Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[Scott Lloyd]

I find arguments that agree with mine also very well reasoned.

Oh my! I suppose I could have posted snarky comments illustrated with raspberry icons when Senator and Paloma supported you. I didn't, because such behavior strikes me as childish and ultimately unproductive.

[Kristine]

Oh my! I suppose I could have posted snarky comments illustrated with raspberry icons when Senator and Paloma supported you. I didn't, because such behavior strikes me as childish and ultimately unproductive.

I intended no snarkiness and was genuinely teasing you with sincere affection. We obviously don't agree on this issue. It was just an attempt at a bridge.

[Senator]

Except that there's nothing inherently offensive about inviting someone to a party and preparing a treat bag or party favor for the person in case he accepts the invitation. Just like there's nothing inherently offensive about Mormons performing non-binding proxy ordinances for a deceased persons conditional upon the person accepting them.

I guess it depends on the point of view, and whether or not there was pre-existing hostility.

For example, say there are two nations that have been hostile to one another. One nation decides to reach out and offer the olive branch in the form of a gift. The gift is in the form of a letter, which upon opening, the receiving nation reads, "We wish to offer to all the peoples of your nation the free gift of political asylum, with the attach detailed covert plan in which they may be able to defect."

That may not be taken well, however well intentioned the gift was.

[Forgot to add a smiley so Scott will not take me seriously]

[Scott Lloyd]

Posted in error. Please disregard.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess it depends on the point of view, and whether or not there was pre-existing hostility.

For example, say there are two nations that have been hostile to one another. One nation decides to reach out and offer the olive branch in the form of a gift. The gift is in the form of a letter, which upon opening, the receiving nation reads, "We wish to offer to all the peoples of your nation the free gift of political asylum, with the attach detailed covert plan in which they may be able to defect."

That may not be taken well, however well intentioned the gift was.

No analogy is perfect, but this is a rather poor one, since there is no institutional hostility on the part of the Church of Jesus Christ toward other faiths, there is no formal and gratuitously insulting offer being made to leaders of such faiths and there is no covert plan on the table.

Again, it is like a Catholic praying for my soul after I'm gone. I'm free to disregard the act, to disbelieve in its efficacy or necessity, to accept it for what it's worth in the spirit in which it is offered. No harm, no foul (see my sig line).

[Scott Lloyd]

I intended no snarkiness and was genuinely teasing you with sincere affection. We obviously don't agree on this issue. It was just an attempt at a bridge.

In that case, no offense taken.

[oats]

If I understand correctly the people who make a large issue about their ancestors or relatives being posthumously baptized are concerned that it will not be done out of love.

I think if one believed the offering was sincere and out of love, this would be a whole new ball game. I think too many people decide that everyone SHOULD believe that it is done sincerely and out of love. But the truth is, some do not.

I can understand that some people have reason to think that proxy work might be driven by an odious sentiment instead of love. Especially in instances where religious differences have impacted the relationship.

However, I doubt that many in the church baptize deceased relatives or friends as a form of revenge or as a slap in the face. Is it realistically possible to place an institutional stop to this? Someone with good intentions and no carried over ill-will will eventually perform the baptism, do the genealogy or put the name on an archived family tree.

Note: The thought of revenge by posthumous baptism sounds hilarious. Tell me if you know anyone who does this because I want to meet them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Note: The thought of revenge by posthumous baptism sounds hilarious. Tell me if you know anyone who does this because I want to meet them.

The notion seems bizarre indeed -- and you're right, rather comical to conceive of.

[Kristine]

If I understand correctly the people who make a large issue about their ancestors or relatives being posthumously baptized are concerned that it will not be done out of love.

I can understand that some people have reason to think that proxy work might be driven by an odious sentiment instead of love. Especially in instances where religious differences have impacted the relationship.

However, I doubt that many in the church baptize deceased relatives or friends as a form of revenge or as a slap in the face. Is it realistically possible to place an institutional stop to this? Someone with good intentions and no carried over ill-will will eventually perform the baptism, do the genealogy or put the name on an archived family tree.

Note: The thought of revenge by posthumous baptism sounds hilarious. Tell me if you know anyone who does this because I want to meet them.

Actually one of my cyber friends from another debate board has told me she will haunt me if I perform her baptism after she dies. Lol. I told her I would do it, just so I could have her around.

The offense is taken because Mormons come off as arrogant, not odious. I don't know that it's ever intended as a slap in the face, but some who we are baptizing have already been baptized in another faith. We are telling them, "Nice try, let me do it right for you." "I insult you because I love you." "It doesn't matter that you are offended, you are not justified, because I am right and you are wrong."

That is the perception. It seems reasonable to me. It is arrogant, when not properly understood, to say that we have the truth, the real authority, and you do not. I always tell critics that I understand why they would say that, and while I feel that it wouldn't be that hard to understand that we are doing it out of love, some don't understand it. It's not always because they are embittered. Their faiths are as precious to them as ours is to us. They would not tell us we are wrong, and do not understand why we would tell them they are.

Is it realistically possible to put a stop on it? I guess that depends on what one means as a "stop". People who use our database are told that the names will most likely be used by us for proxy work. Some know that going in, and don't care. The problem comes in when we take names, whichever ones we want, and do with them what we will. Is that not arrogant? If they give them to us it's one thing, to take them is quite another. I don't think it's realistic or necessary to make it a legal issue. I think it's a simple matter of respect. The Church has set forth a policy that is not difficult to follow.

The Catholic church doesn't even want us using their database anymore. http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/05/08/catholic-mormon-tension-over-lds-baptism-of-the-dead/. Had we shown them the respect they wanted, things like this wouldn't happen.

Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. (In context, of course).

[Kristine]

I guess it depends on the point of view, and whether or not there was pre-existing hostility.

For example, say there are two nations that have been hostile to one another. One nation decides to reach out and offer the olive branch in the form of a gift. The gift is in the form of a letter, which upon opening, the receiving nation reads, "We wish to offer to all the peoples of your nation the free gift of political asylum, with the attach detailed covert plan in which they may be able to defect."

That may not be taken well, however well intentioned the gift was.

[Forgot to add a smiley so Scott will not take me seriously]

[Thorkyll]

I don't think LDS people baptize your ancestors in the way you think of it. You would be well served to reread the thread and learn what is meant by the LDS term baptizing for the dead.

Let's say I plan a feast, invite hundreds of guests, and then make food for each who I have invited. Many of the invitees do not show up. Am I still 'feeding' those who decline the invitation and are absent? Would somebody be justified in their indignation that I invited, and prepared a plate for, one of their relatives who decided not to show? Would it be reasonable for somebody to be offended that somebody else was merely invited?

If you invite my cousin to a birthday party and prepare for him a treat bag, then wouldn't it seem silly if I were to be offended, whether or not the cousin decides to take up the invitation?

So what you're saying is that Mormons are not actually baptizing the dead, they're "inviting" the dead to be baptized and then it's the dead person's choice as to whether they become baptized or not? Why send an invite to someone whose life and teachings are so diamatrically opposite to Mormonism like the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Hasidic Judaism)? It should be obvious he would reject the invite.

[Thorkyll]

But what happens if your ancestors are also my ancestors?

BTW what community are yours from, mine are Bukovinian with roots in Galicia, as well as Pomeranian and Bessarabian.

I have no idea where any of those places are. My family are from all over the world.

What happens if we have the same ancestors? How about we both leave them alone and let them be in peace?

[ERayR]

Kristine please tell me why one relative should be able to veto another. Why can one relative come and say don't do the work for may relative when anothe rrelative has submitted that name for the work to be done? We get two relativesone who dislikes the church, one is a member both wanting their own way. Which one owns the relative?

[Calm]

Why send an invite to someone whose life and teachings are so diamatrically opposite to Mormonism like the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Hasidic Judaism)? It should be obvious he would reject the invite.

Because we believe that people can learn even after they are dead and if they are sincere seekers of the truth, will accept it when they hear it and not refuse it simply because they were famous for or devoted to another belief during their mortal lifetime.

[Calm]

What happens if we have the same ancestors? How about we both leave them alone and let them be in peace?

If peace comes from God, they won't be in peace until they have a chance to fully accept him.

If the Atonement is the truth, then not providing them with an opportunity to repent means they are eternally suffering, not resting in peace.

[bluebell]

Why send an invite to someone whose life and teachings are so diamatrically opposite to Mormonism like the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Hasidic Judaism)? It should be obvious he would reject the invite.

It seems the opposite of 'obvious' to assume that someone, after death, would automatically still believe the same way they did in life? Is there any religious tradition that doesn't assume that after death, we'll have more knowledge of God's will and His plan than we do in mortality?

To me, it should be obvious that someone's beliefs could have changed after death. Assuming such beliefs are set in stone once they leave the earth seems really odd, since we're talking about spiritual beliefs that have been taken on faith.

I mean, LDS aren't implying that he's up there dying to become mormon, but we are saying that he might want to become mormon and since we don't know, we'll offer him the chance and let him decide.

[Kristine]

Kristine please tell me why one relative should be able to veto another. Why can one relative come and say don't do the work for may relative when anothe rrelative has submitted that name for the work to be done? We get two relativesone who dislikes the church, one is a member both wanting their own way. Which one owns the relative?

I think respecting closest living is fine. They are going to die eventually. If two relatives with equal "rank" are battling it out, the policy is clear. Mormon relative pulls rank. If it were me, personally, and I was battling a relative, I would make it a sincere matter of prayer. I believe that I would recieve an answer as to what to do. I want these ordinances for my ancestors, and I want to show respect for my family in other ways, too, including the living. If it were urgent, which I would know through prayer, then I would do it. Some battles aren't worth the fight. Some are. It would be a personal call.

[emeliza]

I believe that after 95 years or whatever the timeline is, it doesn't matter who the closest relative is, any relative can submit. However any death more current than that should have the permission of the nearest living relative. I will fully admit I haven't baptized any relatives that died sooner than 95 years ago because I am too chicken to ask relatives for permission. Of course I have enough names older than that to do that it isn't like it is stopping the work.

The Church has guidelines and I think the members should follow them. The Church expects the members to be honest.

In Kristine's friends case, it appears the relatives who had passed away were more recent than 95 years ago, so if that is the case, the most direct relative's permission should have been asked. If it wasn't, someone was not following the rules and unfortunately it means feelings are now hurt. I think often times the feelings are hurt just because the permission wasn't asked and because there are guidelines on how to handle this stuff.

[Vanguard]

So what you're saying is that Mormons are not actually baptizing the dead, they're "inviting" the dead to be baptized and then it's the dead person's choice as to whether they become baptized or not? Why send an invite to someone whose life and teachings are so diamatrically opposite to Mormonism like the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Hasidic Judaism)? It should be obvious he would reject the invite.

My own spin on this - and I think it has legs - is that it won't be a question of "rejecting" or "accepting" the baptism. By the time they are aware in the afterlife that the baptism was performed it will be too late to make such a decision. The cards at that point will have already been "played". The question is whether this particular person stretched as much and as often as his capacity allowed while in this mortality. If he did, it will be a mere formalty to "accept" the ordinance as he will "see" that it indeed was the Savior's desire to have him baptized by one who has authority. It does not matter what religion - or that the individual had no religion - that the person belonged to as we will all recognize the power of the Savior beyond the veil. Again, whether the individual is "his" will have already been determined once the person passes from this life. All else, relatively speaking, pales in importance to this one variable (i.e., capacity) and becomes almost a formality.

[oats]

So what you're saying is that Mormons are not actually baptizing the dead, they're "inviting" the dead to be baptized and then it's the dead person's choice as to whether they become baptized or not? Why send an invite to someone whose life and teachings are so diamatrically opposite to Mormonism like the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Hasidic Judaism)? It should be obvious he would reject the invite.

I think that is a more clear understanding of the reality of LDS baptisms for the dead. By "inviting" I mean that they are invited and the baptism ordinance is completed. In order to render the baptism efficacious they have to accept the invite.

I know Jehovah Witnesses who refuse to participate in politics or anything related to supporting the government. They are still sent directions on where/how to vote for each election. Likewise God is no respecter of persons.

[emeliza]

I think respecting closest living is fine. They are going to die eventually. If two relatives with equal "rank" are battling it out, the policy is clear. Mormon relative pulls rank. If it were me, personally, and I was battling a relative, I would make it a sincere matter of prayer. I believe that I would recieve an answer as to what to do. I want these ordinances for my ancestors, and I want to show respect for my family in other ways, too, including the living. If it were urgent, which I would know through prayer, then I would do it. Some battles aren't worth the fight. Some are. It would be a personal call.

It is that the Mormon relative pulls rank. I think it becomes a personal decision if they are both of equal distance in relationship to the deceased. The Mormon thinks there is a possibility this relative that passed away is waiting for their work to be done. They think it is God's will to do the work and they truly believe it is a benefit to the person who has passed. They don't see a reason to hold off. This makes sense. Of course sometimes it is better to work with the mortal world relationships and hold off in the 'work' and make sure the names are available to your future generations to do.

[Calm]

The cards at that point will have already been "played". The question is whether this particular person stretched as much and as often as his capacity allowed while in this mortality. If he did, it will be a mere formalty to "accept" the ordinance as he will "see" that it indeed was the Savior's desire to have him baptized by one who has authority.

I agree (if I am understanding you) that the "spirit" with which an individual has approached life in mortality will most likely be very predictive of what they will do in the next (the only exceptions I can think of is those who are in some way profoundly disabled to the point where their personality/emotional identity is not what it would be without those handicaps). I see this life's purpose is for us to establish the standard by which we measure what is important to us, what has value for us. Therefore in the next life, it will be most likely a matter of learning the truth and seeing where our standard places it when we have all the information we need.

Thus in one sense the decision is already made in that the decision process has already been given structure and all that remains is a few refinements and then seeing what the consequences of that standard will have on the way we make choices and judgments (and thus provides the meat for our own judgment by the Lord).

[cdowis]

So what you're saying is that Mormons are not actually baptizing the dead, they're "inviting" the dead to be baptized and then it's the dead person's choice as to whether they become baptized or not? Why send an invite to someone whose life and teachings are so diamatrically opposite to Mormonism like the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of Hasidic Judaism)? It should be obvious he would reject the invite.

I don't think we are in a position to judge others, but I guess you are sitting on a very lofty throne of judgement, able to judge people in such a manner.

But, on the other hand, I would agree that it is unlikely his descendants would have the temple work done for him. And that is one reason for the church policy. We do the work for our OWN ancestors. For example, the Holocaust victims, their descendants are responsible for this work.

[Scott Lloyd]

So what you're saying is that Mormons are not actually baptizing the dead, they're "inviting" the dead to be baptized and then it's the dead person's choice as to whether they become baptized or not?

Yes! Yes! That is why the proper phrasing is "being baptized for the dead," not "baptizing the dead." That is why I chided you for using improper

[Kristine]

My own spin on this - and I think it has legs - is that it won't be a question of "rejecting" or "accepting" the baptism. By the time they are aware in the afterlife that the baptism was performed it will be too late to make such a decision. The cards at that point will have already been "played". The question is whether this particular person stretched as much and as often as his capacity allowed while in this mortality. If he did, it will be a mere formalty to "accept" the ordinance as he will "see" that it indeed was the Savior's desire to have him baptized by one who has authority. It does not matter what religion - or that the individual had no religion - that the person belonged to as we will all recognize the power of the Savior beyond the veil. Again, whether the individual is "his" will have already been determined once the person passes from this life. All else, relatively speaking, pales in importance to this one variable (i.e., capacity) and becomes almost a formality.

I love this. Beautifully put. We will be the Church of the First Born, judged by our actions, with the ordinances in place to fulfill the law.