Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Yes. And because they are free to ignore/disregard/reject the ordinances performed for them, then their peace is not interrupted thereby, any more than my peace would be disturbed by a Catholic prayer for my soul.

[Scott Lloyd]

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).

I wonder if you have considered the projected implications of your "platinum rule." Would you advocate sustaining people in behavior harmful or destructive to themselves or others simply because that's what they "would have you do"? What if they require behavior from you that you find morally reprehensible or otherwise unacceptable?

Or is your phrase "in context, of course" meant to preclude such possibilities? If so, that means your "platinum rule" is not without qualifiers. I submit that one appropriate qualifier would be not to indulge people in unreasonable, ill-considered or uncomprehending expectations or demands that infringe upon the religious liberty of others to pray or to engage in other harmless religious rituals.

[Kristine]

I wonder if you have considered the projected implications of your "platinum rule." Would you advocate sustaining people in behavior harmful or destructive to themselves or others simply because that's what they "would have you do"? What if they require behavior from you that you find morally reprehensible or otherwise unacceptable?

Or is your phrase "in context, of course" meant to preclude such possibilities? If so, that means your "platinum rule" is not without qualifiers. I submit that one appropriate qualifier would be not to indulge people in unreasonable, ill-considered or uncomprehending expectations or demands that infringe upon the religious liberty of others to pray or to engage in other harmless religious rituals.

Yes. I had my trusty 8 ball when I wrote the post thinking someone may use the argument of your first paragraph. It seems to me that the same logic could be applied to the golden rule.

And I still think that it's best not to decide for others what is harmful to them, hence the platinum rule.

[jwhitlock]

Do you think that we have never done anything wrong? Do you think there has ever been a case in the history of our church where someone has ever been justifiably offended?

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

We're talking about the specific situation at hand.

[Kristine]

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

We're talking about the specific situation at hand.

I was just trying to see more of where you were coming from.

[jwhitlock]

I was just trying to see more of where you were coming from.

I've simply evaluated what's been posted about this particular situation and come to my own conclusions about what's going on.

Being offended is something that is virtually always done by choice. I can't think of many situations at all where it is forced upon a person.

I'll repeat again, that in this particular situation, the offense seems to have been taken for no particularly good reason. I can tell of no direct or indirect harm being done to your friend, and I know of no harm that is done by the performance of a proxy ordinance. What I do know is that quite a bit of misinformation about LDS proxy ordinances has been promulgated, including some in this thread.

People can find excuses to be offended about virtually anything. That doesn't make being offended valid, and it appears from what has been posted here that this particular item of offense is simply a choice that has been made, for rather invalid reasons.

[Senator]

That doesn't make being offended valid, and it appears from what has been posted here that this particular item of offense is simply a choice that has been made, for rather invalid reasons.

It would seem to me that good diplomacy would not entail being in the business of invalidating peoples expressions of offense no matter how (irr)rational the reasons may be.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll repeat again, that in this particular situation, the offense seems to have been taken for no particularly good reason. I can tell of no direct or indirect harm being done to your friend, and I know of no harm that is done by the performance of a proxy ordinance. What I do know is that quite a bit of misinformation about LDS proxy ordinances has been promulgated, including some in this thread.

And, I might add, in the article to which Kristine linked us about supposed offenses against Catholics. If I get time tomorrow, perhaps I'll highlight some of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It would seem to me that good diplomacy would not entail being in the business of invalidating peoples expressions of offense no matter how (irr)rational the reasons may be.

Certainly we should make an effort to educate those on the outside. But if "good diplomacy" entails giving up a substantial measure of religious liberty in a matter as important to the faith of the Latter-day Saints as salvation for the dead, I would suggest such diplomacy is hardly worthwhile.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. I had my trusty 8 ball when I wrote the post thinking someone may use the argument of your first paragraph. It seems to me that the same logic could be applied to the golden rule.

Hardly.

And I still think that it's best not to decide for others what is harmful to them, hence the platinum rule.

Then you haven't really considered what I wrote in my previous post.

[jwhitlock]

It would seem to me that good diplomacy would not entail being in the business of invalidating peoples expressions of offense no matter how (irr)rational the reasons may be.

When the offense is directed at the Church and its members, this doesn't apply.

[Senator]

Certainly we should make an effort to educate those on the outside. But if "good diplomacy" entails giving up a substantial measure of religious liberty in a matter as important to the faith of the Latter-day Saints as salvation for the dead, I would suggest such diplomacy is hardly worthwhile.

I have never argued that we give up a substantial measure of religious liberty. Simply that our diplomatic effort to educate does not need to invalidate others reasons for offense.

[Senator]

When the offense is directed at the Church and its members, this doesn't apply.

Sure it does.

[jwhitlock]

Sure it does.

I see absolutely no reason that it does. And I see no reason to appease such an offense, based on invalid assumptions as it is. I can correct the misrepresentation, but if the person chooses to still be offended, then there is no reason why it should not be firmly pointed out what they are doing.

[Senator]

I see absolutely no reason that it does. And I see no reason to appease such an offense, based on invalid assumptions as it is. I can correct the misrepresentation, but if the person chooses to still be offended, then there is no reason why it should not be firmly pointed out what they are doing.

We uphold notions of long-suffering, meekness, brotherly kindness, charity.

[EDITED to remove unnecessary jab ]

[Kristine]

I've simply evaluated what's been posted about this particular situation and come to my own conclusions about what's going on.

Being offended is something that is virtually always done by choice. I can't think of many situations at all where it is forced upon a person.

I'll repeat again, that in this particular situation, the offense seems to have been taken for no particularly good reason. I can tell of no direct or indirect harm being done to your friend, and I know of no harm that is done by the performance of a proxy ordinance. What I do know is that quite a bit of misinformation about LDS proxy ordinances has been promulgated, including some in this thread.

People can find excuses to be offended about virtually anything. That doesn't make being offended valid, and it appears from what has been posted here that this particular item of offense is simply a choice that has been made, for rather invalid reasons.

What would you consider a valid offense?

[Kristine]

It's not my platinum rule http://www.alessandra.com/abouttony/aboutpr.asp We use it in Mediation. It's very effective.

Hardly.

Why not?

The platinum rule doesn't mean you become someone's puppet. And no one gets to "require" behavior, as nothing is "required" nor puppeted with the Golden Rule.

If you buy your wife a gift that you knew she would just love, simply because you love it, she would probably not love it. And while she may be ever so grateful, if you bought her a gift that you already knew she wanted, well, then that is just one smart man.

Sometimes the Golden Rule is just sugar coated narcissism.

Then you haven't really considered what I wrote in my previous post

Well, why don't you enlighten me.

[jwhitlock]

We uphold notions of long-suffering, meekness, brotherly kindness, charity.

[EDITED to remove unnecessary jab ]

And also all of the rest of what Paul said concerning those who attack the Church.

[bizabra]

Because the Atonement of Christ only remits sins as people personally come to Him and covenant with Him.

BIZ: Um, dead people can't personally "come to him and covenant with him" now when a person proxies a baptism for them. The presumption being that they will get that opportunity in the hereafter if the ordinance was performed for them by a living being standing in as proxy. Correct?

The question I'm wondering about is why wouldn't a proxy baptism done by the Prophet (just to pull the most "qualified" persons name out of the hat) in the name of EVERYONE who has ever lived and will live be just as valid as if each and every dead person has to be individually proxy baptized.

In the same manner in which, apparently, Jesus was resurrected for everyone's sins.

[Vanguard]

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 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).

The only difference between "us" and those who are profoundly disabled is the degree to which we can identify them as such. Simply because I do not match the profile of one who is profoundly disabled does not mean that I am not in some form. In a matter of speaking, we are all by definition disabled in one way or another and as such would behave differently were we not. There is simply no objective way to discern the extent of the "damage" if you will. Because we are all considered individuals we must also be judged by that same individuality making it virtually if not literally impossible for another mortal to pass judgement on another's ultimtate reward.

Instead, we have been given gospel ideals throughout scripture, modern day revelation, gospel ordinances, and such. Our realities approximate each one of these ideals in a wholly individualized way. Our "HF and Company" are the only ones tasked with judging our worth through the prism of our imperfect mortality. Baptism and other ordinances will be reduced to mere formality after this judgment has been made. God wants those who played their best hand in this life and noting more. It is the only thing we have complete control over. As such, those with only "a pair of deuces" in their pocker hand will be considered as worthy as one who holds "a royal flush."

Amen!

[bizabra]

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?

BIZ: What if my cousin told you firmly, well in advance of you creating the guest list and sending out the invites, that he would not be attending the wedding and to cross him off the list and not bother preparing a treat bag for him? That he appreciates the thought and wishes everyone well, but that he will NOT be attending, so sorry!

Under these conditions, my cousin should not be sent an invite to the wedding, as he should NOT be on the guest list,thus no treat bag need be prepared for him and he will not be "absent". He decided IN ADVANCE he would not be attending and notified you of it in time for you to NOT INVITE HIM, hence you can now invite someone else who MAY want to, or be able to, attend instead.

Wouldn't it be foolish and a waste of time and effort to put him on the guest list, send him an invite, and prepare a treat bag for him? KNOWING he would not be there, no matter how much you might want him to?

This is analogous to someone stating in a will, or advance directive, or other document of record that is legal that they do not wish to be posthumously baptized into THE CHURCH. "Thanks for thinking of me, but so sorry, I don't want it, thank you very much." in other words.

So, such a document should indicate to THEY CHURCH and their descendants/relatives the CHOICE of an individual NOT to have proxy ordinances done for them.

[bizabra]

This question strikes me as being outside the scope of this thread, which is a discussion of the right of the Church and its members to practice its doctrine of proxy temple ordinance work for the deceased as opposed to the assumed right of outsiders to prevent or hinder that practice.

You can challenge the logic of the doctrine itself, but if you do, please take it to another thread.

Cool avatar, by the way. It really does look three-dimensional.

BIZ: Thank you, and I will!

[bizabra]

Do you understand the concept of the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial Kingdoms? Being baptized in Christs name is not enough to move to the CK as each individual name is counted among the book of life..

I understand the concepts very well, having 14 Mormon (I'm SO glad it's OK to use that name again!) pioneer ancestors and having been a former young Mormon grasshopper. In addition, I have a large extended family of active members and my Dad is a former Bishop.

I understand Mormon concepts very well.

OK, so why not simply perform the one proxy baptism for everyone, living dead and yet to come, and simply do the name collecting and data entry?

p.s. we should take this convo over to my new thread on this very topic.

[handys003]

It's not my platinum rule http://www.alessandr...ony/aboutpr.asp We use it in Mediation. It's very effective.

Why not?

The platinum rule doesn't mean you become someone's puppet. And no one gets to "require" behavior, as nothing is "required" nor puppeted with the Golden Rule.

If you buy your wife a gift that you knew she would just love, simply because you love it, she would probably not love it. And while she may be ever so grateful, if you bought her a gift that you already knew she wanted, well, then that is just one smart man.

Sometimes the Golden Rule is just sugar coated narcissism.

Well, why don't you enlighten me.

Platnium rule? We follow the words of men mingled with scripture?

The "Platinum Rule" expression was coined by Dr. Tony Alessandra and is a trademark of Dr. Alessandra.)People know what they want or need. If you can determine those desires and satisfy them, you do a much greater service than giving them what you care about. For example, the good salesman always tried to qualify the prospect to see what he or she is looking for.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/value/platinum.htm

I know what I want. I want to be a billionaire. Can you or HF satisfy that? I pray to HF to help become one. However I don't always get what I want because it's not what I need as determined by HF. This is a sales approach subject to the feel, felt, found principle as discussed in the Psychology of Selling. It is a variation of such, and a good marketing gimmick to ta shell out a few bucks to listen to this diatribe in motivational seminars for suckers. This Platinum rule is for the ways of men and to part your money for a service or product. In caters to the narccissitic tendancies inside us all. Has nothing to do with spiritual.

[handys003]

I understand the concepts very well, having 14 Mormon (I'm SO glad it's OK to use that name again!) pioneer ancestors and having been a former young Mormon grasshopper. In addition, I have a large extended family of active members and my Dad is a former Bishop.

I understand Mormon concepts very well.

OK, so why not simply perform the one proxy baptism for everyone, living dead and yet to come, and simply do the name collecting and data entry?

p.s. we should take this convo over to my new thread on this very topic.

Agreed I already commented.