In a different forum, I saw the following question :
quote:Mormons have been baptizing (posthumously, of course) deceased Jews in order to save their souls. Jews, especially those whose deceased relatives are being so treated, object. Any thoughts?
The poster didn't give a link, so I thought I'd come here for answers. Is this indeed a Mormon practice, or has the poster misunderstood something? And if it is, why Jews only? Surely other faiths could benefit just as much from posthumous baptism. Or is this a misunderstanding again?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm..I wonder if that old thread is still around...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To sum up:
1. For everyone. The goal is to have all of humanity linked (sealed) together. For that to happen (as much as possible), those who were baptized with priesthood in this life must have the work done for them after they have died.
2. Yes, this was addressed before, but the problem is that the members submit names themselves, there is not a central location that does it. So while, the church tries to honor their promise to not do any Holocaust victims and will not allow them to be done, sometimes names slip under the radar.
[ April 12, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
This was on NPR this morning, so I figured it would show up here again. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
That quote implies we deliberately go after Jews, which we don't.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There have been TWO threads, kat. The first one, started by Bob, is directly responsible for me joining Hatrack. It is long gone.
The more recent one . . .
*rustling is heard deep with the bowels of Hatrack*
. . . is right here. (Weird. Is there something about mid-April that causes this subject to get brought up?)
KoM, no more questions from you on the subject until you have read that thread. All 24 pages.
[Addit: well, FINE. Beat me to the punch whydoncha. ]
[ April 12, 2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Forgive me if this is an insensitive or stupid question, but why is any worse to baptise Holocaust victims that other Jewish people who died naturally?
Also, do Mormons do this to atheists too?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Specifically, Mormons do this to their ancestors. I don't think they are supposed to do it for anyone else.
Or, go read the thread. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh! So these are ancestors of Mormons who happen to be Jews?
I am reading the thread but I don't think this question came up.
I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't going to randomly baptised without my knowledge. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That is supposed to be the case, yes, Teshi. In actual practice, this is not always the case.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You could be, Teshi, but only if you die first.
(And one of your future descendents submits you.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Mormons do a lot of great genealogy work, and it is driven by the belief that: 1: You need to be baptized to enter heaven. 2: Those who have died and were never baptized deserve the same privilege to have their ordinances done.
Ideally families research their own genealogy, add it to a database, and do temple ordinances--including baptism. Since they are dead, it is called Baptism for the Dead.
It is all proxy work. Much like Christ suffered for us, a Mormon can get baptized for someone who passed away.
Not all proxy work is Baptism, but that is the one that seems to get the most media attention.
Many Mormons, who feel they have exhausted their family tree, will assist others. I am sure there is a lot of general proxy work that is done not directly tied to a temple patron.
With the holocaust victims, either someone had ancestors who died in the Holocaust, and in doing their own genealogy, they probably thought to extend the "blessings" to others. Or maybe the church specifically went after the Holocaust victims because the records were readily available.
I am not sure what happened, but the result was a lot of the holocaust victims had proxy work done for them. When the Jewish leadership caught wind of this, they went after the Mormon Leadership to get it to stop. The church tried, but apparently some people still submitted Jewish names.
I heard they reached an agreement recently that everyone is happy with. I think the gist of it is that if you are a direct ancestor, you can do proxy work for Jews (specifically the holocaust victims). If not, then the church will try and stop the work.
Personally I don't think proxy work is necessary--I just don't get it. I also wouldn't get offended if any religion did anything with my name after my death. Those who love me will know who I am. But I digress.
[ April 12, 2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Since you responded Iem, I'm leaning towards thinking that you're Mormon. Is this correct? If so, is a divergence of opinion about the issue acceptable to the Church? I would have assumed, although I don't know for certain, that their prophet recieved a revelation about the issue. If he didn't, then where did the idea come from?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
For my part, I should be most annoyed if someone used my name, which is all I expect to pass on, as a prop in their religious fantasies. But I expect this doesn't surprise anyone here.
Sorry, I didn't read all 24 pages. Too much like work. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
For the future record I would also not appreciate being baptised post humously.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: If so, is a divergence of opinion about the issue acceptable to the Church?
No it is not acceptable, however, nothing bad would happen except being denied the "exhalted" blessings of the temple. I am free to go to church, appreciate the environment, and support my wife.
I choose not to make an issue of it. Nothing good comes of trying to hurt someone's faith.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I choose not to make an issue of it. Nothing good comes of trying to hurt someone's faith.
While I'm not trying to make an issue of this, I am deeply curious about your situation. If you've outlined this elsewhere, please direct me to it. I'm curious how you came to feel this way. Were you raised Mormon and then differed with the Church later? Or did you marry a Mormon? Do you consider yourself Mormon? Is this the only area in which you differ? If you disbelieve many things, do you ever feel hypocritical going to church?
I honestly mean no offense by any of these questions. If you find them offensive, please tell me and I will delete it. Or just feel free to ignore it. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Me: I choose not to make an issue of it. Nothing good comes of trying to hurt someone's faith.
YOu: While I'm not trying to make an issue of this, I am deeply curious about your situation.
My statement was only directed at myself. You have not been offensive or innapropriate in any way.
I will answer this question in a "comming out" thread I was waiting to write until my landmark. Maybe I can work on it now. It doesn't need to be a land mark. When I write it, I will post a link from this reply.
[ April 13, 2005, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: My statement was only directed at myself. You have not been offensive or innapropriate in any way.
I'm glad to hear that.
quote: I will answer this question in a "comming out" thread I was waiting to write until my landmark. Maybe I can work on it now. It doesn't need to be a land mark. When I write it, I will post a link from this reply.
I look forward to reading it!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I went back and re-read the 24 page thread, and I just want to say my favorite part of it was when Bob talked about why he thought it was silly to believe that women couldn't serve as priests or pastors. Especially the remark about the churches that let them teach children but not adults - does that mean children aren't important?
I'm definitely going to use that next time I have a discussion about that subject. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I'd like to clarify that NO DEAD BODIES ARE BAPTIZED - it's completely 'stand-in' proxy work.
And what this has to do with Aaron's dead penis is beyond me.
By the way, here's the new official Church Press Release concerning this topic: linky.
[ April 13, 2005, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Bob talked about why he thought it was silly to believe that women couldn't serve as priests or pastors. Especially the remark about the churches that let them teach children but not adults - does that mean children aren't important?
Just like to clarify that while women do not hold Priesthood responsibilities, that is something completely different than teachers or 'pastors'. In the LDS church, all worthy men are able to receive the priesthood, which holds sacred responsibilies, and not any more control or power than women.
Women just as well as men are called as Adult Sunday School teachers. Women, along with male Church leaders, address the worldwide membership in General Conference.
While the responsibilty of Bishop (or 'pastor')is a specific Priesthood office, they do not generally exclusively preach in Sunday sacrament meetings - they assign members of the congregation to give talks - usually no less than three a week - women very much included.
So while women do not hold the Priesthood, they don't have any less standing in the Church, and in fact teach and run auxiliary organizations of the church just as well and frequently as the men.
LDS understanding of Priesthood is very different than most faiths, so I just wanted to clear that up.
[ April 13, 2005, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm still wondering why this issue comes up each spring. (March of 2003, April 2004, now April 2005)
Odd.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So while women do not hold the Priesthood, they don't have any less standing in the Church,
But there are certain things they aren't allowed to do, right? So in that regard they DO have less standing in the church.
I'm not trying to attack LDS beliefs here, I address my concerns about why women can't hold sacred positions or positions of authority to all denominations and religions that feel that way, including my own. I'm somewhat of an anomaly - in many ways I've ultra conservative - except this one. I ran up against the leadership of my congregation when my husband and I were both asked to put on a class for adults on Wednesday nights, regarding the history of the Reformation, and the theology of the time period. When it was discussed that my hubby couldn't always be there, because of his schedule, the idea was abandoned becuase I couldn't be leading a class that included adult men. My husband, bless him, pointed out that even when he was there he was mostly window dressing, that all the research and work that had been done was mine. But still, protocol had to be observed and they couldn't have me, a mere woman, teaching in a room where adult males might be present.
It's very frustrating.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:But still, protocol had to be observed and they couldn't have me, a mere woman, teaching in a room where adult males might be present.
Having been in three distinct adult LDS Sunday School classes taught by women specficially set apart for this calling, I'll let you know that, at least for us, it's not that way at all.
quote:But there are certain things they aren't allowed to do, right? So in that regard they DO have less standing in the church.
Let's put it this way - everything a Priesthood holder does is done to benefit others. No Priesthood holder can personally benefit himself with his priesthood.
Men have the Priesthood, women, among many other things give birth and have a special, irreplaceable relationship to their children. Both are responsibilities given to specific genders that they can't shirk off to the others.
quote:I'm not trying to attack LDS beliefs here, I address my concerns about why women can't hold sacred positions or positions of authority to all denominations and religions that feel that way, including my own
Can't speak for other denominations, but the key reasons why women don't hold the Priesthood in our church is...because that's the way God designed it. Women benefit from the Priesthood ordinances without having the responsibility.
But every single blessing and ordinance (apart from ordination to the Priesthood)in the Church that men can receive is also available to women.
[ April 13, 2005, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: But there are certain things they aren't allowed to do, right?
We kind of have a saying in the church..."The men hold the priesthood, the women control it."
Basically, almost every priesthood responsibility has the capability of making any person go nuts. Women have more capability at keeping this from happening to men than men have at preventing it for women (In my opinion). I do not know a single leader I've seen in church (Outside of a single's ward, which is just all kinds of disorganized) that doesn't draw considerable strength from their spouse. My father, in particular, would not be anything at all if it weren't for my mother.
Anyway, I don't know what I'm meaning to say here, so just mark this off as me rambling again if you don't understand it Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I'm still wondering why this issue comes up each spring. (March of 2003, April 2004, now April 2005)
There is always a major rush of Mormon-based "news" right around the times that we hold our general conference. At the begining of October, and the first week of April.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok . . . that would explain this year. And possibly even last year. It would not explain 2003, which was triggered by (IIRC) a visit of one of Bob's relatives to Italy. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Teshi, I'm curious why it would bother you to be posthumously baptized. I can understand King of Men's objection, since he's so virulently anti-religion, but as an atheist who *doesn't* foam at the mouth at the mere mention of gods, why would you care? I assume that you believe, as an atheist, that when your body dies you'll cease to exist, right? So you wouldn't think that the baptism would actually *do* anything, right? So why care?
I hope that didn't come across as rude, by the way, to either Teshi or the Mormons here; I just feel like I'm missing some part of this that is obvious to everyone else.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
It's also worth pointing out that just because you're baptized by proxy, you're not automatically a Mormon for eternity. A very big part of the beliefs surrounding baptism for the dead is that it's a choice - the deceased person can choose whether or not they accept the ordinances done on their behalf. We go ahead and do them, of course, but don't assume that the deceased has accepted it. That's up to them and God.
So really, if you don't believe that church ordinances mean anything and don't acknowledge the Priesthood authority we claim in performing them, I have always had a hard time understanding where the objection would be.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see why virulence should make a difference; logic is logic. I don't know about Teshi, but I can give my own reasoning. As you observe, I believe in death after life. Therefore, the only thing that will remain of me is the memory of how I thought and what I was. To involve that memory in a religious ceremony would be completely counter to anything I ever believed.
You might argue that I wouldn't be aware of it, and that would be true, but it makes the matter no better. A posthumous baptism would be spitting on all that remained of me, while I wasn't even in a condition to defend myself.
Just because I won't be aware of it, doesn't mean I don't care about what happens after my death. I care about the fate of my future children and grandchildren, for example.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Personally, I wouldn't care. I believe that once I'm dead, all of my decisions have been made for good or ill--by me.
I'm wondering, though. I've been baptized, but another Christian denomination. If one of my offspring or someone else converted to the LDS church, would they "need" to baptize me?
For me, the thought isn't offensive. I don't think it would have any effect on me whatsoever in the "hereafter," but it sure is a nice gesture. Someone cares enough for me to give me a second chance to "accept" at the resurrection--well gee, that's awfully nice of them. (I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I actually think it's a nice thought--if I believed it would make a difference, well, I'd do it while I was alive.)
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
King of Men,
If I understand what I've read here correctly, it would very likely be your descendants who would be doing the baptizing. You might want to leave a letter for your children to pass down: "Please don't baptize me. Yeah. Thanks."
-Katarain
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
two points, just to through a little well intentioned oil on the fires.
As far as women and the church, I've heard similar statements made be men in very chauvenistic religions (Middle Eastern Islam for example) that say "Oh we honor and respect women in all ways. It is because of this honor that we don't allow...."
LDS is a far cry from being anywhere near that man-centrist, but the comments above were a bit of a reflection.
Basically, it boils down to "Separate but Equal".
As far as the main topic of this thread, and why some people think baptism of some dead people, especially Holocaust victims, is wrong can be explained. There have been many martyrs to different religions. Those who died in the Holocaust, whether they were gypsies or jews or Catholics, are considered by those who survived as martyrs.
These are people who gave their lives, endured pain and suffering we can only imagine, for the faith that they held dear. To have someone else come along afterword and say, "well, we'll make them Mormon now because we think its better for them" makes those sacrifices they made empty and worthless.
The truth is that this is NOT what the LDS Church does. However, those who represent or identify with those martyrs do not research LDS teachings, they just see something that appears wrong and complain.
Similarly, it appears that some of those who do this, especially those who try to sneak in names of Holocaust victims, have not researched the ideals and beliefs of these people. They just see something that appears to be right, and try to do it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Ok . . . that would explain this year. And possibly even last year. It would not explain 2003, which was triggered by (IIRC) a visit of one of Bob's relatives to Italy.
Actually, if Bob's was to be posted at all, it would have to have been posted during one season or another. It's a 1 in 4 chance that it was spring. I don't think there's much to wonder about unless this topic re-surfaces spontaneously in March a couple more times.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's the other possible reason why some object: There is the possibility that Mormons are wrong about the effects of proxy baptism, but proxy baptism doesn't have no effect. It looks awkward, but the "doesn't have no effect" is precisely what I mean.
My understanding is that Jews believe that the prayers of the living can have an effect on the dead. I know Catholics believe this. While I personally don't believe proxy baptism would do any harm to my post-death self, my belief structure holds open that possibility. So if others object for that reason, I have to admit the possibility that the proxy can do harm.
Dagonee
[ April 22, 2005, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: There have been many martyrs to different religions. Those who died in the Holocaust, whether they were gypsies or jews or Catholics, are considered by those who survived as martyrs.
I don't doubt this is true, but why is this, exactly? Personally I think there is a bid difference in dying for a cause (martyrdom) and simply dying because someone hates your people. Do we consider the victims of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Iraq, or the Sudan martyrs? How are the Jews different beyond the fact that the ethnicity being cleansed was both religious and cultural? I think there's a strong case to be made that the extermination of the Jews was more cultural than religiously motivated, even if religion was used as an excuse. I don't recall any stories of Jews being given the opportunity to renounce their religion, thereby saving themselves. I thought they were rounded up regardless of whether they were practicing the religion or in some cases even if they had left it altogether, simply because they were of Jewish heritage? Is this martyrdom?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I teach adults - I'm one of the Gospel Doctrine teachers, the main sunday school class for adults. I've been a missionary and I've taught the teacher development class.
I'm fine with people having problems with the way things are, but it's important to get an accurate picture. Being upset over a situation that does not exist is self-defeating.
Added: <-- LDS
Added:
quote:We kind of have a saying in the church..."The men hold the priesthood, the women control it."
I don't believe this. I think these are Just-So stories, to try and justify a policy that doesn't need to be justified. The question is whether or not the direction came from the Lord. If it didn't, it can't be justified. If it did, it doesn't need to be.
I believe that it came from the Lord, as with the commandment to give everyone who has ever lived the opportunity to be baptized, whether in this life or the next.
You know that problem with Christianity, where if you do not believe in Christ you cannot be saved, and how it condemns all who never had a chance to make a choice? Baptism for the dead gives everyone that choice.
[ April 13, 2005, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good point, KarlEd. And statistically, you're right. However, from my perspective, the issue keeps coming up adjacent to Passover (just over two weeks before, halfway through, and just under two weeks before, respectively).
Dunno, maybe it connects to the Red Sea somehow . . .
quote: The truth is that this is NOT what the LDS Church does. However, those who represent or identify with those martyrs do not research LDS teachings, they just see something that appears wrong and complain.
I will NOT get sucked in to this again, I will NOT! get sucked into this again! . . . but I am going to give in and link to one of my posts from last year. *notes number of post in question and laughs hysterically*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rivka, thanks for re-linking that. That's what I was remembering when I posted above.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: We kind of have a saying in the church..."The men hold the priesthood, the women control it." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe this. I think these are Just-So stories, to try and justify a policy that doesn't need to be justified.
I am very glad to hear this, kat, 'cause honestly the statement you quoted, along with some other stuff in there, seemed incredibly insulting/condensending to both genders.
Obviously some people believe it... it just gives me hope that some people don't. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Am I really the only one who is amused that the post in question is #000666 of the old thread?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
rivka, thank you for linking to that. I was not aware of that belief, and having it explained does help to bring clarity. Thank you.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:The church tried, but apparently some people still submitted Jewish names.
Which those people are not supposed to do, since the Church says NOT to. Can't we excommunicate them, or at least smack them upside the head? Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
If we excommunicated people for not being very smart, then we'd be a really small church.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Teshi, I'm curious why it would bother you to be posthumously baptized.
Since I believe that once I'm dead the only thing that remains of me is the memory of me, I would want that memory to respect the me that was rather than the me someone else would have liked me to be.
I don't begrudge the act; it's clearly one of great goodwill. I just would prefer people planted a tree or a forest or something instead .
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Cosigns Teshi. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I haven't read the other thread entirely, so I don't know if this is addressed there or not, but one thing that should be known is that it's not just Holocaust victims that are not supposed to have temple work done. There are a number of countries where, if the individuals you're doing work on were born, married, or died there, that work must be submitted through a separate department in church headquarters where it may or may not be approved to be done. A number of middle-eastern countries are on that list. In order for the work to be approved, the person submitting must be a direct descendant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If we excommunicated people for not being very smart, then we'd be a really small church.
Say no more, comrade. Say no more.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
*says more*
Oh, and I'm not your comrade.
[ April 13, 2005, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Mormons, Jews Set Up Group to Study Concerns 11 April 2005
SALT LAKE CITY — Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have acted not only with goodwill, but also with integrity and honesty in decade-long discussions over Jewish concerns about proxy baptisms, it was stated today.
Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Church's high-ranking Presidency of the Seventy, was commenting after discussions with Jewish guests who had been invited to Salt Lake City to discuss the issue.
Disagreement had arisen over interpretation of a memorandum of understanding that was drafted in 1995 after some Jews objected to Holocaust victims' names being used in Latter-day Saint temple ceremonies. Church members believe these ceremonies extend significant blessings to departed souls.
In February, the Church invited several Jews concerned with the issue to Salt Lake City for discussions, and today's meeting was the result of that invitation. Representatives of the Family and Church History Department spent considerable time explaining the processes and mechanisms that have been put in place to ensure consistency, as far as possible, with Church policies and procedures.
Both sides later characterized the meeting as cordial and respectful, and said they believed the relationships between the participants had been "fortified and deepened." Elder Christofferson said while the Jewish visitors came with specific concerns, they spoke respectfully of the Church and its beliefs, while Church leaders emphasized that those feelings of respect were mutual.
The most concrete result of the meeting was a decision to set up a joint, ad hoc committee with representatives from both sides to examine and resolve remaining concerns. The committee will begin meeting within the next six weeks.
After the meeting, Elder Christofferson emphasized that the Church had always kept its side of the understanding.
"In 1995 we made an extraordinary gesture of goodwill to our Jewish friends by recognizing special sensitivities over Holocaust victims," he said.
At that time, some 380,000 names of Holocaust victims were removed by the Church from display in the public database known as the International Genealogical Index, or IGI, which is freely available to researchers on the Internet. Church members and other genealogical enthusiasts often use the IGI in gathering data on their ancestors.
In addition, he said the Church had over the years removed from display in the IGI the names of deceased Jews when they had been made known to Church officers. A letter from the governing First Presidency of the Church was read in Sunday meetings worldwide in June 1995, urging Church members to submit for temple ordinances the names of their own ancestors, and not the names of deceased celebrities or Jewish holocaust victims.
And then there's this from church news, which you can't access without a paid subscription:
quote: Elder Christofferson encouraged Church members to understand and follow guidelines in submitting names for temple work.
"It is essential that members respect the direction of the First Presidency in these matters," he emphasized. He said the Church is creating a very extensive worldwide support organization that will help ward family history consultants, staff members and patrons at family history centers to be better trained and help members know and follow these policies....
He said that because of the constant inflow of new volunteers and members, training will be ongoing always.
"The instances where we have members who are knowingly not following policy are few. We ask their local leaders to correct that. Our members are people of goodwill and we are not unhappy with them. " He cited the directions in the Church Handbook of Instructions on the subject:
"Members should identify their kindred dead...Names of non-related persons should not be submitted, including names of celebrities or famous people or those gathered from unapproved extraction projects such as Jewish Holocaust victims" (Church Handbook of Instructions, p. 262).
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
Yes, KoM, more has to be said.
First of all, if you believe in life after death, what do you think you'll be doing? Writing threads on spiritual Hatrack?
Hopefully, you, like the rest of us will continue our existence. Mormons beleive that they will be resurrected, body and spirit rejoined to their fullness as was the Savior.
Therefore, if there is eternal progression, then eternal ordinances must be available for you to progress in eternity.
When they are completed here, those who have gone on are not "forced" to accept them although it beats me why someone on the other side, knowing what they know, would deny them, but that is free agency.
Someone will make it possible for you to choose what you think is life after death and what you might actually find once you get there.
As for the Jews being baptized for the dead, good link there Taalcon. All attempts are being made to stop the process. However, it is not a decree that has gone out from Casear Agustus to all the congregations around the world. It was delivered at a different audience of geneology and family history workers. So, sorry, you can't excommunicate anyone for submitting a name.
Women. God bless them! But as for the class Belle mentioned, I can guess at what happened. It is of the utmost importance in the Mormon church to protect the integrity of women. If Belle's husband worked with the youth and a young lady needed a ride home, it would be inappropriate for him to be alone with her in the car. I think someone overreacted to having a woman in a room full of men. Nothing wrong with it at all, no reason why Belle couldn't have taught the lesson other than a priesthood leader trying to use good judgment but was a little off course.
Women having the priesthood--not on earth, but definitely in heaven. Talk to Heavenly Father if you don't like the idea because it's His law. However, in the eternities? These beloved women will be priestesses.
It's all about accountability and the patriarchial order. God's plan. Not mans.
Anyway, it's April, the surf is up, there's a bridge with a Pacific ocean view and hot soup. Life can't get any better.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Your guess on what happened in Belle's case is ridiculously wrong -- but you were hampered by not knowing one fact. Belle and her family aren't LDS.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Therefore, if there is eternal progression, then eternal ordinances must be available for you to progress in eternity.
Why?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
We don't know.
At the very least, I don't know.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
DKW---DUH! Maybe we should put religious prefernece in the profiles so I don't look so dumb!
Scott R: Why not Actually, what do you think you'll be doing for eternity in heaven? Just gonna hang out?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Scott and I are going to play an eternally long game of Monopoly that morphs into a RPG featuring monkeys, gargantuan dragon flies and 3,789 guys named Ed. The money will be made of fruit leather so we can eat it.
There may also be some random singing of Church hymns with lyrics that have been changed to reflect whatever mood we are in.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Can I hang with you guys in the next life?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
katarain, no one answered your earlier question:
quote: I'm wondering, though. I've been baptized, but another Christian denomination. If one of my offspring or someone else converted to the LDS church, would they "need" to baptize me?
Only if they're a direct descendant of yours, or another relative and have gotten permission from all other living relatives, or are the only close living relative left. The reason? We don't recognize baptism not conducted by a man holding the appropriate priesthood as understood by this church as valid.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Don't worry JB -- you're already signed up to be one of the Ed's'.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
::hits head::
Maybe I'm not getting this.
Mormons believe only mormons are going to the very top level of heaven right? Isn't that because they chose the right religion? Through their own free will, they were able to find the true religion.
Doesn't that totally get negated when someone can just be baptised by the Mormons, negating any choice they made in life?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It doesn't negate the choices made in life - they are still the same person.
Every ordinance has a physcial element and a personal/spiritual element. The physical dunking is one part, and that's the part done by proxy for the dead. The other part is a turning of the heart to the Savior, the being born-again spoken of, the conversion, the inward committment to follow Him. It is not complete without both components, so the physical baptism won't do any good at all if that second component, the change of heart, does not happen.
[ April 22, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I like the idea, if not the process. Its better than saying all Jews are flat out going to Hell.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Right, but it's still ignoring the fact that they didn't choose mormonism. If that choice is not an important aspect of mormonism than why is there a heaven solely for mormons?
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Because Jesus is a Mormon silly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
jeb, my understanding is that the person will get a chance to choose mormonism in the next life.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I agree. I guess I just see dead bodies as just that, dead bodies. If I read everything above correctly (I came in late) then they are just doing this for their ancestors? I don't believe in baptism, but if my children converted, and it helped with their grief to poor some water over my grave, then thats fine with me. Its not going to send me to Hell (especially since I don't believe in Hell).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:First of all, if you believe in life after death, what do you think you'll be doing?
I suggest you read my post again. I don't believe in life after death, I believe in death after life. See the difference? As for your ordinances, I can't stop but from believing fairy tales, but I can ask you kindly not to drag my memory into your fantasy.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ah, and that occurs when the person becomes baptised?
It still seems to contradict the whole belief of coming to this world in order to be closer to God and junk, though, doesn't it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As amused as I am by Kent's answer, the serious answer is that it isn't specifically "Mormon" as we know it, but by the priesthood from God. The OT prophets had it, Jesus gave it to his apostles, and many dispensations have had it. Part of the restoration of Christ's church in modern times was the restoring of the priesthood.
So, Mormons are a subset of the larger set of everyone who has been baptized with the priesthood.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note that the above must all be prefixed with "Mormons believe"; no non-LDS scholar considers there to be even semi-persuasive evidence the practice (that is, the priesthood kat references) existed prior to the LDS church.
[ April 22, 2005, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I keep thinking, if I had never come to Hatrack.com then I wouldn't know anything about LDS except for what I read in Lost Boys, and so it makes sense that maybe after death I'd have a chance to convert, assuming LDS beliefs are correct. But now that I HAVE been here, and read a lot about it, and asked a bunch of questions, and I really decided I like being Catholic better, I'm doomed, if the LDS is the real Church. Because I have been given enough information, and still turned it down. There won't BE anymore chances for me, most likely, right?
That makes me kind of sad. I'm serious, I'm not being sarcastic here.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
fugu -- makes me wonder what's in all those ancient manuscripts that can now be read, to be honest.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I keep thinking, if I had never come to Hatrack.com then I wouldn't know anything about LDS except for what I read in Lost Boys, and so it makes sense that maybe after death I'd have a chance to convert, assuming LDS beliefs are correct. But now that I HAVE been here, and read a lot about it, and asked a bunch of questions, and I really decided I like being Catholic better, I'm doomed, if the LDS is the real Church. Because I have been given enough information, and still turned it down. There won't BE anymore chances for me, most likely, right?
That makes me kind of sad. I'm serious, I'm not being sarcastic here.
I believe you. I actually don't have a good answer.
I remember when my grandmother died, my mom took us all to the temple to do the work for her about a year later. My brother was mentioning that he didn't think it would do any good - my mom had spent years telling her about the church and my grandmother was never interested. We just told him to not dare mention that to Mom.
Katie's personal opinion: We are accountable only for what we know and understand, and I'm sure the Lord will take care of things. I mean to say, it isn't ours to decide what enough is.
[ April 22, 2005, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Theca,
quote:Because I have been given enough information, and still turned it down. There won't BE anymore chances for me, most likely, right?
That depends on one unknowable (to human beings, anyway) factor: whether or not you have really turned it down, and really been given your 'moment of truth' choice, so to speak. Just because for instance missionaries visit your door and you listen to them and decide not to convert, does not mean you have been given the choice and you're damned or saved, depending. Heck, that'd be like extortion, wouldn't it?
Whether or not you have, as far as Mormonism is concerned, is between you, God, and the Spirit.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Personally, Theca, I don't think you've really had the opportunity to learn about the LDS church well enough for that kind of accountability. At least not here. This is just not the setting for it.
And I personally don't believe that going and getting baptized Catholic is a ticket to hell. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I personally don't believe that going and getting baptized Catholic is a ticket to hell.
That's funny - neither do I. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Especially since we don't really believe in hell. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Totally in the context of Theca's post---no sarcasm intented.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
Wow, so many questions, so many interpretations ans so little time.
KoM--sorry I misread your post. I'm saddened by such a position in life. What do you have to look forward to? Why bother doing anything if nothing matters once you are dead? It certainly negates my motivation to do good. It seems you would rather be a memory for a period of time than to be an eternal being. Probably a lot easier that way since there is no accountability for what you do with this life and no need to improve upon what you are it would seem.
All--the Priesthood existed from the begining. We read in the Bible that Jesus held the Melchezidek PH, also that the PH is eternal. Man had to get if from somewhere as man is incapable of creating this type of authority to act for God on the earth. Without God's blesings, it would be useless.
When you die, you are not accepted into the kindom of heaven as a Catholic, Jew, or Mormon, (although there are some good jokes about this) you are accepted as a child of God. Therefore, baptisms for the dead do not make you a "spiritual Mormon" it simply provides an avenue to return to the presence of God.
What you have done with your life, what you have learned about God's kingdom, what intelligence you gain and how you utilized the "gifts" God gave you are all part of your eternal progression.
Theca--there is always a chance to accept God's will in this life or the next, whatever that will is. You are a Catholic. You've had some exposure to the LDS faith here but a chat room does not compare to the proper teaching of religion by God's messengers. The spirit of light and truth cannot be conveyed electronically.
So do not fret about that. If you really want to know about the LDS church, ask missionaries to come over and teach you. Challenge them in every way possible and then make a decision.
Papa Moose--right you are, I wonder myself what will be revealed in those ancient documents.
But what do I know? I guess I'm a bridge Bishop and my congregation is made up of pigeons.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Just a clarification to Hammers [first post in this thread]:
Quids quote said this:
quote: A letter from the governing First Presidency of the Church was read in Sunday meetings worldwide in June 1995, urging Church members to submit for temple ordinances the names of their own ancestors, and not the names of deceased celebrities or Jewish holocaust victims
So the information was given to the general body of the church. I still don't think they would excommunicate someone for submitting a name, but people should really know better. I also think that maybe this information should be repeated every now and then so that people who may have missed it last time or who weren't even members of the church at the time will know this as well.
EDITED - To clarify which post of Hammers I was referring to.
[ April 22, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: solo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The priesthood as described in the Bible and as exists in Jewish tradition is not particularly similar to the priesthood claimed by the LDS church, a similar choice of names notwithstanding, Hammer.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What do you have to look forward to?
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.
quote:Why bother doing anything if nothing matters once you are dead?
For that matter, why not just kill yourself and get taken up into Heaven right away?
quote:It certainly negates my motivation to do good.
You only do good because you expect a heavenly reward? That is utterly disgusting. But kindly do not judge me by your own low moral standards. I do good, or try to, because that is the kind of person I want to be. That you need a fantasy father to stand at your shoulder and make you do your homework says a lot more about you than about me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:You only do good because you expect a heavenly reward? That is utterly disgusting. But kindly do not judge me by your own low moral standards. I do good, or try to, because that is the kind of person I want to be. That you need a fantasy father to stand at your shoulder and make you do your homework says a lot more about you than about me.
I thought this was a civilized discussion. Holy cow.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
fugu:
Of course not. Why should it be?
Or rather -- same power. How it functions and manifests itself is, of course, subject to change based on local conditions and the wisdom of God.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed it was, until I was accused of being a nihilist with nothing to live for. I suspect you are reacting more to the 'King of Men' byline than the actual contents of my post.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope, I thought that was pretty harsh. I know you can be human - I've seen it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The actual contents of your post were rather insulting, regardless of your byline and your previous posts. From your name I can kind of predict your stance, but you can present your stance in a more approachable manner.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
(As Papa Moose) To be honest, I don't think KoM was drawing first blood here, afr, but reacting to a presumption of intent (or its lack).
(As Papa Janitor) Nonetheless, let's all try to keep the conversation calm and non-accusatory, please.
--Pop
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Zal -- I'm certain I've seen Mormons claiming (though I of course understand that each comes to his/her own conclusions on this) and pretty certain I've heard of Mormon authoritative or fairly authoritative writings claiming that the current priesthood is as practiced throughout history.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm certain I've seen Mormons claiming (though I of course understand that each comes to his/her own conclusions on this) and pretty certain I've heard of Mormon authoritative or fairly authoritative writings claiming that the current priesthood is as practiced throughout history.
Aw, fugu, you can come up with better sources than that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, I can, but I'm not looking for sources right now, I'm having a mild discussion on the issue .
If you want, I bet I can dig up bunches of LDS apologetics sites that claim in stirring tones that not only is the priesthood the same as it was back then, but that archeologists are willfully ignoring abundant evidence that its so .
Oh, and they'll likely find a way to blame the "disappearance of the priesthood" on atheists.
Actually, the whole disappearance of the priesthood thing has always somewhat amused me because, y'know, jewish people still have it and have had it for a few thousand years, now . . .
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
I apologize to KoM and anyone else.
I will say no more as I have broken my own rule not to discuss religion.
KoM--I do not do anything just for a heavenly reward, as I gather you don't either. I am confident you do much good in your life so accept my apologies and I'm outta here for a while.
You all seem like real good people, maybe I just need some good salty sea air to clear my head.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:I bet I can dig up bunches of LDS apologetics sites that claim in stirring tones that not only is the priesthood the same as it was back then, but that archeologists are willfully ignoring abundant evidence that its so
And if you did, they'd be wrong. So what's your point?
I mean, I can see disputations regarding evidence of things like Book of Mormon historicity. But related to the LDS understanding of priesthood?
Especially since a large part of our understanding of it it is that it wasn't held by many throughout history and there were continual restorations and declines of its power and efficacy.
Now if you could authoritatively disprove (disprove not point out an absence of evidence) the historicity of Melchizadek, then that might be something.
Now on to:
quote:Oh, and they'll likely find a way to blame the "disappearance of the priesthood" on atheists.
Now you are just being silly. The godless atheists are to blame for the communist threat. Duh! The priesthood had already been restored when they came around.
quote:Actually, the whole disappearance of the priesthood thing has always somewhat amused me because, y'know, jewish people still have it and have had it for a few thousand years, now
Do you really not understand the LDS position on this or are you just playing around?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've heard a number of statements on the subject by LDS people; mostly I'm just playing around in that post, though. The repeated winks and tongue-sticking-outs should help .
However, that the LDS church considers the Aaronic priesthood, in particular, to have needed restoring does not exactly persuade me, given what Jewish records and traditions exist.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: quote: A letter from the governing First Presidency of the Church was read in Sunday meetings worldwide in June 1995, urging Church members to submit for temple ordinances the names of their own ancestors, and not the names of deceased celebrities or Jewish holocaust victims
So the information was given to the general body of the church. I still don't think they would excommunicate someone for submitting a name, but people should really know better. I also think that maybe this information should be repeated every now and then so that people who may have missed it last time or who weren't even members of the church at the time will know this as well.
That information is widely available. It's in "A Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work", which is the basic instruction guide for why and how to do family history, available to anyone. It's in our leadership manuals. It's something that I've known for a long time, and I've encountered it many times. In my experience, it's something we regularly teach the family history consultants (those who teach the members about family history) and all family history centre staff.
Of course it's still possible that it's not being taught or brought up often enough in some areas. It's also possible that some people don't hear it. There are people who will hear only what they want to hear and ignore the rest.
We do what we can to make sure it's a known policy. Same as asking permission of the closest living relative when we're seeking after doing temple work for anyone who was born in the last 95 years.
Unfortunately, we can't control the actions of every single member.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Unfortunately, we can't control the actions of every single member.
You know, I thought of a really, truly sarcastic reply to this, but it's a bit too much like shooting fish in a barrel. So I'll try for humour instead.
Mere sandbagging. Everyone knows that the Mormons are a vast, shadowy conspiracy, programming their drones ("members", as they are called) to the last jot, tittle, and cup of green Jello. Watch out when they claim that they don't control their members; that's when their attack teams of specially trained "missionaries" are about to go on another rampage of door-knocking and assimilating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:KoM--sorry I misread your post. I'm saddened by such a position in life. What do you have to look forward to? Why bother doing anything if nothing matters once you are dead? It certainly negates my motivation to do good. It seems you would rather be a memory for a period of time than to be an eternal being. Probably a lot easier that way since there is no accountability for what you do with this life and no need to improve upon what you are it would seem.
compared to...
quote:You only do good because you expect a heavenly reward? That is utterly disgusting. But kindly do not judge me by your own low moral standards. I do good, or try to, because that is the kind of person I want to be. That you need a fantasy father to stand at your shoulder and make you do your homework says a lot more about you than about me.
Is rocks and guns, man. Hammer threw a rock, KoM-as on nearly all religious issues-fired a gun. You're as smug and haughty about your religion as the people you criticize.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Hammer threw a rock, KoM-as on nearly all religious issues-fired a gun."
I disagree, Jeff. Speaking as one of the people insulted by Hammer's comments, I don't think KoM's reply was any more insulting. He still shouldn't've said it, but I don't think we're talking about anything that's an order of magnitude worse. Hammer's post was classic "holier-than-thou, I'm sorry for you poor atheists" God-speak; KoM's reply was classic "I'm an angry atheist and you're a stupid-head" vitriol. The two are pretty equivalent.
[ April 22, 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm surprised to hear you say that, Tom, given your views on courtesy. While Hammer's PoV-which also irritates me, and has for years, really (I am of the opinion that while having God around is certainly an incentive to do good, for it to be the ONLY incentive-to need an incentive at all-defeats the purpose of religion) KoM's response was pretty crass.
It could be said that Hammer meant well (I don't know him, so I don't know), but was just a bit naive, ignorant, or inconsiderate. Instead of pointing out those things, King of Men basically said you're a disgusting victim of mass-brainwashing, and I'm a much better person than you are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For my part, I should be most annoyed if someone used my name, which is all I expect to pass on, as a prop in their religious fantasies. But I expect this doesn't surprise anyone here.
&
quote:Indeed it was, until I was accused of being a nihilist with nothing to live for. I suspect you are reacting more to the 'King of Men' byline than the actual contents of my post.
There's a reason that byline is yours, KoM. You stuck with it in the very beginning of this thread.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: I really decided I like being Catholic better
Theca, i'm not pointing fingers at you... but I just hope that people don't use this as their excuse for which religion they follow.
If God took the time to establish a church, is he going to be understanding at the judgement seat when we say: "Uhm... I liked the other religion better... but I lived a good life... right?"
Now, I'm not going to say you're damned, as that is out of my league to understand -- nor do I believe it is true. But, I do hope that you've made this decision prayerfully and believe that you are in the church God has established. That, I believe, is what allows you to keep your heart open if God is trying to lead you elsewhere and this is just a stepping stone.
I'm going to use Dagonee as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. [I hope you don't mind Dagonee, but I felt it would be better explained by using a familiar name.] He's Catholic, and believes that the Catholic Church is the true church. I may not agree with him on this, but he has explained that he has had confirmation, a personal witness, that the Catholic Church is true. Regardless of what anyone may try to teach him, he is not likely to convert to the Mormon faith through Hatrack discussion. Regardless of this, when he passes on to the next stage of his immortal existence -- now this is where I speak my beliefs as fact (because to me they ARE fact) -- and he learns that the Mormons were right he will then convert, presuming that he has lived a righteous life as he understands righteousness. However, if Dagonee were to be Catholic just because he liked it better -- refusing to consider God's plan, I think he'd be in a sad place at the Judgement Seat.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Because open-mindedness about religion is one of the most important characteristics one can have?
I think I see a lot of simlarities between that kind of thinking and Conservative thinking. Conservatives believe that someone should be responsible for their own choices in life, whereas Liberals prefer to think about the upbringing and how those choices came about.
If someone is taught all their life that you should just pick the religion that you simply like better, and then they do that, will God judge them for it?
[ April 23, 2005, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Actually, what do you think you'll be doing for eternity in heaven? Just gonna hang out?
If I make it to Heaven, I expect to spend at least a thousand years re-questioning God's omniscience.
That's going to delay our game a bit, Zal.
Hammer, tone down your assumptions. Religion can be discussed openly and with civilly here on Hatrack-- there's no reason to back down from this particular topic. Just try to remember that everyone has their own reasons for believing as they do, and they generally go a lot deeper than what is printed here in the forum.
In the spirit of open communication-- I am LDS.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:If someone is taught all their life that you should just pick the religion that you simply like better, and then they do that, will God judge them for it?
God will judge them perfectly fairly and justly, taking all of that into account.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
God forbid (and I use the phrase with a full sense of irony) that we should be judged justly. Mercy is what we want.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: Because open-mindedness about religion is one of the most important characteristics one can have?
Being humble is one of the most important characteristics one can have. Willingness to accept what God is offering and the consequences that come with those choices.
quote: I think I see a lot of simlarities between that kind of thinking and Conservative thinking. Conservatives believe that someone should be responsible for their own choices in life, whereas Liberals prefer to think about the upbringing and how those choices came about.
What of those of us that think that both aspects are important to consider? Personally, I don't see the connection you are trying to make.
quote: If someone is taught all their life that you should just pick the religion that you simply like better, and then they do that, will God judge them for it?
See what Porter said. I really don't have anything more to add.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: God will judge them perfectly fairly and justly, taking all of that into account.
That's what you say, and depite what gnixing just said, what she said earlier about judgement seems to indicate she believes otherwise.
quote:Being humble is one of the most important characteristics one can have. Willingness to accept what God is offering and the consequences that come with those choices.
You're side-stepping. You're answering my question directly without taking it into the context of the person we're discussing. She's already said she's looked into mormonism and though about it. And clearly being Catholic she is already willing to accept God.
quote: What of those of us that think that both aspects are important to consider? Personally, I don't see the connection you are trying to make.
Clearly you don't take both into consideration, if you think someone, who's choice of religion was maybe slightly less-thoughout, should be judged severely.
EDIT: Not that I'm claiming Theca didn't think out her choice. I think her wording was just not as powerful as gnixing would have liked.
[ April 23, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: You're side-stepping. You're answering my question directly without taking it into the context of the person we're discussing. She's already said she's looked into mormonism and though about it. And clearly being Catholic she is already willing to accept God.
No. I'm making a statement that may be hard for you to understand -- Humility is a quality that is required by God of his children. And, being Catholic does NOT mean one is willing to accept God. All it means is that they have chosen a religion by which they wish to be associated. Being willing to accept God is not something that you or I can determine about someone else, but is something personal between the individual and God.
quote: Clearly you don't take both into consideration, if you think someone, who's choice of religion was maybe slightly less-thoughout, should be judged severely.
I'm glad that's so clear to you. Personally, I think you haven't got a clue. But, so as maybe to illustrate - one's choice of religion will surely be mentioned in the "trial" when we are in front of the judgement seat. However, the religion chosen is not so much important as the reasons for the choice and the spiritual understanding of the individual. This is not to say that the choice of religion is non-essential, but that for those who have a lack of spiritual understanding and choose "the wrong path," their choice will not condemn them. Their reasons and motivations for making their choices are much more important.
I'm not making any sort of judgement about Theca or her choice. All I am doing is noting that I hope that we all put more effort into our choices -- especially when it comes to religion and spirituality -- than saying, "Wow! This church is fun. I think I'll belong here because..." Nor do I believe that this is what Theca did, only that the way she phrased it provided an opportunity for discussion of an issue that I don't believe is off-topic.
You see, I live in a world where there is only one true church. Though, I don't expect many on this forum to agree, it is what I believe to be the reality of things. I believe that there are certain requirements to reach Eternal Life and I don't believe that because someone chose a different church that they will be condemned. I believe that they will have an opportunity to learn God's true plan and to accept or refuse it. Their motivations and understanding will be the key to their decision. Unfortunately, I also believe that if someone has a thick head and a hard heart, they will be among those that will refuse the truth when it is presented to them. It is here in life that we need to learn to open our hearts and minds. So that when the time comes that we have to decide whether or not to accept God's truth, that we may be willing.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: I'm not making any sort of judgement about Theca or her choice. All I am doing is noting that I hope that we all put more effort into our choices -- especially when it comes to religion and spirituality -- than saying, "Wow! This church is fun. I think I'll belong here because..." Nor do I believe that this is what Theca did, only that the way she phrased it provided an opportunity for discussion of an issue that I don't believe is off-topic.
Awesome, that's what we're doing.
quote: No. I'm making a statement that may be hard for you to understand -- Humility is a quality that is required by God of his children. And, being Catholic does NOT mean one is willing to accept God. All it means is that they have chosen a religion by which they wish to be associated. Being willing to accept God is not something that you or I can determine about someone else, but is something personal between the individual and God.
I understand it perfectly, but I don't think a lack of humility and not putting a huge amount of thought into one's choice of religion go hand-in-hand.
quote: I'm glad that's so clear to you. Personally, I think you haven't got a clue. But, so as maybe to illustrate - one's choice of religion will surely be mentioned in the "trial" when we are in front of the judgement seat. However, the religion chosen is not so much important as the reasons for the choice and the spiritual understanding of the individual. This is not to say that the choice of religion is non-essential, but that for those who have a lack of spiritual understanding and choose "the wrong path," their choice will not condemn them. Their reasons and motivations for making their choices are much more important.
When you say "reason for choosing it" do you mean direct reasons, like what the person was thinking when they chose it, or the things which shaped their character and made them think about the direct reasons.
Ok, that's probably confusing, but I'm tired.
Essentially, someone's only going to choose a religion for shallow reasons if they're understanding of religion is shallow. So I can't see how anyone can be judged for it.
quote: Unfortunately, I also believe that if someone has a thick head and a hard heart, they will be among those that will refuse the truth when it is presented to them.
Heh, so you believe there are people that upon dying and finding out what the true religion is form the big man himself will say "Not buying it"?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote: I understand it perfectly, but I don't think a lack of humility and not putting a huge amount of thought into one's choice of religion go hand-in-hand.
I believe that humility, or lack thereof, play a huge role in everything we do and say. Including one's choice of religion. I have met people that have come to a knowledge (in their opinion) that they have found the true church and refuse to convert because of the traditions of their fathers. I have met others that have converted in the face of bitter opposition from friends and family. Do I propose to know the consequences of their actions or choices? No. But I do believe that the latter individuals are going to be favored over the others.
quote: When you say "reason for choosing it" do you mean direct reasons, like what the person was thinking when they chose it, or the things which shaped their character and made them think about the direct reasons.
Ok, that's probably confusing, but I'm tired.
Essentially, someone's only going to choose a religion for shallow reasons if they're understanding of religion is shallow. So I can't see how anyone can be judged for it.
I mean both -- direct reasons and the thoughts and motivations that shaped the person's character. This is where personal responsibility joins hands with their upbringing when it comes to the consequences of their decisions.
This is where Porter's comments of perfectly fair and just trial is applicable. And fortunately, the atonement and Christ's gift of Mercy.
I do not believe that a savage raised on an island of cannibals is inherently damned because of the life they lived.
quote: Heh, so you believe there are people that upon dying and finding out what the true religion is form the big man himself will say "Not buying it"?
Yes. Though I would use the term "truth" in place of "true religion." I believe more accurately that there will be those that come to learn the truth from "the big man himself" and say "I think my way is better." And that is a foolish thing to say to the omniscient.
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
*This goes out to all religous groups*
Don't babtize me without my consent.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
In the face of so much opposition I'd just like to say that I really don't care whether I'm baptized after I'm dead.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I already asked someone to baptize me when I am dead.
And I wondered if I would get called on that "liking" statement. I just just used it because I prefer not to get into more personal details online so I kept it simple.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Honestly, I was surprised that nobody beat me to it. This forum is often hard to keep up with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Do I propose to know the consequences of their actions or choices? No. But I do believe that the latter individuals are going to be favored over the others."
Does it matter what religion they convert from -- or to? If a Mormon leaves the church after much thought, for example, will they be favored over a Mormon who was born into the church and stuck with it because they never felt enough reason to leave?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Well Tom, to answer that question I need you to remove yourself from your worldview and put yourself into mine. In my worldview, the Mormon church is the current incarnation of the Church of Christ. A member of God's church that leaves the church is not going to be favored. However, I believe that God is going to take into account the reasons, the motivations, the understanding, etc.. of the individual in question.
As for the individual who is a member of God's church "just because," I don't have a high opinion of such individuals. I imagine that God's position on this has been stated by his prophets, but I'm not familiar enough with this lifestyle to comment.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*wants to post but is a little afraid*
*goes for it anyway*
*is not trying to be antagonistic, just responding with my own opinions on things*
I can understand why some peeps were not liking this:
quote:KoM--sorry I misread your post. I'm saddened by such a position in life. What do you have to look forward to? Why bother doing anything if nothing matters once you are dead? It certainly negates my motivation to do good. It seems you would rather be a memory for a period of time than to be an eternal being. Probably a lot easier that way since there is no accountability for what you do with this life and no need to improve upon what you are it would seem.
I'm agnostic. That does not make me an immoral person. I don't personally need a big dad up in the sky with a carrot and a stick telling me what to do in order for me to be a decent citizen. As an agnostic/atheist I think that religion is a form of self-delusion...useful as a force to create social order when the police aren't around and as a mental buttress for stressful times...but still an illusion, imo.
Accountibility doesn't need to be forced on everyone. I would like to think that accountibility is actually a logical way to run a culture. For me it stands up as good all by itself without religion.
All the hubub around death with songs, ritual, funerals, tombstones... is ALL for the living. The dead have no need for it. It's all to help the survivors cope with the loss...and through ritual reinforce the "mirage" that we have souls that are immortal.
And it's not a question of wanting to be a memory rather than eternal... being eternal would be great! If it were real. Religion tries to relieve the fear of death by telling us over and over that we are in fact immortal. But, we are only memory/mortal...and the fact that we are not eternal, that when we die there is only oblivion, makes life SO much more precious, imo.
We are the Universe made manifest...we are all made of star stuff. You, me, that car, that house, that cat... We are pieces of the inanimate reality made self aware. That makes us all the same. If I hurt you, I'm actually hurting myself. If I help you, I help myself. All that matters is the good of the Human race.
[ April 24, 2005, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The dead have no need for it. It's all to help the survivors cope with the loss...and through ritual reinforce the "mirage" that we have souls that are immortal.
IRONY!
This is a profoundly religious post. FAITHful, even.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
It is? You serious or just messing with me? Peace.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, Telp, it is. It may be unintentional, but you stated, "the dead have no need of it."
Further, you stated in concise language that there was no afterlife.
Questions on death and life after it generally get answered by the religious and their religion. It's rare to hear a agnostic claim to know anything about the Other Side-- and rarer still to hear such a definitive opinion on it.
I don't discount the fact that you're an agnostic-- but you've set up a faith there in that post. You've created a religion, of sorts.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ah ha.
Well, there may be an afterlife of some form...energy is neither created nor destroyed after all. We loose the pattern that made us US, but our matter/energy is still out there. Usually just recycled back into the biosphere.
I figure the burden of proof lies with the religions of the world. Considering the idea of the supernatural and afterlife is so impossible religions need to give some evidence that these things exist...other than some 3000 year old book written by hundreds of people and edited just as many times.
I figure with science any one of us could have made the discoveries we know today. Religion, on the other hand, we never would have come up with those stories on our own...we had to be indoctrinated and fooled into believing them at a young age.
I see religion as an old old form of science. It was the ancients' only way to explain the natural world around them. "Why does it rain?" "Where are our origins?" "What is death?"
The ancients did not have the tools nor language to explain the natural processes of reality, so they made up stories to fill in the gaps. Now that we do have more advanced tools and processes to explain reality I think we should grow up and abandon that archaic way of thinking. There is no Santa Claus.
But hey, at the same time I would rather have people religious as apposed to violent and criminal. Social control isn't always bad. And I understand life is hard and unfair so others need religion to help them get through the day. A little philosophy and comfort is very good. Religion has it's place in culture (just not in government, but that's another topic).
As for creating my own religion... heheh... I always did have a theatrical side.
[ April 24, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
WHo would have thunk it....
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Considering the idea of the supernatural and afterlife is so impossible. . .
I don't think this is a given at all.
Why do you believe that the supernatural and an afterlife are impossible?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Because we have no reason to think that they would exist from what we have observed in the world around us.
How did we leap from "I don't know how we got here" to "It must be a loving personal God with a name that I can understand"?
We anthropomorphize everything... we give names to our cars and pets, we attribute human thoughts and feelings to things that are not only not human but not even living. We are creators...and thus assume the phsyical world must have been created by a sentient thing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Because we have no reason to think that they would exist from what we have observed in the world around us.
More correctly, YOU have no reason to think these things exist.
'We' is a really big pronoun as you've used it. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I say "we" because I'm not the only person to think like this... and I say "we" because no physical evidence exists anywhere for society to study that proves that the divine exist.
[ April 25, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wonder if seeking after the divine by using scientific methods, or by demanding that the divine prove itself through 'physical evidence' is rather like demanding proof of evolution through the medium of mechancial engineering.
Both disciplines require the application of logic, observation, and discipline-- but one does not necessarily lead to the other.
Nor do they contradict one another-- they only clash when someone insists on using a microscope to build an engine.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
I wasn't going to look but temptation got the best of me, and yes, there are still posts coming to this thread.
Well, as for me I had a lousy weekend. My gut was inside out and I felt that everyone who looked at me knew what a jerk I was on Hatrack.
I truely feel bad that I offended people, especially people I do not know. This has plagued me all weekend.
For the record:
1) I do not believe in doing good to reap a reward in the hereafter. Conversely, I believe in doing good as a reflection of what God would do, or have me do. Obviously, I have a lot of work to do in that department. 2) I wasn't trying to be naive or nconsiderate. In retrospect I did not state my thoughts well at all. Too much chicken noodle soup perhaps? 3) Sometimes attempts at humor do not come across on the internet--as lame attempts as they were.
Regardless, I am deeply saddened that I offended anyone. There is never a justification or need to do so.
I feel I am a better person than I portrayed and for all of these reasons I ask for forgiveness and say farewell.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Dude, rub some grass on it and move on. There may be a reason for you to leave -- I couldn't tell you because I don't know you well enough -- but this wasn't it. I can't think of anyone at Hatrack that hasn't offended someone at some time. Even me!
No, really!
--Pop
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That offends me deeply, PM.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
It's all good Hammer. Not upset with you...just arguing your statement. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: I wonder if seeking after the divine by using scientific methods, or by demanding that the divine prove itself through 'physical evidence' is rather like demanding proof of evolution through the medium of mechancial engineering.
Except that, for example, some Christian sects say that Jesus is our "lord and personal savior". That the divine is micromanaging each individual life. That is different from a divine that just runs the elements or started the Big Bang. If the divine exist, then it/they are part of the Universe and eventualy we can discover the natural laws of the divine. Or to put another way, any sufficiently advanced science will always be confused with magic/divine.
quote:Both disciplines require the application of logic, observation, and discipline-- but one does not necessarily lead to the other.
Maybe... mmmm... theology can get pretty in depth. However religion also demands "faith"...something the scientific process does not use.
quote:Nor do they contradict one another-- they only clash when someone insists on using a microscope to build an engine.
Well I agree that religion and science are on the same path with a similar goal(s).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: However, that the LDS church considers the Aaronic priesthood, in particular, to have needed restoring does not exactly persuade me, given what Jewish records and traditions exist.
I'm pretty sure that there is a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that honors the authority of the Levites by birth. Lemmie see if I can dig it up....
quote: 13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. 14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances. 15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.
17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
It has always seemed to me that according to Mormon theology, God recognizes the authority of the decendants of Aaron to this day (or descendants of Levi). There is just the small problem of most of them not believing that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and therefore not being particularly interested in being part of this church.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:However religion also demands "faith"...something the scientific process does not use.
Well, not good science. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm certain there are a pretty decent number of LDS members who are descendants of Aaron (both direct Jewish converts on occasion and just people of Jewish descent). Are the bishoprics comprised of such people? If not, that passage would seem to hold little sway.
Also, even as you're acknowledging the descendancy of Jews, I don't see an acknowledgement that their priesthood is the same priesthood that has been passed down for thousands of years. That's what I find dubious, this lack of acknowledgement (particularly given all the rhetoric about restoration surrounding the aaronic priesthood's supposed conferral on early LDS leaders).
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:I'm certain there are a pretty decent number of LDS members who are descendants of Aaron (both direct Jewish converts on occasion and just people of Jewish descent). Are the bishoprics comprised of such people? If not, that passage would seem to hold little sway.
That verse is specifically refering the Office of Presiding Bishop, of which there is only one in the Church. The person also needs to be found worthy to receive that call. Levitical heritige isn't the sole qualifier.
quote:Also, even as you're acknowledging the descendancy of Jews, I don't see an acknowledgement that their priesthood is the same priesthood that has been passed down for thousands of years. That's what I find dubious, this lack of acknowledgement (particularly given all the rhetoric about restoration surrounding the aaronic priesthood's supposed conferral on early LDS leaders).
You're right - we don't believe that their Priesthood still holds any authority - hence, the restoration of the Priesthood Keys concerning the authorization of that Priesthood.
Just at Catholics hold that their Priesthood and authority is the same as comes through Peter.
We believe both Priesthood became corrupted, and thus needed to be restored pure and undefiled. The titles lost the power associated with them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hammer, stay. Please. There's no reason to leave, and more honor in staying and still taking part. No one's perfect here.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Here we go. The 24-page thread: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023343![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My husband, bless him, pointed out that even when he was there he was mostly window dressing, that all the research and work that had been done was mine. But still, protocol had to be observed and they couldn't have me, a mere woman, teaching in a room where adult males might be present. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)