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

[dianaiad]

AMDGtoo,

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

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.

Baptism by proxy is, IMO, a violation of religious freedom.

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.

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

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

 

[dianaiad]

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

Scott, the CoJCoLDS does not recognize the baptism of any other church to be valid. WE believe that baptism (and other ordinances) must be done by someone who actually has the priesthood authority to do it, and, well…we believe we’re the only ones who have that.

As a result, all converts to the CoJCoLDS must be baptised, no matter how many times they were baptised before, nor by whom.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

(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:

It is no more disrespectful to the life long religion of a dead person than it would be disrespectful to a living person to knock upon his door and offer to share what we believe. In fact, that’s pretty much what we are doing.

I can see your point if WE believed that proxy work for the dead had any effect that the decedent didn’t actively accept and approve of, but since we don’t believe that it does…

Consider; if a life long Jew/Catholic/Baptist discovered, though talking with the missionaries and investigating on his/her own, that Mormonism was the way to go, who is being ‘disrespectful’ of the ‘life long religion’ of the convert? The MISSIONARIES?

Doesn’t the convert have the right to decide where, when and how to worship, and what to believe, for himself? How is offering a new choice being disrespectful in ANY way?

From my POV, the disrespect comes from those who, still living, have decided that their ancestors have no right to make any further choices regarding their eternal lives.

Maybe it’s a problem with basic attitudes about what the afterlife is. WE believe that people remain people…and that we will continue to learn, and grow, and progress in ability and knowledge. That involves, generally, accepting new things, modifying old thoughts, finding new paths…

And those who are aghast at this seem to think that one is frozen in eternal amber at the instant of death; no more ability to learn, to think or make decisions; all that is better left to those who still have mortal brains to think with, I suppose.

Personally, if that IS the sort of life awaiting for us in the hereafter, I’d rather simply disappear and ceast to exist.

 

[AMDGtoo]

It is no more disrespectful to the life long religion of a dead person than it would be disrespectful to a living person to knock upon his door and offer to share what we believe.

And I for one, think that your small army of missionaries harrassing folks door-to-door is rather offensive. (If interested, the person would have made contact–he wouldn’t be sitting home hoping that he would be visited by door-to-door salesmen–religious at that.) It also seems rather hypocritical. After all, in your Articles of Faith you say that all men have the right to practice whatever religion they see fit, but then there’s these door-to-door salesmen that are sent around by the Mormon Church. (Clearly the underlying message is “We really don’t believe you have any right to be other than what we are–and that is Mormon”.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

We care…but frankly we don’t get it. The reason you put forward for BEING offended simply doesn’t exist. That’s the kicker, y’see.

It’s as if…come to think of it, it is EXACTLY like…you being offended because someone hands a scholarship check for a university to one of your relatives. You are offended because you don’t like the university and don’t want your relative to go there; therefore you think that we should refrain from offering the scholarship to SOMEONE ELSE because YOU don’t like it?

Don’t you think that the potential scholarship recipient should be the one to accept or reject it? I mean, if you are right and this future student hates the university as much as you do, then you need to trust that he or she will also turn it down. However, what if that scholarship is accepted? What does it have to do with YOU?

Frankly, I am astounded everytime we get into these things. It seems that those who take offense at proxy work think that it has a lot more effect than WE do, which is rather ironic.

Point: WE BELIEVE that proxy work must be accepted or rejected by the person for whom it is done, and WE BELIEVE that this person will be able to, quite freely, make that decision on their own. They can turn it down. Any records of the proxy work indicate only that the offer was MADE, not that it was accepted/completed, y’know.

When I was very much younger than now, I had a job as a door to door salesperson. (didn’t last long…selling vacuum cleaners is absolutely not my talent). My mentor and I would pick a street, and he would have a book with the addresses listed in it. As we knocked on doors he would record which homeowners we spoke to and demonstrated the vacuum cleaner to.

That is a record. Now tell me, does the fact that he recorded the addresses of people we spoke to regarding a Kirby mean that we were being disrespectful of that homeowner’s Hoover? Or does it simply record that 'we made the offer here."

Well, that’s what our records say when we do proxy work. They simply record that the offer was made, and the decedent has all the say in whether that offer is accepted or not. That’s it. It doesn’t change them, dismiss them, offer disrespect to them or their life religions. Quite the opposite, actually. It assumes that they are quite capable of using their live experiences and faiths to continue making desisions ABOUT their beliefs.

There is never any offense in offering to share one’s faith. To take offense at this is, in it’s own way, far more insulting than anything we do. After all, we aren’t baptising your children without your (or their) permission. We simply make an offer to share–one that can be refused…and when it is refused, has absolutely no effect.

Where, in all honesty, is the offense in this? Where is there any arrogance in this? It’s not like we assume that anybody for whom this work is done will, of course, be wildly grateful for the opportunity, y’know. WE do not think that it changes people in any way; not who they were, not what they thought…it is simply an offer to share the gospel as we understand it, and that isn’t an offense. It is a humble gift that we do not ever assume will be accepted.

 

[dianaiad]

And I for one, think that your small army of missionaries harrassing folks door-to-door is rather offensive. (If interested, the person would have made contact–he wouldn’t be sitting home hoping that he would be visited by door-to-door salesmen–religious at that.) It also seems rather hypocritical. After all, in your Articles of Faith you say that all men have the right to practice whatever religion they see fit, but then there’s these door-to-door salesmen that are sent around by the Mormon Church. (Clearly the underlying message is “We really don’t believe you have any right to be other than what we are–and that is Mormon”.

Indeed, we believe that everyone should have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. That includes those religions that evangelize (and oh, by the way, that includes Catholicism.)

It is NOT an abrogation of my freedom of religion for a Baptist to knock on my door (and they do!) It is NOT an abrogation of my freedom of religion for a Catholic to pray that I will ‘see the light.’ and leave my own faith and join his (and I know that at least one Catholic has done just that… ) It is NOT an abrogation of my freedom of religion to be denied communion at a Catholic Mass. It is NOT an abrogation of my freedom of religion to have other religions try to convince me that they are right and I’m not. If it were, then YOUR posts here would be an abrogation of my freedom of religion, wouldn’t they?

Well, if it doesn’t violate my freedom of religion to have a bunch of anti’s calling me names and insulting me on internet forums (and it doesn’t…) and it doesn’t violate my freedom of religion to have all these evangelistic organizations writing anti-Mormon books and trying to pry Mormons away from their religion, then y’know what?

It’s not a violation of your freedom of religion for our missionaries to go to your door and ask if you’d like to know more about our faith. After all, as long as you can say no and close the door, your freedoms are intact.

I’ll tell you what, though…It IS a violation of freedom of religion for you to stop us from evangelizing when your own belief system is evangelistic. In fact, it’s a bit on the blatant side.

 

[scottj]

*It is no more disrespectful to the life long religion of a dead person than it would be disrespectful to a living person to knock upon his door and offer to share what we believe. In fact, that’s pretty much what we are doing. *
I can see your point if WE believed that proxy work for the dead had any effect that the decedent didn’t actively accept and approve of, but since we don’t believe that it does…

Consider; if a life long Jew/Catholic/Baptist discovered, though talking with the missionaries and investigating on his/her own, that Mormonism was the way to go, who is being ‘disrespectful’ of the ‘life long religion’ of the convert? The MISSIONARIES?

Doesn’t the convert have the right to decide where, when and how to worship, and what to believe, for himself? How is offering a new choice being disrespectful in ANY way?

From my POV, the disrespect comes from those who, still living, have decided that their ancestors have no right to make any further choices regarding their eternal lives.

Maybe it’s a problem with basic attitudes about what the afterlife is. WE believe that people remain people…and that we will continue to learn, and grow, and progress in ability and knowledge. That involves, generally, accepting new things, modifying old thoughts, finding new paths…

And those who are aghast at this seem to think that one is frozen in eternal amber at the instant of death; no more ability to learn, to think or make decisions; all that is better left to those who still have mortal brains to think with, I suppose.

Personally, if that IS the sort of life awaiting for us in the hereafter, I’d rather simply disappear and ceast to exist.

Diana,
I can here the exasperation and increasing frustration in your reply. Thank you for keeping your patience in expressing your beliefs. Understand that in replying to you I am not wanting to incite anger or frustration, just wanted to converse with a representative of LDS and learn/understand things more fully for my own self. Therefore if I pose an “opposing” view or question/challenge something, it is done for those purposes.

In your above reply, you stated:
It is no more disrespectful to the life long religion of a dead person than it would be disrespectful to a living person to knock upon his door and offer to share what we believe. In fact, that’s pretty much what we are doing.

This is your perspective and I respect it, but my perspective is that there is more than a wee bit of a difference in baptizing a person who has passed on than knocking at ones door and offering information and literature.
When you knock and present to a living person, you are actually able to hear their reply, no thanks. When you have a person by proxy (which the definition of proxy is the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.) you are actually taking that decision away as you are acting on their behalf
It is not as though a ceremony is presented (although I do not know the ‘script’ for your baptisms) “inviting” the person to become baptized. - A member is acting in proxy during a literal baptism. <if this is not correct, please educate me>.

Bottom line is- this can be debated all day long. Yourself and LDS members believe in what is being done. I respect your right as a sentient being to believe and worship however you want. Saying that, I would think it odd if you did NOT defend your beliefs. As long as we are all in agreement that we all have a right to believe what we believe and defend it respectfully, you could call it a good day.

With Respect,
Julie

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is my understanding that any type of Re-Baptism is a gross heresy in the Catholic faith.
I can see why a Catholic has every reason to be offended by someone doing this. It would be as if somone pushed a heresy on you.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,
I can here the exasperation and increasing frustration in your reply. Thank you for keeping your patience in expressing your beliefs. Understand that in replying to you I am not wanting to incite anger or frustration, just wanted to converse with a representative of LDS and learn/understand things more fully for my own self. Therefore if I pose an “opposing” view or question/challenge something, it is done for those purposes.

In your above reply, you stated:
It is no more disrespectful to the life long religion of a dead person than it would be disrespectful to a living person to knock upon his door and offer to share what we believe. In fact, that’s pretty much what we are doing.

This is your perspective and I respect it, but my perspective is that there is more than a wee bit of a difference in baptizing a person who has passed on than knocking at ones door and offering information and literature.
When you knock and present to a living person, you are actually able to hear their reply, no thanks. When you have a person by proxy (which the definition of proxy is the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.) you are actually taking that decision away as you are acting on their behalf
It is not as though a ceremony is presented (although I do not know the ‘script’ for your baptisms) “inviting” the person to become baptized. - A member is acting in proxy during a literal baptism. <if this is not correct, please educate me>.

Bottom line is- this can be debated all day long. Yourself and LDS members believe in what is being done. I respect your right as a sentient being to believe and worship however you want. Saying that, I would think it odd if you did NOT defend your beliefs. As long as we are all in agreement that we all have a right to believe what we believe and defend it respectfully, you could call it a good day.

With Respect,
Julie

Ok, Julie, I understand your objection…but it is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what WE believe that proxy work actually is, and indeed a misunderstanding of what proxies are in the ‘real world,’ as well.

WE do not think that it is in any way a fait accompli…certainly not the way Catholic infant baptism is.

The basic misunderstanding you seem to be expressing is this notion that once someone stands in proxy for someone else, that the act is binding upon the person for whom it is done. It is not. In fact, when someone does something in proxy for someone who is living…proxy weddings still exist, for instance, there is a fundamental aspect that MUST be taken care of;. The proxy may ‘stand in for’ the person, but unless the person for whom this is done is in full agreement with it, the proxy might as well try to whistle with a mouth full of crackers for all the good it does. That acceptance/authorization MUST be present.

A proxy wedding, for instance, isn’t binding on either party AT ALL until BOTH parties have accepted and communicated that acceptance to the other one. Without it, no matter how many other signatures may appear on the wedding certificate, there was no wedding.

Now the basic fact is, we can’t get signatures from dead people. We can’t ‘invite’ them to be baptised, because how would they go about GETTING baptised? So in this case, the proxy baptism IS the invitation. Say yes…and the baptism is valid. Say no–and no matter how wet anybody got on your behalf, there was no baptism.

…and don’t we, who are the ones DOING it, get to decide how much effect we think it has? How much sense does it make for someone who doesn’t believe as we do, and doesn’t believe that anything we do determines the fate of the dead, or indeed doesn’t believe that the dead will even know about anything we do…how much sense does it make for such a person to decide that what we do has more effect upon someone than we claim it does, or that it does something that we absolutely DENY that it does?

THAT is what sometimes makes me want to tear hair. These are our beliefs. These are our practices. According to THEM, nothing we do affects those for whom the work is done, in ANY way, unless they actively and willingly accept it, and want it. The very thought that anyone would be forced by what what we do is, frankly, anathema to us. Our belief in free agency (free will) is absolute.

I am reminded of a story about a fruit seller who was told that he could no longer sell oranges in the square; that it interfered with the farmers’ market. Such a demand confused the fruit seller. He didn’t sell oranges. He sold apples.

The following week the sheriff showed up to arrest the man for disobeying a court order; he was again accused of selling oranges, even though nothing but apples were in his baskets. He went to court and showed the judge all the bright red and green apples…and the judge fined him for selling oranges in the square.

And here we are…doing one thing and being condemned for doing something very much else.

 

[dianaiad]

It is my understanding that any type of Re-Baptism is a gross heresy in the Catholic faith.
I can see why a Catholic has every reason to be offended by someone doing this. It would be as if somone pushed a heresy on you.

Define ‘pushed.’

If “pushed” means "forced,’ then we don’t do that. Nothing we do does that.

If “pushed” means ‘introduced to,’ or ‘offers to teach,’ or “offers a gift that may be freely refused…” then ok, but in that case I can be extremely offended by every cross I see, every Baptist who knocks on my door, every priest or nun who passes me by dressed in their habits, every time I see a Catholic (or other evangelistic) program on TV, every time I see someone with a rosary, every time I am ‘forced’ to look at Catholic writings while doing research on something else, every time someone prays for me, every time…do you get my drift yet?

I have found that, to some, ‘pushed’ is a relative term. That is, if any position contrary to theirs comes within their line of sight, it’s being ‘pushed’ upon them, but their posts, criticism and dogmatic statements can in no way be called 'pushing." They are simply sharing their opinions.

A little even handedness would be good here. I don’t expect it, mind you,not really, but it would be nice (wistfully speaking…)

Diana

 

[scottj]

Thanks Diana for your reply.
I’m glad you understand.
Please do not take this as being flippant, BUT- if LDS does not even believe that these baptisms work when performed for the dead here on earth, would it be so crazy to propose that perhaps some members of the LDS could commit to working and performing these baptisms from the “other side” once they themselves cross over?

You had said that there is a belief that a person can still make decisions for themselves on the other side, so with that being said, would it not also apply that an LDS preistholder when he crosses over would continue his mission that he had on earth when on the other side?
Sounds crazy perhaps, but IF a person on the other side can think for themselves, both the LDS Priestholder and deceased would be able to communicate, non LDS consent or not consent and then no need for any “interference” from the earthly side.
Kind Regards,
Julie

 

[scottj]

Diana,
Sorry I didn’t include this in above post, but I had asked about the ceremony for the baptism of the dead and what was included…
I read your reply and you had mentioned that it is an invitation to baptism.
I had looked up on lds-mormon.com/veilworker/rituals.shtml what was entailed and they have the following as the script involved:
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.

I understand what you wrote regarding the “proxy” status, but do you think perhaps if the ceremony was edited to say:
*Brother _______, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I INVITE YOU TO BE BAPtized , for and in behalf of _________ , WHO IS DEAD in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.*That this would basically clear up any misgivings to a non LDS member and do just about the same thing?

Thanks so much again,
Kind Regards,
Julie

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is my understanding that any type of Re-Baptism is a gross heresy in the Catholic faith.
I can see why a Catholic has every reason to be offended by someone doing this. It would be as if somone pushed a heresy on you.

Could a Mormon please answer this? I am not aware of any other faith claiming the name of Jesus to subject anyone to what they believe to be a religious rite preformed on their behalf especially if it is one that the living person, up to the moment of death considered to be a grave violation and gross heresy to their beliefs they held while alive.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks Diana for your reply.
I’m glad you understand.
Please do not take this as being flippant, BUT- if LDS does not even believe that these baptisms work when performed for the dead here on earth, would it be so crazy to propose that perhaps some members of the LDS could commit to working and performing these baptisms from the “other side” once they themselves cross over?

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.

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.

You had said that there is a belief that a person can still make decisions for themselves on the other side, so with that being said, would it not also apply that an LDS preistholder when he crosses over would continue his mission that he had on earth when on the other side?

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?

Sounds crazy perhaps, but IF a person on the other side can think for themselves, both the LDS Priestholder and deceased would be able to communicate, non LDS consent or not consent and then no need for any “interference” from the earthly side.
Kind Regards,
Julie

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.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,
Sorry I didn’t include this in above post, but I had asked about the ceremony for the baptism of the dead and what was included…
I read your reply and you had mentioned that it is an invitation to baptism.
I had looked up on lds-mormon.com/veilworker/rituals.shtml what was entailed and they have the following as the script involved:
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.

I understand what you wrote regarding the “proxy” status, but do you think perhaps if the ceremony was edited to say:
Brother _______, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I INVITE YOU TO BE BAPtized , for and in behalf of _________ , WHO IS DEAD in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.That this would basically clear up any misgivings to a non LDS member and do just about the same thing?

Thanks so much again,
Kind Regards,
Julie

A proxy wedding here does not use the language 'I invite you to be married." It uses all the same words a regular wedding ceremony does. However, without the validation by the person for whom it is done, it is moot.

Many times a hostess will ask a guest “Would you like a piece of cake?” and the guest will say yes or no. The hostess will then either cut a slice or not, depending upon the answer. However, sometimes the hostess will simply offer the cake on a plate; that too is an invitation, and the guest will accept the invitation AND take the cake in the same movement. This second method is STILL an invitation; all the guest has to do is say ‘no thank you’ and the cake is not his.

In the case of proxy baptism, it is that second type; we have done this; will you accept it? The acceptance of the invitation and the validation of the baptism are done in the same step. It has to be, since there is no way to be baptised for yourself once you are dead.

 

[scottj]

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

 

[sablouwho]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

It is not “for all people” and “mankind”. .

Well, I said for the LOVE of humankind. At least, that is how it was presented to me when I read LDS apologetics and met personally with people from the likes of Fair LDS. Yeah, I get that the work is to be done for one’s own relatives. But it is quite curious to me that you aren’t sharing the viewpoint of every other LDS I’ve ever known.

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.

Well, I am not sure what to say here. I may be misunderstanding you but it does seem as if this statement is expressing a lack of empathy for others. But I could be misunderstanding what you mean? I hope that I am.

 

[zerinus]

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.

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.

Well, I said for the LOVE of humankind. At least, that is how it was presented to me when I read LDS apologetics and met personally with people from the likes of Fair LDS. Yeah, I get that the work is to be done for one’s own relatives. But it is quite curious to me that you aren’t sharing the viewpoint of every other LDS I’ve ever known.

Well, I am not sure what to say here. I may be misunderstanding you but it does seem as if this statement is expressing a lack of empathy for others. But I could be misunderstanding what you mean? I hope that I am.

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!

 

[sablouwho]

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!

Um, I think you are misunderstanding me Zerinus. I don’t see anything wrong with you doing this work for your ancestors either. Nor do I have any interest in stopping you.

I was simply explaining some reasons why some non-LDS people do not like the idea of having proxy work done on their behalf (which the LDS Church seems to plan on someone doing in the future, since they are doing all the research, putting it on microfiche, burying it under a mountain in SLC, etc.) And I used Jews as an example to illustrate. That’s all.

 

[zerinus]

Um, I think you are misunderstanding me Zerinus. I don’t see anything wrong with you doing this work for your ancestors either. Nor do I have any interest in stopping you.

I was simply explaining some reasons why some non-LDS people do not like the idea . . .

And I explained to you why at the end of the day I couldn’t care less about that.

. . . of having proxy work done on their behalf

Whose behalf?

(which the LDS Church seems to plan on someone doing in the future, since they are doing all the research, putting it on microfiche, burying it under a mountain in SLC, etc.) And I used Jews as an example to illustrate. That’s all.

LDS Church does that so that Mormons (and non-Mormons) can use it as a database to do family history research for their own ancestors. Family history is a very popular activity for many people, not just Mormons; and this information is provided by the Church free of charge for everyone who wants to do such research. Most of the people who use LDS family history centers for genealogical research are non-members.