Specifically what do you say when asking people if you can do proxy Temple work for thier relative?

[mfbukowski]

On 8/7/2022 at 4:42 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

They could go to the local news, but I doubt any court in countries with any kind of government-staying-out-of-religion laws would touch it.

How could the plaintif assert that he was damaged?

"Them Mormoms stole my Grandpa's soul" would be a little hard to prove.

[Orthodox Christian]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:39 PM, mfbukowski said:

Do you think God would allow someone dead to be "forced to be Mormon" or any other religion--against their will? 

I am not worried that some voodoo priest will be able to do that, and you should not be worried about it either.

Think about it.  That would mean that our rituals are more powerful than the rituals which made her Catholic!!   If you believe that, you should be LDS yourself since we then must be the True Church, if we can overcome Catholic rituals.

IF that is the case, there is not much you can do about it, if God allows it!!

The question wasn't about the validity of LDS rites, nor Catholic ones, not about if one is superior to another.

[Orthodox Christian]

I don't know how my simple question of whether family members could object to baptism for the dead became so complicated. But it is interesting that the LDS authorities in anticipation of such objections made the 110 year rule and decides that only the closest or first degree relatives could object. Of course the 11O year rule would safely see these very close relatives mostly deceased. Therefore by their own rule your church has decided it can just go ahead. But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition. Are you saying that they could not stop this and maybe use the law to help them do so. My gg aunt died in 1944, still within the 110 years since her death, but according to your church rules, I could object but would be ignored, correct? 

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I don't know how my simple question of whether family members could object to baptism for the dead became so complicated. But it is interesting that the LDS authorities in anticipation of such objections made the 110 year rule and decides that only the closest or first degree relatives could object. Of course the 11O year rule would safely see these very close relatives mostly deceased. Therefore by their own rule your church has decided it can just go ahead. But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition. Are you saying that they could not stop this and maybe use the law to help them do so. My gg aunt died in 1944, still within the 110 years since her death, but according to your church rules, I could object but would be ignored, correct? 

People might argue that it should only be a problem if the Jew, Hindu, or Budhist believe that their relatives are actually being made members of the Church. If that were true our reported membership numbers would be in the hundreds of millions and not just 16 million. According the the Church they are of course  not being made members, but just performing the ceremony in case the person decides to accept it in the next life. Church members consider it an act of love for the deceased, although I do see how people  could still take offense to the practice, especially if they don't understand what is really happening. 
My sister gave birth in a Catholic run hospital and it appeared that the baby might not survive, so a nurse took it upon herself to perform a Catholic baptism for it. When my LDS sister regained consciousness and found out what the nurse had done she was not offended but very grateful for her act of love towards her baby. I understand that other people might not be able to respond the same way.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I don't know how my simple question of whether family members could object to baptism for the dead became so complicated. But it is interesting that the LDS authorities in anticipation of such objections made the 110 year rule and decides that only the closest or first degree relatives could object. Of course the 11O year rule would safely see these very close relatives mostly deceased. Therefore by their own rule your church has decided it can just go ahead. But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition. Are you saying that they could not stop this and maybe use the law to help them do so. My gg aunt died in 1944, still within the 110 years since her death, but according to your church rules, I could object but would be ignored, correct? 

Why do you care?

What are the assumptions you are making? How was she damaged by being re-baptized after death?

If you think about it I think you will see that no harm has been done 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

The question wasn't about the validity of LDS rites, nor Catholic ones, not about if one is superior to another.

Of course it was!  What harm could some crazy person do by saying her name and jumping into water?

The only way it could have any effect is to bless her life! God would not allow it to harm her!

Millions have had it done, and only a tiny minority object, for no rational reason!

Edited August 13, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition.

God would not allow that.

Yet again, that is not what is happening.

Pretend we have died.

A guy knocks on the door.  He says something like "you want to know more about the LDS church?"

Chances are everyone gets the same knock. She says yes or no.

IF she says yes, she gets the lessons and decides later if she wants to be baptized

She says yes or no

No? Just like on earth, if someone does not accept some kind of proxy baptism into some weird cult, it HAS NO EFFECT!

NO HARM NO FOUL.  SHE MUST ACCEPT IT BEFORE IT HAS ANY EFFECT 

Edited August 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Orthodox Christian]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do you care?

What are the assumptions you are making? How was she damaged by being re-baptized after death?

If you think about it I think you will see that no harm has been done 

By your comment it's like saying that it's not important, the rite itself, it's not to be taken seriously anyway.

[Calm]

If it is not truth (a rite commanded or at least accepted by God as having authority or some form of godly spiritual power), is it important for the dead or the resurrected?

If the Catholic or any other baptism has no spiritual or physical efficacy, what is its impact?  (Serious question, not rhetorical, I am wondering if others see it differently.).

For me and I suspect most Saints, there is the immediate, mortal social consequence of declaring a faith, iow the candidate becomes a member of the community where their baptism is a sign of joining, at least in their own understanding (those who believe baptism is a sign of becoming Christian, for example, may not accept every baptism, even if done by those who see themselves as Christian).  But after death, will that social community be intact as a church in the afterlife and therefore have any direct relevance to eternal life beyond the influence it had in mortality (which may be very significant in encouraging someone to seek God).  If the baptism is not recognized by God outside of being a public statement of commitment in mortality (something not needed in heaven given God knows our hearts and minds), what could be its heavenly significance?  Latter-day Saints would typically say any human spiritual authority not given by God ends at the grave. 

A baptism that has no spiritual authority beyond what humans give it can be of great value in mortality as are many social structures that support human relationships, but if not given power by God, why would it effect change on those beyond mortality?

Edited August 14, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 8/13/2022 at 9:21 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

I don't know how my simple question of whether family members could object to baptism for the dead became so complicated. But it is interesting that the LDS authorities in anticipation of such objections made the 110 year rule and decides that only the closest or first degree relatives could object. Of course the 11O year rule would safely see these very close relatives mostly deceased. Therefore by their own rule your church has decided it can just go ahead. But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition. Are you saying that they could not stop this and maybe use the law to help them do so. My gg aunt died in 1944, still within the 110 years since her death, but according to your church rules, I could object but would be ignored, correct? 

I think the 110 year rule makes sense because of the problem of descent. The further back you go the more living relatives a person likely has and the less personal connection beyond family legacy or legends. Let’s say one of your gg aunt’s other nieces or nephews joined the LDS church and decides to perform said ordinances or at least places said name in the temple. Who has a greater right to this person? particularly when it doesn’t have a literal physical shift on their legacy or remains..
 

You could say all living relatives equally have that, but by gg aunt or ggg aunt that would mean upwards of hundreds of living relatives. Does there need to be a consensus to perform a rite for someone not living? Particularly something that has no actual effect on their earthly legacy (your gg aunt will always be seen as a catholic nun devoted to her faith tradition with no change to historical records). It just gets too complicated to push the timeline out and to all extended relatives of the deceased. It also effectively cuts us off from performing sacred rites of worship, as each action would then need to include some form of consensus from all living relatives to be performed, effectively having our practices cut by those outside our faith. That’s not exactly fair. 
 

religiously, this only has an effect if a) we’re right about this and b) she accepts the rite on the other side. I think you’re getting the responses you are because it appears you may not understand the parameters of what this does for the deceased. This is more like a glorified invitation to seek all that God has. It’s not a forced baptism. The rite doesn’t automatically do anything for the dead beyond giving them access to a choice. No deceased person, whether they accept it or not, becomes members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As calm mentioned, IF they accept the work done for them, they partake as part of the church of the firstborn. This is an umbrella term of all people everywhere and when who accept God and Christ and all that they have here or in the next life. The LDS church is not that. It’s specifically the church for living members in this era. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

 

 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

By your comment it's like saying that it's not important, the rite itself, it's not to be taken seriously anyway.

May be a little redundant, but it’s not that it shouldn’t be taken seriously. Just that why it’s sacred and important is not for the assumptions you’ve been making. 
 

We’re doing our part in giving a sacred choice and participating in the work God asked us to do to tie all humankind into one under Christ’s name. The rite is not the same as a baptism performed for the living in a number of ways.
 

 

with luv,

BD 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

By your comment it's like saying that it's not important, the rite itself, it's not to be taken seriously anyway.

Yes, which is what you already think anyway, unless you are LDS

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is not truth (a rite commanded or at least accepted by God as having authority or some form of godly spiritual power), is it important for the dead or the resurrected?

If the Catholic or any other baptism has no spiritual or physical efficacy, what is its impact?  (Serious question, not rhetorical, I am wondering if others see it differently.).

For me and I suspect most Saints, there is the immediate, mortal social consequence of declaring a faith, iow the candidate becomes a member of the community where their baptism is a sign of joining, at least in their own understanding (those who believe baptism is a sign of becoming Christian, for example, may not accept every baptism, even if done by those who see themselves as Christian).  But after death, will that social community be intact as a church in the afterlife and therefore have any direct relevance to eternal life beyond the influence it had in mortality (which maybe very significant in encouraging someone to seek God).  If the baptism is not recognized by God outside of being a public statement of commitment in mortality (something not needed in heaven given God knows our hearts and minds), what could be its heavenly significance?  Latter-day Saints would typically say any human spiritual authority not given by God ends at the grave. 

A baptism that has no spiritual authority beyond what humans give it can be of great value in mortality as are many social structures that support human relationships, but if not given power by God, why would it effect change on those beyond mortality?

Same thing I said but much nicer!

 

[mfbukowski]

On 8/13/2022 at 8:21 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

I don't know how my simple question of whether family members could object to baptism for the dead became so complicated

Because you did not understand our view, and MADE it complicated!

It's an offer made to her personally.

She says yes or no, and can change her mind anytime

"NO OBLIGATION! You have been selected to be baptized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints! To accept, check here! □!"

She doesn't want it? No obligation!

 

 

[Chum]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

They can just deny a request to do the work unless the individual has been dead more than 110 years.  After that, we would be free to do the work

Just to clarify, it's 110 years since their birth.

[Chum]

On 8/4/2022 at 1:11 AM, Pyreaux said:

Wasn't it policy to only do your own ancestors? Too prevent overzealous (or subversive) members from submitting Jewish holocaust victims and such. Or is it merely the caveat for Jewish holocaust victims specifically that you'd need to be a descendant?

Yes. Some nitwit members were baptizing whoever they liked. Our guidance now reads:

What names may you submit for temple work?
Church members are responsible to provide temple ordinances for immediate family members and direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-
grandparents, etc., and their families).
You may also submit names for the following individuals who have been deceased at least one year:
* Biological, adoptive, step, and foster family lines connected to your family.
* Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
* Your own descendants.
* Descendants of direct-line ancestors and their families.
* Possible ancestors. These are individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate.
These may include individuals who had the same last name and resided in the same small
geographic areas as known ancestors.

 

[Chum]

On 8/4/2022 at 1:11 AM, Pyreaux said:

Wasn't it policy to only do your own ancestors? Too prevent overzealous (or subversive) members from submitting Jewish holocaust victims and such. Or is it merely the caveat for Jewish holocaust victims specifically that you'd need to be a descendant?

Besides doing the actual work, there's also compiling the decedents records thru Family Search. I've had names get reserved for temple work, immediately after I post the minimal data (name, birth year, birth location) and while I'm still adding their other info.

Annoyingly (to me) a number of groups have been churning thru records and posting the minimal data to get people into the baptizable category. They don't even try to fill out the profiles. The US1910Project may be the biggest offender. No idea when this mess started but it ramped up like crazy during Covid. I run into their leavings constantly.

note: I do an absurd amount of family history work but I only work on families I reach thru my lines. I doubt it's required but I find it more orderly.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Chum

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think the 110 year rule makes sense because of the problem of descent. The further back you go the more living relatives a person likely has and the less personal connection beyond family legacy or legends. Let’s say one of your gg aunt’s other nieces or nephews joined the LDS church and decides to perform said ordinances or at least places said name in the temple. Who has a greater right to this person? particularly when it doesn’t have a literal physical shift on their legacy or remains..
 

You could say all living relatives equally have that, but by gg aunt or ggg aunt that would mean upwards of hundreds of living relatives. Does there need to be a consensus to perform a rite for someone not living? Particularly something that has no actual effect on their earthly legacy (your gg aunt will always be seen as a catholic nun devoted to her faith tradition with no change to historical records). It just gets too complicated to push the timeline out and to all extended relatives of the deceased. It also effectively cuts us off from performing sacred rites of worship, as each action would then need to include some form of consensus from all living relatives to be performed, effectively having our practices cut by those outside our faith. That’s not exactly fair. 
 

religiously, this only has an effect if a) we’re right about this and b) she accepts the rite on the other side. I think you’re getting the responses you are because it appears you may not understand the parameters of what this does for the deceased. This is more like a glorified invitation to seek all that God has. It’s not a forced baptism. The rite doesn’t automatically do anything for the dead beyond giving them access to a choice. No deceased person, whether they accept it or not, becomes members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As calm mentioned, IF they accept the work done for them, they partake as part of the church of the firstborn. This is an umbrella term of all people everywhere and when who accept God and Christ and all that they have here or in the next life. The LDS church is not that. It’s specifically the church for living members in this era. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

 

 

10 points, if I could give it

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Chum said:

Yes. Some nitwit members were baptizing whoever they liked.

Hollywood stars etc were baptized, often many times, often wasting time and effort 

Edited August 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Chum]

On 8/3/2022 at 6:38 PM, nuclearfuels said:

I really have no idea what to say other than: May I present your loved one's name in the Temple?

This seems like I'm asking if I can pray for their loved one but Temple work is more than praying.

I must have done a good job explaining it to my sister (I met a few years back) because she was horrified at the prospect of seeing our father after death.

To bring some peace to her (all his kids, really), I'm reserving his name indefinitely to prevent the work from being done.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

By your comment it's like saying that it's not important, the rite itself, it's not to be taken seriously anyway.

Sounds like you are making it a magic spell. The rite is nothing if you are not taking on the Covenants and promises you are making to God by being baptized.

It's a contract.

Any contract is void if it's not signed by both parties 

Catholics see it differently. Infants have no choice in the matter!

That could be the confusion right there.

We do not baptize infants for that reason!

Baptism

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/baptism?lang=eng

Edited August 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Orthodox Christian]

16 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

May be a little redundant, but it’s not that it shouldn’t be taken seriously. Just that why it’s sacred and important is not for the assumptions you’ve been making. 
 

We’re doing our part in giving a sacred choice and participating in the work God asked us to do to tie all humankind into one under Christ’s name. The rite is not the same as a baptism performed for the living in a number of ways.
 

 

with luv,

BD 

Thankyou, but I didn't think I made assumptions, I just asked a question.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Thankyou, but I didn't think I made assumptions, I just asked a question.

The what-if part of your question held an assumption here: 

Quote

But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition.

this is an inaccurate assumption about what’s happening in our temples. To answer the hypothetical without addressing this would validate the inaccuracy. 

Your initial question didn’t say this exactly. If I’d been apart of the discussion then, I would have probably just asked you first what do you personally have concerns with your g-aunt having this rite done. And then I would have talked with those parameters in mind. Since I wasn’t and this had the same language as your earlier posts, I assumed this was the crux of the concern tied strongly to this assumption. 
 

Of course, if there is another concern that initially prompted the question of concern, I’d love to know it.  
 

with luv, 

BD

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Any contract is void if it's not signed by both parties 

Catholics see it differently. Infants have no choice in the matter!

I’m curious. Do you think people will reject this contract in the spirit world? How does that mesh with “Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess”?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m curious. Do you think people will reject this contract in the spirit world? How does that mesh with “Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess”?

I think it will be so obvious that no one but the sons of perdition would deny it deliberately. The sun vs Venus in brightness.