Ask a Mormon

[RayMan]

From what I'm seeing, all of the difficulty in dealing with it is manufactured by the "victims".

Hell, even if they were laying satanic curses on them it shouldn't be any big deal for a "spirit-filled Christian", I would think.


I won't deny that the debate would stop if the non-LDS folk stopped posting their complaints to the practice but that won't happen until their is a general realization that some of the LDS simply don't care how much this argument is upsetting the non-LDS folk.

Hopefully once people realize this subject is a dead horse well past feeling any flogging things will settle down and we can move on to something edifying.

Surely there is something interesting to talk about in the Mormon faith that doesn't insult the faith of other Christians.

[RayMan]

Wait Mormons don't do that?:shifty:

Oh, you know you do, O.D. I read it in The God-Makers so it has to be true! :mrgreen:

[orbitaldecay]

Oh, you know you do, O.D. I read it in The God-Makers so it has to be true! :mrgreen:

Curses! Our worship of Satan has been discovered! Rayman, you'll be hearing from the dark lord!:evil:

[scipio337]

Scipio writes: "If people didn't believe you were violating the dead's expression of religion in life, and therefore, disrespecting their choices, there wouldn't be any controversy."

I think a big part of the disconnect that seems to be happening here is that the Latter-day Saints believe that they are providing a CHOICE for God's children who are dead. If what the LDS do is invalid, then there is no REAL damage, the dead are dead! Any "damage" that could be construed to the dead exists only as opinions in the minds of those who choose to believe there is such damage.The "damage" isn't the validity of the ordinances, it is the fact that they are done in the first place. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say it insults the person's choices of faith in life. Again, you should take a look at the Catholic belief of "baptism of desire". Me or anyone else performing a ceremony that presumptially supercedes that person's belief in life, IMHO takes their dignity free agency away. And it's not just because I'm Catholic. As I've pointed out my Jewish friends feel the same way.

Those who criticize what we do in our temples sometimes even take us to court to try to prevent us from expressing our religious freedoms within the walls of our own buildings. If secular progressive courts rule against us (as they did when we were taken to court by as I understand it primarily non-Christian activists) then there is REAL damage to our religious freedoms and rights. We are FORCED to change some of the religious practices we believe God has commanded us to do, or at least, in the case I am referring to, the way we express them to the world, or choose to record them. Again, a dangerous trend in my opinion, and one that if it continues will bite EVERY Christian in America. Do you mean like polygamy and racial discrimination? Sorry, I couldn't resist!

I don't want to see religion, any religion, in the court's hands. Do you have any particular cases where this is going on you can refer to?

So, as I see it, the controversy is because some people have chosen to JUDGE IN THEIR OWN MINDS to take offense about something the Latter-day Saints are doing for DEAD people.I can't think of any Christian faith that doesn't revere the dead and hold dear their memory. Can't you grasp that people of other faiths believe you're tarnishing that memory?

To me, a proper resolution to this matter would be for the living who have biased prejudiced intolerant opinions to DEAL WITH IT IN THEIR OWN MINDS! There is nothing tangible on the side of LDS critics in this matter. There is everything tangible in what they are trying to do to FORCE us to do other than what we believe God has commanded us to do for the salvation of His children and to give them choices that they could not act on after they are dead because some ordinances in the Gospel of Jesus Christ can only be taken care of by the living on this earth.To me, the proper resolution would be to give people the dignity of honoring their chosen faith (or lack thereof) in life, AND in death. If you want to provide the ordinances for people born prior to 1830 or so only, it would make more sense, but it is clearly a poke in the eye to do it for those born after.


Scipio writes: "I can't say I agree with legal action, but the LDS Church has proved time and again that it is insensitive to the requests of respect from other faiths in their proxy ordinances (see continued violations of the agreement not to list Holocaust victims."

With respect Scipio, the LDS Church IS sensitive to requests and concerns from others. You know yourself that the names of people who have had ordinances done for and critics and activists have companied about, have resulted in the removal of those names from the IGI (as I understand it.) For many years there has been an official policy that the Saints submit for temple work only the names of their own ancestors. That doesn't mean that even enemies of the Church could not find ways to submit embarrassing names and then "expose" the Church. I'm not saying that is happening, I am just saying it's possible.But that policy has only been in force for a short time, and those names aren't removed from the IGI, but only made "not public". Furthermore, if they ARE sensitive to those requests, and their own rule on ancestors only, what type of tracking is done on who submits which names for proxy work, and what type of punishment do those who break that rule recieve? I haven't heard of any, so I assume there is none of either.

What YOU want is for the Saints to disobey God's commandments to them and to cease doing temple work. It's not going to happen unless the laws of the land are changed to take away freedom of religion within the walls of one's own buildings. My advice to you my brother is to develop some tolerance for the beliefs of others and to DEAL with the beliefs of Latter-day Saints in your own mind as I deal with the beliefs and practices of Catholics and others who do things that I could choose to judge offensive. There is no tangible evidence that what we are doing offends the DEAD.The door swings both ways, justamere. I respect your right to your beliefs, but I also give people (yes, even the dead) the dignity of their own. I don't want to see a court injuction prohibiting it, by any means. I want LDS to realize that we make informed choices in this life, and those choices should be honored especially those born post 1830.

I believe it was Plato who said "Only the dead know the end of war". Apparently, he was wrong.

There is evidence that TANGIBLE damage does occur to religious freedom when any church is FORCED by the laws of the land to make changes to their religious practices.Could you please point out which current or past court cases are doing so, particularly in regards to this practice?

[justamere10]

I've about had enough of this vitriol.
People are not "punished" because a mod disagrees with their views.
We don't operate that way. Consider my post as putting that garbage to rest and I don't want to hear this junk again. You are sending an incorrect message out to other members. YOU stick to the topic you are debating. We mods post in threads as regular members just like you. We are subject to the same rules of the forums as everybody else when posting as members. The only concern you need to have as far as a banning goes at this point is that you are completely annoying me with comments like the ones I quoted.

Understood, I will try not to annoy you further, but can't promise as that is something only you can judge. Thanks for correcting me.

[Frazzled]

.....<snip>...

Surely there is something interesting to talk about in the Mormon faith that doesn't insult the faith of other Christians.


:think: Wait .........I'm thinking......



:mrgreen:

[RayMan]

:think: Wait .........I'm thinking......



:mrgreen:

Wait for it. Wait for it....;)

[Frazzled]

Okay, got it...... I just ordered a new Kitchaid mixer...............does anyone have any good bread recipes?



(seriously, it's high time I learned a few domestic skills :mrgreen:)

[Anse61]

Hi, folks.

I’m an occasional visitor to this board and generally enjoy the discourse that goes on here. I’ve learned a lot about religious beliefs other than my own (LDS), and although I have not been an active participant in these discussions, I usually get a sense that in general, the people on this board hold each other in very high esteem, regardless of philosophical or religious differences. I’ve been impressed with the eagerness of this board’s guests to share those things that are of deep meaning to them, and usually this exchange happens in a considerate and respectful way.

However, I have to say that from an outsider’s perspective, this discussion has devolved into an argumentative, point-counterpoint exchange in which no one is going to prevail, so I really believe it’s time to let this one go. There is no sense in continuing to spank this dead horse.

Winston Churchill once said:

“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”

Let’s face it, we all get a little fanatical at times about our personal beliefs, and when that happens, especially in contentious situations where there are a lot of heated exchanges and strong emotions at play, understanding often goes out the window, and the effort, fueled by offense and hackle-raised responses, becomes more and more about trying to win an unwinnable argument. No one is going to change his/her mind, so why not change the subject?

[MobyMule]

Okay, got it...... I just ordered a new Kitchaid mixer...............does anyone have any good bread recipes?



(seriously, it's high time I learned a few domestic skills :mrgreen:)

My wife has made some great yeast rolls in her mixer. I don't know her recipe though sorry :(

[justamere10]

I won't deny that the debate would stop if the non-LDS folk stopped posting their complaints to the practice but that won't happen until their is a general realization that some of the LDS simply don't care how much this argument is upsetting the non-LDS folk.


But RayMan, the LDS DO understand that a lot of people have chosen to be upset about some of our religious practices. That has been shown over and over again in this thread and elsewhere. There is no need to keep on pounding away at it to get our attention or whatever, you've already got it! I hear you, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing what I believe or doing anything different in the temples of the church I choose to affiliate with.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I too wish this would all go away. Any individual or group in any denomination could choose to judge objectionable things other denominations believe or do, there will always be plenty of those. But that wouldn't make for harmony among fellow followers of Jesus Christ.

I'm not suggesting that we stop communicating, just that we all try to develop a bit more tolerance of and respect for the beliefs of others. I'm very willing to respond to respectful sincere questions about LDS beliefs, that is what this thread was intended to do.

[orbitaldecay]

Hi, folks.

I’m an occasional visitor to this board and generally enjoy the discourse that goes on here. I’ve learned a lot about religious beliefs other than my own (LDS), and although I have not been an active participant in these discussions, I usually get a sense that in general, the people on this board hold each other in very high esteem, regardless of philosophical or religious differences. I’ve been impressed with the eagerness of this board’s guests to share those things that are of deep meaning to them, and usually this exchange happens in a considerate and respectful way.

However, I have to say that from an outsider’s perspective, this discussion has devolved into an argumentative, point-counterpoint exchange in which no one is going to prevail, so I really believe it’s time to let this one go. There is no sense in continuing to spank this dead horse.

Winston Churchill once said:

“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”

Let’s face it, we all get a little fanatical at times about our personal beliefs, and when that happens, especially in contentious situations where there are a lot of heated exchanges and strong emotions at play, understanding often goes out the window, and the effort, fueled by offense and hackle-raised responses, becomes more and more about trying to win an unwinnable argument. No one is going to change his/her mind, so why not change the subject?

Welcome, officialy, to the forums.

I humbly second that motion!

[orbitaldecay]

Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?

bump!!!!

[Frazzled]

brothers in what sense...............both elder........or do you think Satan was just a guy with a plan?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/smiley_emoticons_volley_baggern.gif

[justamere10]

I am puzzled by all of this. I can't figure out the reasoning for any of it. My question is; Is it to convert others to the Mormon faith? If so this is only not happening, but it IS bitterly turning others against the Mormon faith.

I can't see any good being accomplished.

Peace

I too am puzzled by all this, as I think are all the other LDS following this thread. We have things we believe and religious practices we do, the same as have every other religious denomination. I am sensitive to and concerned about the criticisms of members of other denominations, as you would be to anyone criticizing your own cherished beliefs and religious practices, regardless of the validity or whatever of the way they choose to judge them.

Do you somehow think that those who are so emotionally opposed to what the Latter-day Saints are doing in their temples are doing it to convert people to the LDS faith and it's backfiring? Or that God has commanded the Saints to do temple work so that He could "convert" others? I fail to understand your question.

I too can't see any good being accomplished by anyone, or any groups of Christians, by so emotionally attacking the beliefs of other fellow followers of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for participating, it's nice to see you back on this thread.

[Anse61]

Thanks for the welcome!

[orbitaldecay]

brothers in what sense...............both elder........or do you think Satan was just a guy with a plan?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/smiley_emoticons_volley_baggern.gif

i don't know, you'll have to ask Mike Huckabee.:mrgreen:

[scipio337]

Scipio writes with a smiley: "Now you know why that decree was issued. They didn't want that information to be used by your church to perform religious rituals they don't agree with."

I very much doubt that the millions of people who are trying to find their ancestors (including Catholics) are laughing along with you.I'm sure those of any faith who are unaware what the IGI is used for and represents to the LDS Church appreciate their action. There are plenty of ancestry websites and services that don't use or signify a religious ceremony was per formed.

With respect, you are an extremely slow learner when it comes to understanding the things Latter-day Saints believe and do. Latter-day Saints submit to the temple (or are supposed to submit) ONLY the names of their ancestors. That's it, they gather those names from possibly thousands of websites, books, sources. So what your church leaders have done has nothing to do with the purpose for it, as you expressed.I fully under stand that, but I don't believe it to be more than window-dressing because I see nothing done by LDS leadership to confirm ancestry on submissions, or punish people who violate that rule. What am I missing?

"The only way we could prevent it would be to undertake independent genealogical research on every name that came in, an utterly impossible task with the many tens of thousands of names that are submitted each year," Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in an email responding to questions from Reuters.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL0218416820070204?pageNumber=1

In other words, the rule is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound an fury, signifying nothing.



I read an interview with the Catholic archbishop in Salt Lake City who expressed dismay that the Vatican decree was associated in the media with the LDS Church. Have you heard from OFFICIAL Vatican sources that they are not allowing additional vital data to be placed online because they are somehow frightened or whatever that the Saints might find some of their ancestors in that data and baptize their dead ancestors by proxy?I didn't get that from the interview I read:

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6a9425a0-5251-4742-9eed-94b1445006f6&rss=991

PLEASE POST A LINK TO AN OFFICIAL VATICAN SOURCE THAT STATES THE RECENT DECREE WAS A REACTION TO THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. (I know there are media reports, but they may not be valid as evidenced by the remarks of the Catholic leader in Salt Lake City.)I'm searching. The article I linked had a statement by the USCCB, the US council of bishops.

I'm not finding a recent letter on the site of the Congregation for Clergy.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/index.htm

But there is this in Catholic news services, with additional quotes from Father Massa.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802443.htm

...Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records -- such as baptismal documentation -- to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members.

And this:

(the letter) ......"This dicastery is bringing this matter to the attention of the various conferences of bishops," the letter reads. "The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."




The hearts of many of the living are turning to their fathers in our time. Genealogy is one of the largest hobbies in the entire world. It's sad in my opinion that the leaders of your church have apparently decided to impede those involved in the work to find the ancestors whose lives resulted in their being here.As I said before, there are plenty of other geneological services and websites that provide the same service, with the added courtesy of no controversial religious ceremonies tied to either the names listed or contributions made


I find your continual cry that the Vatican is somehow denying genealogists the right the information to be a bit intellectually dishonest. You know full well what the Vatican objects to. As is evident from these boards, they are not alone in that sentiment.

[scipio337]

But RayMan, the LDS DO understand that a lot of people have chosen to be upset about some of our religious practices......I don't think you could have more perfectly portrayed your willful and blatant disrespect for the justification of our objection.

Thanks!

[RayMan]

Hi, folks.

I’m an occasional visitor to this board and generally enjoy the discourse that goes on here. I’ve learned a lot about religious beliefs other than my own (LDS), and although I have not been an active participant in these discussions, I usually get a sense that in general, the people on this board hold each other in very high esteem, regardless of philosophical or religious differences. I’ve been impressed with the eagerness of this board’s guests to share those things that are of deep meaning to them, and usually this exchange happens in a considerate and respectful way.

However, I have to say that from an outsider’s perspective, this discussion has devolved into an argumentative, point-counterpoint exchange in which no one is going to prevail, so I really believe it’s time to let this one go. There is no sense in continuing to spank this dead horse.

Winston Churchill once said:

“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”

Let’s face it, we all get a little fanatical at times about our personal beliefs, and when that happens, especially in contentious situations where there are a lot of heated exchanges and strong emotions at play, understanding often goes out the window, and the effort, fueled by offense and hackle-raised responses, becomes more and more about trying to win an unwinnable argument. No one is going to change his/her mind, so why not change the subject?

+1

[orbitaldecay]

+1

+1

[CID_0687]

I must agree with Anse61, and Ray, this has gotten a little out of control, or did we forget why the RF was shut down a couple of weeks ago.

[MobyMule]

Well I am just a little over a week away from going to disneyworld with my family so I won't let some others get me down. And yes I will be there through some of the Gay Days. It doesn't bother me at all. This will be my children's first time to go. I can't wait to go stimulate the economy. :)

[RayMan]

Well I am just a little over a week away from going to disneyworld with my family so I won't let some others get me down. And yes I will be there through some of the Gay Days. It doesn't bother me at all. This will be my children's first time to go. I can't wait to go stimulate the economy. :)

Sweet. Enjoy.

[Semi-Sweet]

I too am puzzled by all this, as I think are all the other LDS following this thread. We have things we believe and religious practices we do, the same as have every other religious denomination. I am sensitive to and concerned about the criticisms of members of other denominations, as you would be to anyone criticizing your own cherished beliefs and religious practices, regardless of the validity or whatever of the way they choose to judge them.

Do you somehow think that those who are so emotionally opposed to what the Latter-day Saints are doing in their temples are doing it to convert people to the LDS faith and it's backfiring? Or that God has commanded the Saints to do temple work so that He could "convert" others? I fail to understand your question.

I too can't see any good being accomplished by anyone, or any groups of Christians, by so emotionally attacking the beliefs of other fellow followers of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for participating, it's nice to see you back on this thread.

My question was about the discussion of it here, not the practices of the LSD, but then again I am not here to preach sermons about my faith or to defend my faith. My faith should stand on its own, it should stand up to any test without any defense from me.

[Old Tex]

LDS Temple work........

Well, I see that I'm on again, and I see that the discussion on Temple ordinances is still on to. I will be leaving to look for a printer to buy in a few minutes, but I would like to leave the following....

1. How many of you have sent any information to the Family Search site?

2. How many of you have used the Family Seach site for research?

I use the site quite often. It has information from various databases, just as other genealogy sites do. I find the first place to look for a family member is the United States Census which is on the Family Search site, as well as many county, and civil records, such a birth, marriage, death, wills, and probate records.

I research only my family and have got back about ten generatons on some lines. My lines are the only ones I research and consequently the only ones I have done Temple work for. What others do is not my responsibility and I can't do anything about it. The LDS Church is now introducing a software program that should cut down greatly on dupication and keep submissons to the Temples pretty well limited to the family members of the submitter.

Since neither I, nor any other LDS posting here, can do anything to change anything, I suggest that all suggestions and complaints about Temple work in LDS Temples be taken to those who can.

GENERAL PUBLIC
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City , UT
United States
(801) 240-1000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHURCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Public Affairs Department
Joseph Smith Memorial Building
15 E. South Temple St. Rm. 2W10
Salt Lake City , Utah
Phone: (801) 240-2205
Fax: (801) 240-1167

[RayMan]

But RayMan, the LDS DO understand that a lot of people have chosen to be upset about some of our religious practices. That has been shown over and over again in this thread and elsewhere. There is no need to keep on pounding away at it to get our attention or whatever, you've already got it! I hear you, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing what I believe or doing anything different in the temples of the church I choose to affiliate with.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. I too wish this would all go away. Any individual or group in any denomination could choose to judge objectionable things other denominations believe or do, there will always be plenty of those. But that wouldn't make for harmony among fellow followers of Jesus Christ.

I'm not suggesting that we stop communicating, just that we all try to develop a bit more tolerance of and respect for the beliefs of others. I'm very willing to respond to respectful sincere questions about LDS beliefs, that is what this thread was intended to do.

Originally Posted by RayMan http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=27992401#post27992401)
I won't deny that the debate would stop if the non-LDS folk stopped posting their complaints to the practice but that won't happen until their is a general realization that some of the LDS simply don't care how much this argument is upsetting the non-LDS folk.


I didn't say "don't understand" I said "don't care." I am aware that you are fully cognizant of the stress and distress you are causing a number of people on this forum by continuing to encourage this senseless debate. Certainly you understand, you just lack the common decency and courtesy to care about anyone's faith or feelings but your own. I thank God that a number of the LDS folk around here are genuinely caring, loving folk. You do not fit that bill IMHO.

[Reeder]

Well I am just a little over a week away from going to disneyworld with my family so I won't let some others get me down. And yes I will be there through some of the Gay Days. It doesn't bother me at all. This will be my children's first time to go. I can't wait to go stimulate the economy. :)

D-D-D-Disneyworld?.........Did someone say DISNEYWORLD?! :shifty:

[AugustGem]

What does the ceremony entail?

[Reeder]

What does the ceremony entail?

Which ceremony? Are you asking about proxy baptisms?

[AugustGem]

Which ceremony? Are you asking about proxy baptisms?

Yeah, it seems to be the hot bed of convo here. I was just wondering what the ceremony consists of?

[RayMan]

D-D-D-Disneyworld?.........Did someone say DISNEYWORLD?! :shifty:


Yeah I know. The guy is a Disney heretic. What're you gonna do though?

Thought about you when I was moving my son back up from San Diego a couple weeks back. We took the desert route on the way back to avoid L.A. (sorry Terri) and drove past the Mormon Rocks. Really stunning sandstone rock formations in the Mojave near Cajon Pass. Check out the photo link below.

-------------------------------
These sandstone rock formations are named for the Mormon pioneers and freighters who would camp near here after completing their trip across the Mojave.

http://www.1000wordsphotos.com/cajonpass/index.html

[Reeder]

Yeah, it seems to be the hot bed of convo here. I was just wondering what the ceremony consists of?

Its basically the same as a typical LDS baptism (for the living) only it is done "for and in behalf of..........."

A typical baptism is described by Christ in the BoM:

3 Nephi Chapter 11

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.


http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/26#26

[Reeder]

Yeah I know. The guy is a Disney heretic. What're you gonna do though?

Thought about you when I was moving my son back up from San Diego a couple weeks back. We took the desert route on the way back to avoid L.A. (sorry Terri) and drove past the Mormon Rocks. Really stunning sandstone rock formations in the Mojave near Cajon Pass. Check out the photo link below.

-------------------------------
These sandstone rock formations are named for the Mormon pioneers and freighters who would camp near here after completing their trip across the Mojave.

http://www.1000wordsphotos.com/cajonpass/index.html

Wow. Very interesting rock formations. I don't believe I've ever seen those before, and I've been to Cali dozens of times. Pretty cool.

[RayMan]

Wow. Very interesting rock formations. I don't believe I've ever seen those before, and I've been to Cali dozens of times. Pretty cool.

The area is way in the heck out in the desert. Unless you got off I-5 just past Gorman and took Hwy 138 into the desert towards Lancaster and Palmdale you would never come across it.

[AugustGem]

Its basically the same as a typical LDS baptism (for the living) only it is done "for and in behalf of..........."

A typical baptism is described by Christ in the BoM:

3 Nephi Chapter 11

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.


http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/26#26

But if it's a dead person from the 17th century, how do you baptize a name? Does the family member do the water part on their behalf?

[Reeder]

But if it's a dead person from the 17th century, how do you baptize a name? Does the family member do the water part on their behalf?

No, its a proxy baptism. In other words, a worthy member of the LDS Church (usually a descendant or relative of the deceased) is baptized "for and in behalf of" the deceased person. The deceased person's name is used and the living person is then baptized by immersion FOR them. I hope that makes sense.

[Fire Watch]

But if it's a dead person from the 17th century, how do you baptize a name? Does the family member do the water part on their behalf?
http://packham.n4m.org/temples.htm
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD
Perhaps the most striking feature inside a Mormon temple is the large baptismal font, large enough to accommodate several people standing waist-deep in water. The font rests on the backs of twelve life-size sculpted oxen in a special room. It is here that baptisms for the dead are performed. The proxies are usually a group of teen-age Mormons who have traveled from their homes in a group for a temple excursion. Dressed in white, they line up to enter the waters one by one to be immersed by the officiators with the short baptismal prayer: "Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for and in behalf of N. N., who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The name of the dead person is read from a list to the officiator just before the immersion. One proxy may be baptized quickly in succession for ten or fifteen dead people. After the baptisms, two other officiators confirm the newly baptized dead persons as members of the Mormon church and confer upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost, by placing their hands upon the head of each proxy, with a similar short pronouncement. Hundreds of such baptisms and confirmations can be performed in a few hours. It is an efficient, production-line operation

I have a question regarding the highlighted part..

After the baptisms, two other officiators confirm the newly baptized dead persons as members of the Mormon church and confer upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost, by placing their hands upon the head of each proxy, with a similar short pronouncement.

I thought I had read several times over that the Baptism wasnt done to "add members" to the church..yet it would seem that is exactly what is happening.

What gives you the right to confirm ANY dead person as members of the Mormon church?

[Fire Watch]

For those interested, full transcripts of all the LDS temple ceremonies can be found at the following link.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_temple7.php

[Reeder]

http://packham.n4m.org/temples.htm


I have a question regarding the highlighted part..



I thought I had read several times over that the Baptism wasnt done to "add members" to the church..yet it would seem that is exactly what is happening.

What gives you the right to confirm ANY dead person as members of the Mormon church?

Their names are NOT added to the membership records of the LDS Church. If every name was added to the membership record for whom a proxy baptism/confirmation was done, the total Church membership would be WELL over 13 million.

Their names are added to "A" record, indicating that the work has been done on the earth for that person, but it is not the Church membership record.

[Reeder]

For those interested, full transcripts of all the LDS temple ceremonies can be found at the following link.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_temple7.php

Very much appreciated, FW. :rolleyes:

[AugustGem]

No, its a proxy baptism. In other words, a worthy member of the LDS Church (usually a descendant or relative of the deceased) is baptized "for and in behalf of" the deceased person. The deceased person's name is used and the living person is then baptized by immersion FOR them. I hope that makes sense.

That's what I thought. Thank you!

[Fire Watch]

Their names are NOT added to the membership records of the LDS Church. If every name was added to the membership record for whom a proxy baptism/confirmation was done, the total Church membership would be WELL over 13 million.

Their names are added to "A" record, indicating that the work has been done on the earth for that person, but it is not the Church membership record.
So if I produce and provide a link to an audio and video record of a proxy baptism inside an LDS temple where the names of those baptized by proxy are heard to be added to the membership of the LDS church..you're saying that that particular ceremony would be the exception, not the norm?

What if I produced audio and video from another proxy baptism ceremony from a different day, and a different LDS temple?

[Fire Watch]

Very much appreciated, FW. :rolleyes:
No reason to roll your eyes. Those of us interested dont hold you ceremonies as sacred, and find no reason to keep them secret. No one is making you click on the link.

[MobyMule]

No reason to roll your eyes. Those of us interested dont hold you ceremonies as sacred, and find no reason to keep them secret. No one is making you click on the link.

But don't you just get some satisfaction to sticking it to the heathens.

[Reeder]

So if I produce and provide a link to an audio and video record of a proxy baptism inside an LDS temple where the names of those baptized by proxy are heard to be added to the membership of the LDS church..you're saying that that particular ceremony would be the exception, not the norm?

What if I produced audio and video from another proxy baptism ceremony from a different day, and a different LDS temple?

When a living person is confirmed, they are made members of the LDS Church, and the Holy Ghost is conferred upon them. When a deceased person is confirmed by proxy, they are made members of the Lord's Church UPON THEIR ACCEPTANCE of the confirmation. It cannot be done any other way. The ordinance is the same for the living and the dead.

[MobyMule]

So if I produce and provide a link to an audio and video record of a proxy baptism inside an LDS temple where the names of those baptized by proxy are heard to be added to the membership of the LDS church..you're saying that that particular ceremony would be the exception, not the norm?

What if I produced audio and video from another proxy baptism ceremony from a different day, and a different LDS temple?

It is worded such as to be valid if and I mean IF it is accepted in the spirit world where it will be recorded officially if it is accepted.

[Fire Watch]

But don't you just get some satisfaction to sticking it to the heathens.
No one is sticking it to anyone. Someone asked questions regarding the baptism ceremony. Upon searching for a link to the transcript for her, I also came upon a link to the transcript to all the LDS ceremonies. I for one find them fascinating. I think others would also.

[AugustGem]

It is worded such as to be valid if and I mean IF it is accepted in the spirit world where it will be recorded officially if it is accepted.

I am sure I am misunderstanding now. How can it be accepted by a dead person?

[AugustGem]

No one is sticking it to anyone. Someone asked questions regarding the baptism ceremony. Upon searching for a link to the transcript for her, I also came upon a link to the transcript to all the LDS ceremonies. I for one find them fascinating. I think others would also.

I thought the picture with the alter for couples to be married was pretty. But honestly, if it is not supposed to be seen by non LDS, I feel a bit guilty for looking. But I have also been very interested in the religion because we just don't seem to have any here.

[MobyMule]

I am sure I am misunderstanding now. How can it be accepted by a dead person?

We believe the dead are in a place called the spirit world where they are fully concious and still have their freedoms to choose.

[MobyMule]

No one is sticking it to anyone. Someone asked questions regarding the baptism ceremony. Upon searching for a link to the transcript for her, I also came upon a link to the transcript to all the LDS ceremonies. I for one find them fascinating. I think others would also.

That may be so but your manner which i know is hard to decipher over a message board doesn't come across as you put it here.

[Fire Watch]

There is much reason to roll my eyes, but I'm not going to whine about it. This same situation has come up before in the past. The only difference is.....I can't put you on ignore.

Haven't you yet noticed that NO OTHER religious group on these forums plays the victim as much as some LDS? We have just as many disagreements, just as many debates/arguments between EVERY other faith represented here..but none of the others EVER whip out the "martyr" card. The debates over the trinity gets nasty, the debate over Mary's perpetual virginity, prayer to the Saints, over Jesus being the messiah, over the validity of the NT, all of those topics between various different faiths gets heated..yet not one other group is trying to claim victim hood over challenges to their beliefs. I think it's time that the rest of you learned to discuss your beliefs and accept challenges to them just like every one else.

[Reeder]

I am sure I am misunderstanding now. How can it be accepted by a dead person?

We believe that when a person dies, it is only their mortal body that is actually dead. Their spirit lives on, and they are just as capable of moving around and making decisions as we are here on this earth - only they don't have a physical body. We believe the Lord has servants on the other side (the spirit world) as well. They are teaching a preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, and finding those who are willing to accept it. I believe that many people will not get a second chance.....but others either never had a first chance, or didn't really understand the gospel in the first place (speculation on my part). When a proxy ordinance is performed on their behalf, they have the choice to accept it, or reject it. We believe that baptism as well as the other ordinances are necessary for us to receive eternal life.

[MobyMule]

Haven't you yet noticed that NO OTHER religious group on these forums plays the victim as much as some LDS? We have just as many disagreements, just as many debates/arguments between EVERY other faith represented here..but none of the others EVER whip out the "martyr" card. The debates over the trinity gets nasty, the debate over Mary's perpetual virginity, prayer to the Saints, over Jesus being the messiah, over the validity of the NT, all of those topics between various different faiths gets heated..yet not one other group is trying to claim victim hood over challenges to their beliefs. I think it's time that the rest of you learned to discuss your beliefs and accept challenges to them just like every one else.

I have no problem with that and never have. When have I ever whined. I don't recall. I just have maybe read too much into your posts. Your manner is what came across as offensive not the material. What everyone freely chooses to discuss I could care less. It is their right to.

If I am wrong about you I apologize.

Also I would agree some LDS do play victim too quickly but in this debate I haven't seen that as much as sometimes in the past. Of course being a convert I guess I can see both sides I guess am more tolerant in both directions.

[Reeder]

Haven't you yet noticed that NO OTHER religious group on these forums plays the victim as much as some LDS? We have just as many disagreements, just as many debates/arguments between EVERY other faith represented here..but none of the others EVER whip out the "martyr" card. The debates over the trinity gets nasty, the debate over Mary's perpetual virginity, prayer to the Saints, over Jesus being the messiah, over the validity of the NT, all of those topics between various different faiths gets heated..yet not one other group is trying to claim victim hood over challenges to their beliefs. I think it's time that the rest of you learned to discuss your beliefs and accept challenges to them just like every one else.

Well, I deleted my last post, but since you snatched it before it went away, I'll address you're concern.

First of all, I believe you paint with a broad brush. I honestly don't believe I play "victim" as much as you'd like to believe. I don't appreciate you posting a link to something that we have asked not be posted in the past, and I roll my eyes because you do it anyway. But how is that playing "victim?" All it is, is me disagreeing with something you've done.

I know you don't care what I think, but I believe you're simply looking for excuses to say what you said above. I don't play victim....I don't play martyr......yet I roll my eyes ONCE at you and you think I'm feeling sorry for myself. It appears that you're TRYING to get the LDS to play victim. But do what you want, it doesn't matter to me.

I've tried to stay away from all the threads lately in the TTTM. I haven't spoken up about anything mentioned about you or RJ........and I've tried to avoid much of the contention thats seems to be dwindling in this thread. I've been biting my tongue on certain comments. What have I done to make you think I'm playing "victim" or "martyr?" Or do you just assume that all LDS feel and think that way? Like I said, you appear to be painting with a broad brush. Since your "victim/martyr" comment was in response to my post, I assume you were addressing me as well.

I have nothing against you, FW. I don't agree with much of if not most of what you say, and some of what you do, but I also understand that you have to put up with a lot of crap as a mod.

[Fire Watch]

I have no problem with that and never have. When have I ever whined. I don't recall.
MobyMule, I've never seen you whine or cause any problem here. You're behavior has always been exemplary and an example to people of all faiths. You're an asset this board.

[AugustGem]

We believe the dead are in a place called the spirit world where they are fully concious and still have their freedoms to choose.

I understand but (maybe I am confused) Didn't someone else just a few posts ago say they do not get added as members?

[justamere10]

My question was about the discussion of it here, not the practices of the LSD, but then again I am not here to preach sermons about my faith or to defend my faith. My faith should stand on its own, it should stand up to any test without any defense from me.

I agree. Among Christians everyone's faith should be allowed to "stand on its own." We're all fellow followers of Jesus Christ.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND UNLESS YOU ARE ATTACKED!

I started this thread to answer questions about what Mormons believe to be true. I did that because there is an enormous amount of misinformation and untruths in circulation about what the Latter-day Saints believe to be true. Even in this "Ask a MORMON" thread some people post links to non-Mormon websites, thus in my opinion further misleading and confusing the Hannity community about what Mormons really believe. Such websites are created and maintained by apostates and enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You will NEVER learn the whole truth about the Saints from non-LDS websites anymore than you could expect to learn the whole truth about Baptists for example from Catholic or Pentecostal websites. In my opinion such websites have no business pretending to teach the truth about other faiths.

It is not ME who is attacking anyone else's religious beliefs and practices! My guess is that the apparently thousands of lurkers who take an interest in this thread noticed that a long time ago and are drawing their own conclusions...

LDS Church policy is very clear about such matters, it's in our canon:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, AND ALLOW ALL MEN THE SAME PRIVILEGE, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Article of Faith 11

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1)


I invite those who want to learn the truth about LDS beliefs to believe the Mormons about what Mormons believe and to learn more from official LDS websites such as:

http://www.lds.org

http://www.mormon.org


And an unofficial but reliable apologetic website:

http://www.ldsfair.org

-

[MobyMule]

I understand but (maybe I am confused) Didn't someone else just a few posts ago say they do not get added as members?

Correct not to the church records here on earth. But in Heaven we believe those that accept do get added there.

[Reeder]

I understand but (maybe I am confused) Didn't someone else just a few posts ago say they do not get added as members?

They must accept it in order for it to be valid. Otherwise it is void.

[MobyMule]

MobyMule, I've never seen you whine or cause any problem here. You're behavior has always been exemplary and an example to people of all faiths. You're an asset this board.

Well thanks for that. Just be mindful of the broad accusations. I have had to be mindfull of that as well in the past. Remember even though we belong to the same faith as LDS we have a wide variety of opinions and temperments just as any other group. Or could you not tell? :)

[AugustGem]

Correct not to the church records here on earth. But in Heaven we believe those that accept do get added there.

I appreciate your patience with me. I usually read the LDS threads in bits and bobs and never get a chance to ask questions. I am sure you have had the same questions over and over again. Add to that, I am not as well versed in the bible as many who are of other faiths debating in this forum. There are different lists. Deceased relatives can be baptized by proxy and put in a membership of the dead (for lack of knowledge of what it may be called) but there is a seperate list for living people who are baptized and become members. Have I got it?

[Frazzled]

I thought the picture with the alter for couples to be married was pretty. But honestly, if it is not supposed to be seen by non LDS, I feel a bit guilty for looking. But I have also been very interested in the religion because we just don't seem to have any here.

The Temples are gorgeous buildings that are open to the public and photographed before they are dedicated to the Lord. There is nothing wrong with enjoying their beauty - I enjoy looking at pictures of them myself...........we do however take offense when the sacred religious ordinances that take place in the temple are covertly recorded and then held up for ridicule.

Here's a video tour of several temples - enjoy http://moroni10.com/LDS/Temple_Tour/open_house_video1.html

[scipio337]

After the baptisms, two other officiators confirm the newly baptized dead persons as members of the Mormon church and confer upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost, by placing their hands upon the head of each proxy, with a similar short pronouncement.I hope that isn't true. :(

[justamere10]

I didn't say "don't understand" I said "don't care." I am aware that you are fully cognizant of the stress and distress you are causing a number of people on this forum by continuing to encourage this senseless debate. Certainly you understand, you just lack the common decency and courtesy to care about anyone's faith or feelings but your own. I thank God that a number of the LDS folk around here are genuinely caring, loving folk. You do not fit that bill IMHO.

Those are very strong words and accusations but I'll try to take your advice to be "slow to wrath".

I AM NOT ENCOURAGING "THIS SENSELESS DEBATE".

Nor do I believe that I am the cause of the emotions anyone else is choosing to entertain. Emotions come and go, tomorrow you might wake up feeling more kindly towards me. I believe that everyone is responsible for their own judgments, and for their own emotions.

I do not believe, as you accuse, that I am lacking in "common decency and courtesy." But then, that's just my own judgment about me, how would I really know?

But I do believe that you have the right to judge me however you want. As a Christian I'm sure that you are aware that all of us will be judged in the same manner we choose to judge others. If you are comfortable with your judgment of me, that's ok with me, I don't have a problem with that. At least my wife still loves me - I think. :-)

I still care about you, and about all of God's children. I believe that we are all brothers and sisters.

Enjoy the day.

[MobyMule]

I appreciate your patience with me. I usually read the LDS threads in bits and bobs and never get a chance to ask questions. I am sure you have had the same questions over and over again. Add to that, I am not as well versed in the bible as many who are of other faiths debating in this forum. There are different lists. Deceased relatives can be baptized by proxy and put in a membership of the dead (for lack of knowledge of what it may be called) but there is a seperate list for living people who are baptized and become members. Have I got it?

Yeah that is not a bad analogy. Proxy work is recorded as a notation on the record of that person but they are not members of the LDS church because we have no way of knowing if they accepted or not. The only reason the information is noted is to try and avoid duplication of the work.

We believe that in that in the millenium all the records and information that we can't know now will be made known and the work completed all the way to Adam for every person that has ever lived. Basically I believe we are in the infancy of this work. Such is the way of the Lord with his people. Does he not prepare them? That is why I don't stress over records or being denied access to records now. I have faith it will be done eventually. Of course others believe I'm wrong and that is fine.

[Reeder]

I hope that isn't true. :(

Nothing is valid unless accepted by the deceased for whom the ordinance was performed. Its simply waiting there for approval or rejection.

[justamere10]

http://packham.n4m.org/temples.htm


I think I have the right to let the Hannity community know that the above link from Fire Watch does not lead to an official LDS website. I am not familiar with it but my guess is that it was created and is maintained by apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to further confuse people about what Latter-day Saints REALLY believe to be true.

There are many such websites. I encourage those who sincerely want to know the truth about LDS beliefs to visit one or more of our official websites such as:

http://www.lds.org

http://www.mormon.org

-

[MobyMule]

I think I have the right to let the Hannity community know that the above link from Fire Watch does not lead to an official LDS website. I am not familiar with it but my guess is that it was created and is maintained by apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to further confuse people about what Latter-day Saints REALLY believe to be true.

There are many such websites. I encourage those who sincerely want to know the truth about LDS beliefs to visit one or more of our official websites such as:

http://www.lds.org

http://www.mormon.org

-

Just my opinion but let it go. You will do well to use other methods to show the spirit of Christ to shine through your posts so others can know that God works in our Church and does lead people to Christ.

Many websites that come from other sources rather than the church have been posted many times. I know you don't want someone to get the wrong impression but let your example and actions speak for themselves. Those will speak volumes over anything else out there imho.

[Fire Watch]

I think I have the right to let the Hannity community know that the above link from Fire Watch does not lead to an official LDS website. I am not familiar with it but my guess is that it was created and is maintained by apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to further confuse people about what Latter-day Saints REALLY believe to be true.

There are many such websites. I encourage those who sincerely want to know the truth about LDS beliefs to visit one or more of our official websites such as:

http://www.lds.org

http://www.mormon.org

-

If the LDS "approved" sites disclosed the temple ceremonies, then one wouldnt have to go to "unapproved" sites.

Since you arent, by your own words, "familiar" with the link I posted, perhaps posting judgement on it is out of order. Again, just because someone doesnt agree with you and your beliefs doesnt make them, and I quote..apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Folks have a right to disagree without being unjustly labeled.

[AugustGem]

The Temples are gorgeous buildings that are open to the public and photographed before they are dedicated to the Lord. There is nothing wrong with enjoying their beauty - I enjoy looking at pictures of them myself...........we do however take offense when the sacred religious ordinances that take place in the temple are covertly recorded and then held up for ridicule.

Here's a video tour of several temples - enjoy http://moroni10.com/LDS/Temple_Tour/open_house_video1.html

It isn't working on my work pc (no surprise there) I will look when i get home. Thank you very much :)

[scipio337]

I think I have the right to let the Hannity community know that the above link from Fire Watch does not lead to an official LDS website. I am not familiar with it but my guess is that it was created and is maintained by apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to further confuse people about what Latter-day Saints REALLY believe to be true.

There are many such websites. I encourage those who sincerely want to know the truth about LDS beliefs to visit one or more of our official websites such as:

http://www.lds.org

http://www.mormon.org

-Seriously, and I read I felt the same thing when reading

....we do however take offense when the sacred religious ordinances that take place in the temple are covertly recorded and then held up for ridicule.Is there a possibility of people examining, or even criticizing aspects of those ceremonies without holding it up for "ridicule", or are they automatically "apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? It seems like such a Manichaeistic world view.

[MobyMule]

It isn't working on my work pc (no surprise there) I will look when i get home. Thank you very much :)

I think you will enjoy it. I have never seen that site before and it has some good info there. It is well done.

[RayMan]

Just my opinion but let it go. You will do well to use other methods to show the spirit of Christ to shine through your posts so others can know that God works in our Church and does lead people to Christ.

Many websites that come from other sources rather than the church have been posted many times. I know you don't want someone to get the wrong impression but let your example and actions speak for themselves. Those will speak volumes over anything else out there imho.

+1

Very well put in my opinion Moby.

[justamere10]

I thought the picture with the alter for couples to be married was pretty. But honestly, if it is not supposed to be seen by non LDS, I feel a bit guilty for looking. But I have also been very interested in the religion because we just don't seem to have any here.

I understand your feelings of "guilt" about viewing things that are very sacred to other Christians and should not be open to public view. They were put on the internet by apostates and enemies of the LDS Church.

It is my opinion that today there seems to be no limit on this Hannity board to the disrespect some people are allowed to get away with by the moderators.

[Frazzled]

Seriously, and I read I felt the same thing when reading

Is there a possibility of people examining, or even criticizing aspects of those ceremonies without holding it up for "ridicule", or are they automatically "apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? It seems like such a Manichaeistic world view.

For what purpose, Scipio? Why would you wish to examine them?

[goodlife]

I understand your feelings of "guilt" about viewing things that are very sacred to other Christians and should not be open to public view. They were put on the internet by apostates and enemies of the LDS Church.

It is my opinion that today there seems to be no limit on this Hannity board to the disrespect some people are allowed to get away with by the moderators.

If you feel someone is violating the TOS of this forum, then by all means report them. Your thinly veiled jabs at the moderators is getting very tiresome.

[Fire Watch]

For what purpose, Scipio? Why would you wish to examine them?
Not to speak for Scipio, but my reasons when first studying them was simply to see what all the fuss was about. I saw Mormons blasting some folks on a Christian forum for discussing their ceremonies..so I researched them to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity. Why is that wrong? Why should non-Mormons feel guilty over researching something that we don't hold sacred? Why should we accept the info provided by one side as absolute truth, especially when that side provides almost NO information?

[justamere10]

Just my opinion but let it go. You will do well to use other methods to show the spirit of Christ to shine through your posts so others can know that God works in our Church and does lead people to Christ.

Many websites that come from other sources rather than the church have been posted many times. I know you don't want someone to get the wrong impression but let your example and actions speak for themselves. Those will speak volumes over anything else out there imho.

I just now caught up to your post and I appreciate your counsel. Yes, I am (perhaps overly) concerned about links posted in this "Ask a MORMON" thread today to websites that are clearly anti-Mormon and will never teach the Hannity community the truth of what we believe.

But ok, I'll try to do better. :-)

[MobyMule]

Not to speak for Scipio, but my reasons when first studying them was simply to see what all the fuss was about. I saw Mormons blasting some folks on a Christian forum for discussing their ceremonies..so I researched them to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity. Why is that wrong? Why should non-Mormons feel guilty over researching something that we dont hold sacred? Why should we accept the info provided by one side as absolute truth, especially when that side provides almost NO information?

Because most of the pictures and video are gotten through deception and underhanded ways. But that doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at it. :)

[MobyMule]

I just now caught up to your post and I appreciate your counsel. Yes, I am (perhaps overly) concerned about links posted in this "Ask a MORMON" thread today to websites that are clearly anti-Mormon and will never teach the Hannity community the truth of what we believe.

But ok, I'll try to do better. :-)

Trust me I have been here to see alot of good LDS come and go. Don't let the guise of defending the Church draw you into contention.

[scipio337]

For what purpose, Scipio? Why would you wish to examine them?Knowledge, introspection, curiosity, insight into my own beliefs, there are a ton of reasons I could think of. The same reason I've read the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Writings of Baha'u'llah, or the Lankavatara Sutra. Although I'm quick with a joke, I doubt it is anybody's goal here to ridicule others.

[Fire Watch]

Because most of the pictures and video are gotten through deception and underhanded ways. But that doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at it. :)
I'm not really talking about the pics/video, and audio..but simply links to transcripts...most of which are written by former Temple Recommend holding LDS.

[MobyMule]

I'm not really talking about the pics/video, and audio..but simply links to transcripts...most of which are written by former Temple Recommend holding LDS.

ah ok well then that clears all that up. Move along nothing to see here. :)

[justpassingby]

The Temples are gorgeous buildings that are open to the public and photographed before they are dedicated to the Lord. There is nothing wrong with enjoying their beauty - I enjoy looking at pictures of them myself...........we do however take offense when the sacred religious ordinances that take place in the temple are covertly recorded and then held up for ridicule.

Here's a video tour of several temples - enjoy http://moroni10.com/LDS/Temple_Tour/open_house_video1.html



Here's a video tour of several temples - enjoy http://moroni10.com/LDS/Temple_Tour/open_house_video1.html

Hey, thanks for that link Frazzled. That was nice. It's always nice to go the temple and partake of the Spirit and peace there

Since we moved, I haven't been able to go to the temple for almost a year. We were only a few minutes away from where we used to live, and now we have to travel 4 hours or so. My daughter just turned 12 and so she's anxiously waiting to go and do work for her great-great-great grandmother(I don't remember how far back). The youth goes on these temple trips once or twice a year, so hopefully it will be soon.


When I lived in Hawaii...Kauai to be exact...we had to fly to another island...Oahu...to go to the Temple. It was a big sacrifice for some of the members in the ward to save enough money for airfare and lodging for their families to be sealed in the temple. But through their earnest efforts, selling what they had or fundraising (selling kalua pork, huli huli chicken, malasadas, and so forth...okay you have to be from hawaii or have gone there to know about these yummy foods) Now, I think people living close to the temple offer free or cheap housing to members needing to attend the temple.

When I attended BYU-Hawaii, I was fortunate because the temple was just next door. I had roomates and friends from different countries that would tell me of their sacrifices to attend the temple because they lived hundreds or thousands of miles away, but because of their testimony of the gospel, many made those sacrifices to be sealed to their families or perform other temple ordinances.

I am thankful for our last prophet, Pres. Hinckley and his vision for temples dotting the earth.

[justamere10]

Seriously, and I read I felt the same thing when reading

Is there a possibility of people examining, or even criticizing aspects of those ceremonies without holding it up for "ridicule", or are they automatically "apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? It seems like such a Manichaeistic world view.

Maybe it's because Catholics do not have sacred temples that you don't think that covert photos and recordings of what takes place in ours would not be considered grossly disrespectful.

But I am admonished by one of my LDS brothers to cool it, so perhaps this will be my last post for the day. It seems that I am not being helpful at helping others learn the truth about the Mormons, at least not today.

Enjoy the day Scipio.

[orbitaldecay]

Firewatch the poster, you have the right to post the link to the temple ceremony, but I'm I'm gonna call ya out for trying to stir up contention. I think we have a pretty good idea what going on, there has been debate before if it is respectful to post a link to LDS Temple Ceremonies, things LDS hold very sacred. Some LDS are going to find it offensive, complain of the offensive content, and you're going to turn it around and say Family Search is offensive. LDS poster don't have to even complain that's it offensive but even :rolleyes:, and you'll characterize the LDS honored guests as having the martyr-complex.

I'll be the first to admit that even I had the martyr-complex with some of my first posts. I have since learned the MOST hannity RF posters are just defending their own beliefs, and not attacking my own.
But I challenge your motives of posting the link as baiting. I'm not asking you to delete anything, you have all the right post the link.
But it would like an LDS person started a thread: WE LDS ARE BAPTISING YOUR DEAD CATHOLIC RELATIVES AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!
The Repsected Catholics are probably gonna come out in arms, and there will be a fight, feelings will be hurt, and the RF will be shut down again.
I'm just asking that we all use a little more tact, let's try to build bridges and not step on toes, so we can maintain the respectful integrity of RF.

Thank You,
Orbitaldecay

[Fire Watch]

But I challenge your motives of posting the link as baiting. I'm not asking you to delete anything, you have all the right post the link.

Baiting? By supplying a link to something that Mormons wont provide is baiting? The thread is titled "Ask a Mormon", someone "asked a Mormon" a question regarding proxy baptisms. I provided a link. Mormons arent going to talk about the ceremonies, but since this thread is spending a lot of time near the top of the forum, it stands to reason that some will have questions. Now they can have the answers to those questions. I'm sorry that you believe that is baiting. It is not.

[Frazzled]

Not to speak for Scipio, but my reasons when first studying them was simply to see what all the fuss was about. I saw Mormons blasting some folks on a Christian forum for discussing their ceremonies..so I researched them to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity. Why is that wrong? Why should non-Mormons feel guilty over researching something that we don't hold sacred? Why should we accept the info provided by one side as absolute truth, especially when that side provides almost NO information?

1) I never said that indulging your intellectual curiosity was wrong, simply questioning the imputus to that curiousity.
2) I never said anything about you feeling guilty
3) In past discussion, it appears as though others have merely asked that you consider the motivation of the source of your information

[Fire Watch]

In past discussion, it appears as though others have merely asked that you consider the motivation of the source of your information
The source of my information, regardless of the source is going to be maligned by LDS. LDS will not go to the links, yet they will label those maintaining them as "apostates and/or enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", simply for providing the information. So no, I cant take into consideration what the LDS are going to think about the motivation for my "source"...because whatever the source, it wont be acceptable.

[Mikko]

Because most of the pictures and video are gotten through deception and underhanded ways. But that doesn't mean you don't have the right to look at it. :)
The point isn't how they are obtained. The point is whether or not they are accurate. People are naturally curious about anything they are told they can't be privvy to. It's the "forbidden fruit" thing, plus a feeling that they have the right to make their decisions on the basis of accurate information.

[orbitaldecay]

Baiting? By supplying a link to something that Mormons wont provide is baiting? The thread is titled "Ask a Mormon", someone "asked a Mormon" a question regarding proxy baptisms. I provided a link. Mormons arent going to talk about the ceremonies, but since this thread is spending a lot of time near the top of the forum, it stands to reason that some will have questions. Now they can have the answers to those questions. I'm sorry that you believe that is baiting. It is not.

Maybe I read to far into your intentions, but you know some LDS have felt you are not fond of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and go out of your way to show how wrong "we" are. One would have to be pretty dim, to not know that some LDS are gonna interpret that your link is posted just to spite the church and members.

[RayMan]

<snip>
But it would like an LDS person started a thread: WE LDS ARE BAPTISING YOUR DEAD CATHOLIC RELATIVES AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!

Thank You,
Orbitaldecay

Hi Orbit,
Just before you posted I was just thinking something along the same lines about FW posting the info. Namely that it would be essentially the same as what has been going on in this thread which could well be sub-titled with what you have written above.

I am by no means stating that all or even most of the LDS members here have been expressing that attitude. But some have, although couching their arguments in terminology which is both pious and condescending for the most part rather than just coming right out in the open and stating it.

Being Pentecostal I don't really have a dog in this fight, beyond wanting to see fellow believers getting along in unity. If it is not a matter of Christian love to talk about LDS sacred temple ceremonies then I don't see how it is a matter of Christian love to cram proxy baptism without respect to faith or feeling down the throats of the Catholics here on the board, day after day after day.

Just my opinion.

[scipio337]

Maybe it's because Catholics do not have sacred temples that you don't think that covert photos and recordings of what takes place in ours would not be considered grossly disrespectful.

But I am admonished by one of my LDS brothers to cool it, so perhaps this will be my last post for the day. It seems that I am not being helpful at helping others learn the truth about the Mormons, at least not today.

Enjoy the day Scipio.Of course we hold our churches to be sacred places, too. I could understand some of the photos/recording etc, but really, if accurate, are the transcripts with no additional commentary "grossly disrespectful"?

Why must you consider any examination or criticism of those ceremonies the equivalent to "ridicule"?

[Frazzled]

Knowledge, introspection, curiosity, insight into my own beliefs, there are a ton of reasons I could think of. The same reason I've read the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Writings of Baha'u'llah, or the Lankavatara Sutra. Although I'm quick with a joke, I doubt it is anybody's goal here to ridicule others.

I can appreciate the intellectual curiosity. But since you have already rejected all of the basic tenets of mormonism, do you think there would be something in these ceremonies that might change your mind? They are precious to us and you have rejected the foundations upon which they are built. I would submit that your intellectual curiosity in this matter is driven by your desire to find fault with a belief that you do not share..........and that is not intended in a derogatory manner towards you, it just is what it is. :)

[scipio337]

I can appreciate the intellectual curiosity. But since you have already rejected all of the basic tenets of mormonism, do you think there would be something in these ceremonies that might change your mind? They are precious to us and you have rejected the foundations upon which they are built. I would submit that your intellectual curiosity in this matter is driven by your desire to find fault with a belief that you do not share..........and that is not intended in a derogatory manner towards you, it just is what it is. :)I didn't agree with any of the basic tenets of those faiths, but I feel myself a better person for having done so. I didn't read any of the other religious texts I've read in order to convince myself that I did or didn't share those beliefs, not driven by any desire to find fault, whatsoever, especially going in with the attitude that I already did not share the beliefs, in the first place.

As Mikko pointed out, telling someone not to do something is a great motivation to actually do it. I believe that is a part of human nature.

[Reeder]

Baiting? By supplying a link to something that Mormons wont provide is baiting? The thread is titled "Ask a Mormon", someone "asked a Mormon" a question regarding proxy baptisms. I provided a link. Mormons arent going to talk about the ceremonies, but since this thread is spending a lot of time near the top of the forum, it stands to reason that some will have questions. Now they can have the answers to those questions. I'm sorry that you believe that is baiting. It is not.

Not that it matters, but you are not a Mormon. In fact, I'd wager you'd be the first to admit that, so why do you care to help answer questions about Mormons - especially when we've specifically asked that the sacred Temple ceremonies NOT be posted.

What could possibly be your goal in such an action?

1) You don't remember that we asked for the ceremonies NOT to be discussed..(obviously that isn't the answer)
2) You don't care - which seems to bring to mind that familiar type of "attitude" you pinned on Oldtimer....what was it?......."tough, I'm gonna do it anyway."
3) You DO remember what we asked, but you just wanted to tick us off.
4) You want to help others understand "Mormonism" because you just had that warm fuzzy feeling in your heart, even though "Mormon's" wouldn't appreciate the "help" in the slightest.


Hence the reason for the rolling eyes. I'm sorry if I didn't recognize your "good intentions."

[orbitaldecay]

Hi Orbit,
Just before you posted I was just thinking something along the same lines about FW posting the info. Namely that it would be essentially the same as what has been going on in this thread which could well be sub-titled with what you have written above.

I am by no means stating that all or even most of the LDS members here have been expressing that attitude. But some have, although couching their arguments in terminology which is both pious and condescending for the most part rather than just coming right out in the open and stating it.

Being Pentecostal I don't really have a dog in this fight, beyond wanting to see fellow believers getting along in unity. If it is not a matter of Christian love to talk about LDS sacred temple ceremonies then I don't see how it is a matter of Christian love to cram proxy baptism without respect to faith or feeling down the throats of the Catholics here on the board, day after day after day.

Just my opinion.

I also thought of that, before I posted.
I perfectly know what you mean, that many Catholics are offended by the PRACTICE, and some were offended by explanations. But the difference was those offended by proxy-baptism were having conversation and debate that sometimes went contentious.
It might be a better comparison if an LDS intentionally linked to webstite (while trying to explain to some of the Catholics of proxy-baptism) "that your pope is one of us now!!!".
It would certainly cause huge contentions and would show a huge lack of tact.

I personally never saw something like that happen, and if it did it would be inappropriate.
One might allude to Family Search fiasco, the difference: Family Search was used to show the benefits of our need to do proxy-baptism not intended to imflame the Catholics.

Ray you could be entirely right, and it now might seem as if I'm a flaming hypocrite.

I'm just calling all in RF to show more tact and respectful way when talking with others,

OD

[Frazzled]

...<snip>..

As Mikko pointed out, telling someone not to do something is a great motivation to actually do it. I believe that is a part of human nature.

Absolutely it is. And I don't think it ever hurts to ask questions...........until (especially in this forum), you get to the point where something is pointed out as being hurtful or potentially hurtful, then I think we need to pause and think very carefully before proceeding.........and that goes for everyone on all sides. :)

[orbitaldecay]

Was it just me or did our active viewers jump a bit, I think they are expecting a brawl between LDS, Catholics, and Fire Watch. :lol:

[orbitaldecay]

Where's my popcorn smiley when I really need it? REEDER!!! Smiley, stat!

Hope the match gets called on account of rain. It's gotta be raining somewhere.

Or even better! We HAVE the brawl in the rain and mud, that would be soooo cool.:cool:

[Mikko]

Do I hear the sound of thin ice cracking?

[AugustGem]

The Temples are gorgeous buildings that are open to the public and photographed before they are dedicated to the Lord. There is nothing wrong with enjoying their beauty - I enjoy looking at pictures of them myself...........we do however take offense when the sacred religious ordinances that take place in the temple are covertly recorded and then held up for ridicule.

Here's a video tour of several temples - enjoy l[/URL]

Very beautiful pictures. Thank you so much!

I don't understand myspace, I am guessing that it's like youtube because after the slide show it shows other shows of women in bikinis and some pervert clown. Is someone playing with that site? I don't think an LDS would put clickable pictures of ladies not covered up :redface:

[RayMan]

Do I hear the sound of thin ice cracking?

Hope not. Hopefully just a release of built up pressure.

[Mikko]

Hope not. Hopefully just a release of built up pressure.
Well, forewarned is forearmed.

[Frazzled]

Very beautiful pictures. Thank you so much!

I don't understand myspace, I am guessing that it's like youtube because after the slide show it shows other shows of women in bikinis and some pervert clown. Is someone playing with that site? I don't think an LDS would put clickable pictures of ladies not covered up :redface:

:redface: oh sorry, those extra pictures weren't on the viewer that I had......just the temple picture slideshow.............I guess I don't know how that works either. :shifty:

[snow96]

I'm not really talking about the pics/video, and audio..but simply links to transcripts...most of which are written by former Temple Recommend holding LDS.

And they will have to answer for their actions after death. Good or bad, just as we all will.

[AugustGem]

:redface: oh sorry, those extra pictures weren't on the viewer that I had......just the temple picture slideshow.............I guess I don't know how that works either. :shifty:

Very beautiful piccies. The music was perfect for the slideshow.

My church is a little thing. My parents were married in it. They built a bigger, modern one but it doesn't look "Little House on the Prairie" like the old one. I like that about the old place :)

[Meriweather]

Meri, you keep telling us you are going to lay off this subject. :-)

:)) I know! People keep posting! Lead me not into temptation!

But it seems to be on again this a.m. so I guess we haven't yet agreeably agreed to disagree.

Well, then the next best thing is to discuss it agreeably. http://bestsmileys.com/flowers/2.gif


Some activists have already taken the LDS Church to temporal courts to try to prevent us from practicing our religion inside our temples the way we choose to do. In my opinion that is an extremely dangerous trend and a grave threat to the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, and god-fearing Christians in particular...

Do you agree America was founded on the principal of Freedom of Religion? That no one should force any religious practice on any American?

LDS baptism by proxy is forcing a religious practice on someone who did not ask for this particular religious practice to be done for them.

The Constitution says government cannot force a religion on its people. The Founders did not picture a time when a CHURCH elected to force its own religious practices on all its fellow citizens--be the citizens members of that church or not. Don’t you see the irony of LDS claiming it is THEY who are need of the protection of the First Amendment, so that they may continue to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone else?

Please understand that from my LDS point of view there are things that I REALLY don't like that happen inside Vatican rooms. For example the recent decree not to allow genealogical researchers online access to vital data owned by the Catholic Church negatively impacts millions of people in THIS world, and probably will for generations. But Catholic leaders have every right to do that. I might grumble but I won't loudly challenge their decision in court or elsewhere.

Is the Vatican forcing a religious practice on you or on anyone who is not a Catholic?

LDS leaders in Salt Lake City too have every right to direct what they want to be done inside LDS temples. Complain loudly enough and take us to court about what we do inside our temples and it can and almost certainly WILL severely bite every Christian in America!

Oh? LDS has a right to break any law it wants—as long as it is done inside its Temple? I think not. Inside its Temples, LDS is breaking one of the rights Americans hold most dear: The right of every American to be free of religious practices they do not agree with; to not have a religious practice imposed upon them. Baptism by proxy is a religious practice performed before permission is obtained from the being named.


It is my hope that you and others will agree to disagree and will stop trying to take away our religious freedoms. In my opinion, activists who work against the Latter-day Saints today are either just playing into the hands of secular progressives who want to destroy Christianity, or are deliberately using the Saints today so they can get at everyone else tomorrow.

Why shouldn’t I want to take away YOUR religious freedom when you’ve told me point blank you are going to continue taking away everyone else’s? Don’t you realize that’s why it is in court? Because LDS is forcing their religious practices on everyone despite our Constitutional guarantee that this is a land where that won’t be tolerated?

Going along with them is too dangerous for ALL of us. Hannitized people should be able to figure that one out...

That's how I see it.


I see Freedom of Religion as a basic right guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution—a right LDS ignores when it performs their religious rites and beliefs on those who lived by another faith.

And, I say, “Bring it on.” Hannitized people should be able to see when their Freedom of Religion is being encroached upon. We believe in upholding the Constitution. LDS should stand down--if they truly believe in religious freedom.


**** This has been another view - Brought to you by Meriweather****
Dateline: Trainwreck

[Meriweather]

I do appreciate everyone’s pleas for peace—to a certain extent. The other night I suggested a ban on this topic and it was promptly shot down the next day by a member of LDS. I will abide by any Forum agreement to drop this topic and never bring it up again. However, I cannot let the topic go unchallenged.

Yes, it is a train wreck. So, if you are one of the lucky ones who are not victims of this wreck, my recommendation is to move on and do not rubberneck in this thread.

There are lots of threads I ignore. Hee-hee---there are entire forums on Hannity that I ignore! This one I can’t. But I still love you all!

Another suggestion I have: What if we pair up and see if each pair will agree to stop discussing this. Not to drag RayMan in, but say he makes up the list and on it are:

Justamere vs Meriweather: Will you both agree to drop the subject if the other agrees? The result is if both agree, then neither discusses this topic with anyone in the RF.

What do you say? Does everyone couple up?

[Fire Watch]

Some activists have already taken the LDS Church to temporal courts to try to prevent us from practicing our religion inside our temples the way we choose to do.

Some of the "activists" in question.

Mormons meet with Jews over baptizing Holocaust victims (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/12/10/baptizing.the.dead.ap/)

Vatican seeks to stop Mormon "proxy" baptisms (http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7016)

The Issue of The Mormon Baptisms of Jewish Holocaust Victims (http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html) And Other Jewish Dead (http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html)

Catholic-Mormon tension over LDS baptism of the dead (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/05/08/catholic-mormon-tension-over-lds-baptism-of-the-dead/)

Taking Mormons to court? (http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/040227/mormons.shtml)

Mormons accused of continuing to baptize deceased Jews (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10844/mormons-accused-of-continuing-to-baptize-deceased-jews)

[Frazzled]

I do appreciate everyone’s pleas for peace—to a certain extent. The other night I suggested a ban on this topic and it was promptly shot down the next day by a member of LDS. I will abide by any Forum agreement to drop this topic and never bring it up again. However, I cannot let the topic go unchallenged.

Yes, it is a train wreck. So, if you are one of the lucky ones who are not victims of this wreck, my recommendation is to move on and do not rubberneck in this thread.

There are lots of threads I ignore. Hee-hee---there are entire forums on Hannity that I ignore! This one I can’t. But I still love you all!

Another suggestion I have: What if we pair up and see if each pair will agree to stop discussing this. Not to drag RayMan in, but say he makes up the list and on it are:

Justamere vs Meriweather: Will you both agree to drop the subject if the other agrees? The result is if both agree, then neither discusses this topic with anyone in the RF.

What do you say? Does everyone couple up?

Coupling up is going to lead to a whole new set of problems! :mrgreen:

[Meriweather]

Coupling up is going to lead to a whole new set of problems! :mrgreen:

Frazzled! I'm. . . I'm. . . . :redface:

[RayMan]

Coupling up is going to lead to a whole new set of problems! :mrgreen:


No way am I holding hands with Reeder.

[noelle12]

Sorry to interject (butt in). Just a few words. I have just a little bit of time. I'm busy chasing little ones, but here it goes.

When my dad was alive, he had a hard time grasping the fact that I was going to join the LDS church. He was Catholic. He didn’t know much or anything about the LDS church so he was against me joining something foreign and new. Being Filipino his English wasn’t great and my translation from English to Filipino wasn’t great too. I had the missionaries come over and I could tell the language barrier was too much for him and for me. So the missionary discussions stopped because there was no one in the area that could translate. He did eventually come around since he saw that the Church wasn’t all that bad and finally supported my decision to get baptized (I was a teenager) and eventually married in the Temple. He, too, was okay about not being able to be there for the sealing. Gotta love Dad. My dad died a few years ago and I was able to do temple work for him a year after his death.

The point is…sometimes there are obstacles in this life, like language that will prevent people from accepting the Gospel. For my dad, I truly believe that there are people on the other side that can do the missionary work and can teach him the Gospel in his language. Now, did he accept it or not? I don’t know, nor will I ever know until I die. All I know are the feelings that I’ve felt in Temple that day are very dear to my heart., sorry I will not discuss them here….

I’ve given my dad an opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel, which he didn’t have in this life. For me, that’s the beauty of temple work.

Thank you for sharing that. I appreciated reading about your experience.

[Old Tex]

Do I hear the sound of thin ice cracking?

Thin ice cracking....that reminds me, I was going to go to the refrigerator and get a cold drink.

[noelle12]

Thanks for the welcome!

Allow me to echo the welcome on board. I really appreciate your insightful comment(s). (I've only read one, plus the one quoted above, but hopefully I will read more of your insights in the future.)

[justamere10]

I know! People keep posting! Lead me not into temptation!

Well, then the next best thing is to discuss it agreeably.

Do you agree America was founded on the principal of Freedom of Religion? That no one should force any religious practice on any American?

LDS baptism by proxy is forcing a religious practice on someone who did not ask for this particular religious practice to be done for them.

The Constitution says government cannot force a religion on its people. The Founders did not picture a time when a CHURCH elected to force its own religious practices on all its fellow citizens--be the citizens members of that church or not. Don’t you see the irony of LDS claiming it is THEY who are need of the protection of the First Amendment, so that they may continue to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone else?

Is the Vatican forcing a religious practice on you or on anyone who is not a Catholic?

Oh? LDS has a right to break any law it wants—as long as it is done inside its Temple? I think not. Inside its Temples, LDS is breaking one of the rights Americans hold most dear: The right of every American to be free of religious practices they do not agree with; to not have a religious practice imposed upon them. Baptism by proxy is a religious practice performed before permission is obtained from the being named.

Why shouldn’t I want to take away YOUR religious freedom when you’ve told me point blank you are going to continue taking away everyone else’s? Don’t you realize that’s why it is in court? Because LDS is forcing their religious practices on everyone despite our Constitutional guarantee that this is a land where that won’t be tolerated?

I see Freedom of Religion as a basic right guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution—a right LDS ignores when it performs their religious rites and beliefs on those who lived by another faith.

And, I say, “Bring it on.” Hannitized people should be able to see when their Freedom of Religion is being encroached upon. We believe in upholding the Constitution. LDS should stand down--if they truly believe in religious freedom.


I only have a few minutes tonight Meri, so just a couple of quick questions for you if you don't mind before RayMan decides if you and I should be a couple, er however that was supposed to work, I just glanced at it. :-)

Catholics pray to and for the dead. The dead don't ask Catholics to do that. Are Catholics forcing something on the dead?

By praying for or to the dead are Catholics breaking the law, or taking away from the religious freedoms of any LIVING person?

[Snagglepuss]

I was driving to the theater this evening to get tickets to the new Narnia movie for this Saturday. I love reserved seating theaters....but I digress. On my way, I was listening to some General Conference talks on CD. One of these was a talk given by Elder Bednar about taking offence. In this talk, he counseled that no one can offend you unless you choose to allow it, and that by doing so, you are inviting the Spirit to withdraw from you. I realized that I have been guilty of that here, and that I need to do better at not taking offense. Additionally, there are undoubtably things I can do to cause less offense myself. So, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all of you. If I have taken something you have said personally, taken offense at it and thus treated you poorly, I am truly sorry. If I have ever been insensitive to any of your feelings and said something that has caused hurt towards you, I am sorry.

If I may, I would like to share a scripture that Elder Bednar quoted in his talk:

Matt. 5: 43-45
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

I certainly hope that none of us here consider any of the others "enemies". But all the more reason for us to behave more civilly one towards another. On the issue of proxy baptisms, I have no objection to dropping the subject, as there really is no point in discussing it further. We LDS firmly believe that we have been commanded by God to perform this and other ordinances. Nothing that is said here will convince us otherwise, regardless of how badly we may feel that others feel hurt by the practice. By the same token, we will never convince those here who firmly believe the practice is abhorant that it is not. So I join the call for the discussion to be dropped, for the good of all here. If you choose to continue participating in it, that is your right and your choice, but I will not be joining you.

As to FW posting links to transcripts and pictures of what goes on in our Temples, I would humbly request again that he cease from doing so. I realize that you have the right to do it if you so choose, but from my perspective it really serves no purpose here except to alienate the LDS posters at this site. If you were a regular member here, the solution for us (or at least me) would be simple....hit the ignore button. But we do not have that as an option in this case. You said that you found the apparent attitude of several LDS posters here of "tough, we're doing it anyways" regarding the proxy baptism issue to be disturbing. I too am troubled by the way some have expressed their opinions on this issue, on both sides. Can you not see though that you are displaying the same attitude in regards to our Temple Ordinances? You have been asked politely more than once to not do so, and yet you did it anyways. I am asking again, once more, out of brotherly kindness, please....please stop. I would also ask that you would remove the links that you have already supplied. If people really are that curious, they can google it themselves. I realize that you are under no obligation to honor either of these requests, but I make them anyway.

Sincerely,

Snaggs

[yguy]

Do you agree America was founded on the principal of Freedom of Religion? That no one should force any religious practice on any American?

LDS baptism by proxy is forcing a religious practice on someone who did not ask for this particular religious practice to be done for them."If you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire

[Fire Watch]

As to FW posting links to transcripts and pictures of what goes on in our Temples, I would humbly request again that he cease from doing so. I realize that you have the right to do it if you so choose, but from my perspective it really serves no purpose here except to alienate the LDS posters at this site. If you were a regular member here, the solution for us (or at least me) would be simple....hit the ignore button. But we do not have that as an option in this case. You said that you found the apparent attitude of several LDS posters here of "tough, we're doing it anyways" regarding the proxy baptism issue to be disturbing. I too am troubled by the way some have expressed their opinions on this issue, on both sides. Can you not see though that you are displaying the same attitude in regards to our Temple Ordinances? You have been asked politely more than once to not do so, and yet you did it anyways. I am asking again, once more, out of brotherly kindness, please....please stop. I would also ask that you would remove the links that you have already supplied. If people really are that curious, they can google it themselves. I realize that you are under no obligation to honor either of these requests, but I make them anyway.

I posted links. That's all. I didnt post transcripts (which when done in the past was ruled "no foul" by Tislaw, a Mormon Moderator),nor did I post pictures. How can a link offend anyone? You're not required to click on it. It's simply there for the benefit of the curious. If the curious, by having the option to learn offends you, then I'm sorry, but perhaps rereading something you wrote in the 1st part of this post will help..

One of these was a talk given by Elder Bednar about taking offence. In this talk, he counseled that no one can offend you unless you choose to allow it, and that by doing so, you are inviting the Spirit to withdraw from you.

[RayMan]

I was driving to the theater this evening to get tickets to the new Narnia movie for this Saturday. I love reserved seating theaters....but I digress. On my way, I was listening to some General Conference talks on CD. One of these was a talk given by Elder Bednar about taking offence. In this talk, he counseled that no one can offend you unless you choose to allow it, and that by doing so, you are inviting the Spirit to withdraw from you. I realized that I have been guilty of that here, and that I need to do better at not taking offense. Additionally, there are undoubtably things I can do to cause less offense myself. So, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all of you. If I have taken something you have said personally, taken offense at it and thus treated you poorly, I am truly sorry. If I have ever been insensitive to any of your feelings and said something that has caused hurt towards you, I am sorry.

Hey Snaggs,
You are a class act all the way in my book. I can't think of anytime I have ever had to resist being offended by you and I hope the same is true in reverse. If not, my sincere apologies.

God bless you,
ray

[Snagglepuss]

I posted links. That's all. I didnt post transcripts (which when done in the past was ruled "no foul" by Tislaw, a Mormon Moderator),nor did I post pictures. How can a link offend anyone? You're not required to click on it. It's simply there for the benefit of the curious. If the curious, by having the option to learn offends you, then I'm sorry, but perhaps rereading something you wrote in the 1st part of this post will help..That is your choice, and I am sorry that you feel that way, but there is nothing I can do about it. I have asked as nicely and politely as I could, but it is not to be I guess. Oh well.

[Snagglepuss]

Hey Snaggs,
You are a class act all the way in my book. I can't think of anytime I have ever had to resist being offended by you and I hope the same is true in reverse. If not, my sincere apologies.

God bless you,
rayThank you Ray. That really means a lot to me. And no, I can't think of anytime that I have struggled with feeling offense by anything you've ever said.

May God bless you as well,

Snaggs

[Fire Watch]

That is your choice, and I am sorry that you feel that way, but there is nothing I can do about it. I have asked as nicely and politely as I could, but it is not to be I guess. Oh well.
Snaggs, I've never had a problem with you, you're a great guy and an asset to these boards. However, I'm not going to remove a link..that's all it is, a link. I understand that LDS arent fond of the information regarding their ceremonies being public information, but the information is out there in the public domain. It's been said on theses forums 1000 times, when you registered, you had no guarantee that you wouldn't be offended. No one here has the right to not be offended (1001). I'm truly sorry you find a link offensive, but again, you don't have to click on the links.

[Snagglepuss]

Snaggs, I've never had a problem with you, you're a great guy and an asset to these boards. However, I'm not going to remove a link..that's all it is, a link. I understand that LDS arent fond of the information regarding their ceremonies being public information, but the information is out there in the public domain. It's been said on theses forums 1000 times, when you registered, you had no guarantee that you wouldn't be offended. No one here has the right to not be offended (1001). I'm truly sorry you find a link offensive, but again, you don't have to click on the links.And as I said, that is your choice.

[Old Tex]

How can a link offend anyone? You're not required to click on it.


Hmmm!

[Meriweather]

Catholics pray to and for the dead. The dead don't ask Catholics to do that. Are Catholics forcing something on the dead?

Throughout our lives Catholics ask for prayers from our brothers and sisters--from the whole community of saints, both the living and the dead. Praying 'to' them probably is not the most accurate description, but yes we do ask them to join in our prayers, if they are willing. (Can't order those who have passed on around, any more that you can order around the person kneeling next to you in church.) Prayers are joined, but everyone is praying TO God.

What do prayers force on the living or the dead? As prayer is to God, I don't understand this concept of how a conversation with God applies force to anyone. Catholics believe in free will, and we believe God has granted us free will. Are you asking something along the lines of do I pray to God that my husband become Catholic? That would be nice, of course, but no I don't ask God to zap my husband into being a Catholic. I do pray for his spiritual well-being. In other words, I do pray, talk, discuss my husband with God.

By praying for or to the dead are Catholics breaking the law, or taking away from the religious freedoms of any LIVING person?

Are you asking, does prayer break the law? Not usually. I couldn't lead such a prayer at a public school, of course. What religious freedoms are you thinking prayer takes away? I have a goddaughter who is now following the Jewish faith. When I pray for her, I pray in a manner that respects her beliefs. Again, I am praying to God and asking Him to watch over her spiritual welfare.

If you understand that we pray for each other with the 'to each other' part only being a request to pray on our behalf, you have a decent understanding of how Catholics view prayer.

Hope this helps.

[noelle12]

Hmmm!

That's kind of what I thought.

[Fire Watch]

And the rest of us are thinking "hmmm" what are they trying to hide? Why are they so offended by us searching it out? Actually, having read the transcripts, if I were a Mormon, I too would want to keep it secr..err, sacred. If my faiths ceremonies or practices called ministers of other faiths "hirelings" of Satan..I probably wouldnt be real eager to have that info in the public domain either.

[yguy]

What do prayers force on the living or the dead?What does proxy baptism force on the living or the dead?

[RayMan]

What does proxy baptism force on the living or the dead?

Nothing spiritual in my opinion. But it is considered to be highly offensive and disrespectful by many Christians and Jews.

[yguy]

Nothing spiritual in my opinion. But it is considered to be highly offensive and disrespectful by many Christians and Jews.I DARE one of them to tell me why.

[Fire Watch]

I DARE one of them to tell me why.
You're a little late to the party. I've posted links on the previous page. Let's not reopen this can of worms.

[Frazzled]

Will someone please quit putting quarters in the jukebox......:cool:

[RayMan]

I DARE one of them to tell me why.
'
yguy,
Please give it a rest. Read the thread if you are interested in anything besides stirring up strife.

[justamere10]

Throughout our lives Catholics ask for prayers from our brothers and sisters--from the whole community of saints, both the living and the dead. Praying 'to' them probably is not the most accurate description, but yes we do ask them to join in our prayers, if they are willing. (Can't order those who have passed on around, any more that you can order around the person kneeling next to you in church.) Prayers are joined, but everyone is praying TO God.

What do prayers force on the living or the dead? As prayer is to God, I don't understand this concept of how a conversation with God applies force to anyone. Catholics believe in free will, and we believe God has granted us free will. Are you asking something along the lines of do I pray to God that my husband become Catholic? That would be nice, of course, but no I don't ask God to zap my husband into being a Catholic. I do pray for his spiritual well-being. In other words, I do pray, talk, discuss my husband with God.

Are you asking, does prayer break the law? Not usually. I couldn't lead such a prayer at a public school, of course. What religious freedoms are you thinking prayer takes away? I have a goddaughter who is now following the Jewish faith. When I pray for her, I pray in a manner that respects her beliefs. Again, I am praying to God and asking Him to watch over her spiritual welfare.

If you understand that we pray for each other with the 'to each other' part only being a request to pray on our behalf, you have a decent understanding of how Catholics view prayer.

Hope this helps.


Thank-you for that good explanation of how Catholics pray for the dead.

What Mormons do in their temples is pray to God for the dead.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to try to force us to pray for the dead in YOUR way...

[Fire Watch]

Thank-you for that good explanation of how Catholics pray for the dead.

What Mormons do in their temples is pray to God for the dead.
No, there's a stark difference between praying for someone, and performing religious ordinances for someone of a different faith, against their families wishes, after their death.

[orbitaldecay]

And the rest of us are thinking "hmmm" what are they trying to hide? Why are they so offended by us searching it out? Actually, having read the transcripts, if I were a Mormon, I too would want to keep it secr..err, sacred. If my faiths ceremonies or practices called ministers of other faiths "hirelings" of Satan..I probably wouldnt be real eager to have that info in the public domain either.

Now, Firewatch you seem to be going out of your way to discredit our church.
I couldn't find the thread, but I recall Lee saying that in RF one should't have to defend their church. There seems to be a difference of honest discussion with questions and answers, and the above post.

[Fire Watch]

Now, Firewatch you seem to be going out of your way to discredit our church.
I couldn't find the thread, but I recall Lee saying that in RF one should't have to defend their church. There seems to be a difference of honest discussion with questions and answers, and the above post.
The LDS church isnt above the same questions, debates, discussion, and disagreements that all the other faiths represented here are subject to. I'm not trying to "discredit" anything or anyone. I was simply stating my opinion and disagreement with one of your temple ceremonies.

[scipio337]

I only have a few minutes tonight Meri, so just a couple of quick questions for you if you don't mind before RayMan decides if you and I should be a couple, er however that was supposed to work, I just glanced at it. :-)

Catholics pray to and for the dead. The dead don't ask Catholics to do that. Are Catholics forcing something on the dead?

By praying for or to the dead are Catholics breaking the law, or taking away from the religious freedoms of any LIVING person?You want links? I got links! Meri had covered this pretty well, but I thought I'd some official reading, and an explanation.

Enjoy!

A bit regarding docrine, and the catechesis:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm

Here's one of the actual prayers:

My Jesus, by the sorrows Thou didst suffer in Thine agony in the Garden, in Thy scourging and crowning with thorns, in the way to Calvary, in Thy crucifixion and death, have mercy on the souls in purgatory, and especially on those that are most forsaken; do Thou deliver them from the dire torments they endure; call them and admit them to Thy most sweet embrace in paradise.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Pray_Mercy_Soul.htm

This one is from the Byzantine Divine Liturgy:

By Thy resurrection from the dead, O Christ, death no longer hath dominion over those who die in holiness. So, we beseech Thee, give rest to Thy servants in Thy sanctuary and in Abraham's bosom. Grant it to those, who from Adam until now have adored Thee with purity, to our fathers and brothers, to our kinsmen and friends, to all men who have lived by faith and passed on their road to Thee, by a thousand ways, and in all conditions, and make them worthy of the heavenly kingdom.

And further, layman explanation:

The Catholic practice of prayer for the dead is bound up with our belief in the reality of purgatory. Unless we die in a state of perfection, i.e., not only with all our sins forgiven, but also with all temporal punishment due to sin remitted, we cannot enter heaven. Nothing imperfect can enter the presence of God. The Catechism teaches that "all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned." (nos. 1030-1031)

So, yes indeed, our fate is sealed at death, but for those whose sins have been forgiven — those destined for the eternal joys of heaven — but still in need of final purification God’s mercy, purgatory exists as God’s final act of mercy toward the sinner. When we pray for the dead we do not pray that those who died without their sins forgiven will be taken to heaven. Rather, we pray that those souls in purgatory will be granted swiftly their eternal reward.

Because we do not know whose souls are in purgatory and whose are not, we pray for all the faithful departed, especially those who were closest to us in this life or those most in need of prayer. Even though a person may have led an exemplary life, no one but God knows if that person went immediately to heaven at the moment of death. For that reason it is an injustice to assume that any one of the faithful departed (unless canonized by the church) does not need our prayers. Because the souls in purgatory cannot pray for themselves, they rely on our prayers.

The practice of prayer for the dead actually precedes the Christian era. The Old Testament’s Second Book of Maccabees relates the story of how Judas Maccabeus called for prayer for his comrades who had fallen in battle. The Scriptures tell us that Judas Maccabeus and his soldiers "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed [by their dead brothers] might be wholly blotted out." (2 Mc 12:42)

The sacred text continues: "In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." (2 Mc 12:43b-45)

Similarly, throughout Christian history prayer for the dead has been held in the highest esteem by Catholics. When I was a boy, it was not uncommon that one of the daily Masses in a parish was a Requiem Mass offered each day for the faithful departed. This was because so many of the faithful asked that Masses be offered for their deceased relatives and friends. It is a revered practice of the church that the faithful give an offering to the priest so that Mass might be offered for the eternal rest of one who has died. These Mass stipends represent a very concrete expression of love for and spiritual solidarity with those who have died.

Prayers for the dead should be part of our daily prayer, not just in the month of November, but throughout the year. The practice of remembering the dead at the conclusion of grace after meals is an excellent way of incorporating prayer for the dead into our daily prayers, just as we pray for them in the Eucharistic Prayer of every Mass. The custom of visiting and praying at the graves or other places of entombment of the dead is another laudable practice.

All Souls Day reminds us of our union with the faithful departed — a union that cannot be broken even by death. Let us never fail to pray for our dearly departed.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord.

And may perpetual light shine upon them.

May they rest in peace. Amen.

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7858


As you can see, we are praying to G*d FOR the dead, there is no claim that the person's faith was "without the right authority", no implicit denominational change, and of course, no secret ceremonies. Just a humble call for G*d's mercy. If you can seriously find any breach or religious freedom, or the faith "imposed" on someone in that practice, please, let me know.

[Meriweather]

Thank-you for that good explanation of how Catholics pray for the dead.

What Mormons do in their temples is pray to God for the dead.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to try to force us to pray for the dead in YOUR way...

I'm sorry justamere. I am afraid I'm not seeing your point. What does anyone praying to God (no matter what the manner of their personal communication) have to do with with performing a proxy baptism on me? If you wish to talk to God about my feelings on proxy baptism, even if it is to pray to soften my heart about having this done to Catholics, that is a conversation between you and God. I am in no way involved. Once you decide to perform a proxy baptism on me, I am very much involved and deserve to have a say. That is how freedom of religion and freedom of choice works.

Again, I don't buy that I get my say AFTER the fact--after the baptism. My choice and my free will is to not have a proxy baptism performed in the first place.

[orbitaldecay]

The LDS church isnt above the same questions, debates, discussion, and disagreements that all the other faiths represented here are subject to. I'm not trying to "discredit" anything or anyone. I was simply stating my opinion and disagreement with one of your temple ceremonies.

Oh, please. Your previous statement was't demeening or discrediting at all to the LDS Church or it members?
You are free to give your opinions but please state them respectfully.

[tracifish]

I have a question: Can Mormons make 'Big Love' come back??? I miss it.

[scipio337]

What does proxy baptism force on the living or the dead?I feel that it disrespects the person's choice of faith in life. I know the claim is that they are "offered" the ordinances, to leave or take, but without knowing whether each ordinance is accepted or not, I believe following up with the succeeding ordinances is indication of implicit acceptance of the prior ones.

I would also note that Catholic prayers for the dead, those in purgatory, etc, are for the "faithful departed", ie, other Catholics

[terri910]

Its basically the same as a typical LDS baptism (for the living) only it is done "for and in behalf of..........."

I have no idea if this has been covered already, but this post brought a question to my mind.

Are LDS baptisms (for the living) only performed in your Temples?

[Frazzled]

I have no idea if this has been covered already, but this post brought a question to my mind.

Are LDS baptisms (for the living) only performed in your Temples?

No, baptisms for the living are performed in chapels

[terri910]

Yeah I know. The guy is a Disney heretic. What're you gonna do though?

Thought about you when I was moving my son back up from San Diego a couple weeks back. We took the desert route on the way back to avoid L.A. (sorry Terri) and drove past the Mormon Rocks. Really stunning sandstone rock formations in the Mojave near Cajon Pass. Check out the photo link below.

-------------------------------
These sandstone rock formations are named for the Mormon pioneers and freighters who would camp near here after completing their trip across the Mojave.

http://www.1000wordsphotos.com/cajonpass/index.html
Hey, I don't live in LA!!! I'm about 60 miles northwest, in Ventura County -- God's country!!!

[terri910]

No, baptisms for the living are performed in chapels
But proxy baptisms are only performed in the Temples, right?

Why the difference?

[orbitaldecay]

I have no idea if this has been covered already, but this post brought a question to my mind.

Are LDS baptisms (for the living) only performed in your Temples?

No, they are most often performed in church baptisimal fonts where non-LDS can attend.
Baptisms (for the living) can be in other places too. I've heard accounts of people being baptised in oceans, rivers, and even swimming pools.

[tracifish]

Give me my 'Big Love'.

[Fire Watch]

Give me my 'Big Love'.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=259870&page=5

[orbitaldecay]

But proxy baptisms are only performed in the Temples, right?

Why the difference?

Think of temples, as the closest thing to the next life. Things done there are sealed in the mortal life and the postmortal. ("bind things on earth and in heaven")

[Frazzled]

But proxy baptisms are only performed in the Temples, right?

Why the difference?

Hmm......ya know, I never really thought about it.....I don't know.

[tracifish]

...and I want the same actors.

[Frazzled]

Think of temples, as the closest thing to the next life. Things done there are sealed in the mortal life and the postmortal. ("bind things on earth and in heaven")

I like that.....thanks, OD

[tracifish]

Can I get some Mormons to help me cook and clean?

[Fire Watch]

Oh, please. Your previous statement was't demeening or discrediting at all to the LDS Church or it members?
Not anymore so than the ceremony describing ministers of other faiths as "hirelings". The difference is that I'll openly voice my disagreement without trying to keep it secret. IMO smiling in public while secretly holding someones faith in disdain is much more disrespectful.

[RayMan]

Hey, I don't live in LA!!! I'm about 60 miles northwest, in Ventura County -- God's country!!!

I get such a kick out of the way L.A. gobbles up real estate. We're way out in the desert around Palmdale and pass an L.A. Country sign.

My apologies to you. Did America have it right? Is it true that it never rains down your way?

[RayMan]

Can I get some Mormons to help me cook and clean?


traci,
With all due respect, does the word inappropriate mean anything at all to you? Unless of course you are trying to inject comic relief to relieve the tension around here, in which case, you go girl.

[Frazzled]

Can I get some Mormons to help me cook and clean?


mormons or polygamists?


.......because there are very different strings attached... :shifty:

[tracifish]

mormons or polygamists?


.......because there are very different strings attached... :shifty:

Well...I need to think about the implications... :think:

[Frazzled]

Well...I need to think about the implications... :think:


..exactly....I didn't want you to jump into anything unprepared :mrgreen:

[terri910]

Maybe it's because Catholics do not have sacred temples that you don't think that covert photos and recordings of what takes place in ours would not be considered grossly disrespectful.
Why are you choosing to feel that way? :think:

The fact is, Catholics know "sacred," too. Our faith is sacred to us, and when we find something "grossly disrespectful" of it, we're too often told we are choosing to be offended.

[terri910]

Thank you Ray. That really means a lot to me. And no, I can't think of anytime that I have struggled with feeling offense by anything you've ever said.

Wait until he implies you live in LA!!! http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/3.gif

:))

[RayMan]

Wait until he implies you live in LA!!! http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/3.gif

:))


Hey I apologised for that!! As a NorCal kind of guy I assume anything south of Fresno is L.A.

[terri910]

Think of temples, as the closest thing to the next life. Things done there are sealed in the mortal life and the postmortal. ("bind things on earth and in heaven")
Would you say, then, that baptisms NOT performed in the Temple are not bound in heaven?

[terri910]

...and I want the same actors.
pssst, traci.....I met Bill Paxton at a party just before Big Love began airing....he was a really nice guy. Bruce Dern was there, too (do you remember him on "Big Love"?)....

[terri910]

I get such a kick out of the way L.A. gobbles up real estate. We're way out in the desert around Palmdale and pass an L.A. Country sign.

My apologies to you. Did America have it right? Is it true that it never rains down your way?
It rained TODAY!!! :eek:

My new car now has rain spots and mud splatters all over it. :evil:

[tracifish]

pssst, traci.....I met Bill Paxton at a party just before Big Love began airing....he was a really nice guy. Bruce Dern was there, too (do you remember him on "Big Love"?)....

I haven't seen all the episodes...so do not know who Bruce Dern is. The least they could do is show all the repeats until the new season is ready.

[orbitaldecay]

Would you say, then, that baptisms NOT performed in the Temple are not bound in heaven?

hmm, you know, I don't know why baptisms are not done in the temple.
Maybe because the Aaronic Priesthood is the olny proper authority to perform baptisms on this earth during the mortal life, while the Melchezidec Priesthood is necessary for Temple Ordinances.....or so we beleive;).

I really don't know (how many times have I said that?), another LDS might have better insight.

[terri910]

I haven't seen all the episodes...so do not know who Bruce Dern is. The least they could do is show all the repeats until the new season is ready.
Not know who Bruce Dern is??? Aaaaack! I think he is, perhaps, THE best "bad guy" or "creepy guy" character actor of our generation. Well, my generation. Well, a generation close to mine. :)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/terri910/BruceDern.jpg

(He played Frank Harlow in Big Love)

[Fire Watch]

I haven't seen all the episodes...so do not know who Bruce Dern is. The least they could do is show all the repeats until the new season is ready.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...=259870&page=5 (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=259870&page=5)
Season 1 is playing now on HBO OnDemand.

[terri910]

hmm, you know, I don't know why baptisms are not done in the temple.
Maybe because the Aaronic Priesthood is the olny proper authority to perform baptisms on this earth during the mortal life, while the Melchezidec Priesthood is necessary for Temple Ordinances.....or so we beleive;).

I really don't know (how many times have I said that?), another LDS might have better insight.
I'm always fond of anyone that says "I really don't know" rather than blow smoke! :hug:

[snow96]

Would you say, then, that baptisms NOT performed in the Temple are not bound in heaven?

Think of the baptism for the dead as needing two signatures. By doing the baptism one signature is affixed. The person who has died does not neet to sign. If they don't sign it has no effect.

When something is performed between two living people in the temple, both signatures are there.

and a baptism not performed in the temple doesn't have a seragot. it's the actual person.

[tracifish]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...=259870&page=5 (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=259870&page=5)
Season 1 is playing now on HBO OnDemand.

I still don't know what that is. My parents have Satellite (or something like that). There are several HBO Channels...but I still don't know what is HBO OnDemand.

[Fire Watch]

I still don't know what that is. My parents have Satellite (or something like that). There are several HBO Channels...but I still don't know what is HBO OnDemand.
http://www.hbo.com/hboondemand/

[tracifish]

Not know who Bruce Dern is??? Aaaaack! I think he is, perhaps, THE best "bad guy" or "creepy guy" character actor of our generation. Well, my generation. Well, a generation close to mine. :)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/terri910/BruceDern.jpg

(He played Frank Harlow in Big Love)

I need to look up Frank Harlow...it has been so long, now.

[tracifish]

http://www.hbo.com/hboondemand/

Does that mean I can watch it on my computer (when on DSL)?

I'm so thankful that I know you and have access to your dementia!!! :D :D :D

[geauxtohell]

I am not a mormon and I don't really buy into the religion, but one thing I respect about mormons is their stance on intoxicants.

They don't delineate between one intoxicant or the other. Caffeine is just as bad as alcohol which is just as bad as crack.

So kudos for consistency.

I feel the same about the Catholic Church and the "pro-life" movement.

[Old Tex]

hmm, you know, I don't know why baptisms are not done in the temple.
Maybe because the Aaronic Priesthood is the olny proper authority to perform baptisms on this earth during the mortal life, while the Melchezidec Priesthood is necessary for Temple Ordinances.....or so we beleive;).

I really don't know (how many times have I said that?), another LDS might have better insight.

Baptisms of live persons are done in fonts in ward and stake buildings. Baptisms and other ordinances for those who have crossed to the other side of the veil are done by proxy in the Temples. Both are binding when done by the proper authority and in the proper manner.

I've never seen one who holds the office of Priest doing baptisms in a Temple. He is authorized to baptize, but I suspect that in the Temples the Melchizedek Priesthood is required for all ordinances.

[3inOne]

The area is way in the heck out in the desert. Unless you got off I-5 just past Gorman and took Hwy 138 into the desert towards Lancaster and Palmdale you would never come across it.

I pass them each time I visit my daughter who lives in Llano, a very small town West on the 138. As beautiful as the pictures are, I think the rock formations are absolutely stunning in reality.

I love to sit in the McDonalds, perched on top of the hill off the intersection of I-15 and 138The sweeping view from there is just fantastic: the long trains creeping up and down the mountains, the freewway below, the rocks, the sky. Absolutely beautiful!

[scipio337]

Not know who Bruce Dern is??? Aaaaack! I think he is, perhaps, THE best "bad guy" or "creepy guy" character actor of our generation. Well, my generation. Well, a generation close to mine. :)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/terri910/BruceDern.jpg

(He played Frank Harlow in Big Love)Ahh yes, my favorite Tom Buchanan of all time! Did you know that Laura Dern is his daughter, and Archibald MacLeish was his uncle? His godfather was Adlai Stevenson, and his godmother Eleanor Roosevelt. I'd love to have a few and pick that guy's brain!

[outdamyboat]

I am not a mormon and I don't really buy into the religion, but one thing I respect about mormons is their stance on intoxicants.

They don't delineate between one intoxicant or the other. Caffeine is just as bad as alcohol which is just as bad as crack.

So kudos for consistency.

I feel the same about the Catholic Church and the "pro-life" movement.

'Intoxicants' alter behavior at a neurobiological level. But, to not discriminate is to not know the pharmodynamics/pharmokinetics of the agents. I have yet to see caffeine cause a person to neglect their family, prostitute their children, commit robberty....I think you get my point.

Being consistent is fine...being legalistic is another issue.

[justamere10]

I'm sorry justamere. I am afraid I'm not seeing your point. What does anyone praying to God (no matter what the manner of their personal communication) have to do with with performing a proxy baptism on me? If you wish to talk to God about my feelings on proxy baptism, even if it is to pray to soften my heart about having this done to Catholics, that is a conversation between you and God. I am in no way involved. Once you decide to perform a proxy baptism on me, I am very much involved and deserve to have a say. That is how freedom of religion and freedom of choice works.

Again, I don't buy that I get my say AFTER the fact--after the baptism. My choice and my free will is to not have a proxy baptism performed in the first place.

We honor your choice and free will. We will not force you to be baptized while you are living, nor will we or God force you to accept God's gifts to man when you are dead anymore than individuals are forced to accept your prayers for them when they are dead.

Eternal progression as I understand it is entirely up to the individual. Whatever "mansion" in God's house you choose to be comfortable with and God's judgment allows will be your heaven. And it will be a beautiful place. God loves us all and He is no respecter of persons. There are however, consequences for every choice we make, though obviously some of those consequences are not immediate. We can be better tested that way...

What Mormons do in sacred temples is pray to God on behalf of the dead. We pray to God for the dead in the way He has told us we should do it. If we don't do it His way He is not bound to accept it and no eternal sealing takes place in heaven even though it may be pronounced on earth. Most prayers for the dead in Houses of the Lord are word for word the way it has been revealed by God to His prophets and apostles.

Catholics too as I understand it are encouraged to recite certain prayers word for word. Maybe sometimes they do that standing up, maybe sometimes kneeling or sitting, maybe sometimes alone, sometimes in groups. But I'm pretty much confident that good-living Catholics would not want to force people of other denominations to pray as they do, e.g. say the rosary whether standing or sitting, alone or together, in a church or a house....

[justamere10]

I think you will find that the more you interact with and get your information about what Mormons believe from active informed Mormons and official LDS websites, that we are taking little away from your current beliefs, and none of your truths.

Mormons believe that we are now in the prophesied FULNESS of times, that God has restored His original Church on earth and it is led again by apostles and prophets, as it was anciently.

We are not being conceited when we declare that we believe the Saints are commissioned of God to help move His children closer to Him than they have ever been moved before. Some of us think of it like the difference between grade school and university. When you go to university you don't suddenly find out everything you learned in school was wrong. Instead, what you already know is enriched and added upon. LDS temples, we believe, are the doorways to heaven, God's universities if you will.

Ask only active informed Mormons and browse only official LDS websites to learn what Mormons really believe.

Everybody else gets it wrong - including the "temple ceremonies" on anti-Mormon websites. They may come close, but they'll invariably mix in with the scriptures untruths that can confuse and lead God's children astray from the glorious blessings He stands ready to pour out upon them.


"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." Romans 11: 25

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/11/25#25 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000641/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/11/25#25)


"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:" Ephesians 1: 10

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/10#10 (mhtml:{09272DBB-5804-4926-A7B0-C39813AD4444}mid://00000641/!x-usc:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/1/10#10)


-

[scipio337]

We honor your choice and free will. We will not force you to be baptized while you are living, nor will we or God force you to accept God's gifts to man when you are dead anymore than individuals are forced to accept your prayers for them when they are dead.

Eternal progression as I understand it is entirely up to the individual. Whatever "mansion" in God's house you choose to be comfortable with and God's judgment allows will be your heaven. And it will be a beautiful place. God loves us all and He is no respecter of persons. There are however, consequences for every choice we make, though obviously some of those consequences are not immediate. We can be better tested that way...

What Mormons do in sacred temples is pray to God on behalf of the dead. We pray to God for the dead in the way He has told us we should do it. If we don't do it His way He is not bound to accept it and no eternal sealing takes place in heaven even though it may be pronounced on earth. Most prayers for the dead in Houses of the Lord are word for word the way it has been revealed by God to His prophets and apostles.

Catholics too as I understand it are encouraged to recite certain prayers word for word. Maybe sometimes they do that standing up, maybe sometimes kneeling or sitting, maybe sometimes alone, sometimes in groups. But I'm pretty much confident that good-living Catholics would not want to force people of other denominations to pray as they do, e.g. say the rosary whether standing or sitting, alone or together, in a church or a house....Not exactly....you perform a succession of progressing ordinances in their names, procliaming them a member of a church, under the assumption that their faith in life wasn't sufficient, per you beliefs.

I don't consider that even remotely similar to proxy ordinances. Did you read the prayers for the dead I've provided? I'll provide another I have on a mass card from a recent funeral:

Gentlest heart of Jesus, ever present in the Blessed Sacrament, ever consumed with burning love for the poor captive souls in Purgatory, have mercy on the soul of Thy departed servant. Be not severe in thy judgement, but let a few drops of Thy Precious Bood fall upon the devouring flames, and do Thou O merciful Savior, send Thy angels to a place of refreshment, light and peace.

May the sould of all the faithful departed through, the mercy of G*d, rest in peace.

By this logical fallacy, no funeral would be able to have prayers said on behalf of the dead person. No, a prayer is not the same thing as a succession of progressive proxy ordinances.

[justamere10]

Not exactly....you perform a succession of progressing ordinances in their names, procliaming them a member of a church, under the assumption that their faith in life wasn't sufficient, per you beliefs.

I don't consider that even remotely similar to proxy ordinances. Did you read the prayers for the dead I've provided? I'll provide another I have on a mass card from a recent funeral:

By this logical fallacy, no funeral would be able to have prayers said on behalf of the dead person. No, a prayer is not the same thing as a succession of progressive proxy ordinances.

I am pleased that you are faithful to your beliefs and that you pray (repeatedly) in the manner your church directs.

We do that too. God has revealed word for word to His apostles and prophets the prayers He wants said on behalf of the dead in His holy temples on earth.

[scipio337]

I think you will find that the more you interact with and get your information about what Mormons believe from active informed Mormons and official LDS websites, that we are taking little away from your current beliefs, and none of your truths.

Mormons believe that we are now in the prophesied FULNESS of times, that God has restored His original Church on earth and it is led again by apostles and prophets, as it was anciently.

We are not being conceited when we declare that we believe the Saints are commissioned of God to help move His children closer to Him than they have ever been moved before. Some of us think of it like the difference between grade school and university. When you go to university you don't suddenly find out everything you learned in school was wrong. Instead, what you already know is enriched and added upon. LDS temples, we believe, are the doorways to heaven, God's universities if you will.Can't say I'm much of a fan of "progressive revelation", and not just in Bahá'í and Scientology. The idea that you need a certain amount of special "knowledge" to receive more special "knowledge" isn't anything new, and common in esoteric and gnostic faiths. That's one of the things I like about the NT, Jesus' Revelation provided all you need or will ever need, IMHO.

Ask only active informed Mormons and browse only official LDS websites to learn what Mormons really believe.Kinda difficult to do, when they won't discuss some of those ceremonies that are being performed for

Everybody else gets it wrong - including the "temple ceremonies" on anti-Mormon websites. They may come close, but they'll invariably mix in with the scriptures untruths that can confuse and lead God's children astray from the glorious blessings He stands ready to pour out upon them.......Did you check out the link? I'm wondering if it is accurate.

[scipio337]

I am pleased that you are faithful to your beliefs and that you pray (repeatedly) in the manner your church directs.

We do that too. God has revealed word for word to His apostles and prophets the prayers He wants said on behalf of the dead in His holy temples on earth.But they are not remotely similar. A prayer for mercy is not an ordinance.

[NJConservative]

A lot...


justamere10, you are a brave soul indeed.

I've read thru most of this thread, and I'm both amazed and horrified.

Is this the lib forum here? The way people are attacking other peoples FAITH, I thought I've stumbled onto moveon.org or the DNC website by mistake.

Matt. 7:2 - For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

A person's Faith is ultimately between him/her and his/her G-d. Religions and sects may help guide that person, but humankind is fallible, and all religions can't help but be made up of humans. Interpretations of scripture are also done by humans, and they may be incorrect in some respects, or their meanings not yet fully understood.

And let's remember that America was founded in large part because of religious persecution in Europe. Leave the attacks on a person's Faith to the libs.

[geauxtohell]

'Intoxicants' alter behavior at a neurobiological level. But, to not discriminate is to not know the pharmodynamics/pharmokinetics of the agents. I have yet to see caffeine cause a person to neglect their family, prostitute their children, commit robberty....I think you get my point.

Being consistent is fine...being legalistic is another issue.

Nonetheless, I respect their consistency. If it's legal, I stick it in my body, so I am not a prude about this issue. I just respect that they call a drug a drug.

I think we delude ourselves into thinking certain things aren't drugs. Physiologically, stimulates generally work the same way by blocking the same receptors and depressants do as well. Long term extensive usage of alcohol, nicotene, and caffeine are bad for you health.

Everyone has a drug of choice (unless you are Mormon) its just a matter of it you are willing to admit it. My druge of choice is alcohol/nicotene/caffeine. So I go for the trifecta.

Another thing I like about Mormons, I've yet to meet one that wasn't just so damned nice...........

[justamere10]

Can't say I'm much of a fan of "progressive revelation", and not just in Bahá'í and Scientology. The idea that you need a certain amount of special "knowledge" to receive more special "knowledge" isn't anything new, and common in esoteric and gnostic faiths. That's one of the things I like about the NT, Jesus' Revelation provided all you need or will ever need, IMHO.

Kinda difficult to do, when they won't discuss some of those ceremonies that are being performed for

Did you check out the link? I'm wondering if it is accurate.

Well, you have your answer then, you should be completely content if you already know everything that God would have you know. Trying to learn more from any source at all would be sort of like kicking against the ****** wouldn't it? Or maybe forever learning but NEVER coming to a knowledge of the truth?

You know the things we have in our temples are held sacred to us, we will not discuss details in public. You also know how to access them, but it requires entering in by the strait gate and walking a very disciplined path the rest of your days on earth. (Right, including no fornication or adultery.)

Judging by some of the comments posted yesterday by our critics I would say whatever is posted on that or any other anti-Mormon website is grossly distorted and will surely lead you astray from God's truths as I know and understand them from having entered in at the strait gate, and having done my best to keep my daily walk conforming to the way my Savior has shown I must if I am to dwell with him and our Father eternally.

You already know where to find out the truth about the Mormons if that is what you are seeking. If it is not truth you are seeking, then join the crowd, there are many others who strive to condemn, criticize, mock, and change the cherished sacred beliefs and religious practices of others.

[justamere10]

But they are not remotely similar. A prayer for mercy is not an ordinance.

You can define words your way, or imagine anything you want about the Saints, it's entirely up to you. God has given each of us the freedom to choose, and responsibility for the consequences, and the way we judge others.

[justamere10]

justamere10, you are a brave soul indeed.

I've read thru most of this thread, and I'm both amazed and horrified.

Is this the lib forum here? The way people are attacking other peoples FAITH, I thought I've stumbled onto moveon.org or the DNC website by mistake.

Matt. 7:2 - For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

A person's Faith is ultimately between him/her and his/her G-d. Religions and sects may help guide that person, but humankind is fallible, and all religions can't help but be made up of humans. Interpretations of scripture are also done by humans, and they may be incorrect in some respects, or their meanings not yet fully understood.

And let's remember that America was founded in large part because of religious persecution in Europe. Leave the attacks on a person's Faith to the libs.

Thank-you for that brave comment. I too see it your way and I too am sometimes horrified. But that's human nature as we make individual choices, learn, and are tested for greater things in the eternities.

[justpassingby]

The advantage I have in my extended family is the opportunity and exposure I have with the different churches and their beliefs. This is how we tolerate each other.

When I visit my Baptist sister and her family, my family goes to their Baptist Church. When they come to visit us, they go to our LDS Church. When we visit my mom, who is Catholic, we go to the Catholic Church. I have another sister who I think is Pentescostal (but haven’t gone in a very long time), we just hangout at her house. When we visit my brother who doesn’t go to Church at all, we just barbecue on Sunday. Of course, occasionally I’ll warn the kids that uncle john does drink and smoke. But that’s okay, they’ve learned to understand that that’s the way he is and that he gives the best presents.
:D

Going to these different churches and seeing what they believe in is a great way to build tolerance and respect. I’m pretty sure all of them have the open door/all is welcome policy. One commonality I see in these Churches is the love all of us have for the Savior and His sacrifice for each us. Maybe if each of us could do that and visit each other’s Church, we might see where each is coming from. We can only learn so much from this board, but if we sincerely took the time to understand and actually visit these different Churches, and see for ourselves each other’s belief….I think would help a lot.

Just my note of the day.

[geauxtohell]

I am sure that this has already been mentioned a few times in the 3000 posts on this thread, but for the Christians who have a problem with the LDS church (of whom I am not a member or, nor plan on being);

Why can't you just respect their religion and beliefs?

Are they really affecting your walk with God?

You all accept your biblical beliefs as a matter of faith. Why isn't there respect for that on both sides of the aisle?

I just don't understand the fratricide going on here.

[Semi-Sweet]

The advantage I have in my extended family is the opportunity and exposure I have with the different churches and their beliefs. This is how we tolerate each other.

When I visit my Baptist sister and her family, my family goes to their Baptist Church. When they come to visit us, they go to our LDS Church. When we visit my mom, who is Catholic, we go to the Catholic Church. I have another sister who I think is Pentescostal (but haven’t gone in a very long time), we just hangout at her house. When we visit my brother who doesn’t go to Church at all, we just barbecue on Sunday. Of course, occasionally I’ll warn the kids that uncle john does drink and smoke. But that’s okay, they’ve learned to understand that that’s the way he is and that he gives the best presents.
:D

Going to these different churches and seeing what they believe in is a great way to build tolerance and respect. I’m pretty sure all of them have the open door/all is welcome policy. One commonality I see in these Churches is the love all of us have for the Savior and His sacrifice for each us. Maybe if each of us could do that and visit each other’s Church, we might see where each is coming from. We can only learn so much from this board, but if we sincerely took the time to understand and actually visit these different Churches, and see for ourselves each other’s belief….I think would help a lot.

Just my note of the day.

One of my teachers in the Church of Christ said. . ."Everyone would do well to attend a Roman Catholic Church mass. My visit to the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Denton was as delightful as any visit that I have made. It has the reputation of being a bit untraditional, even maverick, and one only needs to visit to get the impression that it might be a cross between traditional Roman and charismatic Pentecostal. We held hands and embraced, we sang heart songs, there was audience responses, clapping, joyous praise, and an openness that surprised and delighted me. The sermon, by an Hispanic priest (in Denton, Texas!) was biblical and enthusiastic, as much Protestant as Catholic. There was life!" He also enjoyed the Eucharist.

[justamere10]

The advantage I have in my extended family is the opportunity and exposure I have with the different churches and their beliefs. This is how we tolerate each other.

When I visit my Baptist sister and her family, my family goes to their Baptist Church. When they come to visit us, they go to our LDS Church. When we visit my mom, who is Catholic, we go to the Catholic Church. I have another sister who I think is Pentescostal (but haven’t gone in a very long time), we just hangout at her house. When we visit my brother who doesn’t go to Church at all, we just barbecue on Sunday. Of course, occasionally I’ll warn the kids that uncle john does drink and smoke. But that’s okay, they’ve learned to understand that that’s the way he is and that he gives the best presents.
:D

Going to these different churches and seeing what they believe in is a great way to build tolerance and respect. I’m pretty sure all of them have the open door/all is welcome policy. One commonality I see in these Churches is the love all of us have for the Savior and His sacrifice for each us. Maybe if each of us could do that and visit each other’s Church, we might see where each is coming from. We can only learn so much from this board, but if we sincerely took the time to understand and actually visit these different Churches, and see for ourselves each other’s belief….I think would help a lot.

Just my note of the day.

Yes, like traveling to or living in foreign countries helps us better understand and tolerate the lifestyles and political beliefs of others, visiting other churches helps us develop perhaps even more love for other fellow followers of Jesus Christ.

When I used to visit my now deceased mother, a very strong Roman Catholic, I would invariably go to mass with her, even pushing her down the sidewalk in her wheelchair in her last days. She was such a good woman, indeed I was born of goodly parents.

At the Catholic funeral of an uncle I was asked to read something from the pulpit. I told the priest I was not a Catholic but he said something to the effect that it didn't matter, so I did.

I was asked to and spoke at my mother's funeral in a Catholic church. I told the story of how a few days earlier a wise nurse at the hospital where my mother was asked me to give my mother "permission" to die.

I did, telling her that there were people waiting in heaven to be with her again. Her immediate response was to inquire if each of her children would be ok. I assured her they would be ok and backed out of her hospital room with my final words to that great woman who had spent her entire life sacrificing for others, even working miracles:

"You did well mom."

She passed to her well-earned rest soon after.

Christians are taught to love and respect everyone. I try hard each day, even though some days are a bit harder than others. :-)

Everyone is welcome to attend Sunday meetings at meetinghouses of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Below is a link to an online LDS meetinghouse locator, worldwide. It's not hard to find the Mormons and pay us a visit to see for yourself what we really do and believe.


http://www.lds.org/basicbeliefs/meetinghouse/1,6017,352-1,FF.html (http://www.lds.org/basicbeliefs/meetinghouse/1,6017,352-1,FF.html)


-

[terri910]

Think of the baptism for the dead as needing two signatures. By doing the baptism one signature is affixed. The person who has died does not neet to sign. If they don't sign it has no effect.

When something is performed between two living people in the temple, both signatures are there.

and a baptism not performed in the temple doesn't have a seragot. it's the actual person.
I don't see how this explains why one is done in a chapel and the other only done in a Temple. If that is what you are trying to explain, could you help me with further explanation? Thanks!

(And, there is no need to try and explain proxy baptism to me. I understand the LDS position and belief regarding it, and still believe it is disrespectful to the faith of those that have died.)

[terri910]

Baptisms of live persons are done in fonts in ward and stake buildings. Baptisms and other ordinances for those who have crossed to the other side of the veil are done by proxy in the Temples. Both are binding when done by the proper authority and in the proper manner.

I've never seen one who holds the office of Priest doing baptisms in a Temple. He is authorized to baptize, but I suspect that in the Temples the Melchizedek Priesthood is required for all ordinances.
I think I'm clear that baptisms of live persons are done in chapels in ward and stake building, and that proxy baptisms (and other ordinances) for those who have died are done in the Temple. The question is "why?"....Why must one be done in the Temple and the other not?

[scipio337]

You can define words your way, or imagine anything you want about the Saints, it's entirely up to you. God has given each of us the freedom to choose, and responsibility for the consequences, and the way we judge others.I'm not defining them my way. Even according to the LDS website, there is a difference.

Ordinances

In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing....

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=13bb9daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

Prayer

We are all children of God. He loves us and knows our needs, and He wants us to communicate with Him through prayer.

An Ordinance is a formal act, a covenant, and essential to salvation, and prayer is a communication with G*d.

I'll throw in my own faith's definition to boot, just to highlight that there are differences even there. The closest Catholic concept to an Ordinance is a Sacrament.

Prayer

(Greek euchesthai, Latin precari, French prier, to plead, to beg, to ask earnestly).

An act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from G*d.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm

Sacraments

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n.4, ex S. Aug. "De Catechizandis rudibus").

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm



A rose by any other name is just as sweet, but clearly these are two very different concepts...

[terri910]

Ahh yes, my favorite Tom Buchanan of all time! Did you know that Laura Dern is his daughter, and Archibald MacLeish was his uncle? His godfather was Adlai Stevenson, and his godmother Eleanor Roosevelt. I'd love to have a few and pick that guy's brain!
Did I know? *s*

I worked for two years for Laura's mother (Bruce's ex-wife, and a 3-time Academy Award nominated actress). I know Laura fairly well (Bruce not quite as well. He is, after all, an "ex"! *L*). Bruce told me that he is the grandson of George Dern, a non-Mormon governor of Utah.

Anything you want me to ask him next time I see him? *L*

Oh....and I thought he was the best bad-guy or creepy-guy character actor even before I met him!

[scipio337]

Well, you have your answer then, you should be completely content if you already know everything that God would have you know. Trying to learn more from any source at all would be sort of like kicking against the ****** wouldn't it? Or maybe forever learning but NEVER coming to a knowledge of the truth?

Most believe Christ's Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment.

You know the things we have in our temples are held sacred to us, we will not discuss details in public. You also know how to access them, but it requires entering in by the strait gate and walking a very disciplined path the rest of your days on earth. (Right, including no fornication or adultery.)I know the BoM is also held sacred to you, but yet reading it is encouraged. Why the difference?

Judging by some of the comments posted yesterday by our critics I would say whatever is posted on that or any other anti-Mormon website is grossly distorted and will surely lead you astray from God's truths as I know and understand them from having entered in at the strait gate, and having done my best to keep my daily walk conforming to the way my Savior has shown I must if I am to dwell with him and our Father eternally.

You already know where to find out the truth about the Mormons if that is what you are seeking. If it is not truth you are seeking, then join the crowd, there are many others who strive to condemn, criticize, mock, and change the cherished sacred beliefs and religious practices of others.Of course, we all seek "Truth", but I don't see how any analysis or even criticism immediately would stoop to the level of ", criticize, mock, and change".

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Which still doesn't answer the question: Did you see the link, was it innacurate?

[scipio337]

Did I know? *s*

I worked for two years for Laura's mother (Bruce's ex-wife, and a 3-time Academy Award nominated actress). I know Laura fairly well (Bruce not quite as well. He is, after all, an "ex"! *L*). Bruce told me that he is the grandson of George Dern, a non-Mormon governor of Utah.

Anything you want me to ask him next time I see him? *L*

Oh....and I thought he was the best bad-guy or creepy-guy character actor even before I met him!:cool:

I'm a big fan of Laura and her Mom. Wild at Heart is one of my favorite movies. Diane Ladd was absolutely awesome in it!

[terri910]

One of my teachers in the Church of Christ said. . ."Everyone would do well to attend a Roman Catholic Church mass. My visit to the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Denton was as delightful as any visit that I have made. It has the reputation of being a bit untraditional, even maverick, and one only needs to visit to get the impression that it might be a cross between traditional Roman and charismatic Pentecostal. We held hands and embraced, we sang heart songs, there was audience responses, clapping, joyous praise, and an openness that surprised and delighted me. The sermon, by an Hispanic priest (in Denton, Texas!) was biblical and enthusiastic, as much Protestant as Catholic. There was life!" He also enjoyed the Eucharist.
May I ask how you mean the phrase "He also enjoyed the Eucharist"? Does that mean he appreciated the ceremony of consecration and communion....or....that he partook? (I sincerely hope it is the former)

[RayMan]

May I ask how you mean the phrase "He also enjoyed the Eucharist"? Does that mean he appreciated the ceremony of consecration and communion....or....that he partook? (I sincerely hope it is the former)


:whistle::whistle:

[justpassingby]

Can one of the Catholics on this board start a "Ask a Catholic" thread? I have some questions about the Catholics. My mom is Catholic and there are practices that I have questions about, and have asked her, but she didn't know. I'm not sure if these practices are cultural (I'm Filipino) or doctrine? None of my siblings do too? So it would be helpful for me and perhaps others if they could start a thread for questions pertaining to Catholics and their beliefs.

From this thread, I know there are 3 or more of you who seem to have a wonderful grasp on that.

thanks.

[Snagglepuss]

I think I'm clear that baptisms of live persons are done in chapels in ward and stake building, and that proxy baptisms (and other ordinances) for those who have died are done in the Temple. The question is "why?"....Why must one be done in the Temple and the other not?Terri,

I've debated whether or not to chime in on this due to both my desire to put the topic behind us and because my answer is nothing more than educated speculation. But it seems you are truly interested in this, and you don't seem to have been prone to being unduly argumentative about it. You may not agree with the explanations of our beliefs, but I think for the most part you accept them for what they are to us and let it go at that once you understand the concept as we see it.

So with that in mind, if you would like, I will send you a PM explaining my thoughts on this. That way this doesn't continue to drag out the topic in the public view for those who really are pained over it. I will extend this offer to anyone else who would like to PM me on this, provided that you accept that I am not going to argue (pro or con) the merits of the doctrine itself, and that you also understand that this is pure speculation on my part, but speculation that seems consistant and logical from my perspective. I would be particularly interested in the point of views of any of my fellow LDS posters to see if they can see holes in my "theory" from a doctrinal standpoint, if they are interested in hearing it.

So anyone who would like my answer to this question, please PM me and I will be happy to provide it.

[Snagglepuss]

I'm not defining them my way. Even according to the LDS website, there is a difference. Scip is correct on this justamere. A prayer is not the same as an ordinance.

[RayMan]

Can one of the Catholics on this board start a "Ask a Catholic" thread? I have some questions about the Catholics. My mom is Catholic and there are practices that I have questions about, and have asked her, but she didn't know. I'm not sure if these practices are cultural (I'm Filipino) or doctrine? None of my siblings do too? So it would be helpful for me and perhaps others if they could start a thread for questions pertaining to Catholics and their beliefs.

From this thread, I know there are 3 or more of you who seem to have a wonderful grasp on that.

thanks.

There is a Catholic Q&A thread already open. You can find it about 2/3 of the way down the front page of the forum.

[justpassingby]

There is a Catholic Q&A thread already open. You can find it about 2/3 of the way down the front page of the forum.

thanks I didn't see that:D

[RayMan]

thanks I didn't see that:D


My pleasure.

[terri910]

Terri,

I've debated whether or not to chime in on this due to both my desire to put the topic behind us and because my answer is nothing more than educated speculation. But it seems you are truly interested in this, and you don't seem to have been prone to being unduly argumentative about it. You may not agree with the explanations of our beliefs, but I think for the most part you accept them for what they are to us and let it go at that once you understand the concept as we see it.

So with that in mind, if you would like, I will send you a PM explaining my thoughts on this. That way this doesn't continue to drag out the topic in the public view for those who really are pained over it. I will extend this offer to anyone else who would like to PM me on this, provided that you accept that I am not going to argue (pro or con) the merits of the doctrine itself, and that you also understand that this is pure speculation on my part, but speculation that seems consistant and logical from my perspective. I would be particularly interested in the point of views of any of my fellow LDS posters to see if they can see holes in my "theory" from a doctrinal standpoint, if they are interested in hearing it.

So anyone who would like my answer to this question, please PM me and I will be happy to provide it.
That would be great. I just want to know the "why" of the location of the two baptisms. We don't need to discuss the pros or cons (that's been made clear here).

[Frazzled]

I think I'm clear that baptisms of live persons are done in chapels in ward and stake building, and that proxy baptisms (and other ordinances) for those who have died are done in the Temple. The question is "why?"....Why must one be done in the Temple and the other not?


"...ordinances for the deceased, however, are performed only in the house of the Lord."

President Howard W. Hunter
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e4262e4d12fdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Why? Because the prophet tells us so. :D

[terri910]

"...ordinances for the deceased, however, are performed only in the house of the Lord."

President Howard W. Hunter
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e4262e4d12fdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Why? Because the prophet tells us so. :D
If that's the reason, then, well....that's the reason!

Thanks!

[Semi-Sweet]

May I ask how you mean the phrase "He also enjoyed the Eucharist"? Does that mean he appreciated the ceremony of consecration and communion....or....that he partook? (I sincerely hope it is the former)

He didn't say, perhaps he got crumbs from the table.

[RayMan]

He didn't say, perhaps he got crumbs from the table.

Even the little dogs get those. :angel:

[justamere10]

Terri,

I've debated whether or not to chime in on this due to both my desire to put the topic behind us and because my answer is nothing more than educated speculation. But it seems you are truly interested in this, and you don't seem to have been prone to being unduly argumentative about it. You may not agree with the explanations of our beliefs, but I think for the most part you accept them for what they are to us and let it go at that once you understand the concept as we see it.

So with that in mind, if you would like, I will send you a PM explaining my thoughts on this. That way this doesn't continue to drag out the topic in the public view for those who really are pained over it. I will extend this offer to anyone else who would like to PM me on this, provided that you accept that I am not going to argue (pro or con) the merits of the doctrine itself, and that you also understand that this is pure speculation on my part, but speculation that seems consistant and logical from my perspective. I would be particularly interested in the point of views of any of my fellow LDS posters to see if they can see holes in my "theory" from a doctrinal standpoint, if they are interested in hearing it.

So anyone who would like my answer to this question, please PM me and I will be happy to provide it.

Personally I am interested in what you have to say, especially if you are representing yourself as an active informed Mormon. It is my hope that you will have your say here in this thread that so many people are reading rather than on an exclusive private list of your own, thank-you.

[Snagglepuss]

That would be great. I just want to know the "why" of the location of the two baptisms. We don't need to discuss the pros or cons (that's been made clear here).
I have sent it. Sorry it took so long. I've had several interuptions....

[justamere10]

Scip is correct on this justamere. A prayer is not the same as an ordinance.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. My opinion is that all ordinances are prayers to God. Some prayers are more formal than others. For example the Catholic mass I think is pretty much a word for word 'ordinance' if you want to consider it such, and a prayer or celebration at the same time. I don't think it is very helpful to the discussion at hand to quibble about definitions of words.

[Snagglepuss]

"...ordinances for the deceased, however, are performed only in the house of the Lord."

President Howard W. Hunter
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e4262e4d12fdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Why? Because the prophet tells us so. :DAnd undoubtably more doctrinally certain than my speculation on the matter.

[Frazzled]

Interesting.

I personally always thought of prayers as more 'freeform'.

[RayMan]

Interesting.

I personally always thought of prayers as more 'freeform'.

You're one of those "hippie" Mormons aren't you? :angel:

[Frazzled]

And undoubtably more doctrinally certain than my speculation on the matter.

"Because the prophet says so...."

Call me uninquisitive....but it's simple, it's got a beat, and I can dance to it ...it just works for me :mrgreen:

[Reeder]

You're one of those "hippie" Mormons aren't you? :angel:

You looking for someone you can relate to better? :D :angel:

[Frazzled]

You're one of those "hippie" Mormons aren't you? :angel:

:naughty: Hey! I'm just as uptight as any other mormon ..............oh wait, :shhh: maybe not..



...just kidding guys! :)

[justamere10]

Interesting.

I personally always thought of prayers as more 'freeform'.


When God is addressed, or priesthood authority is cited, and/or words said end with "in the name of Jesus Christ" I, a Latter-day Saint, would call that a prayer regardless of what the body of the message may contain.

To me "prayer" is a message or communication directed towards God whether the prayer is for the benefit of oneself, one's family, others, or even the dead. That would include all LDS ordinances.

[RayMan]

You looking for someone you can relate to better? :D :angel:

Exactly.

Did you see Meriweather's suggestion yesterday about you and me coupling up? I told her it just wasn't gonna happen.

[Snagglepuss]

Personally I am interested in what you have to say, especially if you are representing yourself as an active informed Mormon. It is my hope that you will have your say here in this thread that so many people are reading rather than on an exclusive private list of your own, thank-you.Unfotunately, that's not going to happen....many people have made quite clear that they would prefer to drop the subject altogether, and in the interest of restoring a more peaceful spirit here, I am inclined to do my best to accommodate their wishes.

However, since I made clear that anyone who wanted to see what I had to say was welcome to ask, and I would PM them as well, I'm not sure "exclusive" is the right word to use here. And since you have expressed interest, I have sent to you via PM what I sent to Terri.

[Snagglepuss]

"Because the prophet says so...."

Call me uninquisitive....but it's simple, it's got a beat, and I can dance to it ...it just works for me :mrgreen::lol:

[Frazzled]

When God is addressed, or priesthood authority is cited, and/or words said end with "in the name of Jesus Christ" I, a Latter-day Saint, would call that a prayer regardless of what the body of the message may contain.

To me "prayer" is a message or communication directed towards God whether the prayer is for the benefit of oneself, one's family, others, or even the dead. That would include all LDS ordinances.

I can see that, but ordinances requires specific words spoken specifically, prayers just have a general structure that you fill in with the words that you feel you need to speak to Heavenly Father.

[justamere10]

Unfotunately, that's not going to happen....many people have made quite clear that they would prefer to drop the subject altogether, and in the interest of restoring a more peaceful spirit here, I am inclined to do my best to accommodate their wishes.

However, since I made clear that anyone who wanted to see what I had to say was welcome to ask, and I would PM them as well, I'm not sure "exclusive" is the right word to use here. And since you have expressed interest, I have sent to you via PM what I sent to Terri.

I respect your right to do whatever you want to do but because you apparently are representing yourself as an active informed Mormon in this thread, I think it would be more respectful to the other Latter-day Saints posting here if what you have to say on our behalf is said openly and is subject to comment. That's my opinion.

[justamere10]

I can see that, but ordinances requires specific words spoken specifically, prayers just have a general structure that you fill in with the words that you feel you need to speak to Heavenly Father.

Of course there are "freeform" ways of praying to God. Hopefully most of our individual prayers to our Heavenly Father are spoken secretly in our own closets and hearts. But, like the Catholics, we do have many prayers (including the blessing on the bread and water) that, in our case, are said word for word as revealed by God to His apostles and prophets.

[scipio337]

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. My opinion is that all ordinances are prayers to God. Some prayers are more formal than others. For example the Catholic mass I think is pretty much a word for word 'ordinance' if you want to consider it such, and a prayer or celebration at the same time. I don't think it is very helpful to the discussion at hand to quibble about definitions of words.Actually, in the Roman Rite, the word "mass" is derived from the latin "missio", a dismissal, tied to the phrase at the end of Mass, "Ite, missa est" or "Go, it is sent", referring to the Eucharist.

[Snagglepuss]

I respect your right to do whatever you want to do but because you apparently are representing yourself as an active informed Mormon in this thread, I think it would be more respectful to the other Latter-day Saints posting here if what you have to say on our behalf is said openly and is subject to comment. That's my opinion.
That's fine if you feel that way, but so far, I haven't heard any other member complain that I am doing this. And even if they did, I have already stated that as far as the open forum is concerned, I am dropping the subject completely. Anyone that has a desire to see what I wrote to Terri can PM me, and I will send them a copy and paste of what I sent her.

[justamere10]

Actually, in the Roman Rite, the word "mass" is derived from the latin "missio", a dismissal, tied to the phrase at the end of Mass, "Ite, missa est" or "Go, it is sent", referring to the Eucharist.

So you would consider the mass to be an ordinance?

[Old Tex]

I think I'm clear that baptisms of live persons are done in chapels in ward and stake building, and that proxy baptisms (and other ordinances) for those who have died are done in the Temple. The question is "why?"....Why must one be done in the Temple and the other not?

The short answer to your question Terri, is that the Lord commanded that Temples be built for certain work and proxy baptisms is part of that work. If other LDS here wish to elaborate and give references to specific comandments on Temple building they are invited to do so, but that's about a far as I wish to go on that today.

[RayMan]

The short answer to your question Terri, is that the Lord commanded that Temples be built for certain work and proxy baptisms is part of that work. If other LDS here wish to elaborate and give references to specific comandments on Temple building they are invited to do so, but that's about a far as I wish to go on that today.

A refreshingly succinct answer O.T., which is something I appreciate very much about you. Staightforward and to the point.

Best wishes to everyone this holiday weekend. Remember what and who we are commemorating.

[Reeder]

Exactly.

Did you see Meriweather's suggestion yesterday about you and me coupling up? I told her it just wasn't gonna happen.

LOL, yeah, I saw that. But am I really that repulsive? :shifty: :mrgreen:

[scipio337]

So you would consider the mass to be an ordinance?No, the mass is more of a collection of prayers and Sacramental ceremony. The Liturgy of the Word is different from the Sacrament (Catholic equivalent of an LDS Ordinance, IMHO) of the Eucharist.

[RayMan]

LOL, yeah, I saw that. But am I really that repulsive? :shifty: :mrgreen:

No offense intended at all. I am sure Mrs Reeder considers you attractive in a manly way but I already have enough people around here giving me funny looks because I live near and work in S.F.

[Snagglepuss]

No offense intended at all. I am sure Mrs Reeder considers you attractive in a manly way but I already have enough people around here giving me funny looks because I live near and work in S.F.Well, that and you're apparently wearing an orange, skin-tight jumpsuit. :eek: ;)

[scipio337]

LOL, yeah, I saw that. But am I really that repulsive? :shifty: :mrgreen:Maybe it has something to do with your avatar(s)? :)

Most people thought I was 80.

[Frazzled]

Maybe it has something to do with your avatar(s)? :)

Most people thought I was 80.

You do seem more youthful now ;)

[RayMan]

Maybe it has something to do with your avatar(s)? :)

Most people thought I was 80.

Used to scare the heck outta me when I would be reading your posts.

[RayMan]

You do seem more youthful now ;)

He's living the old Dylan song.


"Aw, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now."

[Frazzled]

I used to think that he was wise....now I just suspect that he's up to something! :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

I used to think that he was wise....now I just suspect that he's up to something! :mrgreen:

Have I mentioned rencently that I believe you to be a person of keen perception and insight?