Is There A Way To Block Mormon Relatives From Baptizing Me When I Croak?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Before you get to the part where we agree it doesn't matter, what are you saying to a real live person? You are saying "I know you think you don't want the opportunity to make a choice in the afterlife as I know it, but I am so sure of my afterlife that I am going to bypass your wishes and do whatever I want regardless of what you say. Just to hedge bets on your behalf, ya know."

Wow, thanks for putting words in my mouth. That's excellent! Intriguing! Fawn Brodie-esque mind-reading capabilities!

I'm certainly not going to try to baptize Expositor, so it doesn't really concern me. His real beef is with his family. And again, if he believes it is hocus pocus, what's the big deal? Honestly? Other than being a jerk about it, what's the big deal? [note: Expositor has come around and agreed, as far as I can tell, that it doesn't really matter.]

Who is lying?

I guess falsifying records is honest in your world?

[thesometimesaint]

Oracle:

In the case of the deceased, all efforts are made to get permission from the family. There is no no law forcing the living descendants to abide by the desires of the dead. Nor could there reasonably be one.

[Oracle]

Im sorry if you feel it disrespectful. My beliefs dictate to me otherwise. Can I now claim you disrespectful because my beliefs contratdict yours?

Your beliefs dictate that you should ignore the religious wishes of another because you feel your religious belief trumps them?

If that is the case, yes, you should probably say that I don't respect that particular belief of yours because I think it is devalueing of others.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your beliefs dictate that you should ignore the religious wishes of another because you feel your religious belief trumps them?

If that is the case, yes, you should probably say that I don't respect that particular belief of yours because I think it is devalueing of others.

Ok so now your beliefs turmp mine. Nice double standard. What ever. I guess your entitled to your opinion.

[AddamS]

We won't hold his lack of imagination against him.

Exactly how I would put it.

[Oracle]

Wow, thanks for putting words in my mouth. That's excellent! Intriguing! Fawn Brodie-esque mind-reading capabilities!

You are welcome. I do notice that you are not refuting my interpretation because it is "spot on."

I'm certainly not going to try to baptize Expositor, so it doesn't really concern me. His real beef is with his family. And again, if he believes it is hocus pocus, what's the big deal? Honestly? Other than being a jerk about it, what's the big deal? [note: Expositor has come around and agreed, as far as I can tell, that it doesn't really matter.]

You are not listening. We don't have to get to the hocus pocus nature of it all. It is the dismissal upfront of a live, apparently lucid, human being who has informed us he does not want ordinances done on his behalf after he is dead.

I guess falsifying records is honest in your world?

As has been stated multiple times on this board, the ordinance information are often inaccurate, incomplete and/or misprocessed. "But it doesn't really matter and God will work it all out anyway in the hereafters."

I give the records as much validation as you. I guess that makes us both dishonest.

[Deborah]

Not having read all the responses I have to ask:

IS THIS A SERIOUS QUESTION?

It is absolutely astounding that anyone in a non-primitive society would worry about what happens to them after they are dead, especially if they don't believe in what someone might do.

[Oracle]

Ok so now your beliefs turmp mine. Nice double standard. What ever. I guess your entitled to your opinion.

There is no trumping. I am not invasively imposing my belief onto you in any way, shape or form. In the case of baptisms for the dead, however, I think mormons cross a boundary of respect when they blatantly contradict the wishes of a live person. You can baptize the rest of the dead population all you like. They can't stop you. But please do the living a favor and give them some respect.

[Pahoran]

Im sorry if you feel it disrespectful. My beliefs dictate to me otherwise. Can I now claim you disrespectful because my beliefs contratdict yours?

Mola Ram, don't you get it? You fool! When it comes to determining your actions, your beliefs don't count. Before you are allowed to do anything at all in accordance with your beliefs, they first have to pass the scrutiny of the official Board of Religious Censorship, of which the Chief Censor and High Inquisitor is none other than Oracle herself.

Never mind that we are discussing an action that cannot possibly have any impact at all upon Expositor unless LDS doctrine is true, the fact remains that not only the action but the reasons behind it are subject to Oracle's approval.

Get with the program!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is no trumping. I am not invasively imposing my belief onto you in any way, shape or form. In the case of baptisms for the dead, however, I think mormons cross a boundary of respect when they blatantly contradict the wishes of a live person. You can baptize the rest of the dead population all you like. They can't stop you. But please do the living a favor and give them some respect.

Please demonstrate how we are invasivley imposeing my belief on some one. I dont think you understand our beliefs. Also there is no gaurentee that even if some didnt want it, that it wouldnt be done. I think you realize your position here is futile. Best of luck to you though.

Also we are talking abour b f d., not the living.

Mola Ram, don't you get it? You fool! When it comes to determining your actions, your beliefs don't count. Before you are allowed to do anything at all in accordance with your beliefs, they first have to pass the scrutiny of the official Board of Religious Censorship, of which the Chief Censor and High Inquisitor is none other than Oracle herself.

Never mind that we are discussing an action that cannot possibly have any impact at all upon Expositor unless LDS doctrine is true, the fact remains that not only the action but the reasons behind it are subject to Oracle's approval.

Get with the program!

Regards,

Pahoran

Well then I really did miss the boat on that one didnt eye. Thanks for the heads up. ( I ment I instead of eye.)

[Zakuska]

Is it just me... or is the Oracle so hell bent on her own agenda that she is def with rage?

I'm certainly not going to try to baptize Expositor, so it doesn't really concern me. His real beef is with his family. And again, if he believes it is hocus pocus, what's the big deal? Honestly? Other than being a jerk about it, what's the big deal? [note: Expositor has come around and agreed, as far as I can tell, that it doesn't really matter.

You are not listening. We don't have to get to the hocus pocus nature of it all. It is the dismissal upfront of a live, apparently lucid, human being who has informed us he does not want ordinances done on his behalf after he is dead.

Expositors beef is with his family. if he doesn't want it then he should take steps to ensure that every single one of his descendants and every single one of his siblings decendants and every one of his cousins decedants and every one of his aunts and uncles decendants, etc etc etc. Have a record that he does not want it.

Or he can just leave it in Gods hands and when God asks him where you baptized in my name? and his atorney gets up and says no, but a savior on Mount zion did. he can say... nope, no thank you himself.

[Oracle]

Please demonstrate how we are invasivley imposeing my belief on some one. I dont think you understand our beliefs. Also there is no gaurentee that even if some didnt want it, that it wouldnt be done. I think you realize your position here is futile. Best of luck to you though.

Expositor is a live person, is he not? The OP states his express wishes to not have proxy ordinances performed on his behalf after he is dead. This thread has been much about everyone telling him he shouldn't care about it, it doesn't matter, it will be done anyway. That's invasive, at least from where I am sitting. The best you can guarantee is that it is likely to be done for him, and he should be happy that he is being given the opportunity.

I understand your beliefs quite well. That is why I don't pitch a fit about the people who are dead. I put the ordinances in the proper context within the mormon belief system. What I will pitch a fit about is the attitude towards those people who ARE LIVING who do not want the work done for them after they die. This is going to happen more often, and I think there should be at least some reasonably respectful dialogue about it....other than "we're going to do it anyway, deal with it."

[Pahoran]

There is no trumping. I am not invasively imposing my belief onto you in any way, shape or form.

Neither are Latter-day Saints invasively imposing our beliefs onto anyone else in any way, shape or form.

As you perfectly well know.

In the case of baptisms for the dead, however, I think mormons cross a boundary of respect when they blatantly contradict the wishes of a live person. You can baptize the rest of the dead population all you like. They can't stop you. But please do the living a favor and give them some respect.

Then you can relax, Oracle. I promise you that nobody will try to perform a proxy baptism for Expositor while he is alive. He will be part of "the dead population" by the time anyone does that.

Or did you mean that we should note his demand somewhere so that we can make sure that nobody ever tries? In that case, please respond to the points I made regarding that in my post no. 95.

Because until you do, you are the main offender when it comes to "talking past one another."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

...other than "we're going to do it anyway, deal with it."

Theres the problem... theres no Guarentee it will get done for him. Are the members of his family even temple worthy? Will they do it? Who knows.

So again the Balls in his court. But the church isnt going to keep a database and if some one comes up with his name to present at the temple use the tazer on them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Expositor is a live person, is he not? The OP states his express wishes to not have proxy ordinances performed on his behalf after he is dead. This thread has been much about everyone telling him he shouldn't care about it, it doesn't matter, it will be done anyway. That's invasive, at least from where I am sitting. The best you can guarantee is that it is likely to be done for him, and he should be happy that he is being given the opportunity.

I understand your beliefs quite well. That is why I don't pitch a fit about the people who are dead. I put the ordinances in the proper context within the mormon belief system. What I will pitch a fit about is the attitude towards those people who ARE LIVING who do not want the work done for them after they die. This is going to happen more often, and I think there should be at least some reasonably respectful dialogue about it....other than "we're going to do it anyway, deal with it."

Well he will probably die one day as will you and I. So here is the deal when he does die, what solution do you want to give that will make sure his work doesnt happen? If I understand the OP was about how to stop the church from doing it when he is dead. Nothing has been said about a person living, now has it?

I suppose your little invasive defintion will just have to stick to yourself. I dont think anybody else holds your defintion, so sorry.

Of course once again if the OP doesnt want his work done for him, this is the 3rd or forth time now, it is between him and his discendants. is it not??

[Deborah]

What I will pitch a fit about is the attitude towards those people who ARE LIVING who do not want the work done for them after they die. This is going to happen more often, and I think there should be at least some reasonably respectful dialogue about it....other than "we're going to do it anyway, deal with it."

Except they won't really care when they are dead, unless they realize on the other side that "The Mormons were right" (per South Park) and then they will care if they didn't have the work done.

But as has been pointed out Expositor needs to discuss this with family, not a bunch of anonymous posters. However, he should also realize that some things, like funerals, aren't about what he needs but what the family needs.

[Oracle]

Oracle:

In the case of the deceased, all efforts are made to get permission from the family. There is no no law forcing the living descendants to abide by the desires of the dead. Nor could there reasonably be one.

Hi thesometimesaint:

In other words, it doesn't really matter if a person does not want to have their work done for them. That decision is ultimately not up to them but to family members?

I thought of another way, Expositor. Put it in your will. Stipulate that any inheritance/estate meted out to your extended family be conditional on a signed and notarized agreement that your name will not be submitted to the LDS church for temple work. Your executor can then routinely check ancestral records to ensure your extended family is compliance. If they are not, any inheritance will be defaulted and then handed over to a charitable institution of your choice.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You are welcome. I do notice that you are not refuting my interpretation because it is "spot on."

Actually I overlooked it because it was "spot stupid." But, since you insist:

"I know you think you don't want the opportunity to make a choice in the afterlife as I know it,

BUZZER SOUND!

Oh, so sorry! That is the wrong interpretation. Clearly the OP did NOT understand they would have a choice in the matter. "Making a choice in the afterlife" was not part of the discussion in the understanding of the OP. OP was under the impression a choice was being forced on him. Thus, your interpretation of my thoughts was wrong.

but I am so sure of my afterlife that I am going to bypass your wishes and do whatever I want regardless of what you say. Just to hedge bets on your behalf, ya know."

I'm not going to be ding anything. Again I certainly won't be baptizing him. My argument was that if he disbelieves in the practice it means nothing more than hocus pocus, thus, if his family greatly cares, but he'll be dead, and disbelieves in it anyway, what does it matter? The way you phrase it makes it seem I am baptizing in behalf of the dead to purposefully spite them. Don't ever twist my words or try to put words in my mouth. Especially when I myself disagree with your interpretation. I am the number one authority on what I believe and on what I said.

Thanks.

You are not listening. We don't have to get to the hocus pocus nature of it all. It is the dismissal upfront of a live, apparently lucid, human being who has informed us he does not want ordinances done on his behalf after he is dead.

I understand that. Again, I'm not the one to do the baptizing.

As has been stated multiple times on this board, the ordinance information are often inaccurate, incomplete and/or misprocessed. "But it doesn't really matter and God will work it all out anyway in the hereafters."

I give the records as much validation as you. I guess that makes us both dishonest.

I'm sorry but making a mistake in a record and willfully manufacturing a false record are not the same thing. And it reveals a lot about you that you believe such.

[Oracle]

Well he will probably die one day as will you and I. So here is the deal when he does die, what solution do you want to give that will make sure his work doesnt happen? If I understand the OP was about how to stop the church from doing it when he is dead. Nothing has been said about a person living, now has it?

I suppose your little invasive defintion will just have to stick to yourself. I dont think anybody else holds your defintion, so sorry.

Of course once again if the OP doesnt want his work done for him, this is the 3rd or forth time now, it is between him and his discendants. is it not??

It sure is between him and his descendants. My comments were to the people on this board who suggest it doesn't matter, when it really does appear to matter to Expositor who cared enough about it to start a post on an internet mormon discussions board to look for answers.

[thesometimesaint]

Oracle:

Yep, there is nothing you can do to force your descendants to do anything after your death.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It sure is between him and his descendants. My comments were to the people on this board who suggest it doesn't matter, when it really does appear to matter to Expositor who cared enough about it to start a post on an internet mormon discussions board to look for answers.

Well he got his answer long ago. Did he not? You accused some of us here that we were talking past each other. I dont think this was the case, as you can clearly see that he has not posted in some time and even admitted that he understands now our belief. yes?

[AddamS]

I thought of another way, Expositor. Put it in your will. Stipulate that any inheritance/estate meted out to your extended family be conditional on a signed and notarized agreement that your name will not be submitted to the LDS church for temple work. Your executor can then routinely check ancestral records to ensure your extended family is compliance. If they are not, any inheritance will be defaulted and then handed over to a charitable institution of your choice.

Great, I can extort people to respect my wishes!

[Zakuska]

Well he will probably die one day as will you and I. So here is the deal when he does die, what solution do you want to give that will make sure his work doesnt happen? If I understand the OP was about how to stop the church from doing it when he is dead. Nothing has been said about a person living, now has it?

I suppose your little invasive defintion will just have to stick to yourself. I dont think anybody else holds your defintion, so sorry.

Of course once again if the OP doesnt want his work done for him, this is the 3rd or forth time now, it is between him and his discendants. is it not??

Actually.... Read the name of the thread again.

There is no way that the church is going to stop his relatives from doing the work. So the only way is for him to notify his relatives of his wishes and if they do it. Thats between him and them. The church has nothing to do with it and they arn't going to taser them when they come and present his name.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It sure is between him and his descendants. My comments were to the people on this board who suggest it doesn't matter, when it really does appear to matter to Expositor who cared enough about it to start a post on an internet mormon discussions board to look for answers.

Actually, Expositor left quite satisfied saying "I understand now," in effect. You're the one bludgeoning the issue in behalf of no one.

But I digress, and have the solution:

[selek]

Hi thesometimesaint:

In other words, it doesn't really matter if a person does not want to have their work done for them. That decision is ultimately not up to them but to family members?

I thought of another way, Expositor. Put it in your will. Stipulate that any inheritance/estate meted out to your extended family be conditional on a signed and notarized agreement that your name will not be submitted to the LDS church for temple work. Your executor can then routinely check ancestral records to ensure your extended family is compliance. If they are not, any inheritance will be defaulted and then handed over to a charitable institution of your choice.

Assuming that it could be found legally binding (and that's a fairly big if), that doesn't work beyond those named specifically in the will. It's also heavily dependent on how scrupulous your executor is.

Let's say he leaves the Porsche, the yacht, and the house in Beverly Hills to his son.

Expositor, Jr. can decide that the lucre is worth it and refuse to baptize (or allow it) his father by proxy. Thirty years later, the Junior dies and in turn leaves the loot to his son.

Expositor III can turn around and have his grandsire baptized by proxy and there isn't a thing the executor can do about it, because E3 inherited it from Junior, not from his grandfather.

Or seventy(?) years can go by and some well-meaning but deluded cousin can come along and say, gee- Unk Ex hasn't been dunked yet, and have the work done for him and there is nothing they can do about it.

You can say anything you want, make any demands you wish, in your will. Whether it's of any effect or even legally binding is another matter altogether.

Remember, Anna Nicole Smith's hubby left everything to his son. She still wound up with several million dollars.