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

[dianaiad]

I think you have misunderstood. The prayers or Masses for the deceased are not for God to “do something for or to the dead”. They are asking God to have mercy on them, forgive them their sins and bring them to everlasting life with God. If the deceased, for whatever reason, would not want this done then they’re probably not in Purgatory or Heaven anyway.

Perhaps not…but you don’t know that, do you? You are still asking Him to do something for/to them–to have mercy upon them because you asked Him to; you believe that your faith and your beliefs will cause some change in their circumstances that they cannot do for themselves, whether they ask for that help or not.

It is quite true; they may well be very grateful for what you do…and please do NOT get me wrong here. I see nothing at all wrong with your heartfelt prayers and wishes for those who have passed on, nor is there anything wrong with your excercising your faith in this way. What I am trying to show you is that you ARE excercising your faith in this way, and that when you examine it closely, you are being more coercive than we are when we do proxy work, by a very long shot.

It’s a little like being worried about an alcoholic friend. You can do an ‘intervention’ type meeting, after which you can “kidnap” him and enroll him in an extensive rehab program. You can even pay for it, and he might come out of the experience a far healthier, happier person—briefly. Or, I can pay for the rehab stay, arrange for his boss to give him leave to go in, offer him a ride and support—but say: here it is. The rehab is paid for. The ride is there. Your job is safe. All you have to do is get in the car and it’s yours, but YOU have to get in the car. He is a lot more likely to stay clean if the decision to accept your offer is his, isn’t he?

People are odd…we don’t LIKE to be coerced into anything. Even when what we are coerced into is good for us, or pleasant, or even wonderful, if the choice isn’t ours, there remains a resentment and bitterness that forever marks the event. The ability to refuse, or to ‘not accept’ must always be there.

…and to assume that those who might refuse the grace you pray God to grant them would be in hell and thus not be in a position to accept in the first place is simply another way of saying they can’t refuse.

 

[sablouwho]

People are odd…we don’t LIKE to be coerced into anything. Even when what we are coerced into is good for us, or pleasant, or even wonderful, if the choice isn’t ours, there remains a resentment and bitterness that forever marks the event. The ability to refuse, or to ‘not accept’ must always be there.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, there can be resentment on the part of the hearer even when something isn’t forced. Merely presenting something as THE truth can and does offend. And that doesn’t just apply to the LDS. Even just the statement that Jesus is THE truth (which I believe!) can be offensive to many who don’t believe it. Yet I maintain that it incumbent upon those who do believe it (including myself) to be empathetic to those that don’t when “presenting” their beliefs. (And to be empathetic in general as well…)

 

[Jay53]

Perhaps not…but you don’t know that, do you? You are still asking Him to do something for/to them–to have mercy upon them because you asked Him to; you believe that your faith and your beliefs will cause some change in their circumstances that they cannot do for themselves, whether they ask for that help or not.

It is quite true; they may well be very grateful for what you do…and please do NOT get me wrong here. I see nothing at all wrong with your heartfelt prayers and wishes for those who have passed on, nor is there anything wrong with your excercising your faith in this way. What I am trying to show you is that you ARE excercising your faith in this way, and that when you examine it closely, you are being more coercive than we are when we do proxy work, by a very long shot.

It’s a little like being worried about an alcoholic friend. You can do an ‘intervention’ type meeting, after which you can “kidnap” him and enroll him in an extensive rehab program. You can even pay for it, and he might come out of the experience a far healthier, happier person—briefly. Or, I can pay for the rehab stay, arrange for his boss to give him leave to go in, offer him a ride and support—but say: here it is. The rehab is paid for. The ride is there. Your job is safe. All you have to do is get in the car and it’s yours, but YOU have to get in the car. He is a lot more likely to stay clean if the decision to accept your offer is his, isn’t he?

People are odd…we don’t LIKE to be coerced into anything. Even when what we are coerced into is good for us, or pleasant, or even wonderful, if the choice isn’t ours, there remains a resentment and bitterness that forever marks the event. The ability to refuse, or to ‘not accept’ must always be there.

…and to assume that those who might refuse the grace you pray God to grant them would be in hell and thus not be in a position to accept in the first place is simply another way of saying they can’t refuse.

I don’t get it. Prayers and Masses aren’t coercive at all. I honestly don’t understand why in world you would think they are. The prayers are* to God*. Just as we pray for others on earth, the prayers are to God. He can answer our prayers however He chooses. You seem to be operating under the assumption that people in Purgatory *want *to be there (instead of Heaven) and somehow they would not want to accept God’s grace.

Let’s say someone is in Purgatory and we say prayers for them here on earth. God decides to accept our prayers and lessen their time in purgatory or give them graces etc. The person in Purgatory I suppose could refuse God’s grace, but why would they? Refusing God and His graces means you are choosing hell.

My understanding (and another Catholic can correct me if I’m wrong) is that the souls in Purgatory do not have the ability to pray for themselves. Their chance to repent and pray was here on earth. They rely on us here on earth for any prayers to help them. As I said, if they don’t want any prayers said for them and they don’t want to accept God’s grace in the first place, then they have probably already chosen hell. The deceased are not accepting or refusing anything from us. They are accepting or refusing help/grace etc from God.

Here is a link I found in case you want to read or learn more about this.
catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc079.htm

 

[mfbukowski]

Your comment was specifically directed to people on this board. That is why it is rude and offensive. (bolding mine)

It should not be offensive.

What I said is that people on this board are deluded ABOUT MORMONISM which should be clear to anyone who reads it.

Not that they are “deluded” because they are Catholic.

It’s ironic that you post this at the same time hosemonkey becomes active on this “non-confrontational” thread.

So you think hosmonkey is not deluded about Mormonism, and has a true and genuine picture of the nature of our beliefs?

I rest my case.

 

[mfbukowski]

This could be the key to unlocking the door to misunderstandings here.

In no way does a catholic who prays for a soul in purgatory think that they are showing the soul mercy. They are petitioning God to show that soul mercy. That soul, is not having a rite preformed for them that in any way is binding upon God.

God already has decided at the moment of their death, what their state will be, or not be if I am not mistaken from reading about the catholic faith. The Catholic faith that allows the person, while alive, and God to make their peace together before death.

Without any arbitrator middleman.

I don’t know what you are arguing against, we do none of these things either.

 

[mfbukowski]

I couldn’t understand either at first, but it was “brought home to me” when my son was in fifth grade. He had a genealogy assignment in public school and his Dad brought him to one of the Family Centers run by the LDS, and came home with "I didn’t know Aunt __ was Mormon–why didn’t you tell me? Had to have that little discussion, “son, we never told you because she wasn’t Mormon”. (This was also my awakening to the fact that my husband didn’t share my understanding of my hobby of genealogy–because he evidently had no answer for our ten year olds questions.)

I just plain don’t know what to say to this, but I think the response is obvious.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s funny, that isn’t what you yourself say below. You say you are required to do your own. That is a requirement isn’t it?

Your claim was that we are ‘required’ to do work for OTHER people. We aren’t. We CAN, but it is a priviledge, not a requirement for salvation. It’s simply a good thing that we do for the love of those for whom we do it.

Please don’t accuse me of using your tactics. I never made a distinction between doing your own work, and the work for others. That is all on you.

Good try though. Maybe next time you will have a valid argument.

You are equivocating. Your distinction is a distinction without a difference.

I am suprised you don’t have carpal tunnel from the way you try to twist things. We’re sneaky because we light a candle. We’re sneaky because we say a prayer for the deceased. Notice I said “for”. That means we aren’t praying to them, therefore we are not bugging them like your so called baptismal offers. We are praying to God!!! Get it?
There really is a difference there. Your baptismal offers are going to the deceased, our prayers are going to God.

No. You are sneaky because you claim that it is all right to do these things BECAUSE you don’t make records of it. Therefore, what their relatives don’t know won’t cause them to feel insulted. That is the epitome of ‘sneaky.’ You are doing something permanent to those who have passed on, but it’s OK because you don’t keep records?

This is what YOU said. Do I have to pull the quote?

Let’s go back to the sneaky thing. Mormons baptise Obama’s mother. (without permission) . Mormons baptise St. Damien, and seal him to a spouse (without permission) Mormons baptise thousands of Holocaust victims (without permission).

Again, this goes to your arrogance of thinking that only your opinion counts. How sad for you.

Again, the records are THERE. They are public. You KNOW about them. That is NOT 'sneaky!" You may not like it…in fact, as you well know, the church was not happy about most of these things; they were done against church policy. However, there they are. Nobody erased them. Nobody hid them. They are right out there, in the open, where you can find them and get PO’d about them.

That is the opposite of being sneaky.

“Sneaky” is doing something that you believe permanently affects the souls and eternal wellbeing of the deceased…but thinking that it’s ok because what their relatives don’t know won’t make them mad at you.

Now there is a statement you should really be proud of. Doing something sneaky like the examples above, but it’s ok, because you know about it. How noble…NOT

You are incredible. You have completely ignored the statements by me and by the church saying that the specific examples you give (Obama’s mother, the Jewish Holocaust victims) were done improperly and against church policy, and you continue to claim that we think such things are 'OK?"

What we THINK is…they were done improperly, but they were done. WE could destroy the records, but that doesn’t destroy the act; the offer was made. To destroy those records…to make it so that others could not see that this had been done…THAT would be the sort of sneaky that you claimed was perfectly permissable. The fact is, they were done. We can’t undo what we did…so it’s much better that the record be there than that we attempt to hide it.

cont. on next post

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post;

Candles, no, because that is an individual thing. Fortunately, the Catholic Church doesn’t need, or use a database to keep track of someone’s soul. I am sure there is probably some count of the number of masses offered for the deceased, but the names would not be submitted and tracked. After all, we aren’t keeping tabs on peoples souls like the mormons.

No, you think that God keeps track…and because He is, you don’t need to. Therefore you CAN do this sort of thing behind the backs of the relatives.

Yes, you should be proud that you have a database that keeps track of your sneakiness.

Oxymoron. If one HAS the database, it is, by definition, NOT ‘sneaky.’

If you aren’t doing something behind someone’s back, then why isn’t this information up front and available? Nobody was upfront about Obama’s mother now were they. I would say that was done behind his back wouldn’t you? So yes, it is sneaky.

Since when is this information NOT 'upfront and available?" if it weren’t, how come you know about it?

Why…you know about it because it’s in the records, which are available.

Thats funny, your own church says if the individual submitting the name is not related to the individual, then permission has to be obtained from the nearest living relative. But hey, don’t let the rules get in your way. After all, it is only your opinion that counts. How sad for you.

You.

That’s funny. When I search Prs. Obama’s Mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), her name comes up on the index, but it doesn’t say anything about ordinances, or proxy baptisms. Yet we know that it was done.

So who insisted that the records not be made available? What is your reference for that?

What index are you looking at? The ones I see have ordinance dates of June, 2008.

Of course, you are quite welcome to tell me how YOU knew that this was done, if the records are not available. Just because YOU don’t have the knowledge or expertese required to go to the proper database doesn’t mean that the database doesn’t exist and isn’t avaiable to be looked at, twopekinguys.

…and then there is this: I didn’t trust your word that Obama’s mothers’ work had been done. I went directly TO the records. Since you obviously did not, it begs a huge question as to how YOU know. True, you probably trust your source, but didn’t your source tell/show you how S/HE knew? If not, why do you believe it?

Ah, well. Nevermind.

I said last week, I think, that I was going to stop commenting about this issue, since (well, until you made that rather incredible comment about it not being sneaky for you to say Masses, light candles and say prayers for the dead because you don’t keep records!) since I was simply repeating arguments. I hink that I should pay attention to myself.

And stop arguing about this.

 

[dianaiad]

God is the one that is bringing them to everlasting life. God is the one showing mercy.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

That’s fine…since you believe that this is so. However, the fact of the matter is that if God is doing this, then He is doing this regardless of what ‘they’ want, isn’t He? The point isn’t whether you are correct about this or whether we are. The POINT is that it’s HIS choice, not that of the person He is bringing or being shown mercy. His choice, done at the request of those who pray for such mercy and grace. Nobody here has mentioned any aspect of what the dead might think, want, believe or request.

Nobody, that is, but us. We are the only people who think that it SHOULD be entirely up to those who died to decide what they want to do about what we do, or don’t do. That’s why I personally find all the objections to what we do so incredibly ironic.

 

[dianaiad]

This could be the key to unlocking the door to misunderstandings here.

In no way does a catholic who prays for a soul in purgatory think that they are showing the soul mercy. They are petitioning God to show that soul mercy. That soul, is not having a rite preformed for them that in any way is binding upon God.

God already has decided at the moment of their death, what their state will be, or not be if I am not mistaken from reading about the catholic faith. The Catholic faith that allows the person, while alive, and God to make their peace together before death.

Without any arbitrator middleman.

If He has decided “what their state will be…” upon their deaths, why bother asking Him for mercy?

 

[dianaiad]

Right.

We have free will (I believe that’s called “free agency” by Mormons). And we cannot “make” God do anything (He is afterall God and we are simply His adopted children–His creation.) However, we pray for each other because we have been told (in the Scriptures) to have concern for each other and pray for each other. This does not in any way force God to do anything. (It also doesn’t do damage to the Scriptures–acting like people who have “passed on”,“run the race”–like Paul said, have to keep running.)

No, but you ARE asking Him to do something for them…and not inquiring whether they want any part of it. It’s a little like asking the hostess for an extra serving of desert for your friend; it may be very good, and it may be nice of you and all–and it might even be that your friend would very much like, and appreciate, the extra desert. However, since you didn’t ask him for his preferences, it doesn’t really matter whether he would like it; you made the decision yourself. The hostess could say no–and that’s her right. It’s her food and her house. She could smile and say 'certainly…" and provide that extra desert which your friend would be obliged to eat out of sheer good manners (in the case of God’s mercy, it’s not even a question of good manners, is it? If that mercy is shown, it’s shown.). Whether your friend appreciates the extra desert or not, or is thankful or not, or wanted it or not, he’s GOT it…and you are the one who asked that it be forced on him.

Since you DO this, then it is not logical for you to criticise others who do similar things under the same rules; that is, asking for God to do something for your deceased friends and family members, even if your perceptions about what they do is correct.

It is especially illogical for you to criticise people who do NOT do this, but whose work on behalf of the dead is entirely dependent upon what they want; that is, we aren’t asking God to show mercy. We aren’t asking Him to make it better for them in anyway. We are asking them, directly, if they want to accept what we teach, and we take ‘no’ for an answer.

I guess that’s the biggest difference, and the biggest misunderstanding here. We DO take ‘no’ for an answer; that is, we claim that it is entirely possible, even probable, that some for whom we do the work will indeed ignore us or say ‘no.’ Perhaps even “no” couched in more strident terms.

You guys can’t even imagine the concept of ‘no’ for an answer, and yet you criticise US for being coercive.

And THAT is where the misunderstanding lies most deeply, at least to me.

 

[dianaiad]

I failed to mention in my last post.

Diania, you are now on my ignore list.

Enjoy oblivion.

(grin)

I love the "If I can’t see you, you don’t exist’ part of that statement…

 

[dianaiad]

You do know that a priest is supposed to make certain that the baby presented for baptism will be raised in the Faith or he can, according to canon law, decide to delay Baptism of the baby until the parents of the child “get their act together”.

How does that affect the fact that whether the PARENTS have 'their act together" or not, the child still doesn’t have any say in whether he or she is baptised?

 

[dianaiad]

I couldn't understand either at first, but it was "brought home to me" when my son was in fifth grade. He had a genealogy assignment in public school and his Dad brought him to one of the Family Centers run by the LDS, and came home with "I didn't know Aunt __ was Mormon--why didn't you tell me? Had to have that little discussion, "son, we never told you because she wasn't Mormon". (This was also my awakening to the fact that my husband didn't share my understanding of my hobby of genealogy--because he evidently had no answer for our ten year olds questions.)

So…because a ten year old had to be shown the math…that Aunt___'s work was done over a year after she died meant that she was NOT LDS during her life time, that everybody in the world is that ignorant?

It’s a 30 second conversation… That is…“no, she was not a Mormon. If she had been Mormon, her baptism date would be BEFORE her death date. Because it was not, it means that Mormons did proxy work for her. It’s something they do because of their religion, but it doesn’t make Aunt __ a Mormon at all.” I read that aloud. It took ten seconds. Add an explanation of the word ‘proxy,’ and perhaps this: “Mormons do this for people who have died, in case they might want to listen and join. We don’t believe that this works, and we don’t believe that Aunt__would want to be a Mormon even if she knew about it. It’s just Mormons practicing their religion. You can always tell by looking at the dates.”

There. LESS than thirty seconds, and there is no longer any confusion. Just how hard IS that? If you want to go on, then it is a perfect teaching moment to explain to him what YOU think happens when you die. You don’t need to worry about what WE think might happen.

< Huh? About the Baptisms of Infants, have discussed this–and yes, the infant knows–year in and year out the parents are to fulfill their obligation–there are memory things–certificates, candles, gifts, cards, photos. As for simply wishing the person–living or passed on to his reward–well by prayers, they are not Sacraments so why on earth would official records from the Church be kept (other than the funeral records of the one who has “run the race”.) Prayers are a personal thing.

The infant is eventually TOLD…but by then the baptism is done. The indelible mark is, well…indelible. Informed consent generally means that you are informed and asked to consent BEFORE something that eternally permanent is done to you, don’t you think?

As well, praying for your dead, asking God for His mercy, and saying Masses for the souls of those who have passed on are things that you consider to be eternally effective, aren’t they? If not, why are you doing them at all?

In ANY of those things; 'wishing them well…" asking God to show them mercy, saying Masses, etc…do you even imagine that those who have passed on would WANT to say ‘no?’ Is that why they are not considered in your good wishes and prayers, because ‘of course…’ they would actively welcome such aid?

Well, perhaps they would. Certainly if you are correct, it seems obvious that they would…but if you CAN’T say no, and you can’t even imagine wanting to say no…that in itself is coercive. Free will absolutely Requires the ability to say ‘no.’ Being forced to do something gloriously wonderful, pleasant and joyous is STILL BEING FORCED!

It even requires that someone, somewhere, will. We do know that at least one being has…Satan said ‘no,’ didn’t he?

 

[Jay53]

That’s fine…since you believe that this is so. However, the fact of the matter is that** if God is doing this, then He is doing this regardless of what ‘they’ want, isn’t He?** The point isn’t whether you are correct about this or whether we are. The POINT is that it’s HIS choice, not that of the person He is bringing or being shown mercy. His choice, done at the request of those who pray for such mercy and grace. Nobody here has mentioned any aspect of what the dead might think, want, believe or request.

Nobody, that is, but us. We are the only people who think that it SHOULD be entirely up to those who died to decide what they want to do about what we do, or don’t do. That’s why I personally find all the objections to what we do so incredibly ironic.

NO NO NO!!! You just don’t get this. If someone doesn’t want this, doesn’t want God, doesn’t want His Mercy, doesn’t want His graces, they are, in fact, choosing hell; they,themselves (not anyone else) have chosen Hell. God certainly isn’t going to coerce anyone to choose Him - that’s the whole free will concept. I’m getting the impression that you think that after someone dies there is no judgment and that a person is just floating around waiting for ??? and that they have the ability to make choices/decisions/to sin/not to sin/to choose God/not to choose God etc.

 

[dianaiad]

<snip to here, because we generally agree regarding the Jewish Holocaust victims…I too think it was wrong.>

Anyway, my point in bringing up the Jewish proxy baptisms way back when wasn’t so much to debate that specific issue, but rather, to make a larger point. Namely, just as Jews can get offended by those who try to “share the good news” with them, mainline Christians may also find it offensive when LDS share their version of the gospel. It isn’t just baptism by proxy that can seem offensive. Rather, I think that the notion that the LDS is the only true church, can seem arrogant, particularly to mainline Christians, but probably also more generally. Note that I am not in any way saying that the LDS should be prevented from sharing that message or sending missionaries. I am merely saying that it would be nice if there was more awareness on the part of some LDS (some who have posted on CAF) that this stance can and does offend others.

I guess the problem here is that, at least here in the United States, it happens to be a very fundamental part of freedom of religion to evangelize. It is part of freedom of speech AND of religion. OF COURSE we believe that we belong to ‘the only true church.’ I would hope that everybody believes that about his or her own belief system, else be convicted of being a hypocrite. If you don’t believe that about the belief system you belong to, then you need to start looking for the belief system you CAN think that about.

…and frankly, that’s not arrogance. That’s faith, and I find it incredibly ironic that people who not only refuse to allow Mormons the right to call themselves Christian, but who also attack and vilify us at every opportunity (gee, I wonder what three books are for sale on the CAF sidebar right now? Odds are, at least one, if not two or all three, are about how to ‘witness’ to the Mormons because we are so flat out wrong, evil and unChristian…)they get, and who have no problems at all knocking upon OUR doors and handing out anti pamphlets at OUR funerals can possibly be offended because WE proselyte!

The fact is, offering to share something that is precious to you is never an offense. I am not offended when a Baptist comes to my door and invites me to church. I am not offended when a Catholic earnestly tells me how precious she believes her relationship to Christ is, and asks me to join her in her faith. I am not a bit offended when someone of another faith prays that I 'see the light." I understand that they are trying to share their most precious thing with me–and that is not an insult. It’s a compliment.

That is, it’s a compliment when they are actually sharing their good news, not so much when they are telling me how evil/cultish/stupid/younameit I am. THAT can get old.

I see no offense in people practicing their faiths, even when practicing THEIR faiths means that they interact with me in attempting to expand them. As long as I can smile and say 'thanks but no thanks," it’s all good.

Any OTHER attitude is directly contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, for one thing. It’s especially contrary to how I was taught to believe and practice my own faith.

 

[dianaiad]

Indeed.

Unfortunately, there can be resentment on the part of the hearer even when something isn’t forced. Merely presenting something as THE truth can and does offend. And that doesn’t just apply to the LDS. Even just the statement that Jesus is THE truth (which I believe!) can be offensive to many who don’t believe it. Yet I maintain that it incumbent upon those who do believe it (including myself) to be empathetic to those that don’t when “presenting” their beliefs. (And to be empathetic in general as well…)

Well, offense is in the eye of the offended, I suppose…I guess the question is; does the fact that someone can take offense mean that we, who believe something has such eternal consequences and is vital to know, should refuse to do what we believe we should do because we MIGHT offend someone?

I had a casual friend (she worked in the office with me) who was extremely offended because she went to an LDS funeral and she was the only woman there wearing black. In fact, she was incredibly offended at ME, because I was wearing a new hot pink suit–and it was my husband’s funeral. For the next six months she didn’t speak to me, and every chance she had she made some slighting or snide comment about Mormons and about me and my marriage. Eventually someone must have clued her in, because she came to me an apologized. SHE was offended because WE did not practice our religion the way she would.

I think you may know that culturally, wearing black to an LDS funeral is an instant mark of 'this person is NOT LDS." We simply do not wear black to funerals. It’s just…not done. I think it has to do with our entire attitude toward death and what comes after, but nevertheless, SHE was offended, and certainly thought that I was this horrible unfeeling creature because I wore a pink suit to my husband’s funeral.

In other words, yes, there are times when we should emphathize and moderate our actions because others might take offense. There are times when we should acknowledge the chance of offense—and try to explain what we do so that the offense is lessened. Then there are times when one has to acknowledge the offense, but realize that it is based, not on OUR arrogance, but on their misunderstanding and (just perhaps…) arrogance in turn, and just keep doing what we do.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t get it. Prayers and Masses aren’t coercive at all. I honestly don’t understand why in world you would think they are. The prayers are* to God*. Just as we pray for others on earth, the prayers are to God.

Yes. They are to God, asking HIM to do something to/for your loved ones. You aren’t asking your loved ones. Certainly your prayers do not coerce HIM…He can do as He wishes. You are asking Him to coerce THEM.

He can answer our prayers however He chooses. You seem to be operating under the assumption that people in Purgatory *want *to be there (instead of Heaven) and somehow they would not want to accept God’s grace.

I am operating under the assumption that everybody has the right to say no, else we are no more than puppets on strings. Whether they WILL or not may be problematic…however, the possibility must remain open. After all, as I have posted before, at least one being DID say ‘no…’ and he was in a better situation than anybody in purgatory at the time.

Let’s say someone is in Purgatory and we say prayers for them here on earth. God decides to accept our prayers and lessen their time in purgatory or give them graces etc. The person in Purgatory I suppose could refuse God’s grace, but why would they? Refusing God and His graces means you are choosing hell.

You are quite right. That is what it would mean. However, you don’t seem to be able to wrap your mind around the idea that someone would actually want to do that, do you? The problem is, as Milton said of Satan, some might think that it is “better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.” You, assuming that nobody would ever choose that option, don’t give anyone the choice to take it.

My understanding (and another Catholic can correct me if I’m wrong) is that the souls in Purgatory do not have the ability to pray for themselves. Their chance to repent and pray was here on earth. They rely on us here on earth for any prayers to help them. As I said, if they don’t want any prayers said for them and they don’t want to accept God’s grace in the first place, then they have probably already chosen hell. The deceased are not accepting or refusing anything from us. They are accepting or refusing help/grace etc from God.

That’s a lot of “probably’s” and assumptions, Jay…and you might be right. Or not. The point is, you don’t give those for whom you pray the option. That’s fine–it’s your faith and you should practice it the way you want to. I’m simply pointing out that you don’t give them the option. Trying to explain WHY you don’t see the need to do so doesn’t change the fact that you don’t give them the option, does it?

Here is a link I found in case you want to read or learn more about this.
catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc079.htm

I am not in any way suggesting that you should not pray for your deceased loved ones, or to ask God’s mercy for them. That you do so shows faith and love. I am simply pointing out that this is what you do…and this is what we do not do. What we do is a: to offer a choice and b: to record that we did offer the choice. That’s it…and the only thing I am pointing out is that it is illogical to say that Mormons are offensive and wrong when we offer a free choice BECAUSE doing so is coercive and disrespectful to the wishes of the dead, when what you do is done without even acknowledging that they might have a different opinion on the matter.

For one thing, I know for a fact that at least one Catholic has sincerely prayed that God would change my mind and that I would leave Mormonism and become Catholic. She’s been doing it for years. I love her dearly for it, too. I am simply noting the irony of this: I’m HERE. She could ask me what I want, face to face—but no, she’s asking God to make me do something she KNOWS I don’t want to do. She sees nothing at all wrong with that…and at the same time she yells at me because Mormons do proxy work which actually DOES ‘ask’ the person for whom it is done very directly whether they want any part of it or not.

And yes, we do accept ‘no’ for an answer, and beyond that, we can even imagine that some might, and will, do just that. Say no.

(grin)

Regarding my friend; if I ever did become Catholic, I know that she would give God–and herself–the credit. My own inclinations would never be a factor. I told her once that I was returning the favor, and praying for her, as well. She really got her feathers ruffled, too…until I told her that I prayed that she would constantly be guided to 'the truth." Please note the difference between what she prays for, and what I do. On one level, SHE sure did, though the irony hasn’t occured to her even yet. She simply said “Oh, that’s OK, I already have the truth. Go ahead…”

(shaking head…)

 

[sablouwho]

OF COURSE we believe that we belong to ‘the only true church.’ I would hope that everybody believes that about his or her own belief system, else be convicted of being a hypocrite. If you don’t believe that about the belief system you belong to, then you need to start looking for the belief system you CAN think that about.

I don’t think Jews believe that, and yet I wouldn’t label them as hypocrites.

And Protestants (generally) don’t make the claim that they are “the only true church.”

I know less about other religions so I can’t really comment on anything else.

From what I’ve seen, outside of Catholic and LDS circles, this idea doesn’t get nearly as much emphasis.

 

[dianaiad]

NO NO NO!!! You just don’t get this. If someone doesn’t want this, doesn’t want God, doesn’t want His Mercy, doesn’t want His graces, they are, in fact, choosing hell; they,themselves (not anyone else) have chosen Hell. God certainly isn’t going to coerce anyone to choose Him - that’s the whole free will concept. I’m getting the impression that you think that after someone dies there is no judgment and that a person is just floating around waiting for ??? and that they have the ability to make choices/decisions/to sin/not to sin/to choose God/not to choose God etc.

Well, yeah. I do believe that. I believe that if someone hasn’t had a chance to hear the gospel here on earth, that they will have the chance to hear it after they die–and if they hear it, then they have the chance to accept or reject it.

The problem I’m seeing with you is that on one hand, you say that once someone dies that’s it; judgment is rendered and one is either in heaven or in hell, pffft. it’s done. However, you still ask God to show mercy, to shorten time in purgatory…in other words, to change that judgment. You can’t HAVE both, y’know. Either it’s done at death, in which case it’s rather a waste of time to ask God to change anything, or praying/lighting candles/saying Masses for the souls of the dead is effective, in which case it’s NOT ‘done.’ at death.

So…is it done, or isn’t it? We believe that in one way, it is; we will be judged according to how we lived here. On the other hand, it’s not–because we CAN still learn, and context changes. We may have made decisions here that, had we known of Christ, we would not have made. We can, we believe, choose to listen, learn–and place our actions in the context of the truth, and go from there. IF we choose to accept Christ, when we finally learn about Him in truth.

There is a saying about mortal law: ignorance of the law is no excuse. Well, we believe, in terms of religion, that ignorance of the law is EVERY excuse—but eventually we will all be given the chance to learn, so that we can grow.