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

[RebeccaJ]

This is a misrepresentation of our beliefs. Either you do not know what you claim to know or you are purposefully twisting our doctrine.

Proxy ordinances do not automatically save a person. A person must accept the ordinances performed.

Addressing something I didn’t say or ask.

The logical conclusion to a belief that the most important choice you make in life is made when you’re dead, makes life pointless.

 

[TexanKnight]

Addressing something I didn’t say or ask.

The logical conclusion to a belief that the most important choice you make in life is made when you’re dead, makes life pointless.

Exactly. In the meantime, Mormons will continue to baptize people and marry people without their consent or their families’ consent. That is just wrong.

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t have the source off hand…but there were ancient baptisms without immersion/submersion.

And St. John the Evangelist was celibate. He did not marry, was given the duty to care for Christ’s mother, and was a contemplative writer and mystic…traditionally inclined to solitude and celibacy.

We do not know the sex life of the Apostles after Pentecost…but they were consumed with the Holy Spirit, and some ancient teachers have reflected – reflected – on the personal lives of the Apostles wondering if they became celibate because of the demands and movements of their lives afterwards.

I would think the focus of the beginning of the Church would be Jesus Christ and insuring it is accurately founded.

Mormons do not believe anybody, – including the Apostles, – were not competent in founding the Church and being able to select successors.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormons share the same conviction as Martin Luther that there was no apostolic succession, and that all is based on personal interpretation of Scripture…which St. Peter forbid us to do in his second letter.

 

[blueadept]

Exactly. In the meantime, Mormons will continue to baptize people and marry people without their consent or their families’ consent. That is just wrong.

Here is a statement in regards to the LDS practice of ‘Baptisms for the Dead’

Salt Lake City —
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement today in response to news media requests regarding prominent Jewish names that were entered into the Church’s genealogical database:
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that they may be baptized by proxy for deceased ancestors who never had that opportunity.
The policy of the Church is that members can request these baptisms only for their own ancestors. Proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims are strictly prohibited.
In this case, the Wiesel family names were not submitted for baptisms but simply entered into a genealogical database. Our system would have rejected those names had they been submitted.
In a few instances, names have been submitted in violation of policy. Whether this is done by simple error or for other reasons, the Church considers these submissions to be a serious breach of protocol.
It is distressing when an individual willfully violates the Church’s policy and something that should be understood to be an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention. The Church will continue to do all it can to prevent such instances, including denying access to these genealogical records or other privileges to those who abuse them in this way.

 

[Marie5890]

Here is a statement in regards to the LDS practice of ‘Baptisms for the Dead’

Can’t help but think this may demonstrate a lack of incompetence in the whole temple system.

They were in the process of going online when I left.

Safe guards and filters would clear this up and catch what needs to be caught.

This is not a hard situation to fix.

 

[paulp1002]

@BlueAdept

I read that same article, another quote that I found interesting was regarding the submission of names that “violated” their policy:

“Our system would have rejected those names had they been submitted [for baptism],” said church spokesman Michael Purdy.

Does that mean that they rejected every entry for Pope John Paul II or any other Catholic Saint? You do they just pick an choose, base on negative publicity?

 

[blueadept]

Can’t help but think this may demonstrate a lack of incompetence in the whole temple system.

They were in the process of going online when I left.

Safe guards and filters would clear this up and catch what needs to be caught.

This is not a hard situation to fix.

In understanding their ‘TempleReady’ program, one would hope it would be easier to fix. The problem comes into play is if the LDS member actually has a legitimate family lineage to the well-known figure. For LDS folks, this is a legitimate scenario for them to do the work and the reason a few Holocaust victims have had proxy baptisms performed for them.

While I’ve always had issues in regards to how well the honor system works in the process of submitting names, understanding that the system actually does reject names makes it easier to swallow that the LDS church is trying to do its best in not offending folks like the Jewish leaders that they have an agreement not to baptize the holocaust victims.

While I disagree with their practice, I know that it’s their thought that what they are offering is a free gift to the individual that can be accepted or rejected. That said, I have no problems in not cooperating with my LDS relatives in giving them names so that they can do the work of my Catholic relatives since that goes against the directions given by my bishop.

 

[Marie5890]

That said, I have no problems in not cooperating with my LDS relatives in giving them names so that they can do the work of my Catholic relatives since that goes against the directions given by my bishop.

blueadept, the bold caught my eye.

To you, or anyone else here for that matter, is this common? For one’s bishop to come out and clearly state not to do this?
Do many/most bishops do this?

Very curious to be honest.

 

[blueadept]

@BlueAdept

Does that mean that they rejected every entry for Pope John Paul II or any other Catholic Saint? You do they just pick an choose, base on negative publicity?

The LDS have been directed to only do the work within their own ancestoral line or have been given permission by a direct relative to do theirs.

As non-LDS folks, I’m sure we question their honor system that they’ve been directed to follow with the promise that ill-willed LDS folks will be punished for not following the guidelines. I’m quite positive that the individuals who have submitted the names of JPII or other Catholic Saint had ill-willed intentions in doing so.

At this point I prefer to give the LDS folks I deal with the benefit of doubt they are following the guidelines and they know that I will still not be cooperating in giving them names for them to dunk.

 

[blueadept]

blueadept, the bold caught my eye.

To you, or anyone else here for that matter, is this common? For one’s bishop to come out and clearly state not to do this?
Do many/most bishops do this?

Very curious to be honest.

I know this is the policy of the Bishop in SLC as well as a few in California. I suspect that many US Bishops may have the policy. That said, I know that about every other bishop of the world does not. I was surprised to hear that a Catholic bishop in Italy was having LDS wards assist them in indexing geneological information.

 

[Marie5890]

I know this is the policy of the Bishop in SLC as well as a few in California. I suspect that many US Bishops may have the policy. That said, I know that about every other bishop of the world does not. I was surprised to hear that a Catholic bishop in Italy was having LDS wards assist them in indexing geneological information.

Mmmm…very intesting. Thanks…

I know that the LDS community was beyond thrilled when the Rome temple was announced a bit ago…

 

[zaffiroborant]

I know this is the policy of the Bishop in SLC as well as a few in California. I suspect that many US Bishops may have the policy. That said, I know that about every other bishop of the world does not. I was surprised to hear that a Catholic bishop in Italy was having LDS wards assist them in indexing geneological information.

I don’t think they are supposed to, at least this article implies they’re not Vatican letter directs bishops to keep parish records from Mormons, though it is 3 years old.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…and there is another Mormon post from an LDS page that was remarking on the recent treasure trove of 1,000 year old records of priests and nuns they were going to use…Mormons were pretty tiffed they couldn’t baptize our dead any more. They also remarked on the Deseret News comments in May of 2008 that the Catholic Church must be really scared of something to refuse any more access…

They don’t get it.

Anyway, Mormon access of Church records shouldn’t be happening any where now.