88 replies to this topic

[LDSGuy]

Christians do not believe that everyone is forced to be a Christian because of Christ's vicarious/proxy atonement for the sins of ALL mankind.  If they can understand this notion, then why can they not understand that vicarious/proxy baptism performed by members of the church on behalf of deceased relatives does not force deceased persons to become Mormons?

[thesometimesaint]

Because they have veto power over the dead.

[altersteve]

LDSGuy, on 12 March 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Christians do not believe that everyone is forced to be a Christian because of Christ's vicarious/proxy atonement for the sins of ALL mankind.  If they can understand this notion, then why can they not understand that vicarious/proxy baptism performed by members of the church on behalf of deceased relatives does not force deceased persons to become Mormons?

I think you just nailed it, my friend.

Edited by altersteve, 12 March 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[LDSGuy]

altersteve, on 12 March 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I think you just nailed it, my friend.

It would seem an obvious contradiction to their argument, would it not?

[Saints Alive]

I imagine their defense would be something along the lines that the atonement was a generic action that did not envoke anyone's name or the name of anyone's ancestors. In contrast, baptism for the dead are done specifically for each individual. Then there is the whole "Mormonism is a cult" thing which has more to do with their objections than any other rational or logical explanation.

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

Individual acceptance is the key to the Atonement also. Objections to proxy baptism are without foundation.

[LDSGuy]

Saints Alive, on 12 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

I imagine their defense would be something along the lines that the atonement was a generic action that did not envoke anyone's name or the name of anyone's ancestors. In contrast, baptism for the dead are done specifically for each individual. Then there is the whole "Mormonism is a cult" thing which has more to do with their objections than any other rational or logical explanation.

I think the "cult" aspect is the biggest objection.  On the generic aspect of the atonement, I think it could be argued that the atonement is very individualistic.  Christ died for ancestors (those who came before), those present, and all future generations of mankind.

Edited by LDSGuy, 12 March 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[altersteve]

Saints Alive, on 12 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

I imagine their defense would be something along the lines that the atonement was a generic action that did not envoke anyone's name or the name of anyone's ancestors. In contrast, baptism for the dead are done specifically for each individual.

My response to this would be that the Atonement was done specifically for each individual too. It was personal. God loves the whole world so much that He sent His Only Begotten Son to die for it, but He had each and every one of us in mind when He did so. I hope no Christian would deny that.

[blueadept]

...... ......

[LDSGuy]

blueadept, on 12 March 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

...... ......

I don't believe the horse is completely dead... perhaps the beating has revived him.

[blueadept]

LDSGuy, on 12 March 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

I don't believe the horse is completely dead... perhaps the beating has revived him.

I was watching a "Firefly" episode last night where Malcolm Reynolds died and his torturer revived him and complained that he couldn't torture him any further if he goes ahead and dies.  He at least wanted 2 days of torture so that he could meet the "real" you.  

Proceed.

Edited by blueadept, 12 March 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[Saints Alive]

blueadept, on 12 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I was watching a "Firefly" episode last night where Malcolm Reynolds died and his torturer revived him and complained that he couldn't torture him any further if he goes ahead and dies.  He at least wanted 2 days of torture so that he could meet the "real" you.  

Proceed.

Are you comparing discussion of baptism for the dead to torture?

[blueadept]

Saints Alive, on 12 March 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Are you comparing discussion of baptism for the dead to torture?

No...................but I've commented on enough threads, due to Radkey, in the last month to feel like IT IS a personal torture in regards to why non-LDS have issues.

I will not play....I will not play...

[LDSGuy]

blueadept, on 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

No...................but I've commented on enough threads, due to Radkey, in the last month to feel like IT IS a personal torture in regards to why non-LDS have issues.

I will not play....I will not play...

You don't have to comment, but others may feel it is an important topic that has not been exhausted.  Hope to see many more posts from different people about the issue!

[Saints Alive]

blueadept, on 12 March 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

No...................but I've commented on enough threads, due to Radkey, in the last month to feel like IT IS a personal torture in regards to why non-LDS have issues.

I will not play....I will not play...

haha... I am of course only teasing. There have been a large number of these threads recently.

[divinenature]

LDSGuy, on 12 March 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Christians do not believe that everyone is forced to be a Christian because of Christ's vicarious/proxy atonement for the sins of ALL mankind.  If they can understand this notion, then why can they not understand that vicarious/proxy baptism performed by members of the church on behalf of deceased relatives does not force deceased persons to become Mormons?

First, not everyone is Christian. The Jewish community is one that has been vocal in their offence at the practice.
Second, it is not necessarily that they think the deceased are being forced to become Mormon.

Part of it is that records can become confusing for future researchers. There was one concern I read that people would think that the LDS ordinances happened during the lifetime of the person (for whom they were done vicariously). They absolutely do not want future people to think that their loved ones were Mormons in life.

Another concern is that there is a lack of respect for the life and beliefs of the dearly departed. If the person lived and died for their beliefs it seems to some a slap in the face to do vicarious LDS ordinances for that person. These people do not believe they need to have extra things done for their salvation, either they get in on the Atonement, or in the case of a non-Christian the get in on their own merit or by their god. They don't appreciate LDS attempts to save them...or exalt them.

[Pahoran]

divinenature, on 13 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

First, not everyone is Christian. The Jewish community is one that has been vocal in their offence at the practice.

Some Jews; not all.

There are a number of intelligent Jewish commentators who have mentioned that (1) it doesn't bother them, (2) they don't believe it has any impact on the deceased and (3) there are more important things to worry about.  Unfortunately, their voices get drowned out in the din.

divinenature, on 13 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Second, it is not necessarily that they think the deceased are being forced to become Mormon.

Part of it is that records can become confusing for future researchers. There was one concern I read that people would think that the LDS ordinances happened during the lifetime of the person (for whom they were done vicariously). They absolutely do not want future people to think that their loved ones were Mormons in life.

Yes, I've read that one.  The variations on the theme include, "They're taking away their Jewishness!"  Or even more absurdly, "They want future generations to think that six million Mormons died in the Shoah!"

Such concerns are nonsense.  Nobody who can read will think that someone who died in 1944 and has some event recorded against their name in 2011 experienced that event in their lifetime.

divinenature, on 13 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Another concern is that there is a lack of respect for the life and beliefs of the dearly departed. If the person lived and died for their beliefs it seems to some a slap in the face to do vicarious LDS ordinances for that person. These people do not believe they need to have extra things done for their salvation, either they get in on the Atonement, or in the case of a non-Christian the get in on their own merit or by their god. They don't appreciate LDS attempts to save them...or exalt them.

And so?

How arrogant do you have to be, to want to censor someone else's private religious observances?

It's not like we go around defacing graves or disturbing remains.  We briefly mention the names of the dead in private religious observances.  That's all.  It's not a whole lot different from praying for someone who died, and it's a whole lot less elaborate than a mass for someone's soul.  I wouldn't complain if anyone did either of those things for me or my LDS loved ones.

The objections make no sense.  The ones that come nearest to making some kind of sense are those that are based upon assumptions that might be of concern if they were true, but which are actually demonstrable errors of fact.

Regards,
Pahoran

[calmoriah]

Quote

Part of it is that records can become confusing for future researchers.  There was one concern I read that people would think that the LDS ordinances happened during the lifetime of the person (for whom they were done vicariously).

In what possible way could this be confusing for future researchers?  I hear people saying this and have tried to figure out how it might happen and don't see it as at all likely unless the Church significantly changed its recordkeeping procedures, which seems unlikely.  Any records showing names for proxy baptisms or other ordinances would also show birth or death dates...even on the little slips of paper given to the proxy, making it obvious that such ordinances took place after their death.  Their names are not included with actual members or anywhere else save proxy records.

Edited by calmoriah, 13 March 2012 - 10:44 PM.

[Zakuska]

calmoriah, on 13 March 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

In what possible way could this be confusing for future researchers?  I hear people saying this and have tried to figure out how it might happen and don't see it as at all likely unless the Church significantly changed its recordkeeping procedures, which seems unlikely.  Any records showing names for proxy baptisms or other ordinances would also show birth or death dates...even on the little slips of paper given to the proxy, making it obvious that such ordinances took place after their death.  Their names are not included with actual members or anywhere else save proxy records.

Not to mention the fact that in said prayers and ordinances the little repeated blurb about for and in behalf of "John Doe  who is dead".

[LeSellers]

I just got this eMail (in my inbox at 10:02 MDT last night).



Notice

Date:    March 13, 2012

To:   Registered Users of New.FamilySearch.org

From:   Family History Department

Subject:  Policies for Submitting Names for Temple Ordinances

Recently, the First Presidency of the Church reiterated the policies, first stated in 1995, concerning the submitting of names for proxy temple ordinances. As a user of the system (new.familysearch.org) where temple ordinances are cleared and submitted, you should follow these important policies. You will find the policy letter attached to this e-mail.

In a related Church News article, Brother Dennis C. Brimhall, managing director of the Family History Department, reported that “the searching out of our family and preparing the names for the work to be done in the temple is . . . a responsibility, but it is also a privilege. That privilege is extended to the members by those who hold the keys to [do] the work. The[se] keys . . . are held by the First Presidency of the Church” (Sarah Jane Weaver, “Family History—Church Asks Members to Understand Policies,” Church News, Mar. 1, 2012). (Click here to see the article.) The First Presidency set these policies. Accordingly, the Conditions of Use for users of new.familysearch.org and familysearch.org require compliance to the policies before you can submit names to the temple. Noncompliance by a user could mean the loss of his or her privileges to use the system.

Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask your local family history consultant or anyone serving at a family history center. You may also e-mail questions directly to [email protected].




Mu guess is that every Saint with an eMauil account listed in any Church record will see the same thing. We're serious.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 14 March 2012 - 07:22 AM.