Let'S End This Stuff Already

[Cold Steel]

I looked up "Helen Radkey" and did some reading on her. I don't for the life of me understand why the church bothers with meeting these [expletive deleted]. I enjoyed the movie where the good guy says, "No point trying to get on your good side," and proceeds to whallop the bad guy. I recently saw a

. His point was that in some situations...many, actually...you don't benefit by talking to people who can potentially do you harm. I think the church should just stop meeting with these people and let Ms. Radkey fade into obscurity. Meeting with them will only hurt the church.

.

[Cold Steel]

DUPLICATE POST...DELETED.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Cold Steel

[Cold Steel]

DUPLICATE POST...DELETED.

.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Cold Steel

[Cold Steel]

Duplicate post...DELETED.

.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Cold Steel

[LeSellers]

Cold Steel:

Please. Your message was good (and very accurate, I must say, especially about talking to the cops and others who may hurt you), but four times?

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

it seems likely that there's going to be an article on this topic in Newsweek sometime in the next relatively short while. (I don't know exactly when.) If anybody sees it, I would appreciate a heads up.

Have you been approached as a source, Dan?

[Maidservant]

qualifying for heaven.

According to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church's teachings, all people on the earth will enjoy a glorious eternity, with or without baptism.

Baptism is the first covenant for those who wish to walk a priesthood path, to eventually enjoy "all that the Father hath".

A small piece of the puzzle to perhaps understand: baptism for the dead is not done simply because the offer exists for deceased persons (although this is true), but LDS understand that baptism cannot be performed in the spirit nor in any resurrected nor in any post-humous state. Baptism must be done in the mortal body. So even if a person in the spirit world would like to be baptized, they cannot do that because they are a spirit. But when we as members of the Church go to do baptisms for the dead, it is because we are lending our body for a moment, so that the necessary act can be done (and the necessity of it I suppose is another conversation). A spirit person who wishes to be baptized, to be able to have priesthood and sealings, cannot do this for themselves, and must rely on an alive person willing to do that part for them.

While I don't have a problem with objections to baptism for the dead from other religions (every one can have their faith and opinion and should stand up for it), nor do I have a problem with subsequent agreements and policies on that from the Church; on the other hand none of us know what deceased persons are thinking any more (barring infrequent visitations), LDS don't know, Jewish people don't know . . . so since we don't know, the LDS idea is just to assume that it's best to get the baptism work done, then it will be there ready for anyone who wants it. As Scott said several times, they aren't baptized until they want it. But if they do want it, and no one has done that work, what is the spirit supposed to do to be able to effect their desires and their faith if they wish to enter the gate of baptism (of this particular religion, LDS)? Who can they ask? How can they communicate? The fact that the work is ready and waiting does not change their current status if they are still perfectly happy with Jewish (or other) faith and duties in the spirit world.

But as has already been mentioned . . . objections are often felt and acted upon based on misunderstandings of the doctrine of baptism for the dead, not upon an accurate picture. But again . . . if they object, they object, that's fine too. We're all people doing our best with what we know, believe and feel.

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.

Well, I quite like what you've explained here about purgatory. And I agree that all life is a process of cleansing . . . whether in the body or out of it, available because of the atonement, and in the case of my belief, effected because of covenants. I think a lot of LDS would have the same idea you say here about 'spirit prison', but I don't think 'spirit prison' is a prison with bars or anything like that. We will still be who we are and living along ordinarily. But you are right, that if a spirit does not have a baptism from being alive or from a person who is alive, on behalf of them, then they have to wait before they can progress. You can see the urgency LDS have for this, then, as they cannot imagine letting a (deceased) brother or sister remain in that waiting, when we could do something about that. But even this is just the case for now, because during the millenium (as LDS imagine), the work will ALL be done for whoever wants it done, then everyone can go forward, as desired and prepared.

You know, the way you all are selling this is that I might as well wait and see if my LDS wife was right and follow my heart now in following Christ in teaching his gospel to the youth and develop their testimony, visit the sick and elderly, and be on fire with my Catholic faith now. While I KNOW I'm in Christ's church now, I guess I'll be open to the thought that I may have been wrong in the next life and it doesn't matter. Okay.....I guess.

Heavenly Father is perfectly aware of your sincerity, service, integrity, etc. I am sure he is with you, leading you, etc. Continue to follow what you know and believe . . . that is all anyone can do . . . and we are all justified by that. You are right . . . in the end, we will all see . . . maybe we should have all stuck with Zoarastrianism.

http://www.npr.org/b...-jewish-outrage

Hmm. "Typical"? This sounds as if Mormons everywhere are trying to find Jewish people they can baptize in order to violate this agreement, because this is what all Mormons think about much of the time. That there are thousands of Mormons waiting in the wings to maliciously or stupidly make the same mistake as the person in this case who does deserve the reprimand. I think NO LDS person wants to do this, LDS people feel a deep affinity for Jewish heritage and love and respect Judaism and Jewish people, consider it the same covenant we have now, and are glad for the opportunity to be corrected that our policy in the past did not fulfill true respect; or if there is an LDS person who wants to baptize a Jewish person (other than their family member), they are probably either 1) unaware (which is something the Church ought to be solving); OR 2) trying to make their own stand, however misguided, and while I wouldn't agree with them, what can you do if someone feels that strongly about it? Other than give them consequences.

Again . . . while I understand the objection to the baptisms, and don't have a problem with stopping . . . how does this taint ALL of LDS-Jewish relations . . . is there nothing else from the past and the present that can put this in the light of being a serious problem, but not a sign that LDS have tolerance problems? Has the Church done nothing to cultivate such a brotherhood?

Edited February 14, 2012 by Maidservant

[Scott Lloyd]

Most non-Mormons are not familiar enough with Mormon theology to understand that fine distinction.

How much familiarity with Mormon theology does it take to understand that point? The deceased person may accept or reject the proxy baptism. Seems clear and comprehensible enough. And it has been reiterated over and over. I myself have done so multiple times on this thread.

This is why I insist on accurate phrasing: Baptism for the dead, not of the dead.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The way I was brought up, if I offend someone, it is on me to apologize and make it right, rather than to blame the other person for "getting all offended."

Whether or not I perceive that the offended person is making an earnest effort to understand, listen or engage in give-and-take has a decisive bearing on how seriously I choose to take his/her objection.

I don't see that as an unreasonable attitude.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[blueadept]

Do LDS view the practice of 'Baptisms for the Dead' as an ecumenical issue in regards to other faiths?

[LeSellers]

Do LDS view the practice of 'Baptisms for the Dead' as an ecumenical issue in regards to other faiths?

No.

Should we?

Should we be concerned about ecumenism in the first place?

Why?

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Only in the sense of providing opportunity. The baptism is itself merely a prayer without the post mortal acquiesence of the post mortal spirit. In a sense like the supplication of prayer for someone who has passed.

[blueadept]

Should we be concerned about ecumenism in the first place?

So ecumenism with fellow Christians isn't a concern???...or not a concern in regards to this issue?

[Scott Lloyd]

Do LDS view the practice of 'Baptisms for the Dead' as an ecumenical issue in regards to other faiths?

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this question, but temple ordinance work for the dead is a private, doctrinal matter pertaining to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

However, genealogical research, which is associated with it, very much involves people of all persuasions. People everywhere are interested in knowing more about their family tree and connecting with their own ancestors, and we are eager to accommodate that interest. That is why the Church sponsors FamilySearch, the largest genealogical organization in the world, and makes its services available free of charge to the public. Two weeks ago, I covered the RootsTech conference in Salt Lake City, put on by FamilySearch. In a single year, it has become the largest genealogy conference in the nation, involving people of all faiths.

To learn more about FamilySearch, go to the website www.familysearch.org

As to the performance of temple ordinances, my hunch is that most people on the outside who understand the doctrine are either indifferent to or OK with it.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LeSellers]

So ecumenism with fellow Christians isn't a concern???...or not a concern in regards to this issue?

Please define ecumenism.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Please define ecumenism.

Lehi

While we're waiting for blueadept to respond, I'll take a stab at it. From an online dictionary:

Ecumenism takes as its starting point that Christ founded just one Church, not many churches; hence the Roman Catholic Church has its ultimate hope and objective that through prayer, study, and dialogue, the historically separated bodies may come again to be reunited with it.

Blueadept can support or dispute the above definition as he sees fit. As I said, I didn't author it, I just pulled it from a dictionary app I keep on my iPod Touch.

[LeSellers]

Please define ecumenism.

While we're waiting for blueadept to respond, I'll take a stab at it. From an online dictionary:

Ecumenism takes as its starting point that Christ founded just one Church, not many churches; hence the Roman Catholic Church has its ultimate hope and objective that through prayer, study, and dialogue, the historically separated bodies may come again to be reunited with it.

Blueadept can support or dispute the above definition as he sees fit. As I said, I didn't author it, I just pulled it from a dictionary app I keep on my iPod Touch.

So, as I thought, ecumenism just means that everyone acquiesces to the Catholic Church as to priesthood, doctrine, and practice.

If that's the case, then I do not see how anyone can possibly question that we do not have any desire to be ecumenical.

Lehi

Edited February 15, 2012 by LeSellers

[blueadept]

Sorry, got busy with real work. The definition I'm using is

Ecumenism or oecumenism mainly refers to initiatives aimed at greater Christian unity or cooperation. It is used predominantly by and with reference to Christian denominations and Christian Churches separated by doctrine, history, and practice.

The reason I'm asking the question is that LDS seem to be befuddled in why other faiths would take any offense at an ordinance that freely can be accepted or rejected by the individual.

I'm trying to understand if LDS are viewing the issue as something that other faiths should view in a positive sense (ecumenical) and that they should cooperate regardless if we disagree with the practice or not.

We're suppose to be all Christians....right?

Edited February 14, 2012 by blueadept

[blueadept]

As to the performance of temple ordinances, my hunch is that most people on the outside who understand the doctrine are either indifferent to or OK with it.

I'm not convinced that die-hard Christians of other faiths share this particular view.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, got busy with real work. The definition I'm using is

The reason I'm asking the question is that LDS seem to be befuddled in why other faiths would take any offense at an ordinance that freely can be accepted or rejected by the individual.

I'm trying to understand if LDS are viewing the issue as something that other faiths should view in a positive sense (ecumenical) and that they should cooperate regardless if we disagree with the practice or not.

We're suppose to be all Christians....right?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never espoused ecumenism as such. It does, however, encourage interfaith efforts on matters of mutual agreement, such as helping the poor and needy, opposing pornography, etc.

As pertaining to the work of genealogical reserach, records preservation, indexing, etc., many, many non-Mormons cooperate with LDS efforts in that regard in the interest of contributing to a large pool that makes it easier for individuals to research their own family history. I don't think it unreasonable to invite people of all faiths -- or even if they have no religious faith at all -- to join in that effort.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not convinced that die-hard Christians of other faiths share this particular view.

I don't know how you define "die-hard Christians," but I'm referring here to most people, not extremists. I don't think it unreasonable to expect that one would be fervently and earnestly connected to his own religious faith while at the same time having tolerance for the beliefs and practices of others. I like to think that description applies to me.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[blueadept]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never espoused ecumenism as such.

While LDS may not see why other faiths should take any offense in your practice, hopefully you can appreciate why the issue doesn't bring the LDS faith and other Christian faiths closer.

It does, however, encourage interfaith efforts on matters of mutual agreement, such as helping the poor and needy, opposing pornography, etc.

This should be a goal of all Christians. I was just trying to confer that other faiths shouldn't be trying to lump your practice of Baptisms for the Dead in this same category.

As pertaining to the work of genealogical reserach, records preservation, indexing, etc., many, many non-Mormons cooperate with LDS efforts in that regard in the interest of contributing to a large pool that makes it easier for individuals to research their own family history. I don't think it unreasonable to invite people of all faiths -- or even if they have no religious faith at all -- to join in that effort.

Since I'm technically a 6th generation LDS on my father's side, I'll make no comment.

I don't know how you define "die-hard Christians," but I'm referring here to most people, not extremists.

Since I deal with many Catholics who don't follow the practices of their own church in regards to social matters, I agree that most people would not have an issue. Edited February 14, 2012 by blueadept

[Scott Lloyd]

Show while you don't see why other faiths should take any offense in your practice, you appreciate why the issue doesn't bring the LDS faith and other Christian faiths closer.

I don't know that I ever had the expectation it would bring them closer in the sense you are talking about, but neither do I think it need be a point of contention. (I'm speaking here of temple work, not genealogy, which can and does unite many people of disparate backgrounds.)

This should be a goal of all Christians. I was just trying to confer that other faiths shouldn't be trying to lump your practice of Baptisms for the Dead in this same category.

Got it. I don't disagree.

Since I'm technically a 6th generation LDS on my father's side, I'll make no comment.

Not sure how to respond to that except to say it shouldn't preclude your being interested in genealogy (for its own sake, that is, not for facilitating LDS temple work).

Since I deal with many Catholics who don't follow the practices of their own church in regards to social matters, I agree that most people would not have an issue.

I direct your attention to the part I added to my post later, which is this:

I don't think it unreasonable to expect that one would be fervently and earnestly connected to his own religious faith while at the same time having tolerance for the beliefs and practices of others. I like to think that description applies to me.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeff K.]

Sorry, got busy with real work. The definition I'm using is

The reason I'm asking the question is that LDS seem to be befuddled in why other faiths would take any offense at an ordinance that freely can be accepted or rejected by the individual.

I'm trying to understand if LDS are viewing the issue as something that other faiths should view in a positive sense (ecumenical) and that they should cooperate regardless if we disagree with the practice or not.

We're suppose to be all Christians....right?

The issue I think is the importance of carrying out the ordinance, it is one of the three basic reasons for our existence upon this earth. If offense is taken, it is unfortunate, but we must be very clear that it is a core doctrine that we cannot move from. The building of temples exist specifically and for the most part (by volume) to carry out those ordinances to create the opportunity.

Imagine if you will a core belief that the Roman Catholic Church has from which it cannot budge, but other groups find it offensive (I would take the ideal of revelation for all people from the Vatican as an example), people may take umbrage that the Pope claims to speak for God directly (which he sometimes can under Roman Catholic doctrine), but it is a core doctrine the Catholic church simply cannot step away from or deny. So too is proxy baptism for the dead. The acoomodation made is that only those of lineage have the right to place names upon the records, this with the idea that such a right can exist if it is your family versus a stranger for whom the family may have less responsibility.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Bob Oliverio]

This whole thing is a bit new to me and looks like it happened long before my joining the Church.  If it got meaningful press I must have missed it out here in the southeast.  I've had to google and catch up on the issue.

I can see both sides to the issue.  It is an important ordinance of the Church and needed activity for the Temples.  But it can also be very offensive to family members to see their ancestors being baptized into a faith they know or believe would never be accepted by their ancestors.

Knowing that we can't possibly perform proxy baptisms for all that have preceded us, it really does seem like a silly practice from the outside.  But then, if it is so important, why did the Church capitulate to this group in the first place? Why not take a stand and explain - it's a significant part of doctrine and we will not compromise a command from God?  If the Jewish community can get the Church to change it's practice of doctrine - who is next?  What if the Muslim or African American community raised the same complaints?  Sounds like a slippery slope.  Is it really doctrine then?

This sounds very similar to the same thing the  church went through w polygamy and letting blacks have the priesthood.  Social and public pressure causing the need for revelation.

FWIW, my answer would be to do the proxy baptisms and just not record them for public record.  Problematic in some ways, but keeps it out of the potential press.