Let'S End This Stuff Already

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I think the distinction between "for" and "of" is lost on most people. It is more of an ownership issue. People say "my" ancestors for a reason. Moreover, the Jewish people as a whole feel a strong proprietary interest in all those who died in the Holocaust. This was a very personal thing to Jews, and people see them as having died for Judaism. Therefore, they can be a little upset when it seems like Mormons are claiming (true or not) that they (or at least some of them) are actually Mormons now.

[Jeff K.]

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.

The church has three missions, to provide a path of salvation for ourselves, to provide such a bath for our neighbors (all people) and to provide a path for those who have died. In all three the path is open only to those who wish to use it. We cannot deny that path to anyone, it is integral to who we are and what we do. There is no change to the doctrine of proxy baptisms for the dead, the only difference is the methodology, in which we allow only family lines to follow the path, be they Jewish, African American, African, or any race, group or people. We rely upon our baptism and conversion of many to allow us those lines which we presently defer until some future date when their descendents decide to join the church. But we cannot stop the work. It would be like telling our church that we should not send out missionaries, or we should not have temple marriages. It is that much of a core issue.

None of the others issues you raised come close to the importance of these.

[Jeff K.]

I think the distinction between "for" and "of" is lost on most people. It is more of an ownership issue. People say "my" ancestors for a reason. Moreover, the Jewish people as a whole feel a strong proprietary interest in all those who died in the Holocaust. This was a very personal thing to Jews, and people see them as having died for Judaism. Therefore, they can be a little upset when it seems like Mormons are claiming (true or not) that they (or at least some of them) are actually Mormons now.

They didn't die for it, they died because they were Jewish, of all levels of belief. But you are right, it is very very important. It is why I cannot deny my grandmother the opportunity to join the church in the next life. I would be doing her a great disservice, and that is more important to me than the imagined anger or opinion of the living.

[Daniel Peterson]

Have you been approached as a source, Dan?

Yes. And I may have been foolish to agree to an interview, but I did.

I think it went well, but we'll see how things turn out in the final product.

[Storm Rider]

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?

Hello Blue, there are many Christians that have come to a good understanding of the LDS Church's teachings on Baptisms for the Dead. Even though they understand that the ordinance is completely worthless a) if the LDS Church is a cult, and b) assuming the Church has some degree of truth, the individual is believed to have the right to choose to accept it or reject, they may still resist participating because it "feels" like the Church is "making" them a Mormon.

I do understand why there would be a resistance on behalf of other faiths. In this life a baptism makes someone a member of the Church. However, baptisms for the Dead only allow an individual, who accepts the baptism, to enter the Kingdom of God. There is no automatic membership in anything. Some people are just not going to get over it; it is a completely unacceptable thing for them. However, for those who have been dead longer than 100 years, the Church will do all it can to offer each person the gift of baptism and all other saving ordinances.

[thesometimesaint]

Since when did an offense taken trump another persons belief?

[Avatar4321]

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?

That's because we are the only faith that follows the Bible & sought revelation concerning it.

It helps to have living Prophets.

[Avatar4321]

I've been to the Museum of Tolerance that was founded by Simon Wiesenthal

www.museumoftolerance.com

I've met a couple of the Holocaust survivors. A true set of folks who displays what it means to not hold a grudge. The fact that the LDS church cannot keep such a prominent Jewish name such as this off their roles as requested by the Jewish community is sad.

Exactly why should we have to?

[Avatar4321]

I am deeply moved by Jaybear's implicit appeal for people to be "sensitive and respectful to the concerns" of those of differing faiths. Were his appeal not so selective and ironically directed against the faith for which he has shown little sensitivity and respect, but ample amounts of intollerance, one might actually think him genuine. But, some of the most incideous forms of bigotry often manifest themselves under the guise of moral indignation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So true. There is nothing insensitive about us practicing our religion to provide others with opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have.

[Avatar4321]

Yes. Given the overt hostility directed toward the Simon W. center, its obvious to me, and I would suggest to most rational adults, that the selection of SW's parents was not coincidental.

You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise.

There is absolutely nothing rational about concluding that anyone would "target" someone who is, by in large, completely unknown to anyone.

There you go again with the failed "out of context" apologetic. You meant exactly what I quoted you saying.

So you now think you know what someone was saying better than they do? Im fairly confident that no matter what you think otherwise, you aren't the authority on what someone, other than yourself, meant when they said something.

What makes you think I care if you are sensitive and respectful? You can and should be as rude and condescending as your heart desires.

Just don't be surprised when this attitude displayed by members undermines your Church's ability to rebuild a bridge that is in badly need of repairs.

Exactly what bridge needs to be repaired?

The repeated violations, coupled with the flagrant disrespect expressed by members here towards the Center tell a different story.

I also find it illuminating that it was Radkey and not the LDS Church that uncovered the recent problem.

Am we really supposed to believe that she can do a better job of monitoring compliance than your Church?

We are going to baptize our families for the dead whether you like it or not. There isn't a problem there. The church stopped extracting names of holocaust survivors years ago. Unless youve got some actual evidence that any people who are baptized were extracted by the Church for baptism, you've got no evidence.

In other words: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE

[Avatar4321]

Yes. Given the overt hostility directed toward the Simon W. center, its obvious to me, and I would suggest to most rational adults, that the selection of SW's parents was not coincidental.

You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise.

There is absolutely nothing rational about concluding that anyone would "target" someone who is, by in large, completely unknown to anyone.

There you go again with the failed "out of context" apologetic. You meant exactly what I quoted you saying.

So you now think you know what someone was saying better than they do? Im fairly confident that no matter what you think otherwise, you aren't the authority on what someone, other than yourself, meant when they said something.

What makes you think I care if you are sensitive and respectful? You can and should be as rude and condescending as your heart desires.

Just don't be surprised when this attitude displayed by members undermines your Church's ability to rebuild a bridge that is in badly need of repairs.

Exactly what bridge needs to be repaired?

The repeated violations, coupled with the flagrant disrespect expressed by members here towards the Center tell a different story.

I also find it illuminating that it was Radkey and not the LDS Church that uncovered the recent problem.

Am we really supposed to believe that she can do a better job of monitoring compliance than your Church?

We are going to baptize our families for the dead whether you like it or not. There isn't a problem there. The church stopped extracting names of holocaust survivors years ago. Unless youve got some actual evidence that any people who are baptized were extracted by the Church for baptism, you've got no evidence.

In other words: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE

[Avatar4321]

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.

Not much familiarity at all. They just have to care to be accurate.

[Avatar4321]

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

Why would we?

[Avatar4321]

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.

Nothing silly about it when you realize that no matter how many people protest, the work will be done. That's what will happen much of the Millenium.

The Lord has always determined the timing of things. But regardless of when, it will be done.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. And I may have been foolish to agree to an interview, but I did.

I think it went well, but we'll see how things turn out in the final product.

Well, as Gordon B. Hinckley said about the request to be interviewed by Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes":

I recognized that if I were to appear, critics and detractors of the Church would also be invited to participate. I knew we could not expect that the program would be entirely positive for us.

"On the other hand, I felt that it offered the opportunity to present some affirmative aspects of our culture and message to many millions of people. I concluded that it was better to lean into the stiff wind of opportunity than to simply hunker down and do nothing.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

That's not a good analogy, because you share with Evangelicals a belief in prayer. But what if, after your little old grandmother died, a Vodou sorcerer came to your mother's grave and performed a ritual that supposedly entrapped your mother's soul for use as a zombie? Would you be okay with that?

Entrap away, I say!

[Jaybear]

So true. There is nothing insensitive about us practicing our religion to provide others with opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have.

Right. Because the one thing missing in the lives of the holocaust victims was the opportunity to become members of the LDS Church.

Their families should be thanking you. Yet, instead, you are called insensitive. Its so nice that this board is here to expose those who take offense as the "ignorant", "intolerant" "jerks."

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the distinction between "for" and "of" is lost on most people.

Precision in one's choice of wording is never a wasted effort, and we would all be the beneficiaries if people made a more earnest effort in that regard.

But you have not explained why you think a person of average-or-better intelligence would not be able to grasp the simple concept that ordinance work for the dead is not binding unless the deceased person accepts it.

It is more of an ownership issue. People say "my" ancestors for a reason. Moreover, the Jewish people as a whole feel a strong proprietary interest in all those who died in the Holocaust. This was a very personal thing to Jews, and people see them as having died for Judaism. Therefore, they can be a little upset when it seems like Mormons are claiming (true or not) that they (or at least some of them) are actually Mormons now.

Hence the agreement made by the Church. I don't see anyone arguing here that there should not be an effort to live up to that agreement.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Entrap away, I say!

I'm amused when people seem to think these silly analogies would be so withering to us.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

We are going to baptize our families for the dead whether you like it or not. There isn't a problem there. The church stopped extracting names of holocaust survivors years ago. Unless youve got some actual evidence that any people who are baptized were extracted by the Church for baptism, you've got no evidence.

This dispute has nothing do with with your desire to baptize your families. No one,as far as I am aware, cares if you baptize your family. It arose because of baptisms you performed for other people's families.

In other words: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE

Evidence of what? You statement, though forceful, was not exactly coherent.

Radkey uncovered "evidence" that led the LDS Church to issue the following apology.

LDS officials in Salt Lake City were quick to apologize Monday, saying that the Utah-based faith "sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member ... led to the inappropriate submission of these names," which were "clearly against the policy of the church."

So what exactly are you screaming about?

[Kenngo1969]

So are you saying that a Jewish holocaust victim who has LDS connections that it's all right to do a baptism for them?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the agreement that the LDS church has with the Jewish community.

As I understand it, the agreement is that LDS won't do ordinancesk for people who are not their ancestors.

[Storm Rider]

I marvel that so many people seem to think these silly analogies would be so withering to us.

It really is comical. I don't care of someone says a mass for me when I die, I don't care if a hindu friend wants to spread my ashes on the Ganges, I could not care less if a voodoo priestess wants to dance on my grave in an eternal curse of fire and damnation, or anyone from any other religion wants to do "that" to me for for me. I will take any help offered and if anyone is trying to send me harm after I am dead, I don't believe they can do anything to me.

It is just so shockingly stupid to make this an issue. I think I can understand our collective possessiveness of our ancestors, but it is sheer lunacy to be afraid or insulted by any religion offering a gift for an individual's salvation. Particularly one that means nothing unless the individuals accepts in in the afterlife or not. Ignorance is a terrible thing and it needs to be stamped out.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

And it's of importance to billions of people who did not have the opportunity to hear and receive the gospel in mortality, importance that I think we can scarcely conceive of at present. This really is a labor of love, despite the refusal of some people to view it as such.

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.

The ancestor is not being so baptized unless he or she approves of and accepts the ordinance. You could serve the cause of truth and understanding if you would make that clear in your interactions with others.

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

We go about obeying the commandment of God to do this work, leaving it up to Him to place the needed resources and capabilities into our hands when needed.

Meanwhile, if you had attended the annual RootsTech conference in Salt Lake City as I did two weeks ago, you might have marveled at the technology that is in place already for the indexing and dissemination of records that have already been acquired and for the further acquisition, preservation and publication of records in the future. Clearly, the Lord is already making the means available to accomplish the commandment.

. 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?

It was done out of a sense of compassion and tolerance. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, after all, and we strive to follow His example of mercy and love.

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?

I think the Church will deal with those eventualities on a case-by-case basis if and when they arise. As it has happened, there have thus far been only sporadic attacks from antagonists who really have no dog in the fight other than a general antipathy for the Church of Jesus Christ and a desire to hinder it in its work in whatever way they can. As I said before, my hunch is that the vast majority of people, if they are aware of the issue in the first place, view the matter with indifference, as I would if I were not a Church member (see my sig line, the part in gray).

Meanwhile, the Church has not signed away -- nor do I believe it ever will -- the right for Church members to have ordinance work done for their own direct-line ancestors. That means I can and do feel free to have baptisms performed for any of my ancestors, regardless of their religious affiliation or life's experience while in mortality.

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.

Regarding the latter, I was a university student in 1978 at the time the revelation on the priesthood was received, and I have a very clear memory of it. As I recall, the Church had resisted the social pressure a decade earlier and it had in large measure died down. The catalyst, if there was a catalyst, in 1978 was the need to take the gospel to nations where there was a great demand for it already and priesthood was needed among those of African descent. And I think, generally, in the mind and wisdom of God, it was simply time for it to happen.

But this is a topic for another thread, and I won't get further into it here.

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.

Technically, the records of baptisms are not part of the public record. They are internal communication intended for members of the Church. But as a practical matter, they must be easily accessible by members of the Church worldwide so as to avoid duplicaton in the submission of names for temple work and the resulting untold waste of time and resources. Surely you can see this.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Here is a story in the LA Times that discusses an apology by the Church for this breach of protocol for Simon Wiesenthal's parents baptism. The mother, Rosa, only died in 1942; it was my understanding that we do not baptize anyone who has been dead less than 100 years unless they are a direct relative.

[Scott Lloyd]

This dispute has nothing do with with your desire to baptize your families. No one,as far as I am aware, cares if you baptize your family. It arose because of baptisms you performed for other people's families.

Evidence of what? You statement, though forceful, was not exactly coherent.

Radkey uncovered "evidence" that led the LDS Church to issue the following apology.

So what exactly are you screaming about?

If the action clearly contravened Church policy, and if the Church is making amends, why are you complaining? What business is it of yours?

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd