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

[twopekinguys]

What would be the legal ramifications of that? Who would enforce it?

I am not sure if you are genuinely asking, or if you are implying that it would still be done, and you would take your chances on getting caught and fined?

 

[twopekinguys]

And what of descendants of Catholics who do not want masses said for their dead?

(Not that I care, honestly, because I don’t believe that they do any good or bad)

Can’t you see it is the same?

What if a Buddhist prays for your dead ancestor? Is that a terrible thing?

Buddhists don’t do that… but what if?

Of if the Alien Church of Zardoz baptizes your ancestors? I wouldn’t care! I honestly don’t see the point whatsoever! Do you think you could be snatched out of heaven for something someone did to your spirit here on earth?

Perhaps that comes from the idea that praying for the dead helps them. If praying for the dead helps them, then I guess doing “negative things” to them could hurt them? Is that what you believe?

Try looking at it this way.

If your next door neighbor plays his stereo as loud as it goes, and you say you don’t care, does that mean the neighbor on the other side doesn’t have a right to be upset?

 

[twopekinguys]

Assuming you were born in 1800, suppose such an injunction were in fact granted in 1850 to you personally in your favor, against having your work done, and in 2050 one of your descendants decides to do the work anyway.

What would be the legal ramifications of that? Who would enforce it?

Let’s carry this one step further using your example.

If someone doing their geneology in 2050 sees that Uncle Bob (who was not really mormon during his life) had a baptism, endowments, sealings, etc. it is going to appear to the person doing the research that Uncle Bob was mormon.

That is why so many people have a problem with this practice. Especially the Jewish community.

It is hardly comparable to a Catholic lighting a candle for someone. There is no record of a candle being lit.

 

[AMDGtoo]

And what of descendants of Catholics who do not want masses said for their dead?

Thought about it, and it honestly is not the same. A Catholic saying a prayer for someone is just that a Catholic saying a prayer for someone. It is just a point of wishing the person well–that God acts in the person’s life. However a Mormon doing a Baptism for the Dead is more. It is active. It is take dead (who can no longer defend himself and is too often non-mormon) and doing something to him or her. But then the Mormon’s take it further, they already consider this such a “done deal” that they further “seal” him against his wishes in that he or she had made abundantly clear in this life. It is imposing Mormon will against the already made clear will of the non-Mormon dead.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It would be like assuring you that if you left the Catholic church, no one in the future would ever light a candle for you in any church in the world.

THAT would be my personal wish, but I think I will have masses by the ton being said for me after I pass, though I also have no say in it.

It won’t hurt, I suppose – and that should be your attitude too.

A Mass does not have the intention of converting you back to a Catholic.

But, yes, a Mormon is going to do proxy work for me in a Mormon temple. It is inevitable. I don’t really care. I do care that I am forever in a permanent database.

I view it as when I was an atheist and people would tell me they were praying for me. I figured it was something that they needed to do for themselves and really had nothing to do with me. The database part bugs me.

 

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure if you are genuinely asking, or if you are implying that it would still be done, and you would take your chances on getting caught and fined?

No I am genuinely asking. My point is that it is hard to enforce one’s will many generations into the future. I am not an attorney, but I do estate planning and extending one’s hand from the grave to enforce what descendants do is a notorious problem. And obviously the farther in the future it happens, the harder it is. There are trusts etc which can be set up but there are laws against setting these up in perpetuity.

The original idea was that someone wanted to make sure that they would NEVER be “baptized for the dead”, and my point was simply that that would be very difficult to assure anyone of, and the person seemed to be criticizing the church because it would be so difficult, where actually the problem is a practical one of enforcing that wish.

My point is, it is almost impossible to prevent heirs from doing what they want enough generations into the future. Perhaps I should just drop it. I suppose I am being too argumentative or something.

But the bigger issue is theological- do Catholics believe that a Mormon ordinance could have the power to damage their dead in some way or not?

And again, is that belief linked in some way to Catholics believing that one can pray for the dead and help them-- if that is true that having a “bad person” (to the Catholic) do something to affect the dead person’s spiritual welfare against that dead person’s will?

 

[mfbukowski]

Let’s carry this one step further using your example.

If someone doing their geneology in 2050 sees that Uncle Bob (who was not really mormon during his life) had a baptism, endowments, sealings, etc. it is going to appear to the person doing the research that Uncle Bob was mormon.

That is why so many people have a problem with this practice. Especially the Jewish community.

It is hardly comparable to a Catholic lighting a candle for someone. There is no record of a candle being lit.

They would only see these ordinances as having been done 1- if they went to a Mormon database, and 2- even if that were the case, it would be clear that the ordinances were done posthumously.

Date of Death: 1856
Date of Baptism: 2010

I would not think such a person was a Mormon during their lives, would you?

And why would you use a Mormon database to do your genealogy in the first place? Because it is the only source available probably! You should say “thank you very much for preserving my ancestor’s records” instead of complaining! You would not even know that uncle Bob from 1856 existed if you did not use the Mormon database in the first place!

 

[mfbukowski]

Thought about it, and it honestly is not the same. A Catholic saying a prayer for someone is just that a Catholic saying a prayer for someone. It is just a point of wishing the person well–that God acts in the person’s life. However a Mormon doing a Baptism for the Dead is more. It is active. It is take dead (who can no longer defend himself and is too often non-mormon) and doing something to him or her. But then the Mormon’s take it further, they already consider this such a “done deal” that they further “seal” him against his wishes in that he or she had made abundantly clear in this life. It is imposing Mormon will against the already made clear will of the non-Mormon dead.

Nope!

They can accept it or not! Do you really think I can hurt your dead ancestors?
Why would you think that?
Do you think our priesthood has the power to do that?

 

[mfbukowski]

A Mass does not have the intention of converting you back to a Catholic.

But, yes, a Mormon is going to do proxy work for me in a Mormon temple. It is inevitable. I don’t really care. I do care that I am forever in a permanent database.

I view it as when I was an atheist and people would tell me they were praying for me. I figured it was something that they needed to do for themselves and really had nothing to do with me. The database part bugs me.

Even if in 500 years that is the only place your name appears anywhere on earth? The only record that you ever existed?

Put me in the Alien Church of Zardoz’s database- why would I care?

Dang with the internet now, we are all in zillions of databases we might choose not to be!

Ever google something and then find that ads for that thing suddenly appear on every site you go to? I wonder why that happens!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Even if in 500 years that is the only place your name appears anywhere on earth? The only record that you ever existed?

I don’t see that it matters.

Dang with the internet now, we are all in zillions of databases we might choose not to be!

Yes, and this irritates me too.

Ever google something and then find that ads for that thing suddenly appear on every site you go to? I wonder why that happens!

It’s magic!

hi. I.T. is my field. I’ve been on the end of hunting down information, when I was the anti-porn czar at a previous place of employment.

Anyway, this magical placing of adds, it isn’t based on personal information. It is based on the fact that google writes a cookie to your browser cache and other website programmers are taking advantage of this cookie. I use my browser in a mode that this doesn’t happen. I’ve been known to use an anonymizer as well.

 

[twopekinguys]

They would only see these ordinances as having been done 1- if they went to a Mormon database, and 2- even if that were the case, it would be clear that the ordinances were done posthumously.

Date of Death: 1856
Date of Baptism: 2010

I would not think such a person was a Mormon during their lives, would you?

And why would you use a Mormon database to do your genealogy in the first place? Because it is the only source available probably! You should say “thank you very much for preserving my ancestor’s records” instead of complaining! You would not even know that uncle Bob from 1856 existed if you did not use the Mormon database in the first place!

You are right, they would need access to a mormon database. After all, we are talking about mormons doing this stuff right? I think that would be a given.

As far as the dates on the database, let’s look at how many times Abraham Lincoln has had stuff done for him. Not to mention how many women he was sealed/married to. If that information is incorrect, can’t the dates be incorrect also?

How do you think people did geneological research before the internet? I have traced relatives much further back, and haven’t had to use the mormon database once.

There is a little thing called public records. Which is what most of the mormon database consists of. There are also family records that many families keep. Many births and deaths are recorded in family Bibles.

Also, did you know that school records can be used to help determine a persons age? My aunt did not have a birth certificate, so she got copies of her school records to submit to social security along with the family Bible.

Maybe you should rest your arm before you hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

 

[twopekinguys]

Nope!

They can accept it or not! Do you really think I can hurt your dead ancestors?
Why would you think that?
Do you think our priesthood has the power to do that?

How do you know they can accept it or not? Have you ever gotten a reply one way or the other?

 

[twopekinguys]

No I am genuinely asking. My point is that it is hard to enforce one’s will many generations into the future. I am not an attorney, but I do estate planning and extending one’s hand from the grave to enforce what descendants do is a notorious problem. And obviously the farther in the future it happens, the harder it is. There are trusts etc which can be set up but there are laws against setting these up in perpetuity.

The original idea was that someone wanted to make sure that they would NEVER be “baptized for the dead”, and my point was simply that that would be very difficult to assure anyone of, and the person seemed to be criticizing the church because it would be so difficult, where actually the problem is a practical one of enforcing that wish.

My point is, it is almost impossible to prevent heirs from doing what they want enough generations into the future. Perhaps I should just drop it. I suppose I am being too argumentative or something.

But the bigger issue is theological- do Catholics believe that a Mormon ordinance could have the power to damage their dead in some way or not?

And again, is that belief linked in some way to Catholics believing that one can pray for the dead and help them-- if that is true that having a “bad person” (to the Catholic) do something to affect the dead person’s spiritual welfare against that dead person’s will?

If you do estate planning, maybe you should stick with your established clients, and not freelance.

Enforcement of the wish should be left up to the remaining family members.

There are many cases where mormons don’t follow their own rules. Who do you think contacted President Obama to see if it was ok to baptize his mother?

You really can’t equate praying for the dead to baptisms for the dead. They are two totally different things.

When we pray for the dead, we are praying to God to show mercy. We aren’t bothering the deceased, and we aren’t putting them in a database.

 

[RebeccaJ]

When it comes to genealogy purposes, I wouldn’t trust the LDS database as accurate. My line links up royal lines in more than one spot. One of these is based entirely on family legend. A book that someone wrote about one my mormon ancestors, the authors put in there that “it was said she was descended from the royal line of…” There is no documented proof. None. It is all make believe, from top to bottom.

Another links to St. Thomas More, which is also make believe.

ancestry.com uses the LDS genealogy database as one of their sources, making them unreliable as well.

 

[mfbukowski]

How do you think people did geneological research before the internet? I have traced relatives much further back, and haven’t had to use the mormon database once.

I am familiar with genealogical research, and my only point was that the only way you would know if anyone had or didn’t have temple work done for them was by looking it up in a Mormon data base. It would not appear anywhere else.

 

[mfbukowski]

How do you know they can accept it or not? Have you ever gotten a reply one way or the other?

I am glad you think that the priesthood has that power or at least might have it.

When would you like to be baptized?

 

[dianaiad]

Try looking at it this way.

If your next door neighbor plays his stereo as loud as it goes, and you say you don’t care, does that mean the neighbor on the other side doesn’t have a right to be upset?

That’s not even apples and oranges. That’s chalk and cheese…or rocks and water.

 

[dianaiad]

Let’s carry this one step further using your example.

If someone doing their geneology in 2050 sees that Uncle Bob (who was not really mormon during his life) had a baptism, endowments, sealings, etc. it is going to appear to the person doing the research that Uncle Bob was mormon.

No, it’s not.

Nobody who does genealogy, or has even the mildest expertise in reading or adding/subtracting, is going to look at those records and think that 'Uncle Bob was Mormon."

In fact, this argument of yours is amazing…don’t you see how completely you are insulting, and discounting, the common sense and intelligence of those who look at these records?

What IS there about (for example…) "DOD=March 17, 1930, Proxy work done = May 14, 1956 " that could possibly give anybody with the tiniest modicum of common sense or the ability to read the idea that “Uncle Bob” was Mormon?

Is it really so unthinkable that anybody who looks at these records really isn’t going to be able to FIGURE OUT THAT THE MAN WAS OVER A QUARTER OF A CENTURY DEAD BEFORE THE PROXY WORK WAS DONE…and therefore was NOT “Mormon” during his lifetime?

And given our absolute insistance that it is entirely up to Uncle Bob whether that proxy baptism actually is effective or not, why would anybody with an ounce of electrical current between synapses think that he is a Mormon NOW if he doesn’t want to be?

That is why so many people have a problem with this practice. Especially the Jewish community.

Then please excuse me…but it looks like I have a far higher opinion of human intelligence than you do.

It is hardly comparable to a Catholic lighting a candle for someone. There is no record of a candle being lit.

You mean that it’s ok to light a candle for someone, or saying a Mass for someone…which according to Catholic thought is effective no matter WHAT the dead person thinks about it…is ok because NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT?

In other words, go ahead and do things for and to the dead that they have no control over and it’s OK because you are sneaky about it, but for heaven’s sake, if you are going to do something to, or on behalf of, the dead, don’t make a RECORD of it?

This entire thing, I’m beginning to think, is a matter of projection…but your position has got to be the wierdest one I"ve come up against.

Why “Projection?” Well, because YOU believe that what you do in baptism or lighting candles or saying Masses for the dead are effective whether those for whom you do it want it to be effective or not, you assume that this is what WE believe…that because you practice this, you don’t want US to.

…but it’s ok for you to, because you don’t keep RECORDS?

Really?

 

[dianaiad]

Thought about it, and it honestly is not the same. A Catholic saying a prayer for someone is just that a Catholic saying a prayer for someone. It is just a point of wishing the person well–that God acts in the person’s life. However a Mormon doing a Baptism for the Dead is more. It is active. It is take dead (who can no longer defend himself and is too often non-mormon) and doing something to him or her.

But we have spent weeks and more than weeks telling you that this is untrue. We are not doing anything TO them. YOU guys do, when you baptise infants and say Masses for the dead or offer prayers, but what we do has no effect at all if the person for whom this is done does not actively want it. In other words, the only ‘active’ part in this is THEIRS. Without that, what we do means nothing, and does nothing. So stop this. We are not doing anything at all TO anybody.

But then the Mormon’s take it further, they already consider this such a “done deal” that they further “seal” him against his wishes in that he or she had made abundantly clear in this life. It is imposing Mormon will against the already made clear will of the non-Mormon dead.

Again, you are misstating what we do and the effect we believe it has. If you think it has a greater effect than we do, that really is a problem—you might want to consider the irony of your believing that what we do works better than we think it does.

 

[dianaiad]

How do you know they can accept it or not? Have you ever gotten a reply one way or the other?

We don’t…but we also do not assume one way or the other. From where I sit, you seem to not only be assuming that they have, you seem to be taking it as a personal insult that they MIGHT.

It is entirely up to them, y’know. Not you, and not me. I can mail out the invitations to the party, and I’ll have an “RSVP” list, but I have no control over who accepts, who rejects or who answers the invitation.

My list simply states that I sent the invitation.