is NOT an assumption that they are ‘lesser,’ but that we just might have something pretty wonderful that they might like to ADD TO. I know that if someone offered to teach me about their own religion and culture, I would not consider it an insult. I would be grateful for the chance to learn something new.

If it’s really CROSS cultural shouldn’t the giver of the tulips also understand why someone might be offended by their gift? Cross cultural means both the giver and and the recipient make an effort to understand each other. I don’t see any effort towards understanding in posts like Z’s.

 

[AMDGtoo]

If it’s really CROSS cultural shouldn’t the giver of the tulips also understand why someone might be offended by their gift? Cross cultural means both the giver and and the recipient make an effort to understand each other. I don’t see any effort towards understanding in posts like Z’s.

To the tulips example (I honestly know that example–it happened with my old country Grandmother), the person is so offended that they really aren’t able to discuss matters, and “the giver of the tulips” often has no idea that what they did was offensive. It’s often up to others who realize what is happening (after they get over their shock) to try to “smooth things” over.

To think all hurt and anger could have been avoided with just a little bit of diplomacy and cultural awareness. When we are dealing with another culture, we have a responsibility to tread softly.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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

Yes.

 

[Anna_Scott]

we have no power to decide whether you are, or are not, offended by this practice. However, we have every right to point out that by taking offense, you are being unreasonable.

In fact, Anna, push come to shove WE are not the ones who are denying freedom of choice to those loved ones who have passed on. YOU are. After all, we understand that the ONLY thing such proxy work does is offer a choice that can be freely accepted or rejected; it is entirely up to the person for whom it is done.

You are insisting that they not be offered the choice. What if, by some…unimaginable to you, perhaps, but just consider the possibility…chance this person actually would appreciate it, and accept it? Who is making decisions for them then? US…for offering something that is completely up to them to accept or reject, or YOU, for denying them even the right to make the choice?

Anna, we are very aware that nothing we do forces anybody to do, or be, anything they don’t want to do or be. Because we believe that: because it is central to the entire idea, any accusation that we are hurting reputations or forcing anything is ludicrous.

An analogy was made about needing a signed power of attorney to act in behalf of a dead person in legal matters. OK…but there is a fundamental flaw in this analogy, Anna. If the person is not dead, or ill, and is in perfect posession of his or her faculties, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM. We believe, as do allmost all other Christians as far as I am aware, that those who have passed on are quite able to think, make informed choices and decissions, and fully participate in the lives they find there. We are NOT their puppet masters or keepers, and we do NOT have the right to make decisions for them, or to withold something because WE don’t like it.

If your neighbor told you over the fence one afternoon that she was tired of hearing from the Mormons…and a year later a couple of missionaries walked down the street, what would happen if you walked out and forced those missionaries to pass her house by? Do you have the right to do that, or does she have the right to say ‘no’ herself?

She MIGHT thank you…but then again, she might not. She might be waiting for them, having had an appointment. Either way, it is her decision to make, not yours.

This isn’t about your right to take care of the things people leave behind them when they die. Property doesn’t translate into the afterlife. However, who they are DOES. Their minds, their wills, their ability to make decisions…in many cases that ability is restored to them if they lost it during their mortal lifetimes. You do not have the right to make any decision for them that they can make for themselves. Period.

Whose? it is not a violation of religious freedom to offer to teach about a different faith. It is not a violation of religious freedom to allow others to make religious decisions for themselves. What IS a violation of religious freedom is for you, or anyone else, to decide that because YOU do not believe something, that you have the absolute right to deny the chance to hear and accept that something to any and everyone else.

They have minds. They have wills. It is their religious right to make their own decisions.

Fine, you have made your objections quite clear, and I hope that your wishes in this matter are honored. My only cautions to you are that, as individuals can and do make their own decisions, one of your descendents MIGHT submit your name, and the work MIGHT be done. I’m sure that the filters are in place to prevent it, but mistakes happen. You just need to relax and realize that if one does, many many years down the line, all you have to do is say ‘no,’ one last time. I hope it’s “No, thank you…” but “no” will do. Personally, if that error is ever made, I would like to be there when and if that offer is ever made to you. It would be very interesting indeed to see how you handle that particular dilemma.

Diana

You keep talking about giving the deceased a choice regarding whether or not they accept the by-proxy baptism. Do the LDS records say the person was offered baptism or do the records say the person was baptized?

And what about sealing the deceased to a wife, or husband–is that an offer the deceased can refuse?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .You are insisting that they not be offered the choice. What if, by some…unimaginable to you, perhaps, but just consider the possibility…chance this person actually would appreciate it, and accept it? Who is making decisions for them then? US…for offering something that is completely up to them to accept or reject, or YOU, for denying them even the right to make the choice?

Anna, we are very aware that nothing we do forces anybody to do, or be, anything they don’t want to do or be. Because we believe that: because it is central to the entire idea, any accusation that we are hurting reputations or forcing anything is ludicrous. . . . .Whose? it is not a violation of religious freedom to offer to teach about a different faith. It is not a violation of religious freedom to allow others to make religious decisions for themselves. What IS a violation of religious freedom is for you, or anyone else, to decide that because YOU do not believe something, that you have the absolute right to deny the chance to hear and accept that something to any and everyone else. . . . .

Dianaiad,

Where, in these ceremonies, is the deceased given a choice?

http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/rituals.shtml

“Mormon Temple &quotInitiatory” Ceremonies

BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

Baptism for the dead is usually performed by Mormon youths between the ages of twelve and eighteen. Dressed in white clothes, the youth enters the baptismal font and stands upright. Using his (her) left hand, he (she) grasps his (her) own right wrist, and uses the fingers of the right hand to hold the nose shut while being immersed. The person performing the baptism stands at the left side of the youth and grasps the youth’s right hand with his left hand. He then raises his right arm to an angle of ninety degrees ands repeats the baptismal prayer. Following the prayer, he places his right hand on the youth’s back and supports him (her) during immersion, raising the youth quickly out of the water to an upright position again, when the ceremony is repeated several more times on behalf of other deceased persons.

Brother _______, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, for and in behalf of _______, who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
**
CONFIRMATION OF THE DEAD**

Following baptism, the deceased must be confirmed a member of the Mormon Church. This ceremony does not have to be performed by the same proxy by the baptism, and usually isn’t. The proxy sits in a chair, and two Mormon Elders place their hands on the proxy’s head, and repeat the following, for each deceased person.

Brother _______, in the name of Jesus Christ, we lay our hands upon your head, for and in behalf of _______, who is dead, and confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and say unto you, Receive the Holy Ghost. Amen.
**
RECONFIRMATION**

This ceremony restores temple blessings lost through excommunication or by one’s name having been removed from the records of the Church.

Brother _______, in the name of Jesus Christ, we lay our hands upon your head [for and in behalf of _______, who is dead], and confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and say unto you, Receive the Holy Ghost, and confirm upon you all your former Church and Temple blessings. Amen.

ORDINATION OF THE DEAD

This ceremony gives the Priesthood to the deceased.

Brother _______, having authority, we lay our hands upon your head, and confer upon you the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordain you an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for and in behalf of _______, who is dead, and seal upon you every grace, gift and authority appertaining to this office in the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood, for and in his behalf, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."

LDS Members: if these ceremonies are misrepresented, please provide correction and proof that such correction is necessary.

 

[zerinus]

Yes.

How do you think it matters? Do you think you will turn in your grave? Do you think you will cry in anguish in the spirit world?