mnn727 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Your wife has issues that I believe go beyond what is acceptable in a mixed marriage between members and non members. I am sorry she was such a poor example of patience and love for you.Of course we don't know what else went on.
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) We don't, but then, taking Blue Adept at his word (he has never written anything in the thousand or so posts of his I have read, that was NOT truthful to the situation, even when I disagreed with his conclusion. One presumes that honesty would continue when discussing his difficulty in family. Though I suppose I could be wrong on the subject.Left out a word, sigh.... Edited February 7, 2012 by Jeff K.
Jaybear Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The way something is phrased can immediately convey a false impression.That is why I object when people refer to what Mormons do as "baptizing the dead."Even if people understand that proxy work is involved, it still leaves the false impression that the deceased person has no option to reject the ordinance. Moreover, it reflects misunderstanding on the part of the speaker/writer.On the other hand, the correct terminology, "baptizing for the dead" at least leaves open the possible interpretation that the performance of the ordinance constitutes an offer that might or might not be accepted.Similarly, phrasing such as "baptizing the dead into the Church" conveys the impression that there is no right of rejection involved.If you've been in the Church 40 years, I should think you would be able, even if unwilling, to use phrasing that is not misleading.The reason most take offense, is not because they assume the deceased becomes Mormon. That a red herring.Those who take offense, do so, because the ceremony itself is premised on your beleif the their loved ones made the wrong choice his/her life. Its a matter of respect.As I see it, the closest equivelant is EVs telling mormons that they are not Christian.BTW, rather than tell us what you think the ceremony is about, why don't you provide the script for the ceremony. Or is a secret?
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The reason most take offense, is not because they assume the deceased becomes Mormon. That a red herring.Those who take offense, do so, because the ceremony itself is premised on your beleif the their loved ones made the wrong choice his/her life. Its a matter of respect.As I see it, the closest equivelant is EVs telling mormons that they are not Christian.BTW, rather than tell us what you think the ceremony is about, why don't you provide the script for the ceremony. Or is a secret?Talk about red herrings...... The belief that deceased people never made bad choices? Or that deceased people shouldn't have a choice to make after they die? Seriously, who believes that everyone who has died never made a bad choice? And what if they were never given a choice in their life? As I see it, the closest equivelant is EVs telling mormons that they are not Christian.Actually the opinion is not offensive in the least since there is no definition of Christian. I was told by an Evangelical I wasn't Christian. He caught himself and apologized if I was offended. I told him I wasn't offended since the only person who's opinion counts in the matter is Christs, I think both of us would acquiese to what He decided. I would bide my time and say that I am, but I would not be offended by someone who said I wasn't since neither of us had the ultimate authority to decide.
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I was a member of the church for over 40 years and yes I have both performed and presided and participated in baptisms for the dead. too much temple detail... Since the church believes that it is the Church of Jesus Christ. And since the Mormons believe that you have to be baptised into Christs church in order to receive exaltation, can you explain to me where you come up with the misunderstanding that proxy baptism is not baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just whose church are they baptizing people into at the temple??As I see it there is no baptizing into an earthly church at all. Baptism is a unification with God, essentially. To spin it as we are trying to add people to Mormonism is mischaracterizing what we're doing. 2
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 We don't, but then, taking Blue Adept at his word (he has never written anything in the thousand or so posts of his I have read, that was truthful to the situation, even when I disagreed with his conclusion. One presumes that honesty would continue when discussing his difficulty in family. Though I suppose I could be wrong on the subject. All we have is our good name and how we continue to live our life in being an example for others. I've met a few board members in real life and have many friends from here on FB. I see no point in being deceptive and have respected my wife's faith due to my participation here.All I can do is to continue to honor my vows that I made with HF and her. She's made a different decision and I'm quite sure she will eventually be married in the Temple. So be it. I'll let HF figure it out in the next life. 1
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The reason most take offense, is not because they assume the deceased becomes Mormon. That a red herring.Those who take offense, do so, because the ceremony itself is premised on your beleif the their loved ones made the wrong choice his/her life. Its a matter of respect.1. Everyone makes a wrong choice in life. Why is that offensive? 2. Its not so much a wrong choice, as you say. Indeed we often view far more as they didn't truly have the opportunity, or they weren't presented the choice in the right way. You have taken it where we don't for some odd reason. 1
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 You have taken it where we don't for some odd reason.It's a reasonable interpretation IMHO. The fact that I've been given personal guidance from my church in NOT cooperating in giving LDS information for the purposes of baptising for the dead gives some credence that Jaybears opinion is shared by many others.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 As I see it, the closest equivelant is EVs telling mormons that they are not Christian....the key distinction here is that when Evangelicals tell me I'm not Christian the usual conclusion is that I'm going to hell. When Mormons do proxy work for the dead our conclusion is that we've provided them with the ordinanced necessary to go to heaven.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 It's a reasonable interpretation IMHO. The fact that I've been given personal guidance from my church in NOT cooperating in giving LDS information for the purposes of baptising for the dead gives some credence that Jaybears opinion is shared by many others.Does your church ask you not to share geneological information with people about their own ancestors or is the instruction purely about the name exctraction program workers?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) It's a reasonable interpretation IMHO. The fact that I've been given personal guidance from my church in NOT cooperating in giving LDS information for the purposes of baptising for the dead gives some credence that Jaybears opinion is shared by many others.On what basis have you been given such personal guidance? To put it another way, what is the understanding of your clergeyman/pastor/minister (that is, the person who gave you that guidance) regarding LDS baptism for the dead and the intent thereof? What harm does that individual think will come from it?And regarding what Jaybear said, i would refer you to my sig line, the portion in gray type. I would see no reason to take personal offense if, say, a Catholic or an Evangelical Christian wanted to pray for my soul after my death, even though such an action might imply, as Jaybear intimates, that I was misguided while alive.Again I ask: Where's the harm? Edited February 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 It's a reasonable interpretation IMHO. The fact that I've been given personal guidance from my church in NOT cooperating in giving LDS information for the purposes of baptising for the dead gives some credence that Jaybears opinion is shared by many others.Understood. I get that people from the outside will question our motives and think we're bad. But, I think they have our motives wrong. That's not our fault. We're not trying to say all these people made a wrong choice per se.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 ...the key distinction here is that when Evangelicals tell me I'm not Christian the usual conclusion is that I'm going to hell. When Mormons do proxy work for the dead our conclusion is that we've provided them with the ordinanced necessary to go to heaven. That's not the point. LDS are offended that they are considered not Christian.Others are offended that you're performing the 'baptisms' for their dead and not honoring their lives (and choices they made). I'm totally aware that isn't the intention of Mormons and they do not see the harm in offering something that could be accepted or denied by the individual. But this IS the issue at hand.Like I told my wife, do what you need to do in the Temple. Just don't tell me about the relatives you've done the work for.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Does your church ask you not to share geneological information with people about their own ancestors or is the instruction purely about the name exctraction program workers?To not share information I suspect will be used to do LDS Temple work.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 That's not the point. LDS are offended that they are considered not Christian....and all this time I thought it was being told my wife was carrying the spawn of Satan in her belly and that I would burn in hellfire (*actual statments made to me by Evangelicals) that was the cause of my offense. Silly me.
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 That's not the point. LDS are offended that they are considered not Christian.Others are offended that you're performing the 'baptisms' for their dead and not honoring their lives (and choices they made).What a terrible comparison. Surely people don't think we're Christian. that is true. What is not true, is we are not honoring their lives and the choices they made. Indeed, quite the opposite. If you think about it, we are baptizing them because they often made right choices in life. its easy to find offense when you spin people's motives into something they themselves don't claim. I'm totally aware that isn't the intention of Mormons and they do not see the harm in offering something that could be accepted or denied by the individual. But this IS the issue at hand.The issue then is people are unwilling to accept why we do what we do. Instead they are forcing upon us motives we don't claim. that is not our fault.Like I told my wife, do what you need to do in the Temple. Just don't tell me about the relatives you've done the work for.How sad.
Jaybear Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 1. Everyone makes a wrong choice in life. Why is that offensive?Because to many, religion is an integral part of their personal indemnity. The idea that Mother Teresa's life was not complete because she was not a Mormon is offensive to many.I also get that you don't get it. You think you are doing them a favor. They should be thanking the Mormons, as they are doing this out of love, not disrespect....the key distinction here is that when Evangelicals tell me I'm not Christian the usual conclusion is that I'm going to hell. When Mormons do proxy work for the dead our conclusion is that we've provided them with the ordinanced necessary to go to heaven.Semantics. The bottom line is that both you and they do not respect the validity of the baptism the other provides. The only distinction is that in one instance they are offending you, rather than the other way around.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 To not share information I suspect will be used to do LDS Temple work.That didn't really answer my question but I get the idea. Would you in good conscience restrict information about someones own ancestors from them because you didn't agree with how they would use that information?You do know that the LDS are instructed to only do work for their own ancestors unless they have permission from descendents of those they do the work for.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 ...the key distinction here is that when Evangelicals tell me I'm not Christian the usual conclusion is that I'm going to hell. When Mormons do proxy work for the dead our conclusion is that we've provided them with the ordinanced necessary to go to heaven.Plus there's the very obvious distinction between public disparagement and an extremely private, dignified ceremony.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 On what basis have you been given such personal guidance? To put it another way, what is the understanding of your clergeyman/pastor/minister (that is, the person who gave you that guidance) regarding LDS baptism for the dead and the intent thereof? What harm does that individual think will come from it?And regarding what Jaybear said, i would refer you to my sig line, the portion in gray type. I would see no reason to take personal offense if, say, a Catholic or an Evangelical Christian wanted to pray for my soul after my death, even though such an action might imply, as Jaybear intimates, that I was misguided while alive.Again I ask: Where's the harm?The guidelines comes from our Bishop that was passed onto the priest to myself. Just as you follow the guidelines given by the 1st Presidency, I try to follow my own recognized priesthood authority given by our Bishops. I feel no need to question him 'where's the harm?' You either follow your recognized authority or you find your own church.
selek1 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Because to many, religion is an integral part of their personal indemnity. Gotta love the Freudian slips. They tend to reveal so much about the person making them.The idea that Mother Teresa's life was not complete because she was not a Mormon is offensive to many. Ironically, that's not an idea that faithful Latter-day Saints advance.I also get that you don't get it. And we get that you don't get that we get that you get it.We are simply unimpressed with your histrionics.In point of fact, neither the faithful LDS- nor anyone else for that matter- are in any way to take your unsubstantiated assertions at face value.The statement:The reason most take offense, is not because they assume the deceased becomes Mormon.Those who take offense, do so, because the ceremony itself is premised on your beleif the their loved ones made the wrong choice his/her life. is not scientific fact, nor is it even a reasonable speculation.It is unabashed projection and baseless assertion.Its a matter of respect. Indeed- perhaps that is why the comments made by Mudcat and Blueadept have been so well received.We respect their opinions because they are speaking in a reasonable and coherent manner about their own experiences and misgivings instead of inventing things out of whole cloth.You're quite correct: it is a matter of respect.And of intellectual integrity. Edited February 7, 2012 by selek1
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Because to many, religion is an integral part of their personal indemnity. The idea that Mother Teresa's life was not complete because she was not a Mormon is offensive to many.I also get that you don't get it. You think you are doing them a favor. They should be thanking the Mormons, as they are doing this out of love, not disrespect.Semantics. The bottom line is that both you and they do not respect the validity of the baptism the other provides.The only distinction is that in one instance they are offending you, rather than the other way around.My peculiar beliefs claim I am providing you a way to heaven.Their peculiar beliefs claim I am going to hell (which is oddly never accopmanied by an invitation to worship with them and correct my errors).You chalk this up to semantics and equivocate our actions as comparably offensive?Wow.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 How sad. What's sad is that this issue marked the beginning to end of my marriage (civil divorce) that I still feel I need to honor regardless of her choice in finding a temple-worthy husband.
stemelbow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Because to many, religion is an integral part of their personal indemnity. The idea that Mother Teresa's life was not complete because she was not a Mormon is offensive to many.Well, fear no more. No one says her life was not complete, unless that someone is trying to spin it to the point of finding offense in what LDS do. I also get that you don't get it. You think you are doing them a favor. They should be thanking the Mormons, as they are doing this out of love, not disrespect.Its out of love and not disrespect. But I do realize some folks will find disrespect from others even when the others are trying to not disrespect but love. As it is we simply can't help people take it the wrong way. Its not our fault. Its also not going to stop us from going forward and living life.
thesometimesaint Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Jaybear:I saw a man once that grabbed a small child and ran across the street with it.What were his motives? Was it to kidnap the child for nefarious purposes? Was it to stop the child from being run over by speeding car?Why is it that you always assume the dishonarable intent when it comes to Mormons?
Recommended Posts