When Mormons Intrude On Jewish Practices: We Can Apologize For Our Actions, But Not Our Beliefs.

[Pahoran]

LDS seem to cling to the notion that they wouldn't care if another group, posthumously or by proxy, does something for them. They would welcome the intentions.

The problem is that no other faith does this so I'm at a lost why LDS members would welcome something that isn't happening. :nea:This only becomes valid once it actually happens and seems to be a bit of an empty welcoming that's purely speculative IMHO.

I've only ever seen this said in response to some idiotic statement like "How would Mormons feel if someone posthumously baptised Joseph Smith and Brigham Young into the Baptist Church?"

Then we say "It wouldn't bother us, and we would welcome the presumed good intentions."

Then BlueAdept says, "But nobody else does this! That's purely speculative!"

Yes, and a "purely speculative" answer is the only answer to a "purely speculative" question.

It seems that whenever Baptism for the Dead is discussed, this question gets trotted out. In fact, at one point it was trotted out so frequently that Scott Lloyd put his answer into his sig so that he wouldn't have to keep typing it out.

Furthermore, there is a church that does something like this. The Church I speak of provides a long, elaborate ceremony intended to benefit the soul of the departed. A number of deceased Latter-day Saints have had this ceremony performed on their behalf, and I have never once heard that either the Church or the surviving LDS relatives has objected.

The ceremony I speak of is called a "Requiem Mass." Guess which Church does that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[blueadept]

Not quite, but I suspect blueadept will have corrected you on this one so I won't.

Oops, I see that he didn't. I believe he mentioned before that praying for the dead only 'speeds' up the process, it doesn't change the person's ultimate destination or shut it down if it doesn't get done. It is not a requirement like LDS view baptism so I don't see it 'matching' beyond the fact that Catholics believe their prayers can have an impact on the dead and LDS believe their ordinances can have an impact on the dead.

I do think LDS tend to have a broader definition of "ordinance" than Catholics do, especially at times on a personal level. I know LDS who see pretty much anything done in the name of the Lord, including prayer, as something of an ordinance, others that have seen anything done through the Priesthood.

Perfectly described Cal...

Prayers for the dead is absolutely not necessary. They will eventually get to heaven once cleansed. The prayers simply speed the process up in our opinion.

[Zakuska]

Perfectly described Cal...

Prayers for the dead is absolutely not necessary. They will eventually get to heaven once cleansed. The prayers simply speed the process up in our opinion.

In our opinion, baptism (a symbol of being washed in the blood of the lamb) speeds the process up instantaniously.

[blueadept]

The ceremony I speak of is called a "Requiem Mass." Guess which Church does that?

Regards,

Pahoran

A good comment. I've never been to "Requiem Mass" but understand the intention. This is still not a 'sacrament' but it's obviously a 'religious ceremony'. So my apologies to Zak.

A Mass for our fallen brothers and sisters that are in purgatory so that they do not need to suffer in purgatory any longer than necessary. Shame on us.

BTW. Once you're in purgatory you WILL be in heaven regardless. Heaven forbid we pray for less suffering for you.

[blueadept]

In our opinion, baptism (a symbol of being washed in the blood of the lamb) speeds the process up instantaniously.

Obviously, our thoughts are fundamentally different in regards to the status of the dead. We agree to disagree.

[Pahoran]

A good comment. I've never been to "Requiem Mass" but understand the intention. This is still not a 'sacrament' but it's obviously a 'religious ceremony'. So my apologies to Zak.

A Mass for our fallen brothers and sisters that are in purgatory so that they do not need to suffer in purgatory any longer than necessary. Shame on us.

BTW. Once you're in purgatory you WILL be in heaven regardless. Heaven forbid we pray for less suffering for you.

I'm not criticising the practice, and I definitely don't say "Shame on you" about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

I'm not criticising the practice, and I definitely don't say "Shame on you" about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh but if Mormons do a baptism by proxy with the same intentions... its "shame on them".

[blueadept]

Oh but if Mormons do a baptism by proxy with the same intentions... its "shame on them".

I'm just glad that we are directed not to cooperate. Our higher ups have spoken. Do what you want.

[Calm]

Oh but if Mormons do a baptism by proxy with the same intentions... its "shame on them".

You are not suggesting that blueadept takes this attitude, are you? He has stated:

Some people take offense at your ordinance you physically perform. IMO, they shouldn't.

[Calm]

I'm just glad that we are directed not to cooperate. Our higher ups have spoken. Do what you want.

There is no reason for Catholics to feel obligated to cooperate any more than an LDS should feel obligated because someone invited her to participate in a mass and taking communion or some other activity that she feels teaches false doctrine and her participation might give the appearance that she did agreed with it.

[Zakuska]

You are not suggesting that blueadept takes this attitude, are you? He has stated:

No not in the least. Im talking about all the broo-ha-ha of february stirred up by Ms. Radkey as usual.

[Zakuska]

There is no reason for Catholics to feel obligated to cooperate any more than an LDS should feel obligated because someone invited her to participate in a mass and taking communion or some other activity that she feels teaches false doctrine and her participation might give the appearance that she did agreed with it.

Your post reminds me of 1 Cor 8. Eating things offered to idols. No Im not calling blueadept an idol worshipper, just pointing out the similarities of the chapter with the bolded part.

[Calm]

1 Cor 8: 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

A good reason for Catholics not to contribute their parish records to the LDS effort since they believe our doctrine is false.

[Zakuska]

1 Cor 8: 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

A good reason for Catholics not to contribute their parish records to the LDS effort since they believe our doctrine is false.

I agree. However... to actively go out of their way to stir up trouble outside of their spheres of influence and authority. Such as going to the media and misrepresenting the intentions as witnessed last month in the media.

How many headlines read... "baptism of the dead."... "Romney baptized dead people, but hasnt recently" et al.?

[Calm]

The Vatican politely turned down Radkey's attempts to incite them...ignoring her to the extent she switched her allegiance to Jews (though she has not renounced her claim on her Catholic "son"). There are some Catholics leaders who have done more than just politely turned down the Church's request for records, but if one counts those names who have showed up in the media over the years, it is a small minority who have attempted to stir up trouble outside their sphere (if a journalist asks "are you going to withhold parish records" and the Bishop responds "yes" and that gets published, I don't see that as stirring up trouble....at least not by the Catholic). My impression is that Catholic leaders are much more independent of the Vatican in how they choose to deal with the public than are LDS leaders (and we still have LDS leaders/members making mistakes such as Randy Bott and Joanna Brooks where they choose to speak for LDS in general when that is not their role unfortunately).

Hopefully blueadept will correct my impression if the Vatican is more hands on with its Archbishops and such than it has appeared to me. I've seen a lot more trouble be stirred up by Russian and other Orthodox leaders than RCC, where the Orthodox leaders have gone so far as to attempt to kick LDS missionaries out of their country or have the Church declared illegal. I don't recall ever seeing a Roman Catholic leader attempt to do such a thing.

If you are making accusations, you need to be clear who you are targeting. You don't want to look like you are doing what many critics of the Church do, attack/label all LDS based on the misbehaviour of a few. I think I understand you are making generic points, but since you are responding to posts specifically dealing with Catholics, it is confusing.

[Zakuska]

If you are making accusations, you need to be clear who you are targeting. You don't want to look like you are doing what many critics of the Church do, attack/label all LDS based on the misbehaviour of a few. I think I understand you are making generic points, but since you are responding to posts specifically dealing with Catholics, it is confusing.

Thanks for the heads up.