We won’t know that for sure until the zombie apocalypse, when we can ask. Or at least observe whose brains they eat first.
Er, no. Descendants? :dubious: No.
No, we got a couple of things to clear up, here, then:
First, baptisms for the dead don’t convert the deceased. It merely gives the deceased the opportunity to choose to do so in the afterlife. We believe that the ordinance of baptism, which is crucial for eternal salvation, can only be performed in the flesh. However, people who have died without having the ordnance performed are not denied the chance to choose in the afterlife, because we perform proxy baptisms which the deceased can choose to accept or turn down. But baptism for the dead does not automatically convert people who have died, it does not mean that we consider them members of our church, and we certainly do not do the paperwork regarding those in the afterlife who have accepted or rejected the work. That kind of administrivia is presumably within the realm of the heavenly host.
Second, baptizing someone who is living doesn’t make their descendants LDS; this is also true with proxy baptism for the dead. If we want to baptize the descendants, then we baptize the descendants. I’m not sure where you got the idea that we’re going after living descendants by baptizing their ancestors.
I meant ancestors, not decendants, as I would have thought was obvious by the entitre thread.
Except that the temple rite of extending the ordinance is indisputably done, without the consent of the deceased or their family. That’s the problem, for those of us who object. It’s one thing to say the deceased may decline or disavow the fruits of the baptism, but he or she does not have (cannot have, being dead) any opportunity to decline or disavow the rite. And, again, this is a rite that is completely antithetical to the beliefs of some (Jews) and at sharp odds with the beliefs of many others (Catholics, and the vast majority of Protestants, none of whom hold with baptism for the dead). It is not just the Jews who find the practice erroneous, disturbing, and insulting.
But I attribute no malice to it. If the belief is genuine, which I am convinced it is, then of course adherents will continue to carry out the belief through practice, as they deem best or necessary. I’m therefore not even surprised or particularly insulted to find baptism for the dead is still performed on behalf of Jews, on the sly, without church approval. Of course it is, by persons believing they serve a greater spiritual good.
But that doesn’t make the practice less offensive to my beliefs and my opinions on the respect due the dead. “Purity of intention” only gets you so far. So I too would prefer the LDS to limit the practice to their own identifiable ancestors. I would have much less of a problem with the practice if there were such a limitation.
Obviously, both logic and respect for the rights/feelings of non-church members aren’t coming into play in this controversy, but is there anything in Mormon law that would prohibit (as I suggested before) a generic Invitation To The Dead to come on and git baptized?
Is there any compelling reason why Mormons feel they must add specific names of Holocaust victims (not to mention Groucho Marx and the Three Stooges, who have also been invited to the Big Dance) to their database?
Given his opinions of clubs that would have him as a member, I assume he demurred.
I love the idea of God having to fill out paperwork to get anything done.
God: “Hey Peter – get me a 77 dash 3, will ya? I gotta split the waters of a sea.”
Peter: “Salt water or fresh? And there’s an environmental impact statement you gotta sign too.”
God: “God damn paperwork – that was my BIGGEST mistake!”
Wow. That’s a lot of power you guys are claiming for yourselves, isn’t it? You have the power, through inaction, to prevent someone from eternal salvation.
Doesn’t anyone go in for humility anymore?
But how can anyone object to someone doing something that only offends them, but doesn’t affect them directly, I’m sure the LDS would say. It would be just like making a big stink about two gay people wanting to get married.
Oh, wait.
So when a Jewish person who was forced to convert to Catholicism it killed in a pogrom, and then his soul is converted by the LDS to Mormonism, does that mean that the second conversion cancels out the first conversion, leaving the person Jewish again?
Religion is such a truly stupid thing.
Yeah… because clearly we have a long history of withholding proxy baptisms in order to gain advantage over someone. Activities which no one else likes or believes in, are in such high demand that we are often tempted to use this practice as leverage. :rolleyes:
Look, be cynical about its efficacy, or be cynical about our motives, fine, no harm no foul. But at least please try to be consistent with your disdain.
Aside: As for humility, it’s kind of funny for someone to accuse someone else of lacking humility. The accuser may not necessarily hold themselves to a standard of humility, and if the second person is truly trying to be humble then he/she is limited in their response. But in the final analysis, it’s just words. Kind of like shooting rubber bands at fish in a barrel.
Anyway.
I don’t see how baptism for the dead is any more or less humble than, say, symbolically consuming the body of Christ. If you don’t believe in it, then again no harm no foul. But in practice with believers it’s performed with humility (or at least should be done with humility) because we’re interested in doing what we feel is the Lord’s will. And we’re going about it in a fashion that has no demonstrable ill effects with almost everyone else, and we’re taking steps to not offend other peoples’ sensibilities as these kind of complaints come up.
For the record: we’ve been told in our ward that the church is taking no stance on this issue, and when the situation comes up, we should vote with our conscience.
I voted (futilely) against the Texas state amendment prohibiting gay marriage in 2006, as did most of my family.
Just thought I’d put that up in light of your insinuation.
It doesn’t matter if you have a history of it. What matters it that you claim the power for yourself to control what happens to people after they die. That’s remarkable.
As for taking steps not to offend other people? Bullshit. It appears you offend more people than not, yet you don’t stop. In my book, that’s hardly taking steps not to offend.
I do. I am the most humble person in the world. 
I can tell that about you. It’s in the way you type. 
Well, I only have two responses to this.
One: if you don’t believe in it, then why does it affect you so? Are you afraid that it might be true, or are you afraid that there’s a more tangible threat to you because of this belief? I’m not understanding the venom you’re shooting my way.
Two: As has been stated in other threads on this subject, we don’t know with certainty what happens in the afterlife; we’re just doing what we believe is proper. And if it so happens that we don’t get a chance to baptize-by-proxy every deceased person in the history of mankind (which, you know, is a possibility) then we’re sure that God will sort things out anyway. And if we’re totally 100% wrong then either God and all of creation will have a good laugh at our expense, or (taking the Carl Sagan route) the universe will die a cold shuddering death without our beliefs mattering one iota. No where do we state that we have any kind of ultimate power in this regard; we’re just trying to help people who’ve passed into the great beyond. Again, I’m not understanding the venom.
If by “appears” you mean by reading news article about people complaining about the practice, and by reading posts by people bitching about it, then yes it would appear so. It’s called confirmation bias. In my experience, I’ve offended relatively few people, in fact I typically get a kind of “aww how cute (for a Mormon)” response. So from my perspective it would appear that I’m not so offensive. How could you measure this kind of thing objectively, anyway? How could you track changes in peoples’ attitudes in this regard? “Offense” is a slippery thing.
But step back and look at the tangible, real-world results of this program - the largest publicly available genealogical library in the world - and you see something that benefits many many people. I’m not sure your offended feelings are as widespread as you feel they are.
It’s offensive and insulting, for reasons already stated. We don’t have to be frightened by it, or even believe in it, to see that your adherence to your own beliefs involves disrespecting the beliefs of others. That’s your choice, of course; I’d just prefer a bit more honesty that that’s what you are in fact doing.
Certainty that God will sort things out anyway, is an argument for discontinuing the practice, not an argument for continuing it. Unless you just don’t give a shit that you’re offending people, which frankly I think is the truth of it at the end of the day.
Well, frankly, it means that you are so incredibly arrogant that you think you’re something like a god. That’s a little off-putting, especially since people who think they are godlike have a tendency to try to exercise their powers here on earth.
Oh, so, you’re offending people for kicks and giggles since what you’re doing is utterly unnecessary. Well, at least there’s that looked-for humility. You know, the one where God is the guy who gets to make these big decisions, not you.
Well, sure, I can’t know who all would be offended if they had ever heard of it, since most people probably haven’t heard of it. But when I consider the absolute contempt the majority of Evangelical Christians have for Mormons so that anything Mormons did would be suspect, then I add it to the serious issues the Catholic Church and the Jewish faith have with this practice, I’d say it’s fair to say it seems it offends a metric fuckload of people.
It reminds me of a kid who loses an argument with his big brother and then says “Oh yeah?!” after the brother leaves the room.
So, the genealogical info can only be available if you and yours get to play god with people’s eternal souls? Again, how remarkable.
My feelings aren’t offended in the slightest, by the way. I think it’s hysterical. Creepy, too, but mostly hysterical.
If by “the church” you mean “Church leadership,” then you were lied to in your ward. I know it’s probably difficult to accept that, but it is the truth. The church leadership has taken an active anti-gay political stance when it comes to both marriage (with memos dating back to 1997) and Boy Scouts. The LDS church donated a little over $2000 every single week for the past several months for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, and encouraged the members to do so as well.
Maybe your local bishop isn’t an active bigot, but don’t try to tell anybody the LDS Church has no stance on the issue. It is a lie.
Bull shit. I live in a town with tons of Mormons, in fact we bought our house from some. I’m quite aware that the church doesn’t officially take sides, but I also know very well their influence in tithing among other things. My daughter knows kids, for example, who went through a lot of shit for not wanting to go on their missions. So, don’t tell me they didn’t know the way to vote and the way to donate.
I’m sure some bucked the trend - but more gave money.