Go ahead and baptize me if you wish. Really. 
How could a non believer be upset over such a thing? If you don’t believe (and I don’t), why would you give any weight at all to the idea that someone is performing a ceremony? Afraid of the LDS God, maybe? 
Maybe Rabbi Marvin Hier would look, with a questioning eye, into his own heart? Others too.
Peace,
mangeorge
So, are you suggesting that, by the same token, if a Christian comes up to me and says “let me take your kids to Church to baptize them” that I should let him because I don’t put any signifigance into the ceremony?
And if not, why should it make any difference if the relatives are living or dead?
Zev Steinhardt
Well zev, first of all, we don’t baptize dead people. The exhumations alone would be cost prohibitive.
Seriously, the ordinance is a baptism for the dead, not baptism of the dead. The distinction is important. Obviously the dead can’t give their consent*, so the ordinance only “takes” if the deceased accepts it. This difference makes the comparison of simply baptizing someone off the street inaccurate. From a consent perspective, it’s more like a missionary teaching the person–he can accept or reject the message.
*There have been exceptions. And we believe during Christ’s millenial reign, it will be easier to ascertain who has consented.
There is so much to read and I’m doing this with only a short time before I’m off to work, so if I repeated something I apologize.
From my understanding, if you are a young man around the ages of 19-22 (No, you don’t HAVE to be 19 to go; you can be a little older) and you are worthy to serve physically, spiritually, and financially (which is the reason I had to wait 6 extra months: to save 10,000 dollars) and you feel the urge to serve and share the gospel, then you are commanded to go. If you have financial obligations, are unable to submit to the physical regime that a lot of missionaries put themselves through (walking/biking for miles every day) or have certian spiritual problems such as you aren’t living the standards of the church, then you are not to serve one. I think for the first two, though, the church is able to bend and help those willing to serve. Local wards can financially support missionaries, and the church offers other ways for people to serve who have physical limitations. From my understanding, the consequence of not serving is more denying yourself the blessings and experiences you would gain by serving on a mission, and is not a direct Church leadership issuing punishment for not serving.
Cadolphin, I have a very personal question. Are you sealed in the temple? If you aren’t why did you not?
That, and just a little comment. Not every Mormon decides to go to BYU. I chose against it because every person my age who went and came back, came back with a very arrogant and self righteous atittude about things, and were very elitist. To give an example, “I go to the Lords School so my interpretations are right, and my standing in the church is greater than thou.” This kept me from attending BYU, and is ironic because I wanted to go for the very opposite reason. Every person I knew who attended that was not my age, but a generation older, was very humble, sincere, and someone I looked up to.
Hey Pathros, where are you going? Do you know yet?
People actually said “I go to the Lord’s School”? :rolleyes:
Yes, but they usually say it with their tongue planted firmly in their cheek.
Sorry 'bout that, I’ve been visiting Mr. Armadillo for about a week, and haven’t checked in but briefly in that time–I had no idea anyone actually took me up on that . I’ll read the whole thread before asking the questions I had to see if they’ve been answered before I throw 'em out there.
Thanks, I appreciate your time and efforts.
Peace,
~mixie
I am sealed to my parents and my first husband, the psychopath. I choose not to be sealed to my current husband since I don’t want anything to prompt the psychopath to start stalking me again and knowing him, if someone contacted him asking for his agreement to a cancellation of sealing that would be enough for him to begin his obsession with me again.
11 yrs of stalking was enough for me. I might not be so lucky to live through it again if he were to find I am happy and hunt me down. He made many threats he would make sure I would never be happy and would always belong to him.
He was mentally ill and that’s not representive of the Church’s teachings.
In a perfect world…but this isn’t a perfect world, is it? I have to have faith that Heavenly Father will work it all out when the time comes and I’ll accept whatever He sees fit to do.
Kathy
Well, as for some people being upset about baptisms-I believe there was a case of a Jesuit martyr baptized-THAT got a lot of people upset. This guy was killed because of his faith, and that somewhat cheapens it. Also, I think there were marriage ceremonies for nuns, priests-these are people who believe themselves to be married to God and to the church. Thus, to imply they might be married to others-that would be seen as offensive.
For someone to do that-it’s pretty disrespectful of the Catholic beliefs. Like say, oh, I dunno, proclaiming Joseph Smith to be a Catholic saint? (Just as a wild leap).
I mean, look at the controversy the Vatican is dealing with in canonizing Edith Stein, a Holocaust survivor who converted to Christianity.
For relatives, though, I have no problem. I’m just saying that as noted before, it got out of hand.
When I was going there, some people did not joke about it. There were people that did totally believe that.
Also, when I went back to school after my divorce, there were people who were extremely uncomfortable with me around and I’m not talking about just the young students.
I had one Bishop of a student ward tell me I was not welcome in his ward since I would “lead his vulnerable young men down the wrong path to hell”
I’m not singling out any one group or organization. I’m being realistic.
I am saying that whenever you find a group of people, there will be people who have views that are prejudicial.
Kathy
I’d like to see a cite for that if you have one, because I don’t believe that would have happened. The only time sealings (marriages) are performed for the dead is when there is evidence that they were married to each other during their lifetime. There may be some specific exceptions (for example a couple recently deceased who were engaged and then died before they could be married), but those are rare and require special approval.
I’ve heard it said that the Millenium will be as much for Temple Work as be for dealing with Celestial paperwork generated by this imperfect world. I’m pretty confident that if you get through this temple worthy and so does you current husband that the Lord will take care of the other issues without any problem.
I agree 
Kathy
I can’t pull up any cites for you this minute Fat Bald Guy, but I did hear in many of my genealogy classes that temple work was performed for people that later was reversed.
Perhaps someone else will be able to find a cite other then my class notes (which I know I kept, but am not sure where they are)
Kathy
Whew! That is quite the informative thread–this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, and I want to sincerely thank all those who have participated for their time and efforts. Also, thanks, Dopers, for playing nicely ;).
Most of the questions I had were pretty thoroughly covered, except these.
-
What’s the story with swimming on Sundays? Is there official church doctrine or policy forbidding it, or are church members just busy elsewhere on that day (as in a common sanction against working on Sundays, I know some faiths commit to not doing anything on ‘the Lord’s day’ except worship)? When I was in junior high, I went to visit a friend who had recently moved to Southern Nevada, to a town that is primarily Mormon. At one point, it was about 125 degrees (blech) for several weeks, and we would visit the local public swimming pool daily. We noticed that on Sundays, we had the place to ourselves–when we asked people about this, the reply we got from several different people who had no relation or connection to each other was, swear to… whomever, “the devil controls the water on Sundays.” Now, even being in junior high, and having no connection to the LDS church, and only a passing familiarity with church policies, I felt that this was probably not the way such a belief would be worded in offical church doctrine, but wasn’t really comfortable enough with any of those people to ask for a more in depth explanation. Now, it’s possible they could have just been yanking our proverbial chains, but having a church policy specifically against swimming on Sundays did not seem any stranger to me at the time than a policy against hot drinks. Which leads me to…
-
Is the sanction against hot drinks in general, or just coffee and tea? Someone mentioned enjoying hot chocolate, is it enjoyed truly hot or just lukewarm? I mean is it the heat that’s the issue, or the drink in particular? Again, the explanation for this I’ve received over the years is less than satisfactory–i.e. “hot drinks burn your throat, allowing the devil to enter”. This of course makes little sense to me, seeing as then you’d have to eat your food tepid as well, and that seems no fun at all.
-
Disclaimer: I apologize if this story offends any LDS members, but I didn’t know any better at the time.
During high school, I had a friend that was sort of coerced into being baptized into the LDS church. Her mom really wanted her to be baptized–although I suspect this was more because she (Mom) was yearning for the approval of the tight, supportive LDS community than because of a true belief in the LDS teachings, having come out of a hellish marriage to an utter psychopath and having virtually no support whatsoever… but, I digress–anyway so she (my friend who was being baptized) convinced myself and another friend to come along to the ceremony, so she would have some friends there. I was under the impression that only members of the church would be allowed into the temple to observe this ceremony, but I went along anyway. No one questioned me or our other friend as to our Mormon credentials, and we were allowed right in, so we went ahead and watched the ceremony. Afterwards, some (missionaries? Elders? Sorry, I don’t know the correct terminology) people came over to me and my friend and asked if we would like to receive the word in our homes. I told him “I’m pagan, and she’s a Seventh Day Adventist, so… I appreciate it but it’s probably not something we would be interested in.” They just sort of gave us this look of confusion, looked at each other, then scurried over to a group of other adults and started whispering and pointing in our direction. That’s when we took our leave.
So, question. Was the ceremony in all probability not actually in the temple, since no one questioned our enterance? Or do they leave it to the members to not invite outsiders to participate in these events? I wouldn’t have wished to intrude on something the church wouldn’t want me a part of, as a non-member, because I understand that certain things are held sacred. If I saw something I shouldn’t have been a part of, am I requested to not talk about it?
I really, really apologize if anything I said has come across as disrespectful, ignorant, or, heh, really really dumb.
Again, thanks for your input, all of you.
Peace,
~mixie
Someone earlier ask if there were any famous Mormons.
This site lists many of them: http://ronj.webpipe.net/fam.htm
Here are a few but there are many, many others listed on that site:
(TV, Movies): Rick Schroeder, Jane Clayson, Merlin Olsen
(Business):George Romney, J. Willard Marriott, Stephen Covey
(Writers):Orson Scott Card
(Musician):Gladys Knight
(Science and Technology):James and Harvey Fletcher, Philo T. Farnsworth
I am also LDS but have not entered into the discussion as I get more than enough of this discussion from a certain Scotsman on snopes board. (Hi, Peppergirl.)
Bev
MixieArmadillo let me take a try at your questions:
That’s mainly it. The Sabbath is the Lord’s day, and recreational activities, such as swimming, movies, camping, hunting, etc. don’t fit in with the spirit of the Sabbath. Having said that, missionaries are not allowed to swim at all during their missions. I have heard this explained as “Satan has more power over the waters,” but I’ve never seen a scriptural reference for this.
Although the verse in scripture says, “Hot drinks are not for the body or the belly,” it has been interpreted to mean specifically tea and coffee. I think this has been treated earlier in the thread.
The ceremony was not in the temple. Our regular meetinghouses (called chapels) are open to the public and all are welcome at our meetings (including baptisms, which you went to). Baptisms for the dead and other sacred ordinances are performed in the temple. To enter the temple, a person must have a Temple Recommend from his Bishop stating that he/she is a member in good standing and is worthy to enter.
No need to apologize Mixie!!! No offense taken here and the only “dumb” question is the one not asked (IMHO)
-
There is no specific teaching against swimming per say. The official position of the Church for appropriate Sunday behavior is to be engaged in attending Church, spending time with your families, and in doing things that lead to thinking of Spiritual things rather then secular things.
-
Hot drinks is the terminology that was used at the time the commandment was given. Later on, it was clarified to mean litterally coffee and tea. Anything else has been left up to personal interpretation for what each member is comfortable with. Some members are comfortable taking it to one extreme where they won’t drink hot chocolate or herb tea. Other members are comfortable with drinking hot chocolate and herb tea. Common sense says you don’t drink a drink that is so hot, it’ll burn your mouth when you drink it, but the commandment was given as part of “The Word of Wisdom” that was explained in more detail earlier in this thread.
If you read back and that still doesn’t answer your questions, let me know and I’ll go over it again.
- When a person is baptized it is done in a Church building, not a temple. Anyone and everyone is welcome.
Missionaries/Elders are both appropriate names. They normally are present during a baptism and are eager to meet everyone present. Since you were underage, they would not have been able to give you the missionary lessons without your parents’ consent. Once you explained where you stood, my guess…and it’s a guess since I wasn’t there or them… is that they respected you and didn’t wish to pressure you to listen to their lessons or rather pressure you to persuade your parents to allow you to listen to the discussions.
Let me know if I wasn’t clear or you have more questions.
Kathy
Sorry Fat Bald Guy, I should have looked to see you had answered the questions while I was composing my post.
Kathy