The Eternal [Mormon] Temple in the Eternal City [of Rome]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twopekinguys said:
Agreed, the baptisms of the dead are just a bunch of people getting wet for no reason, but…

It is the skewing of history that most people object to.

When people look up Aunt Betty from 3 generations ago, it is going to appear that she was Mormon, when in all actuality, she was not.

Culturally, that can cause some issues for people. Especially in the Jewish community.
Click to expand...
Since the Mormon records would reflect that she was baptized for the dead after she died I don’t think you have to worry about people who love Aunt Betty believing she was a Mormon during her lifetime. People aren’t that stupid. There simply isn’t a good argument for us non-Mormons worrying about their temple practices with regards to the dead. I’m more worried about what their temple practices are doing to the poor schmos who participate in them during this life.
 
BartBurk said:
Since the Mormon records would reflect that she was baptized for the dead after she died I don’t think you have to worry about people who love Aunt Betty believing she was a Mormon during her lifetime. People aren’t that stupid. There simply isn’t a good argument for us non-Mormons worrying about their temple practices with regards to the dead. I’m more worried about what their temple practices are doing to the poor schmos who participate in them during this life.
Click to expand...
I don’t think people looking should have to figure out if they were baptized while living, I think all proxy baptisms should clearly state they were without consent. I also think it should list who requested the ordinances and who preformed them but I doubt anyone would agree with me on that.
 
zaffiroborant said:
I don’t think people looking should have to figure out if they were baptized while living, I think all proxy baptisms should clearly state they were without consent. I also think it should list who requested the ordinances and who preformed them but I doubt anyone would agree with me on that.
Click to expand...
Well if they have taken the effort to look where the LDS record these baptisms, they alreayd know the answer

In what possible scenario can this be confusing to someone?
 
BartBurk said:
It seems to me some Catholics are acting as if they are afraid the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead may really be true. That would be the only reason to be afraid of it or try to impede it. If it’s false it’s fine to tell people why, but don’t get offended by it.
Click to expand...
When a spouse goes behind their mate and does the thing (organize the dishwasher, vacuum the floor) again and the mate sees no effect by what the spouse did; some mates get upset and others just shrug it off. I see Mormon baptizing the dead in the same way. I shrug it off, but I can understand why others would be upset.
 
zaffiroborant said:
I don’t think people looking should have to figure out if they were baptized while living, I think all proxy baptisms should clearly state they were without consent. I also think it should list who requested the ordinances and who preformed them but I doubt anyone would agree with me on that.
Click to expand...
This is beyond absurd. I have actually done temple ordinance work on behalf of the dead and I’ve also spent hours upon hours doing family history at LDS Stake Centers. My pedigree has been traced back (at least on one side) to the 16th century and being 6th generation LDS you can bet that lots of my ancestors have been posthumously baptized.

On the family trees there is a column for “baptism” and there is another column for “temple work” (paraphrasing here, I don’t have my pedigree handy right now). In the baptism column the Church lists the person’s first, living baptism (it’s often through Protestant and Catholic sacramental records that the LDS determine their pedigree to begin with) and any posthumous baptism is listed under the temple work column (along with any sealings, endowments, etc.). It lists the date the ordinance was given and the temple it occurred in. There is no mistaking that these individuals were ever Mormon in life since normal “by consent” baptisms are not performed in temples and the date listed being after death should be a dead giveaway.

Insisting that any temple ordinance done without consent is not only petty but redundant as the very premise behind every posthumous ordinance is that the object thereof had no opportunity in life.

This reminds me of the oft recounted anger of atheists who were baptized Catholic as children “without consent”.
 
Ahimsa said:
The Mormons don’t have a Temple in Jerusalem yet, but they’re working on it.
Click to expand...
weird

shows how we mortals can even get emotional over things that aren’t - shall we say, worthy of getting emotional over. the Mormon religion is a man made one and now they are building a “church” near the first, the one and only Church founded by Jesus (God)

I’m not surprised.

satan hates the Roman Catholic Church

He knows it is the ORiginal and the only one that has power over him

other Christian churches have goodness in them but Jesus said that HIS Church would prevail over Satan

he never promised that would be the case with man made “churches”
 
zaffiroborant said:
*"“by consent” baptisms are not performed in temples" * this is on the records a person would see??
Click to expand...
Right. By consent baptisms are performed in regular old churches, not temples. Only work for the dead is done in Mormon temples.
 
BartBurk said:
Right. By consent baptisms are performed in regular old churches, not temples. Only work for the dead is done in Mormon temples.
Click to expand...
And this explained in the records for people who don’t know?
 
I am also at a loss why people don’t think anything of it that Mormons got hold of Catholic and Protestant sacramental records…who allowed that? Does the Mormon Church allow non-Mormons access and use of its personal records???

Again what I am reacting to are their practices including those compelled to do them, and considering Mormonism’s labeling our church corrupt, and then accessing our records without consent of the Church or knowledge by our Church what will be done to them is simply bad practice.

I was a director of religious ed and prepared sacramental records. And to see these records of sacramental initiation into the Roman Church then being used as means to re-initiate without our knowledge or consent is very, very wrong.

The Catholic Church is now very careful in making sure our sacred records are not being taken without permission…is this a form of personal information theft?

Enough here for me. I do hope there is a better remedy to this practice by the Mormon Church.

They can baptize the dead all they want. But it should take a second look at itself as well considering all the things it has said and done, as well as its past initiation rituals vilifying our Roman Church, as it it expands into the heart of our Church in Rome.

God bless everyone.
 
zaffiroborant said:
And this explained in the records for people who don’t know?
Click to expand...
It’s so obvious that people would know when looking at the records. A person can’t be baptized for the dead until a year after they have died and the temple the work is done in is listed. The death date is listed and the baptismal date is obviously going to be after the death date. I need to correct something I mentioned earlier – baptisms for the living are done outside of temples as are other ordinances. There are ordinances done for the living in temples like marriage, but baptisms for the living are not done in temples.
 
KathleenGee said:
I am also at a loss why people don’t think anything of it that Mormons got hold of Catholic and Protestant sacramental records…who allowed that? Does the Mormon Church allow non-Mormons access and use of its personal records???

Again what I am reacting to are their practices including those compelled to do them, and considering Mormonism’s labeling our church corrupt, and then accessing our records without consent of the Church or knowledge by our Church what will be done to them is simply bad practice.

I was a director of religious ed and prepared sacramental records. And to see these records of sacramental initiation into the Roman Church then being used as means to re-initiate without our knowledge or consent is very, very wrong.

The Catholic Church is now very careful in making sure our sacred records are not being taken without permission…is this a form of personal information theft?

Enough here for me. I do hope there is a better remedy to this practice by the Mormon Church.

They can baptize the dead all they want. But it should take a second look at itself as well considering all the things it has said and done, as well as its past initiation rituals vilifying our Roman Church, as it it expands into the heart of our Church in Rome.

God bless everyone.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you have to worry about the Mormon Church becoming a major force in Rome.
 
zaffiroborant said:
And this explained in the records for people who don’t know?
Click to expand...
No it isn’t, so I’ll concede that point, but the point about discrepancy between date of death and ordinance date still stands. It’s obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that one didn’t give consent to a posthumous ordinance just as it’s obvious that an 8 day old baby didn’t give consent to a Catholic baptism.
 
KathleenGee said:
I am also at a loss why people don’t think anything of it that Mormons got hold of Catholic and Protestant sacramental records…who allowed that?
Click to expand...
It’s not as if the LDS Church orchestrated some nefarious plot to illegally or immorally obtain church records. They usually ask and the wish is granted. As I understand it the Vatican has very recently ordered Catholic dioceses to cease assisting the LDS Church in obtaining records, but the degree to which individual dioceses are obeying this directive is still to be seen.

You must keep in mind that census taking and other systematic record keeping of the common man by secular states is a relatively new phenomenon. Once you get past the 18th century or so in family history your only recourse is to church records, and so the Protestant and Catholic churches (of Europe particularly) offer a valuable service to all who wish to work on their family trees.

Given that so many people (including many non-LDS) go to the LDS family history centers to work on their family trees I think it’s a shame the Church is closing off access. It would be nice if some non-profit organization took up the task of the LDS in systematizing the records from around the world so that folks who are offended by LDS practices could work on their pedigrees without pain of conscience.
Does the Mormon Church allow non-Mormons access and use of its personal records???
Click to expand...
Yes. If you’re working on your family tree and it just so happens that you have some ancestral Mormons, they will show up in your search.
Again what I am reacting to are their practices including those compelled to do them, and considering Mormonism’s labeling our church corrupt, and then accessing our records without consent of the Church or knowledge by our Church what will be done to them is simply bad practice.
Click to expand...
As already mentioned, the LDS Church is not obtaining these records immorally. Either they are being given to them freely by the respective Catholic dioceses (or parishes), or individual Mormons who have requested the information about their ancestors are then turning around and submitting the names to the Church, which I would think is their prerogative.
Enough here for me. I do hope there is a better remedy to this practice by the Mormon Church.
Click to expand...
You’ve made it quite apparent that your idea of a “remedy” is for the LDS to completely cease and desist a fundamental religious ritual of theirs, and this just isn’t going to happen, anymore than the Catholic Church will stop baptizing infants despite the outcry of certain whiny busybodies.
They can baptize the dead all they want. But it should take a second look at itself as well considering all the things it has said and done, as well as its past initiation rituals vilifying our Roman Church, as it it expands into the heart of our Church in Rome.
Click to expand...
Why does the former depend on the latter? I would think that the LDS would especially want to offer baptisms for the dead for those in a church they consider apostate. You’re conflating two separate issues here which aren’t at all related.
 
It will be interesting to see how the Italians react when they find out Mama can’t come to her daughter’s temple wedding. You can call it sealing. They will call it wedding.
 
If the Church did not think it immoral what the Mormons are doing to our sacramental records…they did get hold of some parishes…there would not be an issue.

Thanks for the clarification about the Vatican. I had read it was being done nationally. They did get into parish records in some places.

Just as Mormons will continue to baptize the dead for new members, they will not be using our records for that purpose, especially given their own stand that Christianity is basically corrupt, apostate, and that great abomination, the Roman Church.

Labelling a 2,000 year history of peoples with that type of language does not prove anything or exult anyone.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
No it isn’t, so I’ll concede that point, but the point about discrepancy between date of death and ordinance date still stands. It’s obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that one didn’t give consent to a posthumous ordinance just as it’s obvious that an 8 day old baby didn’t give consent to a Catholic baptism.
Click to expand...
LDS are the only ones who baptize dead people, EVERYONE else baptizes living people. As a result it wouldn’t even occur to most people to check the date of baptism against date of death. For most people this would be like asking - did he graduate from high school before or after he graduated from college.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top