Baptizing Dead Quakers

[Calm]

I was going to add this to my last post, but since there have been responses...

I think most LDS would be comfortable saying that if our belief is false, we are indeed not honouring the dead by proxy work even though we are trying to, however that this lack of honour would be based on mistaken understanding and not because we are intentionally dishonouring them or dismissing their desires as unimportant or trivial in comparison to our own.

To claim otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand why LDS (in general at least) undertake proxy work.

[blueadept]

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).

As a faithful follower of your church, I honor your best efforts in following your leaders goals in doing the work necessary. The goals of your church seem simple

1) Perfect the Saints, 2) Bring people unto Christ; 3) Redeem the Dead.

Forgive me in not cooperating in redeeming the Dead by following the direction and advice of my own church. My priest, who did live with an LDS family during his college years and went to UofU, mentioned that it would be sinful to openly cooperate in helping my wife gather info since of family members since we all knew what the intentions would be used for. I never asked my wife to not practice her beliefs, but I caught a lot of backlash by not openly supporting her. Oh well.

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.).

I appreciate the LDS views of the after life and why it's so important for them to do their work. Catholics tend not to speculate of the way it will be in heaven. Taking care of the present seems to be more important.

Do your work that has been deemed important according to your church and faith. I applaud you for it. In the same sense, don't mind if I simply don't cooperate as guided by my church.

[Deborah]

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

from lds.org

When the physical body dies, the spirit continues to live. In the spirit world, the spirits of the righteous “are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow” (Alma 40:12). A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (D&C 138:32). The spirits in prison are “taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and all other principles of the gospel that [are] necessary for them to know” (D&C 138:33-34). If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins, and accept ordinances performed in their behalf in temples, they will be welcomed into paradise.

[Calm]

Do your work that has been deemed important according to your church and faith. I applaud you for it. In the same sense, don't mind if I simply don't cooperate as guided by my church.

As far as I am concerned, it doesn't bother me in the least if someone does not want to cooperate as long as their reasons are based on actual understanding of our doctrine even while believing it to be false (just as I don't have a problem with someone refusing to pray with me if that refusal is based on a desire that I not be misled about the eternal state of my soul if they are accurate in their belief of why I am not one of the saved).

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I used up some of mine on your posts as well, bluebell.

[bluebell]

I used up some of mine on your posts as well, bluebell.

Thank you. It's been a really good discussion all around and i include blueadept's words on the issue as well in that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think most LDS would be comfortable saying that if our belief is false, we are indeed not honouring the dead by proxy work even though we are trying to, ...

I wouldn't concede, in any event, that our work is dishonoring anyone, living or dead, just as I wouldn't agree that a well-intentioned prayer or other ritual for me or mine by someone not of my faith amounts to a show of disrespect (see my sig line).

[blueadept]

As far as I am concerned, it doesn't bother me in the least if someone does not want to cooperate as long as their reasons are based on actual understanding of our doctrine even while believing it to be false (just as I don't have a problem with someone refusing to pray with me if that refusal is based on a desire that I not be misled about the eternal state of my soul if they are accurate in their belief of why I am not one of the saved).

Your reply made me remember a practice that I had when I attended SM's with my wife a long time ago. When I arrived at the chapel, I always reviewed what the songs were going to be for that session and verified that I wasn't going to have any issues in singing along with the congregation. I simply didn't sing along with those songs that I had doctrinal issues with. My wife never asked why I didn't sing along at those few times but it's the same principle why you wouldn't have an issue with some one not praying with you at times.

Just an interesting practice I developed.

...added. I also was more cognizant of RCC songs that I knew LDS would have issues with. Most of them dealt with the Trinity.

Is it any wonder that I have a special liking of the Trinity style of the cross...

[Calm]

I wouldn't concede, in any event, that our work is dishonoring anyone, living or dead, just as I wouldn't agree that a well-intentioned prayer or other ritual for me or mine by someone not of my faith amounts to a show of disrespect (see my sig line).

Neither would I, I don't think doing something with the intention of honouring someone can actually dishonour them even if the process is a mistake, though as a mistake it might not actually honour them. I was hoping my wording was precise enough to make this distinction...if not, then thank you for clarifying it with your own, if it was clear enough, than thank you for underlining it.

I do think that doing proxy work is one way that LDS attempt to create a memorial for their dead and I would find it very hard to understand why someone else would think this was a dishonour for them even if they thought our time and effort was a total waste of resources or that our belief was false in its hopes.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

I don't know for sure but I don't believe just anyone can do that. I pretty sure you have to have a church member number to enter Temple Work in to the system.

I assume that someone in the Family History Administration is able to do it. It is just a matter of contacting the helpdesk and making the request.

I'm sure they can accomodate his request, since I have seen them lock out certain names. An ordinary member, even with access to the system, could not do that.

[mfbukowski]

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.

"Your understanding" is precisely the problem. You think that somehow we are "making them Mormon", don't you?

Come on now, fess up!

[mfbukowski]

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

One could also argue that if indeed they WERE "Catholic" or "Quaker" - (ie- practicing believers on the other side) the baptism would have no efficacy anyway, therefore "no Catholic was baptized" is exactly true! Only "non-Catholics" would even be eligible to accept baptism, just as is the case on this side of the veil.

The missionaries knock on your door and offer baptism; if you don't want it, you don't do it!

[mfbukowski]

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 I won't bother to ask why he went through all that if we get to do it on our own anyway.

[mfbukowski]

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.)

Yeah, she's racked up quite enough for one day from me too! It's just not fair!

[Mudcat]

deleted.

[blueadept]

Yeah, she's racked up quite enough for one day from me too! It's just not fair!

A few more Calmoriah and MnG types on the board would always be a good thing.

I've noticed that the women have rack up quite a few positive comments as of late. But I've always had the opinion that they tend to be more spiritual (except for my significant other) than men. But of course that's why men have the priesthood. They need all the help they can get.

I always laughed at our local priest when he may get hung up on a spiritual matter and he asked our RCIA director. Of course the the director is a woman.

[phaedrus ut]

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

Thanks once again for letting your insightful commentary add to the discussion. I would expect nothing less.

Phaedrus

[Pahoran]

Thanks once again for letting your insightful commentary add to the discussion. I would expect nothing less.

Phaedrus

You're welcome.

But seriously Phaedrus, the article in question relies upon so many false/uninformed assumptions that its POV is ultimately useless.

I mean, even you must have noticed at least one or two of them, right?

So how much notice should informed Latter-day Saints take of this drivel, except to chuckle patronisingly at it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

While I totally understand the LDS frustration in not seeing the harm in performing Baptisms for the Dead, members should be consistent in not being offended if they have satanic family members perform similar intentions. My experience says that many LDS would prefer these intentions to not be performed though.

Just saying....

Feel absolutely free to arrange my baptism by proxy into the Church of Satan, if you wish: what information do you need?

[phaedrus ut]

You're welcome.

But seriously Phaedrus, the article in question relies upon so many false/uninformed assumptions that its POV is ultimately useless.

I mean, even you must have noticed at least one or two of them, right?

So how much notice should informed Latter-day Saints take of this drivel, except to chuckle patronisingly at it?

Regards,

Pahoran

I think the article is specifically about the opinions of the Quaker community regarding LDS proxy baptism because of their specific avoidance of the ritual. Clearly the author of the article doesn't understand the intricacies of LDS religious practice or hierarchy and as evidenced by the responses from posters in this thread there is equal ignorance of the details Quaker religious practice(myself included).

You seem to delight in being disagreeable, confrontational, and generally unpleasant. It's unfortunate to the vast majority of Latter Day Saints that your behavior ends up tarnishing their church.

Phaedrus

[DH]

For Quakers, accepting baptism imperils their immortal souls.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say, "Well, they don't have to accept the baptisms we do for them." Still, maybe it wouldn't hurt to be sensitive to the feelings of those of other faiths.

Of course, if we're doing work for our own ancestors, we have as much claim on them as non-Mormon family members...

[Pahoran]

I think the article is specifically about the opinions of the Quaker community regarding LDS proxy baptism because of their specific avoidance of the ritual. Clearly the author of the article doesn't understand the intricacies of LDS religious practice or hierarchy and as evidenced by the responses from posters in this thread there is equal ignorance of the details Quaker religious practice(myself included).

I agree that there may be equal ignorance on both sides. The difference, however, is that the writer chose to write about LDS religious practices in the plenitude of his ignorance on the subject, and saw no need to actually inform himself about anything. At all.

By contrast, we are commenting upon the article, which you thought was "interesting." Why should it be necessary to be especially well-informed about Quaker religiosity when commenting upon a triumphantly ignorant article about Mormon religiosity?

You seem to delight in being disagreeable, confrontational, and generally unpleasant. It's unfortunate to the vast majority of Latter Day Saints that your behavior ends up tarnishing their church.

Phaedrus, I realise that this is how you and your ilk like to portray me. But please don't insult our intelligence. If you really believed that that was the effect of my posting activity, you wouldn't find it "unfortunate" at all, would you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Pahoran raises a good point. Consider the fact that Quakers do not know or imply they do not know that any act of baptism is in essence useless unless the spirit wills it. Indeed, we Latter-day Saint may be wasting all of our time doing this for spirits that may not have the faith to accept the baptism. Couple this act with the policy that only, ONLY, members of the family may make such a decision and you have what may be a lack of reflection for an issue that may not be as large as some posters or the op portrayed it as being.

If someone were to come to me and state "We are baptising someone in your brothers place, but if he doesn't accept it, the baptism is no good. I would turn to my brother and ask him "Well, did you want it?". If he said no, then the other person would be wasting his time and I would give no more thought to it. If my brother said "Yes" to me. Then I would allow him that right and state "Your call".

It seems a small thing.

The only thing missing regarding baptisms for the dead, is that final conversation, given the spotty communication system we have with the next life. It remains a small thing, with the conversation being concluded after the resurrection.

[phaedrus ut]

Phaedrus, I realise that this is how you and your ilk like to portray me. But please don't insult our intelligence. If you really believed that that was the effect of my posting activity, you wouldn't find it "unfortunate" at all, would you?

Regards,

Pahoran

I do find it unfortunate. I have many friends and family members that are active LDS and I respect them. I consider myself Mormon even if I don't hold the supernatural or historical claims of the church to be factual. Like the author of the article, I'm not a believer or participant in my family's religious tradition. That doesn't mean I enjoy the poor behavior if it's members because it tarnishes the institution.

Phaedrus

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the article is specifically about the opinions of the Quaker community regarding LDS proxy baptism because of their specific avoidance of the ritual. Clearly the author of the article doesn't understand the intricacies of LDS religious practice or hierarchy ...."

"Intricacies of LDS religious practice"? The baptism is not valid unless the person for whom it is performed accepts it. That has been expressed repeatedly in public discourse on this topic. How "intricate" is that, really? Why should critics find it so difficult to grasp?

Pahoran is right: An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. If the author neglects this responsibility, he himself deserves criticism for such neglect.