posted
"So I understand why this issue, in general, is distressing. But given the fact that no ordinances were performed in this case, AND even when ordinances are performed, Mormon doctrine stresses that the ordinance is MEANINGLESS unless the person whose name is used accepts it ... I don't think that the degree of panic and anger that I've seen in this thread is warranted."
What if the person who you are baptizing belonged to a faith that believes the ceremony you perform actually has an affect, regardless of your intentions?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Turns out, one of my guests is an orthodox Jew. If I were to sit down with him and try to COERCE him to eat the pork rinds, that would be horribly offensive. But simply putting a platter out with his name on it, on a table with 99 other platters for my non-Jewish guests? At a party with other food, where he is under no obligation to accept the pork rinds? It doesn't seem like the same level of offense.
It seems to me that your analogy demonstrates the opposite of what you meant it to do. The reason is that the orthodox Jew would, presumably, feel that a kitchen that has had pork rinds in it at any point is ritually unclean, and you have therefore (presuming he did not know that the pork would be served) tricked him into eating non-kosher food. (Granted, in this case he'd be fairly stupid to show up at your party at all without bringing his own food.) In other words, the pork rinds do him harm, religiously speaking, whether or not you force him to eat them. And, apparently, some people believe that this is exactly true of the ordinance thing, without even the mitigating factor that they can choose not to go to your party.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, explain the Mormon afterlife to me. I mean, if somebody's dead, but they haven't been baptized yet, and then somebody gets baptized for them or whatever...I mean, what happens up to that point? Are they hanging out in limbo? Are they just dead? What is going on?
posted
Well, Paul G., as for myself, I really don't care. As a Mormon my beliefs supercede any and all other people's considerations. Now, people are going to jump all over this, but I am not the only person to hold that kind of religious attitude toward their own faith and others. That is why I am more understanding and comfortable with an athiest that said "a pox on both your superstitious houses" than I am a religious person proclaiming they are offended. Sure you are. You don't believe the same things I do.
I mean, its not like other Christians haven't prayed for Mormons that they would "find the way" and "be saved" when we already believe we have. And, of course, they say that loud and clear and to our faces. There might be a degree difference as to how far Mormons go with that, but it amounts to the same idea. Pluralism is probably a good goal, but with pluralism comes the equally important consideration that it exists precisely because no one holds the same opinions.
I can understand why people can be offended. They have a different belief system than I do and so it seems the actions of a Mormon can effect their ancestors. So what is what I say. I believe more Mormons should say that exact thing and try not to defend such a holy and sacred responsibility as we see it.
I would rather risk making many enemies than bring down the wrath of God. That is exactly what the Scriptures say will happen if the Temple work isn't done. Remember, Earthly polygamy was halted to save the Temple work from ending. Yes, I am currently talking more to Mormons than the non-Mormons in this last paragraph.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a Jew, and not terribly familiar with baptism. I have a few questions. If it's easier, I would be happy with a link where I could find the answers.
1. Are Mormons the only denomination that performs baptisms of the dead? If not, are other denominations more careful?
2. Let's say the name of a dead person was not on the list because of an oversight. What do Mormons believe happens to them? I'm trying to understand why Mormons would do something that almost everyone would opt out of while living, if given the chance. They must believe the consequences are extremely harsh for those who don't go through baptism.
3. How far back can the baptisms go? For example, during the Middle Ages, many Jews chose death rather baptism. Could this affect them as well?
4. Given the volume of names that have been submitted, why can't the Mormons just work on those names for now? It seems to me that it would be trivial to at the end of every month, take the names that were submitted in the previous month, match them against the "do not baptize" list, and then release the results for those who feel like it should be done.
5. How much knowledge about a person do you need to have to submit their name? Are there any criteria (other than the agreement made in 1995) that disqualify someone from being added to the list? For example, if someone were a religious authority, it would be clear that they do not belong on the list.
It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the person adding the name. If the name gets on the list, it should just take one descendant to remove it.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, imagine I had a party with 100 guests, and I set out 100 platters of delicious pork rinds for everyone as a snack. Everyone has already eaten their main course, so no one NEEDS the snack. It's just put out for everyone, with little place cards on the platters, so that they can take one if they want it. (I might personally have a strong belief that pork rinds are the best snack EVER, and that EVERYONE should have some, but that belief is not enforced upon the guests.)
Turns out, one of my guests is an orthodox Jew. If I were to sit down with him and try to COERCE him to eat the pork rinds, that would be horribly offensive. But simply putting a platter out with his name on it, on a table with 99 other platters for my non-Jewish guests? At a party with other food, where he is under no obligation to accept the pork rinds?
Yes, for the same reason we don't drink in front of Alcoholics. In doing so, you are mocking the severity of alcoholism.
In this posthumous offering, whether you intend to or not, you are mocking the seriousness of the Jew religion, of both Mr. Weisenthal and the Jewish community he left behind.
_____
It's kind of like your Dad's last article about how the University faculty would attempt to indoctrinate students away from the faith of their parents. It's especially insidious to do it in college, when the students are seperated from their parents. And in Weisenthal's case, it's insidious because it's the equivalent of knocking on doors, prosthelitizing at 3am.
posted
"Are they hanging out in limbo? Are they just dead? What is going on?"
Some things we know from what we consider revelation and some things we don't. There are those who, because of deeds done in this life, are suffering damnation until the sins are purged or justice served. Others are hard at work teaching and getting taught, or doing other work related to both the living and the dead that has not been specified. Still others are simply resting from all the cares and problems of the mortal life. It depends on where the individual spiritually stands at the time of death.
Some say there is a hard division between "Paradise" and "Prison" - sort of a light Heaven and Hell concept. Others say they are co-mingled and only perceptions make up the difference. There is plenty of Scriptural justification for both views.
However, this is just one step in the progression of souls. Think of it as a very active Limbo. The real "afterlife" is the final Judgement. That will happen in a future that hasn't happened yet. Of course, that is a whole other discussion.
quote:1. Are Mormons the only denomination that performs baptisms of the dead? If not, are other denominations more careful?
Mormons are the only Christian religion to do this, although there was apparently some ancient Christians who seemed to have also done this (depending on if you accept the research on the topic or not). There are Christians that will very much "pray for you" to save your soul.
quote:2. Let's say the name of a dead person was not on the list because of an oversight. What do Mormons believe happens to them? I'm trying to understand why Mormons would do something that almost everyone would opt out of while living, if given the chance. They must believe the consequences are extremely harsh for those who don't go through baptism.
Whatever could not be done now will be done in the Millenium (or last 1000 years of Earth history). That will be a time when things are much more accessable and will have much more of Heaven's help. We don't believe that non-Baptism will be extremely harsh (but it will take away any chance of a person reaching the highest potential imaginable). However, we do believe that it will be harsh for the Earth if it isn't done.
quote:How far back can the baptisms go? For example, during the Middle Ages, many Jews chose death rather baptism. Could this affect them as well?
From a practical viewpoint it can go back to as far back as records exist. Religiously, it can go back to the time of Adam and Eve's children.
quote:Given the volume of names that have been submitted, why can't the Mormons just work on those names for now? It seems to me that it would be trivial to at the end of every month, take the names that were submitted in the previous month, match them against the "do not baptize" list, and then release the results for those who feel like it should be done.
That is because there are far more people who will do the work in the Temple than the names that are put in the system. One person can do as many names as is desirable or within chosen time frame. I really don't know how many names are actually in waiting or not, but it wouldn't be long before there would need to be more if extraction was halted. There really is no DO NOT BAPTISE list. That is under the descretion of whoever puts the names in. There might be an exception under the Jewish "agreement."
quote:How much knowledge about a person do you need to have to submit their name? Are there any criteria (other than the agreement made in 1995) that disqualify someone from being added to the list? For example, if someone were a religious authority, it would be clear that they do not belong on the list.
Again, there is no list of don't baptise. The only criteria that disqualifies is living and having been dead(I don't know how long, 10, 50 yrs?) a short time ago guideline. You are qualified if your birth, death, and proof of existance is put in.
As for the "For example, if someone were a religious authority, it would be clear that they do not belong on the list," Mormons don't see it that way religiously. After all, the whole point of Mormonism is that true authority to act in G-d's name was lost from the Earth. People are considered people worthy of salvation.
quote:But I will admit that the concept of "Somebody in the past life's status being ill effected by the actions of a stranger in this life to be completely new to me. Perhaps it will just take some time to sink in and Ill will be more understanding on the matter.
If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?
quote:I know this might count for little, but the phrase is "baptism FOR the dead," not "baptism OF the dead." It is like giving a gift that can be accepted or rejected.
And working within the assumptions and beliefs of your faith, that's fine. But do you see that if one does not share them, it may not make much difference what you call it?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I haven't read this whole thread (there aren't enough hours in the day), but I wanted to make sure a certain idea got out there ...
Mormons (like me) don't believe that we are actually baptizing the person whose name is used in the ceremony. It's more like we're performing a baptism that could be theirs if they want it, but it is entirely up to them whether or not to accept it.
Had you read the thread (or even the last page before your post), you would have seen that this point has already been made. Moreover, I (and others) have explained that your perspective on what's happening is not the same as ours.
A man believes it is morally incorrect to eat pork rinds; that grilled fish is the only true food. People who believe that neither pork rinds nor grilled fish should be eaten beat the man up repeatedly, but he never changes his mind. He even goes out of his way to find the people who beat him and his friends up and points them out to the police. All worn out, he collapses onto a chair. Then you put a pork rind in front of him.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?"
Because we believe our actions work and your perception of those actions doesn't. Its really that simple. They might not think that is the way they feel about it, but I think it is.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?"
Because we believe our actions work and yours doesn't. Its really that simple. They might not think that is the way they feel about it, but I think it is.
Occasional, when people are addressing that argument, they are not addressing a statement "we believe ours works." They are addressing a conditional statement "even if we're wrong, there's no harm."
"We're right" is an entirely different argument and not one being addressed by the question you responded to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "If you accept that they could be positively affected, why is it so hard to accept that they could be negatively affected?"
Because we believe our actions work and yours doesn't. Its really that simple. They might not think that is the way they feel about it, but I think it is.
No one is asking you to agree. Merely to be willing to look at it from someone else's perspective.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No one is asking you to agree. Merely to be willing to look at it from someone else's perspective."
What is the difference? At least in this discussion?
Dagonee, you might be correct in the "We are right" is not properly answering the question. However, that is the assumption that Mormons seem to be answering the question from. Again, that would be very different from the reasoning of a non-Mormon (because you mentioned non-Mormons also say this). So, a Mormon must first get rid of the notion of "right authority" vs. "no authority" to get to the intention of the question. However, that isn't an easy thing to do from a religion where the only real religious question is about authority.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, Paul G., as for myself, I really don't care. As a Mormon my beliefs supercede any and all other people's considerations. Now, people are going to jump all over this, but I am not the only person to hold that kind of religious attitude toward their own faith and others.
Just because others believe that way does not make it any more right. If we could all force our religious practices on others because we believe strongly, our country would be a large war zone.
I'm sorry, but I find this arrogant, superciliousness aggravating. There's nothing more frustrating to me than an overzealous believer who knows what's better for me than I do.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, like I said, God is more important to me than people's opinions. And Baptism for the Dead is more than simply a side issue, but a foundational belief and practice.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, if the point I was trying to make has already been made and refuted, I withdraw it. I just ... I don't know, I'm not thrilled about some of the attitudes that a few of my fellow Mormons have taken in here, and from what I was reading at the time I posted, I thought my input might help. But if not, that's cool, I don't want to exascerbate the situation.
The only point I was really trying to make was that this mistake was clearly not maliciously meant, given the likely perspective of the Mormon making the mistake, and I think the conversation would benefit from less hysterics. I think that one still stands, even if the specific point I addressed is moot.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, that isn't an easy thing to do from a religion where the only real religious question is about authority.
I get that. People who have that difficulty, however, should not offer defenses that require such a major paradigm shift if it's too difficult for them.
You, of course, haven't offered that defense, so this doesn't apply to you. If you're not going to discuss that defense on its own terms, you might be more effective by simply ignoring the posts that respond to it. Otherwise it gets very confusing keeping track.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might believe that the ordinance is meaningless in every possible way and STILL be disturbed to find out that someone I don't even know is using my father's name in a religious ceremony.
It also wouldn't make it less disturbing to discover that the person using my father's name is some distant relative. There is not an LDS member among the people I consider to be sufficiently connected with his name and legacy to request rituals in his name, and therefore the LDS church couldn't possibly conduct this ceremony in any way that I would consider other than a grave insult and affront to his memory.
Sorry. I pretty much wish your church didn't have my father's name and would not use it ever, for any purpose, even ones you claim are potentially meaningless.
I have a very big soft spot for members of the LDS church. I have known and interacted with many and like almost all of them and consider them deeply spiritual and upstanding people. To my mind, this practice and specifically the use of my father's name, is ...well, I don't really have appropriate words to express what I'm feeling.
I'll get over it, but right now, I probably couldn't be nice to anyone who defends this, so I'm going to bug out for awhile. It's not your fault -- but it is a problem. Catch you in the fluff threads.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
All the Mo's have said, "Yes, we need to do better at living up to our promises."
One article I read in the link Lisa provided stated that there were plans to put in a name filter-- this was in August 2006, I believe. There have been many mistakes that need to be rectified-- but we aren't going to hurry up about it just because you scream at us.
(Indeed, screaming at Mormons gets you just about nowhere. We are the Kings and Queens of passive aggressive behavior.)
Yes, baptism for the dead as an ordinance is overwhelmingly arrogant. But for that matter, so is the very base of Christianity-- accept Christ, and be saved. Otherwise...no. And, "No man cometh unto the Father except by me," etc.
Enormously arrogant. Also, enormously necessary.
Excuse me-- I've got an itch in my eyeball. So do you.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: The only point I was really trying to make was that this mistake was clearly not maliciously meant, given the likely perspective of the Mormon making the mistake, and I think the conversation would benefit from less hysterics. I think that one still stands, even if the specific point I addressed is moot.
Agreed on both points.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I read rivka's explanation, and suddenly, that makes sense. No one had explained a worldview to me before in which a ritual that is intended to have only conditional meaning by the people performing it could actually have an unwanted UNconditional meaning for the person in whose name it was performed.
From a Mormon's typical perspective, the only available options seem to be "They want it, and YAY! we did it!" or "They don't want it, and [shrug] at least we tried to be nice. No harm done, I'm sure where they are, they understand." The third option of "Their descendents have a serious, highly-legitimate belief that our actions pulled their ancestor AWAY from God!" never came up for me before. So thank you. And sorry I didn't read it sooner. Tough day at work Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yes, baptism for the dead as an ordinance is overwhelmingly arrogant. But for that matter, so is the very base of Christianity-- accept Christ, and be saved. Otherwise...no. And, "No man cometh unto the Father except by me," etc.
Enormously arrogant. Also, enormously necessary.
Excuse me-- I've got an itch in my eyeball. So do you.
Not, they're not the same. The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
An itch in my eyeball? Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what that's to mean.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: rivka - you mean like a filter for entries into the IGI? I think it has merit... but who defines the names on the filter? And what about Mormon's who can show that they are descendants of the Jews in question?
A filter would be fine. As I said, the agreement clearly excludes those with current Mormon descendants. So while I hate it, if a current member of the church could prove ancestry, then I accept that there's nothing I can do about that (except perhaps work on bringing said descendant back where they belong).
I'd actually be happier if there were simply a rule that you had to prove ancestry to add anyone to the list to begin with. Mostly for simplicity's sake.
Prove, as in provide copies of birth, marriage, death certificates, immigration certificates, ship lists, that sort of thing? That would mean sending along copies of, say, 15-30 pieces of paper for each individual. That would be a logistical nightmare. Doing it via scans of such documents would be easier & take less space, naturally. It would also mean we'd have to increase our volunteer numbers tremendously to oversee such things.
On the other hand, I can also see the value in that. It would certainly go a long ways towards preventing a lot of the junk genealogy that gets submitted. I think that would go a long ways towards providing all-round better quality research. That, I can definitely get behind. That, and providing documentation indicating that these were ancestors, and also providing a signed form that indicates that permission was obtained from the closest living relative, where necessary.
Realisitically, in the short term, I don't see it happening, although I personally would love to see something along these lines happening.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I am talking about all the geriatrics who work in the genealogical libraries all across the world
I'm sorry, but this argument just seems silly to me.
This is a database, right? A site that people can enter information into?
Can't someone write a filter with a whole bunch of names, so that when someone enters a name on the "do not use" list an error will pop up?
For instance: A person types in: "John Doe, DOB 02/02/1902, DOD 02/02/1952". Then they get an hourglass as the system checks against the list. Then a pop up tells them "We're sorry, this name cannot be entered into the database" with an explanation.
Doesn't seem like this would be too much to ask.
There are already some filters in place. Obviously (to me, at any rate) they need to be improved. The filters will prevent work being done for people in certain geographical areas. Most people who do genealogical work don't know this because they don't submit ancestors from those geographic areas. There is no official posted list as it may change at any moment, depending on agreements in place with religious groups or political leaders. It's checked when the names are reviewed by the computer program called Temple Ready which approves or denies work as being ready to be done. If a person's location is on that list, then an error message pops up and that person's work is not submitted.
If Mr. Weisenthal had been born in Israel, for example, the only way to circumvent the location filter to submit his name for temple work would be to give erroneous location information.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And the church agreed to adequately educate its members, implying (if not stating outright) that they would do their best to keep this from happening again (and again and again and again). I do not believe much effort has been spent on that. What is wrong with something along the line of FC's suggestion? Include an "I believe this person should be added anyway, and here's why" explanation form option (which gets reviewed by an actual person).
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I agree with Rivka that an explanation form would be good, but suppose that person provides a good reason to add that person's name? I see the same problem arising, namely an objection to the name being added, regardless of the reason.
There is not any kind of clause that allows a member to submit a person for temple work without that person being an ancestor. There are no exceptions allowed. We are to do work on our own ancestors only.
rivka, I can understand why it appears to you that there isn't much effort made on our part to educate our members. There is, though.
In the publications that the church puts out to educate the members about how to do genealogy work, it always says "ancestors only". When we run the names through Temple Ready, the program that checks for duplications and runs the names through the existing filters, it says at the very beginning that the people we submit must be our ancestors. Most staff who work at family history centres and family history consultants who teach our members to do family history work stress that it's for ancestors only. Unfortunately, we do have some who think they can do whatever they want because... Really, the reason doesn't matter, at least not to me. The rules are in place for a reason, and a very good one as far as I and many others are concerned. We're working on educating people. We are trying. It's obviously not enough.
Those of us who follow and understand the rules are also, shall we say, not impressed by the idiots who do their own thing regardless of the consequences. Yeah, they're probably 80 and clueless, but still...
rivka, I read those other threads a while ago, and I remember reading what you wrote about your beliefs of the possible harm that could happen to you if someone did LDS temple work on your behalf. While I do not share your belief on that, I do appreciate what you wrote and your explanations. It's helped me to understand better your perspective and the possible perspectives of others. I've used it in training others in the hopes that it'll help them understand better as well.
Much work is currently being done to revamp and overhaul the existing database and how it's accessed. It takes time and it's not done. When it is, it is supposed to be better at preventing duplication (which is a huge problem at the moment) and filtering out those who aren't supposed to have their work done. Beta testing is supposed to start soon, although there's no official starting date for that.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: Also, rivka - how do you determine how much effort has been put into educating Mormon lay-geneologists about this?
I was not specific enough. I have no idea in terms of how much effort has been put into education.
But every time (before this thread, and I am happily surprised that it's not being dismissed this time) that I or someone else has suggested a filter of the like previously, it has been met with whines that it's too much work.
(That includes requests made through official channels. Not by me, but by people I know.)
Depending on who they're talking to, it wouldn't be surprising that those people might not have any clue.
Unless you (the generic LDS you) actually work on genealogy and submit names to the temple, you probably don't have a clue what the process is. I doubt that many Hatrackers who are LDS have done much genealogy - it's usually done by the grey-haired crowed. Granted, there are a couple of exceptions, one being me. Everyone else pretty much doesn't know what's going on simply because they haven't taken an interest and educated themselves. Doesnt' mean that nothing's been done - only means they don't know about it.
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: I see your point. Maybe Mormon leadership needs to hire some better DB people.
They have, and they are. They're working on it.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
Go ahead. I don't care. No, seriously, I don't mind. I don't believe it'll have any effect on me in the afterlife at all.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: To be honest, I think the geneological website should do a better job of conveying this information to potential users.
In fact, it ought to be in bold letters on every page of that website. Something like:
WARNING: Entry of names into this list may result in the person being named in a religious ceremony without the knowledge or consent of that persons nearest living relatives. We strongly advise the user to obtain such consent prior to entry of names into this site.
Just a suggestion. And I mean, this should be a pop-up warning every time you hit "ENTER" on that site. With an "Are you sure?" after each one. And maybe a "Are you REALLY acting with the consent of this person's closest living relatives?"
At least for people who died in the last 50 years or so.
There are messages that ask you to confirm that you're a relative and you have permission, if necessary, but I have no problem with - and would like very much - if that message popped up more frequently and was so obvious that absolutely everyone who used that program would know exactly what policy is.
As I've said before, we're to do the ordinances for our ancestors only. If they're not our ancestor, we should not submit them. Period.
The other part, however, is that we're supposed to have permission of the closest living relative for anyone who was born in the last 110 years, or, if their birth date is not known, married in the last 90. If we don't have that permission, we're not to do it. Period. No exceptions.
If that time frame were extended to 150 years, for example, I would still have no problem with it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It also wouldn't make it less disturbing to discover that the person using my father's name is some distant relative. There is not an LDS member among the people I consider to be sufficiently connected with his name and legacy to request rituals in his name, and therefore the LDS church couldn't possibly conduct this ceremony in any way that I would consider other than a grave insult and affront to his memory.
Sorry. I pretty much wish your church didn't have my father's name and would not use it ever, for any purpose, even ones you claim are potentially meaningless.
Bob, in the case of your father, that means that your mother, if she's still living, would have to give permission. If she's not, then either you or one of your siblings would have to give permission. If none of your father's children are still living, then it goes to your father's parents, then your father's siblings, and so on. Some distant relative of yours is not sufficiently close in relations to your father to submit his name for ordinances on their own without seeking explicit permission.
That someone did anyone means that that person went against the rules. I really really wish people wouldn't do that.
Some have expressed a desire to have a Do-Not-Baptize list. I also have no problem with that and heartily endorse adding that to the database. I see your point and have no problem with it.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not, they're not the same. The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
Unless you are a Universalist, the ending to that is "but if you don't accept Christ you will go to Hell for Eternity."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prove, as in provide copies of birth, marriage, death certificates, immigration certificates, ship lists, that sort of thing? That would mean sending along copies of, say, 15-30 pieces of paper for each individual. That would be a logistical nightmare.
I'm not clear on why it would take THAT many pieces of paper. Assuming (and I realize this can be a major assumption, depending on country and era of birth) there are birth certificates for everyone along the line of descent, wouldn't it only take those? (Granted, some instances would take dozens. But I wouldn't think those would be the majority at all.)
quote:There is not any kind of clause that allows a member to submit a person for temple work without that person being an ancestor. There are no exceptions allowed. We are to do work on our own ancestors only.
That's what I thought I had been told before. But in this very thread, Mormons have indicated otherwise.
quote:rivka, I can understand why it appears to you that there isn't much effort made on our part to educate our members. There is, though.
. . .
The rules are in place for a reason, and a very good one as far as I and many others are concerned. We're working on educating people. We are trying. It's obviously not enough.
Those of us who follow and understand the rules are also, shall we say, not impressed by the idiots who do their own thing regardless of the consequences. Yeah, they're probably 80 and clueless, but still...
rivka, I read those other threads a while ago, and I remember reading what you wrote about your beliefs of the possible harm that could happen to you if someone did LDS temple work on your behalf. While I do not share your belief on that, I do appreciate what you wrote and your explanations. It's helped me to understand better your perspective and the possible perspectives of others. I've used it in training others in the hopes that it'll help them understand better as well.
quote:Much work is currently being done to revamp and overhaul the existing database and how it's accessed. It takes time and it's not done. When it is, it is supposed to be better at preventing duplication (which is a huge problem at the moment) and filtering out those who aren't supposed to have their work done.
I'm glad to hear that.
quote:Depending on who they're talking to, it wouldn't be surprising that those people might not have any clue.
Fair enough.
quote:Some have expressed a desire to have a Do-Not-Baptize list. I also have no problem with that and heartily endorse adding that to the database. I see your point and have no problem with it.
Great. When will that be up and running? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm having a long day at work myself. In that I'm still here . . .
Me, too. And I'm on the east coast, and my house will be empty when I get home.
I'm so pitifwull.
Well, you've got me beat by three hours, but my apartment will also be empty when I get home. (That's actually why I'm here so late. I stay late on the night the kids are with their dad to make up for leaving early the other days.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka- what is the Jewish standpoint on a Buddhist burning paper money or food for a dead Jewish person?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'd be against it. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no large database or centralized registry, so I'd imagine there's not much we could do about it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not, they're not the same. The basis of Christianity is not "We know better than you and will impose it on you, and bollocks to you and your beliefs," but, "We believe Christ is the Savior and the only way to Heaven, and that it would be best for you to accept Him, but you don't have to."
Unless you are a Universalist, the ending to that is "but if you don't accept Christ you will go to Hell for Eternity."
This is true, yes. And however arrogant it is for a religion to proclaim it is the only way, most, if not all, religions give their members a choice of believing. It's not forced upon someone if they don't want it. Though, that, sadly, is not true, as plenty of families love forcing their children to believe as they do.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prove, as in provide copies of birth, marriage, death certificates, immigration certificates, ship lists, that sort of thing? That would mean sending along copies of, say, 15-30 pieces of paper for each individual. That would be a logistical nightmare.
I'm not clear on why it would take THAT many pieces of paper. Assuming (and I realize this can be a major assumption, depending on country and era of birth) there are birth certificates for everyone along the line of descent, wouldn't it only take those? (Granted, some instances would take dozens. But I wouldn't think those would be the majority at all.)
For me to prove my relation to my mother would take one piece of paper. My birth certificate. For me to prove my relation to my grandmother would take two pieces of paper - my birth certificate and my mother's birth certificate. For me to prove my relationship to my great great grandmother would take my birth certificate, my mother's birth certificate, and, if my grandmother's mother's name doesn't appear on her birth certificate, could also require, for example, a copy of a census record. But because that census record is not a primary document, it requires more documentation. So a will that lists my grandmother as a descendant. The will is also not a primary document, so this is still not sufficient proof. Especially since neither of those documents yet prove my great grandmother's date of birth, and we don't have a birth certificate on her, either. So, a copy of the family Bible would help, but it's also not a primary document, so still insufficient as far as proof goes...
Now, if we're talking about my great great grandmother, who came over from South Russia, which is now in the Ukraine, in 1874, I'd have to dig up probate records, the ship manifest listing her and her age, and other records just to prove her birth date and birth place, and I still haven't proved that I'm her descendant...
Birth, marriage, and death certificates are great pieces of information when they're available. They aren't always. Especially when we're talking about ancestors such as mine who wandered all over northern Europe before coming to Canada. (Netherlands->Germany->Prussia->South Russia->Canada). Then, to make it really good, I'd have to provide translations of those documents... English is no problem, but then there's plautdeutsch (Mennonite Low German), High German, Russian, Dutch, and possibly a couple of other languages thrown in for good luck.
Do you see how it can get very messy very fast?
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:There is not any kind of clause that allows a member to submit a person for temple work without that person being an ancestor. There are no exceptions allowed. We are to do work on our own ancestors only.
That's what I thought I had been told before. But in this very thread, Mormons have indicated otherwise.
Yep, which is why I added a comment that, if the LDS person in question hasn't done a lot of work on genealogy, then they they haven't educated themselves and so they really don't know what the policies and procedures are.[/quote]
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Some have expressed a desire to have a Do-Not-Baptize list. I also have no problem with that and heartily endorse adding that to the database. I see your point and have no problem with it.
Great. When will that be up and running?
If I were in charge... I'm not, and I don't have a clue. Sorry.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the ritual isn't the same thing as baptism, which implies a conversion of faith. Buddhism is actually tolerant of other religions.
You could be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time, as far as Buddhism is concerned. But Christianity forbids it.
I would personally consider any religious ceremony performed in my memory to be an affront on my beliefs, but there are degrees to the offence.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this is just a "me too" post. But I also think that the Mormon practice of posthumous baptism is the height of "our religion is better than your religion" arrogance.
Especially in the case of a person who distinguished himself by a great body of work that is predicated on his religious identity.
I don't suppose it would help for an atheist to create an "I'm unbaptising this person in the name of whatever his own personal beliefs were" registry.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I don't suppose it would help for an atheist to create an "I'm unbaptising this person in the name of whatever his own personal beliefs were" registry.
What's left to unbaptize after the person's dead? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say the distinction is that the people doing the posthumous baptizing think there's something left to baptize. If we were doing posthumous unbaptizing we'd have to be agnostics. "Just in case you're out there somewhere, we'd like to give you the chance to renounce your religion... you know, if it's wrong." Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I don't suppose it would help for an atheist to create an "I'm unbaptising this person in the name of whatever his own personal beliefs were" registry.
posted
I don't personally believe that a proxy baptism would do any harm to me. I suppose the idea that someday someone's going to be using my name in a ceremony from a religion I don't belong to weirds me out a bit, but I'll be dead and I don't think it will matter.
I'll tell you what. Don't proselytize me now, and you can baptize me all you want after I'm dead.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm going to follow Bob_Scopatz out of this thread.
I generally have a favorable view of all the Mormons I've ever met - they've been very nice people, and we've gotten along great. However, whenever I hear Mormons talk about this practice, I can't help but lose a lot of respect for them. It's not just the idea itself that makes me think less of them, but the means in which it is defended.
So, I'm bowing out before my opinions on folks are damaged more.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be consistent with atheist beliefs, you'd have to unbaptise them when they were alive. Alas, the living are usually able to defend themselves. Nevertheless, it's a pretty bright idea; I'll start the ball rolling by unbaptising Scott R. Bone dry, I tell you! Who's next?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a practical question about this doctrine. If the Jewish religion believes that baptism for the dead can have such a disastrous consequences on a person's soul, why haven't the radical Muslims adopted some sort of posthemous conversion-by-proxy ceremony? If I believed that, it would scare me way more than a car bomb.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Only Mormons are qualified to say what Mormons mean by baptism. If they tell me they do posthumous baptisms in order to show contempt for people, I'll believe them; until then, no. We are free to be offended; we are not free to tell them what they meant.
We are free to be offended, but it'll do nothing but elevate our blood pressure. If Mormons ever posthumously baptize my late (Methodist) grandmother, I will consider it to be a sweet gesture, rather than an insult to her memory. To do otherwise wouldn't say much about Mormons, but it would say a lot about me, none of it good.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, now that you've introduced a new idea to me, I want to understand it a bit better ...
What I'm curious about is, what is it that determines if a posthumous event pulls someone closer to or further from God, or gives them pleasure or pain?
Is it a natural process that functions according to immutable laws? IE, X behavior in a person's name will always have Y effect, regardless of any seemingly-mitigating circumstances?
Or is it something that is subjective, and depends on the desires or interpretations of the departed soul, or of God? IE, this person was staunchly anti-government-welfare, so naming a soup kitchen after him would cause him pain, while doing the same thing for someone else might be the BEST possible thing?
Is there a perspective change involved in death that brings people into line, such that the same things cause them joy or sorrow? Or do people remain as highly individual as they are on Earth? Or, as suggested above, are their personal Earthly opinions entirely irrelevant?
Is there any difference, in your belief, between the posthumous fate of a Jew and a Gentile? Or do you believe it's pretty much the same circumstances for everybody?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Is there a perspective change involved in death that brings people into line, such that the same things cause them joy or sorrow? Or do people remain as highly individual as they are on Earth? Or, as suggested above, are their personal Earthly opinions entirely irrelevant?
Is there any difference, in your belief, between the posthumous fate of a Jew and a Gentile? Or do you believe it's pretty much the same circumstances for everybody?
I don't really know. Not many people come back to tell us about it.
Unlike many religions, we don't worry too much about the precise details of the World to Come. That there is one, and that it is a World of Truth is definite. Many of the details are a matter of educated guess or opinion. And metaphor. Lots and lots of metaphors.
Given that the next world is a world of Truth (I forget who said it, but "In this world there are no answers; in the next there are no questions" (that is, all questions are answered)), I think that while there would still be some individuality, good and bad would be far clearer, and thus those things which would cause pain or joy would be more universal than here. But each person's essence would remain, so precisely which bad thing would cause the most pain for that particular individual might vary. Someone with a strong Jewish identity, who gave up their life in the Inquisition, would likely feel more pain over a baptism than I would (not that I would be terribly happy).
It says that a righteous Gentile gets prime real estate in the next world, so I don't think our posthumous fates can be too different. (But being a "righteous Gentile" involves a different set of tasks than being a "righteous Jew.")
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i can't wait till g-d/allah/jesus/vishnu/cthullu comes down and tells us to hurry up and baptize all those folks that were never baptized/tells us we wasted our time and we should have been doing something else/turns us into frogs that feast on the flesh of others, eventually turning them into frogs as well.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I really really wish people wouldn't do that. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
