Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 It is apples and oranges in trying to compare what the purpose a Catholic praying for a soul in minimizing the time one has in purgatory (because they are guaranteed that the next stop is heaven irregardless) versus the intent LDS have in performing Baptisms for the Dead for their ancestors. Catholics should have no issues with other faiths praying for their dead. IMO, this is not the reason why LDS perform proxy baptisms so it's not a reasonable comparison IMHO.I too am curious to see your best effort to articulate the reason, as you understand it, why Latter-day Saints engage in proxy baptisms for the dead.
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 While you may disagree, associating baptisms in regards to membership of a church is not a stretch of the imagination. Due to my divorce with my LDS wife last year, please don't mind if I prefer not having the ties to the LDS church irregardless of what my LDS portion of the family may do for me.It's no skin off my nose. Please feel free to do as you see fit. I was just curious as to what your opinion was.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 While you may disagree, associating baptisms in regards to membership of a church is not a stretch of the imagination. Due to my divorce with my LDS wife last year, please don't mind if I prefer not having the ties to the LDS church irregardless of what my LDS portion of the family may do for me.I'm sorry there is such a painful association in your mind. But you must understand that the only "ties to the LDS Church" that would come from a vicarious baptism would be if you yourself accepted it in the hereafter.Incidentally, the explanation you give about Catholic prayers being said to reduce the time the individual spends in purgatory is not altogether unlike the reasons why Mormons perform vicarious baptisms. The end goal is the same: making salvation available to the individual.
blueadept Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Incidentally, the explanation you give about Catholic prayers being said to reduce the time the individual spends in purgatory is not altogether unlike the reasons why Mormons perform vicarious baptisms. The end goal is the same: making salvation available to the individual.I disagree with your understanding. Someone who is in purgatory is already saved. It's just a matter time before they are cleansed (painfully) before they can enter heaven. I don't believe that compares to the intent of why LDS perform proxy baptisms where salvation is still in question from my understanding.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 blueadept:The LDS intent is not salvation as I understand as the Catholic definition of it. LDS believe All will be "saved" except the SOP. But as LDS believe in Degrees of Glory in Heaven "Saved" isn't our only criteria.
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 While you may disagree, associating baptisms in regards to membership of a church is not a stretch of the imagination. Due to my divorce with my LDS wife last year, please don't mind if I prefer not having the ties to the LDS church irregardless of what my LDS portion of the family may do for me.FWIW; Not doing someone's temple work, or delaying it, could be (and I think generally is by the LDS membership) viewed as a huge insult to both the family and the person whose work wasn't done.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 I disagree with your understanding. Someone who is in purgatory is already saved. It's just a matter time before they are cleansed (painfully) before they can enter heaven. I don't believe that compares to the intent of why LDS perform proxy baptisms where salvation is still in question from my understanding.We could quibble over definitions, but the intent is still the same: making available to someone deliverance from an unpleasant state.I'd still be interested in seeing you make an attempt to articulate the reason for LDS vicarious baptisms as you understand it. I'm beginning to the get the impression you don't have a clear conception of it.
blueadept Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 In taking the best intentions and definitions in regards to the purpose of proxy baptisms, there is nothing to be offended at for non-members. IMO, all that is shown is disrespect for those who have lived their lives to the best of their abilities and simply believe the LDS viewpoint is wrong and are willing to accept those consequences....of course, no matter what I say, LDS cannot see the offense since no offense was taken. Whatever.
LeSellers Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 I am still waiting, after having done baptisms for the dead beginning in 1960, to see one dead Quaker (or Jew, or Catholic, or animist) baptized. In all that time, not one corpse was ever brought in to the baptistry. Not one.Lehi
phaedrus ut Posted June 2, 2011 Author Posted June 2, 2011 It's interesting to see people who've been upset at the portrayal of historical Mormon figures in popular culture exhibit sudden bewilderment when other religious groups are offended by using their ancestors in LDS religious ceremonies. The Quaker aversion to baptism makes their objections much more specific, and relevant, than most religious groups. Because of the believing LDS members testimony of the practice I can see that many would think it's better to have offended people than souls awaiting baptism in heaven. Phaedrus
blueadept Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 FWIW; Not doing someone's temple work, or delaying it, could be (and I think generally is by the LDS membership) viewed as a huge insult to both the family and the person whose work wasn't done.This particular point blew up in my face when I addressed it with my LDS wife when we were together. She is technically the only LDS member in her Catholic family and she was estatic when she finally got her grandfather's work done. I simply asked her not to inform me when she performed these proxy baptisms.Oh my.... I marked that event as the beginning of the road to my divorce. She was livid for the lack of support that I showed. Oh well.
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 In taking the best intentions and definitions in regards to the purpose of proxy baptisms, there is nothing to be offended at for non-members. IMO, all that is shown is disrespect for those who have lived their lives to the best of their abilities and simply believe the LDS viewpoint is wrong and are willing to accept those consequences....of course, no matter what I say, LDS cannot see the offense since no offense was taken. Whatever.If you do find a way to get off the list, please let me know. I'd love to let my mother in law know how. (May she stay in "purgatory" for all eternity.)
bluebell Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 This particular point blew up in my face when I addressed it with my LDS wife when we were together. She is technically the only LDS member in her Catholic family and she was estatic when she finally got her grandfather's work done. I simply asked her not to inform me when she performed these proxy baptisms.Oh my.... I marked that event as the beginning of the road to my divorce. She was livid for the lack of support that I showed. Oh well.It would be very hard probably for anyone of any faith to feel that the person who is supposed to love and support them more than other other finds something they believe to be sacred and wonderful so horrible they cannot even stand to hear about it. Not that i at all condone how she reacted to it.
Jeff K. Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 It's interesting to see people who've been upset at the portrayal of historical Mormon figures in popular culture exhibit sudden bewilderment when other religious groups are offended by using their ancestors in LDS religious ceremonies. The Quaker aversion to baptism makes their objections much more specific, and relevant, than most religious groups. Because of the believing LDS members testimony of the practice I can see that many would think it's better to have offended people than souls awaiting baptism in heaven. PhaedrusThe key phrase is "popular culture". Mormons do not advertise their baptism of the dead work with Mormon "popular culture" which to me is equivalent to peurile curiosity. When we baptise someone vicariously we rarely, if ever, make it a marquee experience. It isn't meant to be so. So the comparison is more apples and oranges than anything else. In fact someone would have to take the steps to find out for sure. It certainly isn't thrown in the face of non members in the family.
blueadept Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 If you do find a way to get off the list, please let me know. I'd love to let my mother in law know how. (May she stay in "purgatory" for all eternity.)No one stays in purgatory for all eternity because you WILL be eventually cleansed since nothing unclean will enter heaven. But that's the point. The next stop IS heaven. I see nothing wrong with having a little suffering like our Savior did prior to being with Him in heaven.Catholics view purgatory as a totally loving principle.I don't believe that LDS have the same viewpoint of 'spirit prison.'
Jeff K. Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 This particular point blew up in my face when I addressed it with my LDS wife when we were together. She is technically the only LDS member in her Catholic family and she was estatic when she finally got her grandfather's work done. I simply asked her not to inform me when she performed these proxy baptisms.Oh my.... I marked that event as the beginning of the road to my divorce. She was livid for the lack of support that I showed. Oh well.People sometimes forget to be 'cautious' or curb their enthusiasm.
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 No one stays in purgatory for all eternity because you WILL be eventually cleansed since nothing unclean will enter heaven. But that's the point. The next stop IS heaven. I see nothing wrong with having a little suffering like our Savior did prior to being with Him in heaven.Catholics view purgatory as a totally loving principle.I don't believe that LDS have the same viewpoint of 'spirit prison.'I guess it depends on who you talk you.A great deal of LDS members do have a happy view of Spirit Prison, (which is really a horrible name). (As I understand it) Spirit Prison is just a "lay over" that those who didn't have a chance to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in moral life get in order to have another chance to accept. It's like getting stuck in the Denver Airport on your way to DisneyLand. I am not sure at that time they can cross over from Spirit Prison to Paradise, but I think it may be with the ordinance of baptism being complete for them here on Earth.
blueadept Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 I guess it depends on who you talk you.A great deal of LDS members do have a happy view of Spirit Prison, (which is really a horrible name). (As I understand it) Spirit Prison is just a "lay over" that those who didn't have a chance to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in moral life get in order to have another chance to accept. It's like getting stuck in the Denver Airport on your way to DisneyLand. I am not sure at that time they can cross over from Spirit Prison to Paradise, but I think it may be with the ordinance of baptism being complete for them here on Earth.From my POV, the 'lay over' can technically be forever if no one does the work. That doesn't sound appealing at all.There's no permanence in regards to purgatory. 'Cleansing' is inevitable and doesn't require intervention from any one. Now the process can be sped up through prayer by others.I'm still failing to see the comparison....
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 From my POV, the 'lay over' can technically be forever if no one does the work. That doesn't sound appealing at all.There's no permanence in regards to purgatory. 'Cleansing' is inevitable and doesn't require intervention from any one. Now the process can be sped up through prayer by others.I'm still failing to see the comparison.... Well, (IF) the LDS Church is correct... and in your case I'll grant you that it's a big IF... The work for every soul MUST be done by the end of the millennium. Malachi 4 6 And he shall aturn the bheart of the cfathers to the dchildren, and the heart of the echildren to their fathers, lest I come and fsmite the gearth with a hcurse.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 I just finished reading Baptizing Dead Quakers. It's a interesting perspective on why some religious communities find proxy baptism of their ancestors offensive. In this case it's because:PhaedrusThe image of the title is disturbing. Should it not read “Baptism “for” dead Quakers”?
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 The image of the title is disturbing. Should it not read “Baptism “for” dead Quakers”?We had a missionary tell us recently that someone asked him about "Early Morning Cemetery" so we could perform "Baptism of the Dead".Creepy.
blueadept Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Well, (IF) the LDS Church is correct... and in your case I'll grant you that it's a big IF... The work for every soul MUST be done by the end of the millennium. Malachi 4 6 And he shall aturn the bheart of the cfathers to the dchildren, and the heart of the echildren to their fathers, lest I come and fsmite the gearth with a hcurse.I agree that LDS are under the gun to get the work done.Forgive me for the following 'pop shot.' I think LDS can be viewed in worrying more about the dead than the living at times in their need to get all these proxy baptisms done. It's an extremely important principle for them that isn't necessarily appreciated (or wanted) by others.
ELF1024 Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 I agree that LDS are under the gun to get the work done.Forgive me for the following 'pop shot.' I think LDS can be viewed in worrying more about the dead than the living at times in their need to get all these proxy baptisms done. It's an extremely important principle for them that isn't necessarily appreciated (or wanted) by others.I'm not sure that's the case, but I can understand your concern. There is a three fold mission to the Church; 1) Perfect the Saints, 2) Bring people unto Christ; 3) Redeem the Dead. So, In THEORY, it should be only as important as the other two. I can see how with your experiences, that it may not have seemed/been that way in practice.
Calm Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 I can't understand why one who believes their religion is correct- and why would you join or be a member of a religion which you do not think is "correct" in some way- would think that some OTHER religion would have power over their dead ancestors!While there have been a few who have phrased their objections this way, it seems to me most of the protest is more in line with the belief that the individual would not wish to participate in a false baptism if they were alive and therefore they should not be subjected to it when they are dead out of respect. The LDS position that they may have changed their minds and we want to give them the opportunity to enjoy the fullest blessings possible is dismissed by some as arrogant, etc.; it is unfortunate that those individuals do not give the respect to LDS for their certainty in their beliefs that they are willing to give to others. (I am not saying this means they have to agree with them)Often the protest is that we are not considering the feelings of the living over the dead, but in demanding that we respect the beliefs of the dead are they not doing the same thing? Placing the dead over the feelings of the living (LDS in this case)?
Calm Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 It is apples and oranges in trying to compare what the purpose a Catholic praying for a soul in minimizing the time one has in purgatory (because they are guaranteed that the next stop is heaven irregardless) versus the intent LDS have in performing Baptisms for the Dead for their ancestors. Catholics should have no issues with other faiths praying for their dead. IMO, this is not the reason why LDS perform proxy baptisms so it's not a reasonable comparison IMHO.So a prayer that speeds the dead on to joining with the Lord in full fellowship is okay, but a blessing that actually allows them to join the Lord in full fellowship is not?I don't really understand the issue based on this reasoning, perhaps I am misunderstanding your position.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.