posted
Not sure if I'm going to remember this after I've gone through the last couple of pages. Not sure if I want to go through the last couple of pages...
Alexa:
I used that language as a reflection of the language JohnL was using to describe myself and those like me.
Someone asked: How would Mormons feel about Catholics secretly baptizing infants?
My mom was baptized Catholic as a baby in the hospital because they thought she was going to die and didn't want her to go to hell. It hasn't done any harm that I can see, and no one is offended. We feel like in their own eyes, they were doing her a kindness.
My husband's own baptism is a point of admiration for his mom on the part of our family. His mom, under the Soviet regime, secretly had him baptized when he was two. Her faith was more important than her fear of an oppresive government. So we feel she was brave and faithful and it is no less so because it wasn't a Mormon baptism.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not strange that most LDS would be fine with this. After all, turnabout is fair play. We are used to the idea of doing proxy work for others. Why would similar things offend us in return?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taal: Yes, I think so. According to my understanding, anyway. I actually think that gets said less often because, well, it's not real heartening for the close, dead relatives. Rather than the triumphant "Grandad's a Mormon now." announcement at the funeral, it's more like, "We did his work. Not that I think it will do much good." Which, especially considered in the light of other Mormon beliefs about the afterlife, is actually terrible...
---------
So, basically, what I'm getting is that those who are opposed to posthumous baptism aren't calling for it to stop, but for Mormons to feel guilty every time because we are questioning someone's in-life choices.
Rivka gave the best/only coherent explanation of why it could have an effect, and I respect that. Completely support requests to not baptize for names from Holocaust lists, names submitted by immediate family members excluded (because I think family members have more of a right to speak for their relatives than fellow-organization members).
For the rest, it seems like the main objection is that people don't like being told someone else thinks they were wrong. It's offensive in the same way that someone saying "You sure?" when you introduce your fiance is offensive.
I don't really know what to say to that, except that my grandpa actually said that once.
Added: And was I offended? Not at all, not even at the time. Partly because, well, I wasn't. The rest because if I am sure about something really important, no one else's opinion matters, and I trust my grandfather.
posted
Rivka- If Mormons would take the time to think about it, we would realize that we don't believe in a happily ever after scenario when it comes to life-after-life.
God can have pain and sorrow, in Mormon theology. One of the most powerful stories in our religion is that of Enoch, and his dealings with God:
quote:28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?
29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?
30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;
31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;
33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;
34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.
35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.
36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.
37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?
My point, in a roundabout way, is that if the work of God continues forever, as Mormons believe, than we (Mormons) should not expect to be always without sorrow, even in heaven, even in the presence of God.
I don't know why I want to make this point-- something you said about pain.
*
I accept that people are going to be offended by proxy work.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do you simply want us to say, 'Yeah, we realize that lots of people find it offensive, and we're sorry for that, but we think it's more important to obey God?'"
I'd be fine with that. My whole objection, throughout this thread, has been to people who seem amazed and offended that other people might be offended by this practice. Rabbit's whole position -- "How DARE you people dislike what I'm being asked by God to do" -- is one of supreme arrogance, and it'd be helpful, I think, if she recognized it and simply learned to live with it. Admit that, yes, you're knowingly insulting people, but you have no intention whatsoever of stopping.
--------
"My husband's own baptism is a point of admiration for his mom on the part of our family. His mom, under the Soviet regime, secretly had him baptized when he was two. Her faith was more important than her fear of an oppresive government. So we feel she was brave and faithful and it is no less so because it wasn't a Mormon baptism."
Let's assume he spent his whole life as a dedicated Catholic, then, and loved to tell this story to people because he felt it symbolized his family's devotion to that faith. You don't feel that rebaptizing him after his death would cheapen that other baptism?
posted
Just had to jump in to agree with Beverly from page 14.
BUT... I think now I would honor a person's request not to have that done, and therefore would respect such a list as has been proposed.
..... There is plenty of work to be done for those who haven't voiced objection.... Let's focus on the work that has NOT been objected to.
While I agree that LDS people are commanded to do this work, we could busy ourselves 24/7 doing only work for people who have not expressed an objection thereto.
That way, lots more people stay happy. Of course, not everyone can be satisfied, but lots more can if we try (really hard) not to be "in your face" while we're doing something that we believe we're commanded to do.
Sure, we can practice our religion any way we see fit, but we can do it in as respectful a manner as possible. Can't we?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My whole objection, throughout this thread, has been to people who seem amazed and offended that other people might be offended by this practice.
I'm not a Mormon, and while I get that people are angry and respect their 'right' to be angry, I don't understand why. Of all the things to get angry about, I just don't understand why anyone would care about Mormons praying for them. We've been over it. Either your theological beliefs are true, in which case it doesn't matter, or Mormonism is correct, in which case it does matter and it's a good thing. How is this not incontrovertible?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I realize that lots of people find it offensive, and I'm sorry for that, but I think it's more important to obey God and do the things that bring peace in my family. I won't stop. I hope all the research my spouse and I are doing (particularly in the Japanese bloodline) will be useful to future generations in understanding their heritage.
I hope the general public can glean something useful from our (my spouse and I) research, which is motivated by the importance placed on proxy ordinances.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
1) You ignore the other possible option: that the Mormons are wrong, but posthumous baptism DOES still have an effect.
2) The issue is not whether the Mormons are right or wrong. The issue is whether the Mormons respect the right of other people to make religious decisions, right or wrong. Now, I'll be the first to admit that MANY religions do not in fact extend this respect. Few, however, have rituals that demonstrate this disrespect so blatantly.
I think that some people believe that the Mormon beliefs are false, but that on some ethereal plane, the practice of posthumous proxy baptism can have some negative effect on spirits who have passed on.
So, your choice is not (apparently) the only choice.
Understanding that was a major learning experience for me. Thanks to Rivka and everyone that helped me do that.
Of course, I'm not going to stop doing temple work. But I don't oppose some kind of "do not baptize" list, and I would abolutely comply with those wishes.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think that's a fine summing up, except for this:
quote:The issue is whether the Mormons respect the right of other people to make religious decisions, right or wrong.
All rights are respected. I understand that some believe it could have an intended effect, and so would honor the request to not have it done, but for those that don't think it has any effect on those already dead, there's nothing done involuntarily.
Rakeesh talked about free agency, and that isn't done away with. For those that have forcibly and knowledgably rejected the gospel during their life, the proxy baptism will not be available to them anyway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but for those that don't think it has any effect on those already dead, there's nothing done involuntarily."
I'm not saying it has an effect on the dead, kat. I'm saying that you are telling the LIVING that you do not respect their religious decisions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* Doesn't "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" do the same thing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking about it, I think the second statement is MORE offensive in that way, because it implies that compliance will be 100%.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) You ignore the other possible option: that the Mormons are wrong, but posthumous baptism DOES still have an effect.
While this is a theoretical possibility, I know of no religion that has this built into their theological, revealed as 'gospel' truth, framework. That is, as far as I know, once you are dead, it is your life that determines your spiritual status. Now, there are some religions like catholicism and mormonism that believe praying for souls can have a positive impact, but I've never heard of any of them that believe that praying for souls can ever have a negative impact. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
quote: 2) The issue is not whether the Mormons are right or wrong. The issue is whether the Mormons respect the right of other people to make religious decisions, right or wrong. Now, I'll be the first to admit that MANY religions do not in fact extend this respect. Few, however, have rituals that demonstrate this disrespect so blatantly.
Again, going back to decisions you make in this life being the only important ones, I don't understand why any religion would care as long as the Mormons don't prevent other from following their religion. For instnace, praying for the dead isn't even a blip on the radar compared to targetting jews for conversion as some evangelicals do.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have tried to follow this discussion completely and yeah, this is my first post on this forum ...
I am LDS, but inactive. I believe in the teachings of the church. My husband joined the church nearly 9 years ago, but either didn't truly believe or changed his mind. Before he got baptized, I had planned to have him baptized by proxy after he died. At the time he got baptized, I thought maybe this was a new direction for us. I was wrong. He is completely rejecting the church and it makes it hard for our daughters and me.
My husband has stated that when he dies, he wants to be cremated and have his ashes scattered in the ocean. I don't know if I will do that or not - it is a choice that I will make when that time comes. This is a case where an individual has made a definite statement on an issue but yet his wishes may be disregarded. He can take it up with me in the afterlife.
-----this is my post from another forum that addressed this issue------ I don't know ... I know I haven't submitted any names to the temple although some work on my mom's and dad's families has been done. However, I feel ... tentative, weird, uncertain ... about submitting names for my husband's family. He's a member, but has since changed his mind about the church and is antagonistic. I certainly wouldn't submit the names unless he was okay with it. (His idea of what's okay changes from day to day. )
Anyway, for me personally, I would not consider submitting names that were not part of my family, whether my natural family or the family I married into.
I would get more of a thrill to have my husband's mom and grandma baptized than, say, Elvis. And, it seems to me that when church members deliberately do something that is against what the church leaders say to do, it damages the church and its reputation.
I had more to say, but can't figure out exactly how to say what I want. This is a complex issue. ----------------
Now, the same night I posted that, I asked him and he said he doesn't care. He doesn't believe in it, so he doesn't care. I'm thinking I should get something in writing, perhaps, just in case he changes his mind again.
I think that LDS members who submit names from Holocaust victims or survivors against church policy (if they are not related, for example), should stop. I know I need to do my own genealogy, maybe those people should concentrate on their own family lines and submit those names. If they have gotten as far as they can on their own families, perhaps they can volunteer to do research for other church members who for whatever reason can't do their own research and let those families actually submit the names.
Something that I think wasn't mentioned is that (I believe) names cannot be submitted for proxy work until the person has been dead for at least a year. So it's not a case of "grandpa's dead and we got his temple work done before he was in the grave."
You wouldn't believe all the stuff I was going to type that got deleted because I can't fully express all my feelings on this subject. I'll have to come back later - I actually meant to go to work before this and now I have to scramble.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: While this is a theoretical possibility, I know of no religion that has this built into their theological, revealed as 'gospel' truth, framework. That is, as far as I know, once you are dead, it is your life that determines your spiritual status. Now, there are some religions like catholicism and mormonism that believe praying for souls can have a positive impact, but I've never heard of any of them that believe that praying for souls can ever have a negative impact. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I made this point about ten pages ago or so. Apparently you are the only one who agrees that complaining about such a practice requires a rational basis in one's own beliefs. So far Rivka is the only one I've seen with a rational basis.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I misread what Tom was saying. It's frustrating talking to him, sometimes, as he likes to throw out these #@$%#$% cryptic questions, rather than saying anything, so you have to guess what the frack he's trying to say.
I thought Tom was referring to what the dead think, but rethinking it, I'm guessing he's referring to the Mormons thinking other religions are wrong, ie idiots.
I think the use of the word 'idiot' is very prejudicial and unnecessarilly inflammatory. I think any civilized person understands that there are plenty of opposing view points and that there are plenty of other people that disagree with your position on something.
Just as Mormons think Jews are theologically wrong, Jews think the same. Do jews think Mormons are idiots because they think differently? I think most reasonable ones don't. Likewise, Mormons.
quote:No more "don't challenge my Lit degree!" comments? Just saying that the masses must be right? Can you seriously claim that "the masses" are using something properly?
First off, I'm getting a degree in English language, not English literature. And yes, from a linguistic point of view, the masses are right. If everybody but you starts using the word "up" to mean "down," then it means "down." That's how it works. It doesn't matter how uneducated it is. The word "bigot" has already been corrupted by ignorant speakers—it used to mean a religious hypocrite or a superstitious adherent of religion. In the world of linguistics today, the "this is what the word is supposed to mean" argument has no weight.
That said, you are right in saying that "bigot" means someone intolerant. However, what I and several others were trying to say is that most people have a stronger connotation. They see it more equivalent to racism, gay-bashing, mysogyny, and the like. All I was trying to say is that if you're going to use it, you should realize that most people have a different sense of the word than you do.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate thread.
[ April 15, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, I'm not wading through the whole thread. I freely admit that I am a lazy bastard and I'm sure that I'm making points that have already been made. Then again, if the thread is this long, I suspect fifty percent of the posts have a lot of rhetorical overlap.
quote: Alligators don't get the respect they used to. . . probably because folks just aren't used to seeing them post.
Yeah, I'm just a whisper in the wind.
And by the way, I'm a caiman- not an alligator.
Actually I'm offended that you would dare to call me an alligator. Can't you see how offensive it is to a creature that has protective ribs on his belly to be called a creature that doesn't? You need some sensitivty training pal.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suspect fifty percent of the posts have a lot of rhetorical overlap.
I'd say it's more like 98%.
Oh, and I wasn't saying you should read the whole thread. That was just my way of saying that I agree with you but I suspect that you won't get any other responses on that because since when were human discussions governed by logic?
posted
The Chinese people have a custom of burning fake paper money for the dead. My parents tell me the dead will receive this money and use it to bargain with the devil for an early release from hell.
My parents burned paper money for both their Chinese and Caucasian friends. We have never received any objections. Most of the time the Caucasian family consider our beliefs "quaint" and "sweet" instead of threatening or arrogant.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Chinese people have a custom of burning fake paper money for the dead. My parents tell me the dead will receive this money and use it to bargain with the devil for an early release from hell.
My parents burned paper money for both their Chinese and Caucasian friends. We have never received any objections. Most of the time the Caucasian family consider our beliefs "quaint" and "sweet" instead of threatening or arrogant.
Since Christians believe that money is the root of all evil this practice is essentially damning otherwise innocent christians to hell. Can't you see the compromising situation you are putting their souls in when they show up for judgment with a fist full of dollars? I demand that your parents and all chinese cease this practice immediately.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, you're comparing a single incident—at most a very rare mistake—to a regular religious rite that is performed en masse and with the full command and endorsement of your church. And again, how does two wrongs make the situation all-right?
Couple Questions: do these names, once recorded, get counted as "Mormon" as far as the official member count around the world goes? Yeah, I read mentions of this "these have been given the right to choose" list, but I keep hearing "fastest growing religion" from different sources, and I'm wondering about how this is happenning. I already know the typical "marry young and pop out babies" mentality is part of it (it is with many faiths). I already know that the gobs of missions out there yield plenty of converts to help things grow (it does with many faiths). I'm just wondering if these proxy baptized are in any way counted in this "fastest growing" statement I hear.
Also is the "we've been persecuted" thing a part of actual church doctrine? I mean, is it something that is emphasized in church somehow? I ask because whenever something is called into question about the LDS church here, at least a third of the people come back with the "what about..." lines. As I already said in this very post, two wrong don't justify an action anyway, and I just can't see past or unrelated (or single anecdotal) persecution being a justifiable excuse for any possibly offensive behavior. The number of times I've seen it pop up in discussions about the LDS church are why I'm asking, and since I've never been LDS, I'm requesting an explanation.
Ralphie:
quote:If you can't see that, then you are letting your hatred of hassle put shades over your eyes.
No, I totally understand the motives feeling and being completely altruistic from the individual, common-member viewpoint. However, as I already said applies to all faiths who do it, such behavior is definitely not simply altruistic by design. I don't hate it—hell, I ask Mormon proselytizers to sit and chat for a minute, and have never turned down conversation (or even literature) with the JWs I know about their practice. When I was laid-up in the hospital, I remember a Catholic priest coming in asking if I wanted to be blessed, and me replying "no thanks" but still asking him to sit for a few minutes of conversation.
None of that changes my opinion that missionary work done where conversion is offered, as well as regular proselytizing, is nothing more than a marketing ploy to inflate numbers, and to show other people how "wrong" their current belief is. I have my own opinion on the rightness of that thinking, but that doesn't apply to my opinion that it is what it is, even though no Christian-based faith (as a whole) I know of that does it will openly admit that (I even know why). It's marketing warfare for the soul. I happen to find that distasteful. That's all.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
The truth is, I actually feel insulted that YOU don't feel insulted by our practice. It is kind of saying, "ahhh... look at the backwards Chinese people, their religion is so CUTE!"
We demand to be recognized as a major source of evil and arrogance! Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: do these names, once recorded, get counted as "Mormon" as far as the official member count around the world goes?
No! Not at all. This isn't Chicago.
Hate to dissapoint, but the one-of-the-fastest-growing-religions thing comes from about 80,000 baptisms of record (eight year olds) and living converts.
quote: The truth is, I actually feel insulted that YOU don't feel insulted by our practice. It is kind of saying, "ahhh... look at the backwards Chinese people, their religion is so CUTE!"
We demand to be recognized as a major source of evil and arrogance!
I am insulted that you don't recognize the status of evil soul-destroyers that I already relegated you to. I was trying to be sensitive and not call you pagan heathens as well, but if you refuse to get my insinuations of your wickedness I guess I will just stop being so sensitive.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. I know mock bigotry when I see it.
Let me play devil's advocate for a second.
Since no Mormon can bring up this point without getting flambayed, let me ask you this: Is it possible that you are more offended by Mormon beliefs than say, Chinese beliefs because Mormonism is similar enough to your faith that their deviation poses a twinge of doubt in your belief system. Sometimes, when our belief system is challenged, we knee-jerk react with anger.
You don't feel this way about Chinese people because, let's face it, burning paper money is just silly.
*but if we are right we are charging interest though*
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Alexa, I do find South Park to be quite offensive, but it is also incredibly intelligent and funny. I don't watch it a lot, but some of what I have seen has been among the funniest stuff ever.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is a very good question. If a man had been Catholic or Russian Orthodox as was the case with my husband, all his life and all his life had told that story about the brave mother who had him baptized, and then we later baptized him by proxy, doesn't that cheapen it?
There are a lot of answers to that.
From LDS descendants POV:
His mother was brave and faithful no matter what, and worthy of great admiration. Her actions are not cheapened, and we believe God would call her a good and faithful servant for doing what she did.
The priest that performed baptism didn't have the priesthood authority to do so. The priest's personal actions are not cheap, but faithful so far as his knowledge goes. Again, we believe God would consider him a good and faithful servant for doing what he did.
The point of arrogance that I will concede is that we believe that the baptism itself was never valid because a) the infant was not possibly accountable enough to accept it and b) the priest did not have the authority from God to perform such a baptism. Therefore, we perform proxy baptisms.*
From the man's POV, before he has knowledge of the true nature of the afterlife:
This is really up to him to decide whether to be offended or not, and depends on how he percieves our religious beliefs. (Please note that within this specific example we are talking about a religion that simply believes the LDS proxy baptisms are meaningless.)
It would probably be closer to Christian behavior to try to understand our POV and not be offended.
From the man's POV, during the afterlife according to Mormons: He might believe he is already in heaven or perhaps Catholic pergatory, and so rejects the missionaries. Or he might see that things are far different than what he expected, that this is just like life except without the bodies. No one is yet exactly sure of what is the truth. Maybe those Mormons were right about things, after all, people are still making choices. Religious choices, even.
From the man's POV, during the afterlife according to his beliefs:
Here I am in paradise. I wish my children had followed my faith and were here too, but I suppose they did what they thought best, including that ritual for me after I died to give me a choice that didn't even matter. My Russian Orthodox baptism was clearly the right one.
From the man's POV, during any other afterlife: We were both wrong. Who was more wrong than the other person doesn't really matter, does it?
*Why would a loving God command us to do a work that is clearly impossible? How could he possibly hang the fates of our ancestors on our shoulders? This is where the Grace of God comes in: we are to do all that we can do and God will make up for the rest. We don't know exactly how. The Millenium is believed to be a time where most of the work will get accomplished, it being a time where the communication between man and heaven is clearer. Perhaps it will not be done with rituals in that time, or perhaps it will, or perhaps even the rituals will be different. But that does not mean that we in the here and now should slack off.
However, it does give us the ability to say to people belonging to religions that believe it is harmful to their spirits: Okay, we will not do proxy baptisms for you.
But let me also say this: to the persons contemplating putting their names on a "Do not do proxy baptism" list, will that include your descendants too? I wonder if you consider the sadness that would cause your great grandchildren who happen to have become Mormon a deterent to doing such a thing. People who died recently simply don't get baptized for the dead unless their descendants request it. That is a requirement to submit a name, that you be a direct descendant of the person in question.
posted
Storm, I speak in parables. Let him with ears hear, and all that. Logically, I could care LESS how the dead feel about things; my personal opinion is that the dead aren't feeling a heck of a lot. So what I care about, then, is how this ritual makes the LIVING feel.
"I think any civilized person understands that there are plenty of opposing view points and that there are plenty of other people that disagree with your position on something."
Yep. But there are few issues more inflammatory to most people than religion. I've said, myself, that I'm not opposed to a proxy baptism after I'm dead; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong -- and if I'm not, I'm not. I'm not hugely offended by the idea that Mormons think I'm wrong about the afterlife, but that's only because ninety percent of the whole friggin' country thinks I'm wrong about the afterlife and I've gotten pretty used to that feeling. People who are emotionally closer to their religions, however, are justified in being hurt by rituals that publicly CODIFY your disagreement.
Remember, you aren't just saying that all people in general were wrong about their faith; by baptizing grandpa, you're saying that grandpa SPECIFICALLY was wrong about his faith, and it's a good thing you were around to help him out.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it is the case for recent deaths (like in the last 100 years), but it hasn't always been so. I think that is because too many Mormons were baptizing celebrities, Holocaust victims, and the like (I mean seriously, is Elvis more important than your great grandfather?), when they should have been doing the work for their own ancestors. For instance, should Tom die tomorrow, in a years time when it is okay to baptize him by proxy I can't submit his name to have it done.
Tom made another point that highlights something I want to reiterate.
What about those religions that believe that our proxy work would actually harm souls?
The answer is: I would respect the people who believe that. I would not do their work for them. And I believe that eventually, like during the Millenium, that would be worked out and they would eventually have that choice. But I would not respect their god. I've said it before in this thread: such a god is capricious and not worthy of worship, IMHO.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a pretty silly religion that allows room for that religion's enemies to effect the souls of that religion's followers.
'Well, he lead a good life and followed his religion's mandates. He died righteous, but now that he's been prayed for, God just won't take him. Sorry!'
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a pretty silly religion that allows room for that religion's enemies to effect the souls of that religion's followers."
Are we going to start listing silly hypothetical religious beliefs, now? Because I think I have a list somewhere....
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I'll have to come back later - I actually meant to go to work before this and now I have to scramble.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
