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

[zaffiroborant]

Unfortunately, no, I don’t.

And I guess we never will:shrug:

 

[twopekinguys]

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?

Funny, this is the primary arguement that the Jewish community is using in regard to all of these proxy baptisms of haulocaust victims. See below.

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?

Have you ever gotten a response to any of these so called “offers”? Just because you “insist” something doesn’t make it so. You can “insist” the sky is green, but that doesn’t make it so. You can “insist” you are a size 2, but that doesn’t make it so. No matter how many times you “insist” something doesn’t make it so. It merely shows that repeating something over and over makes you believe it, but it doesn’t make it so.

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

Obviously you don’t, since this is the primary arguement being used by the Jewish community.
“The wrongful baptism of Jewish dead, which disparages the memory of a deceased person is a brazen act which will obscure the historical record for future generations.”
and
“We will continue opposing this wrongful act which assimilates our dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes”
jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

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?

As I stated in an earlier post. (maybe you should read it), Lighting a candle, or even having a Mass said for the deceased is directed to God. Not the deceased. It is merely asking for God to show his mercy. It isn’t bugging the deceased and asking them if they want to be mormon.

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?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

A practicing Catholic is not required to light a candle for someone or to have a Mass said for anyone. It is however a requirement of the lds to perform the proxy baptisms. See the difference? People that are lighting candles or having Masses said are sneaky? That’s rich. Let’s talk sneaky about President Obama’s mother being baptized. Let’s talk about St. Damien being proxy baptized and sealed to a wife. Where was the consent from either family? Now, you tell me, who was being sneaky? How about all of the holacaust victims? Let’s talk about the ordinance information not being available to the public. Why hide it if you’re not being sneaky? See how that works.

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?

You are just too funny for words sometimes. First of all, baptism in this context does not apply, since we baptize the living.

As I have stated before, and I will repeat it again. We are not bugging the dead, We don’t even know if lighting candles or having Masses said ARE effective. We leave that to God. He is the only one that knows for sure. We are merely asking that he show his mercy. BIG difference.

Why would we keep records of candles being lit. They are lit for a variety of reasons, not only for those who have died.

BTW, it isn’t just “us” that don’t want you to do this. Check out that article from the Jewish community.

 

[TheosisM]

It is however a requirement of the lds to perform the proxy baptisms.

Really? I did not know this.

 

[twopekinguys]

Really? I did not know this.

Here is a quote from Boyd Packer:
"And so the question may be asked, “You mean you are out to provide baptism for all who have ever lived?”

And the answer is simply, “Yes.” For we have been commanded to do so. "

Boyd K. Packer, “The Redemption of the Dead,” Ensign, Nov 1975, 97

I guess if they are “commanded to do so.”, it is a requirement, don’t you?

 

[twopekinguys]

If a fellow mormon dies, do you pray for them at all, or is it all over and done with?

Do you ever pray asking god to show mercy on them? Pray they get into the right level of heaven? Or do you just let it go, and ignore it?

Do any of your members ever mention at services that one of their relatives died? Do you pray for their consolation?

I have been to one mormon service in my life, and that was over 30 years ago, and I had just gotten off of the night shift, so my memory is more than fuzzy.

I have seen in local obituaries that funeral services are held at your ward, stake, church. Wouldn’t that be the same as a funeral Mass, so to speak?

 

[ParkerD]

If a fellow mormon dies, do you pray for them at all, or is it all over and done with?

Twopekinguys,
Here are answers to your questions:

1–No, we don’t. Most Mormon funerals are occasions when the family is at peace with the knowledge that the person who died has “returned to God” and is with family in the spirit world where they will have important things to do and will be awaiting their resurrection in a condition of peace and of rest from the cares and sorrows of earth-life. If the deceased had not been faithful to their covenants, the family (if they are active Mormons) will usually hold a funeral where there is a positive feeling about the mercy of God. There may be an understood belief (expressed or just in the minds of the people attending since they know about this) about the potential that the faithful covenants of the parents can influence the deceased after that deceased person’s death and their arrival in the spirit world where other family members are there to “embrace” them and help them feel loved and continue a learning process and opportunity to experience Christ’s atoning grace.

Do you ever pray asking God to show mercy on them?

Not generally, no. God does have mercy on them. It is a given.

Pray they get into the right level of heaven?

Not generally, no. Faithful LDS are understood to go to the Celestial glory in their resurrection. If the person was unfaithful, the family knows that the spirit of the deceased has gone to a place where they will be with family and can still learn, grow, and repent, but will still have complete free choice as to their beliefs and covenants.

Do any of your members ever mention at services that one of their relatives died? Do you pray for their consolation?

Yes, because grieving still happens with the loss of a loved one. This is normal, and it is normal to pray that the Comforter will comfort the members of the family who have experienced the loss of a loved one. This is frequently done as prayers are offered that include mentioning those who have “cause to mourn” and “stand in need of comfort.”

I have been to one Mormon service in my life, and that was over 30 years ago, and I had just gotten off of the night shift, so my memory is more than fuzzy.

I have seen in local obituaries that funeral services are held at your ward, stake, church. Wouldn’t that be the same as a funeral Mass, so to speak?

I think you would find that the services are quite different than a Mass.

Have a good day.

 

[zerinus]

Really? I did not know this.

LDS have a religious duty and moral obligation to search out their own deceased ancestors and do proxy temple work on their behalf.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Oh, I have to answer this because your ideas are really mistaken.

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.

A Mass (offered in the memory of the dead) is nothing but a prayer. A wish for the person’s welfare. A wish that God acts in their life. It’s not baptizing them (and making them something that they weren’t while they were living. It’s not “sealing” or marrying them to some person (even if they had taken a public vow to remain celibate).

And your confusion of baptizing infants is quite Protestant (and wrong). And it does bear some explanation. Infants are baptized by Jesus’ command “Be baptized” but there is a second part of that command–they need to be taught–and that is the responsibility of the parents (and when the child is “taught”, he then makes the free will decision to be Confirmed (another Sacrament of the Holy Spirit) by the Bishop (who can trace his lines of authority to the Apostles) and who welcomes the Confirmed as a full-fledged member. A priest does not normally officiate Confirmation, he receives his “faculties” from the Bishop. Early in the Churches history (when there were less people vs. Bishops) and among the Eastern Rite Catholics, Baptism and Confirmation are linked together, but the Bishops in the Latin Rite chose to emphasize the two commands of Jesus–be Baptized and taught, although I have known some Latin Rite Bishops to give the two Sacraments giving God’s grace, together when there is danger of death and it looks like the Bishop would not be back in the area for awhile.

I guess you don’t know that Infant Baptism actually came from the early Church. Christianity was supposed to be a fulfillment of the Old Covenant–it was supposed to be better. Well, as you know, in the Old Covenant, little infant males, 8 days old, were circumcized (I doubt any parent asked them if they wanted to be) as a sign of them belonging to the Chosen People. Then we have the New Covenant where circumcision isn’t considered necessary, but those adults heard Jesus command “Be baptized”. I can just imagine the people saying, “This is supposed to be better yet our children can’t belong? That doesn’t even make sense!” Now remember what Jesus said (when the Apostles tried to keep the children away from Jesus) “Let the little children come to Me for such is the kingdom of heaven”.

(An aside: I guess it’s really hard for you, since the word “bishop” is the same for Mormons and Catholics, but in fact their duties are quite different. It looks as if our priests would be your ward bishops while our Bishops might be more like your General Authorities. I somehow think it unfortunate that the words are similar while the concepts behind them are so very different.)

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.

No, what I have said, and will continue to say, is that our dead (as Paul says, have run the race), and they deserve to rest in peace, their memories lovingly intact.

BTW, we have records, very accurate records of all Sacraments (so accurate that Social Security accepted my Grandmother’s Baptismal records when her birth certificate was lost). You all ought to know that we keep accurate records, the LDS sent armies of folks out to copy them for your own uses (baptism of the dead) and that’s why the Vatican has now come out to try to stop the practice.

 

[mfbukowski]

Here is a quote from Boyd Packer:
"And so the question may be asked, “You mean you are out to provide baptism for all who have ever lived?”

And the answer is simply, “Yes.” For we have been commanded to do so. "

Boyd K. Packer, “The Redemption of the Dead,” Ensign, Nov 1975, 97

I guess if they are “commanded to do so.”, it is a requirement, don’t you?

We as a people have been commanded to take on work for the dead, but it isn’t viewed as an individual requirement that if member x does not do every possible ordinance for every possible ancestor he will burn in hell forever or something like that.

We must all do our best in balancing our lives and doing our callings and raising our families and doing as much genealogy as we reasonably can in this busy world. It is everyone’s responsibility to do so but we also have many other responsibilities.

Clearly you would not want to have your children raise themselves while you are in the temple doing work for the dead.

We do what we can, and it is enjoyable work. The whole reason we are reminded that we need to do work for the dead is that it is often put on the “back burner” and occasional reminders that we have that responsibility are good.

That is what that quote from Elder Packer was.

 

[mfbukowski]

The reason that we do not “pray for the repose of the soul” of the dead as Catholics do is because we believe that progression occurs in the spirit world- that the spirit can still progress and to some extent “repent” on the other side

If they have not heard of the gospel here in this life, they will have an opportunity to do so on the other side, and “doing their work” (being baptized etc. for them) will help them have that opportunity to do so.

We believe that the spirit world is much like this one in many respects and that paradise and spirit prison (much like the Catholic idea of “purgatory”) will eventually cease to exist after the resurrection, after which we will receive whatever kingdom of glory we deserve.

So it is not at all like the Catholic idea of “heaven”.

So until the resurrection the “probationary period” continues for those who have not received the gospel, and there is no more need to pray specifically for an individual than there is to do so in this life.

So if your relatives were not members in this life, it might be appropriate to pray that they would accept the gospel on the other side, one could do that as an individual choice to do so, but usually we do not do that, since they either had or did not have an opportunity here to do so. If they already had the opportunity and rejected it, perhaps they will have a “second chance” if they did not REALLY understand or whatever, but once the choice is made, the choice is made. Praying for them will not help them change their minds, just as I could pray that you all here would become LDS- but I suspect your minds are made up for the most part.

But if they did not really have the opportunity because they were deluded about or doctrine say, as many here are also, you will have an opportunity AFTER your really understand what we are all about to make that decision on the other side.

Telling people about the church is one thing, but them having a clear understanding is obviously a different one. If one explanation did it, this thread would not exist.

 

[mfbukowski]

Another point about baptizing all who have ever lived-

We believe that following the Second Coming of the Lord, we will have a one thousand year period called the “Millenium” (I can’t remember what Catholics believe about this period) during which we will have the opportunity to do much of the work we cannot do now.

That period will be different, in that spirits will visit us on a routine basis, and seeing angels and resurrected beings will be commonplace as Christ personally reigns as King of the earth.

I personally believe that during this period, those who desire to be baptized wiill come forth as spirits and simply tell us who they are and that they want to be baptized.

Obviously the world will be a very different place with Christ reigning in a theocracy, but that is one of our beliefs as well, and is crucial to understanding on a practical basis how all this temple work could possibly get done.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
Here are answers to your questions:

1–No, we don’t. Most Mormon funerals are occasions when the family is at peace with the knowledge that the person who died has “returned to God” and is with family in the spirit world where they will have important things to do and will be awaiting their resurrection in a condition of peace and of rest from the cares and sorrows of earth-life. If the deceased had not been faithful to their covenants, the family (if they are active Mormons) will usually hold a funeral where there is a positive feeling about the mercy of God. There may be an understood belief (expressed or just in the minds of the people attending since they know about this) about the potential that the faithful covenants of the parents can influence the deceased after that deceased person’s death and their arrival in the spirit world where other family members are there to “embrace” them and help them feel loved and continue a learning process and opportunity to experience Christ’s atoning grace.

By a “positive feeling about the mercy of God”, are you saying prayer?

Not generally, no. God does have mercy on them. It is a given.

So by saying “not generally”, it does happen then.?

Not generally, no. Faithful LDS are understood to go to the Celestial glory in their resurrection. If the person was unfaithful, the family knows that the spirit of the deceased has gone to a place where they will be with family and can still learn, grow, and repent, but will still have complete free choice as to their beliefs and covenants.

Again, “not generally” to me implies that it does happen

Yes, because grieving still happens with the loss of a loved one. This is normal, and it is normal to pray that the Comforter will comfort the members of the family who have experienced the loss of a loved one. This is frequently done as prayers are offered that include mentioning those who have “cause to mourn” and “stand in need of comfort.”

Part of the grieving process also involves worrying about the soul of the deceased. So if we are praying to comfort those who grieve, aren’t we also praying for the deceased?

I think you would find that the services are quite different than a Mass.

Have a good day.

Oh, I’m sure I would.

I have to tell you, I have been to funerals of just about every religion. Hindu, Jewish,various protestant, Catholic, you name it. I honestly cannot think of a single funeral, or visitation/wake where there wasn’t some sort of prayer offered for the deceased.

Without prayers at these services, I just can’t picture what a mormon funeral would consist of.

Thanks Parker.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Another point about baptizing all who have ever lived-

We believe that following the Second Coming of the Lord, we will have a one thousand year period called the “Millenium” (I can’t remember what Catholics believe about this period) during which we will have the opportunity to do much of the work we cannot do now.

The use of “1000 years” in the Bible is not literal, it is symbolic of “a long time”.

The Savior came to proclaim the spiritual kingdom of God for the deliverance of man from his sins and for his sanctification, a kingdom which actually began with His birth. The last judgment occurs when Christ returns. The final judgment is Christ’s victory over evil. There is not a 1000 year waiting period for this judgment where Christ reigns over an earthy mix of natural and supernatural, without victory.

Millenarianism is a heresy.

 

[twopekinguys]

The reason that we do not “pray for the repose of the soul” of the dead as Catholics do is because we believe that progression occurs in the spirit world- that the spirit can still progress and to some extent “repent” on the other side

If they have not heard of the gospel here in this life, they will have an opportunity to do so on the other side, and “doing their work” (being baptized etc. for them) will help them have that opportunity to do so.

We believe that the spirit world is much like this one in many respects and that paradise and spirit prison (much like the Catholic idea of “purgatory”) will eventually cease to exist after the resurrection, after which we will receive whatever kingdom of glory we deserve.

So it is not at all like the Catholic idea of “heaven”.

I think it has been well established that the mormon idea of heaven is quite different than that of Catholics, or any other mainstream protestant religion.

So until the resurrection the “probationary period” continues for those who have not received the gospel, and there is no more need to pray specifically for an individual than there is to do so in this life.

Ok, probationary period. Thats a new approach. Also, you don’t pray for people in this life? That’s interesting.

So if your relatives were not members in this life, it might be appropriate to pray that they would accept the gospel on the other side, one could do that as an individual choice to do so, but usually we do not do that, since they either had or did not have an opportunity here to do so. If they already had the opportunity and rejected it, perhaps they will have a “second chance” if they did not REALLY understand or whatever, but once the choice is made, the choice is made. Praying for them will not help them change their minds, just as I could pray that you all here would become LDS- but I suspect your minds are made up for the most part.

Sounds like you are praying for the dead to me.
(bolding mine)

But if they did not really have the opportunity because they were deluded about or doctrine say, as many here are also, you will have an opportunity AFTER your really understand what we are all about to make that decision on the other side.

Telling people about the church is one thing, but them having a clear understanding is obviously a different one. If one explanation did it, this thread would not exist.

Calling people “deluded” does not help your case in the least, and to be honest is quite rude and offensive.

 

[ParkerD]

By a “positive feeling about the mercy of God”, are you saying prayer?

Twopekinguys,
We certainly have prayers at LDS funerals (both a prayer before the main service, where a member of the family offers a prayer, and the opening and closing prayers at the service, where usually a family member offers those prayers also). Those prayers will include expressing gratitude to God for life, for the plan of happiness, for the comfort provided by the Comforter, for the many blessings of having had the association with the deceased, and so forth.

So by saying “not generally”, it does happen then.?

I have never heard it done, ever, and have been to perhaps 80 LDS funerals in my lifetime–but I obviously can’t speak for every LDS funeral ever done in the world. This is why I had indicated “not generally.”

Again, “not generally” to me implies that it does happen

Same answer as above. Particularly would I not of course feel that I could say what any particular LDS person does in their private prayers. A parent of a young adult who had died could certainly still feel desirous of praying (in a private prayer–I’ve never heard it done in public) that their child would have a softening of their heart in the spirit world if there had been communication rifts and hard feelings that had led to misunderstandings. A parent could pray that such a child would feel the parent’s love as a spirit in the spirit world. A parent in the spirit world (such as my mother, for example, who is deceased) could also pray for her posterity on earth that they have love in their families and if communication rifts occur, that they be overcome through love and forgiveness.

Part of the grieving process also involves worrying about the soul of the deceased.

No, that is not representative of LDS beliefs. “Worry” is not a part of the LDS grieving process except in the case of unresolved bad feelings, in which case the person still living prays for forgiveness from God and prays that the family member who died (if there were unresolved bad feelings) will feel in their heart to also forgive, and that the atoning grace of Christ will be efficacious in bringing the “balm of Gilead”, so to speak, into the hearts of anyone who had had unresolved bad feelings.

What I meant by grieving is that there is a loss of companionship, and that is certainly grieved because it is a very real loss, and should be grieved.

So if we are praying to comfort those who grieve, aren’t we also praying for the deceased?

We are praying for the living who feel the loss. We mourn with them because their loss is a very real loss for the present time, and offer comfort and support but recognize that they will miss their loved one and should naturally go through steps of grieving while all the while feeling loved by those around them.

Oh, I’m sure I would.

I have to tell you, I have been to funerals of just about every religion. Hindu, Jewish,various protestant, Catholic, you name it. I honestly cannot think of a single funeral, or visitation/wake where there wasn’t some sort of prayer offered for the deceased.

Without prayers at these services, I just can’t picture what a mormon funeral would consist of.

Again, prayers are offered, but not “for the deceased”. They are prayers of gratitude for the deceased and for Christ’s love and for the Comforter who does indeed comfort, and prayers for the living to be comforted in their temporary separation and loss.

Thanks Parker.

I hope I have helped clarify. All the best to you.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
We certainly have prayers at LDS funerals (both a prayer before the main service, where a member of the family offers a prayer, and the opening and closing prayers at the service, where usually a family member offers those prayers also). Those prayers will include expressing gratitude to God for life, for the plan of happiness, for the comfort provided by the Comforter, for the many blessings of having had the association with the deceased, and so forth.

This is more similar to Catholic practice than you realize. While in the case of a Catholic funeral, the family generally doesn’t offer the public portion of the prayer, unless the celebrant (clergy) is related to the deceased.

I have never heard it done, ever, and have been to perhaps 80 LDS funerals in my lifetime–but I obviously can’t speak for every LDS funeral ever done in the world. This is why I had indicated “not generally.”

Agreed, but we agree the possibility exists.

Same answer as above. Particularly would I not of course feel that I could say what any particular LDS person does in their private prayers. A parent of a young adult who had died could certainly still feel desirous of praying (in a private prayer–I’ve never heard it done in public) that their child would have a softening of their heart in the spirit world if there had been communication rifts and hard feelings that had led to misunderstandings.

Do you see how similar this is to the Catholic idea of praying for the dead?

A parent could pray that such a child would feel the parent’s love as a spirit in the spirit world. A parent in the spirit world (such as my mother, for example, who is deceased) could also pray for her posterity on earth that they have love in their families and if communication rifts occur, that they be overcome through love and forgiveness.

Do you see how similar this is to the Catholic idea of the Saints praying for us?

No, that is not representative of LDS beliefs. “Worry” is not a part of the LDS grieving process except in the case of unresolved bad feelings, in which case the person still living prays for forgiveness from God and prays that the family member who died (if there were unresolved bad feelings) will feel in their heart to also forgive, and that the atoning grace of Christ will be efficacious in bringing the “balm of Gilead”, so to speak, into the hearts of anyone who had had unresolved bad feelings.

Again, do you see the similarity. Catholics praying to God to show mercy on the deceased. As in your example, to resolve bad feelings. Of course, we believe that it isn’t only bad feelings, or communication issues that can be resolved through God’s mercy.

What I meant by grieving is that there is a loss of companionship, and that is certainly grieved because it is a very real loss, and should be grieved.

We are praying for the living who feel the loss. We mourn with them because their loss is a very real loss for the present time, and offer comfort and support but recognize that they will miss their loved one and should naturally go through steps of grieving while all the while feeling loved by those around them.

Agreed. Catholics feel the same way.

Again, prayers are offered, but not “for the deceased”. They are prayers of gratitude for the deceased and for Christ’s love and for the Comforter who does indeed comfort, and prayers for the living to be comforted in their temporary separation and loss.

I hope I have helped clarify. All the best to you.

We offer the same type of prayers, but as you indicated above, you do in fact pray for the dead. Your examples of praying to resolve rifts, communication problems etc. is in fact praying that the deceased be able to resolve, or let go of any unresolved issues here on Earth. That is what we do also in our praying for the dead, lighting candles, etc.

Are you seeing the similarities?

 

[dianaiad]

Funny, this is the primary arguement that the Jewish community is using in regard to all of these proxy baptisms of haulocaust victims. See below.

Have you ever gotten a response to any of these so called “offers”?

Actually, some people who have done this work believe that they have 'recieved responses." It’s a faith thing.

Just because you “insist” something doesn’t make it so. You can “insist” the sky is green, but that doesn’t make it so. You can “insist” you are a size 2, but that doesn’t make it so. No matter how many times you “insist” something doesn’t make it so. It merely shows that repeating something over and over makes you believe it, but it doesn’t make it so.

Guys, you are being disengenuous in the extreme here. What part of “We do not assume…” that they have or have not seemed to have whizzed over your head? The only thing our records indicate is that the offer was made, not that anybody actually accepted it.

Obviously you don’t, since this is the primary arguement being used by the Jewish community.

Their argument comes from a basic misunderstanding of what we do, and what we claim for what we do. They are (as you seem to be) claiming that our proxy work on behalf of the dead does something that we adamantly insist that it does NOT do.

Now how logical is it for someone who claims complete disbelief in what we do claim that it actually does something we insist that it does NOT do? Really…why should we honor objections that are based on incorrect assumptions?

Perhaps we do not know the dead for whom we do the work, nor have a clue whether they would accept or reject what we offer; that’s fine. We aren’t the ones who are assuming that we DO know. It is, after all, entirely their choice. However, the people who object so strenuously ALSO do not know these people, and THEY are the ones who are preventing the choice, not us.

“The wrongful baptism of Jewish dead, which disparages the memory of a deceased person is a brazen act which will obscure the historical record for future generations.”

HOW does it 'disparage the memory of a deceased person?" We aren’t lying about them, or doing anything to them. We are the ones who are respecting the dead, assuming that they actually can make their own decisions still.

It seems to me that it is those who have the chutspah to assume that they know better than anybody else what these folks REALLY want are the ones who are disparaging their memories.

In fact, if I had two people arguing with each other about whether one of them could ask me a question, trust me; I would percieve the insult coming from the one who assumes that, even though he doesn’t know me AT all, figures that he knows what I would think, believe, feel and say. I would not be grateful to the obstructionist. Being an independent sort, I’d like to make my own decisions, thankyouverymuch.

“We will continue opposing this wrongful act which assimilates our dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes”
jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

The above is like saying that I will continue to object to the wrongful acts of Jews as described in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion." They can object to acts which 'assimilate [their] dead to the point where it will not be possible to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes" all they want to, but they are objecting to a strawman. NOTHING we do assimilates Jewish dead in any way. There is no way that anything we do would make it impossible…or even slightly difficult…to know who was Jewish in their lifetimes. If you are going to quote objections, try quoting reasonable ones. The above simply are not.

…because we do not disparage the dead, nor do we ‘assimilate’ them in any way. We make an offer that they can completely ignore, or decline…or whatever. If as a result of what we do these people DO ‘become assimilated,’ it will be because THEY choose to do so, not because we forced them into anything…and even if they do accept, the records HERE will always clearly show that they were born, lived and died Jewish.
twopekinguys;6351970:

As I stated in an earlier post. (maybe you should read it), Lighting a candle, or even having a Mass said for the deceased is directed to God. Not the deceased. It is merely asking for God to show his mercy. It isn’t bugging the deceased and asking them if they want to be mormon.

Baloney. These things are asking God to do something to the deceased that the deceased have no control over. The deceased are up there, either waiting for those prayers or ignoring them…but what THEY think matters not one whit to what you do, does it? If you ask God, and He answers you, then THEY get what you asked for. Where is there free will in any of that?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

From you. You were the one who objected, not because we forced anything on anybody, but because we actually keep RECORDS.

cont. on next post

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post

A practicing Catholic is not required to light a candle for someone or to have a Mass said for anyone. It is however a requirement of the lds to perform the proxy baptisms.

No it’s not.

See the difference?

I can see that you are getting a little desperate and moving the goal posts. Your argument here really IS a strawman argument, m’friend. The only thing that is ‘REQUIRED’ is that we get our OWN work done. Anything we do over and above that is a priviledge, not requirement…which is one of the reasons we need Temple recommends to do it.

People that are lighting candles or having Masses said are sneaky? That’s rich.

You do this…something that you do without consulting or even allowing for the opinion or choice of the deceased…and you tell ME that it’s ok because you don’t keep records? That…is the very definition of ‘sneaky.’

Let’s talk sneaky about President Obama’s mother being baptized.

]

We know about it, right? If we know about it, it’s not sneaky. That’s the whole point of records.

I wonder how many people have lit candles or said prayers or even said a Mass for her…but we’ll never know that, will we?

Because you don’t keep records of such things. That’s…I hate to say this, but that’s sneaky.

Let’s talk about St. Damien being proxy baptized and sealed to a wife. Where was the consent from either family?

The only consent that matters is that of Damien…and none of us know what he thinks about it. But again, since there are records, it’s not sneaky, is it? “Sneaky” is doing something behind everybody’s backs and not telling anyone. Since pretty much anyone has access to the records showing who has, and has not, had proxy work done I utterly fail to see how ‘sneaky’ comes into what WE do.

Now, you tell me, who was being sneaky?

You.

How about all of the holacaust victims? Let’s talk about the ordinance information not being available to the public. Why hide it if you’re not being sneaky? See how that works.

If the genealogical records are available, so is the ‘ordinance information.’ By the way…do try to remember WHO insisted that these records not be made available. It was not, in case you haven’t been paying attention, US.

You are just too funny for words sometimes. First of all, baptism in this context does not apply, since we baptize the living.

You baptize infants who have absolutely no chance to object, accept, prevent or participate in the deal. At least we believe that those for whom we do the work are in complete control over whether that work is valid; you believe in this ‘indelible mark’ that is put upon the soul of a baptised infant, will he, nill he.

As I have stated before, and I will repeat it again. We are not bugging the dead, We don’t even know if lighting candles or having Masses said ARE effective. We leave that to God. He is the only one that knows for sure. We are merely asking that he show his mercy. BIG difference./.quote]

I see. So…when we say that we don’t know whether the dead will accept or reject what we do, and that the validity of what we do is ENTIRELY up to them, not us, that is unacceptable to you, but you don’t know whether lighting candles or having Masses said are effective; you just leave it up to God…and that is just fine–and the wishes of the people for whom you pray, light candles and say Masses aren’t even considered, much less consulted or worried about?

Dang, I love irony.
twopekinguys;6351970:

Why would we keep records of candles being lit. They are lit for a variety of reasons, not only for those who have died.

Why, indeed? The point is, twopekinguys, you are the one who brought up the point that its not the work that’s the problem, its that we write it down.

BTW, it isn’t just “us” that don’t want you to do this. Check out that article from the Jewish community.

I’ll bet the Jewish community wouldn’t pay much attention to us objecting to, say…any Jew becoming a banker because they are greedy, would it? …and of course, they would be completely right to ignore such objections. After all, the REASON Jews have been associated with banking, wealth and money lending is that for several hundred years Catholics were forbidden from BEING money lenders or bankers. Since these professions were rather necessary, the only folks left who could engage in them were, well…Jews.

This made it rather easy for the Christian community to identify and persecute the Jews, too…that’s where the money was, and since of course Jews didn’t get all the legal protections Christians did, robbing them was not only easy, it was even considered, well, pius. So for any non-Jew to criticize a Jew for ‘greed’ is not only stupid, it’s ironic…and an objection utterly based on a complete misunderstanding of Jewish/Christian history and interaction.

Since the Jewish objection to what WE do (as evidenced by the quotes you have given me here) are obviously based on just such an utter misconception of what it is we do, and what we think the effect of what we do is, kindly tell me why we should pay attention?

…wouldn’t it be better to simply explain the truth of what it is we do, and keep doing it?

Tell me, if I were to tell you to NOT light a candle or have a Mass said for my uncle who passed away two years ago, would you figure I had a right to request it? More importantly, do you figure I have the right to stop you?

…and by your own admission, what you do is more coercive by far than what we do.

 

[dianaiad]

Really? I did not know this.

That’s because it’s not.

 

[sablouwho]

Since the Jewish objection to what WE do (as evidenced by the quotes you have given me here) are obviously based on just such an utter misconception of what it is we do, and what we think the effect of what we do is, kindly tell me why we should pay attention?

I read that linked article from which the quotes came. I have to agree w/you Diana, that the persons quoted do not appear, from what they said, to understand the nature of what LDS believe proxy baptism does and doesn’t do.

However, I would argue that in some ways, it doesn’t matter if they understand that part of it. Because, as I had mentioned earlier (was it in this thread, or another one, I don’t remember anymore!), even just “making the offer” to the deceased is enough to offend the sensibilities of many Jewish people, even if it isn’t their direct relative receiving the proxy work.

I don’t really see a solution to this. Seems like there is an impasse and that the two groups have trouble seeing the others’ viewpoint.