quote:This year has been very hard to keep a charitable oppinion of Jews -- and I consider the dislike of them a sin.
Just as the unathorized baptism done by certain rogue Mormons should not be used to condemn the entire Monrmon church, the complaints lodged by some of the Jews should not affect your charitable opinion of them. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more note to those who might not understand. The proxy work is more than a whim of fancy to Mormons. If they aren't done than the whole purpose of this Earth has been wasted. Our not doing them will bring swift and sure destruction of the whole World. Not to mention a huge and painful "lash" on the backs of the Mormons by God before that happens.
posted
Thus, I have kept my sanity against emotional feelings.
That reminds me, exactly what "Jews" made the agreement? I mean, if the LDS Church made an agreement with the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, I wouldn't imagine it would count for all Protestants, much less all Baptist Conventions. Maybe the Jews making the complaints are not the same that signed (if that really happened) the agreements.
quote:I'm not saying a lawyer could win, but he might have enough to survive summary judgment and create enough bad publicity for the church to force a settlement.
Oh, I think it would definitely survive summary judgment. Is it wrong for some small piece of me to want to see this go to trial and get appealed all the way up just so I can read Kennedy's opinion on this?
I'd forgotten the funeral home cases - the one we had was the guy who got an amputated foot in his bag of personal effects when he was discharged from the hospital.
quote:Frankly, I think the Church should say "agreement is OFF!," and everyone will be happy. At least, there won't be a "legal" reason to hate the Mormons. Knowing the leadership of the Church, however, they will try to find some kind of a solution to accomodate the Jews. They will, eventually, shoot themselves in the foot trying to be accomodating. Its the way of charity in today's world.
I'm confused - every article I've read says the LDS Church considers such proxy baptisms to be invalid. Knowing that a practice contrary to Church doctrine offends the surviving relatives, why wouldn't the Church try to make it right?
posted
What I want to know is, what kind of God is making decisions about who to save (or any decsions, for that matter) based on whether or not some other totally unrelated people decide to perform a ceremony in their name long after they are dead? Seems quite arbitrary and unfair to have that sort of thing based not on your own merits, but on the choices of some Mormons you've never even met.
Along the same lines, can we marry two people who've never met eachother after they die if we feel like they'd make a good couple in the afterlife?
posted
No. There are sealings after death, but only for couples who were married at the time of death.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Christ didn't provide a written list of all the people he saved and will ever save.
I maintain that the ultimate difference for me is the physical presence of the name on official documents in the Church.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap-- Everyone who was ever born will have the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.
Everyone will have the opportunity to accept or reject the proxy work done for them-- and the proxy work will be done for all those who ever died without having the opportunity to make the convenants for themselves.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I want to know is, what kind of God is making decisions about who to save (or any decsions, for that matter) based on whether or not some other totally unrelated people decide to perform a ceremony in their name long after they are dead?
From a Mormon perspective, everyone will have the ordinances done eventually. The Mormon view is that we do everything we can do, and in the millennium, angels will give records of all the people who have ever lived that we have no record of or could not do temple work for.
It is not arbitrary, and it is not a "decision" some Mormons make. The real question for me is: why do we need the ceremony in the first place? Does something physical happen to the spirit? I understand how valuable ceremonies can be to teach metaphorical lessons, mold behavior, and shape character, but once you are dead you kinda know anyway. Right? And if it is done for you, what benefit does that have to the spirit?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was done in good faith, and the Jews are not showing any good faith other than using it to hit the LDS Church on its head.
How so? You need to be clearer. Also, "the Jews" are not doing anything. There are specific Jewish interest groups that are acting on behalf of Holocaust victims and that is all. There are approximately 13 million Jews worldwide - surely you don't mean that all of them are acting in bad faith.
quote:This year has been very hard to keep a charitable oppinion of Jews
I'm sure you didn't mean to be ugly, but this is a very offensive statement. You should consider backing it up or elaborating. What have all 13 million of us done to make it so difficult for you to think well of us? What have I done or rivka or Ela or Raia? Please understand that even if you feel we have done nothing to make you have an uncharitable opinion of Jews, your statement still targets us and our families.
quote:and I consider the dislike of them a sin.
Again, you need to consider qualifying or rewording your statement. This just seems like a lame attempt to soften the first part the sentence without changing its intent.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PG- For folks that have said, "I definitely do not want the Mormon's proxy baptism done for me," I can see your assertion being correct.
Who does this, though?
For Christians, the idea of proxy ANYTHING should be a very familiar, and comforting one. Christ sacrificed himself in our place, both the wicked and the righteous, the willing and the unwilling.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: why do we need the ceremony in the first place?
Alexa, Jesus Christ was baptized. Baptism isn't only about washing away sin (since he had none) it is also about obedience.
There is a lot of emphasis on what the baptisms do or do not do for the dead. Another element is what they accomplish for those performing them. Much like this meeting between Clinton and Hatch. Neither of them is empowered in any way to act for the parties involved (Please, Please no one think that the rubbish that spills Hatch represents the church anymore than anything I might say) but it makes them feel better to do it.
Edit: Spelling, but while I'm here, whoever originally wrote these quotes about the Jews realize you are objectifying them. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread, but I did read all of pages one and four. I actually set myself an hour timer for internet this morning and it already went off.
posted
First of all thank you Dagonee for your educated legal opinion.
I'm fairly neutral on the whole proxy baptism idea. But I think even if I hated it, I would still support their free speech rights. I can't see this in any way being nearly as harmful as KKK rallies.
Having said that, I think recently I've come to understand more of the Jewish perspective. I'm not claiming an infinite knowledge just a recent epiphany on my own part on the subject after attending a Jewish funeral.
From what I have observed, how a person lived their life is very important to them. The memory of a persons life is very important. To do actions for the person that are contrary to how that person lived their life is disrespectfull.
Though having thought about it (Jewish jatraqueros please feel free to jump all over me) I find myself drawing a similarity between two things. At a Jewish funeral it is considered a mitzvoh to put earth on the grave, because it is a kindness that the dead cannot repay. Yes it is in keeping with the tradition they lived their life in. But on the flip side could not the LDS proxy baptism be looked at the same way? It is viewed a kindness for the dead that the dead can not repay. The difference though is that this is outside of the religious tradition (regardless of religion) that the person lived in life.
Argh, so I guess I see both sides. And I can't come up with a conclusion myself, other than what has already been stated. 1)Legally I think they have a right to do it under free exercise and 2)if the LDS church has specifically stated something they ought to go the extra mile in keeping their word. Especially because how non believers view their "testimony" as a whole is so important to them.
I understand it is about obedience, but ordinances aside, I can think of no commandment that has obedience as its' only reason/motive. There are ramifications that are not arbitrary to breaking any of God's commandments. If you steal you are shaping your character to disregard others--it is an offense to love. It seems to me commandments are there to remind us of what is both physically and spiritually damming to our soul OR to point us in a direction of blessings.
Ordinances in themselves do not do anything once you are dead--other then doing it for the sake of obedience. That seems strange to me. It is like eternal marriage. What does that do?
Unless you are married in the temple, will God put you on different worlds and not let you visit? Marriage boils down to a ceremony to show commitment, a life of proving commitment, and then some tax ramifications. Does eternal marriage DO SOMETHING that make it possible to still feel and portray commitment?
I don't get what it does besides blind obedience. I still think Mormons should be allowed to do proxy temple work for Jews tho.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why is baptism so essential? Why the physical ordinance? Why do we have to do it?
I'm not sure, but I'll tell you the way it makes sense in my head. While I'm not sure what the physical elements of ordinances do, the Lord is consistent in commanding that we do them.
For every ordinance, there is a physical and spiritual element. (I have a theory that it is that way for most things in life - a form and a substance, if you will allow me. Yes, I'm aware that Plato also used those terms, but I'm not using them in the same way.)
For the sacrament, there is the act of taking the bread and water, and there is the inward resolve to renew the covenants. For baptism, there is the dunking, and there is the mighty change of heart. For the gift of the Holy Ghost, there is the laying on of hands, and there is recieving the Holy spirit. For priesthood ordination, there is the ordination, but if a man does not live up to the responsibilities and spirit of the calling, the priesthood isn't there. For endowment, there is the endowment, there are the covenants, and then there is the inner resolve to keep the covenants.
And for eternal marriage, there is the ceremony, and then there is being sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is not automatic.
So, it's consistent. The physical ordinance of baptism means nothing without the inner change of heart, but we still have to do it. It's important enough the Lord commands temples for it. Why?
<turns skirt around, which means she's now going into Katie theory. Do not take as either representative of all LDS or as official doctrine>
You know that part in the Doctrine and Covenants where the Lord says the spirit and the body is the soul of man? Well, when we're resurrected, the spirit and the body will come together to never be separated again, but in this life, they are still...divisible. So, the eternal acts and decisions that we do need to have both a spiritual and physical element to them.
On the other hand, maybe the Lord just knows us, and knows that what we do with our bodies DOES affect our thoughts and our spirits, and so commanded the physical ordinances to make the spiritual decisions so much easier to remember, and then made it mandatory for everyone so its fair. I'm not sure, though.
posted
(edit: This is for Alexa, not kat) Why are you questioning eternal marriage in particular? It's kind of off topic. Trying to prove your point on that premise is not coming from a place of shared understanding, apparently. By the way, I don't think you are not LDS anymore, just having a difficult time with it.
Ordinances only have a benefit if you believe in them. We aren't given "signs" with definite benefits attached because it would defeat agency.
quote: I can think of no commandment that has obedience as its' only reason/motive.
Do you mean the original 10 commandments? What about "Thou shalt not covet?" A lot of the 10 commandments are mainly about attitude. Honor your parents, Take not the name of the Lord in vain, make nothing and idol.
I guess you see attitude as a practical application of a commandment? But how is the meaning of any truth or commandment or ordinance guaranteed? It's not. Only if it "helps" one to have a better relationship with the Lord.
posted
BTW, my only (semi-major) problem with the practice of posthumusly baptizing Shoah victims is that the LDS church entered into an agreement saying that they would not do so. I still haven't been able to find a copy of the actual agreement, so I don't know the exact terms. However, if the LDS church hierarchy agreed that they would discontinue this particular practice, then they have an obligation to ensure that its members abide by that agreement.
If the Jewish groups are going to court (and I very much doubt that they are or that they want to), then it is not to persuade the government to force the LDS church to stop baptisms by proxy of all Jews. It is to enforce the agreement that both parties signed.
On a personal note, I was shocked to find that my agnostic husband (whose family was greatly reduced by WWII) does disapprove of his ancestors being baptized by proxy. I wouldn't have thought it mattered to him, but he feels that it's disrespectful. It doesn't really matter to me - I understand that it's done out of love and I don't think it will affect me in the afterlife (if there is one). I guess I would like the opportunity to refuse it, though.
Also, this does not signal the breakdown of Judeo-Mormon relations. The LDS and Jewish representatives who signed the agreement had an amicable and respectful relationship. It certainly doesn't affect my relationship with Kat or any of my other LDS friends.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
No. Most people who've live have not had the opportunity to accept or reject those covenants, since most people have not even heard of Christ since his birth, atonement, and resurrection. It is our belief that those covenants must be done in the mortal flesh. Again, those people are not bound by the covenants made by proxy unless and until they actually accept.
It more like having a contract drawn up that still requires the signature of the involved parties, than like "We've baptized you, now you are part of our church whether you like it or not."
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:then they have an obligation to ensure that its members abide by that agreement.
That is kind of an impossible expectation, don't you think? This is a church with nearly 12 million members. You can't control the actions of every individual.
Do you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is responsible for the criminal actions of every single member? This is less than a criminal action. It is potentially offensive, but does no actual harm. Unless you think that the Jewish God is actually going to hold it against those people who were baptized by proxy.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How are the names put in place? I mean, I know it used to be done all on paper, and if it still was, I'd say its almost impossible to make sure nothing goes through. Since it is electronic now, does that mean there is a process to clear the name? If there is, could be put in a step?
For the record, the records are a bit messy sometimes. Since there are some people who have many Mormon progeny, the work for them has been done many, many times. I have a friend that when she went in to do geneology found one ancestor that had had the work done for them over twenty times. I wonder if there is stuff in place to make sure things like that don't happen now? If there isn't, then I think we need an electronic vett-the-name process for more reasons than one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Christ didn't provide a written list of all the people he saved and will ever save.
I maintain that the ultimate difference for me is the physical presence of the name on official documents in the Church.
I also maintain that newbie names get ignored only because they're newbie names, and not because they're particularly insulting. Dabbler's my new at-school cluster handle.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, I have to confess I missed Dabbler. I was mainly scanning pages 2&3, kind of wished I hadn't, mainly.
Edit: I did see your post but for some reason thought it was Dagonee. Still, you can see where the name "dabbler" might interfere with our perception of the weight of your opinion. And Frisco's comment that followed, I thought he was complaining about the drift of the subject from the first post of this thread. Sorry./edit
In response to the libel idea, we don't say "they are now a member of our church". We merely record that the ordinances were done in their behalf. But in the LDS church ordinances are necessary, but definitely not the totality of membership.
Sheesh. I hope they never institute visiting teaching by proxy. Even tithing by proxy would really bite. This practice is actually based on something St. Paul wrote: Else why are they baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all?
posted
Newbie names also get ignored because I don't pay attention to all the posts. . .
"Christ didn't provide a list. . ."
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you maintaining that because Mormons DO keep a list of folks who have had their ordinance work done that we're culpable somehow of something?
MY point was that Christ did exactly as the Mormons are doing-- performed a charitable act for souls that may or may not even want his action on their behalf.
quote:I maintain that the ultimate difference for me is the physical presence of the name on official documents in the Church.
Again-- I don't understand what you're saying. Difference? What difference? Are you referring to a previous post?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't know exactly what religion Suneun is or isn't. But I do know that many religions believe that names, even in written form have power. So having their name written down in some other religious body's documents would be greviously offensive, even if never actually stated while the person is living.
posted
Maybe we're just confused at each other, Scott.
I have the understanding that when Mormons do proxy baptism, they keep a listing of the name that was involving in the baptism, representing the individual. The wording is not "They are," but "They can choose"
I showed an example on the last page that (sadly) was never addressed by anyone else. If I owned a dog-meat restaurant and had a sign which indicated "These people are welcome to come eat here: Jane Doe, John Doe, Jim Doe," I'm not saying that they are promoting my product at all. I'm not lying about them. But I don't think it's acceptable to make such a sign. We should have control over our own names as symbols of who we are, even after death.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frisco: seems fair game to maintain. Maintain can mean that I have that opinion and stand by it. Doesn't always imply having priorly made that opinion known.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been a lot worse things done to people's names after their death that they have absolutely no control over. Think of all the people who have had nasty books written about them after they died.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me to be a bit inconsistent to say "it's very important to us!" and yet also say "but why does it matter to you?"
By the same reasoning it is also inconsistent to expect a group, that is viewed by most as a strange cult, to honor any agreements about what is done in secret rituals.
Either the LDS Church is a legitimate organization that should be expected to honor it's agreements, or it is not. I don't think many outside the LDS faith would grant the church that legitimacy.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me a farcical notion to talk about dead people's "rights". Dead people have no more rights than do dogs or trees or rocks. At least, that's how I see it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: Suneun's dog meat example Dagonee might know if that is legal.
I suspect charges have been presssed in the cases where Celebrity X's name has been used, to insinuate that they support a resturaunt or product even if they don't and it wasn't worded explicitly that they do.
quote:That is kind of an impossible expectation, don't you think? This is a church with nearly 12 million members. You can't control the actions of every individual.
I understand your point. I purposely phrased my sentence loosely. Let me be more specific. I think that the LDS Church has a duty (under the contract that they voluntarily entered into) to take reasonable measures to ensure that their members abide by the agreement. I'm not familiar with the disciplinary procedures that the LDS hierarchy uses, so I don't really know what exactly can be done. Is issuing another edict an option? The Jewish interest groups aren't looking for the LDS Church to guarantee that every member will cease and desist posthumus baptizms of Shoah victims, but they would like tangible proof that a strong effort is being made.
quote:Do you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is responsible for the criminal actions of every single member?
Of course not. I don't see how anything that I wrote would lead you to think this.
quote: It is potentially offensive, but does no actual harm.
That's debatable. It's hurtful to those who don't want their ancestors to be posthumusly baptized.
quote:Unless you think that the Jewish God is actually going to hold it against those people who were baptized by proxy.
And what if I do? (That's rhetorical - I don't actually believe that.)
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you explain how to maintain control over one's name from beyond the grave?
Well, you can legally bequeath the use of your name after your death. That's why there are new V.C. Andrews novels years after her death, for example.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the big question is, would the LDS Church be happy if some Buddist Sect started finding late LDS members, even those slain for their beliefs, and saying how the Buddist's Prayers are freeing them from the confines and fallacies of Christianity to be welcomed into the greater conciousness and a better level of reincarnation.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Re: Suneun's dog meat example Dagonee might know if that is legal.
The reason I didn't comment is because when I read Suneun's post with that example, I interpreted it that she didn't think the dog-meat example would (or should) be illegal, just something that shouldn't be done.
There might be some commercial implications if it's interpeted as advertising. Commercial speech has less protection. But in general, the sign as described would not seem to be illegal.
posted
I don't know how the Le' Cafe du Dog-Meat relates to the LDS church's practice of proxy ordinances; it's not like we've got a list on www.lds.org saying:
"Look at the famous people who've converted! Elvis Presley! Mahatma Gandhi! Josef Stalin!"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
For use of the name after death, I think the courts should err conservately. Unless it can be proven the named person would have been fine with such use, it's not fine. That is, if anyone brings it up to court. Like relatives. In cases where the dead pass on rights to their living relatives, their living relatives can make such judgment calls.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
