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

[dianaiad]

I am aware of the Scriptures in the Bible.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Anna Scott;6327847:

That’s very nice, Anna. So now I have to ask why you, who deeply disagree with and distrust Mormonism and LDS scriptures, would quote them, rather than biblical scriptures?

Given what I know of your feelings toward our beliefs, it is natural for me to assume that you quoted them rather than the biblical scriptures in order to mock the idea…figuring that if the MORMONS believed in this sort of thing, and that if we have scriptures that actually illustrate it, then of course it CAN’T be true–must be, indeed, ludicrous.

But since you are aware of the biblical scriptures, you must also be aware that there is such a concept, and it is a fully Christian (even in your specific definition of the word) idea; fully biblical. Denying or blaspheming against the Holy Ghost is the unpardonable sin, from which there is no coming back or forgiveness.

Now me, I don’t think that this sin is all that easy to commit, personally. I think it would involve being absolutely convinced that everything the Holy Ghost is witnessing to you is true; having absolute knowledge (not just faith, but KNOWLEDGE) of it…and then deliberately spitting in His face, more or less; a deliberate choice, very much like the one Satan made, in full understanding of the consequences of that choice.

I can’t think of many people who qualify, frankly.

You said you are aiming for a universe, where Zerinius is statisfyed with much much less.
I took you off my ignore to wish you well in life.

I really and truely mean that.

I am sorry we never seemed to connect, and I wish it had not been that way, because I am a person who doesn’t like to hold on to baggage.

I wish you the best but hope you also wish the best for others that don’t agree with you or your beliefs, and that you respect them fully. Looking at the angle of law on the matter of the one who dies, is not a good defense when your faith had to change their dogma because it broke the laws here on polygamy.

If you were in the “true church”

“the gates of Hell would never prevail”?

Right?

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

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

 

[sablouwho]

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

Unfortunately, no, I don’t.

 

[zerinus]

My answer is, “ignore the dream.”

Are you suggesting I should sin?

LOL! Not exactly. I was showing all the possible options available for you to achieve your desired outcome.

I am aware of the unpardonable sins, according to Mormonism.

---

The “unpardonable sin” is according to the Bible; and there are yet more scriptures that talk about it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

LOL! Not exactly. I was showing all the possible options available for you to achieve your desired outcome.

Good to know you were not suggesting I sin to prevent a proxy baptism.

The “unpardonable sin” is according to the Bible; and there are yet more scriptures that talk about it.

I am aware of the Scriptures in the Bible. Most Christians are.

Anna

 

[hosemonkey]

I find it sorta funny that we go on for 14 pages of posts that debate the practice of baptism for the dead in exquisite detail. If one is in possession of the True Faith, one knows that mormonism is a manufactured religion, having no more truth or validity than Mithraism or the worship of Isis. Their rites are null and void. So why the concern? The very fact that they have conducted these rites for the likes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin should give you some idea of their ligitimacy. Then there is the poster whose signiture reads “Catholic pondering LDS.”

Isn’t that kinda like “Prime rib pondering cat food?” Just sayin’.
Standing by for flames, but I had to say it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dianaiad,

After the LDS perform proxy baptisms, the deceased is CONFIRMED OR RECONFIRMED as a member of the Mormon Church. ORDINATION OF THE DEAD is performed for deceased males, to give them the Mormon Priesthood.

This doesn’t even address the issue of sealing the deceased to a spouse “for time and all eternity.”

**Dianaiad, you never answered the question: “Where, in these ceremonies, is the deceased given a choice?” **

Dianaiad,

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

Mormon Initiatory Ceremonies LDS Church Temple – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)

“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.

Thread: “LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?”
Questions remain unanswered:

How much time did Brigham Young need to go over his speeches?

On April 9, 1852, BY declared that Adam is God (Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1.)

On June 8, 1873, BY made the same declaration to the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City (The Desert News, Discourse, By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.)

Was 21 years long enough to go over what was published?

In 1870, Brigham Young declared his sermons to be as good as Scripture.
(Emphasis is mine): . . .

Ironically, Brigham Young’s statement regarding “Thus Saith the Lord,” and “Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve,” came from the Journal of Discourses.

Remember, you stated, “The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons.” Does that mean the “Thus Saith the Lord” rule is not binding?

Why do you accept some of Brigham Young’s statements in the JD, and dismiss others? . . . .

Thread: “All opposition ( to Mormonism ) comes ultimately from Satan”
Questions regarding the test of a true prophet; whether or not you dismiss the writings of Founder and First Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith due to the age of his writings; and the point in history when Mormon Prophets and Apostles began to speak truth, etc. remain unanswered.

Still await answers, Dianaiad. . . . .

Since, you have ignored my responses and questions, regarding your posts, on three different threads; I am not going to answer or respond to any more of your posts.

If you want to continue a discussion with me, then please be respectful enough to answer my questions. If you don’t want to answer my questions; then please do not ask me to respond to your posts. A discussion goes two ways, otherwise, it is not a discussion.

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I find it sorta funny that we go on for 14 pages of posts that debate the practice of baptism for the dead in exquisite detail. If one is in possession of the True Faith, one knows that mormonism is a manufactured religion, having no more truth or validity than Mithraism or the worship of Isis. Their rites are null and void. So why the concern? The very fact that they have conducted these rites for the likes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin should give you some idea of their ligitimacy. Then there is the poster whose signiture reads “Catholic pondering LDS.”

Isn’t that kinda like “Prime rib pondering cat food?” Just sayin’.
Standing by for flames, but I had to say it.

hosemonkey,

I agree that the Mormon rites are “null and void.” The point is that proxy baptisms connect one’s name and reputation to Mormonism; and this connection becomes part of history.

The other issue is that the LDS Church has repeatedly broken agreements to stop proxy baptisms.

Also, the Vatican does consider these proxy baptisms to be a problem; and the Jewish people do, as well.

"Vatican Warns of Mormon 'Baptism of the Dead’
By Chaz Muth
5/3/2008
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

"Vatican issues an order to Bishops to not allow Parish records to be given to genealogical societies of the Mormon Church.

WASHINGTON (CNS) - In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons’ Genealogical Society of Utah.

An April 5 letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, obtained by Catholic News Service in late April, asks episcopal conferences to direct all bishops to keep the Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in those registers. . . . ."(Copyright (c) 2007 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops)

Last update - 00:00 10/11/2008
U.S. Jewish group to Mormons: Stop baptizing Holocaust victims
By Associated Press

“Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon Church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice. . . . .”(Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel)

There is a Thread that discusses the fact that St. Damien, a celibate priest, canonized by Pope Benedict XVI, was posthumously baptized and sealed to a wife (“for time and all eternity.”)

Thread: LDS Baptizes and Seals St. Damien to a “wife”

Here is an intersting news article showing that the LDS have posthumously baptized, and sealed St. Damien, who was recently canonized by Pope Benedict XVI, to a wife.

Let’s see, the name wasn’t submitted by a relative, and he was a celibate priest. Isn’t there also a rule of 1 generation before ordinances can be done? He passed away in 1989, 20 years is not 1 generation.

sltrib.com/ci_13546142

Hope this sheds some light on the issue, and why it is offensive to so many.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You said you are aiming for a universe, where Zerinius is statisfyed with much much less.
I took you off my ignore to wish you well in life.

I really and truely mean that.

I am sorry we never seemed to connect, and I wish it had not been that way, because I am a person who doesn’t like to hold on to baggage.

I wish you the best but hope you also wish the best for others that don’t agree with you or your beliefs, and that you respect them fully. Looking at the angle of law on the matter of the one who dies, is not a good defense when your faith had to change their dogma because it broke the laws here on polygamy.

If you were in the “true church”

“the gates of Hell would never prevail”?

Right?

Was this intended for Dianaiad?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[hosemonkey]

hosemonkey,

I agree that the Mormon rites are “null and void.” The point is that proxy baptisms connect one’s name and reputation to Mormonism; and this connection becomes part of history.

I understand, but I certainly don’t think that mormons are going to quit doing it, especialiy given the clandestine nature of their Temple “work.” Aside from being rude and presumptuous, you have just a whole bunch of folks getting wet to no purpose.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I understand, but I certainly don’t think that mormons are going to quit doing it, especialiy given the clandestine nature of their Temple “work.” Aside from being rude and presumptuous, you have just a whole bunch of folks getting wet to no purpose.

Sadly, I think you are right. They aren’t going to stop.

Anna

 

[AMDGtoo]

Sadly, I think you are right. They aren’t going to stop.

Ah, you are underestimating the power of public relations when it comes to the LDS church. (Already the Jewish and now the Vatican has weighed in.) The LDS want to put forth an image of them being kind and wonderful people, certainly not heartless. I’m betting that as more and more people realize that offensive things are being done by the LDS, eventually the LDS will issue another “revelation” saying that Baptism for the Dead (and all the sealings afterward) really isn’t needed or wanted if the person was a non-Mormon in life.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ah, you are underestimating the power of public relations when it comes to the LDS church. (Already the Jewish and now the Vatican has weighed in.) The LDS want to put forth an image of them being kind and wonderful people, certainly not heartless. I’m betting that as more and more people realize that offensive things are being done by the LDS, eventually the LDS will issue another “revelation” saying that Baptism for the Dead (and all the sealings afterward) really isn’t needed or wanted if the person was a non-Mormon in life.

Certainly a possibility.

Anna

 

[TheosisM]

Then there is the poster whose signiture reads “Catholic pondering LDS.”

Isn’t that kinda like “Prime rib pondering cat food?” Just sayin’.
Standing by for flames, but I had to say it.

Not worth it. :yawn:

 

[hosemonkey]

Not worth it. :yawn:

Yer right. mormonism is definitely not worth it.

 

[sablouwho]

The LDS want to put forth an image of them being kind and wonderful people, certainly not heartless.

My experience with an LDS couple I became friends when I was an investigator is that they are kind and wonderful, and they continue to be despite knowing I have no plans whatsoever to join their church. Granted, some would argue that the reason they are still nice is that they hope it will lead to an eventual conversion, which I acknowledge is probably a part of why they are still nice to me, but I don’t think that it’s the entire reason. We are also genuinely friends.

I’m betting that as more and more people realize that offensive things are being done by the LDS, eventually the LDS will issue another “revelation” saying that Baptism for the Dead (and all the sealings afterward) really isn’t needed or wanted if the person was a non-Mormon in life.

LOL. I gotta admit, timing of the revelation re: allowing blacks to have the priesthood does seem a little curious. It sure took a long time!

But then, one could also point out that the Catholic Church sure did takes it time with Galileo. I’ve heard it said that the CC, on this one, arrived “500 years too late and out of breath”.

 

[dianaiad]

Unfortunately, no, I don’t.

Y’all aren’t asking for JUST empathy. You are asking us to abandon our beliefs in favor of yours, and to apologize for, and be ashamed of, ours.

In the simplest terms possible, to US what you all are doing is exactly what you are accusing US of doing–and that we do not do. That is, making religious decisions for others.

I realize that it is a difference in viewpoints here, but while I see that others are insisting that WE see THEIRS, I don’t see that many here are willing to see ours.

What we see is that nobody living has the right to make decisions for the dead, any more than you would have the right to make decisions for grandparents still living, who are quite sane and able to make their own choices. For instance; I have a friend who runs seven miles or so every day, has a doctorate in Medieval Literature, speaks 12 languages (mostly dead ones, but that’s what happens when you major in Medieval Lit…) teaches yoga (she regularly whips her students at tennis) and is an amazing mezzo-soprano.
She has an IQ of 155. (She is most definitely not me!)

She’s also 65 years old. Now tell me; do you think, if you were her granddaughter, you would have the right to sell her home because you think she would be better off in an assisted living facility?

Do you think you have the right to decide who can knock on her door, be it missionary or salesman? Do you think that, even if you are RIGHT about her preferences, she would be very pleased with you for making those decisions without consulting her?

Flippin’ right, she wouldn’t. Would YOU? Would YOU want someone else making important decisions for you without your say so? Personally, I would be rather…miffed.

Now we, as Mormons, understand that it is WE who are offering the choice. Whatever we offer; whatever we do is utterly dependent upon what THEY want, what they think and what they believe. If they do not accept our proxy work, and do so willingly and deliberately, it means absolutely nothing except that 'the offer was made." That’s it. Any symbols here in the genealogy records mean that and only that; the offer was made. We do not know…we CAN’T know what their decisions are, and we do not assume anything.

For our critics to claim that it means anything more than that is to severely misunderstand what is happening or what we do–and why are WE responsible for THEIR misunderstanding?

So we humbly offer something precious to the people who actually are affected; those who have passed on. It is for them to accept or reject. Those who object to what we do have taken upon themselves the right to make decisions for those who have passed on. We aren’t doing that, they are.

We aren’t forcing them to be and do something they may not want to be and do, they are.

All we ask is for those who criticise to actually have faith in what they claim to believe; that those who pass on still actually live, think and are who they were and are. The thing is, if there is an afterlife, as most of us believe there is, the consensus seems to be that those who dwell there are not LESS able to make their own informed decisions about this stuff, but MORE so. After all, aren’t they actually, y’know, THERE? They don’t have to ‘believe’ in an afterlife. They are living it. For others to make religious decisions for them is a little like, oh…a Mormon telling a sommelier what wine goes best with chocolate.

Here’s the last point…and my final comment on this thread…about this issue: Those of us here defending proxy baptism are DEFENDING PROXY BAPTISM. That’s the point; to explain why we do it and what effect WE believe it has. We may understand that others do NOT understand why we do it and what we believe it does, so that’s our purpose. It is not reasonable for those who argue here to insist that we apologize for doing what we believe we need to be doing.

You are, in fact, insisting that we admit to you that we are WRONG to do this, and to apologize for it, and to be ashamed of it. I’m sorry, but empathy or not…that is an unreasonable thing to ask. What we CAN do, and what we ARE doing, is attempting to explain it so that y’all understand what it actually is, not what you are afraid it is and does. It seems reasonable to assume that once you understand that our proxy work for the dead does not affect them in any way unless they specifically want it to, then there is no reason for you to be offended.

At least, no reasonable one. Unreasonable ones, sure, but c’mon…suppose you have a boyfriend who is violently jealous of the man you just hugged in the hallway. Suppose that he is furious; yelling and accusing you of all sorts of things and calling you names.

Now suppose that the man you hugged in the hallway is your brother, and your boyfriend not only has no foundation for jealousy–he’s also not so much your boyfriend that he has any right to tell you who you could hug anyway. You can have all the empathy in the world for his feelings, but does that mean he is right to hold them, or that you have to be ashamed of your own actions, the misunderstanding of which caused his jealousy in the first place?

Ah, well…I"ve had my say regarding this issue, and I don’t think there is anything to add.

 

[sablouwho]

I realize that it is a difference in viewpoints here, but while I see that others are insisting that WE see THEIRS, I don’t see that many here are willing to see ours.

(I’ve snipped the above quote down to just two lines for clarity.)

Diana–I think that I understand the LDS view on this quite well, and have done so from the very first time the concept was presented to me when I was investigating. You have stated how it is only offering a choice, I really do get that–I honestly don’t find the concept difficult to comprehend.

However, my opinion in reply to the other post still stands–I unfortunately didn’t see empathy in the message of a particular poster upthread.

 

[AMDGtoo]

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

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