Question for Mormons: Explain your practice of 'sealing' the departed?

[KathleenGee]

Honora…

God bless you for your response in praying for the Mormon people, and I am sure all your prayers are acknowledged by God in your conversion.

 

[TexanKnight]

it is a shame no Mormon has tried to respond to the points I made in my last post regarding CONSENT

 

[Publisher]

it is a shame no Mormon has tried to respond to the points I made in my last post regarding CONSENT

I’m not LDS…but…

As I understand…aren’t baptisms and sealings for the dead done for those people provisionally so that they have the opportunity to CONSENT to their sealings and baptisms in the afterlife?

A child being baptized has no such provisionary consent stated or implied…in baptism and sealings for the dead, the work done for the deceased person does not violate their free will…they can accept or reject the work done on their behalf if they so choose…a child has no such choice.

As I understand the concept of water baptism among Catholics…once a child is baptized there is an indelible mark upon them…they cannot be “un-baptized”…in fact as I understand water baptism…I was part of a discussion on this fourm that a “well-meaning” Catholic COULD baptize a child without the consent of their parents and they STILL would be considered baptized. A Mormon who undergoes baptism by proxy for a deceased person in no way violates the free will of the deceased as they STILL have the choice to accept the efficacy of said baptism or reject it.

 

[TexanKnight]

I’m not LDS…but…

As I understand…aren’t baptisms and sealings for the dead done for those people provisionally so that they have the opportunity to CONSENT to their sealings and baptisms in the afterlife?

A child being baptized has no such provisionary consent stated or implied…in baptism and sealings for the dead, the work done for the deceased person does not violate their free will…they can accept or reject the work done on their behalf if they so choose…a child has no such choice.

As I understand the concept of water baptism among Catholics…once a child is baptized there is an indelible mark upon them…they cannot be “un-baptized”…in fact as I understand water baptism…I was part of a discussion on this fourm that a “well-meaning” Catholic COULD baptize a child without the consent of their parents and they STILL would be considered baptized. A Mormon who undergoes baptism by proxy for a deceased person in no way violates the free will of the deceased as they STILL have the choice to accept the efficacy of said baptism or reject it.

Hmmm…ok…then why bash infant baptisms since we can say “so the kids have the opportunity to consent when they get older?” Or let’s all start doing shotgun weddings where we force the females to marry so they can have the opportunity to consent at a later date?

Face it, the idea of baptizing or marrying people who have not consented and whose families have not consented is WRONG and it violates the very principles of free will that we are supposed to honor.

 

[Publisher]

Hmmm…ok…then why bash infant baptisms since we can say “so the kids have the opportunity to consent when they get older?” Or let’s all start doing shotgun weddings where we force the females to marry so they can have the opportunity to consent at a later date?

Face it, the idea of baptizing or marrying people who have not consented and whose families have not consented is WRONG and it violates the very principles of free will that we are supposed to honor.

The child…now an adult…has no way to “reject” the baptism…they still are baptized…and according to Catholic belief as I understand…THEY ARE CATHOLIC whether they live as Catholic or not…the efficacy of the baptism cannot be rejected either as original sin has been expunged from them…no such understanding exists in Mormonism…the efficacy and “mark” can be rejected by the deceased person…not violation of free will has been made…no so with Catholicism…even if the baptized person CHOSE to keep their “original sin”…it would be gone.

The choice of accepting the baptism or marriage IS STILL with the person for whom the baptism or marriage has been performed…unless the marriage is accepted or the baptims accepted they are NOT married or baptized…free will is still intact…no so with Catholic baptism…original sin has been cleansed and forgvien…whether the person baptized as a child wanted to have it forgiven or cleansed wants it or not.

 

[TexanKnight]

The child…now an adult…has no way to “reject” the baptism…they still are baptized…and according to Catholic belief as I understand…THEY ARE CATHOLIC whether they live as Catholic or not…the efficacy of the baptism cannot be rejected either as original sin has been expunged from them…no such understanding exists in Mormonism…the efficacy and “mark” can be rejected by the deceased person…not violation of free will has been made…no so with Catholicism…even if the baptized person CHOSE to keep their “original sin”…it would be gone.

While the act cannot be undone, its meaning can be rejected, as many have stated in this very forum. And as far as original sin, the concept does not appear to exist to those who do not believe, so its washing means nothing.

The choice of accepting the baptism or marriage IS STILL with the person for whom the baptism or marriage has been performed…unless the marriage is accepted or the baptims accepted they are NOT married or baptized…free will is still intact…no so with Catholic baptism…original sin has been cleansed and forgvien…whether the person baptized as a child wanted to have it forgiven or cleansed wants it or not.

Free Will is NOT intact. But tell you what, let me go start credit cards in your name. Let me go buy a house in your name. Let me commit crimes in your name and we will see if doing things in a person;s name is so innocent.

They are baptizing and marrying without those people’s consent and without the families consent. While lack of consent before the act is acceptable to you, it is not acceptable to most people.

 

[Publisher]

it is a shame no Mormon has tried to respond to the points I made in my last post regarding CONSENT

Let’s have a simple “test” of “consent”.

Catholics please anwer…if a Catholic nurse decided to take it upon her or himself to baptize a baby placed in their care that was in danger of death…or even if they werent’ in danger of death and baptized the baby…would the baptism be valid…if not illicit…but it would it still be valid AND would that child according to Catholic belief NOW be Catholic with or without the consent of his parents? When the child became an adult, and “rejected” his or her baptism…would that person STILL be baptized? Would original sin still be forgiven with or without consent of the parents…we know the child could give no such consent.

If a Catholic baptized an adult who was in no condition to CONSENT would they still be considered baptized AND would original sin…and any sins committed up to that time be forgiven? (This second question is one I really am not sure about…I am sure about the first question.)

Mormons please answer…Can a living person be baptized without their consent and have the baptism valid? If a living person is baptized by proxy for a deceased person, is the deceased person considered baptized OR do they have the opportunity to accept or reject the baptism…according to LDS belief…in the after life?

 

[Publisher]

TexanKnight:
Since the condition that the store credit could only be redeemed by ME if put in my name…please go ahead and begin a store credit for me…please let me know which store MY credit you have established in my name has been made…and I’ll take advantage of it…only I can redeem the credit.

Free Will is NOT intact. But tell you what, let me go start credit cards in your name. Let me go buy a house in your name. Let me commit crimes in your name and we will see if doing things in a person;s name is so innocent.

Since it would be MY HOUSE should I accept it…great…I would however REJECT any crimes you peretrated in my name… My free will to choose to accept or reject your 'offer" has not been violated.

 

[TexanKnight]

Since the condition that the store credit could only be redeemed by ME if put in my name…please go ahead and begin a store credit for me…please let me know which store MY credit you have established in my name has been made…and I’ll take advantage of it…only I can redeem the credit.

Nice response…but I know you got the point.

 

[Publisher]

Nice response…but I know you got the point.

I reject your point as valid…my free will has not been circumvented.

My point…according to Catholic belief, an unremoveable “mark” has been placed upon my by the baptism…with or without my consent…no such “mark” is understood in LDS belief…it is up to me to choose the efficacy of the baptism or marriage…no such choice exists in Catholic beleif.

 

[Publisher]

While the act cannot be undone, its meaning can be rejected, as many have stated in this very forum. And as far as original sin, the concept does not appear to exist to those who do not believe, so its washing means nothing.

Catholic posters…is this an accurate understanding concerning baptism? Is not original sin remitted at baptism…and no amount of “rejecting” of baptism in later years “re-installs” the original sin to the one baptized a a child?

 

[TexanKnight]

While the act cannot be undone, its meaning can be rejected, as many have stated in this very forum. And as far as original sin, the concept does not appear to exist to those who do not believe, so its washing means nothing.

Catholic posters…is this an accurate understanding concerning baptism? Is not original sin remitted at baptism…and no amount of “rejecting” of baptism in later years “re-installs” the original sin to the one baptized a a child?

That is not what I said at all. What I said was, if a person does not believe in the concept of original sin, then what effect did a baptism to them?

 

[Publisher]

That is not what I said at all. What I said was, if a person does not believe in the concept of original sin, then what effect did a baptism to them?

Ahh…according to Cathoic belief…original sin was remitted/forgiven/cleansed at baptism wanted or not in the case of a child… whether or not in later years that baptism is rejected…they still are cleansed from original sin…whether they want to be or not.

Those sins commited AFTER baptism are forgiven through the sacraments of the Catholic church…so if one does not avail oneself to the sacraments in later years then they still are guility of their sins…just not original sin as it was forgiven in baptism…wanted or not.

 

[TexanKnight]

Ahh…according to Cathoic belief…original sin was remitted/forgiven/cleansed at baptism wanted or not in the case of a child… whether or not in later years that baptism is rejected…they still are cleansed from original sin…whether they want to be or not.

Those sins commited AFTER baptism are forgiven through the sacraments of the Catholic church…so if one does not avail oneself to the sacraments in later years then they still are guility of their sins…just not original sin as it was forgiven in baptism…wanted or not.

parents are supposed to care for the child. They do so. Should the child reject it as an asult, they are free to do so. So, yes, a parent does a lot of things and makes a lot of decisions for their children whether the children want them or not.

You trying to compare this to people marrying and baptizing adults without their consent makes little sense.

 

[Publisher]

parents are supposed to care for the child. They do so. Should the child reject it as an asult, they are free to do so. So, yes, a parent does a lot of things and makes a lot of decisions for their children whether the children want them or not.

You trying to compare this to people marrying and baptizing adults without their consent makes little sense.

Just as a parent seeks to do for the child what is in their best interest by having them baptized to insure the remittance of original sin and having the "indellible) unremoveable “mark” placed upon them…so too those who undergo proxy baptism or marriage seek to provide the means for their deceased loved ones who in the afterlife choose to accept that baptism or marriage done for them by proxy may do so.

In the Catholic belief system…no amount of free will can change the fact that once baptized original sin is forgiven and the mark is place upon the spirit of the person being baptized…IT’S EFFICACY for the removal of original sin CANNOT be rejected.

In Mormon belief…it can be rejected for it’s efficacy…no ‘mark’ or violation of free will is made to the deceased person…the** opportunity **of receipt is there for Mormons…no such 'opportunity" is offered in Catholic belief…“the deed is done” and cannot be reversed…in Mormon belief the “deed is done” IF accepted.

 

[Publisher]

parents are supposed to care for the child. They do so. Should the child reject it as an asult, they are free to do so. So, yes, a parent does a lot of things and makes a lot of decisions for their children whether the children want them or not.

**You trying to compare this to people marrying and baptizing adults without their consent makes little sense./**QUOTE]

That is the point…the effects CAN be accepted or rejected by the deceased person…they still CAN CONSENT…the baptized child in Catholicism cannot consent NOR reject the act in later years…nor can the baptized Catholic reject the efficacy…"the deed is done…the removal of origianl sin and it’s mark cannot be rejected or removed.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight;8954668:

parents are supposed to care for the child. They do so. Should the child reject it as an asult, they are free to do so. So, yes, a parent does a lot of things and makes a lot of decisions for their children whether the children want them or not.

You trying to compare this to people marrying and baptizing adults without their consent makes little sense./

QUOTE]

That is the point…the effects CAN be accepted or rejected by the deceased person…they still CAN CONSENT…the baptized child in Catholicism cannot consent NOR reject the act in later years…nor can the baptized Catholic reject the efficacy…"the deed is done…the removal of origianl sin and it’s mark cannot be rejected or removed.

No, they can’t. They are adults who are having this done WITHOUT their consent. I will not even address your comments about kids. You either have not have children or never made any decisions for your children.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;8954697:

No, they can’t. They are adults who are having this done WITHOUT their consent. I will not even address your comments about kids. You either have not have children or never made any decisions for your children.

So you’re saying that a deceased person in Mormon belief MUST accept the efficacy of their proxy baptism or proxy marriage?

As far a the “children” comment you made…I’ll not comment upon it as it was made in ignorance at best or malice at worst.

Good day to you friend.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight;8954734:

So you’re saying that a deceased person in Mormon belief MUST accept the efficacy of their proxy baptism or proxy marriage?

As far a the “children” comment you made…I’ll not comment upon it as it was made in ignorance at best or malice at worst.

Good day to you friend.

It was neither. You seem to be unable to understand the difference in making decisions for your children that they can reject later and baptizing and marrying adults without their consent. It was safe to believe, since you are unable to see the difference, that you have never had children, or never made decisions for children. I apologize if you saw that as malice.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Publisher;8954755:

It was neither. You seem to be unable to understand the difference in making decisions for your children that they can reject later and baptizing and marrying adults without their consent. It was safe to believe, since you are unable to see the difference, that you have never had children, or never made decisions for children. I apologize if you saw that as malice.

I was raised Mormon without my consent.