Can anyone explain to me why the LDS/Mormons continue to baptize the dead??? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-12-2004, 09:49 PM
 
WriterMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,277
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
[i]

I promise you that the average Mormon isn't wilfully disobeying the church's guidance in this matter. I'd never heard of this statement regarding Holocaust victims until I saw this thread. Most of us haven't even done our own family trees, let alone moved on to other people. I don't want people to think that all Mormons are out to sneakily baptize our non-believing neighbours while they have no say in the matter. I didn't even know this was an issue before I saw this thread.

[/B]
I agree with you, Kerri. I tend to think it's a matter of miscommunication. Perhaps the person(s) that submitted the name to the database is new to family history work and not properly informed of the directive. I'll have to ask the family history resource person in my ward (congregation) how this is handled and see if there is some sort of filter/doublecheck system (like Kama mentioned) to make sure that only appropriate names end up in the records. I'll post what I find out.
WriterMama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-12-2004, 10:05 PM
 
nakagain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: at home!
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have to just make a quick reply....and I'll find the quote later. The article pointed out that the church has not submitted anymore names since 1995. Some names have been missed and thats why people were still upset. If someone had read the whole article rather than a portion, this thread would not have gotton this way...gotta go kids in the bath
nakagain is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 10:06 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Kerri-Jean
If our faith is not true (and you obviously don't think it is or you would be a member of it), then the authority by which the ordinances are done is false and powerless over you.


( I was baptized, so officially I am still LDS, and I understand the culture.)

But again, that's not the point. Stepping over someone else's boundaries is still invasive, even if that someone doesn't believe in the spiritual power of the ordinance. It's still rude and disrespectful to the memory of that person.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 10:17 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Kerri-Jean
...I promise you that the average Mormon isn't wilfully disobeying the church's guidance in this matter. I'd never heard of this statement regarding Holocaust victims until I saw this thread...
It provides no comfort to know that your church failed to educate you about a serious promise it made seven years ago.


Quote:
Originally posted by Kerri-Jean
...We don't know how many of them would be open to other messages. So to speak for all Jews isn't fair either...
Are you putting forth the idea that the Mormons are better able to speak for the Jewish dead than Jewish leaders?


Quote:
Originally posted by ldsmama
... Jesus said baptism was essential for salvation. How is that fair to all of God's children who never even heard of Christian baptism?...
It's my understanding that Mormon doctrine stipulates that members must do "works" to obtain highest level of salvation in the afterlife, included baptism by proxy. If that's correct, then it's not being performed solely for the benefits of "all of God's children who neve even heard of Christian baptism", it's also being for the benefit of the living, who want to get closer to the highest level of salvation. That kind of conflict-of-interest only adds to my discomfort with this issue.
pugmadmama is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 10:21 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by nakagain
I have to just make a quick reply....and I'll find the quote later. The article pointed out that the church has not submitted anymore names since 1995. Some names have been missed and thats why people were still upset...
From the OP article, "In 1995, the Mormon church acceded to demands by Jewish leaders that the denomination stop posthumously baptizing Jews. But Helen Radkey, a Salt Lake City researcher, said on Friday that the process still hasn't ended.

She said she has found posthumous baptism records for 268 Dutch Jews killed in Polish concentration camps, which she described as a "small sampling." All the death camp victims, incorrectly listed in the Mormon database as dying in "Auschwitz, Germany," were posthumously baptized well after the 1995 agreement....
"


268 people is not "some names". The fact that more than one Mormon in this thread alone claims to have never heard of this issues is, to me, a good indication of how seriously the Mormon church is taking this issue. Which is, to say, not very seriously.
pugmadmama is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 11:03 PM
 
WriterMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,277
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To those who feel that the Church leadership does not take this serioulsy, it may not be any consolation, but the church is made up of human beings who make mistakes. We are also governed by a lay clergy--that is to say, that the local pastors and all the people who work in their respective congregations do so voluntarily while holding regular jobs and raising families (I'm currently a Sunday School teacher, but before that I was a youth leader for teenage girls and before that I taught a class in the woman's organization). Though the global church leadership does everything they can to make sure that local congregations run smoothly and are aware of newer directives not found in the Scriptures or church literature, the occasional slip-up will occur. Radkey claims that what she found is only a small sampling, but do you wonder what her motives might be for monitoring the family history database? She was LDS, but was excommunicated in 1978. Sounds like a disgruntled former member if you ask me. Furthermore, how can she assume that all of the Jewish names are not part of the family lines of those who converted to the LDS faith?

Whether or not you agree, I know that the the church as a whole is not trying to be dishonest or disregard an agreement it made previously. We have a very good working relationship with all kinds of groups, churches and humanitarian organizations worldwide and would not want to jeopardize that.

And to elaborate on how family history research works--church members and genealogists search out all kinds of records to add to the collection. The records are public and can be accessed at a Family History Library or Center or online http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Sear...set_search.asp
They are meant to be a resource to individuals researching their own family lines. But the database is available for use by anyone who wants to learn more about their family history.
WriterMama is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 11:38 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ad hominem attacks about Radkey are not germaine to the issue. Why is there an automatic assumption that everyone who has chosen to leave the LDS church is disgruntled? People leave churches all the time for a variety of reasons.

The LDS church, a wealthy and powerful organization, is able to coordinate some fairly complicated things. If the church made this issue a focus, the practice would have ceased a long, long time ago.

ITA with Pugmadma. It is all about refusing to respect people's free agency and their boundaries.
EFmom is offline  
Old 04-12-2004, 11:56 PM
 
DesireeH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
And to elaborate on how family history research works--church members and genealogists search out all kinds of records to add to the collection. The records are public and can be accessed at a Family History Library or Center or online http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Sea...eset_search.asp
They are meant to be a resource to individuals researching their own family lines. But the database is available for use by anyone who wants to learn more about their family history.
Curious, so I have a question.......my greatgrandparents and up are listed, does that mean they were baptized by proxy? Or is that list just a general ancestry list?

Desiree

DesireeH is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:04 AM
 
WriterMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,277
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by EFmom
Ad hominem attacks about Radkey are not germaine to the issue. Why is there an automatic assumption that everyone who has chosen to leave the LDS church is disgruntled? People leave churches all the time for a variety of reasons.
Actually, one of the reasons I believe she is disgruntled is because of a statement she made previously (I'll have to see if I can find the article) in which she said she doubted the church would be able to purge the names from the proxy baptism records because they couldn't tell a Jewish name from the end of hoe or something to that effect.

But ultimately, we'll all just have to agree to disagree.
WriterMama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:16 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
What does her motive matter if her facts are right? The Mormon church was contacted before that Yahoo story was written, it contains a comment from a church leader. If he believed the accusation to be false he certainly could have said so. But I guess if you don't like the message, kill the messenger.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:42 AM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
... But I guess if you don't like the message, kill the messenger.
Exactly what I was thinking.
pugmadmama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:44 AM
 
WriterMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,277
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
What does her motive matter if her facts are right? The Mormon church was contacted before that Yahoo story was written, it contains a comment from a church leader. If he believed the accusation to be false he certainly could have said so. But I guess if you don't like the message, kill the messenger.
But *are* her facts right? Were all of those names collected from non-descendents? Were they the result of dishonesty or misunderstanding? Are we talking about isolated incidents or is this widespread? From the article, it seemed only that talks would be taking place and that church officials were intending to participate.

From the Yahoo article: <Church spokesman Dale Bills said in a statement Friday evening that church officials "do not know what may come of these discussions, but we welcome the involvement of any who seek to resolve amicably the concerns expressed by some of our Jewish friends." >

But again, I think we'll all have to agree to disagree. Some people will say proxy baptism is disrespectful no matter what. Some will always question the motives of the Church and debate about what they know or don't know. I'm not worried, though. I do feel that proxy baptism is gesture of love, but I respect that others may not agree.

Desiree, it's a general genealogical index, so no, they would not have necessarily been baptized by proxy. I believe you can get that information at the family history libraries and centers. Those are also open to the public. Did you click on who submitted their names? Perhaps you have LDS relatives lurking around
WriterMama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:46 AM
 
CraftyMommaOf2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In Transition
Posts: 714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It seems to me that it's all about higher numbers. "Our's has more ppl than your's "
CraftyMommaOf2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:46 AM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Considering what I've done in this lifetime, I'll take all the posthumous baptisms I can get
candiland is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 01:51 AM
 
KermitMissesJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: With the lovers and the dreamers
Posts: 2,691
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
It seems to me that it's all about higher numbers. "Our's has more ppl than your's "
That assumes that we count these baptized dead in our current membership rolls. We don't. We have twelve million living members, so that is what's reported.

We are six: Me : Dh : Ds1('00) Dd('02) Ds2('05) Ds3('08) and, wow! Soon to be seven, Dd2 due 4/23.
KermitMissesJim is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 02:25 AM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by CraftyMommaOf2
It seems to me that it's all about higher numbers. "Our's has more ppl than your's "
I don't think it's about that. But I do wonder how many Mormons would be working so diligently if it weren't benefitting them directly in their quest to get to the highest level of salvation. I think it's very telling that there is a "reward" attached to this practice that is supposedly motivated only by love.
pugmadmama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 02:38 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Here's a thought. People are accusing the church of baptising people without the permission of their closest living relatives because they are doing just that.
Quote:
Even (Hillary) Clinton's late father, Hugh Rodham, was posthumously baptized Sept. 5, 2002, something she found out only after her meeting with Hatch, Clinton spokesman Joe Householder said yesterday.
Now there's a kick in the pants! I'd be peeved.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 03:43 AM
 
ldsapmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know I said I would stay out but I have to add a few things. First off, I think the tone of this thread has really turned ugly. One aspect of MDC I have always appreciated is the accepting nature here. I enjoy learning about the beliefs of others. I don't always agree or understand, but I appreciate the willingness of others to share their deeply personal beliefs -- beliefs which are held dear and help define who we all are as people.

I feel there is much contempt for my precious religion here. I feel this thread is in violation of the Spirituality Forum Guidelines.
Quote:
The Spirituality board is a forum of support, respectful requests of information, and sharing of faith and practice. To uphold this purpose the board will not host discussions of debate or criticism. Disagreements about spiritual issues should be set aside out of respect for the diversity and varying interpretations and beliefs that we hold as a community.

While we will not restrict discussions to persons of the faith being discussed we will be active in discouraging an individual from posting for the purpose of disagreement, with no interest in practicing the faith or belief in discussion, or to prove a faith or a belief to be wrong, misguided, or not based on fact. Prosletyzing, to convert to a faith or from one, will not be permitted. Controversial subjects of discussion related to spiritual and religious beliefs and origins can be found elsewhere on the internet and we invite you to seek out other sites for that purpose.

It is our wish that Spirituality be a supportive and welcoming atmosphere for everyone. Please help us achieve this by doing your part and adhering to our guidelines. And as always, please make sure your posting is in accordance with the MDC User Agreement.
I originally did not plan on pasting this in its entirety, I was just going to cut and paste various parts; It all felt so relavant.

Yes, we disagree. But more and more this seems to be turning into a "Let's disparage the Mormons" thread. Many LDS moms have already expressed to me that part of this welcoming community seems to be failing.
ldsapmom is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 04:04 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
In all fairness I don't think I have seen anyone here disparage your religion. Some of us have taken exception to a church hierarchy that is not taking appropriate steps to ensure that it's own policies are followed. Some of us have expressed discomfort about an aspect of your religion that stands a chance of affecting us. This thread started out in TAO and perhaps should have stayed there or been moved to Activism. Given the OP I don't think this thread ever belonged in this forum, but for some reason I was not consulted .
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 06:39 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
PurpleBasil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Since I started this thread (maybe it should have stayed in TAO or been moved to Religious Studies, don't know) I will say I have no problems with the LDS religion. I have loads of issues with any religion, group, etc. who baptises the dead against the wishes of their loved ones and presumably, the dead.

If the LDS administration was persauded to stop in 1995 they can stop for all eternity. That's all.

I also do not see any bashing of LDS faith here. Nope.
PurpleBasil is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:10 PM
 
nakagain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: at home!
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Under the 1995 agreement, the church directed its members not to include the names of unrelated persons, celebrities and unapproved groups, such as Jewish Holocaust victims, for its "baptisms for the dead," according to documents provided by the LDS Church.
The church also assumes that the closest living relative of the deceased being offered for proxy baptism has consented.
"It did not guarantee that no future vicarious baptisms for deceased Jews would occur," church papers say of the agreement.
Church leaders, who were preparing for the Saturday funeral of Marjorie Pay Hinckley, wife of LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, were not available for comment Friday.
In a Nov. 14, 2003, letter from church Elder D. Todd Christofferson to Michel, a copy of which was sent to Hatch, Christofferson said the church did not agree to find and remove the names of all deceased Jews in its database.
"That would be an impossible undertaking," Christofferson wrote. However, 400,000 names of Holocaust victims were removed and the church continues to delete names when asked.
When asked whether that was the case, church spokesman Dale Bills said before the microfilming of records begins, "we clearly inform custodians of genealogical records who we are and what use we will make of the filmed records. Such discussion is a standard element of all negotiations with record-holding organizations."

Mokotoff, who was directly involved in the 1995 agreement with the LDS Church, said he believes church officials agreed to stop the practice as a result of understanding that sensitivity. He said many people have subsequently "mischaracterized the agreement."
"Since 1995, everything they have promised to do they have done." Complaints to the contrary "aren't true," he said. Motokoff says he accesses LDS Church records online about 10 times a year and has personally made requests to have Jewish names removed from the records. He knows of others who have done the same.Every time he has checked to see if the names were removed, "I have found they were honoring their agreement" and the names are removed "quite quickly — within days." Motokoff says he occasionally gets claims from people who say such legendary Jewish figures as David Ben Gurion, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein are still listed, but "that was only true prior to 1995. There's a misconception that the church is obligated to scour the IGI looking for Jewish names — but the agreement states only that if they are made aware of it they will delete the names."
The church issued its press release early Friday, with a statement from Elder Christofferson saying that "Surely no one believes this practice forces a change in religious identity of any soul, living or dead. We certainly do not claim that."
That statement, and others regarding the doctrinal rationale for LDS proxy baptism, was deleted from a corrected copy of the release issued later in the day.


The truth is the church is doing everything to not upset others but still doing what they beleive. The church has the upmost respect for other churchs and people. To think the church would do something to purpously anger and upset others is misguided.
nakagain is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 12:57 PM
 
DreamerMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In the land of milk
Posts: 1,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"There's a misconception that the church is obligated to scour the IGI looking for Jewish names — but the agreement states only that if they are made aware of it they will delete the names."

I see what they are saying now. If you figure out one of your dead Jewish relatives are on the records, they will delete them. So, I can see how they think they are accomodating Jewish people.

The church issued its press release early Friday, with a statement from Elder Christofferson saying that "Surely no one believes this practice forces a change in religious identity of any soul, living or dead. We certainly do not claim that."

What if some people believe that? I certainly believe that baptizisms are very sacred, and have meaning in the afterlife.

I would be much more comfortable with this thread being moved. I feel like everyone is being very respectful, but it is in the wrong forum.


Jenny
DreamerMama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 01:04 PM
 
Nemmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Happy Valley, but heart in Alaska
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I also do not see any bashing of LDS faith here. Nope.
Quote:
But I do wonder how many Mormons would be working so diligently if it weren't benefitting them directly in their quest to get to the highest level of salvation. I think it's very telling that there is a "reward" attached to this practice that is supposedly motivated only by love.
That doesn't seem "bashing" to you? And for the record, we get no "extra points" or "reward" for doing this proxy work. It is a commandment for us to work on it, yes. But it isn't a matter of earning higher salvation by collecting more genealogical information than the next person.
Nemmer is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 01:18 PM
 
DreamerMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In the land of milk
Posts: 1,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Like I said, this needs a different forum.

It was in my experience that there was are are rewards for doing this.

I was asked to do baptizisms for the dead at the age of twelve, and it was impressed upon me how important it was for my salvation, to get into the highest form of heaven.

I agree that their is a promise of a reward, and a very large one at that. One waiting beyond in the afterlife, and one here on earth within the church. I don't believe that what I said or the other poster said was bashing or hurtful. I think it was an interesting observation about the ritual.
DreamerMama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 01:52 PM
 
Nemmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Happy Valley, but heart in Alaska
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Whether or not you do baptisms at age 12 has no bearing on your salvation and offers no "reward" for you personally, other than the warm feelings you may experience while doing this service. I'm sorry, Zaq001, that someone led you to believe otherwise. But the doctrine is NOT that by doing these baptisms for others, you yourself will be saved. Of course, we do go through our own baptisms and ordinances, for our own salvation. But the work we do for other individuals is merely an act of service.
Nemmer is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 03:01 PM
 
CraftyMommaOf2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In Transition
Posts: 714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
found it
CraftyMommaOf2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 03:04 PM
 
ldsapmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have been fully aware of this regarding the Church in 1995 being asked to stop submitting random, masses of Jewish names, lest anyone think all LDS members are in the dark about it.

I also know I personally have not been motivated to search out my own geneological past, and I should.

Growing up in the LDS Church, I have never learned geneology and how many names one submits has any bearing on what level of heaven one goes to. Here is the scenario painted a different way: After this life, what good would ANY level of happiness be if I am there all alone? In that respect, I want to ensure my forebears, if they so desire, that they have the a way to be together with the family that they loved here on earth. There are no points, per say -- we just want it to be family-reunion style.
ldsapmom is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 03:11 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Nemmer
That doesn't seem "bashing" to you? And for the record, we get no "extra points" or "reward" for doing this proxy work. It is a commandment for us to work on it, yes. But it isn't a matter of earning higher salvation by collecting more genealogical information than the next person.
Inquiring about the motivation behind a practice and what kind of influence that motivation might have is not "bashing".


Quote:
Originally posted by Zaq001
...I was asked to do baptizisms for the dead at the age of twelve, and it was impressed upon me how important it was for my salvation, to get into the highest form of heaven...
I don't believe that what I said or the other poster said was bashing or hurtful. I think it was an interesting observation about the ritual.
Thank you for sharing this. I asked a friend of mine who is a Mormon about this and she too was under the impression that it had been "important for her salvation" to participate in baptisms by proxy.
pugmadmama is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 03:16 PM
 
leavesarebrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,000
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do not feel bashed either.

The idea that temple proxy work (baptisms are not the only ordinances done) is for ones own salvation as well is not unfounded. No, it doesn't put you at a "higher" level of salvation, but supposedly effects the "quality" of that experience (as described by ldsapmom). I'll see if I can find a couple quotes from LDS leaders to clarify if anyone is interested.

I don't understand why all the broo ha ha (sp?) about which thread this is under.
leavesarebrown is offline  
Old 04-13-2004, 03:19 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by nakagain
The truth is the church is doing everything to not upset others but still doing what they beleive. The church has the upmost respect for other churchs and people. To think the church would do something to purpously anger and upset others is misguided.
"Even (Hillary) Clinton's late father, Hugh Rodham, was posthumously baptized Sept. 5, 2002, something she found out only after her meeting with Hatch, Clinton spokesman Joe Householder said yesterday."

Here we have a person whose immediate family was clearly not asked, and yet they were posthumously baptized. It sounds to me like in addition to Holocaust victims, random famous people are also being subjected to this. Where is the respect in that???

I don't think the church is "purposely" trying to anger people, but they are. The Mormom church thinks this is an act of love, others think it is an act of disrespect, yet they continue doing it. Railroading over other people's wishes, no matter how well intentioned, is not showing "utmost respect".
pugmadmama is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off