Baptizing Dead Quakers

[blueadept]

I can appreciate that the RCC has also made the work for LDS more difficult by going out of its way in not sharing info in regards to deaths of its members. Hmmm...That's at least to the case in the Diocese of SLC from my recollection.

[ELF1024]

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.

It seems to be an emotional issue, not a logical one.

[Calm]

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.

And I totally understand why you feel this way, but "membership" in the Church is not how I've ever heard a member describe the purpose of proxy baptisms in real life (have heard it as a criticism online) though I have little doubt that there are a few out there who do so.

Most people in my offline experience talk about the purpose of proxy baptisms solely in relationship with God and their eternal family, a few include a relationship to the Church in the sense of one "entering the kingdom of God"...in these cases rather talking about the "Mormon Church" or even the LDS one, they talk about the Church of God or the Church of the Firstborn.

I think it is important to distinguish in discussions between reasons one doesn't want to have the ordinance done as opposed to the reasons why LDS desire it done and not to confuse them, confusion is not going to help anyone get what they want out of the situation.

[blueadept]

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.

The prayer isn't necessary. Heaven is guaranteed once purgatory is achieved.

I don't believe LDS have the same POV of the need of the proxy baptism. The need to perform the baptism is an absolute necessity for all.

Catholics are suckers in trying to alleaviate unnecessary pain which is all that the prayers are accomplishing in trying to shorten one's stay in purgatory.

Did that help?

[Calm]

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.

Salvation is only in question in the sense that we on this earth participating in the mortal side of the work do not know who is saved and who is not, the Lord certainly knows who are his sheep and who are not even when he requires of those sheep certain acts in his name.

Are all those who are prayed for known for sure to be in purgatory and already saved? Is it possible that someone might be mistakenly placed in purgatory by those praying for him or her?

[blueadept]

And I totally understand why you feel this way, but "membership" in the Church is not how I've ever heard a member describe the purpose of proxy baptisms in real life (have heard it as a criticism online) though I have little doubt that there are a few out there who do so.

I truly understand this. In regards to actual membership numbers, LDS do not count anyone prior to the age of eight or these 'proxy baptisms' in regards to their official numbers. I get it.

That doesn't alleviate the fact that I would prefer the ordinance to NOT be performed irregardless of the good intentions of my LDS family. I've made my bed in regards to the best intentions. I'm annoyed that how one lives their life, will not be honored. So be it.

Obviously, I've been annoyed when past Popes have had their proxy baptisms. IMO, it's not honoring them.

[Calm]

I don't believe that LDS have the same viewpoint of 'spirit prison.'

I think you are wrong on this point. For those who are not yet saved, have not yet fully partaken of the Atonement, they may be in much the same state as described as purgatory, suffering for a time for their sins as they are purified. It is the love of God that allows men to be purified in this way after death so they do not have to continue for eternity suffering in hell just as it is the love of God that offers them the full blessing of the Atonement where purification is through the suffering of Christ.

Even those who chose to not partake of any of the Atonement and remain in hell are though the love of God, not allowed to stay in that state eternally...save for those who have not only rejected God completely from their souls, but actively worked against him to the point of becoming Sons of Perdition and there, we do not know what their eternal state will be but any LDS would take it on faith that wherever they end up, the love of God will be part of the process as much as the justice of the Lord.

[Calm]

From my POV, the 'lay over' can technically be forever if no one does the work. That doesn't sound appealing at all.

But it is built inherently into the system---because it is God's system---that the work will get done one way or the other. The Lord will not allow it otherwise.

[Calm]

'Cleansing' is inevitable and doesn't require intervention from any one.

Not even from God? He at least set up the system that performs this cleansing, did he not?

I really do not see much difference in a system that might work on 'autopilot' and a system that has 'manual labour' involved if both systems are guaranteed in outcome---bringing souls to the Lord...and since both systems are understood to be under the direction of the eternal, perfect God, I see that as the ultimate guarantee.

[ELF1024]

I truly understand this. In regards to actual membership numbers, LDS do not count anyone prior to the age of eight or these 'proxy baptisms' in regards to their official numbers. I get it.

That doesn't alleviate the fact that I would prefer the ordinance to NOT be performed irregardless of the good intentions of my LDS family. I've made my bed in regards to the best intentions. I'm annoyed that how one lives their life, will not be honored. So be it.

Obviously, I've been annoyed when past Popes have had their proxy baptisms. IMO, it's not honoring them.

Well, it may not be honoring him; but at least it isn't endlessly consigning him to hell. I've known more than one Catholic hating evangelical who would gladly proclaim that all the Pope(s) are in hell.

[Calm]

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.

The dead are part of our family as much as the living are in many LDS's view, we very much believe the dead are alive in Christ but also that the relationship between the dead and the living is not affected by death anymore than one traveling to the other side of the world changes family ties between brothers or parent and child. It is as hard for them to ignore the needs of their dead family as it is for them to ignore the needs of their living family.

[Calm]

I can appreciate that the RCC has also made the work for LDS more difficult by going out of its way in not sharing info in regards to deaths of its members. Hmmm...That's at least to the case in the Diocese of SLC from my recollection.

It's their right to do what they want with the records they made the effort to collect. To me it seems a natural response to an ordinance that they believe is false doctrine and a faith they believe may lead someone from Christ.

[bluebell]

I'm annoyed that how one lives their life, will not be honored. So be it.

It actually is being honored.

Most people do the work for the family because they know the close personal relationship that their loved one had with God and how much their faith meant to them.

In this way, it is assumed that should more understanding and knowledge be presented to this person after death, that they would want to be a part of it, would readily accept it, and would be thankful for it, because they so readily accepted and were thankful for it when it came to them while they were alive.

In my mind, being LDS and believing as i do about the afterlife, it would be a dishonor to my ancestors to believe their relationship with God meant so little to them that they would rather be loyal to a church membership after death that lacked certain truths than to accept or alter beliefs in a way that would bring them closer to God.

I know that if i die, and i find out that the Catholics are right, i would hope that i'm not so stubborn and prideful that i would rather be a wrong mormon in heaven than a right Catholic and i hope that any Catholic relatives i have honor my faith in God enough to believe that i wouldn't be that stubborn and spiteful either and that they do all they can in their Catholic way to help me.

[Scott Lloyd]

I truly understand this. In regards to actual membership numbers, LDS do not count anyone prior to the age of eight or these 'proxy baptisms' in regards to their official numbers. I get it.

That doesn't alleviate the fact that I would prefer the ordinance to NOT be performed irregardless of the good intentions of my LDS family. I've made my bed in regards to the best intentions. I'm annoyed that how one lives their life, will not be honored. So be it.

Obviously, I've been annoyed when past Popes have had their proxy baptisms. IMO, it's not honoring them.

Such a sentiment might seem reasonable if the vicarious baptism was intended to deprive the person of the right to reject it. But as has been repeatedly stated, that is not the case.

[blueadept]

Are all those who are prayed for known for sure to be in purgatory and already saved? Is it possible that someone might be mistakenly placed in purgatory by those praying for him or her?

My turn to be totally confused....

Please remember that you're talking to the typical Catholic who all are clueless when Protestants start talking about the Rapture and the 2nd Coming in regards to the way it will be. Don't know, don't care.

Q:“ Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?

”A: The word Rapture is connected to the Latin word rapiemur, which appears in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. It means to be raised up or caught up:

The dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16–17)

Therefore, Catholics believe that those Christians who are still living at the Second Coming of Christ will be gathered together with those who have died in Christ to be forever with the Lord. Catholics do not generally use the term Rapture, nor do they believe in a Rapture that will take place some time before the Second Coming, as do many Evangelicals.

Are all those who are prayed for known for sure to be in purgatory and already saved?

Of course we don't know if they made it to purgatory or not. It depends on the way they died and the status of their soul when they died. A sinful person their entire life can be saved at the last moment while a holy person their entire life can lose it at the last moment. No ones salvation is guaranteed.

Is it possible that someone might be mistakenly placed in purgatory by those praying for him or her?

...I'm just confused by this question. The Lord misplaced and put someone in the wrong place?

BTW, we believe that some of our saints bypassed the purgatory step to heaven and are already there.

[Calm]

The prayer isn't necessary. Heaven is guaranteed once purgatory is achieved.

I don't believe LDS have the same POV of the need of the proxy baptism. The need to perform the baptism is an absolute necessity for all.

Catholics are suckers in trying to alleaviate unnecessary pain which is all that the prayers are accomplishing in trying to shorten one's stay in purgatory.

Did that help?

Not really since it seems like you are saying something that has less of a benefit is okay but something that is essential to someone's benefit is not.

An analogy of the way it is coming across to me would be thinking that removal of a cancerous mole is great because of the cosmetic effect, but to use a more aggressive form of treatment such as chemotherapy because the person's life is at stake is inappropriate.

Proxy baptisms are not making any assumptions about the worthiness of the individual to receive salvation from the Lord, in fact the work is done currently as if all are worthy to receive such even though we understand that such is not true, leaving the business of 'assigning' worthiness to them and the Lord.

If proxy work were about the worthiness of the individual---that someone is not worthy of salvation until LDS take a hand in the matter---I can see why that would be offensive, but that is not the LDS belief.

[Pahoran]

Here's another hypothetical scenario.

A beloved relative has passed away. You have a relative whom we shall call Cousin A. Due to a deep-seated antipathy toward the LDS faith and a general ignorance about LDS belief, Cousin A objects to having temple work performed for the departed relative. To accommodate Cousin A's feelings, you agree not to have the temple work performed.

But you have another relative whom we shall call Cousin B. Cousin B is a Latter-day Saint. She had a very close relationship with the departed relative. She loved him deeply and mourns his passing intensely. It would bring her great comfort to have the temple ordinances performed for the departed relative, though she knows the choice is entirely his on the other side of the veil whether to accept the work.

Out of sensitivity for the way Cousin A feels, do you try to talk Cousin B out of having the ordinance work done? Do you regard Cousin B as arrogant because, out of love, she wants to have the temple work done? If so, what gives the feelings of Cousin A precedence over or greater claim on your respect than the feelings of Cousin B?

I would really love to hear a response from the opponents on this one, but since they seem to have missed it, I'll offer a possible explanation: Maybe since "Cousin B" is a mere Mormon, her feelings just aren't as important.

Could that be it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

I'm annoyed that how one lives their life, will not be honored. So be it.

I think I understand that position and it is perfectly reasonable for someone who does not believe as LDS do (that we are not honouring them as they would actually be chosen to be honoured), but it would be a misperception of what LDS are actually doing if you are claiming we are not intending to honour someone as we are honouring people's lives by giving them opportunities to continue in the path they have chosen (our assumption being those who have chosen to follow the truth as they understood it in this life will, when the full truth is taught them, accept it in their expanded understanding).

LDS see proxy baptisms as honouring how someone lives their life because we assume that as they continue to live that life in the spirit world, they will continue to grow and change and seek out the Lord just as they did in this one and proxy work facilitates their efforts.

If people just ended their personal growth at the time of their death...yeah, LDS would see things the same way, but we see personal growth as an eternal principle and see not doing someone's work for them as not honouring their desires (in general, there is a recognition that some will refuse to grow in the next life just as they refused to grow in this one, but I don't ever think I've heard someone identify an individual family member in this state, we honour our dead by assuming they are good people doing their best even after their deaths.).

[Scott Lloyd]

I think I understand that position and it is perfectly reasonable for someone who does not believe as LDS do (that we are not honouring them as they would actually be chosen to be honoured), but it would be a misperception of what LDS are actually doing if you are claiming we are not intending to honour someone as we are honouring people's lives by giving them opportunities to continue in the path they have chosen (our assumption being those who have chosen to follow the truth as they understood it in this life will, when the full truth is taught them, accept it in their expanded understanding).

LDS see proxy baptisms as honouring how someone lives their life because we assume that as they continue to live that life in the spirit world, they will continue to grow and change and seek out the Lord just as they did in this one and proxy work facilitates their efforts.

If people just ended their personal growth at the time of their death...yeah, LDS would see things the same way, but we see personal growth as an eternal principle and see not doing someone's work for them as not honouring their desires (in general, there is a recognition that some will refuse to grow in the next life just as they refused to grow in this one, but I don't ever think I've heard someone identify an individual family member in this state, we honour our dead by assuming they are good people doing their best even after their deaths.).

Calmoriah, just so you know, I would have given you a positive vote on this post, but I've already reached my quota for the day. (I think I used up several votes on some of your previous posts.)

[Scott Lloyd]

I would really love to hear a response from the opponents on this one, but since they seem to have missed it, I'll offer a possible explanation: Maybe since "Cousin B" is a mere Mormon, her feelings just aren't as important.

Could that be it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yeah, I was really hoping Log would come back and answer this. I'm curious how he/she would respond.

[Pahoran]

I just finished reading Baptizing Dead Quakers. It's a interesting perspective on why some religious communities find proxy baptism of their ancestors offensive.

Pardon me Phaedrus, but I just thought you'd appreciate a minor spelling correction there. "Ignorant" is not correctly spelled i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Of course we don't know if they made it to purgatory or not. It depends on the way they died and the status of their soul when they died. A sinful person their entire life can be saved at the last moment while a holy person their entire life can lose it at the last moment. No ones salvation is guaranteed....

I'm just confused by this question. The Lord misplaced and put someone in the wrong place?

No, you answered my question in the previous comment, I was asking if a person can be mistaken about the eternal state of their loved one, thinking they were worthy for purgatory and heaven when in reality they were not, thus their prayers on behalf of their dead one would be ineffective.

BTW, we believe that some of our saints bypassed the purgatory step to heaven and are already there.

Understood.

[Calm]

Calmoriah, just so you know, I would have given you a positive vote on this post, but I've already reached my quota for the day. (I think I used up several votes on some of your previous posts.)

Thank you.

My intent here is not to persuade anyone that proxy work is great and they should have no negative feelings about it whatsoever, if proxy work is false doctrine in someone's view then they should actively teach against it in my view.

However, I would like to lessen the possibility that there are negative feelings out there due to a misperception of how LDS view those we do the work for as I think those are unnecessary and better to be removed rather than ignored or dismissed as unimportant. Family and other relationships are the most important aspect of our lives after our relationship with God in my belief and we should do all we can to minimize unnecessary pain because there is more than enough of necessary pain to go around.

[bluebell]

Calmoriah, just so you know, I would have given you a positive vote on this post, but I've already reached my quota for the day. (I think I used up several votes on some of your previous posts.)

I would have given her some as well,for a few of her posts, but have long since used up all my privileges today for that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would really love to hear a response from the opponents on this one, but since they seem to have missed it, I'll offer a possible explanation: Maybe since "Cousin B" is a mere Mormon, her feelings just aren't as important.

Could that be it?

Regards,

Pahoran

No critic well ever respond to Scott's point.