Let'S End This Stuff Already

[stemelbow]

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=11624095

1. If Helen Radkey did not bring it to light no one would know or care about it. Why is it so offensive if its made public?

2. Can the LDS practice of baptism for the dead be thought of as a tribute to the dead in anyway? Why is offense found in this?

3. By baptizing people for the dead we are offering them what we see as a salvific ordinance, which, often, they do not find during their mortal lives. If so, can it, at all, be accepted as something akin to praying on behalf of the dead?

4. What will it take for the Church to put an end to these types of things (baptizing the certain folks that some find offensive)?

[Pahoran]

http://www.wiesentha...467&ct=11624095

1. If Helen Radkey did not bring it to light no one would know or care about it. Why is it so offensive if its made public?

I have long suspected Radkey of "salting the mine" with submissions she then proceeds to "discover." I find it particularly suspicious that she refuses to tell the Church how she "discovers" these names.

2. Can the LDS practice of baptism for the dead be thought of as a tribute to the dead in anyway? Why is offense found in this?

3. By baptizing people for the dead we are offering them what we see as a salvific ordinance, which, often, they do not find during their mortal lives. If so, can it, at all, be accepted as something akin to praying on behalf of the dead?

4. What will it take for the Church to put an end to these types of things (baptizing the certain folks that some find offensive)?

The outburst of outrage (they use that word three times) from the Wiesenthal Center misrepresents the subject of the 1995 meetings.

The Church did not promise to stop performing baptisms on behalf of deceased Jews.

The Church did not promise to stop performing baptisms on behalf of Holocaust victims.

The Church promised only to stop using lists of Holocaust victims for Name Extraction purposes. Individual Church members are still submitting names for Temple work. They are supposed to submit the names of their own ancestors, but it is impossible to actually police that.

Regarding your last question, the Wiesenthal Center outburst answers it:

"The only way such insensitive practices would finally stop is if Church leaders finally decided to change their practices and policies on posthumous baptisms."

Which is to say: what they, and Rabble-rouser (or Rabbi-rouser) Radkey actually want is for the Church to stop performing Baptisms for the Dead. That's what that coy little "change their practices and policies" actually means. They're trying to dictate to us how we should live our religion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

4. What will it take for the Church to put an end to these types of things (baptizing the certain folks that some find offensive)?

Renouncing the Gospel of Jesus Christ; nothing less will satisfy Satan and his minions, living or otherwise.

There will always be someone who will be offended (or feign to be). I'd really rather ignore all of them, and just get on with the mission God has charged us with. But I suppose there must be some degree of sensitivity towards a few people and groups. But it seems fruitless to seek out and accommodate them due to the implacable anymousity so many have cultivated over the centuries.

Lehi

Edited February 13, 2012 by LeSellers

[Analytics]

You think the way to honor the dead is to do a ritual on their behalf so that they have the opportunity to drop their religion and join yours, thereby qualifying for heaven. That is offensive to them; they believe the way to honor the dead is to presume that they are happy with the religion they were faithful to in life.

You’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

It isn’t that unlike how you are prone to be offended by Rob Bowman thinking God called him to show love for Mormons by criticizing their religion.

[blueadept]

You think the way to honor the dead is to do a ritual on their behalf so that they have the opportunity to drop their religion and join yours, thereby qualifying for heaven. That is offensive to them; they believe the way to honor the dead is to presume that they are happy with the religion they were faithful to in life.

LDS seem to always put the apple cart before the horse. I'm quite positive I won't see any LDS missionaries in 'spirit prison' to bring me the LDS gospel. Of course if I actually see the LDS missionaries in the afterlife, I'll probably have a totally different perspective about their faith. IMO, all we can do is to live this life the best way we can and be Christ-like.

[stemelbow]

I have long suspected Radkey of "salting the mine" with submissions she then proceeds to "discover." I find it particularly suspicious that she refuses to tell the Church how she "discovers" these names.

I wasn't aware she doesn't say how she discovers them. That's an interesting idea. Why in the world does she even bother with this, one wonders. And these things come up every so often. It is weird. I don't know any LDS folks who would try and baptize famous people moment after they die. I don't get it if any LDS did.

The outburst of outrage (they use that word three times) from the Wiesenthal Center misrepresents the subject of the 1995 meetings.

The Church did not promise to stop performing baptisms on behalf of deceased Jews.

The Church did not promise to stop performing baptisms on behalf of Holocaust victims.

The Church promised only to stop using lists of Holocaust victims for Name Extraction purposes. Individual Church members are still submitting names for Temple work. They are supposed to submit the names of their own ancestors, but it is impossible to actually police that.

I caught that. Its so way overblown. I have no idea why it offends anyone--which was a topic of discussion here recently. Sure we go further than praying for those who die with this, but the sentiment is very similar.

Regarding your last question, the Wiesenthal Center outburst answers it:

"The only way such insensitive practices would finally stop is if Church leaders finally decided to change their practices and policies on posthumous baptisms."

Which is to say: what they, and Rabble-rouser (or Rabbi-rouser) Radkey actually want is for the Church to stop performing Baptisms for the Dead. That's what that coy little "change their practices and policies" actually means. They're trying to dictate to us how we should live our religion.

Regards,

Pahoran

Jerks. This particular case makes it seem rather convenient to voice offense over this. I just don't see why its so offensive.

[Calm]

Why in the world does she even bother with this, one wonders.

She offered to find such names for the Church if they paid her for her efforts. They understandably refused. Edited February 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

You think the way to honor the dead is to do a ritual on their behalf so that they have the opportunity to drop their religion and join yours, thereby qualifying for heaven.

Not really. Seems like an emotional way to put it. Its not about joining our religion as much as joining themselves to the cause of good. Finding unity among each other.

That is offensive to them; they believe the way to honor the dead is to presume that they are happy with the religion they were faithful to in life.

That's fine. I'm happy for them too. That does not mean there is not some things to learn beyond their lives here. If there is, then what's the harm here? What would be wrong with an evangelical praying upon my death in hopes I am saved even though I was LDS? Anyone who finds offense in that seems to seek out offense.

You’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

I realize that.

It isn’t that unlike how you are prone to be offended by Rob Bowman thinking God called him to show love for Mormons by criticizing their religion.

I find no offense in Rob Bowman generally. I used to converse with him way back on Apologetics.com about 10 years ago and found him fine enough then, generally. Why are you ascribing things to me that aren't true? Seems like a weird way to communicate.

[blueadept]

Sure we go further than praying for those who die with this, but the sentiment is very similar.

From my understanding about the LDS concept of 'spirit prison,' you can get stuck there until someone does the work for you thus the reason you feel the need to do baptisms for the dead. This is different from the concept of purgatory which is more of a process of being cleansed of all your venial sins. The 'cleaning process' can be lengthy at times and thus the reason for the prayers to shorten the time there. Your next stop IS heaven whether you receive the prayers or not. There's no need for for any ordinances to be performed which is a necessity in the minds of LDS.

[stemelbow]

From my understanding about the LDS concept of 'spirit prison,' you can get stuck there until someone does the work for you thus the reason you feel the need to do baptisms for the dead.

Does your idea of stuck there truly constitute anything much different than this "cleaning process" you mention?

This is different from the concept of purgatory which is more of a process of being cleansed of all your venial sins. The 'cleaning process' can be lengthy at times and thus the reason for the prayers to shorten the time there. Your next stop IS heaven whether you receive the prayers or not. There's no need for for any ordinances to be performed which is a necessity in the minds of LDS.

So, as with LDS, all people will be cleansed?

[blueadept]

Does your idea of stuck there truly constitute anything much different than this "cleaning process" you mention?

So, as with LDS, all people will be cleansed?

The difference is that you need to perform an ordinance (sacrament) to get there which is where some people may take offense. You seem to be the only Christian faith that feels the need. So be it.

So the question should be, can a person in 'spirit prison' get to heaven without someone doing a baptism for the dead for them?

Edited February 13, 2012 by blueadept

[Analytics]

Not really. Seems like an emotional way to put it. Its not about joining our religion as much as joining themselves to the cause of good. Finding unity among each other.

According to the specific words of the ceremony, it's about the dead being baptized and then confirmed members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." You can put any spin you want to on this. I just ask that you try to understand why others might think it really does sound like these are ordinances that give dead spirits the choice of joining your church so that they meet the qualifications of returning to God's presense.

That's fine. I'm happy for them too. That does not mean there is not some things to learn beyond their lives here. If there is, then what's the harm here? What would be wrong with an evangelical praying upon my death in hopes I am saved even though I was LDS? Anyone who finds offense in that seems to seek out offense.

Those are fair points. I'm not here to say that the people who are offended are right, I'm just trying to help you understand their point of view.

I find no offense in Rob Bowman generally. I used to converse with him way back on Apologetics.com about 10 years ago and found him fine enough then, generally. Why are you ascribing things to me that aren't true? Seems like a weird way to communicate.

I didn't mean to imply that you, specifically, were, and I'm glad to hear you're not. But you probably understand why some Mormons are offended by anti-Mormon Evangelicals, right? I just offer that analogy to help you understand why somebody might be offended by baptism for the dead.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Analytics

[Analytics]

The difference is that you need to perform an ordinance (sacrament) to get there which is where some people may take offense.

I think that has a lot to do with it. Actually doing an ordinance adds a certain poignancy to it that isn't there with a simple prayer.

[stemelbow]

According to the specific words of the ceremony, it's about the dead being baptized and then confirmed members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." You can put any spin you want to on this. I just ask that you try to understand why others might think it really does sound like these are ordinances that give dead spirits the choice of joining your church so that they meet the qualifications of returning to God's presense.

Giving them a choice? How offensive! Wouldn't offense be much more thoughtful if it was a forced conversion? Certainly you realize we ain't so bad, right? You keep saying others are offended but not you. It ain't so bad.

Those are fair points. I'm not here to say that the people who are offended are right, I'm just trying to help you understand their point of view.

Perhaps it would help if it were people who are offended that helped rather than some other dude (no offense here if you're a woman) who presumes to speak for them, but isn't part of them.

I didn't mean to imply that you, specifically, were, and I'm glad to hear you're not. But you probably understand why some Mormons are offended by anti-Mormon Evangelicals, right? I just offer that analogy to help you understand why somebody might be offended by baptism for the dead.

I don't get why some here are offended by Bowman, no. Ah well. It seems to be as I suspected--people can easily be offended by anyone's actions.

[juliann]

From my understanding about the LDS concept of 'spirit prison,' you can get stuck there until someone does the work for you thus the reason you feel the need to do baptisms for the dead. This is different from the concept of purgatory which is more of a process of being cleansed of all your venial sins. The 'cleaning process' can be lengthy at times and thus the reason for the prayers to shorten the time there. Your next stop IS heaven whether you receive the prayers or not. There's no need for for any ordinances to be performed which is a necessity in the minds of LDS.

Actually, LDS think that most ordinances will be done during the Millennium (not sure if I spelled that right). Everyone is "stuck" in spirit prison until Christ returns. The paradise thing is pretty sketchy in LDS belief and open to a lot of interpretation. Personally, I think divisions won't be any different than they are now....we stay around the people we are comfortable with and avoid others. I think I can speak for almost all LDS when I say that we really do think heaven is just a continuation of a much better earthly life which really skews any attempt at comparisons when it comes to events.

The bottom line is that LDS see the heavens as being open to everyone and our way of giving them access is to provide ordinances (our version of "perfection"). Other religions have their own criteria but I think I am safe in saying it is more restrictive. I doubt Catholicism sets aside a specific path for Mormons to join them, for example.

As for proxy work being offensive, I don't think we can sit around and say people shouldn't be offended. They either are or they aren't. It is what it is. It is obvious we need to hammer home that we do not see this as changing anyone's religion or having any effect on them whatsoever if they don't allow it. In fact, those who are insisting we are changing a person are not giving the dead much respect at all....which goes back to the LDS belief that we are the same people we were before we died....with the same capacity to say no.

I think this will become a popular attack because it is so strange to modern ears. Reporters never distinguish between the "anybody can put anything in the bucket, even Radkey" list and the list that is church approved for ordinances. If something is "temple ready" surely the church can track who did it....and surely they can restrict who does it. We have to use some number when we were baptised or something just to get on our ward website. There are wingnuts who think they have had some kind of revelation and will persist (had one in my ward once) but if they can be tracked there can be consequences.

[blueadept]

The bottom line is that LDS see the heavens as being open to everyone and our way of giving them access is to provide ordinances (our version of "perfection"). Other religions have their own criteria but I think I am safe in saying it is more restrictive. I doubt Catholicism sets aside a specific path for Mormons to join them, for example.

I believe this is the true crux of the issue in whose understanding of their faith is more 'inclusive' than other faiths. From my personal studying, I always thought of Catholicism as more inclusive than other faiths especially in regards to the LDS thoughts of the different degrees in heaven.

I don't believe that non-Christians tend to care about taking offense on issues like this. In regards to the different Christian denominations on the other hand.............

[Pahoran]

You think the way to honor the dead is to do a ritual on their behalf so that they have the opportunity to drop their religion and join yours, thereby qualifying for heaven. That is offensive to them; they believe the way to honor the dead is to presume that they are happy with the religion they were faithful to in life.

You’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

Except the Wiesenthal crowd aren't prepared to "agree to disagree." They just want to erupt with outrage (their word) every time the Rabbi-rouser tells them someone Jewish has had their ordinances done.

It isn’t that unlike how you are prone to be offended by Rob Bowman thinking God called him to show love for Mormons by criticizing their religion.

Yes it is.

As you would know, if you actually knew how to be analytical. in any meaningful way.

Regards,

Pahoran

You're out of the thread for insults.

[juliann]

I believe this is the true crux of the issue in whose understanding of their faith is more 'inclusive' than other faiths. From my personal studying, I always thought of Catholicism as more inclusive than other faiths especially in regards to the LDS thoughts of the different degrees in heaven.

I should know better than to speak for other religions. What will happen to someone who dies a stalwart Mormon in your theology?

Also, I don't understand what is exclusive about 3 degrees since Mormons see them all as legitimate heavens, many (including me) see it as people kind of choosing which afterlife is most heavenly. If keeping up with the Joneses is bad here, keeping up with God may not be everyone's idea of paradise. With Mormons, it is good, better and best from a keeping up with God perspective, not best and worst. Again, there is a lot of latitude in belief here. Some take D&C 76 really literally and tend to come off more harsh but from my experience they are a shrinking if not shrunk minority. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who really believes that a rejected missionary lesson counts as being given a chance. And it is pretty hard to get more inclusive than rejecting an eternity of hell for anyone but a handful of hardcore Christ rejecters.

[Analytics]

Giving them a choice? How offensive! Wouldn't offense be much more thoughtful if it was a forced conversion? Certainly you realize we ain't so bad, right? You keep saying others are offended but not you. It ain't so bad.

From my perspective, it's harmless and well-meaning.

Perhaps it would help if it were people who are offended that helped rather than some other dude (no offense here if you're a woman) who presumes to speak for them, but isn't part of them.

You are the one who asked the question, "Why is offense found in this?" I didn't realize the question was limitted to people who do take offense in it.

I don't get why some here are offended by Bowman, no. Ah well. It seems to be as I suspected--people can easily be offended by anyone's actions.

That's true, LOL.

Except the Wiesenthal crowd aren't prepared to "agree to disagree." They just want to erupt with outrage (their word) every time the Rabbi-rouser tells them someone Jewish has had their ordinances done.

You don't need their approval to live your religion. Whether or not they are outraged is their choice, and whether or not you are upset by their outrage is your choice. I suppose you can disagree to agree, if that describes the impasse better.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Analytics

[selek1]

Except for the fact that Helen Radkey is a reliable (and cyclical) shill on these matters, I cannot help but wonder if the timing here isn't political.

The Weisenthal Center is noted to be left-leaning, and after the recent debacle with the Catholic Church, this outrage serves two purposes:

First, it has the potential to shore up a notable political constituency, and second, paints the Mormons (and by extension, one of the leading rival candidates) as insensitive/disingenuous/intolerant.

I suppose the "proof in the pudding" will be how long it takes the media to confront the candidates on the issue.

[blueadept]

I should know better than to speak for other religions. What will happen to someone who dies a stalwart Mormon in your theology?

Short answer, it depends upon the state of their soul when they die

God has revealed to us that one day, this world will pass away and Christ will return to claim his flock and separate the good from the evil. On this day, judgement day, Christ will resurrect the dead and judge the souls of the living and the dead. Those who have received the life of Christ will receive new life and their body and soul will be reunited and elevated to a glorified state. Christ will crush death, and justly condemn the unrighteous to an eternity in hell. The world will pass away in its present form and will be glorified. Sin and death, punishment and suffering will all pass away for the righteous children of God.

Until this day, all souls who die will be immediately judged by God and will be sent to heaven or hell based on their state of grace and merit.

The resurrection will simply confirm their place with or against God, and will serve to glorify God through confirmation of the holiness of the saints.

The bolded part deals with our concept of purgatory for the souls that would be going to heaven since nothing unclean can be sent to heaven.

I suspect that most stalwart Mormons will be in heaven with me. In regards to my LDS wife, it depends if she was justified in no longer honoring our marital vows or not that we made with HF. I always considered her a stalwart Mormon as well.

Also, I don't understand what is exclusive about 3 degrees since Mormons see them all as legitimate heavens, many (including me) see it as people kind of choosing which afterlife is most heavenly. If keeping up with the Joneses is bad here, keeping up with God may not be everyone's idea of paradise. With Mormons, it is good, better and best from a keeping up with God perspective, not best and worst. Again, there is a lot of latitude in belief here. Some take D&C 76 really literally and tend to come off more harsh but from my experience they are a shrinking if not shrunk minority. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who really believes that a rejected missionary lesson counts as being given a chance. And it is pretty hard to get more inclusive than rejecting an eternity of hell for anyone but a handful of hardcore Christ rejecters.

I guess I see issues of segregation where those in a higher heaven can see others in a lower heaven but not vice versa and those that can see HF, Jesus Christ etc. IMO, segregation does not equal inclusive.

Edited February 14, 2012 by blueadept

[KevinG]

I am surprised that a whole page of this thread has gone by without anyone pointing out that the spirits who have had work done for them in proxy have a choice in accepting it or not.

If the spirits themselves prefer to remain their earthly religion they can freely do so.

In essense the LDS Temple Baptism is the ultimate universalist free will offering to the dead.

[ERayR]

LDS seem to always put the apple cart before the horse. I'm quite positive I won't see any LDS missionaries in 'spirit prison' to bring me the LDS gospel. Of course if I actually see the LDS missionaries in the afterlife, I'll probably have a totally different perspective about their faith. IMO, all we can do is to live this life the best way we can and be Christ-like.

I also am quite positive that you nor I will see any LDS missionaries in spirit prison. I am also very positive that you will be seeing missionaries from Jesus Christ in said spirit prison. They will be there to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and provide an opportunity for those they teach to accept the saving ordinances performed for them by thier LDS brothers and sisters.

Edited February 14, 2012 by ERayR

[frankenstein]

My experience is that the several articles I have read from Jewish papers could not accuratelly represent the Lds Church position on baptisms of holocaust victims.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am surprised that a whole page of this thread has gone by without anyone pointing out that the spirits who have had work done for them in proxy have a choice in accepting it or not.

If the spirits themselves prefer to remain their earthly religion they can freely do so.

In essense the LDS Temple Baptism is the ultimate universalist free will offering to the dead.

Moreover, if anyone is endeavoring to deprive the dead of their freedom of choice in this debate, it is those who are trying to pressure Mormons not to express their deeply held belief regarding salvation for the dead.